André Béteille's definition of class.

André Béteille’s Definition of Class

André Béteille doesn’t offer a single, concise definition of class. Instead, his understanding evolved through his extensive fieldwork and theoretical engagements. He fundamentally views class as a system of social inequality based on economic factors, but crucially, he argues that these factors operate within a specific socio-cultural context. He rejects the purely economic determinism of Marxist class analysis, particularly its applicability to the Indian context.

Key Components of Béteille’s Conceptualization

1. Economic Criteria & Ownership of Property

Béteille acknowledges the importance of economic factors, particularly ownership of property, as a basis for class differentiation. However, he emphasizes that in India, land ownership is particularly significant. Unlike industrial capital, land ownership often carries social prestige and political power, intertwining economic and social dimensions of class. He argues that the control over productive resources, especially land, is a primary determinant of class position.

2. Ritual Ranking & Caste

A crucial element distinguishing Béteille’s approach is his recognition of the enduring influence of caste and ritual ranking in India. He argues that caste continues to shape class relations, even in modern India. While economic factors can influence caste mobility, caste itself often acts as a constraint or facilitator of economic advancement. He observed that even with economic changes, traditional hierarchies based on ritual status often persist and influence social interactions and opportunities.

3. Power & Political Influence

Béteille also highlights the role of power and political influence in shaping class structures. He argues that access to political resources and the ability to exercise power are important dimensions of class. This is particularly relevant in India, where political patronage and corruption can significantly impact economic opportunities and social mobility. Landowning castes often wield significant political power, reinforcing their class position.

4. The ‘Dominant Caste’ Concept

Béteille’s work is closely linked to the concept of the ‘dominant caste’ developed by M.N. Srinivas. He argues that dominant castes often control economic resources, exercise political influence, and maintain social dominance, shaping the class structure in rural India. This dominance isn’t solely based on economic factors but also on social and political control.

Béteille’s Critique of Marxist Class Analysis

Béteille critiques the Marxist emphasis on the proletariat and bourgeoisie as the primary classes in modern society. He argues that this framework is inadequate for understanding the complexities of class in India, where the agrarian sector remains dominant and caste continues to play a significant role. He contends that the Indian class structure is more fragmented and multi-dimensional than the simple binary model proposed by Marx. He also points out that the Indian middle class is a significant and growing social force, which doesn’t fit neatly into the Marxist framework.

Illustrative Example: Land Ownership and Caste in Rural India

Consider a village in Uttar Pradesh. A Brahmin caste group may traditionally own a significant portion of the land. Even if some members of lower castes acquire land through economic means, the Brahmins may retain social prestige and political influence due to their historical dominance and caste status. This illustrates how economic factors (land ownership) are intertwined with social factors (caste) in shaping class relations, as highlighted by Béteille.

Feature	Marxist Class Analysis	Béteille’s Class Analysis
Primary Basis	Ownership of Means of Production	Economic factors (land ownership), Ritual Ranking, Power
Focus	Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie	Multi-dimensional class structure, dominant castes
Context	Industrialized Societies	Agrarian Societies (specifically India)