Q: Analyse the differences between the attributional and interactional approach in studying the caste system.

Model Answer:

The caste system is a complex and multifaceted social institution that has been a part of Indian society for centuries. It has been studied from various perspectives and theoretical standpoints. Two such approaches are the attributional approach and the interactional approach.

Attributional Approach to Caste System

The attributional approach to studying the caste system, as the name suggests, attributes the existence and persistence of the caste system to certain inherent features. This approach is based on the premise that the caste system is a unique social institution, with its own set of rules and regulations, which cannot be compared with any other social institution.

The attributional approach focuses on the structural aspects of the caste system, such as the rules of endogamy, the division of labour, the hierarchy of castes, and the system of ritual purity and pollution. It views the caste system as a closed and rigid system, where the status of individuals is determined by birth, and mobility between different castes is not possible.

For example, the French sociologist Louis Dumont, in his work “Homo Hierarchicus”, used the attributional approach to study the caste system in India. He argued that the caste system is based on the principle of “purity and pollution”, and that it is this principle that determines the hierarchy of castes, with the Brahmins at the top and the untouchables at the bottom.

Interactional Approach to Caste System

On the other hand, the interactional approach to studying the caste system focuses on the dynamics of caste relations and the processes of change within the caste system. This approach views the caste system as an open and flexible system, where the status of individuals and groups can change over time.

The interactional approach emphasizes the role of power, politics, and economic factors in shaping caste relations. It argues that the caste system is not just a religious or cultural phenomenon, but also a social and economic one. It also highlights the role of caste-based discrimination and exclusion in perpetuating social inequality and injustice.

For instance, the Indian sociologist M.N. Srinivas, in his concept of “dominant caste”, used the interactional approach to study the caste system. He argued that the status of a caste is not determined solely by ritual ranking, but also by its economic and political power. He pointed out that some lower castes have been able to improve their status by acquiring wealth and political power.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the attributional approach provides a structural understanding of the caste system, the interactional approach provides a dynamic understanding of it. Both approaches are important for a comprehensive understanding of the caste system. However, in the contemporary context, with the changes brought about by modernization, industrialization, and democratization, the interactional approach seems to be more relevant.