Question: What do you understand by ‘social stratification’ ? Explain Max Weber’ theory of social stratification.
Social stratification implies relations of superiority and inferiority among individuals, families and groups. Such relations are governed by a set of norms and values upheld and enforced by the state and the society. Talcott Parsons calls ‘patterning’ or ‘ordering’ of social relations a stratification system of society. A number of variables would be involved in ‘ordering’ of social relations including value-system, power structure, ascription, achievement, conformity/deviance to norms etc. Parsons considers social stratification as ubiquitous and inevitable because it ensures smooth functioning of society by way of defining different positions and their allocation to members of a society based on certain principles of recruitment and reward. He writes: “social stratification is regarded here as the differential ranking of the human individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and inferior to one another in certain socially important respects.
MAX WEBER’S THEORY OF SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: More concrete formulation of social stratification is presented by Max Weber in his analysis of ‘class, status and party’. Weber not only clearly distinguishes between economic structure, status system and political power, he also finds interconnections between these three in the form of the system of social stratification. ‘Class’ is an economic phenomenon, a product of the ‘market situation’ which implies competition among different classes such as buyers and sellers. ‘Status’ is recognition of ‘honour’. People are distributed among different classes, so are status groups based on distribution of honour which is identified in tenns of a range of symbols in a given society. Though analytically, classes and status groups are independent phenomena, they are significantly related to each other depending upon the nature and formation of a given society at a given point of time. The word ‘party’ implies a house of power, and power is the keynote of Weberian theory of stratification. Power may be for the sake of power or it may be economically determined power. And the economically determined power is not always identical with the social or the legal power. Economic power may be a consequence of power existing on other groups. Striving for power is not always for economic well-being. As we have mentioned it may be for the sake of power or for social honour. All power does not provide social honour, and power is not the only source of social honour. Sometimes even the propertied and the propertyless can belong to the same status group. Thus, status is deternmined by social honour, and the latter is expressed through different ‘styles of life’, which are not . necessarily influenced by ecoilomic or political standing in society. Appraisal of Weber’s Theory Thus, Weber’s theory of ‘class, status, and party’ corresponds with his idea of three ‘orders’ in the society, namely, the economic, the social and political. It also implies that social stratification is not fundamentally class-based on economically determined. In fact, by analysing social stratification from economic, social and political angles Weber provides a wider perspective than the ecconomic determinism of Karl Marx about which we will discuss below. To a considerable extent Weber’s theory of social stratification accords adequate attention to individual and his/her attitudes and motivations of class, status and power ‘Subjective component’ in status-determination is based on psychological grouping (a feeling of groupmembership), being effected through competition an important part. As such classes are viewed as ‘subjective’ categories and social strata are ‘objiective’ ones. A social class is a group by way of its thinking for a particular system of economic organization. The persons who are similarly concerned about their positions and interests, and have a common outlook, and a distinctive attitude belong to the same status group or class. Thus, following the logic of ‘subjective’ or psychological’ dimensions of social stratification, class is a psychological grouping of people depends upon class consciousness ( a feeling of group membership) irrespective of structural criteria such as occupation, income, standard of living, power, education, intelligence etc The structural criteria are ‘objective’ in nature, hence, contribution the formation of ‘strata’ (social and econoomic groupings and categories of people). Sub-jective identification of class is indicative of advanced economic and social development of a given society. Only in an advanced society a person’s class is apart of his/her ego. Similarity of class consciousness generally does not emanate from a highly differentiated and economically and socially hierarchised society. Moreover, the distinction between ‘stratum’ and ‘class’ seems to be unconvincing because the objective criteria of stratum provides psychological expression of class
Question : Explain how patriarchy contributes to gender inequality in society.
Answer : Patriarchy and Gender
i) The ideas which we have about famlilies are drawn mostly from our immediate experience. And if we happen to belong to the middle class or the lower and upper midder class urban dweller the male headed nucleur family is a normative fact. By normative I mean that not only will this pattern be empirically true for many, but that the other kind of families will be seen as an anomaly. A woman headed household would be seen as an aberration.
ii) Following from this normative aspect, the state will have various laws derived from a model of male headed nucleur family as the norm. Many women who are heads of households, thereby had to face a situation where they were not entitled to be a beneficiary under an anti-poverty scheme on the grounds that since she was a woman she could not be the head of household. Here is an instance where the normative reality edges out the empirical reality.
iii) The formlulation that since the earnings of the male head is the most significant factor, the status of the women, even if she is earning, would not alter the situation can be criticised in several ways.
iv) In a substantial proportion of the households the income of the woman is essential to maintaining the family’s economic position and mode of life. In these circumstance woman’s paid employment in some parts determine the class position of the households:
v) A wife’s employment mainly affect the status of the husband, not simply the other way around. Although women rarely earn more than their husbands, the working situation of a wife might still be the ‘lead’ factor in influencing the class of her husband this could be &c case, for instance if the husband was a semi skilled blue-collar worker and the wife employed in a garment factory. The wife’s occupation set standard of the position of the family as a whole.
vi) Many ‘cross-class’ households exist, in which the work of the husband is in a higher class category than that of the wife or (less commonly) the other way around. Since few studies have been carried out looking at the consequences of this, we cannot know if it is always appropriate to take the occupation of the male as the determining influence.
vii) The proportion of families in which women are the sole breadwinners is increasing. It is worthwhile to explore the Implications for this emerging trend. There are many dimensions to this phenomena.Often it is stated that in the west because of the changing sexual norms and women’s independence there are more single parent, women headed households. Indeed this is true. But not fully Even in earlier decades both our and their society had plenty of cases of deserted women, abducted and then stranded. ‘Fallen women’ very often were heads of households too.
Stratification theories were not equipped to analyse this occurrence because they did not use gender as an analytical category to understand how patriarchy was reproduced through both class and family and ethnicity. The male headed normative family could retain its purity and authenticity by affording a space for the men to have liasons outside both class. Women from the middle class, uppercaste on the other hand would fall outside the class and family if she had liasons outside marriage.
The caste system in India with its rule of hypergamy meant could only marry within the caste or a caste above. The reverse could not take place. Gender as a principle of stratification therefore has to take into account not only if women members in a family have a status derived from the male head but also show patriarchy operated differentially to men and women. Issues of control of sexuality, norms of chastity, social sanction against women seen as violators of fanmily. Class, ethnic norms, double standards to and female sexual practices should all be taken account of when discussing stratification and gender.
Ethnicity and Cultural Deprivation When discussing ethnicity stratification we found that ethnicity was important in determining material and cultural deprivation just as much as class or caste was. This is true even in the case of gender. In India womens’involvements have taken up the issue of access to aid control of land. While women worked on the fields and extended agricultural work in rural areas, law and custom denied them right to own land. In the early years of communist China land rights to women are major issue. With land reforms and the resultant issue of land deeds, policy makers realised that though the unit for the land deed was the family, it had to be explicitly taken into account that both men and women have equal rights to land. This brings us to the important question about the family and gender related to basic issues of stratification like unequal access to resources -cultural and material. Many landed families in our country would educate their sons but not their daughter. Many landless family may take their sick son to the doctor, not their sick daughter. Many middle class families may educate their daughter enough to teach her children if required but not to earn a living. In other words even though men and women belong to the same family of the class, they are differently located in their access to material and non-materialrial resources.
Question : Discuss the concept of linguistic ethnicity with suitable examples.
Answer : Language remains on of the most significant medium of establishing this cohesiveness, and it is this feeling of intra group solidarity experienced by a group of people speaking the same dialect or using the same language that we define as Linguistic Ethnicity. In India, over the years more than 1500 mother tongues have been identified.
It was in the Montagu Chemsford report 1918, that first evidence of vernacular movement in India were recorded. Despite this paradigm shift, the Government of India Act 1919 made no significant move to promote regional languages. In 1920, Mahatma Gandhi favoured formation of linguistic provinces, even lhough he was apprehensive that favouring formation of linguistic provinces may interfere with his plans to promote Hindustani, as a national language. However, Gadhi’s tactical nod and Nehru’s grudging approval led to the reorganization of Indian National Congress on linguistic provincial basis. Twenty-one provincial congress committee were created. By 1927, Congress passed a resolution asking for creating of linguistic provinces for Andlua, Utkal (Orissa), Sind, and Karnatka.
CAUSES OF LANGUAGE MOVEMENT: Every ethno-linguistic community evolves a security net around itself. It takes upon itself the task of protecting its dwindling heritage. If threatened it resolves to organise it and launch protest movements. Regional language movements as an expression of ethnicity emerge, when they are threatened by:
i) On adoption of Hindi as an official language, small linguistic communities were apprehensive that this move would restrict Government Jobs for their community members, subsequently their voice in the affairs of the government would become inaudible.
ii) Middle class power elite was propagating continuation of English for official use. This bilingualism further reduced opportunities for those not conversant with either Hindi or English.
iii) Consequently a north south divide occurred, since post independence leadership largely identified itself with northern India, primarily due to disproportionate size of the individual state, its affinity with Hindi was overplayed. Anti Hindi Movement that originated in the South interprets a Hindi domination as symbolic of Aryans and Brahminical cultural domination.
iv) Despite tall claims and protection given to linguistic minorities and languages under Articles 350, 29.1, 344 (I), 345, 346 and 347, language claim of the minorities are often ignored Article 350(a) of the constitution provides that every state authority should facilitate primary education in the mother tongue. But the common perception at the level of district administration and education empowerment is that such efforts would disintegrated the Indian nation state. They would encourage individuals ethno- linguistic aspirations, and thus isolate him. There is also apprehension that education in local dialects would deprive people from attaining higher and quality education. The inherent ambiguity in the constitution between 350 and 351, the former providing individual languages and the later supporting official use of Hindi, has promoted linguistic conflicts in India.
question : Outline the major reasons for the rise of tribal movements in north-east India.
Answer : TRIBAL MOVEMENTS IN THE NORTH-EAST We need to bear in mind the unique geopolitical and historical background of the tribal people of the North-East in order to understand the specificity and very different character of the tribal movements of this region from those of other areas.
These background factors include:
i) Because of their location of – 1 borders, many of these tribal communities played the role of bridge and buffer communities and so had developed bonds with certain groups across the borders
ii) British colonial administration followed a policy of insuring economic social and political isolation on these tribes from the rest of the community. The tribal areas were categorized as excluded or partially excluded areas and contacts of the outsiders with these areas were strictly regulated, particularly in the excluded areas where no outsiders could enter without obtaining a permit. Thus their areas not only remained unaffected by the political influence of the freedom struggle in the country but also developed apprehensions about maintaining their own separate identity and political autonomy in relation to independent India.
iii) Unlike the tribals of middle India, tribals in the North-East have throughout constituted an overwhelming majority (expect in Tripura) and being free from exploitative economic and social contacts with their Assamese neighbours including alienation of their land and forests, failed to develop agrarian and movements which frequently characterised the tribals of other regions of the country.
iv) Spread of the Christianity and missionary education gave the tribals a distinctive sense of identity and made them apprehensive about their future in Independent India.
v) Influence of the second world war as threatres of war came close to their habitat in the North-East.
vi) independence of India and resulting heightening of political consciousness and struggle.
vii) After independence there was open unrestricted contact between the tribals and outsiders. A number of traders, refugees and other migrants sbegan to settle in the area, acquiring land and resources. All these generated fears of being swamped by outsiders and loosing land, forests and other resources to the outsiders.
viii)The impact of modernization on Tribal life and social institutions, especially the conflict between members of the growing middle class and traditional chiefs as well as dislocations of the traditional pattern of land control and land relations. Depending on the particular circumstances and objective of the individual movements many of these factors in different conibinations affected the formation and development of the different tribal movements.
Because of the characteristic coltditions of their genesis, thrust of these movements has been largely political, centring on issues of ‘identity and security’, with ‘goals ranging from autonomy to independence and means from constitutional agitation to insurgency’ though majority of the movements have also centred on issues of language, script and cultural revival, the same political struggle appears to have been reflected in these movements also.
We will now look at some of the movements in detail to understand their specificity.
The Naga Movement: A large number of factors acted as catalysts for the Naga Movement.
i) fear of the losing special privileges bestowed upon them by the British
ii) the danger of erosion cultural autonomy and district ‘ethnic identity’
iii) fear of losing the customary ownership of the hills.
iv) The spread of Christianity
v) Development of formal education in the Naga Hills.
vi) Reaction to the formation of complex political structures.
Though the Naga ethnic identity and the movement were sharply articulated after independence, the roots were sworn with the formation of the Naga Club in 1918 at Kohima. The first taken by the club was a memorandum submitted to the Simon conmiission in 1929 seeking the continuity of the direct British Administration of the hills and number of other issues. The memorandum was singed by representratives of most of the Naga tribes. A very important role in the resurrection of Naga identity was played by Zapu Phizo, who had assisted the Japanese and the INA with the hope of getting help to form a soverign Naga State (Verghese 1994: 85).
Question : Discuss F.G. Bailey’s contribution to the study of caste in India.
Answer : F.G. Bailey Bailey feels that caste dynamics and identity are united by the two principles of segregation and hierarchy. He feels that “Castes Stand in ritual and secular hierarchy expressed in the rules of interaction”. The rituaI system overlaps the political and economic system. ‘The relationship between castes does not comprise rituals alone, there is a power dimension because there exists a dominant caste to which other castes are subordinate. Rank and easte identity are expressed by a lower caste attempting to emulate a caste which is higher in rank. Thus the interaction pattern becomes indicative of ritual status the rank order hierarchy. Interactional pattern itself involves attitudes and practices towards the question of acceptance and non acceptance of food, services, water, smoking together, seating arrangements at feasts and the exchange of gifts. Bailey explained his viewpoint with reference to village Bisipara in Orissa; and showed how the caste situation in Bisipara become changed and more fluid after Independence when the Kshatriyas lost much of their land. This caused a downslide in their ritual ranking as well. There was a clearly discernable change in the interaction patterns which we have delineated above e.g. acceptance and non acceptance of food from other castes.
Question : What is the role of caste associations in modern India ?
Answer : Important “Roles of Caste System” in Indian Politics
The role of caste in the Indian political system can be specifically discussed as under:
(1) Caste Factor in Political Socialisation and Leadership Recruitment:
Different caste groups have their loyalties behind different political parties and their ideologies. Right from his birth, an Indian citizen inherits a caste and grows up as a member of a particular caste group.
He belongs either to one of the High Castes or to Scheduled Castes. In the process of picking up his political orientations, attitude and beliefs, he naturally comes under the influence of caste groups and casteism.
‘Caste values’ and caste interests influence his socialisation and consequently his political thinking, awareness and participation. He banks upon caste solidarity for occupying and performing a leadership role.
Caste influences the process of leadership recruitment. This is particularly true of highly ‘caste conscious’ people of some states like Haryana, Bihar, UP, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. In Haryana, the leadership comes either from the Jats or from the Bishnois or Brahmins. In Andhra Pradesh, the Reddys, Kammas and Valamas provide state leaders.
(2) Caste and Party Politics:
Caste factor is a constituent of the Indian party system. Some political parties have a direct caste basis while others indirectly bank upon particular caste groups. In particular, the regional political parties stand predominantly influenced by the caste factor. The DMK and AIADMK are non-Brahmin rather anti-Brahmin political parties of Tamil Nadu.
In Punjab, Akali Dal has a community identity but stands influenced by the issue of Jats vs. non-Jats. All political parties in India use caste as a means for securing votes in elections.
While the BSP banks upon the support of the Scheduled Castes, the BJP largely banks upon its popularity among the high caste Hindus and the trading community. In fact, while formulating its policies and decisions each political party of India in India almost always keeps in vision the ‘Caste Angle’.
(3) Caste and Elections:
The caste factor is an important factor of electoral politics in India. All political parties give great weightage to the caste factor in selecting their candidates, in allocating constituencies to their candidates and in canvasing support for their nominees in the election.
In constituencies predominated by Muslims, Muslim candidates are fielded and in areas predominated by Jats, Jat candidates are fielded. Even avowedly secularist parties like the Congress, the Janata Dal, the CPI and the CPM take into consideration the caste factor in selecting their candidates.
In the election campaigns, votes are demanded in the name of caste. Caste groups are tapped for committed support. No one can disagree with N.D. Palmer when he observes that “Caste considerations are given great weight in the selection of candidates and in the appeals to voters during election campaigns.” In elections, caste acts as the most important political party.
(4) Caste as a Divisive and Cohesive Factor of Indian Politics:
Caste acts both as a divisive and cohesive force in Indian politics. It provides a basis for the emergence of several interest groups in the Indian system each of which competes with every other group in the struggle for power. At times it leads to unhealthy struggle for power and acts as a divisive force.
However, it is a source of unity among the members of various groups and acts as a cohesive force. In rural India, where the social universe of the rural power is limited to an area of 15 to 20 km, caste acts as a unifying force.
It is the only social group they understand. However, the existence of two or three big caste groups also leads to factionalism. Caste as such is a strong factor in Indian politics and it acts as a cohesive as well as a divisive factor.
(5) Caste and the Exercise of Power by a Political party:
Since caste is a major feature of the Indian society and acts as an important factor in various processes of politics, it also plays a big role in the decision-making process. Even the issue of re-organisation of states is handled with an eye upon the prevention of undue predominance of a caste group in a particular territory.
Caste factor influences the policies and decisions of the state governments. The party in power always tries to use its decision-making power to win the favour of major caste groups.
Regional political parties, whenever they get the chance to rule their respective states, always use political power for furthering the interests of the caste groups which support or can support their regimes.
Recruitment to political offices is mostly done with due consideration to the caste of the persons. Caste factor influences the process of ministry making and the allocation of portfolios. Each big caste group always tries to secure ministerial berths for such elected representatives as belong to their caste.
(6) Caste Factor and the Local Government:
The role of caste in the working of the Panchayati Raj and other institutions of local self-government has been a recognised reality. We can go to the extent of recording that caste based factionalism in the rural areas of India has been one of the biggest hindering factors in the organisation and effective working of the Panchayati Raj.
In the Indian rural context, caste has been a plank of mobilisation, a channel of communication, representation and leadership and a linkage between the electorate and the political process.
(7) Caste and Indian Constitution:
Though the spirit of secularism stands clearly affirmed in the Constitution, yet in a limited and indirect way, it recognises the caste system in the form of providing for caste based reservations. Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Union Parliament and the state legislative assemblies (Art. 330 and 332) as well as in public services reflects this feature.
Even the ‘Other Backward Classes—OBC’s—stand determined on caste basis. The Consitution of India also provides for the office of the commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with the responsibility to investigate matters relating to the various safeguards provided by the Constitution to these castes and tribes.
The provision for the appointment of a minister-in- charge for looking after the welfare of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes in the States of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa also reflects indirect recognition of the caste factor.
The emergence of strong pro-reservation and anti-reservation groups in India has been the direct consequence of such provisions of the Constitution. The repeated tenures for the continuation of the policy of reservations (now the provision stands extended upto the year 2020) for the SCs, STs and OBCs, too has been a major controversial political issue.
The reservation policy clearly reflects the role of caste factor in politics even the other backward classes (OBCs) are basically caste based classes. Now, reservation in private sector has been getting implemented and the quantum of reservation is going to be quite high.
(8) Caste Violence:
Caste based violence very often finds its way into politics. The traditional differences between the higher and lower castes have acquired a new vigour and have turned, at times, into a violent and fierce struggle for power in society. The growing terrorisation of the lower castes by the higher or even intermediary castes has been becoming a sad part of India’s political reality.
In states like Maharashtra, Bihar, and Gujarat and UP, caste violence has raised its head even in some urban areas. Existence of caste sena’s in Bihar has been an unfortunate reality of state politics. Caste violence has been a source of big strain on social and political life of Bihar.
(9) Caste and Political Leadership:
Caste has been emerging as a factor in the process of leadership recruitment. The leadership of Sh. Kanshi Ram and Ms. Mayawati is caste based. So was the leadership of Ch. Charan Singh in UP, Karpoori Thakur in Bihar and Dev Raj Urs in Karanataka. The leadership of Sh. Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar is again an example of caste based leadership.
Question : Discuss the social classes in urban India
Answer : Social Classes in Urban India:
In the urban areas social classes comprise principally.
(i) Capitalists (commercial and industrial), (ii) Professional classes ,(iii) Petty traders and shopkeepers and (.v) Working
1. Commercial and Industrial Class:
During British rule there was the growth of a class of merchants engaged in export -import business. Thus, there came into being a commercial middle class invested in the country. Subsequently, rich commercial middle Cass invested their savings in the form of capital in large -scale manufactured goods and modern industries. Indian society thus, included in its composition such new groups as mill owners mine owners etc. Economically and socially this class turned out to be the strongest class India.
After independence, the major fields like agriculture, industry and trade were left to the private individuals/The creation of infrastructure and establishment of heavy industries were taken of by the State sector. This type of economy led to a phenomenal rise in the number of industries owned and controlled by the capitalists. It also led to the rise of commercial classes. There is heavy concentration of assets, resources and income in a few business houses such as the Tatas, Birlas, Dalmias, and a few others.
2. Professional Classes:
During British rule, there came into being an expanding professional class. Such social categories were linked up with modern industry, agriculture, commerce, finance, administration, press and other fields of social life. The professional classes comprised lawyers ,doctors , teachers , managers and others working in the mode n commercial and other enterprises, engineers, technologists agricultural scientists and so Rapid industrialization and urbanization in post-independent India has opened the way for large-scale employment opportunities in industries trade and commerce ,construction transport service etc.
Similarly, the State has created a massive institutional set-up comprising a complex bureaucratic structure throughout the length and breadth of the country. Bureaucrats, management executives, technocrats, doctors, lawyers, teachers and journalists etc, have grown considerably in size and scale ever since independence ‘But this class hardly constitutes a homogeneous category. Within this non-proprietary class of non-manual workers, a deep hierarchy exists. There are some high paid cadres at the top and low paid at the bottom .They differ in their style of life as well .In view of these they have not crystallised into a well -defined middle class.
3. Petty Traders, Shopkeepers and Unorganized Workers:
There has also been in existence in urban areas a class of petty traders and shopkeepers .These classes have developed with the growth of modern cities and towns .They constitute the link between the producers of goods and commodities and the mass of consumers. They make their living on the profit margin of the process on which they buy and sell their goods. “Like all other classes, this class has grown in large -scale in post-independent India. The unprecedented growth of the cities has stimulated the growth of this class. The growing urban population creates demands for various kinds of needs and services .Petty shop-keeping and trading caters to these needs of the urban population.
Besides these spheres of activities urbanisation also offers opportunities for employment in the organised and unorganised sector of the economy. The bulk of rural migrants lacks educational qualification and hence the organised sector is closed to them. They fall back upon the unorganised sector of economy. They work in small-scale production units or crafts, industry or manual service occupations. They get low wages and also are deprived of the benefits of the organised labour force.
This class also constitutes an amorphous category .It comprises on the one hand, self- employed petty shop-keepers, traders, vendor, hawkers and on the other; semi-skilled and unskilled workers in the informal sectors.
4. The Working Class:
This was another class which emerged during British rule in India. This was the modern working class which was the direct result of modern industries .railways and plantations. This Indian. Working class was formed predominantly out of the pauperised peasants and ruined artisans.
The working class has grown in volume in post-independent India. They have also been distributed in different parts and different sectors of the industry. Thus, the working class has become much more heterogeneous. This diversity in the working class has given rise to a complex set of relations among the different sectors. In the post-independent India, the Government’s attitude towards the working class has become favourable. Several Acts were passed granting some facilities to the workers. Trade union movements have taken place in independent India. Yet considerable division exists among the trade unions in terms of control, sector and region of the industries.
Question : Critically discuss Louis Doumont’s explanation of caste in terms of purity and pollution.
Answer : PURITY AND POLLUTION As mentioned above, the theory of caste hierarchy that locates its basis in the notion of purity and pollution is generally associated with the writings of the French sociologist Louis Dumont. He has offered a detailed account of his theory in his well-knownbook, Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications. Dumont has developed a general theory, an “ideal type”, of the traditional Hindu caste system. Though he used ethnographic material (field-work based accounts of the way caste system is practiced) in support of his arguments, his main sources were Indological, the classical Hindu texts. He approached the Hindu caste system form a structuralist perspective that focused on the underlying structure of ideas of a given system. These “essential principles” constitute the logic of a system and may not be apparently visible in its everyday practice. His objective was to develop a pure model that would provide a general explanation of the system. Dumont is critical of those who tried to explain caste in terms of politico-economic factors where caste was seen as a system of domination and exploitation. He, for example,criticizes F.G. Bailey, who in his book on ‘Caste and the Economic Frontier’ (based on his field work in Orissa), has argued that there was a high degree of coincidence between politico-economic ranks and the ritual ranking of caste. This is a reflection of the general rule that those who achieve wealth and political power tend to rise in the ritual scheme of ranking.
It is what is meant by saying that the ranking system of caste groups was validated by differential control over the productive resources of the village. Duumont disagreed with Bailey and others who made such theoretical claims because they, according to him, failed to appreciate the peculiarity of the Indian society. These scholars, Durnont argues, tended to look for parallels of the Western society in India, viz., class type social organization. He insists that India and the traditional societies in general were funtlamentally diiferent from the Western society. Their social structures needed to be explained with different sets of concepts. Dumont shows how Bailey could not explain as to 1% hy the Brahmins were placed at the top of the caste hierarchy. Bailey had recognized the act that the correlation between power and ritual status did not work at the two extremes of the caste ladder, i.e. in case of the Brahmins (at the top of the caste hierarchy) and the untouchables (at the bottom of the caste hierarchy).
Dumont argues that this was not automatically but a crucial fact about the caste system. He suggests that the Hindu caste system needed to be look-at as a system that was an opposite of the West. While the West was a modem society based on individualism, India was a traditional society. The social structures of traditional societies functioned on very different principles and could be understood only in “totality”. It was only through this framework of “totality” or “holism” that a proper theory of caste could be developed.
Caste, Dumont argues, was above all an ideology, ‘a system of ideas, beliefs and values’. It was in the ideological aspect of the caste system that one should look for the essential structure of the Hindu society. It was only via ideology that the essence of castes could be grasped and true principle behind the system could be known. Ideology for him was not a residual factor or part of superstructure, as the term is understood in the Marxist theory. In his framework, ideology was an autonomous sphere and could not be reduced to any other factor or treated secondary to politico-economic factor.
Ideology the system is hierarchy. “The casts”, Dumont argues, “teach us a fundamental social principle, hierarchy”. Hierarchy was the essence of caste. Hierarchy was not merely another name for inequality or an extreme form of social stratification, but a totally different principle of social organization. His notion of hierarchy was almost the same as that of Bougle (as discussed above) who has explained caste by referring to three principles, viz., Hierarchially, occupational specialization and mutual repulsion. Dumont argues that for a proper theoretical explanation of the system.
17.4.2 Dumont’s Theory: we can identify the followingcore points that he makes: The Hindu caste system could not be explained in terms of politico-economic factors Caste was not just another form of class or an extreme form of stratification. It should be explained in terms of its underlying structure of ideas and values. i.e. the ideology. The nature of the value system (ideology) and the framework of social organization in the traditional societies were totally different from that of the modern socicties of the West. The ideology of the Hindu caste system was that of hierarchy. The structure of hierarchy was explained of the dialectical relationship (unity and opposition) between the “pure” and “impure”. Pure was superior to the impure. One of the core features of caste system was the distinction that status and power. It was the ideology of hierarchy (that allocated status to different groups in society) that was more important than the material position of a person in the caste system. Priest, at least in principle, was superior to the king.
Question : Discuss the agrarian class structure in India
Answer : What do we mean by agrarian social structure: In very simple words the agrarian societies are those settlements and groupings of people who earn their livelihood primarily by cultivating land and by carrying out related activities like animal husbandry. Agricultural production or cultivation is obviously an economic activity. However, like all other economic activities, agricultural production is carried out in a framework of social relationships. Those involved in cultivation of land also interact with each other in different social capacities. Some may self-cultivate the lands they own while others may employ wage labourers or give their land to tenants and sharecroppers. Not only do they interact with each other but they also have to regularly interact with various other categories of people who provide them different types of services required for cultivation of land. For example, in the old system of jajmani relations in the Indian countryside, those who owned and cultivated land had to depend for various services required at different stages of cultivation on the members of different caste groups. The cultivators were obliged to pay a share of the farm produce to different caste groups, in exchange of labour. Similarly, most of the cultivating farmers today sell a part of their farm yield in the market to earn cash income with which they buy modern farm yield in the market to earn cash income with vhich they buy modern farm inputs and goods for personal consumption. These relationships of farmers with the market are often mediated through middlemen.
Unlike the modem industrial societies where it is rather easy to identify various class groups (such as, the working class, the industrial and the middle classes), the social structures of agrarian societies are marked by diversities of various kinds. The nature of agrarian class structure varies a great deal from region to region. The situation is made even more complex by the facts that in recent times the agrarian structure in most societies have been experiencing fundamental transformations. In’most developed societies of the West, agriculture has become a rather marginal sector of the economy, employing only a very small proportion of their populations, while in the Third world countries it continues to employ large proportions of their populations, though the significance of agriculture has considerably declined. Thus, to develop a meaningful understanding of the agrarian social structure, we need to keep in mind the fact that there is no single model of agrarian class structure that can be applied to all the societies.
Contemporary Agrarian Societies: A Sub-sector of Modern Capitalist System The spread of industrialisation in the Western countries during the 19th century and in rest of the world during 20th century has brought about significant changes in the agrarian sector of the economy as well. We can identify two important changes in the agrarian economy that came with industrialisation and development. First,agriculture lost its earlier significance and became only a marginal sector of the economy. For example, in most countries of the West today, it employs only a small proportion of the total working population (between two to five or six per cent) and its contribution to the total national income of these countries is also not very high. In the countries of the Third World also, the significance of agriculture has been declining over the years. In India, for example, though a large proportion of population is still employed in agricultural sector, its contribution to the total national income has come down substantially (from nearly sixty per cent at the time of independence to less than thirty per cent during early 1990s). The second important change that has been experienced in the agrarian sector is in its internal social organisation. The social framework of agricultural production has experienced a sea change in different parts of the world during the last century or so. The earlier modes of social organisations, such as, “feudalism” and “peasant societies” (as discussed above) have disintegrated giving way more differentiated social structures. This has largely happened due to the influences of the processes of industrialisation and modernisation. The modern industry has provided a large variety of machines and equipment for carrying out farm operations, such as, ploughing and threshing. This mechanisation of agricultural production has made it possible for the landowners to cultivate much larger areas of land in lesser time. Certain other technological breakthroughs also gave the cultivators chemical fertilisers and the new high yielding varieties of seeds. The net result of these changes has been an enormous increase in the productivity of land. The introduction of new farm technologies has not only increased the.
The mechanisation and modernisation of agriculture made it possible for the cultivating farmers to produce much more than their consumption requirements. The surplus came to the market. Also they began to produce crops that were not meant for direct consumption of the local community. These “cash crops were produced exclusively for sale in the market. The cultivators also needed cash for buying new inputs. In other words, the mechanisation of agriculture led to an integration of agriculture in the broader market economy of the nation and the world.
As mentioned above, agrarian class structure in a given society evolves over a long period of time. It is shaped historically by different socio-economic and political factors. These historical factors vary from region to region. Thus, though one can use the concept of class to make sense of agrarian structures in different contexts, the empirical realities vary from region to region. The traditional Indian “rural communities” and the agrarian social structures were organised within the framework of “jajmani system”, this was a peculiarly Indian phenomenon. The different caste groups in the traditional Indian village were divided between jajmans (the patrons) and the kamins (the menials). The jajmans were those caste groups who owned and cultivated lands. The kamins provided different kinds of services to the jajmans. While the kamins were obliged to work for the jajmans, the latter were required to pay a share from the farm produce to their kamins. The relationship was based on a system of reciprocal exchange.
AGRARIAN CLASS STRUCTURE IN INDIA – mentioned above the traditional Indian society was organised around caste lines. The agrarian relations were governed by the norms of jajmani system. However, the jajmani relations began to disintegrate after the colonial rulers introduced changes in the Indian agriculture. The process of modernisation and development initiated by the Indian State during the post-independence period further weakened the traditional social structure. While caste continues to be an important social institution in the contemporary Indian society, its significance as a system of organising economic life has considerably declined. Though the agricultural land in most parts of India is still owned by the traditionally cultivating caste groups, their relations with the landless menials are no more regulated by the norms of caste system. The landless members of the lower caste now work with the cultivating farmers as agricultural labourers. We can say that in a sense, caste has given way to class in the Indian countryside. However, the agrarian social structure is still marked by diversities. As pointed out by D.V. Dhanagare, “the relations among classes and social composition of groups that occupy specific class position in relation to land-control and land-use in India are so diverse and complex that it is difficult to incorporate them all in a general schema. However, despite the diversities that mark the agrarian relations in different parts of country, some scholars have attempted to club them together into some general categories. the earliest attempts to categorise the Indian agrarian population into a framework of social classes was that of a well-known economist, Daniel Thorner. He suggested that could divide the agrarian population of India into different class categories by taking the criteria.
First, type of income earned from land (such as, ‘rent’ or ‘fruits of own cultivation’ or ‘woages’).
Second, the nature of rights held in land ( such as, ‘proprietary’ or ‘tenancy’ or ‘share-cropping rights’ or ‘no rights at all’).
Third, the extent of field-work actually performed (such as, ‘absentees who do no work at all’ or ‘those who perform partial work’ or ‘total work done with the family labour’ or ‘work done for others to earn wages’).
On the basis of these criteria he suggested the following model of agrarian class structure in India.
i) Maliks, income is derived primarily from property rights and whose common interest is to keep the level of rents up while keeping the wage-level down. They collect rent from tenants, sub-tenants and sharecroppers.
ii) Kisans, working peasants, who own small plots of land and work mostly with their own labour and that of their family members.
iii) Mazdoors, who do not own land themselves and earn their livelihood by working as tenants, wage labourers with others.
Thorner’s classification of agrarian population has not been very popular amongst the students of agrarian change in India. Development of capitalist relations in agrarian sector of the economy has also changed the older class structure. For example, in most regions of India, the Maliks have turned into enterprising farmers. Similarly, most of the tenants and sharecroppers among the landless mazdoors have begun to work as wage labourers. Also, the capitalist development in agriculture has not led to the kind of differentiation among the peasant as some Marxist analysts predicted. On the contrary, the size of middle level cultivators has swelled. The classification that has been more popular among the students of agrarian structure and change in India is the division of the agrarian population into four or five classes. At the top are the big landlords who still exist in some parts of the country. They own very large holdings, in some cases even more than one hundred acres. However, unlike the old landlords, they do not always give away their lands to tenants and sharecroppers. Some of them organise their farms like modem industry, employing a manager and wage labourers and producing for the market. Over the years their proportion in the total population of cultivators has come down significantly. Their presence is now felt more in the backward regions of the country.
Question : Explain the role of local elites in the socio-economic upliftment of tribal people.
Answer : ROLE OF TRIBAL ELITES In the colonial period, most of the struggles for justice were led by the disposed traditional elite with great consequence. Independent India has taken serious note of it and provided several avenues for ameliorating their conditions of living. But as the resources are limited or rather improperly distributed, the spread of benefits are very much limited. Accordingly, the system of granting special facilities has generated as small modern elite among the tribals in terms of education, politics and economics, whereas the large majority of the tribal people have remained where they were before Independence, if not worse. Some have argued that the tribal elite articulates its own interests and not of the common masses and, therefore, in the development planning focus should he directed to the weaker sections among the tribals. But the argument misses the fact that when Indians’ society as a whole is class divided (and also on the basis of caste and religion) and when exploitation marks the social relations in the almost every field, how can the emerging tribal elites be very much different? Moreover, by being simultaneously members of indigenous community and the national society, the tribal elites generate a system of linkage to the wider system, If the process of forrmation of elite is accelerated, there may be a scope tor building a national elite. This would considerably reduce the inter-ethnic distances within the national polity. Besides, they constitute the nuclei of the social transformation of the tribal society or societies. There may be occasional withdrawal of this responsibility but that is not specific to tribal elites rather, it is shared by elites belonging to the rest of the nation.
Being a late comer, the tribal elites are not able to compete equal terms with the non-tribal elites and this, tend to be an integral part of their community system. Tribal elites thus, cannot fully separate from their own people. The masses at times treat them as customary political elite, moneylenders. rich peasants, modern political leaders educated and government servants, agents of labour contractors, etc. The contradictions with alien mark forces and their agents being so severe, the conflicts are often channelized along ethnic lines with direct and indirect support of the same internal elites.
Question : What are the major constitutional provisions for the upliftment of scheduled casts ?
Article 17 abolishes Untouchability.
Article 46 requires the State ‘to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
Article 335 provides that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.
Article 15(4) refers to the special provisions for their advancement.
Article 16(4A) speaks of “reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of SCs/STs, which are not adequately represented in the services under the State’.
Article 338 provides for a National Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with duties to investigate and monitor all matters relating to safeguards provided for them, to inquire into specific complaints and to participate and advise on the planning process of their socio-economic development etc.
Article 330 and Article 332 of the Constitution respectively provide for reservation of seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People and in the legislative assemblies of the States. Under Part IX relating to the Panchayats and Part IXA of the Constitution relating to the Municipalities, reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in local bodies has been envisaged and provided.
question : Discuss how gender identities are constructed in the course of socialization process.
Answer : Gender socialization is the process by which males and females are informed about the norms and behaviors associated with their sex.
Gender socialization is the process by which individuals are taught how to socially behave in accordance with their assigned gender, which is assigned at birth based on their biological sex.
Today it is largely believed that most gender differences are attributed to differences in socialization, rather than genetic and biological factors.
Gender stereotypes can be a result of gender socialization: girls and boys are expected to act in certain ways that are socialized from birth. Children and adults who do not conform to gender stereotypes are often ostracized by peers for being different.
While individuals are typically socialized into viewing gender as a masculine-feminine binary, there are individuals who challenge and complicate this notion. These individuals believe that gender is fluid and not a rigid binary.
Gender socialization: The process of educating and instructing males and females as to the norms, behaviors, values, and beliefs of group membership as men or women.
gender: The socio-cultural phenomenon of the division of people into various categories such as male and female, with each having associated roles, expectations, stereotypes, etc.
sex: Either of two main divisions (female or male) into which many organisms can be placed, according to reproductive function or organs.
Sociologists and other social scientists generally attribute many of the behavioral differences between genders to socialization. Socialization is the process of transferring norms, values, beliefs, and behaviors to group members. The most intense period of socialization is during childhood, when adults who are members of a particular cultural group instruct young children on how to behave in order to comply with social norms. Gender is included in this process; individuals are taught how to socially behave in accordance with their assigned gender, which is assigned at birth based on their biological sex (for instance, male babies are given the gender of “boy”, while female babies are given the gender of “girl”). Gender socialization is thus the process of educating and instructing males and females as to the norms, behaviors, values, and beliefs of group membership.
Rosie the Riveter: “Rosie the Riveter” was an iconic symbol of the American homefront in WWII. The entrance of women into the workforce (and into traditionally male roles) marked a departure from gender roles due to wartime necessity.
Preparations for gender socialization begin even before the birth of the child. One of the first questions people ask of expectant parents is the sex of the child. This is the beginning of a social categorization process that continues throughout life. Preparations for the birth often take the infant’s sex into consideration (e.g., painting the room blue if the child is a boy, pink for a girl). Today it is largely believed that most gender differences are attributed to differences in socialization, rather than genetic and biological factors.
Gender stereotypes can be a result of gender socialization. Girls and boys are expected to act in certain ways, and these ways are socialized from birth by many parents (and society). For example, girls are expected to be clean and quiet, while boys are messy and loud. As children get older, gender stereotypes become more apparent in styles of dress and choice of leisure activities. Boys and girls who do not conform to gender stereotypes are usually ostracized by same-age peers for being different. This can lead to negative effects, such as lower self-esteem.
In Western contexts, gender socialization operates as a binary, or a concept that is exclusively comprised of two parts. In other words, individuals are socialized into conceiving of their gender as either masculine (male) or feminine (female). Identities are therefore normatively constructed along this single parameter. However, some individuals do not feel that they fall into the gender binary and they choose to question or challenge the male-masculine / female-feminine binary. For example, individuals that identify as transgender feel that their gender identity does not match their biological sex. Individuals that identify as genderqueer challenge classifications of masculine and feminine, and may identify as somewhere other than male and female, in between male and female, a combination of male and female, or a third (or forth, or fifth, etc.) gender altogether. These identities demonstrate the fluidity of gender, which is so frequently thought to be biological and immutable. Gender fluidity also shows how gender norms are learned and either accepted or rejected by the socialized individual.
The Social Construction of Gender
Social constructivists propose that there is no inherent truth to gender; it is constructed by social expectations and gender performance.
Explain Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity
Social constructionism is the notion that people’s understanding of reality is partially, if not entirely, socially situated.
Gender is a social identity that needs to be contextualized.
Individuals internalize social expectations for gender norms and behave accordingly.
Gender performativity: Gender Performativity is a term created by post-structuralist feminist philosopher Judith Butler in her 1990 book Gender Trouble, which has subsequently been used in a variety of academic fields that describes how individuals participate in social constructions of gender.
social constructionism: The idea that social institutions and knowledge are created by actors within the system, rather than having any inherent truth on their own.
essentialism: The view that objects have properties that are essential to them.
The social construction of gender comes out of the general school of thought entitled social constructionism. Social constructionism proposes that everything people “know” or see as “reality” is partially, if not entirely, socially situated. To say that something is socially constructed does not mitigate the power of the concept. Take, for example, money. Money is a socially constructed reality. Paper bills are worth nothing independent of the value individuals ascribe to them. The dollar is only worth as much as value as Americans are willing to ascribe to it. Note that the dollar only works in its own currency market; it holds no value in areas that don’t use the dollar. Nevertheless, the dollar is extremely powerful within its own domain.
These basic theories of social constructionism can be applied to any issue of study pertaining to human life, including gender. Is gender an essential category or a social construct ? If it is a social construct, how does it function? Who benefits from the way that gender is constructed? A social constructionist view of gender looks beyond categories and examines the intersections of multiple identities and the blurring of the boundaries between essentialist categories. This is especially true with regards to categories of male and female, which are viewed typically as binary and opposite. Social constructionism seeks to blur the binary and muddle these two categories, which are so frequently presumed to be essential.
Judith Butler and Gender Performativity
Judith Butler is one of the most prominent social theorists currently working on issues pertaining to the social construction of gender. Butler is a trained philosopher and has oriented her work towards feminism and queer theory. Butler’s most known work is Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, published in 1991, which argues for gender performativity. This means that gender is not an essential category. The repetitious performances of “male” and “female” in accordance with social norms reifies the categories, creating the appearance of a naturalized and essential binary. Gender is never a stable descriptor of an individual, but an individual is always “doing” gender, performing or deviating from the socially accepted performance of gender stereotypes. Doing gender is not just about acting in a particular way. It is about embodying and believing certain gender norms and engaging in practices that map on to those norms. These performances normalize the essentialism of gender categories. In other words, by doing gender, we reinforce the notion that there are only two mutually exclusive categories of gender. The internalized belief that men and women are essentially different is what makes men and women behave in ways that appear essentially different. Gender is maintained as a category through socially constructed displays of gender.
Doing gender is fundamentally a social relationship. One does gender in order to be perceived by others in a particular way, either as male, female, or as troubling those categories. Certainly, gender is internalized and acquires significance for the individual; some individuals want to feel feminine or masculine. Social constructionists might argue that because categories are only formed within a social context, even the affect of gender is in some ways a social relation. Moreover, we hold ourselves and each other for our presentation of gender, or how we “measure up.” We are aware that others evaluate and characterize our behavior on the parameter of gender. Social constructionists would say that gender is interactional rather than individual—it is developed through social interactions. Gender is also said to be omnirelevant, meaning that people are always judging our behavior to be either male or female.
Sex vs. Gender
The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. However, in a discussion of gender socialization, it’s important to distinguish between the two.
Sex is biologically and physiologically determined based on an individual’s anatomy at birth. It is typically binary, meaning that one’s sex is either male or female.
Gender is a social construct. An individual’s gender is their social identity resulting from their culture’s conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum.
Individuals develop their own gender identity, influenced in part by the process of gender socialization.
Question : What do you understand ‘by class struggle’ ?
Class Struggle Class struggle is a recurring feature according to Marx in all societies. This struggle, he says is inevitable because the ruling class in every society sows the seeds of its own destruction, sooner or later. Oppression – economic, political and ideological is a feature of this class-struggle. Exploitation leads to rise of opposed class. Thus, they feel alienated from a system which they help in treating, without labour, for instance, capitalism can never subsist. Yet, the workers are alienated. A consciousness develops around which working class is formed and when they clash, with the oppressions they overthrow the system leading to a new stage of social formation and the abolition of private means of ownership, as a consequence of which classlessness emerges. From the above, it becomes clear that only when class consciousness evolve and the class organises itself towards the pursuit of its own does a “class exists in the Marxian sense”. So, from a class in itself, it becomes a class fix itself. Thus, for Marx, the essential feature of socisl inequality is Power – the economic power. Society is divided into those who have it and those who do not, i.e., the oppressors and the oppressed. Marx’s economic interpretation is an explanation of what accounts for this inequality in power. Those who own the means of production have the power to rule and oppress those who do not own it. Class controls the prevailing ideas in a given society.
Question : List the major reasons for declining sex ratio in India.
answer :Factors responsible for declining sex ratio
– Education – The role of education has a great influence on the sex ratio scenario of India. Child marriages are a common part of the Indian society. Most of the girls are prone to the issue of child marriage at a very early age. This makes them to stay away from the education and are compelled to take the responsibilities of the household. Due to illiteracy, people are unaware about the power and role of women in today’s era.
– Poverty – Poverty is one of the factor which is responsible for the declining sex ratio. States like Tamil Nadu have a high sex ratio but the poverty rate is low. There are states wherein due to poverty, a lot of girls are denied of nutritious food. This deprives the women and girl child from a living a healthy life.
– Social status of women – In most parts of India, women are merely considered as an object. People are worried about the dowry issue with the birth of a girl child. Due to financial problem, most of the families in rural areas prefer male child over female.
– Lack of empowerment of women – There is a lack of empowerment of women especially in the rural areas. Women do not enjoy opportunities as men do. Due to lack of education, women are unable to establish their roles in many places. The state of Uttar Pradesh has become like a grave for girls.
– Male domination – Majority of the places in India follow the patriarchal system.In India, males are considered to be the only bread earners. The methods of sex determination and female foeticide are adopted which is main reason of declining number of females especially in North India.
– Infant and Maternal Mortality – Infant mortality rate is the number of death of babies before the age of one. Due to female foeticide, the sex ratio declines terribly. Maternal mortality also contributes to the declining sex ratio as most of the women die during the childbirth due to improper care and less facilities.
Question : Distinguish between the old middle class and the new middle class
Historically speaking, the term middle class was first used to describe the emerging class of bourgeoisie in Western Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During the initial phase of development of the industrial economy, the bourgeoisie (the new class of merchants and industrialists) stood between the gentry (land owning classes and the aristocracy) on the one hand and the poor working classes on the other. As the industrial economy developed further, the land owning gentry declined and the bourgeoisie – consisting of the big industrialists and financiers – emerged as the ruling class. The term middle class began to be used for the independent small traders, professionals and artisans who stood in between the bourgeoisie on the one side and the working class on the other. These classes grew in number with the development of towns and increasing urbanization that accompanied the development of indu’strial production. The direct trading between consumers and producers be:ame more and more difficult with growth of big towns and, cities. These groups were lattr called the “old middle classes”.
The crucial difference between the “old” and the “new middle classes” is their position within the economy. The old middle classes occupied that position by the virtue of their being placed outside the polar class structure. They were neither part of the capitalist class nor of the working class. The new middle classes, on the other hand, did not enjoy any such autonomy. They were part of the big organizations. Their intermediate position came from their place inside the industrial economy. Their growth occurred because of the new demands of modem industry that required the services of a large number of specialists, professionals, technical and administration skills. The “new” middle classes further expanded with growth of the “tertiary” or the servicing sector of the economy. Along with urbanization and industrialization, a large number of tertiary industries, such as banking, insurance, hospitals, hotel, tourism and the mass media developed. These servicing industries eniployed skilled labour and professionals. The proportion of this segment has been consistently increasing in the total working population in most of the Western industrialized countries. The Western experience seems to have proved Marx wrong. Though the “old” middle classes seem to have declined in strength, the size of the “new” middle classes has been expanding.
Question : Differentiate between gender and sex.
Answer : What does the word sex mean?
First, let’s talk about sex. Intercourse aside for these purposes, sex is “a label assigned at birth based on the reproductive organs you’re born with.” It’s generally how we divide society into two groups, male and female—though intersex people are born with both male and female reproductive organs. (Important note: Hermaphrodite is a term that some find offensive.)
What does gender mean?
Gender, on the other hand, goes beyond one’s reproductive organs and includes a person’s perception, understanding, and experience of themselves and roles in society. It’s their inner sense about who they’re meant to be and how they want to interact with the world.
This refers to the Cultural and Social ideas that 90 with the upbringing which themselves create the aotions of malelfemale; manlwoman.