Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
M.N. Srinivas (1916-1999) was a prominent Indian sociologist known for his pioneering work on caste and social change in India. He is best known for developing the concept of ‘Sanskritization’, a process of social mobility. Srinivas adopted a structural-functionalist perspective, influenced by Radcliffe-Brown and Émile Durkheim, to understand Indian society. Structural functionalism views society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. Srinivas applied this framework to analyze how different social structures, particularly the caste system, functioned and how they underwent change through processes like Sanskritization, aiming to understand the underlying logic and equilibrium within the social system.
Structural Functionalism: The Theoretical Foundation
Structural functionalism posits that society is analogous to a biological organism, with various institutions (family, religion, economy, polity) functioning as organs contributing to the overall stability and survival of the system. Each structure has a function, and the system strives for equilibrium. Srinivas utilized this perspective to analyze Indian social structures, viewing caste as a relatively stable system with inherent functions, despite its hierarchical nature. He believed that understanding the functions of caste was crucial to understanding Indian society.
Sanskritization: A Key Application
Srinivas’s most significant contribution is the concept of ‘Sanskritization’. This refers to a process whereby lower castes adopt the ritual and cultural practices of the upper castes, particularly Brahmins, in an attempt to enhance their social status. This isn’t merely imitation; it involves a conscious effort to emulate the lifestyle, customs, and values of the ‘reference group’ – the dominant caste.
- Process: Lower castes adopt vegetarianism, Brahmanical rituals, and dress codes.
- Motivation: Driven by a desire for social mobility and acceptance.
- Outcome: Leads to a perceived improvement in social status, though not necessarily a change in economic or political power.
Srinivas argued that Sanskritization demonstrated the inherent plasticity of the caste system. While the system was hierarchical, it wasn’t rigid; lower castes could improve their position through adopting upper-caste practices. He saw this as a functional adaptation within the system, allowing for social mobility without fundamentally disrupting the social order.
Beyond Sanskritization: Other Applications
Srinivas extended his structural-functionalist approach to other aspects of Indian society. He studied the ‘dominant caste’ – the land-controlling caste in a village – and its role in maintaining social order. He argued that the dominant caste often acted as a reference group for other castes, influencing their behavior and values. He also examined the impact of modernization and Westernization on Indian society, viewing these as forces that could disrupt the traditional social order but also create new opportunities for social change.
Critique of Srinivas’s Approach
Despite its contributions, Srinivas’s structural-functionalist approach has faced criticism:
- Conservative Bias: Critics argue that it tends to emphasize social stability and downplays conflict and power imbalances. By focusing on how the system maintains equilibrium, it overlooks the exploitation and oppression inherent in the caste system.
- Ignoring Agency: The approach is sometimes seen as deterministic, minimizing the agency of individuals and groups to challenge and change the social order.
- Limited Scope: The focus on ritual and cultural aspects of Sanskritization neglects the economic and political dimensions of social change.
Furthermore, the concept of Sanskritization has been criticized for romanticizing the process and overlooking the potential for conflict and resistance. Andre Beteille, for example, argued that Sanskritization often involves a rejection of traditional occupations and a pursuit of status symbols rather than genuine social transformation.
| Aspect | Srinivas’s View | Criticism |
|---|---|---|
| Caste System | Relatively stable, functional system | Reinforces hierarchy and inequality |
| Social Change | Gradual, through Sanskritization | Ignores conflict and power dynamics |
| Agency | Limited role for individual agency | Underestimates the capacity for resistance |
Conclusion
M.N. Srinivas’s structural-functionalist approach provided a valuable framework for understanding the dynamics of Indian society, particularly the caste system and the process of Sanskritization. While his work has been subject to criticism for its conservative bias and limited scope, it remains a foundational contribution to Indian sociology. His emphasis on understanding the functions of social structures and the mechanisms of social change continues to inform sociological research in India today. However, a more nuanced understanding requires incorporating perspectives that acknowledge power imbalances, conflict, and the agency of marginalized groups.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.