12-23-2006, 04:19 AM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3013
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RE: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Re: Report on the Second Dharma and Ethics Conference at Kuvempu University
Let me begin by wishing everyone a great 2007, which is round the corner.
Having just returned from India, reading the multiple posts on Jakob's
report of the conference makes it difficult for me to find out what the
disagreements are or even what issues are at stake.
1. Divya seems to say that the statement that 'the caste system in
India does not exist' challenges the experience of the Indians. I would like
to clarify this statement, while presuming for the reminder of this post
that we use the word 'caste' to translate 'Jati'.
There are two distinct problems. One is about the existence of castes in
India. There are some kinds of practices associated with castes. This is the
lived experience of the Indians. This is not being challenged.
Then there is a second kind of problem. This problem is not the experience
of the Indians. It is a theoretical claim. This says that the castes form a
system and that such a system constitutes the social structure of India.
Over the decades, if not over the centuries, this second claim has been
challenged, for instance, by the Marxists. They claim that social classes
(in the Marxist sense of the word 'class') constitute a system and that such
a system is the social structure of Indian society as well. Then there are
those 'socialists' who have claimed that both 'castes' and social classes'
(together) constitute the social structure of India and that one has to
study the relations between 'caste' and 'social class', if one has to
understand the Indian society. Finally, at the other end of the spectrum,
there are those who claim that the unique nature of Indian society consists
of the fact that the Indian social structure is synonymous with 'the caste
system'. To this group belong the dominant western descriptions and the
so-called Dalit criticisms of the Indian society.
When we deny the existence of 'the caste system', we are neither the first
nor the last to say so. We say that 'the caste system' is not a social
system but a cognitive (classificatory) system at best.
2. Of course, in an obvious sense, 'caste' is a social unit. (In the
sense that there are social groups in India called 'castes'.) But we do not
believe that these castes form a coherent social system, studying which we
can understand the Indian society. That is to say, we do not believe that
these castes constitute a single social structure, which remains invariant
across the length and breadth of India. When we say that there is no caste
system in India, we are not saying that such groups do not exist in India.
However, we do say that castes are merely social groups. (Trades unions,
alumini associations, civic associations, etc are also social groups.) They
vary in composition, in nomenclature, in their practices and so on. Saying
this does not entail that there is no order in society or that social
structure is absent in India. It merely means that looking for a set of
invariant principles that are supposed to govern these castes is doomed from
the outset.
3. Finally, our research is also trying to pin down the origin of the
belief that the Indian social structure is synonymous with 'the caste
system'. Once this is done, the task is to understand why people believe in
this theoretical claim and how this belief can reproduce itself. In this
process, we hope to understand the controversies that emerge (the posts
about this matter are examples) whenever castes are discussed.
Friendly greetings
Balu
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RE: [TheHeathenInHisBlindness] Re: Report on the Second Dharma and Ethics Conference at Kuvempu University
Let me begin by wishing everyone a great 2007, which is round the corner.
Having just returned from India, reading the multiple posts on Jakob's
report of the conference makes it difficult for me to find out what the
disagreements are or even what issues are at stake.
1. Divya seems to say that the statement that 'the caste system in
India does not exist' challenges the experience of the Indians. I would like
to clarify this statement, while presuming for the reminder of this post
that we use the word 'caste' to translate 'Jati'.
There are two distinct problems. One is about the existence of castes in
India. There are some kinds of practices associated with castes. This is the
lived experience of the Indians. This is not being challenged.
Then there is a second kind of problem. This problem is not the experience
of the Indians. It is a theoretical claim. This says that the castes form a
system and that such a system constitutes the social structure of India.
Over the decades, if not over the centuries, this second claim has been
challenged, for instance, by the Marxists. They claim that social classes
(in the Marxist sense of the word 'class') constitute a system and that such
a system is the social structure of Indian society as well. Then there are
those 'socialists' who have claimed that both 'castes' and social classes'
(together) constitute the social structure of India and that one has to
study the relations between 'caste' and 'social class', if one has to
understand the Indian society. Finally, at the other end of the spectrum,
there are those who claim that the unique nature of Indian society consists
of the fact that the Indian social structure is synonymous with 'the caste
system'. To this group belong the dominant western descriptions and the
so-called Dalit criticisms of the Indian society.
When we deny the existence of 'the caste system', we are neither the first
nor the last to say so. We say that 'the caste system' is not a social
system but a cognitive (classificatory) system at best.
2. Of course, in an obvious sense, 'caste' is a social unit. (In the
sense that there are social groups in India called 'castes'.) But we do not
believe that these castes form a coherent social system, studying which we
can understand the Indian society. That is to say, we do not believe that
these castes constitute a single social structure, which remains invariant
across the length and breadth of India. When we say that there is no caste
system in India, we are not saying that such groups do not exist in India.
However, we do say that castes are merely social groups. (Trades unions,
alumini associations, civic associations, etc are also social groups.) They
vary in composition, in nomenclature, in their practices and so on. Saying
this does not entail that there is no order in society or that social
structure is absent in India. It merely means that looking for a set of
invariant principles that are supposed to govern these castes is doomed from
the outset.
3. Finally, our research is also trying to pin down the origin of the
belief that the Indian social structure is synonymous with 'the caste
system'. Once this is done, the task is to understand why people believe in
this theoretical claim and how this belief can reproduce itself. In this
process, we hope to understand the controversies that emerge (the posts
about this matter are examples) whenever castes are discussed.
Friendly greetings
Balu
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->