Structural functionalism (M. N. Srinivas) | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

M.N. Srinivas started structural-functional analysis in sociological and social anthropological research in India. The structural-functional perspective relies more on the field work tradition for understanding the social reality so that it can also be understood as ‘contextual’ or ‘field view’ perspective of the social phenomena.

M. N. Srinivas

• Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916-1999) was a renowned Indian sociologist celebrated for his extensive work on caste systems, social stratification, and Sanskritisation in southern India. His contributions to sociology, social anthropology, and public life in India were exceptional. Srinivas was distinguished by his ability to break away from the established academic norms, particularly the North American-centric area studies, which had been prevalent after World War II. He also dared to experiment with the disciplinary foundations of social anthropology and sociology, setting himself apart as an original and innovative social scientist.
• It's important to note that the shaping of South Asian area studies in the United States was significantly influenced by a confluence of Sanskritic scholarship and the strategic interests of the Western bloc in the post-World War II era. During the colonial period, Brahmins, or Pandits, played a crucial role as interpreters of Hindu laws and customs for the British colonial administration. This colonial perception of an unchanging Indian society led to a peculiar amalgamation of Sanskrit studies with contemporary issues in South Asian departments across the U.S. and elsewhere. It was widely believed that Indian sociology should intersect with both Indology and sociology.
• Srinivas embarked on a scholarly journey to challenge this prevailing paradigm and introduce new intellectual frameworks for comprehending Hindu society. His views on the significance of caste in India's electoral processes are well-known. While some interpreted this as a confirmation of the enduring structural principles of social stratification, Srinivas saw it as a reflection of the dynamic changes occurring as democracy spread and electoral politics became a powerful force in local village society.
• Srinivas was not inclined toward utopian constructs. His ideas about justice, equality, and poverty eradication were firmly rooted in his practical experiences on the ground. His steadfast commitment to maintaining his integrity in the face of demands for his sociology to incorporate new and radical aspirations was one of the most moving aspects of his writings. He used terms such as "sanskritisation," "dominant caste," "vertical (inter-caste), and horizontal (intra-caste) solidarities" to capture the fluid and dynamic nature of caste as a social institution.
• Srinivas strongly advocated ethnographic research based on fieldwork as part of his methodological approach. However, his concept of fieldwork was linked to locally bounded sites. Given India's vast size, diverse population, and the myriad transformations experienced due to external and internal factors, he emphasized that an absolutist view of India was not feasible. Consequently, some of his most influential papers, such as the one on dominant caste and another on a joint family dispute, were deeply inspired by his direct involvement and participant observation in rural life in South India. Despite his extensive work on various themes like national integration, gender issues, new technologies, and more, it is somewhat surprising that he did not delve into theorizing the methodological implications of studying issues beyond the confines of villages and their institutions. Nevertheless, his methodology and findings served as a foundation for subsequent researchers studying caste in India.
• Srinivas occupies a distinguished position among the first-generation sociologists of India, alongside luminaries such as G.S. Ghurye, R.K. Mukherjee, N.K. Bose, and D.P. Mukerji. He introduced the tradition of making macro-sociological generalizations based on micro-anthropological insights and provided a sociological perspective to anthropological investigations of small-scale communities. Srinivas aimed to comprehend his fellow countrymen not merely through Western textbooks or indigenous sacred texts but through direct observation, field studies, and hands-on experiences.
• His intensive field study of Coorgs from 1940 to 1942 allowed him to describe the concept of functional unity among Coorgs, encompassing Brahmins (priests), Kaniyas (astrologers and magicians), and Bannas and Panikas (low castes). Additionally, his study of Rampura revealed the interdependence of various castes within a village.
• Srinivas' studies on caste and religion not only explored their structural-functional aspects but also delved into the dynamics of the caste system in rural settings. He introduced conceptual tools like 'dominant caste,' 'sanskritization-westernization,' and 'secularization' to understand the realities of intercaste relations and explain their evolving dynamics. The concept of the 'dominant caste' proved invaluable in analyzing power relations at the village level. Srinivas presented the results of numerous studies on the structure and transformation of village society.
• In the 1940s, Srinivas also articulated his thoughts on Tamil and Telugu folk songs, showcasing his appreciation for indigenous cultural expressions and regional folklore.
• In conclusion, M.N. Srinivas was a visionary and pioneering sociologist whose work reshaped our understanding of Indian society. His ability to challenge prevailing paradigms, ground his research in real-world experiences, and introduce innovative concepts left an indelible mark on the fields of sociology and social anthropology, not only in India but globally. His legacy continues to inspire scholars and researchers alike.

Srinivas explains two basic concepts to understand our society

• Book View (Bookish Perspective):
  • Indian society is built upon key elements like religion, Varna (social hierarchy), caste, family, village, and geographical structure.
  • Typically, knowledge about these elements is acquired through sacred texts or books.
  • Srinivas refers to this approach as the "book view" or "bookish perspective."
  • The book view is often associated with Indology, a field of study that focuses on Indian texts and traditions.
  • Srinivas rejects the book view and advocates for a different perspective known as the "field view."
• Critique of Book View:
  • The book view of the caste system tends to emphasize the dominance of Brahmins at the top of the social hierarchy, with untouchables occupying the lowest positions.
  • It enforces strict restrictions on social interactions such as commensality (sharing meals) and mobility.
  • The book view portrays the caste system as unchangeable and beyond challenge.
• Field View (Field Work):
  • Srinivas believes that a deeper understanding of Indian society can be obtained through fieldwork, which he calls the "field view."
  • He values empirical studies as a means to comprehend the complexities of Indian society.
  • Srinivas opts for conducting small regional studies rather than formulating grand sociological theories.
  • Fieldwork is crucial in revealing the authentic aspects of rural Indian society.
• Importance of Field View:
  • Srinivas argues that the field view, especially concerning the caste system, unveils the lived experiences of people and how scriptural texts manifest in real-life situations.
  • Social mobility becomes a significant aspect of this perspective.
• Mathematical and Statistical Orientation:
  • Srinivas recognizes the importance of incorporating mathematical and statistical approaches into sociology.
  • He acknowledges that some scholars in the past were deterred from these methods due to fears of mathematics.
  • Srinivas believes that a mathematical and statistical orientation can enhance sociological analysis.
• Challenges in Pursuing Secondary Analysis:
  • There are both ideological and practical reasons why scholars often avoid pursuing secondary analysis using mathematical and statistical methods.
  • Practical challenges may include the complexity of mathematical techniques.
  • In the past, the fear of mathematics led many talented scholars to choose humanistic disciplines like sociology over quantitative approaches.
• In Summary:
  • Srinivas distinguishes between the book view, which relies on sacred texts, and the field view, which emphasizes empirical research and fieldwork to understand Indian society.
  • He critiques the book view for its rigidity and argues for the importance of incorporating mathematical and statistical methods in sociology.

Writings of Srinivas

Srinivas has written on many aspects of Indian society and culture. He is best known for his work on religion, village community, caste and social change He was influenced by Radcliffe-Brown’s notion of structure, who was his teacher at Oxford He studied Indian society as a ‘totality’, a study which would integrate “the various groups in its interrelationship, whether tribes, peasants or various cults and sects” (Patel). His writings are based on intensive field work in South India in general and Coorgs and Rampura in particular (Shah).

• Social Change: Brahminization, sans-kritisation, westernization and secularization
• Religion and Society
• Study of Village
• Views on Caste
• Dominant Caste

Social Change

• ‘Social change’ as a theme continues to be a significant concern of Indian sociologists.This hold true not only for the pre-independence phase but also for post-independence period Srinivas attempted to construct a macro-level analysis using a large number of micro-level findings on the processes of ‘sanskritisation, ‘westernization’ and ‘secularization’. 
• Interestingly enough, Srinivas returned to his micro-empirical setting a village- after nearly a quarter of century and in a diachronic frame highlighted the nature of social change in that village over period of time.

Religion and Society

• Origin of Brahminization: Srinivas developed the concept of Brahminization while studying the Coorg community in South India. It represents the process where lower-caste Hindus imitate the lifestyle and rituals of Brahmins, the highest caste in the Hindu social hierarchy. This concept helped explain how lower-caste groups were adopting the practices of higher castes based on his in-depth fieldwork.
• Limitations of Brahminization: While Brahminization was a useful concept, Srinivas realized its limitations as it solely focused on Brahminic models. To address this, he introduced a more abstract concept called Sanskritisation, which could encompass a broader range of cultural changes observed in Indian society.
• Replacement with Sanskritisation: Sanskritisation replaced Brahminization at a higher level of abstraction. Srinivas expanded the meaning of Sanskritisation, differentiating it from Westernization. This conceptual framework helped explain the processes of social change in India, particularly the cultural imitations that occurred.
• Inherent Hierarchy: Both concepts, Sanskritisation and Westernization, inherently carried notions of hierarchy and unequal distribution of privilege and power. They described how lower-caste or lower-status groups imitated those higher in the social and economic order, thus reinforcing existing inequalities.
• Systematic Formulation: Srinivas systematically outlined these concepts in his work "Social Change in Modern India." He defined Sanskritisation as the process by which lower-caste, tribal, or other groups adopt the customs, beliefs, ideologies, and lifestyle of higher castes, particularly the "twice-born" or Dwija castes. This process generally resulted in improved social status within the local caste hierarchy.
• Focus on Cultural Change: The primary emphasis in studying social change through the concepts of Sanskritisation and Westernization was on changes in cultural styles, customs, and ritual practices. These concepts provided a framework for understanding how cultural shifts contributed to broader societal transformations.

Sanskritisation

Introduction to Sanskritisation

• The concept of Sanskritisation was introduced into Indian Sociology by Professor M.N. Srinivas.
• Sanskritisation refers to a process in which people of lower castes collectively strive to adopt the practices and beliefs of upper castes, initially as a step toward achieving higher social status.
• It signifies a form of cultural mobility within the traditional Indian social system.

Meaning of Sanskritisation

• Sanskritisation is not a new phenomenon but has been a significant process of cultural change throughout Indian history, occurring across the entire Indian subcontinent.
• It represents a process where lower castes aim to imitate the lifestyles of higher castes in their quest to enhance their social standing.

Definition of Sanskritisation

• M.N. Srinivas defined Sanskritisation in his work "Social Change in Modern India" (published in 1971) as "a process by which a low caste, tribe, or another group changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a higher, often twice-born caste."

Analysis of Sanskritisation

• Sanskritisation involves a gradual process of upward mobility for a caste, occurring over one or two generations.
• Mobility within Sanskritisation primarily leads to "positional changes" for specific castes or caste sections, without necessarily altering the overall caste structure.
• In this process, caste mobility is group-based, ensuring that caste members can find suitable marriage partners and counter threats from other castes.
• Castes with economic and political power but lower ritual ranking often engage in Sanskritisation to reinforce their claims to higher status.
• Economic improvement is not a prerequisite for Sanskritisation, nor does economic development always lead to it.
• Sometimes, a group may initially acquire political power, subsequently leading to economic development and Sanskritisation.
• Secular mobility is essential for Sanskritisation.
• Sanskritisation is not limited to the Hindu community; it can also be observed in tribal communities, leading to their identification as Hindus.
• Sanskritisation encompasses various models of mobility beyond the Brahmanical model, including Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra models.

Role of Sanskritisation as a Reference Group

• Sanskritisation serves as a reference group, guiding caste groups to align their beliefs, practices, values, attitudes, and lifestyles with those of superior or dominant groups.
• This process allows lower-status castes to gain recognition within society.

Variability of Sanskritisation

• Sanskritisation does not unfold uniformly in all regions; it varies depending on local conditions.

Impact of Sanskritisation as a Modernizing Force

• Modern education, Western literature, and philosophy have expanded people's mental horizons and introduced rationality and liberal ideas.
• Vedas and Upanishads have played a role in shaping human imagination.
• Reformist movements aimed to establish a social order based on Vedic teachings and rational interpretation, reducing the gap between ritual and secular rankings.
• The lower caste groups that gained secular power also sought the assistance of Brahmins in performing rituals and religious activities.

Sanskritisation Among Tribals

• The process among tribes is referred to as Hinduisation rather than Sanskritisation, as the focus is not solely on climbing the social hierarchy.
• Tribes do not necessarily seek higher status but may have it imposed on them by outsiders.
• Tribes that undergo Hinduisation often remain outside the hierarchical structure of Hindu society.

Criticisms of Sanskritisation

• Some scholars argue that Sanskritisation is a complex concept and its relationship to Sanskrit is intricate.
• It fails to account for cultural changes influenced by non-sanskritic traditions like the Bhakti movement, Buddhism, and Islamisation.
• Sanskritisation does not consider regional variations, as in northern India, where Islamic traditions influenced cultural imitation.
• Paradoxically, policies like affirmative action (reservation) may conflict with Sanskritisation by aiming to elevate the status of lower-caste and class individuals, presenting a challenge for the concept.

Westernisation

Introduction to Westernisation

• Westernisation of the caste system in India began with the efforts of missionaries to convert Indians to Christianity and the arrival of the East India Company, initially for trade and later to establish British Imperial Rule by 1858.
• British rule brought about profound and enduring changes in Indian society and culture, introducing new technology, institutions, knowledge, beliefs, and values.

Definition of Westernisation

• M.N. Srinivas defined Westernisation as "the changes brought about in Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule." This term encompasses changes at various levels, including technology, institutions, ideology, and values.

Meaning of Westernisation

• Compared to Sanskritisation, Westernisation is a simpler concept that explains the impact of Western contact, particularly British rule, on Indian society and culture.
• Westernisation implies certain value preferences, including humanitarianism, which involves a concern for the welfare of all human beings regardless of caste, economic status, religion, age, or gender.
• Westernisation encompasses not only the introduction of new institutions but also fundamental changes in existing ones.
• It does not impede the process of Sanskritisation; both processes occur concurrently, with Westernisation sometimes accelerating Sanskritisation.
• For instance, Western influences like postal services, railways, buses, and newspapers enable more organized religious pilgrimages, meetings, and caste solidarities.

M.N. Srinivas's Classification

• Srinivas categorized people based on their value orientation and outward behavior.
• Some individuals are both internally and externally Sanskritised, meaning their value structure and behavior align with traditional norms.
• Others are internally Sanskritised but externally Westernised, implying they follow traditional values but adopt Western habits and fashions.
• A third category exhibits both internal and external Sanskritisation.
• This classification helps understand how people balance tradition and modern identities, explaining change within continuity.

Impact of Westernisation

• Westernisation opened doors to knowledge, introducing Indian intelligentsia to the advancements in Europe following the Renaissance.
• During the latter half of the nineteenth century, the British government in India expanded access to education for all sections of society, irrespective of caste or creed, though initially, only a small portion of the population benefited.
• Modern education highlighted the flaws and inhuman practices within Indian society, such as untouchability, the ill-treatment of women, Sati, polygamy, and child marriage.
• It attracted the attention of intellectuals and social reformers, who advocated remedies for social, political, and economic issues.
• Modern education led to the abolition of Sati and slavery and reduced practices like female infanticide.
• Indian leaders gained the intellectual tools to challenge British colonial rule and understood the importance of liberty and freedom, studying the philosophies of thinkers like Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Voltaire, Spencer, and Burke.

Criticisms of Westernisation

• Critics argue that both Sanskritisation and Westernisation primarily analyze social change in cultural, rather than structural, terms, limiting their scope.
• While Srinivas claimed that Westernisation is ethically neutral, it is challenged by the contradictions found in Western models, such as racial prejudice, color segregation, and exploitative economic practices.
• Some objections include that Westernisation may not always involve Western countries but could also include Russia.
• The rise of an elite class in response to prolonged Western contact doesn't necessarily lead to ambivalence toward the West. Some non-Western countries may embrace ideologies like Communism.
• Westernisation in one area doesn't necessarily lead to Westernisation in another related area, and there are significant differences between Western countries.
• The distinctions between Sanskritisation and Westernisation include the former promoting a sacred outlook, while the latter promotes a secular one.
• Sanskritisation involves upward mobility through imitation, while Westernisation involves upward mobility through development.
• Sanskritisation occurs within the caste framework, whereas Westernisation happens outside of it.
• Sanskritisation often prohibits meat-eating and alcohol consumption, while Westernisation promotes them.
• Sanskritisation entails imitation of higher castes, especially the twice-born, while Westernisation involves imitation of the dominant community.
• Currently, the process of Westernisation is more prevalent than Sanskritisation due to strong exogenous forces of globalization.

Study of Village

Srinivas's Study of Village

• Srinivas, influenced by his mentor Radcliffe-Brown, developed an interest in studying Indian villages as a crucial aspect of Indian society.
• His study focused on Rampur, a village in Mysore, where he introduced the concept of the "dominant cast."
• This study is documented in "The Remembered Village," where Srinivas also explored the social and economic changes occurring in Rampura.
• He noted that technological change played a significant role in the village's life, alongside economic, political, and cultural shifts.

Srinivas's Aim and Focus

• Srinivas's primary aim was to understand Indian society, which he saw as fundamentally a caste society.
• His extensive studies covered various aspects of Indian society, including religion, family, caste, and village.
• He believed that Indian traditions were rooted in caste, village, and religion.
• Ideologically, he leaned towards maintaining the status quo, with high castes retaining their dominance over marginalized communities.
• Srinivas advocated for changes in caste, religion, and family structures, but he sometimes overlooked the lower segments of society, treating them as if they were "untouchables."

Srinivas's Perspective on Change

• While Srinivas discussed social issues and the need for change in the caste system, he viewed change from a Brahminical Hinduism or traditionalist perspective.
• His concept of Indian traditions was Hinduized, not secular.
• Srinivas rejected secularism and favored Hindu traditions, aligning himself with the ideology of Hindutva cultural nationalism.
• He believed that India required a new philosophy rooted in God as creator and protector to address its cultural and spiritual crises, dismissing secular humanism.

Srinivas's Limited Focus on Hindu Society

• Srinivas's studies mainly concentrated on Hindu society and culture and did not explore interactions with non-Hindu segments.
• The regions he studied had limited non-Hindu presence.
• He hoped that other sociologists would investigate the non-Hindu aspects of Indian society and culture to create a more comprehensive and authentic Indian sociology representative of India's complexity and diversity.
• In this context, it is noted that Srinivas considered himself more as an Indian sociologist studying Hindu religion and its social institutions through intensive fieldwork rather than exclusively a Hindu sociologist.

Assessment of Srinivas

M.N. Srinivas, while a prominent figure in Indian sociology, has faced several criticisms and assessments, which can be summarized as follows:

• Neglect of Lower Segments: Despite discussing economic and technological developments, Srinivas has been criticized for sidelining the lower segments of society in his studies. Some argue that he didn't give enough attention to the issues and challenges faced by marginalized communities.
• Marginalization of Religious Minorities: Srinivas's promotion of sanskritisation has been seen as marginalizing and alienating religious minorities. Critics argue that his focus on the Hinduization of traditions and social processes may not fully account for the diversity of India's religious landscape.
• Hindu-Centric View: Srinivas's definition of Indian traditions as primarily manifesting in caste and village life has been criticized for its Hindu-centric perspective. His focus on Hindu traditions may not adequately address the secular aspects of Indian society and culture.
• Alignment with Hindutva Ideology: Some argue that Srinivas's concepts of sanskritisation and dominant caste align him with the Hindutva ideology of cultural nationalism. They suggest that his understanding may reflect an elitist or upper-caste viewpoint.
• Lack of Originality: Srinivas's concepts of sanskritisation and westernization have been critiqued for lacking originality. Some argue that similar processes were observed and described by earlier proto-sociologists such as Lyall and Risley as "Aryanization" and "Brahminization." Srinivas's contributions may not be entirely novel in this context.
• Limited Originality of Concepts: The two processes, sanskritisation and westernization, have been observed by various sociologists, both in India and abroad. Some suggest that these concepts have historical and contextual specificities, and their origins may not solely be attributed to Srinivas.

Conclusion

Despite these criticisms, M.N. Srinivas remains a significant figure in Indian sociology, particularly among the first-generation sociologists. His emphasis on fieldwork and the "field view" as opposed to the "book view" was a noteworthy contribution to understanding the complex realities of Indian society. His studies among the Coorgs, for example, shed light on the interrelationship between rituals and social order, concepts of purity and pollution, and the incorporation of non-Hindu communities into the Hindu social order. Srinivas's work, particularly the concept of "sanskritisation," has contributed to the understanding of how Sanskritic values penetrated different parts of India.