Caste, Class and Social Stratification — Theoretical Frameworks

5.1 Functionalist View (Talcott Parsons)

Functionalism sees social stratification as necessary and beneficial:

• Stratification motivates individuals to fill functionally important positions.
• Caste (historically) ensured division of labour and social order.
• Criticism: Ignores exploitation, justifies inequality as "functional necessity" — called ideological by conflict theorists.

5.2 Conflict Theory (Marx, Ambedkar)

Conflict theory views stratification as the result of power and exploitation:

• Marx: Class conflict — bourgeoisie exploits proletariat.
• Ambedkar: Caste is worse than class — it divides not just labour but humanity itself; combines economic exploitation with ritual degradation and social exclusion.
• Ambedkar: "Caste is a notion, it is a state of mind. The destruction of caste does not mean the destruction of a physical barrier; it means a notional change." (Annihilation of Caste, 1936)

5.3 Interactionist and Postmodern Views

Symbolic interactionism: Caste is reproduced through everyday micro-interactions — language (titles like "Pande," "Sharma"), seating in schools, untouchability in public spaces.
Postmodern view: Multiple, fluid identities — an individual is simultaneously Dalit, woman, rural, Hindu. Intersectionality (Kimberlé Crenshaw) helps understand overlapping oppressions.

5.4 André Béteille — Caste and Class in a South Indian Village

Béteille's study of Sripuram village (Tamil Nadu, Caste, Class and Power, 1965) showed:

• In traditional India, caste = class = power were aligned (Brahmins had ritual, economic, and political power).
• Post-Independence changes: Non-Brahmin OBCs gaining land and political power while Brahmins retained educational/professional advantages.
• Conclusion: Caste and class are increasingly dissociating — you can be high caste and economically weak (EWS), or low caste and economically powerful (some OBC politicians).

---