Sociology: Dipankar Gupta - Hierarchy and Difference: An Introduction

Gupta in his introductory article has given emphasis to what is stratification and what importance
does it hold in the study of hierarchy and difference. Social stratification has a special place in the
study of Indian society. India is reckoned as the most stratified society of human kind. The scope of
its stratification extends from the comprehensive caste system, to significant economic disparity and
the diversity among linguistic groups; making it the most stratified society.

When we talk of social stratification in India, he mentions, we exclusively concentrate on the caste
system. However, he believes that social stratification is a much broader concept.

Gupta further explains the concept by marking a distinction between social stratification and
differentiation. Social stratification is underlined not by differentiation but by differentiation that is
made socially visible. It is not just stratification but social stratification. There is a general
acknowledgement within society of the social markers that separate the population, and also an
awareness of the crucial criterion on which such forms of differentiation are based. Social
stratification then deals with the ways in which human population is socially differentiated, i.e.
differentiated publicly and demonstrably.

For example, the caste system separates and hierarchizes Hindus. However, it is not sufficient if this
separation and hierarchisation are wholly internalised or intellectualised. It is only when hierarchy
and differences are externalised and socially demonstrated that we can truly consider it a social
stratification. The principal criterion on which the caste system is grounded is the principle of natural
superiority based on the endowment of bodily purity. Individuals are differentiated based on the
extent of purity of their bodies across all social practices including but not limited to lifestyle, rituals
and taboos which demonstratively differentiate one caste from another for all to see.

Furthermore, even in cases where there are clear biological differences such as that of sex or race,
these differences are not retained in their natural form when we include them under the
explanation of social stratification. Social stratification is not satisfied with biological differences per
se. Differences in race or sex are meaningful to social stratification only when the modalities by
which the social lives of people belonging to different sexes or races are socially separated and
distinguished.

Although this propensity to differentiate may seem trivial, internal social stratification manifests
itself in almost every aspect of social life – even in the most intimate ones. The family, the school,
the office, the neighbourhood, all marked deeply by internal divisions of authority, wealth or status;
or language, culture and customs. One might even say that order and coherence in a society
eventually rest on its system of social stratification.

As we know, social reality is a diverse and complex concept drawing from various factors of
consideration. However, though social stratification is just one aspect of this multifaceted social
reality, it values rather heavily in the political decision making, in economics, and in moral thought.

The author argues that a society can exhibit more than one form of social stratification. For example,
in the Indian society the caste system co-exists with occupational stratification, linguistic
stratification, sexual stratification and religious stratification to name a few. It is important for
sociologists to remember that each of these forms of social stratification have their own central
principles.

The various forms of social stratification are analytically separate and separable. However,
empirically we often find one form of stratification overlaid by another. For example, gender
stratification may correspond with economic stratification, class and caste may demonstrate
significant statistical correlation. The co-variation between two or more forms of stratification asks
for a higher order of explanation, and not abandonment of one for the other, example, caste for
class or class for caste.

The lines of social stratification in India are so deep and variegated that their uniqueness often
overwhelms the scholar. There is a temptation among scholars to develop an “Indian theory” of this
social phenomenon. Therefore, to successfully theorise social stratification in India we must begin by
underlining the clarity of the central concepts, namely, hierarchy and difference.

-Hierarchy and Difference: The Key Concepts-

Let us examine the general concept of “stratification” and examine its implications before
scrutinising the logical properties of the concepts of hierarchy and difference.

According to Béteille, “stratification defines itself as a multi-layered phenomenon, much like the
earth’s crust.” However, the geological metaphor can be misleading in the case of social
stratification as it might figuratively persuade one to believe that stratification always implies layers
that are vertically or hierarchically arranged. For a true understanding of stratification, we should be
able to conceptually isolate it from hierarchy, as the latter is just one of the manifestations of the
former.
The various layers that stratification spontaneously signifies do not imply unconditional
differentiation. The differentiation is always on the basis of a criterion, or a set of criteria.
Stratification therefore implies a common axis (or axes) that straddles the differences. Social
stratification does not manifest itself readily or “naturally” to the naked eye. A deliberate act is
required on the part of the observer or analyst to unite certain kinds of differences in order to
construct a particular system of stratification.

Commonality, therefore, exists as a pre-condition for all systems of stratification. There is a

presumption of a commonality that systematises the differentiation of the various strata and binds
the universe of a particular form of stratification.

Gupta further explains the two central concepts of stratification:

(1) Hierarchy implies the regular ordering of a phenomenon on a continuous scale such that the
elements of the whole are raked in relation to the whole. It is just one form of social stratification
and it certainly does not constitute the essence of social stratification.

But not all systems of stratification are hierarchical. For example, the stratification of India into
different language-speaking communities. Some are, but many are not. In the latter case
“difference” is valorised, and notions of hierarchy may or may not surface.

(2) Differences rather than hierarchy are dominant in some stratificatory systems. The layers are not
arranged vertically or hierarchically, but horizontally or even separately. Such an arrangement can
be easily illustrated by the example of language, religion or nationalities. It would be futile, and
indeed unstable; if an attempt was made to hierarchise languages or religions or nationalities. In
these cases, it does not matter at all if the schematic representation of stratification places the
different strata contagiously or separately, as long as they are horizontally positioned.

A system of social stratification then implies differentiation among one or more features grouped
along a common axis, where the factor that is common indicates the nature of stratification.

Hierarchy is a kind of stratification where the strata are arranged vertically. This is appropriate only
when this vertical arrangement is along a variable that can be measured on a continuous scale -
when the differences are either quantitative or quantifiable.

Difference is important when social stratification is understood in a “qualitative” sense. According to

this scheme, there are incommensurable entities or units, that constitute different systems of
stratification. In place of a continuous scale one encounters discrete categories instead. Thus, in a
stratification of classes, for example, different occupations may be listed without any scalar or
hierarchical ranking; likewise, in the stratification of religious groups.

Therefore, social stratification is the ordering of social differences with the help of a set of criteria or
just a single criterion which ties the differentiated strata into a system. Secondly, systems of social
stratification do not simply exist. They emerge only after a deliberate act on the part of the observer
or analyst to opt for that common criterion or criteria.

-Differences and Inequality-

Dipanker Gupta sites the importance to reiterate that there can be separate classes of stratification,
or strata, without their necessarily being any inequality (whether of wealth, power or prestige)
between them. Contrarily, popular assumptions hold that inequality pervades all forms of social
differentiation. This then quite unthinkingly leads one to hierarchize systems of social stratification
which are essentially horizontal. Unexamined prejudices thus find their way in academic exercises.

It is of utmost importance to situate concepts in their appropriate contexts. There are at least two
common terms used in the sociology of social stratification which sometimes emphasize hierarchy
and sometimes difference. These two concepts are class and caste. We must work through the
varying dimensions of hierarchy and difference in the application of these terms. This will give us
useful insights into the variety of ways in which caste and class manifest themselves.

-Hierarchy and Difference in Caste-

Gupta has given emphasis to the writing of Bouglé who gives clear emphasis to the two aspects of
hierarchy and difference. According to him hierarchy, repulsion and hereditary specialization are the
three important characteristics of the caste system. According to Bouglé the spirit of the caste
system is determined in an important way by the mutual repulsion that exists between castes. He
emphasises the differences that exist between different castes. Repulsion, Bouglé argued,
manifested itself in endogamy, commensal restriction, and even contact. For this reason, different
castes stayed as discrete entities, 'atomized', 'opposed', and even 'isolated'.

In most popular interpretations of the caste system, hierarchy alone is emphasized and that too
from the Brahmin point of view. However, each caste has its own origin tale or “jati purana”,
justifying different hierarchies. The presence of these multiple hierarchies is an attempt for upward
mobility through varying models of emulations. The reason for this variation is the denial to be
labelled as impure or be treated as less pure than others. Yet each of these tales captures
independently the essence of “difference” between castes and are therefore logically of equal
status.

However, due to the presence of multiple hierarchies it is difficult to study the caste system in terms
of a single clearly ranked hierarchy. Each caste maintains its own traditions and customs zealously
and clearly distinguishes itself from others in its universe. But caste is not just a separation between
different castes. Rather, each case of separation and valorisation of differences is accompanied by a
unique hierarchical ordering of castes. It is another matter that there are disagreements over this
hierarchy, and that not all hierarchies can’t be socially enforced on a single scale.

As castes are different and separate it is only logical that they should also hierarchize differently and
separately.

-Hierarchy and Difference in Class-

The importance of distinguishing between hierarchy and difference can be exemplified with
reference to the concept of class as well. Like caste, the concept of class finds its way into a large
number of theoretical formulations of social stratification. Not always is it made clear whether it is
being used in a hierarchical sense or in the sense of a horizontally differentiated and separate
stratum.

Class refers to a system of stratification that is economic in character. We are all familiar with terms
like upper class, middle class and lower class. Sometimes the number of categories can be increased
depending upon how fine one would like the categories to be. There is no analytical problem in
increasing the number of strata because they are being presented on a hierarchical scale. Therefore,
we can have a class category depending upon the criterion of land, or one depending on the variable
of money, or one on marketable yield, or one on disposable income. The important thing is that all
of these criteria are convertible directly into money and that is why in class stratifications money or
wealth is always central.

In spite of the matter appearing so simple one must exercise a number of precautions when using
these terms. First, it must to be realized that the markers of distinction on a hierarchical scale which
signify strata like upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, and
so on are essentially arbitrary. At what point the lower middle class becomes a lower class depends
on considerations not apparent in the hierarchy. This leads to the second point of caution while
employing strata that assign labels to signify a hierarchical scale. The middle peasant, or the middle
class, refers quite obviously to a stratum which is in the middle of the hierarchy of land and wealth
respectively. But the manner in which these terms have been used and have gained prominence
urges us to a construct a much fuller picture than the one read off a hierarchical scale.

-Hierarchy and Difference in Order and Conflict-

And finally, Gupta explains hierarchy and difference in terms of order and conflict where he sees
that the social classes rarely present themselves simply as clusters around a continuous hierarchy. If
hierarchy alone is emphasized then there is little scope for allowing for change, conflict and
dissension. In a hierarchy, as given by Dumont, 'that which encompasses is more important than that
which is encompassed'. Classes understood simply in terms of their hierarchical placement cannot
be utilized analytically for the study of change or class conflict. The principle of the true hierarchy,
namely, that of encompassment undermines the potentialities of conflict, if it does not negate them
altogether.

In order to understand the dimensions of conflict within the framework of social stratification it is
essential to realize that conflict and tension can only be examined with the aid of concepts which
aren't completely committed to a hierarchical order but which have significant features of their own.
As the hierarchy emphasizes unity and conformity, therefore any attempt to go beyond this level will
necessitate an absorption of characteristics outside the criterion of the hierarchy or, in other words,
attention must be paid to the multiple features that result in differences. With differences comes
the notion of equality. Thus, though the hierarchy underlines inequality within the system, we are
still on the inside whose power can’t be undermined without bringing in “differences” from the
outside. Political commitment, world views, aesthetic tastes and ethical values, are some of the
differences that come into focus that separate the different strata.

In the case of castes, too, if there is a single true hierarchy (as Dumont posits) then that logically
forecloses the possibility of conflict within the system. But caste conflicts and caste mobility occur
because there are full-fledged differences between castes. Because of these differences, as we said
before, alternative hierarchies, which are logically of equal status, arise. And conflict arises only
among equals. Conflicts arise on a far more general scale in caste societies because of the existence
of multiple caste hierarchies, which are all separate and 'equal' and support their positions through
their own caste ideologies.

-Conclusion: Hierarchy and Difference in Weber and Marx-

Gupta finally concludes his article by suggesting that hierarchy and difference not only add to our
understanding of concepts like caste and class but also help us to get a deeper understanding of the
various theories of social stratification.
Webber developed the three-component theory of stratification with class, status and power as
distinct ideal types. Weber developed a multidimensional approach to social stratification that
reflects the interplay among wealth, prestige and power. Weber argued that power can take a
variety of forms. A person's power can be shown in the social order through their status, in the
economic order through their class, and in the political order through their party. Thus, class, status
and party are each aspects of the distribution of power within a community.

Class, at its core, is an economic concept; it is the position of individuals in the market that
determines their class position. Class was determined by reward in the market place; status centred
on the concept of social prestige; and power was the crucial variable behind the party. As we can
easily see, rewards, prestige and power can be hierarchized and measured along univariate axes.
Since he had arranged the different strata of the commensurable data in a vertical order, he only
observed superficial social changes.

In Weber's understanding of status group there lies a great potentiality for emphasizing differences.
But Weber himself chose to unite these divergences in the hierarchy of prestige. For this reason,
caste was seen by him as a case of closed status groups and differences within the caste system
were thus unfortunately sublated.

Even though Marx too accepted the primacy of hierarchy in the caste system, his approach to the
issue is quite different than Webber’s. Marx believed that India, a country trapped by superstition
and dogma, was incapable of change. Quite in contrast to his description of India, Marx saw great
potentialities for change in all class societies. In his “Manifesto of the Communist Party” we see two
types of classes, and not just two classes, as it is popularly believed. The first type of classes are the
so-called social classes, like freeman, journey-man, apprentice, and guildmaster. The second type of
classes are the analytical classes, such as the bourgeois and the proletariat, whose contradictory
relationship defines and constrains specific social period and also shapes social change.

The fact that Marx spent very little time on hierarchical gradations led him to undermine the aspects
of order, continuity and stability in class societies. But this again was a logical conclusion because he
understood classes in terms of contradictions, i.e. in terms of extreme mutual 'differences', such that
the interest of the two determinate classes in opposition would always remain irreconcilable. These
irreconcilable differences can only be overcome by a qualitative transformation of society as a
whole. In order to get the laws of motion, the contradictions (differences in their extreme form)
between the determinate classes in society (or classes of the second type) were of critical
importance and as such had to be unearthed for each specific social formation. In feudal societies,
Marx contended, the basic classes in contradiction were the classes of the feudal lord and serf; and
in capitalist society the contradiction was between the bourgeois class and the proletariat.
To mistake Marx's clear postulation of class contradiction as a type of strata continuum again
demonstrates that the sociologists of social stratification quite uncritically tends to assume that all
forms of stratification must necessarily be hierarchical in character.

In conclusion, perhaps a conscious awareness of the logical properties of hierarchy and difference
will prevent errors in the future and allow for a more systematic explanation of the basic principles
that support the sources of continuity and change in diverse systems of social stratification.