Session 5: Historicising Caste and Community (Summary and Qs)

Summary of Readings:

Guha: Beyond Caste; Identity and Power in South Asia – Past and Present

Guha opens his book with the sociologist’s Surinder Jodhka’s observation that though the Western Orientalist’s classical conception of caste has been criticised it has never been replaced. I.e. ‘the ideological dimension of caste dominates academic and popular understanding’ while its political economy is neglected. Guha suggests that his book is meant to address this gap and it has two goals – present a new historically informed understanding of South Asian state and society. Second, provide a basis for comparative understanding of processes of ethnic politics.Here it is worthwhile to note that for Guha, building on Barth’s model, caste is ‘an ethnic group within a larger society which tends to marry endogamously and be ranked relative to others’. Barth, a political anthropologist was one of the first to suggest that ethnicity develops in mutual contact and not in isolation.Guha considers it futile to find a single unified rationale for caste, as it is a complex process of stratification and not a simple static hierarchy. He convincingly argues this through the course of his book based on the examples he presents, right from the early historic period (i.e. covering about 1000 years of South Asian socio-political history).His main arguments are that caste is not bound to religion (he shows this through examples of Muslim and Christian groups which maintain caste hierarchies, like the Parava community studied by Susan Bayly or the Goan community).Second that caste is ‘politically inflected’ i.e. it’s conceptualisation, possible transformation and sustenance is linked to both political power and economic motives. (He argues this through a number of examples at different scales of ‘political’ power starting with the micro-region or janapada, the village and the household – Chapters 2,3 and 4).Third, that caste is an ongoing process of stratification and not simple bounded hierarchy. He argues that in spite of a range of critiques it is still popularly believed that such an idea of caste came into existence in the colonial period. And that this was due to governmental importance given to enumeration and statistics. Guha disagrees with this formulation and based on examples he shows that enumeration was a feature of pre-colonial / early modern kingships as well and that the colonial period did not bring in a ‘rupture’. Rather the scale and level of enumeration changed in this period. In this context he considers that though Susan Bayly and Dirks played important roles in arguing for a link between colonial power and knowledge transformation of Indian society they failed to take this theorisation further by falling into what he calls the ‘Brahminical trap’. I.e. of attributing power to the Brahmins (or a cultural framing of caste) rather than forms of kingship (or a political framing of caste). Guha attempts to bring this up through the book through use of archival material that has not been looked at or neglected – what he calls non-standard areas and time periods.Chapter 1 notes how caste became key to identity. He argues this was because it has always been an instrument of state power – starting with the origin of the term caste from Portuguese and its link with purity and pollution from Portuguese society.Chapter 2 focuses on the micro-region or janapada (or people with territory) which could be considered the base unit for rule by kingship. He argues that tribes, castes and monarchies all co-existed and one did not lead to the other. I.e. he disagrees with the evolutionary model of social progress (as propounded by DD Kosambi and the American School of Anthropology for example).Chapters 3 similarly looks at the political and administrative lives but of villages. Here he compares the Jajaamani and Baluta systems of organising village life. The former i.e. a system of service and dependence on a patriarch has been considered the typical model pan-India and he convincingly argues otherwise by taking examples from Western India.In chapter 4 on households, Guha highlights the position that the household received in the governance structure both in colonial and precolonial times which continues till date as a means of legitimising their power and also securing financial benefits and thus is more important than the kinship. Through examples of kingly households, he elaborates on the generational aspect of the occupation and securing of loyalty and building alliances between families for political assertion. One of the ways through which household matters became important to the ruling elites was due to collection of taxes from the household dispute cases. This became not only an important revenue collection stream but also a way to secure ruling elites legitimacy in arbitration of family disputes. Thus household became an important cog in the political apparatus. In this chapter, Guha also points to the feature of loyalty and service associated with a particular household and children born to servants of the kingly household became ‘khanazad’, a common term to denote service and devotion. Exploitation of this loyalty became an important political strategy to win against the enemy. Guha also shows how political and matrimonial alliances made membership to a kinship socially constructed and fluid. An interesting aspect that is mentioned in this chapter is the inferior treatment of Euro-Asian Englishmen or British children who were born and brought up in India. This was done to discourage settlement of private Europeans in India which could have eventually undermined East India Company’s hold in the country.In chapter 5, Guha is pointing to some features which differentiated colonial period from before. He argues that although the modern bureaucracy has its roots in early modern era, it is the tenacity, persistence, and success that separates colonial regimes form before and its reach in the remotest possible places. Under colonial rule, practically everyone became their subject. Printing technology also played a huge role in it in disseminating state to the vast landscape. Census also, which has been in practice in precolonial eras, gained much prominence due to this and had a totalising impact on political landscape of the country. Such form of knowledge creation was essential to assert and retain power both in colonial and pre-colonial times, however, the colonial census project became important part of south Asian identity creation. Through various historical cases, Guha showcases the various methods used by precolonial rulers in an attempt to gather as much and as correct information as much possible since this was in integral part of maintaining power and control. Guha also mentions that this crucial information gathering exercise created certain elites who had the skill of collecting this information and thus power which changed land ownership in some places where these record keepers using their exclusive knowledge and skill base would eventually become the owners of the land. Guha also mentioned that these enumerations were mainly done for money and force, both important political tools. It was important for the precolonial rulers to know their sources of income, and also who were part of their military as also others since political alliances could be won or lost based on the social structure of the military. On the caste and ethnicity front, what this enumeration did was create caste specific categories for tax collection where the tax rates depended on affiliation to the ruling ethnicity, own calibre to cultivate, aggression, and violent tactics adopted by tenants; and caste categorisation became the basis for revenue collection which in turn fixed the identities of people. Guha also elaborates on the issues of colonial information gathering enterprise where (wild tribes) which could not be put under the varna system and also needed to be dealt separately, and this information was also contingent on the knowledge and skill of the British officers in charge and the regions surveyed.Chapter 6 takes the discussion further into the colonial period and showcases the influence of market on the social and political landscape. Urban life was beginning to take shape which retained a more corporate life different than the village. Although caste hierarchies were visible and getting reinforced, anti-caste movements also started to take form in this period. Guha also highlights the discord between the East India Company and the British military and strategies adopted by them to remain in power. The company invoked the emotion of serving mother country and was able to influence Englishmen serving under local rulers to avoid the coup, the British military, on the other hand, used local alliances to overthrow the company.Many caste groups came to prominence in the early 20^th century with the changing political scene in the country and to assert themselves. This was the volatile period when electoral politics was taking shape in the country and various caste groups made alliances with each other to gather populous momentum for political gain.

Dirks: The invention of caste: Civil society in colonial India

Dirks challenges the Western Orientalist view of ‘Oriental Despotism’ – that the State (pre-modern and pre-colonial) overwhelmingly intervenes in peoples’ lives such that they are left with little or no choice but to act in a predetermined manner – by reviewing the construction of caste as a category. This is because caste is seen as central or key to understanding South Asian and Indian Society, such that the Western Orientalist definition of the category, as unchanging hereditary tradition that binds one to particular roles based on religious sanction, dominates.In this paper Dirks looks at colonial processes of enumeration, mapping, counting, through the example of Colin McKenzie’s ethnographic and cartographic work in the 1800s. Based on McKenzie’s work he shows that although such processes of enumeration may seem objective and neutral they are anything but. He thus effectively argues that politics as ‘power’ has always been a part of culture and cultural categories like ‘caste’.  And that Indian sociology and anthropology need to let go of the ‘ghost of colonial sociology’ as subscribed to by Dumont and Weber.Dirk’s paper links with Guha’s book in that Guha defends Dirk’s view of power as always part and parcel in the making of culture and tradition. However Guha considers that Dirks over ascribes the power of colonial discourses and practices in such making and rupturing of pre-modern / pre-colonial Indian society.

Fuller: Caste

Fuller begins the chapter by defining caste which he understand as a homogeneous, endogamous unit which falls in a hierarchical order and remains constant for a person and is hereditary and occupation specific. He then emphasis that such form of caste system is changing in modern India where occupations are not rigidly followed on caste lines and due to much political movement to erase the caste based discrimination, the hierarchical system has also broken down, however, caste is increasingly gaining increasing prominence in electoral politics. Fuller then argues that in the first century of British rule caste system was much more fluid, less hierarchical, and less central to society and the rigidity and centrality that we see in caste system today is a product of British Raj. Fuller also questions “village studies” conducted between 1950s and 1970s which instead of seeing villages as a historical product, essentialised them as “traditional” villages with “traditional” caste system, timeless in nature. Fuller then explained Dumont’s structuralist approach while explaining Indian caste system and his concept of purity and pollution to describe the Hindu varna system. Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus, although highly influential, was also criticised heavily for its excessive focus on “traditional;” hierarchy and Brahminical religious ideology. Although, Fuller also criticised the critiques of Dumont citing that they didn’t fully understand Dumont’s affiliation to Brahminical religious ideology. Fuller takes the discussion further in contemporary India and mentions that where caste has become more rigid today, it is also fading away from many spheres, especially public and urban life. Fuller also analyses caste in non-Hindus and concludes that it cannot be generalised and that internal divisions in non-Hindus depend upon the political factors. Fuller examines the caste coming to the forefront of political claims post-independence in the form of reservations which has made caste and religion central to Indian politics.

Krupa and Priya

Session 4: Identity and Subjectivity (Summary and Qs)

Summary of readings:

1) Sherry Ortner: Identities: The Hidden Life of Class

Ortner’s first chapter on Identities focusses on question of foregrounding and/or backgrounding race/ethnicity and class. She has used class as defined by Marx as a position created by the mode of production, although, she continuously challenged any uniform notion of class in her essay. Her main argument is the essay is that “American class discourse is in certain important respects fused with ethnicity and race” and it is not separate from each other. Her analysis is based on the question of what constitutes American middle class, how it is constituted and where does race/ethnicity fall in this constitution. She argues that race/ethnicity and class do not exist in pure form, separate from each other but as a fusion and it needs to be seen like that, that each is hidden within the other. This essay also attempts to show that race and ethnicity are class-ist in notion and class is also socially constructed.

Ortner argues that although class appears to be an economically generated category, it is racially and ethnically constructed and same can be said for the other way round. She also critically engages with the term ‘middle class’ and what it contains. There is no sanitised form of “class” that exists. It continues to transform, break apart and gets reformed depending on the times we live in. There is no one constant characteristic of any class. Each person has their own way of categorising themselves and also separating themselves with other classes. This self-identification also has to do with the racial and ethnic identity of people which are clearly divided.

Where class has been considered objective category defined through the position in mode of production, race and ethnicity are natural and categories. She also mentions that class is not well understood by people as opposed to race and ethnicity. For race and ethnicity, everyone has some presuppositions about the particularity of behaviours, history, and culture of that group.

Ortner mentions that in the ethnography of Hollywood culture, the ethnic identity is not shared to be a contributing element to the insecurities among the filmmakers but rather a general personal economic insecurity. The author refused to account for the insecurity that comes with being Jewish. In the ethnographic study on Hollywood, an economic class is formed of particular ethnicity which is not given due analysis by the author.

Ortner highlights that some scholars argued that Jewish were not with middle class values but rather their economic success led to them having middle class values and this success was due to certain specific material and historical factors which included federal programs to support middle class, rather than cultural factors. She argues against this notion and attempts to even go the extent of possible calling the middle class to be inherently Jewish implying that all middle class has Jewish like values. This case was made through role of media, especially films, television and journalism which also contributes to the making of what we think as middle class and American culture and also that Jews dictated media and what being "American" means and what are the middle class values.

These questions about which (race/ethnicity and class) influenced what has also given rise to the debate on the genesis of capitalism itself. Where Weber claimed that it was credit to Protestants, Sombart contested that it was Jews after all.

Although Ortner continuously mentions that what constitutes class has forever being under transformation, there is an inherent assumption of what a particular class identity constitutes of. This essay nowhere clearly defines the what middle class identity or what Jewish values she is implying to, though there are certain references to an American dream but it appeared little too vague considering the project she undertook of dismantling the race/ethnicity and class separation in the literature.

The question here also arises on how do we talk about class in India? The middle class is formed of all kind of groups but a certain economic class in a certain domain is also ethnically divided. How to incorporate these in the Indian scenario? What is middle class here? What does media showcases?

2) Sherry Ortner: Subjectivity and Cultural Critique

Chapter 5 is more theoretical with philosophical undertones. Ortner attempts to provide a background on the creation of subjects within the discourses of freedom and constraint. How the subject exists if it does, and if it doesn’t then why? What other scholars have opined about this.

For Durkheim, "subject" was merely a tool through which "social" operated. It lacked "agency", for most part. Levi-strauss took away whatever little agency that Durkheim provided the "subject". Myths operate in men's mind without them being aware of it. “Freedom” here implies contained within the subject and “constraint” implies the social that bounds that subject. Arguments for structuralism were where individual seizes to hold control. Unconscious social takes precedence over conscious subject.

Bourdieu argued that subjects act within the limit of social structure, their habitus while Giddens - emphasised on agency. Ortner, in her essay is calling to focus on the human in the so called human science thus wants to bring back the focus on subjectivity. Also, she further mentions, that it is politically important. Agency is necessary to understand how people act when they are constantly acted upon. In that, she agrees with Giddens that actors are partially knowing. However, Ortner's analysis is in complement to Bourdieu's habitus and not a replacement of it. She uses subjectivity as both an individual's psychological sense (inner feelings, desires, anxieties, intentions etc.) and at larger cultural formation level.

Geertz defined culture as the worldview and ethos of a particular group of people, shared by all members of that group and culture process within philosophical and literary theory which emphasises on the construction of meaning, and of subjectivities though symbolic processes embedded in the social world.

Ortner argues against the first notion of Geertz "culture". Firstly, how can everyone share the same worldview and same orientation towards it, given the various forms of social differences and inequalities? And secondly, by seeing culture to be homogenous for a group, it also essentialises the group. That some single essence can define all of that one group. This essesntialism is catastrophic since one culture can be defined by acts of few and prejudiced accordingly. She agreed more with Raymond William who viewed culture as hegemony. Many studies have portrayed culture as a political critique. Many marginalised communities make meaningful lives for themselves within the groups that they inhabit. Culture is part of a shared history, identity, worldview and ethos. Culture is also, in some sense, resistance to the structures of dominations.

Weber argues that Protestant doctrines shaped the capitalist subjects. The doctrines about loneliness and fate both provided with the problem and the solution- to be involved in intense worldly activities, systematic self-control etc, which served to be a capitalist subject. Thus the argument that Ortner makes here is that cultural and religious subjects are produced by a complex set of subjectivities, feelings, fears etc. Weber discussed the ways in which Protestantism has shaped the consciousness of the early modern subject. The doctrine of predestination has the psychological bearing that one's fate is decided and it cannot be discovered. The agency from the individual is taken away and given to some remote entity.

Ortner uses the study by Jameson and focusses on the example of the hotel which can be seen as a metaphor for the postmodern world that we are living in. It lacks personalisation, is like a maze, over bearing and there is feeling of getting lost in this. There are no road maps here to guide guest. However, the guests seem to have retaliated since the colour coded signs were recently added indicating objection from some people. And this is where the agency of the individual exercised where the world is not taken for granted and questioned.

Ortner is trying to argue that late capitalism has profoundly affected the consciousness- job insecurity, no transparency in working culture, no longer engagement with the company, short term outsourced projects, bias against older workers. While this is the case that in this new regime of capital, confusion, lack of clarity, depression, indifference etc. form the subjectivities of the workers, agency is not absent in this chaos and indifference. Ortner agrees with Sennet that there is a need for coherent personal narrative. Individuals need to make sense of their own experiences and have a coherent narration of that. Ortner is arguing in her essay that focus should be on both, the state of mind of the actor and also cultural formations that shape that mind.

3) Stuart Hall : Who needs identity?

Hall begins by asking question around identity, what it is and 'who needs it'? Borrowing from the Derridian idea of a concept that is operating 'under erasure' looks at questions of agency and politics. Conceptualisation of identity is done using discourses of discursive and pschyoanaltics alongside of fields of semantics. While discursive approach looks at identity as an ongoing process, psychoanalysis along with semantics looks at identity as first form of association with another being.

Contextualisation of identity with the lens of historicity and power structures then becomes a product of 'difference and exclusion' rather than naturalist mode of seemingly 'identical'. Therefore identity is formed in context of the other rather than the similar. Hall also critics the homogeneity assumed in identity as it can never be all encompassing and the margins that lay within any identity formation and what it leaves out in process of identity formation. He recognises the duality of meeting point of 'discourses, practices, tradition' in the 'social' while also looking at individual 'subjectivities'.

In a postmodernist world, hall looks further away from the stabilised, unified and predictable identities to more fragmented identities. Identity as being plural, open ended and perhaps in conflict with one another. The idea of ideology and belief system which is overarching under the modes of socio-economic system that one is part of and the individual psychic lead to these complexities of identity formation.

4) Zygmunt Bauman: From Pilgrim to Tourist or a short history of identity

Bauman in the piece tries to reflect upon the question of identity from a vantage point of modernity and post-modernity. The primary argument is based on "If the modern 'problem of identity' was how to construct an identity and keep it solid and stable, the postmodern 'problem of identity' is primarily how to avoid fixation and keep the options open."

This is done through understanding and meaning making of pilgrim identity. Looking at various identities that one can take and discard in the notion of pilgrim. Understanding the concept of pilgrim is embedded in historic reference from the point of view of Catholic Christian where the pilgrim visit to city is not about the structures of the city but about meaning making with god. However the Protestants morphed the definition to ‘inner worldly pilgrims’ and embarked upon pilgrimage without leaving home. Using the metaphors of desert, journey and meaning making of identity of pilgrim to a vagabond or to stroller and that of tourist ambivalent nature of these identities is pointed out.

5) Chris Weedon: Subjectivity and identity

Weedon understands identity not as an accomplished fact, but a continuous process of reconfigurations and productions. Individuals are situated within specific discourses and they continue to perform modes of subjectivity associated with the same till the point that they are naturalized as a part of their lived subjectivity. The practices and positions that they assume come to define what it means to identify with a particular discourse, rather than the discourse defining the former. Identities may be socially, culturally and institutionally assigned whereby social and cultural practices produce discourses which solicit active identification and compliance on part of the individuals.

Identities are often internalized to the point that they are assumed repeatedly over the course of one's daily life. This is what Judith Butler defines as 'performativity'. Performativity should not be understood as a singular or deliberate act but a reiterative practice, where individuals are situated within specific discourses and they continue to perform modes of subjectivity in their daily lives, to the point that the effects of such performances and the practices are viewed as correlational and interchangeable. Through continued usage and performance of such functions and roles that are associated with certain identities, these subjectivities become internalized. Depending on the position of a particular identity in the broader societal power structure, these practices and themes of identification either seeps into and defines mainstream culture or become the basis of dis-identification and counter-identifications which seek to reject hegemonic identity norms.

Certain identities that are operational in society are not open to appropriation by everyone and are often restricted to specific groups that are segregated on the basis of distinct discourses. Non-identification by an individual leads to a sense of non-subjectivity, lack of association and thereby, agency. Consequently, s/he must fall back on subjectivities to which access is not stringently regulated. Mobility amongst these varying categories of identity is guided by the situational context in which individuals find themselves. Individuals navigate in between these identities, associating with those categories which would secure for them the maximum social advantages in a particular situation. In most instances, such decisions are motivated by an array of considerations ranging from the fear of dissociation from the group with which individuals seek associate, to establishing associative links with a collective for the purpose to attaining certain commonly acknowledged ends with which the individual can identify.

According to Weedon, identity can best be understood as a limited and temporary setting for an individual, situated within a specific type of subjectivity. Association with or identifying with a particular identity limits the possibility of multiple subjectivities and gives the individual a singular sense of self and belonging. The process involved in the formation of identities involves the familiarization of the subjects to the meanings and values that are associated with the discourse within which they engage. This enables them to attain certain subject positions on issues, which are viewed as absolute within the discourses with which they relate, thereby forging a strong sense of identification and association with others subscribing to the same values and positions.

Identifying with a particular discourse is founded on a certain pre-supposed degree of self-recognition and identification which is often defined in relation to what one is not, making the entire manner of identifying, relational. Usually, these are drawn out in the form of binarized understandings of the ‘other’, whereby differences constitute the primary plan along which the self is asserted. These differences are usually linked to language, class, race, ethnicity, gender and other markers of differentiation.

In certain instances, identities operate along multiple planes of differentiation simultaneously, as is visible in the case of national identity. Such identities tend to establish preponderance of the majoritarian discourses surrounding different planes of identification ranging from culture, language, ethnicity and religion through questionable historical corroborations. These constructed histories are subsequently extrapolated onto the larger social order without accounting for the experiential divergences that exist across different communities and spaces, more often than not to perpetuate hegemonic domination by establishing a hierarchical relationship between ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’ groups. The identity of the majoritarian self is thus founded upon the segregation of the other. However, the effects of globalization and the growing accessibility of spaces across nation states have challenged the notions of identity that are purported by nation states.

Nimisha, Surya and Priya

Session 3: Community in India: Post-Colonial Theory and Subaltern Studies - Class Discussion

September 20, 2017

Introduction:

We began the discussion with the question of where did the idea of subaltern came from? 

Most historians prior to the 1980s, when writing about anti-colonialism and nationalism narratives, did not take into consideration movements, mobilisations and initiatives taken up by people outside the fold of the elite/middle classes. In other words, standard nationalist historiography represented the history of nationalist elites. Events of peasant uprisings and anti-colonial revolts by the masses were ignored or depicted as law and order issues. The Subaltern school emerged in an attempt to take in to account such struggles of non-elites and their participation in nationalism and anti-colonialism.  

Understanding mass movements:

History of this nationalism, as represented by the elite, excluded other forms of revolts and struggles of other groups. It seemed to indicate the idea that the masses lacked political consciousness and that such consciousness emerged through interactions with the elite.

The subaltern school debunked such notions and tried to address the question of how we understand mass movements? What were the main drivers of these movements? What happened to the minority groups during these struggles?

At that time, only political theories from the west were available, of Marx, Engels etc., on questions of citizenship, liberty etc... and they were unable to explain the Indian scenario where people did not comprise a 'proletariat' and where religion and caste identities played an important role in daily life and mobilisations. Thus, most of the early subaltern work on tribal rebellion attempted to move away from the hyper-rationalism of ideologies such as Marxisim and understand how early rebellions came about

Understanding subaltern identities and language of explaining identities:

In order to understand Subaltern identities, we need to consider questions like - what kind of archival sources should be referred to? Especially, when there is no record of peasant history of land ownership and other demographic details. Can we have a political theory which can work in this context.

The use of language within which to articulate subaltern struggles represented themes of European liberalism. The question then is, how do we use language which does not seem like it is aping western consciousness (European liberalisation).

The problem in discussions on identity is that, if we leave aside class struggles of groups, how do we understand the mobilisation of peasants against landowners, and struggles of farmers etc. We also need to understand how particular identities are created? What is the politics at this level? It is not the form that elite politics takes – 'organised'/structured/non-violent - but highly particular too and very grounded at the local level..

The debates about communitarianism v/s liberal individualism, religion:

It is important to contextualise the debate of communitarianism v/s liberal individualism when talking about community and identity in the Indian context. Partha Chatterjee’s pieces seek to overcome the binary that this debate rests on to show that the identity of a person in a community and as an individual is fluid and changes according to the various contexts.

What does religion and caste identity mean and what role does it play in the subaltern studies. Is it the practices of religion as in everyday popular culture which gets framed within religiosity or is it religion used as a communal tool to get their demands met?

The framing of the working class is fluid and emerges in a context of its own. It comes from a certain history, certain structures and institutions which the working class help to build that become a manifestation of class consciousness. Religion has been used as an appropriation tool which is political in nature.

The subaltern today:

A larger question which also arises in contemporary politics is whether the ‘subaltern’ exits today (as defined by the Subaltern school). For Gramsci, the subaltern was a political position that, by itself, was incapable of thinking the state and once the subaltern could imagine the state, he would transcend it. Today, when it seems like the subaltern has more engagement with the state than others, do we still think of them as 'subaltern'?

There is a need for a new conceptual lens or way of categorising communities that are on the margins, given that they are part of larger political movements and strongly entangled with the state. We need to understand how this politics works and shapes them.

Anu, Priya and Keya