Indian Sociologists - Class 11 Sociology - Chapter 5 - Notes, NCERT Solutions & Extra Questions
Renews every month. Cancel anytime
Your personal doubt-solving assistant
Chatterbot AI gives you 100% accurate answers to your questions in an instant.
Extra Questions - Indian Sociologists | Understanding Society | Sociology | Class 11
💡 Have more questions?
Ask Chatterbot AINCERT Solutions - Indian Sociologists | Understanding Society | Sociology | Class 11
How did Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy come to practice social anthropology?
Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy became social anthropologists largely by accident and through unique circumstances:
Ananthakrishna Iyer
- Initial Career: Began as a clerk and then a school and college teacher.
- Ethnographic Survey: In 1902, the Dewan of Cochin asked him to assist with an ethnographic survey. He did this work voluntarily while maintaining his job as a college teacher.
- Recognition: His work was appreciated by British anthropologists and administrators, leading to more opportunities, including a similar survey in Mysore state.
- Academic Role: Invited to lecture at the University of Madras and became a Reader at the University of Calcutta, helping establish the first post-graduate anthropology department in India.
Sarat Chandra Roy
- Initial Background: Completed degrees in English and law and became an English teacher at a missionary school in Ranchi in 1898.
- Legal Interpreter: Gave up teaching to practice law, which required him to interpret tribal customs and laws to the court.
- Fieldwork: Developed a deep interest in tribal societies, traveling extensively and conducting intensive fieldwork, resulting in valuable monographs and research articles.
- Publications: Published over a hundred articles and founded the journal "Man in India" in 1922.
Both Iyer and Roy were pivotal in founding Indian anthropology without formal institutional support.
What were the main arguments on either side of the debate about how to relate to tribal communities?
The debate on how to relate to tribal communities had two main sides:
Protectionists (British administrator-anthropologists):
- Belief: Tribals were primitive people with a distinctive culture far from mainstream Hinduism.
- Concern: Contact with Hindu culture would lead to exploitation and cultural degradation of tribals.
- Objective: The state should protect tribals and help sustain their way of life and culture.
Nationalists (led by Ghurye):
- Belief: Emphasized the unity of India and the need for modernizing Indian society and culture.
- View on Tribals: Tribals were seen as 'backward Hindus', not distinct cultural groups.
- Argument: Assimilation with mainstream Hindu culture is essential and the difficulties tribals face are common to all backward and downtrodden sections of society.
- Objective: Tribals should develop and modernize rather than be preserved as primitive communities.
Key argument of Nationalists (Ghurye):
- Tribals had long been involved in interactions with Hinduism and were simply further behind in the process of assimilation.
- The impact of mainstream culture on tribals is not unique and is part of the broader development challenges.
These arguments reflect differing views on whether to preserve tribal cultures as distinct entities or to integrate them into mainstream society.
Outline the positions of Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India.
Herbert Risley's Position
- Race and Caste Relationship: Risley argued caste originated in racial differences, classifying higher castes as Indo-Aryan and lower castes as non-Aryan.
- Methodology: Used anthropometric measurements like nose length, skull size, etc., to identify distinct racial types among castes.
- Indo-Aryan Hypothesis: Suggested lower castes were the original aboriginal inhabitants subjugated by Indo-Aryan invaders.
G.S. Ghurye's Position
- Partial Agreement: Agreed partially with Risley that in northern India, upper castes resembled Aryan traits and lower castes were non-Aryan.
- Critical of Anthropometry: Highlighted the problem of using averages and emphasized considering variation within communities.
- Inconsistent Across Regions: Argued racial purity was mainly preserved in northern India, elsewhere racial mixing had occurred.
- Hierarchy of Caste: Believed endogamy (marrying within caste) maintained caste structure rather than racial purity.
Key Differences:
- Methodology: Risley relied heavily on physical measurements while Ghurye criticized this approach.
- Scope of Conclusion: Risley's racial theory of caste was broad, Ghurye's was region-specific and more nuanced.
Summarise the social anthropological definition of caste.
The social anthropological definition of caste according to G.S. Ghurye outlines six key features:
- Segmental division: Caste is divided into closed, mutually exclusive segments; determined by birth.
- Hierarchical division: Each caste is strictly unequal to every other caste; no two castes are theoretically equal.
- Social interaction restrictions: Includes elaborate rules on food sharing and social interaction, governed by purity and pollution.
- Differential rights and duties: Varied rights and duties in both religious and secular contexts based on caste.
- Occupational restrictions: Occupation is hereditary and caste-based, forming a rigid division of labor.
- Marriage restrictions: Includes caste endogamy and rules on exogamy to regulate marriage within specific groups.
These features help to systematically understand and study the caste system, highlighting its comprehensive and rigid nature.
What does D.P. Mukerji mean by a 'living tradition'? Why did he insist that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition?
D.P. Mukerji described a 'living tradition' as one that maintains links with the past by retaining some aspects from it while also incorporating new elements to adapt to the present. This implies a tradition that evolves over time rather than remaining static.
Mukerji insisted that Indian sociologists should be rooted in this tradition because he believed that Indian culture and society are deeply communal and less individualistic compared to the West. Understanding India requires appreciation of its social groups, customs, and mores. He argued that sociologists should be familiar with both high and low cultures to fully grasp the nuances of Indian social systems. His emphasis was on studying tradition as a dynamic and adaptive phenomenon that is central to understanding social change in India.
In short, living tradition involves retaining old elements while incorporating new ones, and being rooted in it helps sociologists understand the distinctiveness and nuances of Indian society.
What are the specificities of Indian culture and society, and how do they affect the pattern of change?
According to D.P. Mukerji, certain specificities of Indian culture and society significantly impact the pattern of change:
-
Social System’s Centrality: Indian society is group-oriented, with emphasis on social groups like caste, sect, and community rather than individual action. This contrasts with Western individualism.
-
Living Tradition: Tradition in India is considered living, maintaining links with the past while incorporating new elements. This allows for continuous adaptation and evolution.
-
Group Experience: Change in Indian society is driven more by collective experiences rather than individual experiences. Prem (love) and Anubhava (experience) are historically influential in inducing change.
-
Rebellion and Tradition: Conflicts and rebellion often lead to changes within tradition rather than outright rejection. This results in a transformed but continuous tradition, typical of caste society.
D.P. Mukerji also emphasized that non-economic causes of change, like cultural and social factors, are vital in the Indian context, contrasting with the Western focus on economic drivers.
These specificities mean that change in India is often gradual and rooted in a deeply held cultural and social framework.
What is a welfare state? Why is A.R. Desai critical of the claims made on its behalf?
A welfare state is defined by A.R. Desai as a state with the following features:
- Positive State: It is interventionist and actively designs and implements social policies for societal betterment.
- Democratic State: Democracy is essential, usually characterized by multi-party elections.
- Mixed Economy: It features both private capitalist enterprises and state-owned enterprises.
A.R. Desai is critical of the welfare state's claims because:
- Failure to Eliminate Poverty: Modern welfare states often fail to ensure freedom from poverty and provide economic security for all.
- Economic Inequality: They do not effectively redistribute wealth or prevent its concentration.
- Economic Instability: These states do not achieve stable development and are susceptible to market fluctuations.
- High Unemployment: Most welfare states struggle with high levels of unemployment.
- Capitalist Motivation: The capitalist profit motive often remains predominant, subordinating community needs.
Desai’s critique highlights the myth of the welfare state and its inability to achieve its proclaimed ideals.
What arguments were given for and against the village as a subject of sociological research by M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont?
Here are the arguments for and against the village as a subject of sociological research according to M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont:
Arguments by M.N. Srinivas (For):
- Relevance of the Village: Srinivas believed that the village was a significant social entity in India. Historical evidence and ethnographic accounts emphasized the unifying identity that villages provided and their role in rural social life.
- Village Unity: He argued that village unity had considerable significance in historical and social contexts.
- Against Self-Sufficiency Myth: He criticized the British perspective that villages were unchanging, self-sufficient "little republics". Instead, he showed that villages had undergone substantial change and were involved in broader economic, social, and political relationships.
- Ethnographic Research Advantage: Village studies provided a vivid and detailed depiction of social change, helping urban Indians, policymakers, and scholars understand rural life.
- Role in Modernizing Society: Village studies highlighted the transformations occurring in rural India, especially in the context of post-independence planned development, making sociology relevant to contemporary issues.
Arguments by Louis Dumont (Against):
- Focus on Social Institutions: Dumont argued that social institutions like caste were more critical than the village. He believed that caste, religion, and other institutions followed people wherever they went, whereas villages could change or die out.
- Not a Primary Social Unit: He suggested that a village was merely a collection of people living in a certain place and did not warrant as much importance as individual social institutions that held more significance over larger geographical areas.
Conclusion:
Srinivas provided strong arguments for the sociological importance of villages, emphasizing their role in unifying identity and illustrating socio-economic changes. Dumont, on the other hand, pushed for a focus on persistent social institutions, suggesting that villages were less central to sociological study.
What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology? What role did M.N. Srinivas play in promoting village studies?
Significance of Village Studies in Indian Sociology
Village studies hold a special place in the history of Indian sociology for several reasons:
- First-hand Knowledge: They provided detailed ethnographic data on rural life, shedding light on the social structures, relationships, and changes occurring in Indian villages.
- Eye-Witness Accounts: These studies documented the rapid social change in rural India, especially in the context of post-independence planned development.
- Policy Implications: The insights gained from village studies were valuable to urban Indians and policymakers, helping them understand the real impacts of development policies.
- Broadening the Discipline: Village studies expanded the scope of Indian sociology beyond the study of "primitive" peoples, making it relevant to the modernising Indian society.
Role of M.N. Srinivas in Promoting Village Studies
M.N. Srinivas played a pivotal role in promoting village studies:
- Fieldwork: Srinivas conducted extensive fieldwork in villages, gaining in-depth knowledge of village social structures. This fieldwork was the foundation for his influential writings.
- Ethnographic Accounts: He produced detailed ethnographic studies, like his work on the Coorgs of South India, which showcased the importance of empirical data.
- Institution Building: Srinivas encouraged village studies through institutional efforts, helping to establish sociology departments that prioritized fieldwork.
- Intellectual Debate: He engaged in intellectual debates about the relevance of the village as a social unit, arguing against views that minimized the importance of villages in understanding Indian society.
- Academic Influence: Through his writings, teachings, and supervision of new scholars, Srinivas significantly influenced the next generation of Indian sociologists.
Srinivas' efforts made village studies a dominant field in Indian sociology during the 1950s and 1960s, helping to shape the discipline's trajectory.
💡 Have more questions?
Ask Chatterbot AINotes - Indian Sociologists | Class 11 Understanding Society | Sociology
Essential Notes on Indian Sociologists for Class 11 Students
The discipline of sociology in India has evolved significantly, thanks to the contributions of several pioneering sociologists. Understanding their work provides valuable insights into the cultural and social dynamics of India, and these notes aim to cover key figures and their contributions comprehensively.
Founding Figures of Indian Sociology
The roots of formal sociology in India can be traced back to the early 20th century when university departments of sociology were established at Bombay, Calcutta, and Lucknow. L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy are notable pioneers in this field.
L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer began his career as a clerk but later became a well-known figure in social anthropology. His work on ethnographic surveys in Cochin and Mysore earned him both national and international recognition.
Sarat Chandra Roy, who started as an English teacher, became an authority on tribal societies in Chhotanagpur. His numerous publications on tribal cultures and his journal "Man in India" made significant contributions to Indian sociology.
G.S. Ghurye - The Institution Builder
Early Life and Academic Background
G.S. Ghurye was born in 1893 in Malvan, a town in the Konkan coastal region of western India. He completed his undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Sanskrit and English at Elphinstone College in Bombay.
Contributions to Indian Sociology
Ghurye headed the first post-graduate teaching department of sociology at Bombay University for thirty-five years. He founded the Indian Sociological Society and its journal, "Sociological Bulletin."
Ghurye’s Views on Caste and Race
One of Ghurye's major works is "Caste and Race in India," where he critiques the racial theories of caste prevalent at the time. He provided a comprehensive definition of caste, emphasising six features:
- Segmental division
- Hierarchical division
- Restrictions on social interaction
- Differential rights and duties
- Occupational restrictions
- Marriage restrictions
graph LR
A[Caste System Features] --> B[Segmental Division]
A --> C[Hierarchical Division]
A --> D[Restrictions on Social Interaction]
A --> E[Differential Rights and Duties]
A --> F[Occupational Restrictions]
A --> G[Marriage Restrictions]
Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji - Tradition and Change
Background and Academic Journey
D.P. Mukerji was born in 1894 in Bengal and had degrees in history and economics. He later turned to sociology due to his dissatisfaction with the existing social sciences in India.
Mukerji's View on Sociology and Tradition
D.P. Mukerji believed that Indian sociologists should study social traditions to understand society effectively. He argued that traditions are living entities that adapt to changes over time. He also emphasised the importance of understanding cultural and social contexts in sociological studies.
graph TD
A[Tradition] -->|Link to Past| B[Old Elements]
A -->|Adaptation| C[New Elements]
B --> D[Transmission]
C --> D[Evolution]
A.R. Desai - The Marxist Perspective
A.R. Desai brought a Marxist perspective to Indian sociology, focusing on economic processes and divisions. His seminal work, "Social Background of Indian Nationalism," is a Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism.
Desai on State and Society
Desai criticised the concept of the welfare state, highlighting that modern capitalist states often fail to provide essential economic and social security to all citizens. He argued for a more active role of the state in ensuring equality and stability.
M.N. Srinivas - Modernisation and the Village
Background and Education
M.N. Srinivas was born in 1916 in Mysore. He completed his MA under G.S. Ghurye and later pursued further studies in Oxford.
Srinivas’s Work on Villages
Srinivas's ethnographic work on Indian villages brought new insights into rural social structures. He argued that villages are dynamic entities that significantly interact with broader economic, social, and political systems.
graph TB
A[Village Studies] --> B[Ethnographic Research Methods]
A --> C[Social Change]
A --> D[Planned Development]
Conclusion
These four Indian sociologists have significantly shaped the discipline by blending Western theories with Indian contexts. Ghurye's work on caste, Mukerji's focus on tradition and change, Desai's Marxist critique, and Srinivas's village studies have provided diverse perspectives that continue to influence Indian sociology.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- Who were the founding figures of Indian sociology?
- When did formal university teaching of sociology begin in India?
- How did colonialism impact the development of sociology in India?
- Who was L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and what were his contributions?
- What is Sarat Chandra Roy known for in Indian sociology?
- How did G.S. Ghurye shape Indian sociology?
- What are the six features of caste according to Ghurye?
- Who is D.P. Mukerji and what were his major contributions?
- How did D.P. Mukerji view the relationship between tradition and change?
- Who was A.R. Desai and what is his famous work?
- What was A.R. Desai's critique of the welfare state?
- What are the major themes covered in A.R. Desai’s writings?
- Who was M.N. Srinivas and what did he contribute to Indian sociology?
- What are M.N. Srinivas’s views on the Indian village?
- How did M.N. Srinivas help to globalize Indian sociology?
- What were the main debates around the concept of the village in Indian sociology?
- How did early sociologists in India blend Western theories with Indian contexts?
- What were the contributions of British administrator-anthropologists to Indian sociology?
- How did Ghurye and Desai incorporate Marxism into their sociological analysis?
- What influence did British social anthropology have on Indian sociology?
These notes provide a solid foundation for understanding Indian sociologists and their valuable contributions.
🚀 Learn more about Notes with Chatterbot AI