![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
'The Burakumin are regarded as "ostracised."[71]' I'm not trying to downplay that, but can we get a more recent source? 1961 was half a century ago. (Imagine what happened if we used a 1961 source to describe the status of African Americans today.) And it's probably better to avoid putting a single word in quotes as it may be read as scare quotes too. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I will give the RfC a little more time, but in the mean time, I'm compiling a more improved bibliography of the tertiary sources. It is improved because the citations are more complete, but also because I have included the list of references at the end of each article. (It is improved also because I am now removing the high-school/college textbooks on the grounds that they usually have case studies, rather than scholarly overviews.) I will be arranging the tertiaries alphabetically in small subsections. The references, which are obviously chosen by the experts who write the tertiary "caste" articles, will help us in deciding what to include and emphasize in the proposed first section, "Definitions, concepts, and review of literature," which will constitute 45% of article space. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Johnson, Allan G. (2000), "caste", The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User's Guide to Sociological Language, Wiley, p. 34, ISBN 978-0-631-21681-0, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste. A caste is a rigid category into which people arc born with no possibility of change. In some systems Of STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY, the distribution of rewards and resources is organized around castes. In India, the caste system historically has consisted of four basic categories - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra - each with its own specific and rigid location in the stratification system. In addition to these, an "outcaste" of "untouchables" is beneath the lowest caste. The crossing of caste boundaries is rigidly prohibited through controls over occupational distribution and residence, and especially through control over the choice of marriage partners. Within the four major castes, there are numerous sub-castes among which a certain amount of mobility is possible. According to the Indian caste system, which is codified in the Hindu religion, people may move from one caste to another across several life-times through the process of reincarnation. Such movements depend upon successful performance in the present caste position, which means that the system provides a powerful incentive for enforcing acceptance of the caste system itself and its inequalities. Although the concept of caste is associated almost exclusively with India, elements of caste can be found in a few other societies, such as Japan during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and more recently in the United States and South Africa. Although the caste system was officially banned in India in 1949, its influence remains in rural areas.
Lagasse, Paul, ed. (2007), "Caste", The Columbia Encyclopedia, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-14446-9, retrieved 24 September 2012 Quote:
caste [Port., casta=basket], ranked groups based on heredity within rigid systems of social stratification, especially those that constitute Hindu India. Some scholars, in fact, deny that true caste systems are found outside India. The caste is a closed group whose members are severely restricted in their choice of occupation and degree of social participation. Marriage outside the caste is prohibited. Social status is determined by the caste of one's birth and may only rarely be transcended. Certain religious minorities may voluntarily constitute a quasi-caste within a society, but they are less apt to be characterized by cultural distinctiveness than by their self-imposed social segregation. A specialized labor group may operate as a caste within a society otherwise free of such distinctions (e.g., the ironsmiths in parts of Africa). In general, caste functions to maintain the status quo in a society. ... The occupational barriers among Indian castes have been breaking down slowly under economic pressures since the 19th cent., but social distinctions have been more persistent. Attitudes toward the untouchables only began to change in the 1930s under the influence of Mohandas Gandhi's teachings, who called the group Harijans. Although untouchability was declared illegal in 1949, resistance to change has remained strong, especially in rural areas. As increased industrialization produced new occupations and new social and political functions evolved, the caste system adapted and thus far has not been destroyed.
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help); horizontal tab character in |series=
at position 2 (
help)Morris, Mike (2012), "caste", Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, p. 33, ISBN 978-1-4443-3209-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste. The hereditary and hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) division Of SOCIETY in (usually) India, associated there with Hinduism. Members of a caste share the same profession and STATUS and traditionally avoid physical contact with members of other castes. Subdivisions of castes ("jatis") are linked to particular obligations and rights (the "jajmani" system). Anthropologists disagree on whether caste should be read in ways similar to SOCIAL STRUCTURES outside India or as something unique. The nature of jajmani conventions has also been disputed. The word "caste" derives from Spanish and Portuguese, casta ("race"). (Further reading: Dumont (1980); Beteille (1996).)
Lindholm, Charles (2002), "caste, caste societies", in Thomas Barfield (ed.), The Dictionary of Anthropology, Oxford, UK: Blackwell; New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 50–51, ISBN 978-1-57718-057-9
caste, caste societies: In a caste society groups of persons engaged in specific occupations or with specific characteristics are ranked hierarchically. These ranks are ostensibly based on the degree of pollution incurred by work at the caste specialty or by other group characteristics, and one's position in the caste scale may be regarded as a reward or punishment for spiritual attainments (see PURITY/POLLUTION). India is the most famous (some say the only) caste society. There caste is broken into four great varnas: the "twice-born" Brahman priests, Kshatriya warriors, and Vaisiya merchants, and the "once-born" Sudra peasants. Beneath these and officially excluded from the caste system are the Untouchables (Gandhi's harijans, or "children of God," now self-designated as Dalits, or "oppressed"), who fill the most polluting occupations. Although the Brahmans are universally recognized as the least spiritually polluted caste, there is no absolute consensus as to who is on top or why. For instance, religious renunciants can make claims to special holiness either by showing extraordinary asceticism and purity, or by engaging in cannibalism and self-degradation or indulging in intoxication and excess (J. Parry 1982; Lynch 1990). Furthermore, the Kshatriya, who traditionally served as rulers, established competing axes of valuation for themselves to counterbalance the Brahmans' claims to pre-eminence (Inden 1990; Heesterman 1985). In fact, Dirks (1987) argued that the Brahmanical portrait of caste was simply a wishful fantasy of priests in a colonial atmosphere that favored the disjuncture between kingly power and religious legitimacy. Among ordinary people, however, the main competition between castes remains at a lower level of organization. All the varnas are divided into multitudinous jatis, or local, endogamous occupational groups, that constitute the varied labor force of the society. These jatis can and do contest their relative positions and attempt to rise in the ranks through what Srinivas (1962) famously called "Sanskritization': emulating the attributes of higher caste groups. Thus, an economically successful lower caste may take up less polluting occupations and habits and claim higher caste status. Whether these claims are accepted varies (F. Bailey 1957), but clearly slow upward (and downward) mobility in the caste rank of jati was far more likely prior to colonial censuses, which fixed caste positions immutably in written records. Academic definitions of caste are also not solidified, and fall into two mutually exclusive positions. The first is structural-functional and views caste as a category or type, comparable in many respects to hierarchical organizations elsewhere. In this vein, Gerald Berreman wrote that "a caste system resembles a plural society whose discrete sections all ranked vertically." (1968: 55). Indian caste therefore is analogous to social structures elsewhere in which rank is ascribed, such as American racial grading (Goethals 1961; Bujra 1971). The second school understands Indian caste as a total symbolic world, unique, self-contained, and not comparable to other systems. Most of these theorists would agree with the classic definition by Bougle, who wrote that "the spirit of caste unites these three tendencies: repulsion, hierarchy and hereditary specialization" (1971: 9); controversies are primarily over which of these aspects is stressed. Dumont, the best known of the symbolic school, based his interpretation of caste on the attributes of hierarchy and repulsion. In his book Homo hierarchicus (1970), he focused on the rigidity of caste positions at each end of the hierarchical spectrum (Brahmans and outcastes) and the radical opposition in Hindu thought between categories of power and categories of status. LEACH, on the other hand, gave first place to hereditary specialization; the diagnostic of the system, for him, was that "every caste, not merely the upper elite, has its special 'privileges" (1960a: 7). A somewhat different approach was taken by Marriott and Inden. They postulated an indigenous monism, grounded in the assumption that in a caste society "all living beings are differentiated into genera, or classes, each of which is thought to possess a defining substance" (1974: 983). These substances, according to the theory, arc formed by various transactions, particularly exchanges of food. Marriott and Inden were then able to develop transactional flow charts that locate all different Indian groups within their paradigm. A difficulty for interpretive theory is the place of non-Hindus within a caste system. For instance, Muslims, who make up approximately 12 percent of India's population, advocate the equality of all believers and deny the validity of notions of pollution (Lindholm 1986). The problem of accommodating such nonbelievers within caste society is not merely academic, as present-day sectarian battles chillingly testify.
Winthrop, Robert H. (1991), Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, ABC-CLIO, pp. 27–30, ISBN 978-0-313-24280-9, retrieved 10 August 2012
CASTE 1. An explicitly hierarchical social system based on hereditary, endogamous groups, in which each is characterized by a specific status, occupation, mode of life, and pattern of customary interactions with other such groups. 2. One of the endogamous units of such a system. Caste is one of a number of terms (cf. order, estate, class) denoting a ranked segment of society. Although caste is used primarily with reference to India, it is a European term, applied (at least originally) by Europeans to the analysis of Hindu life. ... The following analysis will consider caste primarily as an Indian phenomenon, with some attention also given to the relevance of caste as a cross-cultural category. In the Hindu perspective, society is of necessity highly differentiated; there is a PATTERN of behavior appropriate to each caste and stage of life. ... (New Section) Caste in India ... (New Section) Theories of Caste Anthropological debate regarding the caste concept has been dominated by two related questions: (1) What principles determine caste ranking? and (2) Is caste a cross-cultural phenomenon, or is it limited to the South Asian CULTURE AREA? ... whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Bartlett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY).
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help) An early yet theoretically sophisticated state-mentNagar, Richa (2011), "caste", in Derek Gregory (ed.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Ron Johnston, Geraldine Pratt, Michael Watts, Sarah Whatmore, John Wiley & Sons, p. 72, ISBN 978-1-4443-5995-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste An endogamous social hierarchy of enduring political significance, believed to have emerged some 3500 years ago around highly questionable categories of Aryans and non-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent. The former - comprising brahmart, kshatriya and vaishya - emerged as dominant occupational castes of so-called dvija (twice-born). The shudra caste(s) - regarded as non-Aryan and 'mixed' - were occupationally marginalized and racialized, as was also the case later with the `outcastes' (Dalit), whose touch was deemed polluting (Thapar, 1966). This order was challenged from the sixth century BCE, but all major religions in India came to bear the social imprint of caste. Brahman social dominance was bolstered by a British neo-Brahmanical ruling IDEOLOGY, and provoked a backlash (Bose and Jalal, 1997). Significantly, leaders such as Lohia analytically separated the high castes from women, shudra, Dalit, Muslim and adivasi ('indigenous') and underscored the political necessity of marriages between shudra and dvija, while disrupting the rift between manual and brain work, which contributed to the formation, rigidification and violence of caste.
Madan, T. N.; Editors (2012),
caste, Encyclopæida Britannica Online {{
citation}}
: |last2=
has generic name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |fist2=
(
help)
caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies.
References:
Sonnad, Subhash R. (2003), "Caste", in Christensen, Karen; Levinson, David (eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 115–121, ISBN 978-0-7619-2598-9, retrieved 5 August 2012 Quote:
Theories of Caste A number of scholars, Hindu religious leaders, and commentators have speculated about the origins of the caste system. Weber, Hocart, Dumont, Marriott, Milner, Ghurye, and Srinivas are among the widely discussed group of caste theorists. The theories are complex and wide ranging in scope. and they are presented here in a simplified form. The issues of ritual purity and pollution are attributed to the fact that the four different orders of the society (varnas) originated from different parts of the body, namely, the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet. The hierarchical status and functions of the four varnas have been attributed to this origin. This explanation is too biological and religious in nature to serve as a satisfactory social explanation. Another point of view is presented to explain the definition of the term varna, which means color. The original settlers in India were dark. The group of people who reached India from outside and who gradually conquered the original local inhabitants proceeded to subjugate them to a lower status and to stratify the social system. This theory does not address the problem of the multiplicity of jatis and the absence of such a development in all the other conquered parts of the world. Another explanation takes a conflict perspective and suggests that the system was created and sustained by the monarch of the conquering country as supreme authority. The occupational categories solidified and developed into castes. A different type of explanation posits that to maintain ritual purity, the Brahmans could not associate with unclean occupations. Though widely discussed, both these theories also fail to explain adequately why all the other agricultural nations did not develop such an elaborate caste system. It has also been argued that the colonial rule with its divide-and-conquer policy crystallized already existing caste differences. While this criticism is valid to some extent, evidence provided by early observers, travelers, and writers indicates that many caste divisions and practices were quite inflexible prior to the British rule in India. Another theory argues that the status of a caste conferred social power in India though it was not highly correlated with economic or political power. The status conferred on a caste was dependent on adherence to the social, religious, and cultural norms specific to that particular group. This theory does not provide an adequate explanation for this unique type of a status inconsistency, where power is independent of the usual correlates. In addition, some of the tenets about status as a zero-sum game are open to discussion. There is generally no argument with the criticisms of feminists about patriarchal families and domination of females in the traditional caste system. However, the feminist perspectives do not adequately explain the origin, proliferation, hereditary occupations and purification aspects of the caste phenomenon.
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)Sooryamoorthi, Radhamany (2006), "Caste Systems", in Leonard, Thomas M. (editor) (ed.),
Encyclopedia of the Developing World, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 252–,
ISBN
978-0-415-97662-6, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{
citation}}
: |editor-first=
has generic name (
help)
CASTE SYSTEMS Caste is an age-old institution, evoked through several centuries. As a system of stratification, it has existed in many parts of the world and is being practiced today in some countries. But the caste system of closed endogamous descent groups as prevalent and practiced in India is not found elsewhere (Bayly 2010; Kolenda 1984). Caste is a well-entrenched phenomenon in countries like India. ...
Iyer, Nalini (2008), "Caste", in O'Brien, Jodi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, p. 114–116, ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7, retrieved 15 September 2012
Caste: Caste is a form of social organization that is unique to India and is based on Hindu religious belief. This essay defines the meaning of the caste system and describes the ways in which it has been used to control sexuality, marital status, and economic and social life among women in India. Sociologists have found the caste system a very difficult and complex to describe because the idea of caste has evolved over time and function differently in various parts of India. However, there are some common features to caste that are easily identified. These include the concepts of purify and pollution that govern interpersonal relationships, including occupation, food, kinship, marriage, and religious rituals. Certain castes are considered more pure than others, and Hindus arc obligated to confine their relationships, especially those pertaining to marriage and food, to their particular caste groups. Although the caste system derives from Hinduism, it also informs the social organization of other religious groups in India, including Jains, Christians, and Muslims. ... Although India today is a secular democratic republic that has constitutionally abolished untouchability, the caste system has not been eradicated. Since independence from the British in 1947, the Indian government has pursued affirmative action (referred to as the "reservation system") to enable members of economically underprivileged castes to have better access to education and government jobs. The reservation system has been attacked by upper castes as propagating reverse discrimination. Although the caste system has evolved over time and continues to change, it still holds enormous power in daily social life, politics (caste-based parties, voting blocs), and economics in contemporary India.
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help)Gupta, Dipankar (2008), "Caste", in Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 246–250, ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2, retrieved 5 August 2012
Caste:
What makes Indian society unique is the phenomenon of caste. Economic, religious, and linguistic differentiations, even race-based discrimination, are known elsewhere, but nowhere else does one see caste but in India (and, by extension, the subcontinent). This entry reviews the history of caste and discusses its impact on individuals and society. Caste is unique because it ordains a hierarchy that is based on the extent of purity, or lack of it, that supposedly characterizes the bodily substances of every person. Accordingly, the earliest Hindu text, the Rg Veda (c.1500 BC) puts the Brahmans, as the purest, on top, followed by warriors (Kshatriyas), commoners (Vaisyas), and helots (Sudras) at the bottom. This schematization is known as the Varna system. There is also a fifth category, the Untouchables, but this cluster of castes came to be designated as such much later, perhaps around the 1st or 2nd century AD. In addition, as time went on, the fourfold Varna category in the Rg Veda yielded to hundreds of endogamous units, or jatis. Technically speaking, only the latter are called castes. These units prescribe the frontiers of marriage alliances, and each jati has specific rituals peculiar to itself and, in a large number of cases, a traditional occupation attached to its members. All jatis are regional in character; none of them have have an all-India spread. In fact, most jatis are relevant and recognized only within a radius of about 200 to 300 miles. Caste still continues to function in India as discrete ethnic groups rather than as constituents of a continuous hierarchy of purity in which every Hindu acquiesces. Today, it is possible to say that caste as a system is dying but that identities are alive and well, and it is taking many generations for caste to wither away. Race and Caste: There are clear differences between race and caste. Unlike in race, the physical markers are not visible in caste. The bodily substances that are meant to distinguish between castes are intangible and culturally coded, but the belief is that they can be easily transferred through touch and proximity.Further, caste ideology holds that such commingling of substances pollutes both parties, not just members of the so-called superior caste, though the latter are more seriously affected. This is why the caste order includes strict rules of social intercourse and of sexual /marital relations to ensure that bodily substances of different provenances do not commingle. Each caste has its domain, and it is the duty of everybody in that community to strictly maintain norms regarding pollution. Again, unlike with race, in the caste system, a child whose parents belong to different castes is not considered to carry equal
amounts of both substances from the parents, but is characterized by a third.
Further Readings:
Béteille, André (2002), "Caste", in Barnard, Alan; Spencer, Jonathan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, New York, NY; London, UK: Routledge, pp. 136–137, ISBN 978-0-415-28558-2
Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form although analogous forms exist among Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and other religious groups in South Asia. It is an ancient institution, having existed for at least 2,000 years among the Hindus who developed not only elaborate caste practices hut also a complex theory to explain and justify those practices (Dumont 1970). The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue. ...
Further reading
Pavri, Firooza (2004), "Caste", in Tim Forsyth (ed.), Encyclopedia of International Development, Abingdon, Oxon, OX ; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 63–, ISBN 978-0-415-25342-0
Caste The jati (caste) system, which evolved during the Vedic period (1500–500 BCE), of Hinduism refers to the endogamous social groups comprising contemporary and Vedic Hindu society and the rules of behavior that govern interaction between these groups. ... (Note: after six long paragraphs on India, it ends with:) Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social barriers in other contexts.
Further reading
Salamone, Frank A. (1997), "Caste", in Rodriguez, Junius P. (ed.), The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1, Santa Barbara, CA; Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, p. 133, ISBN 978-0-87436-885-7, retrieved 5 August 2012
Caste: There is a strenuous argument among social scientists over whether the word "caste" can be used anywhere other than in referring to India. The major characteristics of India's caste system are that castes are hereditary, ranked hierarchically, religiously based, theoretically rigid, endogamous, tied to occupations, and politically supported. Additionally, there are rules of ritual purity to prevent or cleanse contamination. (New Paragraph) As the slave trade and transatlantic slavery ended, the number of slaves in African societies increased, es-pecially in those areas where plantations flourished. These slaves began forming a common identity and often acted in concert to achieve certain goals. Control over their daily life was limited, however, because of the power of African monarchs to enforce effective ju-risdiction over their activities. Thus, numerous slave revolts marked late-nineteenth-century Africa. Reforms that slaveowners developed had the effect of making slavery more like a caste status. For example, in Zanzibar, slave families were specifically encouraged, and plots of land were given to nuclear families. This marriage within a group that is tied to a particular oc-cupation is the definition of caste. Moreover, effective legislation granted specific rights to slaves, as in Cal-abar where slaves received immunity from execution. In general, codified rights and duties were attached to slave status, and the position was inherited by a married couple's offspring (Manning, 1990). (New Paragraph) In South Africa and the United States, it can be and has been argued that the relationship between the races had caste-like characteristics. Certainly, both apartheid and segregation had hereditary, rank, religious, endogamous, occupational, and hierarchical as-pects. There was, moreover, a stunning lack of social mobility in both systems and clear aspects of ritual purity tied to contamination beliefs.
Ramu, G. N. (2008), "Caste", in William A. Darity (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (Macmillan social science library), Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, ISBN 978-0-02-865967-1, retrieved 24 September 2012
Caste: Nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. The Hindu ascriptive caste system in India is perhaps the most complex and rigid. It is based on birth, which determines one’s occupation (especially in contemporary rural India), and is maintained by endogamy, commensality, rituals, dietary practices, and norms of purity and pollution. The English term caste is derived from the Portuguese word casta, which refers to lineage, breed, or race. ... (The remaining sections of the article are: THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM, CASTE IN MODERN INDIA, SOME VISIBLE CHANGES IN CASTE RELATIONS, OTHER RELIGIONS AND CASTE, CASTE OUTSIDE INDIA) (full text in link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)Roberts, Nathaniel P. (2008), "Anthropology of Caste", in William A. Darity (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (Macmillan social science library), Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, ISBN 978-0-02-865967-1, retrieved 24 September 2012 Quote:
The Ritual Consensus: Speculative histories and detailed catalogues of caste-based customs dominated colonial anthropology until systematic village-based fieldwork in the 1950s looked at these customs' everyday context to see how caste actually worked. That more sophisticated approach, which the influential Indian anthropologist M. N. Srinivas exemplified, helped undermine stereotypes of caste society as static and passively determined by religious ideology. Srinivas showed that wealth and physical force often trumped mere ritual (1959), and that, although an individual's ritual status was indeed fixed by their jati, whole jatis could sometimes increase their status by adopting the customs of higher-ranked castes (1956). Srinivas's important insights nevertheless remained within the received picture of the caste system as an essentially religious affair by treating the control of land and servile labor, merchant capital, the state, and sheer physical dominance—all of which were termed secular—as extrinsic factors that might interact with caste, but were not an inherent part of it. (New paragraph) The tendency to idealize caste as inherently distinct from these less exotic aspects of social reality was taken to a new extreme by French sociologist Louis Dumont, whose Homo Hierarchicus went so far as to attack empiricism itself as "Westernistic" and therefore incapable of grasping caste's true, Indian essence (1980 [19661, p. 32). ... Dumont's brilliant synthesis of the existing scholarship made Homo Hierarchicus a standard reference for all future discussions of caste, despite disagreement over its visionary epistemology. At one extreme, American anthropologist McKim Marriott (1976) embraced an all-determining cultural hiatus between India and the West even more absolute than Dumont's, for the secular factors Dumont had merely downgraded to a subordinate level were dissolved entirely in Marriott's ethnosociology—an account built completely on native categories, thereby consigning non-culturally recognized reality to theoretical oblivion. On the other side, many sober-minded anthropologists continued to regard both secular realities and caste ideology as a matter of empirical inquiry, while nevertheless accepting the culturalist definition of caste as ritual order.
Das, Veena (2001), "Caste", in Neil J. Smelser (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Paul B. Baltes, Oxford, UK: Pergamon; Elsevier, pp. 1529–1532, ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8, retrieved 25 September 2012
Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999), "Caste", Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, p. 186, ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0, retrieved 24 September 2012
CASTE, group of people having a specific social rank, defined generally by descent, marriage, commensality, and occupation. Although the term caste is applied to hierarchically ranked groups in many different societies around the world, the caste system in its most developed form is found in India. The word (from the Portuguese casta, meaning "race" or "lineage") was first applied to Indian society by Portuguese travelers in the 16th century. A roughly analogous word used in many Indian languages is JATI ("birth group"). There are about 3,000 castes and more than 25,000 subcastes in India, some with several hundred members and others with millions. .... (Note: the rest of the article describes the caste system in India.)
Mitchell, Geoffrey Duncan (2006), "Castes (part of SOCIAL STRATIFICATION)", A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction Publishers, pp. 194–195, ISBN 978-0-202-30878-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
Castes A pure caste system is rooted in the religious order and may be thought of as a hierarchy of hereditary, endogamous, occupational groups with positions fixed and mobility barred by ritual distances between each caste. Empirically, the classical Hindu system of India approximated most closely to pure caste. The system existed for some 3,000 years and continues today despite many attempts to get rid of some of its restrictions. It is essentially connected with Hinduism. In theory all Hindus belong to one of four main groups, denoted by a colour, these were originally in order of precedence the Kshatriyas (a warrior group), the Brahmans (a priestly group), the Vaishyas (trading and manufacturing people) and the Sudras (servants and slaves). These are all mentioned in the Hindu writings of the sixth century B.C. Later the Brahmans replaced the Kshatriyas in the prime position. Outside these four main castes there are over fifty million so-called 'outcastes' but of course these too are part of the caste system, sharing the dominant beliefs about ritual pollution they are among the least privileged and their occupations are among the least esteemed, e.g. those of the tanner or the washerman. ... For its members, a caste system is a coherent and comprehensive system of allocating ritualistic functions on the basis of a ritualistic social order to which all subscribe. It is precisely on this score that to apply the concept of caste to the social stratification of slave-states of North America is both inaccurate and misleading. Here the deep and entrenched social divisions between the white and coloured populations, although, as in contemporary South Africa, given the veneer of religious sanction, arise not from allocation of differential functions in a ritual order but from allocation of menial tasks to men of distinct colour.
Oxford English Dictionary ("caste, n.",
Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition; online version June 2012, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989, retrieved 05 August 2012 {{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help))
caste, n. 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... This is now the leading sense, which influences all others.
Abercrombie, Nicholas; Hill, Stephen; Turner, Bryan S. (2006-02-28), "caste", The Penguin dictionary of sociology, Penguin, p. 46, ISBN 978-0-14-101375-6
caste A caste system is a form of social STRATIFICATION in which castes are hierarchically organized and separated from each other by rules of ritual purity. The lowest strata of the caste system are referred to as 'untouchables', because they are excluded from the performance of rituals which confer religious purity. In this hierarchical system, each caste is ritually purer than the one below it. The caste system is an illustration of SOCIAL CLOSURE in which access to wealth and prestige is closed to social groups which are excluded from the performance of purifying rituals. This ritual segregation is further reinforced by rules of ENDOGAMY. In Max Weber's study of India (1958a), caste represented an important illustration of social ranking by prestige and formed part of a wider interest in pariah groups. ... There is considerable debate as to whether the caste system is specific to Hindu culture, or whether its principal features are more widely found in other societies where hierarchically organized, endogamous strata are present. In the first position, caste cannot be defined independently of 'caste system', which is specific to classical Hindu society. In the second argument, the term caste is extended to embrace the stratification of ethnic groups, for example in the southern states of the USA. While the Hindu caste system is organized in terms of four major castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra) there is considerable diversity at the local, village level ....
Parry, Jonathan (2003), "Caste", in Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (eds.), Social Science Encyclopedia, London and New York: Routledge, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-415-28560-5
Caste systems have been defined in the most general terms as systems of hierarchically ordered endogamous units in which membership is hereditary and permanent (e.g. Berreman 1960). On such a definition a whole range of rigidly stratified societies would be characterized by caste—Japan, for example, or certain Polynesian and East African societies, or the racially divided world of the American Deep South. Hindu India is generally taken as the paradigmatic example. Many scholars would argue, however, that the difference between this case and the others are far more significant than the similarities, and that the term caste should properly be applied only to this context. ...
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(Original French edn. Essais sur le regime des castes, Paris.)Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ("caste", Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, 2002, retrieved 5 August 2012).
caste n. 1 obsolete : .... 2 : one of the hereditary classes into which the society of India is divided in accordance with a system fundamental in Hinduism, reaching back into distant antiquity, ....
Here are the top five authors:
Others, who are mentioned in the tertiary sources themselves as the influential theorists of caste are: Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, F. G. Bailey, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart. The redlinks should have their own pages; there are manifold scholarly references attesting to their notability. Doubtless there are others that will be ferreted out upon more careful reading of the sources. Some books, such as Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus have become classics of the field, and will likely need individual attention and brief description. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are some excerpts. Note that they are usually "brief mentions" in articles longer articles that mostly talk about India, so please don't use these to rekindle the old debate about whether or not India is critical to the notion of caste.
Anthropological debate regarding the caste concept has been dominated by two related questions: (1) What principles determine caste ranking? and (2) Is caste a cross-cultural phenomenon, or is it limited to the South Asian CULTURE AREA? ... An essentially homologous structure of social relations based on different symbolic principles can be seen in Swat (Pakistan), where ideas of honor and shame replace those of purity and pollution. Barth (1971) among others would argue that this is a form of caste system. Yet Swat remains at the borders of Indian civilization: whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Barnett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY).
(Note: the description here is very dated. The article itself is not that old, and the author seems to be an expert on the Caste system in India, but it also seems that the author has copied the "Caste system in the World" section (probably not his interest) from 1930s sources. That explains dated terminology such as "East Horn," "Tussi," swineherds, ...
The caste system is a complex one composed of several Hindu ideas, namely, pollution, purity, and social units of jatis, varna, and dharma (religious duties). The system is, however not typical to Hindus alone but is common among Muslims, Christians, and Jews with relative variations. Muslim caste for instance differs from the Hindu caste wherein no ethico-religious ideas of hierarchy or regulation of intercaste relations are found. In addition, no varna categories are spotted among the Muslims (Srinivas 1965). ... Although the caste system is found in various forms in different parts or the world, including Asia and Africa, India is known for both its origin and its rigorous practice.
Caste system in the world: The caste system, albeit not in the way it is practised in India, is observed in several countries but in variant forms. The Spartan division of the society into citi-zens, helots, and slaves shows the signs of a caste system. In the Roman Empire, there were patricians, plebeians, and slaves. These classifications, however, were on the basis of land holding and wealth, not on the criteria of the Indian caste system (Kroeber 1930). Some, like Lloyd Warner, describe the blacks and whites in the United States as caste groups rather than races because they are socially and not biologically defined categories (Beteile 1992). Bourdieu referred to the racial divide between whites and Muslims in colonial Algeria as a caste system.
Caste-like groupings also exist in China and Madagascar ( Bayly 2000). In both South Africa and the southern United States, caste has been used to explain the systems of racial stratification (Ida 1992). In Fiji, there are chieftains associated with their own clans who have a specific function to perform. These castes are graded according to their functions. Burma under the Burmese monarchy had seven distinct classes of outcastes: Pagoda slaves, profes-sional beggars, executioners, lepers, deformed and mutilated persons, and coffinmakers. Each of them had specific functions (occupations) and positions in the society. People from these outcaste classes could not enter a monarchy or become Buddhist monks (Hutton 19461. Japan is often referred to as "a land of caste" though a clear hereditary or occupational distinction is not made out (Kroeber 1930). Japan's bushido code defines a hierarchy consisting of warriors (samurai), commoners, merchants, and untouchables: this hierarchy more or less resembles the Varna system of India. But this hierarchy is not associated with the proliferation of smaller caste groups (Bayly 2000). The Eta in Japan constitutes a community of outcastes, who reside on the fringes of the Japanese society. They are considered subhuman, wear distinctive clothing, and have no social activities with other classes. Though the Japanese government had abolished all such feudal discrimination way back in 1871, the position of Eta in the society has not improved. They are still being discriminated against at school, at places of employment, and in trade and marriage (Hutton 1946). In Africa, among the Masai, there is a tribe of hunters called Wandorobo. Resemblances to a typical caste system are found in the modern Africa, too. Among the Somali of the East Horn, there are certain outcaste classes of Tomal, Yebir, and Misgan. Pollution and taboo are common among them. The ease is no different in East Africa either. In the Rwanda and Burundi regions, there are three racially and econom-ically distinct groups. namely the Tussi, Hutu, and Twa. With the Twa, no Hutu or Tussi will enter into marriage. The Tussi look down on the Hutu for eating mutton and goat-fish. In the lbo society, a group of people called Osu offer similarities to a caste group. The Osu became a class apart and live in segregated areas. Calling anyone an Osu is an insult. Among the Jews and Gypsies, the system is in vogue. In Egypt, the fighting men were divided into two categories. They were for generations, not allowed to learn and practice any other craft or trade. The swineherds in Egypt were not granted permission to enter temples. Being a priest was also a hereditary occupation. Herodotus mentions seven "clans" of priests, as well as fighting men, herdsmen, swineherds, tradesmen, interpreters, and navigators in Egypt. There are also classes of craftsmen, farmers, and artificers in Egypt that were hereditary and compulsory. As it is clear, caste is being practiced in several parts of the world in varying forms. However, the most rigorous form of its practice is observed in southern Asia, specifically in India.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Britain, the colonial ruler of India, encouraged Indians to migrate to its other colonies in the Caribbean and Africa as indentured laborers in its bid to maintain its economic success. Most of the Indians who chose to migrate were members of lower castes who saw migration as an opportunity for upward mobility. Although the first generation of immigrants tended to retain their caste identities, particularly in matters of marriage and religious rites (Schwartz 1967), subsequent generations did not, because of the assimilative nature of economic, political, and juridical forces (Motwani, Gosine, and Barot-Motwani 1993; Gosine and Narine 1999). Caste cannot be easily transplanted to an environment where Hinduism is not the operative religion.
Systems of stratification comparable to the Indian caste system have been identified in other parts of the world. For example, in Nigeria the relations between the Ibo and Osu groups are similar to those of upper and lower castes. In Somalia a social group called Midgam or Madibhan suffers from all the impediments that Dalits experience: impurity, pollution, and social distance. The Burakumin of Japan have been compared with the Dalits, as they have faced similar restrictions. These restrictions were outlawed in 1871, but, as in the case of Dalits, discrimination continues, especially in matters of employment and marriage (Henshall 1999). These dichotomous divisions, however, do not come close to the intricate caste system. At best, they compare two opposite ends of caste system with another system similar to it, ignoring the middle, wherein lies the heart of caste system.
Even though there have been stout rejections of the claim that caste can be equated with race (see, among others, Gupta 2001) purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948).
Nearly all societies are stratified in one way or another, and some groups will always be relegated to the margins. However, the Indian caste system is unique because of its complexity, its religious foundation, its hereditary occupational system, and its norms of endogamy. More important, caste has served to energize Indian polity because it has been a primary means of motivating and mobilizing citizens to take part in electoral politics. Perhaps that has been a positive aspect of caste in Indian society, but the time may come to look for other means of motivating the electorate in India.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)Will add more later. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The tertiary sources are largely agreed that Hindu India is central to a discussion of caste. Yet in this article (see this version) India is casually mentioned as just one example. Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill) and thereby engage in a kind of defensive universalism, not to mention original research and synthesis? 13:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the problem. Nobody is going to dispute that the concept of "caste" (by which we mean not just varna, but primarily jati) is central to Indian society. This doesn't mean that the entire India article needs to focus on the topic, but obviously it is going to be a major topic under the "Society" header, per WP:SS a summary of the subordinate articles. -- dab (𒁳) 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any debate about existence of caste system among Hindus in India but even according to your source (which are tertiary references while we need secondary) caste system very much exists outside India. You just cannot cherry pick your favorite source and change the lead of the article and make it look like the article of "Caste System of India". Please note this is a general article if you say that it is dominant in India mention you can do it in a better way. I should appreciate you audacity. You are trying to fool people by writing Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India.-- sarvajna ( talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Before we go off into a tangential direction, let me point out that this is technical issue rather than a NPOV/ balance related issue. India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles. The content on India is just a summary of Caste system in India, History of the Indian caste system, Varna (Hinduism) etc. which in turn branch out into hundreds of other articles on caste. As such the size of the section cannot be longer than a certain limit for this article. I don't see where the problem is, please clarify further if I've missed something. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 14:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I encourage Fowler&fowler to identify sources supporting his assertion:
A while ago, I verified the sources cited in this article's section on England, Korea, France, Africa, Yemen, China, etc. and each source I checked did use the word caste. FWIW, the article Caste system in India and numerous linked and sub-linked spin-off articles therein, taken together, is many many times larger than this article. They had grown to be much larger than they are now, and were heavily trimmed per consensus (see talk page of Caste system in India, for example). ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
See citation 14, for Cagots, by Tom Knox (10 June 2010). "The untouchables of FRANCE: How swarthy Pyrenean race persecuted for centuries are still being abused today". London: Daily Mail. He uses the word caste in paragraphs 25-40. The New York Times meet wiki's reliable source guidelines, is included as a second independent source; the NYTimes article verifies the 'Cagots were considered repulsive, morally impure and shunned' part of the summary. On Roma, see Lemon's book and other publications - you will find she uses the word caste. Your own tertiary sources, listed above on this talk page, mention gypsies/Roma people have been described as castes by various scholars. Yes, please get the book and read the sources. I am certain that you will find the sources cited about castes outside India, in this article, include the word "caste".
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I was also referring to Caste#Europe. The first time citation 116 is mentioned in that section of this article, it is mentioned together with citation 14. Please read both, I do not want to repeat my explanation above. Gotlieb supports the summary; get the book and read it. On England or Cagots or anything else, if the quality of this article would be improved by citing additional sources, we can work towards that goal. There are numerous citations out there that use the word caste in describing historical England, Cagots, etc.
Meanwhile, part of our month long dispute is whether this article should be almost entirely about India (your position as I understand it), or should it be a more balanced article with worldwide perspective as described by all sides of the WP:RS scholarly dispute on the subject of caste (my position). I request that you respect the WP:DR process. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have time to go through all of the sources and frankly I think its sheer redundancy puts it close to the category of WP:TLDR.
But from a cursory glance I can tell most of the tertiary sources that were deposited agree on one thing nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. But they also claim, what we already accepted, that the caste system is a complicated problem in India is possibly the most complex and rigid. But we have already accepted that. How many times does the nominator want to make us repeat that? What's wrong with you (Fowler) buddy? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, caste is a form of 'social segregation' and should be treated and talked about in such terms. The very word "caste" has been of a non-Indian origin (meaning "segregation"), yet has been imputed to Indian hindu culture umpteenth number of times in this discussion, why so? Why is fowler so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) mostly to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, we, as individual editors or as a group, cannot evaluate the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, we have to rely on scholarly sources to do that. Typically, tertiary sources—other encyclopedias, specialist references (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology), review-of-the-literature articles in journals, and widely used academic textbooks published by academic presses—do just that. (The h-index or impact factor are relevant when evaluating the reliability of a secondary source, however they do not play a role in due weight.)Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
Yet, Edmund Leach goes uncited in this article, while Berreman (h-index 26) is cited again and again.In contemporary literature we meet the word 'caste' in two quite different contexts. On the one hand it is a word used without any particular geographical limitation to denote a type of class system in which hierarchy is very sharply defined and in which the boundaries between the different layers of the hierarchy are rigidly fixed. A 'ruling class' may be described as a caste when the fact of class endogamy is strikingly obvious and when the inheritance of privilege has become narrowly restricted to members of that 'caste' ... Obvious examples are the colour bar situation in the Southern states of the United States and in South Africa ... The other use of the word 'caste' is to define the system of social organization found in traditional India and surviving to a large extent to the present day. I myself consider that, as sociologists, we shall be advised to restrict the use of the term 'caste' to the Indian phenomenon only'. (h-index: Edmund Leach: 49) (Reference: ( Leach, Edmund (16 September 2009), "Caste, Class, and Slavery: The Taxonomic Problem", in CIBA Foundation Symposium (ed.), Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 5–, ISBN 978-0-470-71704-2, retrieved 15 September 2012),)
Yet, Dumont goes unmentioned in this article, while a graduate student's dismissive sentence (h-index 6) is quoted.It was only natural that the 'something in common' between the Indian caste system and the American 'colour bar' should have attracted attention. The question is whether putting them under the same class-heading helps research or hinders it. I believe that it tends to hinder, at the least, a fundamental kind of research.
Yet Tambiah too goes unmentioned in this article.Caste embodies ideas of relative purity and impurity; it is an integrated exchange system of occupational skills and ritual services: it distributes power in a particular manner; it is a way of controlling and restricting marriage; at its highest levels it is associated with philosophical ideas which are not represented in race relations.
Balkin too is not mentioned in this article.American constitutional theorists' romance with 'caste' as an explanatory category needs serious reappraisal ... social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole.' (Balkin, J. (1997) “The Constitution of Status,” ‘’Yale Law Journal’’, 106, 2358.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't tell us about his h-index not being perfect. There is a limit to which Wikipedia and Wikipedian's can put up with low-level polite disruption that you continue to pursue in this article and elsewhere. When you search for "Gerald Berreman" on Britannica; it takes you either to "Brahman (caste)" or "John Berryman (poet)" That says it all. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)The Indian scholar who in the immediate postwar period played a critical role in linking Western anthropological theory with locally grounded knowledge was M.N. Srinivas. He had studied with Ghurye in Bombay before seeking admission in 1945 for the D.Phil. in social anthropology at Oxford. At Oxford Srinivas first studied with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and then completed his doctorate under the supervision of Edward Evans-Pritchard. Srinivas adapted the structural-functionalism of his mentors to his own work in India. In his well-known published dissertation, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952), Srinivas demonstrated how it was possible to discern patterns that had widespread significance in India even among a people like the Coorgs, who considered themselves a distinct ethnic group. After a brief period at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Srinivas would become in 1959 the first professor of sociology at the University of Delhi. This department—embracing concerns that might, in a British or American university, have occupied sociologists and political scientists as well as social anthropologists—became the preeminent training ground for an Indian school of social science of broad scope, great theoretical originality, and high international visibility.
Fowler&fowler - On Immerwahr and rest, your objection seems to be with peer reviewed journal articles and reliable secondary sources. That is what wikipedia community agreed content sourcing guideline is. Strange? ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, okay Fowler? You cannot filter out verifiable information based on your predilection and preferences. That's most certainly not our job. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on caste ("caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 06 Sep. 2012): caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies. From the Encyclopedia Britannica (the first two sentences in the lede). Later, in the lede Caste is generally believed to be an ancient, abiding, and unique Indian institution upheld by a complex cultural ideology. Note the repeated use of unique. Need I say more? -- regentspark ( comment) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That didn't take very long. Apostle's objection seems to be an obsession with India regarding caste by British authors. He/she explicitly excludes Britannica since 1911 (presumably because, since 1911, it has been an American institution) and these quotes are from the current edition. Are there other 'objections' and 'responses' to these specific quotes I've missed? -- regentspark ( comment) 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Exchange between Fowler&fowler and AposltevonColorado
|
---|
|
RegentsPark - The author of the caste article in Encyclopedia Britannica, T.N. Madan has authored a much longer article on caste in Students' Britannica India (Volume 6, 2000 Edition), ISBN 0-85229-762-9, pages 127-135.
T.N. Madan notes in Students' Britannica India article that his unstated and obvious assumption is that caste is an institution typical of South Asia. He acknowledges that this assumption's validity depends on whether one takes a structural or cultural approach. He then gives one example of structural approach wherein a racial social stratification is caste (outside India). In other words, T.N. Madan has acknowledged that caste, when considered in structural sense, is not unique to India. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A New York Times article states this as it compares the Britannica and Wikipedia( [1]):
Britannica sales peaked in 1990 and is going out of print. They seem to be adopting the Wikipedia model now to stay alive and definitely lag behind Wikipedia. Should we give it so much importance then, especially to an article on caste written in 1979? Hoshigaki ( talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - T.N. Madan has voluntarily limited himself to caste system in India, and he admits caste is not exclusive to India. If we go by h-index, citation scores and such measures, on reliable source publications about caste in reviews, in books, in peer reviewed journals, numerous authors are far more widely cited and accepted than Triloki Nath Madan. As you note, Encyclopedia Britannica has been phasing out - the caste articles in Encyclopedia Britannica editions prior to 1979 had a much longer article on caste and those old versions included a more extensive worldwide discussion. In the era of possibly high inflation and low sales past 1979, combined with too many topics and costs of paper/printing in 1980s, the paper encyclopedias shrunk articles at the expense of quality. Thus, I believe, wikipedia's content sourcing guideline 'rely on secondary sources' is prudent and wise (see WP:RS). For this article, it would be unwise to ignore the most cited secondary sources. Yes, tertiary sources should be considered, but not with bias or selectively; if you consider encyclopedias written say in 1950s to 1970s and the same encyclopedia in 1980s, and see a major difference or complete absence of worldwide coverage - we must ask what happened? (after all sociocultural phenomenon such as caste are not a new unexpected event that just happened). If you see a dispute between encyclopedias and textbooks, we must ask what happened, and we must ask if we can rely on one but ignore the other in our effort to create a quality article. Creating or improving quality of an article such as this one, with balance, NPOV, no original research, and verifiability in reliable published secondary sources is hard work. Welcome to wikipedia, by the way. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC. I took a look at the Students Britannica reference that you cite above and, while Madan does say what you quote above, he is quite explicit that the idea of caste is very Hindu in nature. For example, he clearly states that the term caste came into usage as a means of describing the division of Hindu society, first by the Portuguese and subsequently by in English and other European languages (Dutch and French). Caste, according to Madan, is centrally Hindu in nature and is only peripherally used to describe social divisions in other cultures. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My comments were solicited. I have not read your article.
Using the discussion of tertiary sources here #Serious Neutrality and Balance Issues, the following tertiary sources are worth attending to, because they are appropriate scholarly tertiary sources, mapping the advice regarding history and tertiary sources in WP:HISTRS onto this social science field (and as I have done anyway, in the past, repeatedly, at RS/N), and keeping in mind the field specificity of caste's scholarly interest we should esteem:
the others being either non-scholarly, or to my mind sufficiently removed in topic from the sociology of stratification across time.
ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications.
In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly. This article should, therefore, give prominence to the summary style section dealing with the significance to the sociology of caste of the Indian example. This example should probably be ordered first if examples are used in writing this article. If examples are not used then a summary style section with a main link to caste in India is probably required due to the prominence of this example to the development of the social science concept. While this article has a responsibility to the social science concept of caste across all human societies and cultures, and across all sociologies of stratification, at the same time this article has a responsibility to reflect the development of the concept in relation to the "paradigmatic example" (Kuper and Kuper 2003).
I have now read your article. It is a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. If I wanted a list of examples I would go to category:caste. If I wanted a discussion of the social phenomena and sociological classification of strata known as caste I would come here. The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story. This isn't an article on caste, it is a list of OR related to stratification. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Fiflefoo - The O'Brien, Jodi (2008) work may be a reliable source for gender studies but with entries on topics like castration, breast implants, cervical cancer and none on the varna, jati systems, I would not count it to be reliable for the subject area of this article. It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India..." That would a wild claim, even if you were assume she meant the Indian sub-continent. Hoshigaki ( talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |original_year=
ignored (
help)):
Fifelfoo - I understand you better now. You are trying to sense the quality of the publication by place of publication and publisher of an encyclopedia, rather than locating the source and reading it. Both Fowler&fowler and I did not include place of publication in all of our citations, while in some cases Fowler&fowler did include publisher name and I did not. Both of us always had the title, edition, year published, name of editor(s) and such information with quoted sections in different encyclopedias with articles on caste in dispute. I have updated my list now with publisher name and place of publication. You can find them here.
Please note that Fowler&fowler and my sources have just one article on caste, no separate article on caste system in India, while wikipedia has multiple linked articles on caste. Part of our confusion, one that remains unanswered is (1) Should we duplicate content by taking 20% to 50% of Caste system in India article and copying it into this Caste article, or (2) Should we summarize the linked, independent main article on India in 500 to 1000 words in this article, per WP:SUMMARY guidelines? This is assuming that quality wikipedia articles should not be too long, and preferably about 10,000 words per comments from wiki editor Piotrus and related discussion elsewhere on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
More pertinently, why are you shirking from creating a section "Caste in the United States?" After all there five times as many books on the Caste system in the United States than there are on the Caste system in Italy. Could it be that the editors of Racial segregation in the United States will be hurriedly looking to AfD it? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Patricians were all equal in legal terms—they all (even the doge) had one vote in the Large Council, the basic expression of their caste.
Although I understand there is some "law" that alleges all links within WP can end up at Philosophy after a surprisingly short routing, that does not mean that we should include 90% of the Philosophy article in this or any other, and the same goes for Caste. Believe me, AVC, I admire scholarship and in-depth coverage but this is not the place to do it. And hyperlinks are a beautiful thing. - Sitush ( talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)They will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page. Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion.
Sitush - I am in the process of composing a comment to this RfC. To do so, I need a clarification on a comment you made. For context, I quote parts of the discussion (full discussion is here). Then I ask my question.
My question: Has wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines. I quote the guidelines for convenience:
I am less interested in what your personal feelings and opinions are on that matter. I am interested in a link to the appropriate community discussion and consensus, if any, that this article is exempt from those key content sourcing policies. I would like to read it for myself and incorporate past community discussion in composing my comment to this RfC.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem here, as I see it, is that there are two general definitions of the caste. The first refers to the rigid social stratification of India, the latter and broader definition refers to the concept of social stratification in general. If we are to make an article on the latter sense (which is essentially what this article is), then it becomes redundant with Wikipedia's article on social stratification. The problem of loosely applied definitions is not unique to this article, it also plagues articles like Fascism (a word that has been used as an epithet against authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and even democratic governments).
This dispute also needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community, and not just editors interested in South Asian history. As an editor who mostly focuses on China-related articles, I only stumbled onto this RfC by accident. The input of editors interested in European and East Asian history is absolutely necessary to evaluate the characterizations (some controversial) of European and East Asian societies as castes. I recommend contacting the appropriate WikiProjects.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
My main concern here is that sources are being misrepresented to make a point of view. I agree with previous comments stating that this article is a WP:COATRACK. My interests are in Chinese history, and I have little interest in the dispute being fought between editors who frequent South Asian articles. But when blatant errors are being made about Chinese history to prove a point about Hinduism, then I have objections. Mentions of a 17th century Chinese hereditary aristocracy when "imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE" is one of many examples. And this is just the Chinese section! This is why the article needs attention from more outside editors. WikiProjects need to be informed of the RfC.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: Also see other citations provided by a different wiki contributor here. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia's article on "Caste" is longer than most similar articles in scholarly tertiaries, one could argue that it will inevitably have more content. This is true to some extent, but it still doesn't allow us to devote entire individual sections to this new content. One could add a separate sub-section at the end of the Asia section, which states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in China (or among the Yi people of China). See ....." and discusses this briefly, along with examples from other Asian societies that have not been included in the tertiary sources, and provides the references you have been discussing above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It could well be that we need a fair few short sections or See Also's to new articles discussing international variants on the amorphous, broad-brush theme ... but Fowler is correct that weighting is a real issue here. Unless there are a shed-load of reliable sources referring to X as a caste system in country Y, any mention should be minimal because otherwise it is original research. For the UK, "class" is (alas) a perceived system for which countless throwaway comments and decent sociological attempts to define can be found; "caste" is not. I know little of China, past or present, but rather suspect that the weight of the "caste" word in sources relating to it only slightly less thin. Certainly so when compared to the Indian/Hindu references. - Sitush ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
ApostleVonColorado, mainstream views of imperial Chinese society refer to it as meritocratic, with social mobility, thus rarely use the term caste. Like Piotrus called it, this is "pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy." Most academics write that Chinese classes were not based solely on birth, and the mainstream viewpoint needs to be given priority. SGCM, balance is hardly the only problem. The biggest issue is the misrepresentation of sources. If the source cited for China does not call it a caste, and warns against doing so, then the Wikipedia article should not call it a caste either. Like Piotrus view of Poland, I don't think China should be listed at all. Manchu and Yi society should not be confused with the Chinese, because when most readers see the word Chinese, they think of Han Chinese culture.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler counts numerous dictionaries, in his list of 31, as tertiary sources. Over 10 Chinese-English dictionary entries for jianmin, 賤民, refer to caste / Dalits / untouchable (see this and this, for example). At least 125 secondary sources (book and journal articles, including those by Chinese authors) discuss caste and China, particularly in light of China's Hukou system of social segregation (see this at page 6-11, and this, and this, and this). These and many other scholars use the word caste, they discuss why it is a caste system not class. These scholarly peer reviewed journal articles have been cited and the books have been reviewed and cited as well. Per wikipedia content guidelines, they should be summarized, at least briefly. Why not?
You edited this article to include meritocracy - but that is coatracking because this article is on caste, not meritocracy. Yes, I agree with SGCM that some wording should be included to prevent wrong impression about social mobility in commoners in historical Han society. We should also include some wording on Yi people, Manchu people, Jianmin, Hukou system, etc and caste from reliable published literature. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and the main article on any issue should be displaying a global perspective. In the interests of neutrality and comprehensiveness, it should not be displaying a narrow, sectarian Indian perspective. There is already an article on "Caste system in India". That is the place to discuss that issue. Caste is a global phenomenon and not just a "Hindu India" phenomenon. Even within India, it is not just a Hindu phenomenon. Caste system is also prevalant among some Muslims, Christians and Sikhs and various other communities in India. If someone wants more coverage of caste system in India, they should write more articles on caste system in India, but it is not necessary to make this article take a myopic view of a global phenomenon. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 08:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the message on WP:CHINA and WP:UK, and I've worked on the Talk:India dispute on the DRN noticeboard which involves the same parties, so I hope to add my two cents to this discussion as well. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the caste article should focus exclusively on India, but I oppose restricting its coverage as well. As long as WP:BALANCE is maintained, there shouldn't be a problem. Each topic should be given its due weight, as determined by the coverage of the reliable sources.-- SGCM (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This article could improve bringing reference to a few of the following groups with caste correspondence dynamics . In the first two instances I have provided indicative links from google books .
1) The institution of Mawali : See for example
The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4
2) Hamsaya Clans
Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities of Pakistan: Constitutional and Legal Perspective by By Shaheen Sar Ali and Jaivaid Rehman
3) Old Testament clans such as Canaanites Hittites , Girgishites , Amorites , , Perrizites ,Hivites
4) Religious honor group with family succession : as in Silsilas or Ovlat in Turkmenistan e or the hereditary Khadim at Sufi Shrines
5) Morisco ( discrimination to)
6)The pre eminence of Arab Lineage in Kafa’ah Nikah .See the article on
Ibn Abidin for a brief explanation .
Intothefire (
talk)
17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
See here. (added with permission by ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC))
I request some time to add my comment. I will first discuss with the participants above then add my comment here. Hoshigaki ( talk) 11:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC) In order to make an effective comment, I am approaching the RfC in two steps.
For determining the centrality argument, I have gone through the 44 sources provided by Fowler&fowler (33), CorrectKnowledge (3) and ApostleVonColorado (8). I will add my comment after my analysis in the section below is complete. Hoshigaki ( talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
All 44 sources were classified in to one of five categories - those that:
One comment that stands out in particular (and weakens the centrality argument) reads:
It is clear that social changes art taking place rapidly in India today. The caste system has nearly collapsed in India and is not relevant in India anymore. It is not a central social issue in India anymore. Even if India were central to caste, it would be more or less in a historical sense.
Step 1: Determining centrality
I have found that the sources fall in four categories:
Here are the details of where the sources stand.
Number of sources | Position/Category | Source numbers | Excerpts from sources |
---|---|---|---|
05 | Strengthens the centrality argument(1) | Sources: FF4, FF5, FF6, FF7a, FF17 | Source FF7a: The validity of usage outside of South Asian contexts, however, ultimately turns on how we are to understand the paradigmatic Indian case—a matter of considerable and ongoing debate. |
22 | Just discusses the caste system without addressing the centrality issue (2) | Sources: FF7, FF11, FF13, FF14, FF18, FF21, FF22, FF24, FF25, FF29, FF30, FF31, FF32, CK1, CK2, CK3, AV1, AV2, AV4, AV6, AV7, AV8 | All these sources simply discuss the Indian, South African, Middle Eastern, Japanese, Rwandan, Burmese, Algerian, European ( Roma/gypsies) and other caste systems, they have nothing to do with the question of the RfC that India is central to caste. |
05 | No consensus on the centrality issue(3) | Sources: FF1, FF2, FF6, FF19, FF26 | Source FF1: Other definitions of caste are also listed. The one about India is listed first and thus this could make India one of several primary examples of caste but we have no way of determining if it makes India central to caste. Source FF2: Same argument as source 1. |
07 | Weakens the centrality argument(4) | Sources: FF3, FF12, FF15, FF16, FF20, FF27, FF28 | Source FF3: The author mentions that caste is used in other contexts and states But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form... This is a statement about how developed and deep the system in India is and could mean caste is or was central to India but not that India is central to caste. Also, the author follows up in the same paragraph about the caste theory with The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue. This is a very strong indication that India's caste is not central to anything and India may not be central to anything about caste anymore in present day. Source FF12: Conclusion - Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social class barriers in other contexts." |
05 | Unreliable source/irrelevant to our topic (5) | FF8, FF10, FF23, AV3, AV5 | Source FF8: This source is not relevant to our subject. It has entries on castration, breast implants, clergy sex scandals, but nothing on the four basic classes/castes of the East, India, Jatis or Varnas, etc Source FF10: "Encyclopedia of the Developing World" excludes USA |
Note:
it does not mean:important, leading, dominant, key, paramount, salient, significant, foremost;
In other words, “almost exclusive” is a stronger version of “central.” Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)exclusive, lone, one, single, solitary, solo, unexampled.
More soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - Thank you for the review. It is thorough, detailed and useful. I disagree with assertions by Fowler&fowler above, examples of just two incorrect assertions are below:
Fowler&fowler alleges that "the seventh (tertiary source ApostleVonColorado cited) is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC)." What I actually wrote on this talk page included the note that 1920s through 1970s edition prints of Encyclopedia Americana have almost the same lead paragraphs, this -
Fowler&fowler alleges that eighth tertiary source I cited was from 1911. Once again what I actually wrote on this talk page is that later editions are essentially same; in later discussion, I clarified that 1911 (11th edition), 12th, 13th and one print of 14th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has the first 1000 words with caste as a worldwide socio-cultural phenomena. Just 2.5% of those 1000 words were on India. The most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica was rewritten by a new author, T.N. Madan; the article size significantly reduced, and new version covers caste in India. Instead of quoting those entire 1000 words, here is pre-15th edition version of Caste briefly -
Fowler&fowler calls a long article in Encyclopedia of Latin America as "garbage" too. Yes, the encyclopedia is about Latin America, but that does not make it irrelevant. That encyclopedia article is about caste in Latin America, describes the emergence of castes under colonial times, and discusses the evolution of caste system in Latin America. Published literature on Latin American people is as important and relevant as any other country, to this article. I have listed Encyclopedia of Africa and others previously, beyond my short list of eight. These too use the word caste, describe castes in various African countries/cultures including elements of hereditary, hierarchical, endogamous, ritual, exclusion and in some cases shunning of outcastes. All these are relevant, due and an encyclopedic aspect of the socio-cultural subject caste, this article. All these show abundant dispute and diversity of opinions across tertiary sources on the subject of caste, this article.
Fowler&fowler claims 'we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India.' I disagree, because this violates community agreed wikipedia guidelines. This RfC is a process. Your, Hoshigaki and other wiki contributor's independent findings and views are important and will be considered to help reach consensus and next steps.
A balanced article, per wikipedia's community agreed guideline would include all sides reflected in published reliable sources. Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler, as I do not wish to repeat my other comments per talk page guidelines.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - I should have clarified that the older editions of encyclopedias, from early 20th century to later part of 20th century, have different authors and editors. A careful read shows a bit of rephrasing and a few sentences have been rewritten, but most of the article remained same, the broad worldwide emphasis was retained by different authors/editors over this time. There is no wikipedia guideline on 'age of citation for social science topics' and 'reliability of social science references of 1950s or 1970s versus 1990s or 2000s'. Many encyclopedia articles, you analyzed so diligently, use/cite literature that is some 50 years or more old, suggesting these new editions are not based on new discoveries but are summaries of some of the same old sources. If anything, as world becomes more open and regional encyclopedias get published, there are more peer reviewed journal articles, more books, more secondary sources and more regional tertiary sources that suggest caste was not or is not unique to any one country.
For example, see caste in Yazidi people of West Asia article, a people and culture distant from India, they have their own unique religion, but had castes for many centuries, their past population estimated to be between 100s of thousands to millions by scholars, and there are reliable secondary sources and encyclopedic articles on Yazidi people and their caste system - but not covered by this article yet. That article, like this one, needs more sources for WP:V and improvement. For what it is worth, I have never edited Yazidi article, other wiki contributors have written it. There are many more such articles on caste, in tertiary sources outside of wikipedia, that have nothing to do with South Asia or any one country.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler - I invite you to respect wikipedia's community agreed talk page guidelines. Please avoid personal attacks on Hoshigaki with statements such as 'I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.' His or her comments are relevant and everyone is welcome to wikipedia and to this RfC. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze in 2002:
{{
citation}}
: Text "first2Amartya" ignored (
help)This observation seems to fall in the same category with recent reports from 2011 like:
Other reports from 2010
Also from 2010:
Polgreen (2010),
Business Class Rises in Ashes of Caste System, The New York Times {{
citation}}
: Text "Lydia" ignored (
help)
While caste is very much a social issue in India even today, based on the sources above, it is clear that caste is no longer even amongst the central social issues in India. To make as accurate an analysis as possible, I will utilize only recent sources from the 44 presented for this RfC in determining if the reverse is true, i.e. is India central to caste today? Hoshigaki ( talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Is Hindu India central to a discussion of caste? Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill)?
This is a strange question. What does the term Hindu India refer to? Scholars studying sociology of religion agree Hindu is a diffuse religion. It is a diverse collection of thematic philosophical views, illustrated by its scriptures. It has no rigid common set of beliefs, including about social structure now commonly called caste. Hindu India is one example, an important example, in any discussion of caste. The concept of caste is more than that example. The main article is silent about the role of India to the concept of caste.
2. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world?
No. This article should include caste in India and caste outside India. I reviewed wikipedia article on social class and this article after learning about wikipedia initiative to become a resource in school and university course work. Including summary and citations about castes everywhere will be more resourceful. Over 100 pre-modern societies outside India had castes. It may be impossible to include all in this article. Short summaries of special examples from South Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America, USA, Korea, China and Japan will be good. I posted my general observations on this, two days ago. See issues with this article part at the bottom. ( Couriel76 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC))
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
'The Burakumin are regarded as "ostracised."[71]' I'm not trying to downplay that, but can we get a more recent source? 1961 was half a century ago. (Imagine what happened if we used a 1961 source to describe the status of African Americans today.) And it's probably better to avoid putting a single word in quotes as it may be read as scare quotes too. Tijfo098 ( talk) 10:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I will give the RfC a little more time, but in the mean time, I'm compiling a more improved bibliography of the tertiary sources. It is improved because the citations are more complete, but also because I have included the list of references at the end of each article. (It is improved also because I am now removing the high-school/college textbooks on the grounds that they usually have case studies, rather than scholarly overviews.) I will be arranging the tertiaries alphabetically in small subsections. The references, which are obviously chosen by the experts who write the tertiary "caste" articles, will help us in deciding what to include and emphasize in the proposed first section, "Definitions, concepts, and review of literature," which will constitute 45% of article space. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Johnson, Allan G. (2000), "caste", The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User's Guide to Sociological Language, Wiley, p. 34, ISBN 978-0-631-21681-0, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste. A caste is a rigid category into which people arc born with no possibility of change. In some systems Of STRATIFICATION AND INEQUALITY, the distribution of rewards and resources is organized around castes. In India, the caste system historically has consisted of four basic categories - Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra - each with its own specific and rigid location in the stratification system. In addition to these, an "outcaste" of "untouchables" is beneath the lowest caste. The crossing of caste boundaries is rigidly prohibited through controls over occupational distribution and residence, and especially through control over the choice of marriage partners. Within the four major castes, there are numerous sub-castes among which a certain amount of mobility is possible. According to the Indian caste system, which is codified in the Hindu religion, people may move from one caste to another across several life-times through the process of reincarnation. Such movements depend upon successful performance in the present caste position, which means that the system provides a powerful incentive for enforcing acceptance of the caste system itself and its inequalities. Although the concept of caste is associated almost exclusively with India, elements of caste can be found in a few other societies, such as Japan during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and more recently in the United States and South Africa. Although the caste system was officially banned in India in 1949, its influence remains in rural areas.
Lagasse, Paul, ed. (2007), "Caste", The Columbia Encyclopedia, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-14446-9, retrieved 24 September 2012 Quote:
caste [Port., casta=basket], ranked groups based on heredity within rigid systems of social stratification, especially those that constitute Hindu India. Some scholars, in fact, deny that true caste systems are found outside India. The caste is a closed group whose members are severely restricted in their choice of occupation and degree of social participation. Marriage outside the caste is prohibited. Social status is determined by the caste of one's birth and may only rarely be transcended. Certain religious minorities may voluntarily constitute a quasi-caste within a society, but they are less apt to be characterized by cultural distinctiveness than by their self-imposed social segregation. A specialized labor group may operate as a caste within a society otherwise free of such distinctions (e.g., the ironsmiths in parts of Africa). In general, caste functions to maintain the status quo in a society. ... The occupational barriers among Indian castes have been breaking down slowly under economic pressures since the 19th cent., but social distinctions have been more persistent. Attitudes toward the untouchables only began to change in the 1930s under the influence of Mohandas Gandhi's teachings, who called the group Harijans. Although untouchability was declared illegal in 1949, resistance to change has remained strong, especially in rural areas. As increased industrialization produced new occupations and new social and political functions evolved, the caste system adapted and thus far has not been destroyed.
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help); horizontal tab character in |series=
at position 2 (
help)Morris, Mike (2012), "caste", Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, p. 33, ISBN 978-1-4443-3209-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste. The hereditary and hierarchical (see HIERARCHY) division Of SOCIETY in (usually) India, associated there with Hinduism. Members of a caste share the same profession and STATUS and traditionally avoid physical contact with members of other castes. Subdivisions of castes ("jatis") are linked to particular obligations and rights (the "jajmani" system). Anthropologists disagree on whether caste should be read in ways similar to SOCIAL STRUCTURES outside India or as something unique. The nature of jajmani conventions has also been disputed. The word "caste" derives from Spanish and Portuguese, casta ("race"). (Further reading: Dumont (1980); Beteille (1996).)
Lindholm, Charles (2002), "caste, caste societies", in Thomas Barfield (ed.), The Dictionary of Anthropology, Oxford, UK: Blackwell; New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 50–51, ISBN 978-1-57718-057-9
caste, caste societies: In a caste society groups of persons engaged in specific occupations or with specific characteristics are ranked hierarchically. These ranks are ostensibly based on the degree of pollution incurred by work at the caste specialty or by other group characteristics, and one's position in the caste scale may be regarded as a reward or punishment for spiritual attainments (see PURITY/POLLUTION). India is the most famous (some say the only) caste society. There caste is broken into four great varnas: the "twice-born" Brahman priests, Kshatriya warriors, and Vaisiya merchants, and the "once-born" Sudra peasants. Beneath these and officially excluded from the caste system are the Untouchables (Gandhi's harijans, or "children of God," now self-designated as Dalits, or "oppressed"), who fill the most polluting occupations. Although the Brahmans are universally recognized as the least spiritually polluted caste, there is no absolute consensus as to who is on top or why. For instance, religious renunciants can make claims to special holiness either by showing extraordinary asceticism and purity, or by engaging in cannibalism and self-degradation or indulging in intoxication and excess (J. Parry 1982; Lynch 1990). Furthermore, the Kshatriya, who traditionally served as rulers, established competing axes of valuation for themselves to counterbalance the Brahmans' claims to pre-eminence (Inden 1990; Heesterman 1985). In fact, Dirks (1987) argued that the Brahmanical portrait of caste was simply a wishful fantasy of priests in a colonial atmosphere that favored the disjuncture between kingly power and religious legitimacy. Among ordinary people, however, the main competition between castes remains at a lower level of organization. All the varnas are divided into multitudinous jatis, or local, endogamous occupational groups, that constitute the varied labor force of the society. These jatis can and do contest their relative positions and attempt to rise in the ranks through what Srinivas (1962) famously called "Sanskritization': emulating the attributes of higher caste groups. Thus, an economically successful lower caste may take up less polluting occupations and habits and claim higher caste status. Whether these claims are accepted varies (F. Bailey 1957), but clearly slow upward (and downward) mobility in the caste rank of jati was far more likely prior to colonial censuses, which fixed caste positions immutably in written records. Academic definitions of caste are also not solidified, and fall into two mutually exclusive positions. The first is structural-functional and views caste as a category or type, comparable in many respects to hierarchical organizations elsewhere. In this vein, Gerald Berreman wrote that "a caste system resembles a plural society whose discrete sections all ranked vertically." (1968: 55). Indian caste therefore is analogous to social structures elsewhere in which rank is ascribed, such as American racial grading (Goethals 1961; Bujra 1971). The second school understands Indian caste as a total symbolic world, unique, self-contained, and not comparable to other systems. Most of these theorists would agree with the classic definition by Bougle, who wrote that "the spirit of caste unites these three tendencies: repulsion, hierarchy and hereditary specialization" (1971: 9); controversies are primarily over which of these aspects is stressed. Dumont, the best known of the symbolic school, based his interpretation of caste on the attributes of hierarchy and repulsion. In his book Homo hierarchicus (1970), he focused on the rigidity of caste positions at each end of the hierarchical spectrum (Brahmans and outcastes) and the radical opposition in Hindu thought between categories of power and categories of status. LEACH, on the other hand, gave first place to hereditary specialization; the diagnostic of the system, for him, was that "every caste, not merely the upper elite, has its special 'privileges" (1960a: 7). A somewhat different approach was taken by Marriott and Inden. They postulated an indigenous monism, grounded in the assumption that in a caste society "all living beings are differentiated into genera, or classes, each of which is thought to possess a defining substance" (1974: 983). These substances, according to the theory, arc formed by various transactions, particularly exchanges of food. Marriott and Inden were then able to develop transactional flow charts that locate all different Indian groups within their paradigm. A difficulty for interpretive theory is the place of non-Hindus within a caste system. For instance, Muslims, who make up approximately 12 percent of India's population, advocate the equality of all believers and deny the validity of notions of pollution (Lindholm 1986). The problem of accommodating such nonbelievers within caste society is not merely academic, as present-day sectarian battles chillingly testify.
Winthrop, Robert H. (1991), Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology, ABC-CLIO, pp. 27–30, ISBN 978-0-313-24280-9, retrieved 10 August 2012
CASTE 1. An explicitly hierarchical social system based on hereditary, endogamous groups, in which each is characterized by a specific status, occupation, mode of life, and pattern of customary interactions with other such groups. 2. One of the endogamous units of such a system. Caste is one of a number of terms (cf. order, estate, class) denoting a ranked segment of society. Although caste is used primarily with reference to India, it is a European term, applied (at least originally) by Europeans to the analysis of Hindu life. ... The following analysis will consider caste primarily as an Indian phenomenon, with some attention also given to the relevance of caste as a cross-cultural category. In the Hindu perspective, society is of necessity highly differentiated; there is a PATTERN of behavior appropriate to each caste and stage of life. ... (New Section) Caste in India ... (New Section) Theories of Caste Anthropological debate regarding the caste concept has been dominated by two related questions: (1) What principles determine caste ranking? and (2) Is caste a cross-cultural phenomenon, or is it limited to the South Asian CULTURE AREA? ... whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Bartlett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY).
{{
citation}}
: |first2=
has generic name (
help) An early yet theoretically sophisticated state-mentNagar, Richa (2011), "caste", in Derek Gregory (ed.), The Dictionary of Human Geography, Ron Johnston, Geraldine Pratt, Michael Watts, Sarah Whatmore, John Wiley & Sons, p. 72, ISBN 978-1-4443-5995-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
caste An endogamous social hierarchy of enduring political significance, believed to have emerged some 3500 years ago around highly questionable categories of Aryans and non-Aryans in the Indian subcontinent. The former - comprising brahmart, kshatriya and vaishya - emerged as dominant occupational castes of so-called dvija (twice-born). The shudra caste(s) - regarded as non-Aryan and 'mixed' - were occupationally marginalized and racialized, as was also the case later with the `outcastes' (Dalit), whose touch was deemed polluting (Thapar, 1966). This order was challenged from the sixth century BCE, but all major religions in India came to bear the social imprint of caste. Brahman social dominance was bolstered by a British neo-Brahmanical ruling IDEOLOGY, and provoked a backlash (Bose and Jalal, 1997). Significantly, leaders such as Lohia analytically separated the high castes from women, shudra, Dalit, Muslim and adivasi ('indigenous') and underscored the political necessity of marriages between shudra and dvija, while disrupting the rift between manual and brain work, which contributed to the formation, rigidification and violence of caste.
Madan, T. N.; Editors (2012),
caste, Encyclopæida Britannica Online {{
citation}}
: |last2=
has generic name (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |fist2=
(
help)
caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies.
References:
Sonnad, Subhash R. (2003), "Caste", in Christensen, Karen; Levinson, David (eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 115–121, ISBN 978-0-7619-2598-9, retrieved 5 August 2012 Quote:
Theories of Caste A number of scholars, Hindu religious leaders, and commentators have speculated about the origins of the caste system. Weber, Hocart, Dumont, Marriott, Milner, Ghurye, and Srinivas are among the widely discussed group of caste theorists. The theories are complex and wide ranging in scope. and they are presented here in a simplified form. The issues of ritual purity and pollution are attributed to the fact that the four different orders of the society (varnas) originated from different parts of the body, namely, the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet. The hierarchical status and functions of the four varnas have been attributed to this origin. This explanation is too biological and religious in nature to serve as a satisfactory social explanation. Another point of view is presented to explain the definition of the term varna, which means color. The original settlers in India were dark. The group of people who reached India from outside and who gradually conquered the original local inhabitants proceeded to subjugate them to a lower status and to stratify the social system. This theory does not address the problem of the multiplicity of jatis and the absence of such a development in all the other conquered parts of the world. Another explanation takes a conflict perspective and suggests that the system was created and sustained by the monarch of the conquering country as supreme authority. The occupational categories solidified and developed into castes. A different type of explanation posits that to maintain ritual purity, the Brahmans could not associate with unclean occupations. Though widely discussed, both these theories also fail to explain adequately why all the other agricultural nations did not develop such an elaborate caste system. It has also been argued that the colonial rule with its divide-and-conquer policy crystallized already existing caste differences. While this criticism is valid to some extent, evidence provided by early observers, travelers, and writers indicates that many caste divisions and practices were quite inflexible prior to the British rule in India. Another theory argues that the status of a caste conferred social power in India though it was not highly correlated with economic or political power. The status conferred on a caste was dependent on adherence to the social, religious, and cultural norms specific to that particular group. This theory does not provide an adequate explanation for this unique type of a status inconsistency, where power is independent of the usual correlates. In addition, some of the tenets about status as a zero-sum game are open to discussion. There is generally no argument with the criticisms of feminists about patriarchal families and domination of females in the traditional caste system. However, the feminist perspectives do not adequately explain the origin, proliferation, hereditary occupations and purification aspects of the caste phenomenon.
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: editors list (
link)Sooryamoorthi, Radhamany (2006), "Caste Systems", in Leonard, Thomas M. (editor) (ed.),
Encyclopedia of the Developing World, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 252–,
ISBN
978-0-415-97662-6, retrieved 5 August 2012 {{
citation}}
: |editor-first=
has generic name (
help)
CASTE SYSTEMS Caste is an age-old institution, evoked through several centuries. As a system of stratification, it has existed in many parts of the world and is being practiced today in some countries. But the caste system of closed endogamous descent groups as prevalent and practiced in India is not found elsewhere (Bayly 2010; Kolenda 1984). Caste is a well-entrenched phenomenon in countries like India. ...
Iyer, Nalini (2008), "Caste", in O'Brien, Jodi (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, p. 114–116, ISBN 978-1-4129-0916-7, retrieved 15 September 2012
Caste: Caste is a form of social organization that is unique to India and is based on Hindu religious belief. This essay defines the meaning of the caste system and describes the ways in which it has been used to control sexuality, marital status, and economic and social life among women in India. Sociologists have found the caste system a very difficult and complex to describe because the idea of caste has evolved over time and function differently in various parts of India. However, there are some common features to caste that are easily identified. These include the concepts of purify and pollution that govern interpersonal relationships, including occupation, food, kinship, marriage, and religious rituals. Certain castes are considered more pure than others, and Hindus arc obligated to confine their relationships, especially those pertaining to marriage and food, to their particular caste groups. Although the caste system derives from Hinduism, it also informs the social organization of other religious groups in India, including Jains, Christians, and Muslims. ... Although India today is a secular democratic republic that has constitutionally abolished untouchability, the caste system has not been eradicated. Since independence from the British in 1947, the Indian government has pursued affirmative action (referred to as the "reservation system") to enable members of economically underprivileged castes to have better access to education and government jobs. The reservation system has been attacked by upper castes as propagating reverse discrimination. Although the caste system has evolved over time and continues to change, it still holds enormous power in daily social life, politics (caste-based parties, voting blocs), and economics in contemporary India.
{{
citation}}
: Missing |author1=
(
help)Gupta, Dipankar (2008), "Caste", in Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. 246–250, ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2, retrieved 5 August 2012
Caste:
What makes Indian society unique is the phenomenon of caste. Economic, religious, and linguistic differentiations, even race-based discrimination, are known elsewhere, but nowhere else does one see caste but in India (and, by extension, the subcontinent). This entry reviews the history of caste and discusses its impact on individuals and society. Caste is unique because it ordains a hierarchy that is based on the extent of purity, or lack of it, that supposedly characterizes the bodily substances of every person. Accordingly, the earliest Hindu text, the Rg Veda (c.1500 BC) puts the Brahmans, as the purest, on top, followed by warriors (Kshatriyas), commoners (Vaisyas), and helots (Sudras) at the bottom. This schematization is known as the Varna system. There is also a fifth category, the Untouchables, but this cluster of castes came to be designated as such much later, perhaps around the 1st or 2nd century AD. In addition, as time went on, the fourfold Varna category in the Rg Veda yielded to hundreds of endogamous units, or jatis. Technically speaking, only the latter are called castes. These units prescribe the frontiers of marriage alliances, and each jati has specific rituals peculiar to itself and, in a large number of cases, a traditional occupation attached to its members. All jatis are regional in character; none of them have have an all-India spread. In fact, most jatis are relevant and recognized only within a radius of about 200 to 300 miles. Caste still continues to function in India as discrete ethnic groups rather than as constituents of a continuous hierarchy of purity in which every Hindu acquiesces. Today, it is possible to say that caste as a system is dying but that identities are alive and well, and it is taking many generations for caste to wither away. Race and Caste: There are clear differences between race and caste. Unlike in race, the physical markers are not visible in caste. The bodily substances that are meant to distinguish between castes are intangible and culturally coded, but the belief is that they can be easily transferred through touch and proximity.Further, caste ideology holds that such commingling of substances pollutes both parties, not just members of the so-called superior caste, though the latter are more seriously affected. This is why the caste order includes strict rules of social intercourse and of sexual /marital relations to ensure that bodily substances of different provenances do not commingle. Each caste has its domain, and it is the duty of everybody in that community to strictly maintain norms regarding pollution. Again, unlike with race, in the caste system, a child whose parents belong to different castes is not considered to carry equal
amounts of both substances from the parents, but is characterized by a third.
Further Readings:
Béteille, André (2002), "Caste", in Barnard, Alan; Spencer, Jonathan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, New York, NY; London, UK: Routledge, pp. 136–137, ISBN 978-0-415-28558-2
Caste: Caste has been described as the fundamental social institution of India. Sometimes the term is used metaphorically to refer to rigid social distinctions or extreme social exclusiveness wherever found, and some authorities have used the term 'colour-caste system' to describe the stratification based on race in the United States and elsewhere. But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form although analogous forms exist among Muslims, Christians. Sikhs and other religious groups in South Asia. It is an ancient institution, having existed for at least 2,000 years among the Hindus who developed not only elaborate caste practices hut also a complex theory to explain and justify those practices (Dumont 1970). The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue. ...
Further reading
Pavri, Firooza (2004), "Caste", in Tim Forsyth (ed.), Encyclopedia of International Development, Abingdon, Oxon, OX ; New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 63–, ISBN 978-0-415-25342-0
Caste The jati (caste) system, which evolved during the Vedic period (1500–500 BCE), of Hinduism refers to the endogamous social groups comprising contemporary and Vedic Hindu society and the rules of behavior that govern interaction between these groups. ... (Note: after six long paragraphs on India, it ends with:) Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social barriers in other contexts.
Further reading
Salamone, Frank A. (1997), "Caste", in Rodriguez, Junius P. (ed.), The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1, Santa Barbara, CA; Oxford, UK: ABC-CLIO, p. 133, ISBN 978-0-87436-885-7, retrieved 5 August 2012
Caste: There is a strenuous argument among social scientists over whether the word "caste" can be used anywhere other than in referring to India. The major characteristics of India's caste system are that castes are hereditary, ranked hierarchically, religiously based, theoretically rigid, endogamous, tied to occupations, and politically supported. Additionally, there are rules of ritual purity to prevent or cleanse contamination. (New Paragraph) As the slave trade and transatlantic slavery ended, the number of slaves in African societies increased, es-pecially in those areas where plantations flourished. These slaves began forming a common identity and often acted in concert to achieve certain goals. Control over their daily life was limited, however, because of the power of African monarchs to enforce effective ju-risdiction over their activities. Thus, numerous slave revolts marked late-nineteenth-century Africa. Reforms that slaveowners developed had the effect of making slavery more like a caste status. For example, in Zanzibar, slave families were specifically encouraged, and plots of land were given to nuclear families. This marriage within a group that is tied to a particular oc-cupation is the definition of caste. Moreover, effective legislation granted specific rights to slaves, as in Cal-abar where slaves received immunity from execution. In general, codified rights and duties were attached to slave status, and the position was inherited by a married couple's offspring (Manning, 1990). (New Paragraph) In South Africa and the United States, it can be and has been argued that the relationship between the races had caste-like characteristics. Certainly, both apartheid and segregation had hereditary, rank, religious, endogamous, occupational, and hierarchical as-pects. There was, moreover, a stunning lack of social mobility in both systems and clear aspects of ritual purity tied to contamination beliefs.
Ramu, G. N. (2008), "Caste", in William A. Darity (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (Macmillan social science library), Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, ISBN 978-0-02-865967-1, retrieved 24 September 2012
Caste: Nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. The Hindu ascriptive caste system in India is perhaps the most complex and rigid. It is based on birth, which determines one’s occupation (especially in contemporary rural India), and is maintained by endogamy, commensality, rituals, dietary practices, and norms of purity and pollution. The English term caste is derived from the Portuguese word casta, which refers to lineage, breed, or race. ... (The remaining sections of the article are: THE HINDU CASTE SYSTEM, CASTE IN MODERN INDIA, SOME VISIBLE CHANGES IN CASTE RELATIONS, OTHER RELIGIONS AND CASTE, CASTE OUTSIDE INDIA) (full text in link)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)Roberts, Nathaniel P. (2008), "Anthropology of Caste", in William A. Darity (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, (Macmillan social science library), Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, ISBN 978-0-02-865967-1, retrieved 24 September 2012 Quote:
The Ritual Consensus: Speculative histories and detailed catalogues of caste-based customs dominated colonial anthropology until systematic village-based fieldwork in the 1950s looked at these customs' everyday context to see how caste actually worked. That more sophisticated approach, which the influential Indian anthropologist M. N. Srinivas exemplified, helped undermine stereotypes of caste society as static and passively determined by religious ideology. Srinivas showed that wealth and physical force often trumped mere ritual (1959), and that, although an individual's ritual status was indeed fixed by their jati, whole jatis could sometimes increase their status by adopting the customs of higher-ranked castes (1956). Srinivas's important insights nevertheless remained within the received picture of the caste system as an essentially religious affair by treating the control of land and servile labor, merchant capital, the state, and sheer physical dominance—all of which were termed secular—as extrinsic factors that might interact with caste, but were not an inherent part of it. (New paragraph) The tendency to idealize caste as inherently distinct from these less exotic aspects of social reality was taken to a new extreme by French sociologist Louis Dumont, whose Homo Hierarchicus went so far as to attack empiricism itself as "Westernistic" and therefore incapable of grasping caste's true, Indian essence (1980 [19661, p. 32). ... Dumont's brilliant synthesis of the existing scholarship made Homo Hierarchicus a standard reference for all future discussions of caste, despite disagreement over its visionary epistemology. At one extreme, American anthropologist McKim Marriott (1976) embraced an all-determining cultural hiatus between India and the West even more absolute than Dumont's, for the secular factors Dumont had merely downgraded to a subordinate level were dissolved entirely in Marriott's ethnosociology—an account built completely on native categories, thereby consigning non-culturally recognized reality to theoretical oblivion. On the other side, many sober-minded anthropologists continued to regard both secular realities and caste ideology as a matter of empirical inquiry, while nevertheless accepting the culturalist definition of caste as ritual order.
Das, Veena (2001), "Caste", in Neil J. Smelser (ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Paul B. Baltes, Oxford, UK: Pergamon; Elsevier, pp. 1529–1532, ISBN 978-0-08-043076-8, retrieved 25 September 2012
Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999), "Caste", Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, p. 186, ISBN 978-0-87779-044-0, retrieved 24 September 2012
CASTE, group of people having a specific social rank, defined generally by descent, marriage, commensality, and occupation. Although the term caste is applied to hierarchically ranked groups in many different societies around the world, the caste system in its most developed form is found in India. The word (from the Portuguese casta, meaning "race" or "lineage") was first applied to Indian society by Portuguese travelers in the 16th century. A roughly analogous word used in many Indian languages is JATI ("birth group"). There are about 3,000 castes and more than 25,000 subcastes in India, some with several hundred members and others with millions. .... (Note: the rest of the article describes the caste system in India.)
Mitchell, Geoffrey Duncan (2006), "Castes (part of SOCIAL STRATIFICATION)", A New Dictionary of the Social Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction Publishers, pp. 194–195, ISBN 978-0-202-30878-4, retrieved 10 August 2012
Castes A pure caste system is rooted in the religious order and may be thought of as a hierarchy of hereditary, endogamous, occupational groups with positions fixed and mobility barred by ritual distances between each caste. Empirically, the classical Hindu system of India approximated most closely to pure caste. The system existed for some 3,000 years and continues today despite many attempts to get rid of some of its restrictions. It is essentially connected with Hinduism. In theory all Hindus belong to one of four main groups, denoted by a colour, these were originally in order of precedence the Kshatriyas (a warrior group), the Brahmans (a priestly group), the Vaishyas (trading and manufacturing people) and the Sudras (servants and slaves). These are all mentioned in the Hindu writings of the sixth century B.C. Later the Brahmans replaced the Kshatriyas in the prime position. Outside these four main castes there are over fifty million so-called 'outcastes' but of course these too are part of the caste system, sharing the dominant beliefs about ritual pollution they are among the least privileged and their occupations are among the least esteemed, e.g. those of the tanner or the washerman. ... For its members, a caste system is a coherent and comprehensive system of allocating ritualistic functions on the basis of a ritualistic social order to which all subscribe. It is precisely on this score that to apply the concept of caste to the social stratification of slave-states of North America is both inaccurate and misleading. Here the deep and entrenched social divisions between the white and coloured populations, although, as in contemporary South Africa, given the veneer of religious sanction, arise not from allocation of differential functions in a ritual order but from allocation of menial tasks to men of distinct colour.
Oxford English Dictionary ("caste, n.",
Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition; online version June 2012, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989, retrieved 05 August 2012 {{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help))
caste, n. 2a. spec. One of the several hereditary classes into which society in India has from time immemorial been divided; ... This is now the leading sense, which influences all others.
Abercrombie, Nicholas; Hill, Stephen; Turner, Bryan S. (2006-02-28), "caste", The Penguin dictionary of sociology, Penguin, p. 46, ISBN 978-0-14-101375-6
caste A caste system is a form of social STRATIFICATION in which castes are hierarchically organized and separated from each other by rules of ritual purity. The lowest strata of the caste system are referred to as 'untouchables', because they are excluded from the performance of rituals which confer religious purity. In this hierarchical system, each caste is ritually purer than the one below it. The caste system is an illustration of SOCIAL CLOSURE in which access to wealth and prestige is closed to social groups which are excluded from the performance of purifying rituals. This ritual segregation is further reinforced by rules of ENDOGAMY. In Max Weber's study of India (1958a), caste represented an important illustration of social ranking by prestige and formed part of a wider interest in pariah groups. ... There is considerable debate as to whether the caste system is specific to Hindu culture, or whether its principal features are more widely found in other societies where hierarchically organized, endogamous strata are present. In the first position, caste cannot be defined independently of 'caste system', which is specific to classical Hindu society. In the second argument, the term caste is extended to embrace the stratification of ethnic groups, for example in the southern states of the USA. While the Hindu caste system is organized in terms of four major castes (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra) there is considerable diversity at the local, village level ....
Parry, Jonathan (2003), "Caste", in Kuper, Adam; Kuper, Jessica (eds.), Social Science Encyclopedia, London and New York: Routledge, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-415-28560-5
Caste systems have been defined in the most general terms as systems of hierarchically ordered endogamous units in which membership is hereditary and permanent (e.g. Berreman 1960). On such a definition a whole range of rigidly stratified societies would be characterized by caste—Japan, for example, or certain Polynesian and East African societies, or the racially divided world of the American Deep South. Hindu India is generally taken as the paradigmatic example. Many scholars would argue, however, that the difference between this case and the others are far more significant than the similarities, and that the term caste should properly be applied only to this context. ...
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)(Original French edn. Essais sur le regime des castes, Paris.)Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ("caste", Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, Merriam-Webster, 2002, retrieved 5 August 2012).
caste n. 1 obsolete : .... 2 : one of the hereditary classes into which the society of India is divided in accordance with a system fundamental in Hinduism, reaching back into distant antiquity, ....
Here are the top five authors:
Others, who are mentioned in the tertiary sources themselves as the influential theorists of caste are: Max Weber, Emile Senart (Les Castes dans L'Inde, 1894), Célestin Bouglé (1927), Georges Dumézil, G. S. Ghurye, Edmund Leach, F. G. Bailey, J. C. Heesterman, Ronald Inden, Stanley Tambiah, R. S. Khare, Veena Das, Jonathan Parry, T. N. Madan, Richard Burghart. The redlinks should have their own pages; there are manifold scholarly references attesting to their notability. Doubtless there are others that will be ferreted out upon more careful reading of the sources. Some books, such as Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus have become classics of the field, and will likely need individual attention and brief description. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are some excerpts. Note that they are usually "brief mentions" in articles longer articles that mostly talk about India, so please don't use these to rekindle the old debate about whether or not India is critical to the notion of caste.
Anthropological debate regarding the caste concept has been dominated by two related questions: (1) What principles determine caste ranking? and (2) Is caste a cross-cultural phenomenon, or is it limited to the South Asian CULTURE AREA? ... An essentially homologous structure of social relations based on different symbolic principles can be seen in Swat (Pakistan), where ideas of honor and shame replace those of purity and pollution. Barth (1971) among others would argue that this is a form of caste system. Yet Swat remains at the borders of Indian civilization: whether caste phenomena can be found entirely outside the South Asian culture sphere remains a fundamental point of controversy (see Barnett et al. 1976; Berreman 1968; see also INEQUALITY).
(Note: the description here is very dated. The article itself is not that old, and the author seems to be an expert on the Caste system in India, but it also seems that the author has copied the "Caste system in the World" section (probably not his interest) from 1930s sources. That explains dated terminology such as "East Horn," "Tussi," swineherds, ...
The caste system is a complex one composed of several Hindu ideas, namely, pollution, purity, and social units of jatis, varna, and dharma (religious duties). The system is, however not typical to Hindus alone but is common among Muslims, Christians, and Jews with relative variations. Muslim caste for instance differs from the Hindu caste wherein no ethico-religious ideas of hierarchy or regulation of intercaste relations are found. In addition, no varna categories are spotted among the Muslims (Srinivas 1965). ... Although the caste system is found in various forms in different parts or the world, including Asia and Africa, India is known for both its origin and its rigorous practice.
Caste system in the world: The caste system, albeit not in the way it is practised in India, is observed in several countries but in variant forms. The Spartan division of the society into citi-zens, helots, and slaves shows the signs of a caste system. In the Roman Empire, there were patricians, plebeians, and slaves. These classifications, however, were on the basis of land holding and wealth, not on the criteria of the Indian caste system (Kroeber 1930). Some, like Lloyd Warner, describe the blacks and whites in the United States as caste groups rather than races because they are socially and not biologically defined categories (Beteile 1992). Bourdieu referred to the racial divide between whites and Muslims in colonial Algeria as a caste system.
Caste-like groupings also exist in China and Madagascar ( Bayly 2000). In both South Africa and the southern United States, caste has been used to explain the systems of racial stratification (Ida 1992). In Fiji, there are chieftains associated with their own clans who have a specific function to perform. These castes are graded according to their functions. Burma under the Burmese monarchy had seven distinct classes of outcastes: Pagoda slaves, profes-sional beggars, executioners, lepers, deformed and mutilated persons, and coffinmakers. Each of them had specific functions (occupations) and positions in the society. People from these outcaste classes could not enter a monarchy or become Buddhist monks (Hutton 19461. Japan is often referred to as "a land of caste" though a clear hereditary or occupational distinction is not made out (Kroeber 1930). Japan's bushido code defines a hierarchy consisting of warriors (samurai), commoners, merchants, and untouchables: this hierarchy more or less resembles the Varna system of India. But this hierarchy is not associated with the proliferation of smaller caste groups (Bayly 2000). The Eta in Japan constitutes a community of outcastes, who reside on the fringes of the Japanese society. They are considered subhuman, wear distinctive clothing, and have no social activities with other classes. Though the Japanese government had abolished all such feudal discrimination way back in 1871, the position of Eta in the society has not improved. They are still being discriminated against at school, at places of employment, and in trade and marriage (Hutton 1946). In Africa, among the Masai, there is a tribe of hunters called Wandorobo. Resemblances to a typical caste system are found in the modern Africa, too. Among the Somali of the East Horn, there are certain outcaste classes of Tomal, Yebir, and Misgan. Pollution and taboo are common among them. The ease is no different in East Africa either. In the Rwanda and Burundi regions, there are three racially and econom-ically distinct groups. namely the Tussi, Hutu, and Twa. With the Twa, no Hutu or Tussi will enter into marriage. The Tussi look down on the Hutu for eating mutton and goat-fish. In the lbo society, a group of people called Osu offer similarities to a caste group. The Osu became a class apart and live in segregated areas. Calling anyone an Osu is an insult. Among the Jews and Gypsies, the system is in vogue. In Egypt, the fighting men were divided into two categories. They were for generations, not allowed to learn and practice any other craft or trade. The swineherds in Egypt were not granted permission to enter temples. Being a priest was also a hereditary occupation. Herodotus mentions seven "clans" of priests, as well as fighting men, herdsmen, swineherds, tradesmen, interpreters, and navigators in Egypt. There are also classes of craftsmen, farmers, and artificers in Egypt that were hereditary and compulsory. As it is clear, caste is being practiced in several parts of the world in varying forms. However, the most rigorous form of its practice is observed in southern Asia, specifically in India.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Britain, the colonial ruler of India, encouraged Indians to migrate to its other colonies in the Caribbean and Africa as indentured laborers in its bid to maintain its economic success. Most of the Indians who chose to migrate were members of lower castes who saw migration as an opportunity for upward mobility. Although the first generation of immigrants tended to retain their caste identities, particularly in matters of marriage and religious rites (Schwartz 1967), subsequent generations did not, because of the assimilative nature of economic, political, and juridical forces (Motwani, Gosine, and Barot-Motwani 1993; Gosine and Narine 1999). Caste cannot be easily transplanted to an environment where Hinduism is not the operative religion.
Systems of stratification comparable to the Indian caste system have been identified in other parts of the world. For example, in Nigeria the relations between the Ibo and Osu groups are similar to those of upper and lower castes. In Somalia a social group called Midgam or Madibhan suffers from all the impediments that Dalits experience: impurity, pollution, and social distance. The Burakumin of Japan have been compared with the Dalits, as they have faced similar restrictions. These restrictions were outlawed in 1871, but, as in the case of Dalits, discrimination continues, especially in matters of employment and marriage (Henshall 1999). These dichotomous divisions, however, do not come close to the intricate caste system. At best, they compare two opposite ends of caste system with another system similar to it, ignoring the middle, wherein lies the heart of caste system.
Even though there have been stout rejections of the claim that caste can be equated with race (see, among others, Gupta 2001) purely on the grounds of universal practices of discrimination based on ascription, scholars such as Gerald Berreman (1960; 1972) have attempted to compare American blacks to untouchable castes in India. However, the black-white dichotomous system in the United States differs from the fourfold caste system in India in that it is ordained not by religious considerations, but by economic and social ones (Cox 1948).
Nearly all societies are stratified in one way or another, and some groups will always be relegated to the margins. However, the Indian caste system is unique because of its complexity, its religious foundation, its hereditary occupational system, and its norms of endogamy. More important, caste has served to energize Indian polity because it has been a primary means of motivating and mobilizing citizens to take part in electoral politics. Perhaps that has been a positive aspect of caste in Indian society, but the time may come to look for other means of motivating the electorate in India.
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)Will add more later. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Last updated: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The tertiary sources are largely agreed that Hindu India is central to a discussion of caste. Yet in this article (see this version) India is casually mentioned as just one example. Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill) and thereby engage in a kind of defensive universalism, not to mention original research and synthesis? 13:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the problem. Nobody is going to dispute that the concept of "caste" (by which we mean not just varna, but primarily jati) is central to Indian society. This doesn't mean that the entire India article needs to focus on the topic, but obviously it is going to be a major topic under the "Society" header, per WP:SS a summary of the subordinate articles. -- dab (𒁳) 06:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there is any debate about existence of caste system among Hindus in India but even according to your source (which are tertiary references while we need secondary) caste system very much exists outside India. You just cannot cherry pick your favorite source and change the lead of the article and make it look like the article of "Caste System of India". Please note this is a general article if you say that it is dominant in India mention you can do it in a better way. I should appreciate you audacity. You are trying to fool people by writing Caste a complex social institution characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of occupation, and status in a hierarchy, which is especially important in the lives of Hindus in India.-- sarvajna ( talk) 14:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Before we go off into a tangential direction, let me point out that this is technical issue rather than a NPOV/ balance related issue. India like Yemen, Korea etc. has just one section in this article even though it is a predominant example of caste because of the summary style of writing articles. The content on India is just a summary of Caste system in India, History of the Indian caste system, Varna (Hinduism) etc. which in turn branch out into hundreds of other articles on caste. As such the size of the section cannot be longer than a certain limit for this article. I don't see where the problem is, please clarify further if I've missed something. Regards. Correct Knowledge «৳alk» 14:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I encourage Fowler&fowler to identify sources supporting his assertion:
A while ago, I verified the sources cited in this article's section on England, Korea, France, Africa, Yemen, China, etc. and each source I checked did use the word caste. FWIW, the article Caste system in India and numerous linked and sub-linked spin-off articles therein, taken together, is many many times larger than this article. They had grown to be much larger than they are now, and were heavily trimmed per consensus (see talk page of Caste system in India, for example). ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
See citation 14, for Cagots, by Tom Knox (10 June 2010). "The untouchables of FRANCE: How swarthy Pyrenean race persecuted for centuries are still being abused today". London: Daily Mail. He uses the word caste in paragraphs 25-40. The New York Times meet wiki's reliable source guidelines, is included as a second independent source; the NYTimes article verifies the 'Cagots were considered repulsive, morally impure and shunned' part of the summary. On Roma, see Lemon's book and other publications - you will find she uses the word caste. Your own tertiary sources, listed above on this talk page, mention gypsies/Roma people have been described as castes by various scholars. Yes, please get the book and read the sources. I am certain that you will find the sources cited about castes outside India, in this article, include the word "caste".
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I was also referring to Caste#Europe. The first time citation 116 is mentioned in that section of this article, it is mentioned together with citation 14. Please read both, I do not want to repeat my explanation above. Gotlieb supports the summary; get the book and read it. On England or Cagots or anything else, if the quality of this article would be improved by citing additional sources, we can work towards that goal. There are numerous citations out there that use the word caste in describing historical England, Cagots, etc.
Meanwhile, part of our month long dispute is whether this article should be almost entirely about India (your position as I understand it), or should it be a more balanced article with worldwide perspective as described by all sides of the WP:RS scholarly dispute on the subject of caste (my position). I request that you respect the WP:DR process. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't have time to go through all of the sources and frankly I think its sheer redundancy puts it close to the category of WP:TLDR.
But from a cursory glance I can tell most of the tertiary sources that were deposited agree on one thing nearly all societies have had some form of social stratification, whether ascriptive or achieved, based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, language, education, or occupation. But they also claim, what we already accepted, that the caste system is a complicated problem in India is possibly the most complex and rigid. But we have already accepted that. How many times does the nominator want to make us repeat that? What's wrong with you (Fowler) buddy? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK, caste is a form of 'social segregation' and should be treated and talked about in such terms. The very word "caste" has been of a non-Indian origin (meaning "segregation"), yet has been imputed to Indian hindu culture umpteenth number of times in this discussion, why so? Why is fowler so eager to ascribe 'castus' - (latin word meaning segregation) mostly to Hinduism as well as Hindu culture? Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 16:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, we, as individual editors or as a group, cannot evaluate the weight of scholarly opinion ourselves, we have to rely on scholarly sources to do that. Typically, tertiary sources—other encyclopedias, specialist references (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology), review-of-the-literature articles in journals, and widely used academic textbooks published by academic presses—do just that. (The h-index or impact factor are relevant when evaluating the reliability of a secondary source, however they do not play a role in due weight.)Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
Yet, Edmund Leach goes uncited in this article, while Berreman (h-index 26) is cited again and again.In contemporary literature we meet the word 'caste' in two quite different contexts. On the one hand it is a word used without any particular geographical limitation to denote a type of class system in which hierarchy is very sharply defined and in which the boundaries between the different layers of the hierarchy are rigidly fixed. A 'ruling class' may be described as a caste when the fact of class endogamy is strikingly obvious and when the inheritance of privilege has become narrowly restricted to members of that 'caste' ... Obvious examples are the colour bar situation in the Southern states of the United States and in South Africa ... The other use of the word 'caste' is to define the system of social organization found in traditional India and surviving to a large extent to the present day. I myself consider that, as sociologists, we shall be advised to restrict the use of the term 'caste' to the Indian phenomenon only'. (h-index: Edmund Leach: 49) (Reference: ( Leach, Edmund (16 September 2009), "Caste, Class, and Slavery: The Taxonomic Problem", in CIBA Foundation Symposium (ed.), Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 5–, ISBN 978-0-470-71704-2, retrieved 15 September 2012),)
Yet, Dumont goes unmentioned in this article, while a graduate student's dismissive sentence (h-index 6) is quoted.It was only natural that the 'something in common' between the Indian caste system and the American 'colour bar' should have attracted attention. The question is whether putting them under the same class-heading helps research or hinders it. I believe that it tends to hinder, at the least, a fundamental kind of research.
Yet Tambiah too goes unmentioned in this article.Caste embodies ideas of relative purity and impurity; it is an integrated exchange system of occupational skills and ritual services: it distributes power in a particular manner; it is a way of controlling and restricting marriage; at its highest levels it is associated with philosophical ideas which are not represented in race relations.
Balkin too is not mentioned in this article.American constitutional theorists' romance with 'caste' as an explanatory category needs serious reappraisal ... social stratification in the United States does not really match the technical definition of caste ... caste is at best an effective hyperbole.' (Balkin, J. (1997) “The Constitution of Status,” ‘’Yale Law Journal’’, 106, 2358.
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't tell us about his h-index not being perfect. There is a limit to which Wikipedia and Wikipedian's can put up with low-level polite disruption that you continue to pursue in this article and elsewhere. When you search for "Gerald Berreman" on Britannica; it takes you either to "Brahman (caste)" or "John Berryman (poet)" That says it all. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)The Indian scholar who in the immediate postwar period played a critical role in linking Western anthropological theory with locally grounded knowledge was M.N. Srinivas. He had studied with Ghurye in Bombay before seeking admission in 1945 for the D.Phil. in social anthropology at Oxford. At Oxford Srinivas first studied with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and then completed his doctorate under the supervision of Edward Evans-Pritchard. Srinivas adapted the structural-functionalism of his mentors to his own work in India. In his well-known published dissertation, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India (1952), Srinivas demonstrated how it was possible to discern patterns that had widespread significance in India even among a people like the Coorgs, who considered themselves a distinct ethnic group. After a brief period at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Srinivas would become in 1959 the first professor of sociology at the University of Delhi. This department—embracing concerns that might, in a British or American university, have occupied sociologists and political scientists as well as social anthropologists—became the preeminent training ground for an Indian school of social science of broad scope, great theoretical originality, and high international visibility.
Fowler&fowler - On Immerwahr and rest, your objection seems to be with peer reviewed journal articles and reliable secondary sources. That is what wikipedia community agreed content sourcing guideline is. Strange? ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 01:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, okay Fowler? You cannot filter out verifiable information based on your predilection and preferences. That's most certainly not our job. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance.
From the Encyclopedia Britannica article on caste ("caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 06 Sep. 2012): caste, any of the ranked, hereditary, endogamous social groups, often linked with occupation, that together constitute traditional societies in South Asia, particularly among Hindus in India. Although sometimes used to designate similar groups in other societies, the “caste system” is uniquely developed in Hindu societies. From the Encyclopedia Britannica (the first two sentences in the lede). Later, in the lede Caste is generally believed to be an ancient, abiding, and unique Indian institution upheld by a complex cultural ideology. Note the repeated use of unique. Need I say more? -- regentspark ( comment) 18:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
That didn't take very long. Apostle's objection seems to be an obsession with India regarding caste by British authors. He/she explicitly excludes Britannica since 1911 (presumably because, since 1911, it has been an American institution) and these quotes are from the current edition. Are there other 'objections' and 'responses' to these specific quotes I've missed? -- regentspark ( comment) 19:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Exchange between Fowler&fowler and AposltevonColorado
|
---|
|
RegentsPark - The author of the caste article in Encyclopedia Britannica, T.N. Madan has authored a much longer article on caste in Students' Britannica India (Volume 6, 2000 Edition), ISBN 0-85229-762-9, pages 127-135.
T.N. Madan notes in Students' Britannica India article that his unstated and obvious assumption is that caste is an institution typical of South Asia. He acknowledges that this assumption's validity depends on whether one takes a structural or cultural approach. He then gives one example of structural approach wherein a racial social stratification is caste (outside India). In other words, T.N. Madan has acknowledged that caste, when considered in structural sense, is not unique to India. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 01:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A New York Times article states this as it compares the Britannica and Wikipedia( [1]):
Britannica sales peaked in 1990 and is going out of print. They seem to be adopting the Wikipedia model now to stay alive and definitely lag behind Wikipedia. Should we give it so much importance then, especially to an article on caste written in 1979? Hoshigaki ( talk) 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - T.N. Madan has voluntarily limited himself to caste system in India, and he admits caste is not exclusive to India. If we go by h-index, citation scores and such measures, on reliable source publications about caste in reviews, in books, in peer reviewed journals, numerous authors are far more widely cited and accepted than Triloki Nath Madan. As you note, Encyclopedia Britannica has been phasing out - the caste articles in Encyclopedia Britannica editions prior to 1979 had a much longer article on caste and those old versions included a more extensive worldwide discussion. In the era of possibly high inflation and low sales past 1979, combined with too many topics and costs of paper/printing in 1980s, the paper encyclopedias shrunk articles at the expense of quality. Thus, I believe, wikipedia's content sourcing guideline 'rely on secondary sources' is prudent and wise (see WP:RS). For this article, it would be unwise to ignore the most cited secondary sources. Yes, tertiary sources should be considered, but not with bias or selectively; if you consider encyclopedias written say in 1950s to 1970s and the same encyclopedia in 1980s, and see a major difference or complete absence of worldwide coverage - we must ask what happened? (after all sociocultural phenomenon such as caste are not a new unexpected event that just happened). If you see a dispute between encyclopedias and textbooks, we must ask what happened, and we must ask if we can rely on one but ignore the other in our effort to create a quality article. Creating or improving quality of an article such as this one, with balance, NPOV, no original research, and verifiability in reliable published secondary sources is hard work. Welcome to wikipedia, by the way. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
@AVC. I took a look at the Students Britannica reference that you cite above and, while Madan does say what you quote above, he is quite explicit that the idea of caste is very Hindu in nature. For example, he clearly states that the term caste came into usage as a means of describing the division of Hindu society, first by the Portuguese and subsequently by in English and other European languages (Dutch and French). Caste, according to Madan, is centrally Hindu in nature and is only peripherally used to describe social divisions in other cultures. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My comments were solicited. I have not read your article.
Using the discussion of tertiary sources here #Serious Neutrality and Balance Issues, the following tertiary sources are worth attending to, because they are appropriate scholarly tertiary sources, mapping the advice regarding history and tertiary sources in WP:HISTRS onto this social science field (and as I have done anyway, in the past, repeatedly, at RS/N), and keeping in mind the field specificity of caste's scholarly interest we should esteem:
the others being either non-scholarly, or to my mind sufficiently removed in topic from the sociology of stratification across time.
ApostleVonColorado fails to provide adequate citations for more than one of the works they attempt to cite and I am highly resistant to doing extra work because other editors can't find a publisher with two hands and a worldcat. As such I'm not going to comment on these things which may or may not be publications.
In the scholarly tertiaries, India is mentioned as a critical example repeatedly. This article should, therefore, give prominence to the summary style section dealing with the significance to the sociology of caste of the Indian example. This example should probably be ordered first if examples are used in writing this article. If examples are not used then a summary style section with a main link to caste in India is probably required due to the prominence of this example to the development of the social science concept. While this article has a responsibility to the social science concept of caste across all human societies and cultures, and across all sociologies of stratification, at the same time this article has a responsibility to reflect the development of the concept in relation to the "paradigmatic example" (Kuper and Kuper 2003).
I have now read your article. It is a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. If I wanted a list of examples I would go to category:caste. If I wanted a discussion of the social phenomena and sociological classification of strata known as caste I would come here. The section on Italy is OR, the only theory in use is from 1917 and is a just-so story. This isn't an article on caste, it is a list of OR related to stratification. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Fiflefoo - The O'Brien, Jodi (2008) work may be a reliable source for gender studies but with entries on topics like castration, breast implants, cervical cancer and none on the varna, jati systems, I would not count it to be reliable for the subject area of this article. It defines caste to be a "form of social organization unique to India..." That would a wild claim, even if you were assume she meant the Indian sub-continent. Hoshigaki ( talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |original_year=
ignored (
help)):
Fifelfoo - I understand you better now. You are trying to sense the quality of the publication by place of publication and publisher of an encyclopedia, rather than locating the source and reading it. Both Fowler&fowler and I did not include place of publication in all of our citations, while in some cases Fowler&fowler did include publisher name and I did not. Both of us always had the title, edition, year published, name of editor(s) and such information with quoted sections in different encyclopedias with articles on caste in dispute. I have updated my list now with publisher name and place of publication. You can find them here.
Please note that Fowler&fowler and my sources have just one article on caste, no separate article on caste system in India, while wikipedia has multiple linked articles on caste. Part of our confusion, one that remains unanswered is (1) Should we duplicate content by taking 20% to 50% of Caste system in India article and copying it into this Caste article, or (2) Should we summarize the linked, independent main article on India in 500 to 1000 words in this article, per WP:SUMMARY guidelines? This is assuming that quality wikipedia articles should not be too long, and preferably about 10,000 words per comments from wiki editor Piotrus and related discussion elsewhere on this talk page. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
More pertinently, why are you shirking from creating a section "Caste in the United States?" After all there five times as many books on the Caste system in the United States than there are on the Caste system in Italy. Could it be that the editors of Racial segregation in the United States will be hurriedly looking to AfD it? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Patricians were all equal in legal terms—they all (even the doge) had one vote in the Large Council, the basic expression of their caste.
Although I understand there is some "law" that alleges all links within WP can end up at Philosophy after a surprisingly short routing, that does not mean that we should include 90% of the Philosophy article in this or any other, and the same goes for Caste. Believe me, AVC, I admire scholarship and in-depth coverage but this is not the place to do it. And hyperlinks are a beautiful thing. - Sitush ( talk) 02:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)They will write a 10-page essay on the talkpage. A person will respond to them with a few sentences and they will reply, "But you didn't respond to my points!" You ask what points they want you to respond to and they say, "All of them!" So, you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page. Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues. You respond in a few sentences and perhaps the person themselves even responds in a few sentences, but the conversation goes on and on and on, in such a way that it's clear that it's more of an intellectual game, like a staring contest, to see who will give up first, rather than an actual rational, meaningful discussion.
Sitush - I am in the process of composing a comment to this RfC. To do so, I need a clarification on a comment you made. For context, I quote parts of the discussion (full discussion is here). Then I ask my question.
My question: Has wikipedia community discussed or granted any special exemption to this article on caste from WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP guidelines. I quote the guidelines for convenience:
I am less interested in what your personal feelings and opinions are on that matter. I am interested in a link to the appropriate community discussion and consensus, if any, that this article is exempt from those key content sourcing policies. I would like to read it for myself and incorporate past community discussion in composing my comment to this RfC.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem here, as I see it, is that there are two general definitions of the caste. The first refers to the rigid social stratification of India, the latter and broader definition refers to the concept of social stratification in general. If we are to make an article on the latter sense (which is essentially what this article is), then it becomes redundant with Wikipedia's article on social stratification. The problem of loosely applied definitions is not unique to this article, it also plagues articles like Fascism (a word that has been used as an epithet against authoritarian, semi-authoritarian, and even democratic governments).
This dispute also needs to be brought to the attention of the wider community, and not just editors interested in South Asian history. As an editor who mostly focuses on China-related articles, I only stumbled onto this RfC by accident. The input of editors interested in European and East Asian history is absolutely necessary to evaluate the characterizations (some controversial) of European and East Asian societies as castes. I recommend contacting the appropriate WikiProjects.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 11:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
My main concern here is that sources are being misrepresented to make a point of view. I agree with previous comments stating that this article is a WP:COATRACK. My interests are in Chinese history, and I have little interest in the dispute being fought between editors who frequent South Asian articles. But when blatant errors are being made about Chinese history to prove a point about Hinduism, then I have objections. Mentions of a 17th century Chinese hereditary aristocracy when "imperial China had not been aristocratic since the third century BCE" is one of many examples. And this is just the Chinese section! This is why the article needs attention from more outside editors. WikiProjects need to be informed of the RfC.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: Also see other citations provided by a different wiki contributor here. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia's article on "Caste" is longer than most similar articles in scholarly tertiaries, one could argue that it will inevitably have more content. This is true to some extent, but it still doesn't allow us to devote entire individual sections to this new content. One could add a separate sub-section at the end of the Asia section, which states something like, "Caste-systems (or systems akin to caste) are found in China (or among the Yi people of China). See ....." and discusses this briefly, along with examples from other Asian societies that have not been included in the tertiary sources, and provides the references you have been discussing above. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It could well be that we need a fair few short sections or See Also's to new articles discussing international variants on the amorphous, broad-brush theme ... but Fowler is correct that weighting is a real issue here. Unless there are a shed-load of reliable sources referring to X as a caste system in country Y, any mention should be minimal because otherwise it is original research. For the UK, "class" is (alas) a perceived system for which countless throwaway comments and decent sociological attempts to define can be found; "caste" is not. I know little of China, past or present, but rather suspect that the weight of the "caste" word in sources relating to it only slightly less thin. Certainly so when compared to the Indian/Hindu references. - Sitush ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
ApostleVonColorado, mainstream views of imperial Chinese society refer to it as meritocratic, with social mobility, thus rarely use the term caste. Like Piotrus called it, this is "pure UNDUE/FRINGE lunacy." Most academics write that Chinese classes were not based solely on birth, and the mainstream viewpoint needs to be given priority. SGCM, balance is hardly the only problem. The biggest issue is the misrepresentation of sources. If the source cited for China does not call it a caste, and warns against doing so, then the Wikipedia article should not call it a caste either. Like Piotrus view of Poland, I don't think China should be listed at all. Manchu and Yi society should not be confused with the Chinese, because when most readers see the word Chinese, they think of Han Chinese culture.-- Ninthabout ( talk) 16:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler counts numerous dictionaries, in his list of 31, as tertiary sources. Over 10 Chinese-English dictionary entries for jianmin, 賤民, refer to caste / Dalits / untouchable (see this and this, for example). At least 125 secondary sources (book and journal articles, including those by Chinese authors) discuss caste and China, particularly in light of China's Hukou system of social segregation (see this at page 6-11, and this, and this, and this). These and many other scholars use the word caste, they discuss why it is a caste system not class. These scholarly peer reviewed journal articles have been cited and the books have been reviewed and cited as well. Per wikipedia content guidelines, they should be summarized, at least briefly. Why not?
You edited this article to include meritocracy - but that is coatracking because this article is on caste, not meritocracy. Yes, I agree with SGCM that some wording should be included to prevent wrong impression about social mobility in commoners in historical Han society. We should also include some wording on Yi people, Manchu people, Jianmin, Hukou system, etc and caste from reliable published literature. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and the main article on any issue should be displaying a global perspective. In the interests of neutrality and comprehensiveness, it should not be displaying a narrow, sectarian Indian perspective. There is already an article on "Caste system in India". That is the place to discuss that issue. Caste is a global phenomenon and not just a "Hindu India" phenomenon. Even within India, it is not just a Hindu phenomenon. Caste system is also prevalant among some Muslims, Christians and Sikhs and various other communities in India. If someone wants more coverage of caste system in India, they should write more articles on caste system in India, but it is not necessary to make this article take a myopic view of a global phenomenon. OrangesRyellow ( talk) 08:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I saw the message on WP:CHINA and WP:UK, and I've worked on the Talk:India dispute on the DRN noticeboard which involves the same parties, so I hope to add my two cents to this discussion as well. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. I don't think that the caste article should focus exclusively on India, but I oppose restricting its coverage as well. As long as WP:BALANCE is maintained, there shouldn't be a problem. Each topic should be given its due weight, as determined by the coverage of the reliable sources.-- SGCM (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This article could improve bringing reference to a few of the following groups with caste correspondence dynamics . In the first two instances I have provided indicative links from google books .
1) The institution of Mawali : See for example
The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 4
2) Hamsaya Clans
Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities of Pakistan: Constitutional and Legal Perspective by By Shaheen Sar Ali and Jaivaid Rehman
3) Old Testament clans such as Canaanites Hittites , Girgishites , Amorites , , Perrizites ,Hivites
4) Religious honor group with family succession : as in Silsilas or Ovlat in Turkmenistan e or the hereditary Khadim at Sufi Shrines
5) Morisco ( discrimination to)
6)The pre eminence of Arab Lineage in Kafa’ah Nikah .See the article on
Ibn Abidin for a brief explanation .
Intothefire (
talk)
17:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
See here. (added with permission by ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC))
I request some time to add my comment. I will first discuss with the participants above then add my comment here. Hoshigaki ( talk) 11:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC) In order to make an effective comment, I am approaching the RfC in two steps.
For determining the centrality argument, I have gone through the 44 sources provided by Fowler&fowler (33), CorrectKnowledge (3) and ApostleVonColorado (8). I will add my comment after my analysis in the section below is complete. Hoshigaki ( talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
All 44 sources were classified in to one of five categories - those that:
One comment that stands out in particular (and weakens the centrality argument) reads:
It is clear that social changes art taking place rapidly in India today. The caste system has nearly collapsed in India and is not relevant in India anymore. It is not a central social issue in India anymore. Even if India were central to caste, it would be more or less in a historical sense.
Step 1: Determining centrality
I have found that the sources fall in four categories:
Here are the details of where the sources stand.
Number of sources | Position/Category | Source numbers | Excerpts from sources |
---|---|---|---|
05 | Strengthens the centrality argument(1) | Sources: FF4, FF5, FF6, FF7a, FF17 | Source FF7a: The validity of usage outside of South Asian contexts, however, ultimately turns on how we are to understand the paradigmatic Indian case—a matter of considerable and ongoing debate. |
22 | Just discusses the caste system without addressing the centrality issue (2) | Sources: FF7, FF11, FF13, FF14, FF18, FF21, FF22, FF24, FF25, FF29, FF30, FF31, FF32, CK1, CK2, CK3, AV1, AV2, AV4, AV6, AV7, AV8 | All these sources simply discuss the Indian, South African, Middle Eastern, Japanese, Rwandan, Burmese, Algerian, European ( Roma/gypsies) and other caste systems, they have nothing to do with the question of the RfC that India is central to caste. |
05 | No consensus on the centrality issue(3) | Sources: FF1, FF2, FF6, FF19, FF26 | Source FF1: Other definitions of caste are also listed. The one about India is listed first and thus this could make India one of several primary examples of caste but we have no way of determining if it makes India central to caste. Source FF2: Same argument as source 1. |
07 | Weakens the centrality argument(4) | Sources: FF3, FF12, FF15, FF16, FF20, FF27, FF28 | Source FF3: The author mentions that caste is used in other contexts and states But it is among the Hindus in India that we find the system in its most fully developed form... This is a statement about how developed and deep the system in India is and could mean caste is or was central to India but not that India is central to caste. Also, the author follows up in the same paragraph about the caste theory with The theory has now lost much of its force although many of the practices continue. This is a very strong indication that India's caste is not central to anything and India may not be central to anything about caste anymore in present day. Source FF12: Conclusion - Finally, while caste is distinctively Indian in origin, social scientists also often use it to describe inflexible social class barriers in other contexts." |
05 | Unreliable source/irrelevant to our topic (5) | FF8, FF10, FF23, AV3, AV5 | Source FF8: This source is not relevant to our subject. It has entries on castration, breast implants, clergy sex scandals, but nothing on the four basic classes/castes of the East, India, Jatis or Varnas, etc Source FF10: "Encyclopedia of the Developing World" excludes USA |
Note:
it does not mean:important, leading, dominant, key, paramount, salient, significant, foremost;
In other words, “almost exclusive” is a stronger version of “central.” Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)exclusive, lone, one, single, solitary, solo, unexampled.
More soon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - Thank you for the review. It is thorough, detailed and useful. I disagree with assertions by Fowler&fowler above, examples of just two incorrect assertions are below:
Fowler&fowler alleges that "the seventh (tertiary source ApostleVonColorado cited) is garbage. Article from 1921 (so says AVC)." What I actually wrote on this talk page included the note that 1920s through 1970s edition prints of Encyclopedia Americana have almost the same lead paragraphs, this -
Fowler&fowler alleges that eighth tertiary source I cited was from 1911. Once again what I actually wrote on this talk page is that later editions are essentially same; in later discussion, I clarified that 1911 (11th edition), 12th, 13th and one print of 14th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has the first 1000 words with caste as a worldwide socio-cultural phenomena. Just 2.5% of those 1000 words were on India. The most recent edition of Encyclopedia Britannica was rewritten by a new author, T.N. Madan; the article size significantly reduced, and new version covers caste in India. Instead of quoting those entire 1000 words, here is pre-15th edition version of Caste briefly -
Fowler&fowler calls a long article in Encyclopedia of Latin America as "garbage" too. Yes, the encyclopedia is about Latin America, but that does not make it irrelevant. That encyclopedia article is about caste in Latin America, describes the emergence of castes under colonial times, and discusses the evolution of caste system in Latin America. Published literature on Latin American people is as important and relevant as any other country, to this article. I have listed Encyclopedia of Africa and others previously, beyond my short list of eight. These too use the word caste, describe castes in various African countries/cultures including elements of hereditary, hierarchical, endogamous, ritual, exclusion and in some cases shunning of outcastes. All these are relevant, due and an encyclopedic aspect of the socio-cultural subject caste, this article. All these show abundant dispute and diversity of opinions across tertiary sources on the subject of caste, this article.
Fowler&fowler claims 'we will interpret that to mean that Wikipedia's article on caste should only be about India.' I disagree, because this violates community agreed wikipedia guidelines. This RfC is a process. Your, Hoshigaki and other wiki contributor's independent findings and views are important and will be considered to help reach consensus and next steps.
A balanced article, per wikipedia's community agreed guideline would include all sides reflected in published reliable sources. Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler, as I do not wish to repeat my other comments per talk page guidelines.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 14:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hoshigaki - I should have clarified that the older editions of encyclopedias, from early 20th century to later part of 20th century, have different authors and editors. A careful read shows a bit of rephrasing and a few sentences have been rewritten, but most of the article remained same, the broad worldwide emphasis was retained by different authors/editors over this time. There is no wikipedia guideline on 'age of citation for social science topics' and 'reliability of social science references of 1950s or 1970s versus 1990s or 2000s'. Many encyclopedia articles, you analyzed so diligently, use/cite literature that is some 50 years or more old, suggesting these new editions are not based on new discoveries but are summaries of some of the same old sources. If anything, as world becomes more open and regional encyclopedias get published, there are more peer reviewed journal articles, more books, more secondary sources and more regional tertiary sources that suggest caste was not or is not unique to any one country.
For example, see caste in Yazidi people of West Asia article, a people and culture distant from India, they have their own unique religion, but had castes for many centuries, their past population estimated to be between 100s of thousands to millions by scholars, and there are reliable secondary sources and encyclopedic articles on Yazidi people and their caste system - but not covered by this article yet. That article, like this one, needs more sources for WP:V and improvement. For what it is worth, I have never edited Yazidi article, other wiki contributors have written it. There are many more such articles on caste, in tertiary sources outside of wikipedia, that have nothing to do with South Asia or any one country.
ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 16:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler - I invite you to respect wikipedia's community agreed talk page guidelines. Please avoid personal attacks on Hoshigaki with statements such as 'I have serious concerns about your level of competence in the English language. I feel your comprehension skills are poor at best.' His or her comments are relevant and everyone is welcome to wikipedia and to this RfC. ApostleVonColorado ( talk) 19:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze in 2002:
{{
citation}}
: Text "first2Amartya" ignored (
help)This observation seems to fall in the same category with recent reports from 2011 like:
Other reports from 2010
Also from 2010:
Polgreen (2010),
Business Class Rises in Ashes of Caste System, The New York Times {{
citation}}
: Text "Lydia" ignored (
help)
While caste is very much a social issue in India even today, based on the sources above, it is clear that caste is no longer even amongst the central social issues in India. To make as accurate an analysis as possible, I will utilize only recent sources from the 44 presented for this RfC in determining if the reverse is true, i.e. is India central to caste today? Hoshigaki ( talk) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1. Is Hindu India central to a discussion of caste? Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill)?
This is a strange question. What does the term Hindu India refer to? Scholars studying sociology of religion agree Hindu is a diffuse religion. It is a diverse collection of thematic philosophical views, illustrated by its scriptures. It has no rigid common set of beliefs, including about social structure now commonly called caste. Hindu India is one example, an important example, in any discussion of caste. The concept of caste is more than that example. The main article is silent about the role of India to the concept of caste.
2. Does it make sense to ignore thousands of scholarly articles on caste and its history around the world?
No. This article should include caste in India and caste outside India. I reviewed wikipedia article on social class and this article after learning about wikipedia initiative to become a resource in school and university course work. Including summary and citations about castes everywhere will be more resourceful. Over 100 pre-modern societies outside India had castes. It may be impossible to include all in this article. Short summaries of special examples from South Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe, Latin America, USA, Korea, China and Japan will be good. I posted my general observations on this, two days ago. See issues with this article part at the bottom. ( Couriel76 ( talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC))