Caste and class are both status groups. A status group is a collection of individuals who share a distinctive style of life and a certain consciousness of kind. However, castes are perceived as hereditary groups with a fixed ritual status while classes are defined in terms of the relations of production. The members of a class have a similar socio-economic status in relation to other classes in the society, while the members of a caste have elmer a high or a low ritual status in relation to other castes. A social class is not organized but the individuals and families who compose it are relatively similar in educational, economic and social status. Those who are classified as part of the same social class have similar life chances. Some sociologists regard social classes as being primarily economic in nature, whereas others tend to stress factors such as prestige, style of life, attitudes, etc.
Three criteria are generally used for determining an individual’s position in the class system: objective, reputational, and subjective. The objective criteria are: income, occupation and education; the reputational criteria refer to the attitudes and judgements of other members of the community; and the subjective criteria refer to how people place themselves within the society.
Caste is a closed social stratum that determines its members’ prestige, occupation and social relationships. In each caste, social relations between members of different castes are severely limited and formalized. In class, on the other hand, the social relations of members of one class with other classes are circumscribed.
Castes and classes co-exist in the society. Also, castes can function as classes on many occasions. When dhobis (washermen) go on strike for increasing their rates, they function not as a caste but as a class.
Many caste groups (say, Brahmins or Baniyas) are composed of a number of castes. These are divided into castes which may in turn be divided into sub-castes. A broad grouping may be referred to as a segment of a lower order and its sub-divisions as segments of higher orders (Andre Beteille, 1977: 60). Briefly speaking, thus, the difference between caste and class may be given as follows:
- 1. Caste is an endogamous group but class is not.
- 2. Caste is a unique phenomenon (according to Leach and Dumont) found in India but class is a universal phenomenon.
- 3. Caste works as an active political force in a village (Beteille, 1966: 200) but class does not work so.
Andre Beteille on the basis of his study in Sripuram in South India found that contrary to the Marxist viewpoint, class categories do not constitute a basis for communal and political action. Referring to this, Leach (1960) has said that when caste assumes economic and political functions and competes with other castes, it defies caste principles. He says: “The level at which caste associations assume political and economic functions, they violate the traditional norms of caste reciprocity and enter into the arenas of conflict, a situation different from that of a caste.” Gough and Richard Fox also hold the same opinion. M.N. Srinivas (1962: 7) does not agree with Leach on this. He maintains: “I cannot agree with Leach when he says that competition between caste groups is defiance of caste principles. It is true that castewise division of labour facilitates the interdependence of castes (and this is strikingly seen in the jajmani system), but interdependence is not the whole story. Castes do compete with each other for acquiring political and economic power and high ritual position”.
- 4. Caste has an organic character but class has a segmentary character where various segments are
motivated by competition.
5. In the caste system, there is co-operation and economic inter-de-pendence but in the class system, there is no economic dependence. Instead, there is competition in the class system. In this context, Leach (Ibid: 9-10) has said that caste system is an organic system, with each particular caste filling a distinctive functional role. It is a system of labour division from which the element of competition among members has been largely excluded. - 6. In the caste system, upper castes compete with each other for the services of the lower-castes but
in the class system, lower- classes compete with each other for the favour of the upper classes. Referring to this, Leach (Ibid: 5-6) has said: “It is the characteristic of the class-organized societies that rights of ownership are the prerogative of minority groups which form privileged elites. The capacity of the upper-class minority to exploit the services of the lower-class majority is critically dependent upon the fact that members of the under-privileged groups must compete among themselves for the favours of the elites. In a caste society, however, the position is reversed”. - 7. In the caste system, status of a caste is determined not by the economic and the political privileges but by the ritualistic legitimation of authority, that is, in the caste-based system, ritual norms encompass the norms of power and wealth (Dumont). For example, even though Brahmins have no economic and political power yet they are placed at the top of the caste hierarchy. In the class system, ritual norms have no importance at all but power and wealth alone determine one’s status.
According to Dumont, in the class-based system, economic and political ideologies encompass the ritual order. Bailey, however, does not accept Dumont’s state-ment that religious ideas rather than the economic values establish the rank of each caste. He says that if we accept this statement, it would mean that changes in control over economic resources can take place without causing changes in rank. This is only partially true. It may be true for Brahmins and untouchables but not for the intermediate castes. In his own study in Bisipara, Bailey (1957: 264-65) found that change in wealth is followed by change in rank. Further, in the caste system, social mobility is not possible but in the class system, change in status is possible. D.N. Majumdar (1958) in this context has even explained caste as a closed class. This view is not accepted by M.N. Srinivas (1962-42) who thinks that movement is always possible through the processes of sanskritization and westernization.
Andre Betaille (1965) has also said that no social system is absolutely closed. There is always some scope, however limited, for alternative combinations. But the choice allowed for different combinations varies from community to community.