The book-view and the field-view in Indian sociology.

The Book-View in Indian Sociology

The ‘book-view’ dominated early Indian sociology, particularly in the first half of the 20th century. This perspective involved interpreting Indian society through existing textual materials, primarily Sanskrit texts, historical records, and reports produced during British colonial rule. Key characteristics include:

• Reliance on Secondary Sources: Scholars primarily analyzed existing literature rather than conducting original fieldwork.
• Emphasis on Tradition and Ideal Types: Indian society was often portrayed as a static entity governed by ancient traditions and ideal types derived from scriptures.
• Indological Approach: A strong focus on interpreting Indian culture through the lens of Indology, often reinforcing existing colonial understandings.
• Limited Empirical Verification: Theories were rarely tested against real-world observations.

Early scholars like Ghurye utilized this approach extensively. G.S. Ghurye’s work on caste, for instance, relied heavily on textual interpretations of the Varna system. However, this approach was criticized for its lack of empirical grounding and its tendency to essentialize Indian society.

The Field-View in Indian Sociology

The ‘field-view’ emerged as a reaction against the limitations of the book-view. It advocated for direct, firsthand observation of social life through ethnographic fieldwork. Key features include:

• Emphasis on Empirical Research: Fieldwork, including participant observation, interviews, and surveys, became central to sociological inquiry.
• Focus on Local Specificities: Researchers sought to understand the complexities of social life at the local level, recognizing the diversity within Indian society.
• Rejection of Essentialism: The field-view challenged the notion of a monolithic Indian culture, highlighting the dynamic and changing nature of social institutions.
• Critical Engagement with Colonial Knowledge: Researchers aimed to deconstruct colonial representations of Indian society and offer alternative perspectives.

M.N. Srinivas is considered a pivotal figure in the transition from the book-view to the field-view. Initially, his work, like ‘Religion and Society among the Coorgs’ (1952), employed the field-view, providing a detailed ethnographic account of a specific community. He later introduced the concept of ‘Sanskritization’ – a process by which lower castes adopt the customs and practices of upper castes – which demonstrated the dynamic nature of the caste system and challenged traditional interpretations. Srinivas’s later work also acknowledged the influence of the book-view, recognizing the importance of understanding historical and textual contexts alongside empirical observations.

Comparing the Two Views

Feature	Book-View	Field-View
Methodology	Textual analysis, historical interpretation	Ethnographic fieldwork, participant observation
Data Source	Sanskrit texts, colonial reports, historical records	Direct observation, interviews, surveys
Focus	Tradition, ideal types, static structures	Local specificities, social change, dynamic processes
Key Proponents	G.S. Ghurye	M.N. Srinivas, Andre Beteille

The shift from the book-view to the field-view wasn’t a complete rejection of the former. Srinivas, for example, advocated for a combined approach, recognizing the value of both textual analysis and empirical research in understanding Indian society. Contemporary Indian sociology often integrates both perspectives, utilizing historical and textual sources to contextualize ethnographic findings.