3.

elucidate the features of caste system

Society classification has changed the course of society since ancient times. The features of a caste
system itself consist the degree of superiority and a sense of inferiority amongst people of different
classes. The caste system effect was so influential that its traces are still found at some corner up to
some extent. Mainly a sense of being placed at the top of the hierarchy having all the controlling
power made other people suffer in many references.

FEATURES OF CASTE SYSTEM

There was a segmental division of society in which they were classified in several units called as
caste. The term caste used to present race or breed of a person. There have been 2800 different
castes found in India and they have their own set of norms and beliefs.

Hierarchy system was evolved in those times. There has been the degree of highness and lowness
amongst people.

Endogamy can be seen as a vital feature of the caste system. Endogamy is practicing marriage
function in the same caste and it has been followed in India till now up to maximum extent. For
example, even if anyone wishes to marry someone of other caste and class, he/she can face a
powerful opposition and sometimes it can lead to Honor Killing. Honor killing is practicing death of
people in love with different castes. In UP a couple was killed brutally just to satisfy caste ego which
does not permit people to marry someone from other castes.

Hereditary Status and Hereditary occupation are some of the basic features which can be called as
an ascribed status of a person. It clearly means that caste is not something which is achieved by a
man on the basis of merit. Indeed it is clearly a place which cannot be altered or switched. For
example, a person born in Shudra category will do chores like cleaning toilets till his/her death.
Likewise, a Brahmin’s son was bound to follow the priest culture; he was not allowed to go to his
career choices.

One of the most negative influences of the Caste system is also counted in its feature that is Food
and Drinks indifference attitude by upper-class people. For example, if a Shudra prepared food and a
Brahmin arrived at a temple where he is hungry. He will die of hunger but will not touch the food
prepared by the lower class people. Such was the influence of caste practice in India. They were
considered some garbage of society whose presence can be infectious to other people of society.

Cultural Difference lingered in every caste and this cultural difference led to some of the major
differences. For example in Brahmins, the people do not even touch meat or other non-veg
materials but in other cases, people were interested in eating meats which acted as a barrier to
cultural practice in different castes.

Social segregation was also a deciding factor. It differentiated people on the basis of their economic
status. For example, poor people were obliged to stay away from some of the richest people. For
example, there was a different path for lower caste people; it was a general practice to not even
have a tinge of a shadow of lower caste people.

Ascribed status was one of the most fundamental characteristics of a caste system. The caste of a
person was assigned to him and this will not change no matter he/she achieves any other things in
life or not.
4. Relationship between Individual and Society!

There would be no society if there were no people talking to one another, acting and interacting,
cooperating with one another. But how to behave in one’s society or what is right and what is wrong
in the society, all these things one -has to learn in the society. Each society has its own special set of
rules, its own customs and tradi-tions, its own set of values and beliefs, and each must teach its
members to fit into the society.

The idea of society implies a mutual give-and-take by the individuals concerned either in the form of
mutual glances, waving of hand, greeting, handshake, conversation or the more subtle forms of give-
and-take such as letter writing, season or festival greeting, sending and acknowledging of gifts,
talking on phone, e-mailing, Internet chatting and participating in public affairs.

The relationship between individual and society can be viewed from three angles:

(i) Functionalist,

(ii) Inter-actionist, and

(iii) Culture and personality.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Functionalist view: How society affects the individual?

What is the relationship of the individual to society? Functionalists regard the individual as formed
by society through the influence of such institutions as the family, school and workplace. Early
sociolo-gists such as Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim and even Karl Marx, who was not a
functionalist, examined society as existing apart from the individual. For Durkheim, society is reality;
it is first in origin and importance to the individual.

Durkheim’s keen discussion of the collective consciousness showed the ways in which social
interactions and relationships and ultimately society influence the individual’s attitudes, ideas and
sentiments. He utilised his theory of ‘collective representation’ in explaining the phenomena of
religion, suicide and the concept of social solidarity.

Thus, Durkheim is classed as a ‘social realist’, a champion of ‘sociologism’, for he propounded the
kind of ‘social realism’ that gave ultimate social reality to the group, not to the individual.
Durkheim’s conception left little room for individual initiative and freedom.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In contrast to Auguste Comte (known as father of sociology), who regarded the individual as a mere
abstraction, a somewhat more substantial position by Durkheim held that the individual was the
recipient of group influence and social heritage. In sociological circle, this was the ‘burning question’
(individual v/s society) of the day.

How society is important in the formation of individual’s person­ality is clearly reflected in the cases
of isolated and feral children (children who were raised in the company of animals such as bears and
wolves). The studies of feral children, referred to earlier (Anna, Isabelle, Kamla, Ramu etc.), have
clearly demonstrated the impor-tance of social interaction and human association in the
development of personality.

Interactionist view: How is society constructed?

How an individual helps in building society? For inter-actionists, it is through the interaction of the
people that the society is formed. The main champion of this approach was Max Weber (social
action theorist), who said that society is built up out of the interpretations of individuals.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The structuralists (or functionalists) tend to approach the relationship of self (individual) and society
from the point of the influence of society on the individual. Inter-actionists, on the other hand, tend
to work from self (individual) ‘outwards’, stressing that people create society.
This perspective is sometimes referred to as ‘symbolic interactionism’. W.I. Thomas, George Mead
and Herbert Blumer were the most influential figures among the inter-actionists. Other recent
approaches, which also place emphasis on individual, are ethnomethodology and phenomenology
which is basically a philosophical perspective.

Symbolic interactionism emphasises the importance of symbolic means of communication—

language, gesture and dress etc. Inter-actionists fully accept that society does constrain and form
individuals but they also consider that there is invariably opportunity for some ‘creative’ action (W.I.
Thomas).

Interactionist Model of Relation between Individual and Society

ADVERTISEMENTS:

A prominent theorist of the last century, Talcott Parsons (1937, 1951) ignored the American
symbolic interactionists and tried to attempt a grand synthesis of individual action and large-scale
structure in his theory. But, his emphasis was heavily on the large-scale structure (society).

He believed that it is the structure of society which determines roles and norms, and the cultural
system which determines the ultimate values of ends. His theory was severely criticised by George
Homans (1961). In his Presidential address (1964), “Bringing man Back In”, Homans re-established
the need to study individual social interactions, the building blocks of society.

A recent well-known theorist Anthony Giddens (1984) has not accepted the idea of some sociologists
that society has an existence over and above individuals. He argues: “Human actions and their
reactions are the only reality and we cannot regard societies or systems as having an existence over
and above individuals.”

Culture and personality view: How individual and society affect each other? Or how individual and
society interacts?

Both the above views are incomplete. In reality, it is not society or individual but it is society and
individual which helps in under-standing the total reality. The extreme view of individual or society
has long been abandoned. For sociologists—from Cooley to the present—have recognised that
neither society nor the individual can exist without each other and that they are, in reality, different
aspects of the same thing. Many studies conducted in the field of social/cultural anthropology
substantiate this view.

This view was laid down mainly by Margaret Mead, Kardiner and others who maintained that
society’s culture affects personality (individual) and, in turn, personality helps in the formation of
society’s culture. These anthropologists have studied how society shapes or controls individuals and
how, in turn, individuals create and change society.

Thus, to conclude, it can be stated that the relationship between society and individual is not one-
sided. Both are essential for the comprehension of either. Both go hand in hand, each is essentially
dependent on the other. Both are interdependent on each, other.

A few writings of the past and present individualists—Thomas Hobbes (17th century) and John
Stuart Mill (19th century) have failed to recognise this interdependency. And today, on the basis of
same misunderstanding of ±e interrelationship, we hear long echoes of this ‘threat’ of the social
order to the individual in our legislative assemblies, UNO and champion of human rights
organisations.

These institutions and organisations regard every new measure of social security (such as MESA or
POTA Acts in India) as a ‘blow’ to liberty. The same misunderstanding is held by thinkers such as
Benjamin Kidd and philosopher Hegel who oppose the above views.

In their opinion the individual should be subordinated to society. They say that the individual should
sacrifice their welfare at the cost of society. Both these views are extreme which see the relationship
between individual and society from merely the one or the other side. But surely all is not
harmonious between individual and society. The individual and society interact on one another and
depend on one another. Social integration is never complete and harmonious.

Currently, serious students question the utility of this prolonged debate over individual versus
society. They perceived the individual and society as different sides of the same coin. Society cannot
exist without individuals nor can individuals exist outside the society. “Sociology studies interaction
between the self (or individual) and groups, and interaction between the groups. The self may both
affect certain groups (and so society) and be affected by these groups.

Individuals are part of society” (Mike O’ Donnell, 1997). It is unlikely that this controversy will ever
be solved. Moreover, it is a debate, which is not just confined to sociology, but preoccupies scholars
in all fields of the social sciences.

5. Essay on Hindu Marriage

Article shared by

Essay on Hindu Marriage – Among the Hindus, marriage is not a social contract; it is religious
sacrament. Marriage to a Hindu is of great individual and social significance. It is a socially approved
union of man and woman aiming at procreation, pleasure and observance of certain social
obligations.

The Hindu ideal emphasises the individual as well as social aspects of marriage. K.M. Kapadia in his
“Marriage and Family in India” has given much information in support of the view that Hindu
marriage is a sacrament. His explanation can be analysed from three angles: (A) aims of the Hindu
Marriage; (B) Main rituals Which are involved in the Hindu marriage; and (C) the basic beliefs and
values underlying the Hindu, marriage.

(A) Aims of the Hindu Marriage:

As Kapadia has pointed out, the main aims of the Hindu marriage are: ‘dharma’, ‘praja’ and ‘rati’. Of
these aims, dharma is given the first place, ‘rati’ or pleasure is given only the third place, and ‘praja’
or progeny is given the second place.

1. Dharma:

The Hindu thinkers regarded Dharma as the first and the highest aim of the Hindu marriage.
Marriage is desired not so much for sex or for children as for acquiring a partner for the fulfilment of
one’s religious duties.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

On the marriage, the sacred fire is enkindled, and it is the duty of the householder to offer
“panchamahayajnas” daily in the company of his wife. These obligations would cease to exist only on
the death of the householder.

They get disturbed on the death of the wife, and hence the house-holder could marry immediately a
second wife. The basic aim of marriage is Dharma for it necessar-ily involves the fulfilment of a
number of moral duties.
2. Praja [Progeny]:

The desire to get issues or children is completely felt by all the people. Psychologists call it parental
instinct. The desire for ‘praja’ or progeny is regarded by the Hindu Shastrakaras as one of the sacred
purposes of marriage. The Upanishads have also stressed the continuance of the line of progeny.
Getting a son is essential for a Hindu, for it is believed that one can fulfil one’s “Pitri Rina” [paternal
obligations] only by getting a son. It is ‘Kutumba Dharma”[family obligation] also. In one of the
important marriage rituals called “saptapadi” also the husband prays to the wife to fetch children for
the family.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. Rati [Kama or Pleasure]:

Though sex is one of the functions of marriage it is given the third, place. It is least desirable aim of
marriage. To stress the lower role of sex in marriage, the marriage of a Shudra is said to be for
pleasure only. The Brahmanic legislations enjoin that the Shudra wife would be taken only for
pleasure. However, sex is never condemned or degraded. It is given the third place because dharma
is more expected of ‘vivaha’ than ‘kamal’.

(B) Important Rites Associated with Hindu Marriage:

Among the Hindus there are certain rites which must be performed for marriage to be com-plete.
The main rites are: vagdana, kanyadaana, homa, panigrahana, saptapadi and mangalyadharana.
These rites and the importance attached to them have added to the sanctity of the Hindu marriage.

(i) Vagdana [Oral Promise]:

In the presence of the people gathered for the marriage the names, gotras and pravaras of the bride
and the bridegroom are announced along with the announcement that they are ready for the
marriage. This ritual is known as “Panigrahana sankalpa” or Vagdana.

(ii) Homa:
‘Homa’ refers to the offering in the sacred fire. A number of ‘homas’ or fire rituals are observed in
the marriage of which “Laja Homa” is an important one. This ‘homa’ is symbolic of fecundity and
prosperity. Fred grains dipped in ghee are offered to fire [that is to Lord Agni] by the couple with a
prayer to the God requesting him to bless them with progeny and prosperity.

(iii) Kanyadaana:

This is the most important ceremony connected with marriage. It is the ceremony of giving away the
bride as a gift to the bridegroom in the presence of the sacred fire and in the presence of the people
gathered.

The father of the bride gifts her away to the bridegroom with a promise on his part that he would
not transgress her “in the attainment of piety, wealth and desire”. The same promise is repeated
thrice and the bridegroom affirms his promise thrice.

(iv) Panigrahana [Holding the Hand of the Bride]:

This ritual refers to taking the right hand of the bride with the words: “I seize thy hand for the sake
of happiness that you may live to old age with me…” With this the bridegroom takes the
responsibility of look-ing after the bride.

(v) Mangalaya Dharana [Tying of the Tali or Mangalasutra]:

This involves the act of tying the tali or mangalasutra [which is regarded as the sign of longevity of
the husband] round the neck of the bride by the bridegroom. This ritual for which there is no
reference in the Dharmashastras is more in practice in South India than in the North. It has even
influenced the Catholic Christians of the South. [In north India, particularly in Bengal, Bihar, U.P. and
Orissa the binding part of the marriage ceremony is “sindurdan” or paint­ing of the part of the hair
on the bride’s forehead with vermilion and putting lac bangles in her lands by the groom – C.B.
Mamoria.

(vi) Saptapadi:

This is the ritual in which the bride and the bridegroom go ‘seven-steps’ to­gether. The husband
makes the bride step forward in the northern direction seven steps with the words: “one step for
sap, two for juice, three for wealth, four for comfort, five for cattle, six for seasons, friend be with
seven steps united to me”. This ritual is important from the legal point of view, for the Hindu
marriage is regarded legally complete only after it is performed.
The rites cited above are performed by a Brahmin priest in the presence of the sacred fire and are
accompanied by the Vedic mantras. “They are necessary for marriage to be complete, because when
they or any of them are not properly performed, the marriage may be legally questioned. Hindu
marriage is a sacrament. It is considered sacred because it is said to be complete only on the
performance of the sacred rites accompanied by the sacred formulae”.’

(C) Sacred Beliefs and Values involved in the Hindu Marriage:

The Hindu marriage is a sacrament from the point of view of the sacred beliefs and values involved
in it.

(i) Indissoluble Marital Bond:

According to the traditional Hindu belief, martial bond is said to be inseparable and irrevocable. The
parties to the marriage cannot dissolve it at will. They are bound to each other until the death of
either of them. The belief states that the wife is, supposed to be bound to her husband even after
his death.

This concept of marriage that is indissoluble is itself a sublime one which makes the husband and the
wife to adjust their tastes, tempers, ideals, interests, choices and preferences. It thus involves
sacrifices on the part of both the husband and the wife for each is called upon to bear with the
other. Each individual is here called upon to make marriage a success by means of compromise and
adjustment.

(ii) Belief that marriage is a social duty towards the family and the community:

The question of conflict between the husband and the wife did not perhaps arise in the old days for
it never involved purely individual interests. The husband never expected any intellectual co-
operation from his wife.

The wife was more of a passive partner in the performance of religious duties than an intellectually
active participant in all his affairs. “Marriage was a social duty toward the family and the community
and there was little idea of individual interest”.
The social background provided by the authoritarian joint family and the semi-sovereign caste never
gave any scope for the recognition of any personal factor, individual interests or aspirations, in the
relations between the husband and the wife.

(iii) The ideal of ‘Patirvratya’ associated with marriage:

As per the ideal ‘Pativratya’ popularised by the puranic writers, the wife is expected to be devoted to
her husband alone. It implies that fidelity and modest service to the husband are the sole duty and
main purpose in her life.

As a river merging itself in the ocean loses its identity so a wife is supposed to merge her
individu-ality with that of her husband. Her only concern in life is to provide all services to the
husband; for the satisfaction of her husband is her sole joy in life. The wife is expected to prove
herself as a real “sati” with all dedication and reverence to the husband.

i. The Glorification of ‘Sati’ System:

The ideal of ‘Pativratya’ was stretches too much. It made the wife to be not only attached to the
husband as long as he lived, but even after his death, because a ‘sati’ could never conceive of a
second marriage or a second husband. Hence on the death of the husband the wife had either to live
chastely, renouncing all the joys of life, or to follow her husband by jumping into the funeral pyre.
The ideal of pativratya gave rise to and glorified the practice of ‘sati’ or self-immolation.

With the passing of time, the ideal of Pativratya became to deep-rooted in the mind of the Hindu
woman that immolation became not only customary but a woman’s highest aspiration.

ii. Marriage, the only sacrament for women:

The Hindu marriage is a sacrament in another sense also. A Hindu male goes through the
performance of several sacraments during the course of his life. These begin with the laying of the
foetus and end with the cremation of his body.

For the Hindu woman marriage is said to be essential for it is the only sacrament that can be
performed for her. The Hindu women normally prefer to marry and aspire to marry for they know
that the unmar-ried women are always put to hardship in the Indian social set up.

Does the Hindu Marriage continue to be Sacred?

The Hindu marriage has undergone changes in the last few decades. These changes have given rise
to two questions: (i) Does the Hindu marriage continue to be sacred? (ii) Has it lost its sanctity, or is
it to be treated as a contract?

Three significant changes: Three significant changes in the Hindu marriage may be noted here.

(i) The Hindu young men and women today marry not very much for performing religious duties but
for lifelong companionship.

(ii) The martial relations are no longer treated as unbreakable, or irrevocable, as divorce is socially
and legally permissible, and

(iii) The ideal of ‘pativratya’ has lost its significance for there is legal provision for widow remarriage
and divorce.

The above cited changes in the Hindu marriage have not affected its main character. Widow
Remarriages and divorces have not become the order of the day. Though they are legally permitted,
they are still looked down upon socially.

Mutual fidelity and devotion to the partner are still consid­ered to be an essence of marriage. “So
long marriage is not performed for sex gratification alone but for “living together” and “begetting
children “, marriage will continue to be a sacrament for Hindus. Freedom in marriage [mate
selection, etc.] does not destroy but rather confirms the stability of marriage and purifies its
practice.”‘

Changes are taking place in the Hindu marriage but they have not disturbed its universality and
damaged its sanctity. As Kapadia writes, “….marriage continues to be a sacrament; only it is raised to
an ethical plane. We rather go back to our Vedic ideal embodied in the ‘saptapadi ‘formula: “I take
thee to be my companion in life.”

6. Essay on Interrelationship between Roles and Statuses

Article shared by

Essay on Interrelationship between Roles and Statuses

(a) The terms ‘role’ and ‘status’ are interrelated:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

A status is simply a position in society or in a group. A ‘role’ is the behavioural aspect of status.
Statuses are occupied and roles are played. A role is the manner in which a given individual fulfills
the obligations of a status and enjoys its privileges and prerogatives.

A position or status is simply the means of identifying a particular social role. The two terms are
often used interchangeably. For example, the position of ‘advocate’ identi­fies a particular body of
expected behaviour or the role of advocate.

To define a social role is actually to define the essential or minimal features of the expected
behaviour or role. Strictly, from the socio-logical point of view, to define a social position completely
means to define or to indicate its (status) entire role prescriptions. In this way these two terms
‘position’ or status and role are only analyti­cally separable.

(b) Role is a relational term:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

An individual plays a role vis-a-vis another person’s role which is attached to a ‘counter-position’. For
example, an advocate plays his role as advocate in relation to the client’s role. Role concept is
relevant at the level of individual when he is in interaction. Because, it is individuals, not
organisations, institutions, or sub-systems, who play roles and occupy positions.

(c) ‘Role’ and ‘status’-in a way point out the divergent interests of the two sciences-social psychology
and sociology. Status is a sociological concept and a sociological phenomenon. On the contrary, role
is a concept and a phenomenon of social psychology.
Individual differences in person-ality, ability, talents and behaviour can alone explain as to why
different individuals play different roles in the same status. For example, though the status of Prime
Minister has been the same for Pandit Nehru, Lai Bahadur Shastri, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
They have played different roles in that status.

(d) Both status and role are dynamic and constantly changing. Hence, role changes with each new
incumbent in a status:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The status changes as the norms attached to it are altered. It is quite likely that in course of time,
new obligations and new responsibilities may be added to a status or old ones may be removed.
Sometimes more rigorous role playing may expand the functions of a status.

Similarly, these functions may change due to the newly felt needs of the system of which status is a
part. For example, when an association increases in size, its office-bearers may acquire new duties,
or new statuses may be established. Thus, both status and role are dynamic elements in the life of a
society. But the statuses are cultural and roles are behavioural in nature.

(e) Though statuses and roles are correlative phenomena:

It is possible to have one without the other. A status without a role may simply denote an unfilled
position in an association. For example, when the Vice-Chancellor of a University resigns it may take
some time to find a suitable successor for the post. During this time gap the duties of the Vice-
Chancellor may be looked into by some of his assistants. These assistants can never enjoy privileges
of the status of Vice-Chancellor.

In the same manner, roles are often played without occupying a status. For example, a mother plays
the role of nurse when a member of her family is ill. Nurse is a status in hospital, but in home.

(f) As Robert Bierstadt has pointed out, in a formal sociological language a status may be called an
institutionalised role. It is a role that has become regularised, standardised, and formalised in the
society at large or in any specific association with society. The structure of society consists of
statuses and not roles. “It is statuses, together with norms, that give order, predictability and even
possibility to social relations”.
Essay on the Theories of Socialisation

Article shared by

Essay on the Theories of Socialisation – (a) C.H. Cooley’s Theory of ‘Looking-Glass Self’: The ‘self’
might be regarded as the internalised object representing one’s own personality.

Where does this self arise? Are we born with it? Is it something we have to learn to recognise and to
know? Is it something that the individual brings with him as we confront society? Or is it some-thing
that he receives from society as a gift of the confrontation? A brilliant American social psy-chologist
Charles Horton Cooley made some sustained attempts to find answers to these questions.

C.H. Cooley has placed before us two primary propositions – (i) The mind is social, and (ii) Society is
mental. Of the two, the first one has impressed a good number of sociologists. He wrote in his Social
Organisation, that “self and society are twin-born; we know one as immediately as we know the
other, and the notion of a separate and independent ego is an illusion”. Observing his own children,
he concluded that the very idea of ‘self or ‘ego’- of- can arise only in relationship with other people. ,

Three Main Elements of ‘Looking-Glass Self’:

Cooley held that self and social are two sides of the same coin. Our ideas, loyalties, attitudes, and
points of view are derived from others. One means of their transmission Cooley called the ‘looking-
glass self. According to him, self-ideas or self-attitudes develop by a process of imagining what
others think of us by a kind of ‘looking-glass’ process. A self-idea of this sort seems to have three
main elements:

(i) The imagination of our appearance to the other person.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(ii) The imagination of his judgment of that (imagined) appearance.

(iii) Some kind of self-feeling such as pride or mortification.

As Cooley has stated in his ‘Human Nature and the Social Order’, the individual develops the idea of
self through contact with the primary group, particularly with the members of the family. This he
does by becoming conscious of their attitudes towards him.

In other words, the child gets his conception of his self, and later of the kind of person he is, by
means of what he imagines others take him to be. Cooley, therefore, called the child’s idea of
himself the ‘looking-glass self. The child conceives of himself as better or worse in varying degrees,
depending upon the attitudes of others towards him.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Thus, the child’s view of himself may be affected by the kind of name given by his family or friends. A
child called ‘angel’ by his mother gets a notion of himself which differs from that of a child called
‘rascal’.

The ‘looking-glass self’ assures the child which aspects of the assumed roles will bring him praise,
which blame; which ones are acceptable to others, which ones unacceptable. People normally have
their own attitudes towards social roles and adopt the same.

The child first tries out these on others and in turn adopts towards his self. The self thus arises when
the person becomes an ‘object’ to himself. He is now capable of taking the same view of himself that
he infers others do. The moral order which governs the human society, in large measure, depends
upon the ‘looking-glass self’.

Thus it is clear that we are prone to look at ourselves through other’s eyes. Depending upon the
character and weight of that ‘other’ [in whose mind we see ourselves] we develop different feelings.

We are ashamed to seem evasive in the presence of a straightforward man; cowardly in the
presence of a brave man, indecent in the presence of a refined man, greedy in the presence of a
generous man and so on. We may boast to one person of an action but we may feel ashamed to
express it to another. The way we imagine ourselves to appear to another person is an essential
element in our conception of ourselves.
Thus, 7 am not what I think I am and I am not what you think I am. I am what I think you think I am ‘.
Cooley concludes that “the self is social and that self-consciousness would not exist in the absence of
society”. The ‘looking-glass self’ affects the daily life of all individuals.

(b) George Herbert Mead’s Theory of ‘Self’:

G.H. Mead, the famous philosopher and psychologist at the University of Chicago, also held the
opinion like that of Cooley that the society is the determining factor in the socialisation of the
individual. He agreed with Cooley that the ‘Self’ is social.

Mead has stated, ‘the individual, largely through interaction, becomes aware of himself’. It means
the individual comes to know about him­self by what is known as ‘role playing’.

‘Role-playing’. Mead has said that the individual in order to get a picture of himself plays the roles of
others. In seeing himself as others see him, the individual is actually putting himself in the place of
others, and imagining what their response might be.

This is ‘role-playing’. The ‘others’ may be his parents, close associates, and finally, society as a whole.
As the child gets older, he can be observed to act towards his dolls or toys as the mother or other
members of the family have acted towards him. The child, in his play, is taking the role of another
person.

Through ‘role-playing’, that is, by playing the role of the mother, father or other persons, the child is
enabled to see himself objectively through the eyes of others. Of these ‘others’ some are more
“significant”.

Significant Others:

The new-born infant has needs like those for food, clothing that press for satisfaction. The mother
satisfies these needs and the child comes to depend upon her and ‘identifies himself’ with her
emotionally. But in course of time, the child differentiates himself from his mother and comes to
know that he has a sub-ordinate role to the superior role of the mother.

Then the child understands the role of the father. He differentiates his father from his mother and
then integrates him into the social system. In this way, the number of the ‘significant others’
increase for the child.
The Generalised Others:

The child not only differentiates itself from others but also begins to act towards himself from the
viewpoint of the whole group. The child tries to understand the relative roles of various individu-als
involved in the same social context. The child begins to anticipate the behaviour of all the mem-bers
of a group in a particular context, {n other words, the child generalises the roles of others.

For example, if the child is playing the role of a ‘bridegroom’ in its game of marriage, he must know
not only the role of the bridegroom but also that of the bride, the father-in-law, priest, relatives, etc.

In the above example, the child plays a number of roles simultaneously, a generalised role of a
number of people. The roles, moreover, are built around the rules of the game. According to the
rule, the child generalises his behaviour. He plays the role of what Mead calls ‘the generalised other’.
The team of children with its rules is thus a carbon copy of the organised community.

The whole community is ‘generalised other’ with which the child becomes identified. ‘Self’ and
‘soci­ety’, in the child’s experience, are the two sides of the same coin. This is exactly like a situation
in which every one of us may say, or more likely think,- ‘what will people think if do this, or that’ ?
The ‘people’ in this expression are not any particular persons, but rather, generalised persons, or
generalised others. This ‘generalised others’ may include the associates of our community. In this
way the social explanation of the self is complete.

It is clear from the above description that the self is not something that exists first and then into
relationship with others. The ‘self is a product of social interaction. ‘It arises in social experience’. “It
is something that develops out of social interaction and is constantly changing and adjusting as new
situations and conflicts arise…” The self develops and grows in a social context.

(c) Freud and His Concept of the Human Mind:

Sigmund Freud was an Austrian Psychiatrist and the founder of Psychoanalysis. Much of the works of
Freud centre on the ‘Human Mind’ rather than the process of socialisation. Though

Freud has not established any theory concerning socialisation as such his ideas have contributed
much towards the clarification of that process. This can be ascertained by an understanding of his
analysis of the human mind.

Freud has divided human mind into three compartments. They are as follows:
(i) Id: The ‘id’ is concerned only with satisfying the animal impulses of man.

(ii) Ego: The ‘ego’ serves as the mediator between desire and action. It represses the urges of the ‘id’
when necessary.

(iii) Super Ego: The ‘super ego’ always holds up the behaviour norms of society. It provides the ‘ego’
the idea of moral and immoral and this in turn intervenes with the id.

The Super Ego:

In the Freudian analysis of the human mind the concept of ‘super ego’ is of great sociological
importance. It is significant in the study of socialisation also. According to Freud, the, individual’s
super ego is a reflection of his parents’ standards of right and wrong.

The individual imbibes these into his own personality by identifying himself with his parents. The
parents’ standards are no other than the societies or one of its sub-groups in which the individual
happens to live. Thus, logically the child, in its socialisation process adopts the norms of conduct of
the society through the super ego.

(d) W.I. Thomas Theory of the ‘Definition of the Situation’:

The views of W. I. Thomas concerning the process of socialisation can be understood by an analysis
of his theory of “the definition of the situation “. According to Thomas, the situation in which the
child finds himself has already been defined for him. The rules according to which he must behave
are determined by the group into which he is born.

The child cannot behave according to his own whims and fancies. He must act according to the
expectations of the group and compro-mise his wishes with those of the group. The wishes and the
expectations of the group always call for restraint, order, discipline and self-sacrifice in the child.

A kind of conflict may take place between the wishes of the child and those of the group. Though not
always, the group usually wins out in such a conflict. Thomas has described this situation graphically
in his “The Unadjusted Girl”.
Thus, according to Thomas any deliberate action calls for an appraisal of the situation within which
the person finds himself. Once the situation is defined for him, he can act appropriately in it in the
normal course of life. His role also becomes apparent.

Thomas has pointed out, that in infancy situations are defined for the infant by the mother and
other members. The parents define the situa-tion through speech and other signs and pressures.

The parents may give instructions to their child to correct his behaviour. Thus, they may instruct: “Be
quiet”, “Sit up straight”, “Blow your nose “, ”Wash your face “, “Mind your mother “, “Be kind to
sister “, “Pray God “, and so on. The child’s wishes and activities are inhibited by these instructions
or definitions.

Thomas has argued that by definitions within the family, by playmates, in the school, by formal
instruction, and by signs of approval and disapproval, the child, that is, the growing member, learns
the norms of his society.

(e) Durkheim’s Theory of ‘Collective Representations’:

Durkheim’s theory of ‘Collective representations’ throws some light on the study of the pro­cess of
socialisation. In his theory of socialisation Durkheim has asserted that the individual be-comes
socialised by adopting the behaviour of his group.

By ‘collective representations’ he meant the body of experiences, ideas and ideals of a group upon
which the individual unconsciously de-pends for his ideas, attitudes and behaviour. To Durkheim,
collective representations are objects or factors of social value. These objects are symbol-products
and are mutually owned and mutually proclaimed.

Durkheim has stated that the ‘collective representations’ have a great force because they are
collectively created and developed. It means, collective representations or social values are the
prod-uct of collective action. Hence they are imperative and compulsive.

For example, the flag is a politi-cal representation; sacred writings are religious representation and
so on. Durkheim has said that these collective representations or social values directly or indirectly
mould the character and to behaviour of the new born child.

According to Durkheim, the individual mends his ways in accordance with the group stan-dards. The
accumulated group experience provides the individuals the necessary guidance in learn-ing the
appropriate behaviour. It is in this respect Durkheim’s ‘collective representations’ resemble
Sumner’s concept of folkways and mores.

Durkheim believed that the ‘collective representations’ have an autonomous existence, completely
independent of individuals. He advocated a theory of “Collective Consciousness” and “group mind”,
which he believed, exist independent of individual consciousness. This part of Durkheim’s doctrine
has been severely criticised and is, at present, re-jected by many of the American sociologists.

8. nature of social stratification in indian society

Social Stratification in India

A women constructor (rahuldlucca/Flickr)

Every complex society faces the difficult task of placing its members into roles that are necessary for
the society to survive. These roles must be filled with as little conflict and confusion as possible.
There must be people willing to perform jobs (roles) with little status and those that carry a great
deal of prestige. In your community there are people who are doctors, lawyers, and teachers. Others
collect trash, direct traffic, and put out fires. Although these roles do not all carry the same prestige,
there is very little conflict involved in determining who will perform which one.

Consider roles as a deck of cards. You and I will be dealt numerous role cards in our lifetime. In fact,
we are playing several roles at any given time. Right now you have been dealt a student role card to
play, but you also have other role cards in your hand, such as friend, son or daughter, basketball
player, cheerleader, clerk in a drugstore, etc. Many of your role cards came as a result of your birth,
age, or gender. Other cards you have earned, such as honor student or basketball captain.

In India, caste is one set of role cards and perhaps the most important one. One’s caste is ascribed;
that is, children inherit the status and functions of their parents. At birth Indians are dealt their caste
card. This is alien to what many people in the United States believe about the “good society.” Our
parents, relatives, teachers, and friends tell us in a thousand ways that what we make of our lives
depends on our efforts, and many of us think all societies should play by the same rules, or at least
strive to do so. But it is important to remember that there is no society where individual effort is the
sole criterion for status.

While caste is a very important set of role cards, Indians, like Americans, also use class (economic)
cards. Both caste and class operate at the same time. A person of very low caste such as a sweeper
may get a good job that has nothing to do with sweeping and save some money. With this wealth
the sweeper may build a fancy house and educate his children who then become doctors, lawyers,
and government leaders. This type of role is usually achieved, although some people inherit their
wealth.
There is also the possibility of achieving political power in India quite apart from class or caste status.
A low caste person might be very good at winning elections and become a member of the central
government. Jagjivan Ram, a member of one of the Dalit (ex- Untouchable) castes, has held many
cabinet posts in his political career. This system of gaining status is based on power. Power is usually
achieved status rather than a role that is dealt at birth. People in India participate in the caste game,
the class game, and the power game.

In India, castes are ranked, and caste members in a specific geographical area can identify those
castes that are above and below them. The ranking of castes is based on purity and pollution, often
associated with functions of the human body. Roles associated with the head such as thinking,
talking, teaching, and learning are considered pure. Activities associated with waste, feet, and skin
are considered polluting. Consequently, Brahmins at the top of the purity scale were scholars who
traditionally taught and presided at religious functions. Untouchables, at the bottom of the scale,
cleared away human waste, collected garbage, cut hair, skinned animals, and washed clothes.
Because their occupations mainly dealt with human, animal, and societal waste, society believed
that contact with an Untouchable was highly polluting.

Preparing and sharing of food reveals how castes are ranked. Food cooked in oil and prepared by a
Brahmin can be accepted and eaten by any caste below it. Food cooked in water can generally be
accepted by one’s own caste members or inferior castes. Leftover, uneaten food almost always is
taken only by the very low castes. Food that can be eaten raw is the most freely distributed and can
be accepted by any caste from any caste. In addition, prasad, blessed food that is left over from
religious offerings, is given to anyone regardless of caste.

There is also a range of pure and impure foods. Vegetables and grains are purer than meat and eggs.
Fish is the purest of the non-vegetarian foods, followed by chicken, goats, pork, and water buffalo;
the most impure is beef. Sweet pastries, fried in deep fat, are among the most widely acceptable
foods from any caste. By observing how food is prepared and with whom it is shared, one can begin
to determine the ranking on a purity-pollution scale of the caste groups involved.

9. Both primary and secondary groups can be distinguished from each other by the following points:

(1) Difference in Meaning :

Primary group is the nucleus of all social organizations. It is characterized by intimate face-to-face
association and co-operation.

They are primary in several senses but they are fundamental in forming the social nature and ideals
of individuals. Family, playgroup and neighborhood are the example of primary group. But secondary
groups are large scale groups in which the relationships are relatively casual, impersonal and
competitive. They are consciously formed to fulfill some common goals or objectives. Ex-City,
Political Party.
(2) Difference in Size :

A primary group is very small in size and is confined to a small area. Because it consists of very small
number of individuals. But the size of a secondary group is very large and it is spread all over the
world. Because it consists of thousands of members who is widespread and scattered all over the
world.

(3) Difference in Stability :

Primary groups are relatively stable or durable. For example family is a stable organization. But a
secondary group may be temporary or permanent. These are temporary groups like flood relief
association. As secondary groups are special interest groups after the fulfillment of the interest it
automatically vanishes.

(4) Difference in Co-operation : The nature of co-operation in a primary and secondary group also
differs from each other. The members of a primary group directly co-operate with each other. They
play, sit and discuss together. Because of face to face contact and personal relationships direct co-
operation among members is possible. But the members of a secondary group indirectly co-operate
with each other. Because there exists indirect relations among the members.

(5) Difference in Structure :

According to the type of structure both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each
other. Primary group is based on an informal structure and is very simple. All the members
participate in the same process and it is regulated by informal rules and regulations. On the other
hand secondary group is based on formal structure and is regulated by a set of formal rules and
regulations.

(6) Difference in Relationships :

A great deal of differences is found in the relationships among the members of a primary and
secondary group. There exist direct, intimate and personal relationships among the members of a
primary group. The relations are all inclusive because primary group is relationship directed. But
there exists indirect and impersonal relations among the members of a secondary group. Here
relations are secondary and formal.

(7) Difference in the method of social control:

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the basis of the means
by which they exercises control over their members. Primary group exercises controls over its
members through informal means such as customs, folkways, mores etc. Secondary group have
limited control over its members. But secondary group control the behavior of its members through
formal means such as police, jail, court, law etc.
(8) Difference in Goal: Members of a primary group have similar or common aims and objectives.
Goal of a particular member is considered as the goal of all other members. But in a secondary group
member have different goals. Each individual has his own goals or aims for the fulfillment of which
he joins in the group.

(9) Difference in effect on Personality:

Both primary and secondary group can be distinguished from each other on the degree by which
they affect or determine the personality of an individual. Primary group has a greater influence on
the development of personality. It influences the total personality of an individual. But secondary
group has a little influence on the development of personality of an individual. It is mainly concerned
with a particular aspect of the personality of an individual.

(10) Differences in Physical Closeness:

Both primary and secondary group may be distinguished from each other on the grounds of physical
nearness. Members of a primary group live in physical proximity to each other. There exits face –to
face relations among the member. But members of a secondary group the member of secondary
group.

(11) The relationship among the members of a primary group is spontaneous in nature whereas the
relationship among the members of a secondary group is governed by external forces.

(12) Primary relationship is all inclusive. Here each member know each other personally and they
are concerned with the total aspect of human being. But secondary relationship is not all inclusive.
Here members do not know each other personally and they are not concerned with the total aspect
of life of members.

10. It is all a matter of how you define “society” and what you mean by the word “social.”

If you start with the idea that there is a group of people, all born free and EQUAL, then you will look
at any actual gang of people and say, “Gee whiz, some of these guys are different from some of the
others” - and the more you look, the more differences you will find. (See
intersectionalitarianismology - where the first law of Social Justice is that “All men were created
equal, but the old white men have screwed it up: Boo Hoo !”) All differences can be used to rank
folks on a scale, and some will score higher than you - so you have grounds for complaint: unless the
scale is something like “Likelihood of being murderd in your bed” - in which case your complaint will
be rejected as frivolous. Actually, all such complaints are frivolous: indeed, all such complainants are
frivolous, and are best murdered in their beds.
Society is esssentially unequal, ‘cos it contains the young and the old, the rich and the poor, the
strong and the weak, the smart and the stupid, male and female, black and white, every variety,
every extreme, and all the more middling kind, across every imaginable scale of differences, and also
any unimaginables that nobody has yet thought of. Society is non-exclusive (Well, yes, there are
some sub-sets of “society” that may well be rather exclusive - the millionaires’ club, for example. Or
the billionaires’ club - mere millionaires can shove off - not welcome here.)

The causes of inequality ? Life - that is the only cause, and it is sufficient to explain all
inequalities/differences.

Social inequality occurs when resources in a given society are distributed unevenly, typically through
norms of allocation, that engender specific patterns along lines of socially defined categories of
persons. It is the differentiation preference of access of social goods in the society brought about by
power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. The
social rights include labor market, the source of income, health care, and freedom of speech,
education, political representation, and participation.[1] Social inequality linked to economic
inequality, usually described on the basis of the unequal distribution of income or wealth, is a
frequently studied type of social inequality. Though the disciplines of economics and sociology
generally use different theoretical approaches to examine and explain economic inequality, both
fields are actively involved in researching this inequality. However, social and natural resources
other than purely economic resources are also unevenly distributed in most societies and may
contribute to social status. Norms of allocation can also affect the distribution of rights and
privileges, social power, access to public goods such as education or the judicial system, adequate
housing, transportation, credit and financial services such as banking and other social goods and
services.

Many societies worldwide claim to be meritocracies—that is, that their societies exclusively
distribute resources on the basis of merit. The term "meritocracy" was coined by Michael Young in
his 1958 dystopian essay "The Rise of the Meritocracy" to demonstrate the social dysfunctions that
he anticipated arising in societies where the elites believe that they are successful entirely on the
basis of merit, so the adoption of this term into English without negative connotations is ironic;[2]
Young was concerned that the Tripartite System of education being practiced in the United Kingdom
at the time he wrote the essay considered merit to be "intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors ...
identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education" and that the "obsession
with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications" it supported would create an educated middle-
class elite at the expense of the education of the working class, inevitably resulting in injustice and –
eventually – revolution.[3] A modern representation of the sort of "meritocracy" Young feared may
be seen in the series 3%.

Although merit matters to some degree in many societies, research shows that the distribution of
resources in societies often follows hierarchical social categorizations of persons to a degree too
significant to warrant calling these societies "meritocratic", since even exceptional intelligence,
talent, or other forms of merit may not be compensatory for the social disadvantages people face. In
many cases, social inequality is linked to racial inequality, ethnic inequality, and gender inequality, as
well as other social statuses and these forms can be related to corruption.[4]

The most common metric for comparing social inequality in different nations is the Gini coefficient,
which measures the concentration of wealth and income in a nation from 0 (evenly distributed
wealth and income) to 1 (one person has all wealth and income). Two nations may have identical
Gini coefficients but dramatically different economic (output) and/or quality of life, so the Gini
coefficient must be contextualized for meaningful comparisons to be made.[5]