Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.

in

Louis Dumonts Perspective on Caste System

In 1970s, French sociologist Louis Dumont in his seminal work Homo Hierarchicus: Caste System and Its
Implication, 1966 synthesized macro perspective of Ghurye with micro perspective of empirical studies,
thus, combining text with context. His theory of caste hierarchy locates its basis in pollution and
purity distinction and it is a special type of inequality according to him.
I.
II.

He borrowed theoretical framework from Levis Strauss which calls for identification of binary
opposites and applied it in Indian context as caste being opposition of pure and impure.
He was also deeply influenced by Bougles cultural explanation of caste and his ideas that
division of labor in caste system is not on economic basis, but cultural basis and hence not
exploitative. Bougle further argues that position of every other caste is relative to Brahmins and
they evaluate themselves taking position of Brahmins as reference and every caste is concerned
with its boundary maintenance. He condensed the 3 core features of Bougle into one all
encompassing principle of caste as an ideology of separation of pure and impure.

Thus, he sees caste from an ideological perspective and not just an empirical realty. Louis Dumont
constructed a textually-informed image of caste which according to him is a combination of Indological
and structuralist approach with dual focus on ideology as well as structure.
According to him, caste plays an integrative role in Indian society and is distinctive of India and he sees
caste system in terms of ideas and values i.e. caste system is an ideology. Ideology of Indian society is
in binary opposition with Western ideology modern against tradition, holism against individualism,
hierarchy against equality, purity against pollution and status against power. Dumont emphasized on
ideology as it is reflected through ancient texts.
According to Dumont, caste hierarchy is a peculiar feature of Indian society and there cannot be any
cross cultural comparisons of caste system. He further says that hierarchy is of status and hence is
independent of power. According to him even kings were subordinate to priests. This hierarchy, and
hence separation of pure and impure, is evident in other fields of Hindu life as well. Jajmani as an
economic system is also dominated by hierarchy and not principles of economics. Similarly, aspects of
civil life such as marriage, eating, socialization are governed by hierarchy.
Louis Dumont in his Homo Hierarchicus The Caste System and Its Implication, 1966 conceptualized
caste as opposition of pure and impure. Three elements are central to his analysis
I.
II.
III.

Division of labor on basis of pure and impure

Superiority of pure over impure
The separation of the two

These unique core principles of caste-hierarchy, according to Dumont, are observed in scriptural
formulation as well as the every-day life of all Hindus. He identified a number of pure and impure
practices which are attached with notions of purity and impurity. Endogamy, cleanliness, vegetarianism
are considered pure and superior. Accordingly, those who are engaged in impure occupations are
separated from the class of sacred/pure occupations. Pure and impure are attached to not only
occupation, but to the entire structure of ideas.

 Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in

The interactional approach to caste (as used by Beteille) draws attention to the structural aspect as
opposed to attributional/ritual/cultural one. However, for an institution like caste the 'ideology'
supporting it is of critical importance for proper understanding of caste and the identity politics of
today. According to him, caste is a set of relationships of economic, political and kinship systems
sustained by certain values which are mostly religious in nature.
In the Indian context Dumont has made an incisive statement against the use of stratification model for
caste in his Homo Hierarchicus has forced attention to the ideological approach once again. According
to him, caste is not a form of stratification, but a special form of inequality and hierarchy is the central
tenet of this system. According to him, in Indian context, opposition of equality is hierarchy. Dumont
defines hierarchy as the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole.
His concept of Homo-Hierarchicus has built up a model of Indian civilization based on non-competitive
ritual hierarchical system.
In urging the relevance of the principle of hierarchy, Dumont notes how alien it is to the modern
mentality. Modern man's ideology is decidedly egalitarian and individualistic, diametrically opposite to a
hierarchical and collectivist one.
According to him, principle of purity and pollution is universal irrespective of region and class. He thus
rejects Srinivas idea that caste hierarchy has both ritual and secular streams. Ritual hierarchy always
dominates secular status. Division of labor is culturally defined and not by economic needs.
He also analyzed caste in changing times and according to him, overall framework has not changed.
There is change in society and not of society. One significant change that has taken place is that
traditional interdependence has been replaced by competing interests which he termed as
substantialisation of caste.
However, critics question his approach for being too textual. Andre Beteille says his views are much on
what caste ought to be and not what caste today is. Superiority of Brahmins claimed by him is also
questioned by others who see power concentrated in hands of kings. Beteille blames Dumont in
particular for encouraging a caste-view of Indian society. Gerald Berreman rejects his idea of impurity
or pollution and cites example of foothills of Himalaya, where people never considered themselves
impure in terms of mannerism, food habits etc. According to him caste is a product of domination and
sub-domination. Dumont has almost tried to represent caste as a static concept and Indian society a
stagnated society. Gerald Berreman also criticized Dumonts notion that power and economic factors
are distinct from caste. Similarly, Dipankar Guptas study of Jats in North India indicates that Jat consider
Brahmins as idle, lazy and greedy contrary to Dumonts understanding o Brahmins as pure, sacred and
high placed. His critics compare him to new Manu and his idea of Homo-hierachicus as new
Manusmriti. Yogendra Singh accuses him of obsessed with integrational aspects of caste. According to
Hira Singh in his Recasting Caste, 2014, Dumonts approach is overburdened with religion and it also
fails to see that caste was never a rigid fixed entity even in ancient India.
Despite criticism, his approach to caste study is unique and thought provoking. In words of T N Madan,
Indian sociology must have been poorer to a great extent without contribution of Dumont.

 Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in

Andre Beteilles Perspective on Caste System

Understanding of Beteille is diffusive and he adopts an interactional approach rather than unidimensional approach to describe caste. He started his analysis of caste from the empirical study of
caste in village of Sripuram in Tanjore district of Tamil Nadu (Sripuram: A Village in Tanjore District,
1962) which he also explained in his book Case, Class and Power: Changing Patterns of Stratification in a
Tanjore Village,1965. He also wrote many other essays and books like Social and Cultural
Reproduction of Caste, Kinship and Occupation in India, Inequalities among Men, 1977, The Backward
Classes in Contemporary India, 1992 etc.
While Ghurye and Dumont focused only on ideological/ritual aspect of caste only, Beteille casts his net
wider to understand Indian society and adopts a trinitarian approach of Weber. According to him, along
with caste, one should also study kinship, class and power as well. So, according to him structural
aspects of caste mainly economic and political dimensions have remained underestimated by these
thinkers. So, he advocates studying of relations between upper caste and lower caste, between
landowning and land landless caste, between Jajman and Kamin etc should be studied from structural
perspective also by using universal stratification as a general phenomenon. His analysis is also useful in
showing that empirical reality of caste is remarkably different from the cultural ideal type of caste.
His multi-dimensional view affords us a better view of society as a whole and caste in relation to other
social dimensions. For example, according to his study, he concluded that Kinships also play an
important role as individuals often chose the occupation of their parents. This influence of kin is evident
in Industry, cinema and politics as well. So, his focus is not on hierarchy of caste alone, but stratification
in general. His understanding of caste is reflexive and it doesnt take a stereotypical approach.
In Sripuram, it was not only Brahmins that maintained distance from other castes, but Adi-Dravidians (so
called depressed classes) also avoided mixing with Brahmins as they saw doing so will attract
misfortune. Thus, it rejects view of Ghurye, Dumont and others which saw caste as a uniform
phenomenon with implicit superiority of Brahmins. Further, lower castes were equally concerned about
boundary maintenance and less keen on Sanskritization. He also noticed that sub-castes among even
Brahmins have unequal relations. For example Iyenger Brahmins deem themselves ritually purest.
He observes that, education becomes open and Dravidians too are able to place themselves in white
collar jobs. Within village also, land had come into market and Brahmins have also sold their land in
many instances and Adi-Dravidians bought in other. As land comes in open market, the productive
organization of village tended to be free from the structure of caste. Thus, due to these factors, power
structure in villages also changes. Caste alone is now not the only determinant of status and power.
According to Beteille, shift from traditional occupation also impact social standing of caste groups. Most
Brahmins are now either in government jobs or in agriculture. This has also impacted relations of
Brahmins with other castes.
Further, according to him inter-relation between caste, class and power is not as harmonious as it was
before which is attributed to factors like growth of education, secularization of society and
occupations, migration, politics and democracy etc. Further, dilution of values, decline of Jajmani system
have contributed to hierarchical gradation of caste in India.

 Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in

However, caste dimension still remains and India has gone for only selective modernization and not
complete modernization as explained by Yogendra Singh neither has it remained totally traditional as
Dumont has put it. Andre Beteille observes that power has shifted from one dominant caste to another
and it is shifted from the caste structure itself, and come to be located in more differentiated structures
such as panchayats and political parties.
He is sometimes criticized for being obsessed with only understanding the dynamism of caste through
three hierarchies only and also accused of narrow empiricism for generalization from the study of a
single village of Southern India.
Work

Perspective
Methods
Key idea
Features

Future of caste

Criticism

DUMONT
BETEILLE
Homo hierachicus Caste System and Its Caste, Class and Power Changing
Implications 1966
patterns of stratification in a Tanjore
village, 1965
Structural Indological
Weberian Trinitarian; Multidimensional
view
Book View
Direct Observation; Ethnographic studies
Purity-Impurity
Caste, Class and Power Nexus
a. Hierarchy is core of caste system
a. Ritual Status is not the only
b. Indian society is based on hierarchy
determinant of structural relations
Homo Hierarchichus and Western b. Power and Class also play important
Society is based on equality Homo
role
Aquealis
c. Villages are integrated with wider
c. Hierarchy is understood in terms of
society Systemic view
purity and impurity
d. Structural shifts are happening
d. In distinction of purity and impurity,
Landed elite from upper caste no
implicit is notion of superiority and
longer call the shots
inferiority
e. Ritual Status and Power are distinct
in caste system. This also implies that
there is no parallel of Indian caste
system
a. Ritual Status to remain significant
a. Becomes more complex Caste,
b. Substantialisation of Caste going on
Class and Power Nexus
c. Change in society will happen and b. Caste no longer basis of occupations
not change of society
a. Berrmen criticize him for looking at a. Narrow Empiricism A single village
power and status in dichotomous
study cannot be generalized for
terms as more often than not they are
whole India
two sides of same coin
b. Too much of Indology, sweeping
inferences drawn from Sanskritic
Classical texts which contradict with
todays ground reality

 Nitin Sangwan www.meandupsc.blogspot.in

c. Caste is almost seen as functional
when he talks it as functional
necessity ignored the conflict that
exist