Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.
Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.
Cremation, Caste, and Cosmogony in Karmic Traditions.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
problematic (Lev<strong>in</strong>son 1982:198), especially when<br />
studies aim to generalise <strong>and</strong> make syntheses of regional<br />
differences.<br />
On the one h<strong>and</strong>, the word “caste” as an ethnographic<br />
category refers exclusively to a system of social<br />
organisation peculiar to H<strong>in</strong>du India, but on the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, as a sociological category it may denote almost<br />
any rigid k<strong>in</strong>d of class structure (Leach 1960:1), <strong>and</strong> it<br />
<strong>in</strong>evitably raises the question whether caste is a cultural<br />
or structural phenomenon (ibid:2). Although most<br />
scholars emphasise caste as a culturally Indian <strong>and</strong><br />
religiously H<strong>in</strong>du phenomenon, most similarities with<strong>in</strong><br />
the pan-Indian sub-cont<strong>in</strong>ent are rather structural than<br />
cultural, highlight<strong>in</strong>g that castes are neither solely H<strong>in</strong>du<br />
nor Indian (e.g. Hocart 1950, Barth 1960). Whether or<br />
not castes are a strictly “Pan-Indian civilisation”<br />
phenomenon (Dumont 1957) is not a topic for debate.<br />
What is more important to stress is that there is not one<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle caste system, but a number of regional systems,<br />
<strong>and</strong> comparisons of them would permit not only<br />
generalisations cover<strong>in</strong>g them all, but more importantly,<br />
statements of concomitant variation. Regional variation<br />
is partly due to ecological diversity <strong>and</strong> political history<br />
(Gough 1960:11), which will be elaborated thoroughly.<br />
<strong>Caste</strong> system might be def<strong>in</strong>ed “as the <strong>in</strong>tegration of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> heterogeneous, but <strong>in</strong>ternally<br />
homogeneous hereditary groups <strong>in</strong>to a structure of status<br />
hierarchy” (D’Souza 1969:35). Another criteria may also<br />
be added: The caste organisation is based upon dharma,<br />
<strong>and</strong> without dharma there is no caste (Possehl 1999:10).<br />
If the latter criteria is emphasised then caste is basically<br />
a culturally Indian phenomenon rather than a structural<br />
way of organis<strong>in</strong>g society. Nevertheless, there are some<br />
characteristics of caste systems: 1) There are a number<br />
of named endogamous strata. 2) There is a conception of<br />
pollution. 3) There is a formal system of<br />
<strong>in</strong>terdependence that l<strong>in</strong>ks these strata together <strong>in</strong><br />
economic, political, <strong>and</strong> religious fields. 4) The named<br />
strata are ranked <strong>and</strong> various forms of customary<br />
behaviour serve to symbolise the rank <strong>and</strong> differences<br />
(Banks 1960:61-63). The caste groups are<br />
<strong>in</strong>terdependent, but there are barriers between free social<br />
<strong>in</strong>tercourse <strong>and</strong> differences <strong>in</strong> culture <strong>and</strong> occupational<br />
specialization (Berreman 1963:198).<br />
The ma<strong>in</strong> controversy <strong>in</strong> the debate is whether or not<br />
Brahmans always are ranked highest <strong>in</strong> all spheres of<br />
social life, <strong>and</strong> low-castes are always placed at the<br />
bottom of the social <strong>and</strong> ritual hierarchies. Brahmans<br />
have a subord<strong>in</strong>ate position <strong>in</strong> many spheres,<br />
establish<strong>in</strong>g a dichotomy between sacred <strong>and</strong> secular<br />
ranks. Therefore, a discussion of castes necessitates<br />
explicit statements of which types of identities <strong>and</strong><br />
hierarchies that are subject for <strong>in</strong>vestigation, <strong>and</strong> how<br />
these identities work <strong>in</strong> actual social relations.<br />
<strong>Caste</strong> as a structure is different from class structure. In a<br />
class society the upper-class m<strong>in</strong>ority “exploits” the<br />
26<br />
services of the lower-class majority, <strong>and</strong> the members of<br />
the unprivileged group must compete among themselves<br />
for the favours of the elite. This is reversed <strong>in</strong> the caste<br />
system. “Economic roles are allocated by right to closed<br />
m<strong>in</strong>ority groups of low social status; members of the<br />
high-status “dom<strong>in</strong>ant caste”, to whom the low-status<br />
groups are bound, generally form a numerical majority<br />
<strong>and</strong> must compete among themselves for the services of<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual members of the lower “castes” “(Leach<br />
1960:6). In a class system, social status <strong>and</strong> economic<br />
security are <strong>in</strong>tegrated. The higher the better, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
ones at the bottom of the hierarchy are forced ruthlessly<br />
by the dom<strong>in</strong>ant class. In a caste system this is not so.<br />
Low castes see it as their privileged right to carry out<br />
tasks which all the other members from society are<br />
excluded from (ibid.). Escap<strong>in</strong>g from a low-caste will<br />
imply renouncement from k<strong>in</strong>ship l<strong>in</strong>ks <strong>and</strong> secure<br />
<strong>in</strong>come, <strong>and</strong> therefore, the advantages of social climb<strong>in</strong>g<br />
are not necessarily tempt<strong>in</strong>g (Yalman 1960:104).<br />
Moreover, high-rank<strong>in</strong>g Brahmans <strong>and</strong> priests are often<br />
poor <strong>and</strong> needy people. This po<strong>in</strong>ts to the fact that there<br />
is a great discrepancy between social <strong>and</strong> ritual statuses,<br />
<strong>and</strong> these differences are crucial <strong>in</strong> the process where<br />
different positioned actors acknowledge each other’s<br />
status <strong>in</strong> contexts where statuses are <strong>in</strong> flux <strong>and</strong> relative<br />
to each other. Ritual status is not identical with social<br />
status, but actors try to use their most superior status <strong>in</strong><br />
either of the spheres to enhance their other statuses.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, only a m<strong>in</strong>ority of the Brahmans work as priests,<br />
but the “priest” identity is nevertheless important <strong>in</strong> their<br />
self-ascription as a group. The occupational specialist<br />
status refers not only to the actual performances of such<br />
work, but to the total social identity of these activities; it<br />
is a social system based on status summation which, by<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g one particular status it entails a cluster of other<br />
statuses as well (Haal<strong>and</strong>, Haal<strong>and</strong> & Dea 2004).<br />
Dumont stresses that “man does not only th<strong>in</strong>k, he acts.<br />
He has not only ideas, but values. To adopt a value is to<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduce hierarchy, <strong>and</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> consensus of values, a<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> hierarchy of ideas, th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> people, is<br />
<strong>in</strong>dispensable to social life” (Dumont 1970a:20).<br />
Consequently, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Dumont, low-castes will also<br />
categorise themselves as low. “They are “low” because<br />
they work for others <strong>and</strong> they work for other because<br />
they are “born” low. Hence the low castes may<br />
collectively be spoken as “the work<strong>in</strong>g people”, not only<br />
by the high-caste but by themselves” (Yalman<br />
1960:103). This is partly correct, but the Brahmans as<br />
priests also work for others – even low-castes employ<br />
them for ritual purposes – it is the function <strong>and</strong> duty of<br />
Brahmans to serve the people ritually (for money). This<br />
dual role of Brahmans is crucial when acknowledg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
them high status but also when challeng<strong>in</strong>g them this<br />
position. The acceptance of gifts is dangerous <strong>and</strong> a<br />
perilous matter which threatens their purity. Moreover,<br />
the alleged Brahman superiority is also dependent upon<br />
demographic variables, as will be shown <strong>in</strong> the case<br />
studies from Bangladesh <strong>in</strong> Part 2. In a situation where<br />
there are hardly any Brahmans <strong>and</strong> the overall majority