logo
  New Login   

An Academic Discourse


N. Rajaram


Edited by R.S. Khare
Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006, pp. xviii 262, Rs. 575.00

VOLUME XXXI NUMBER 6 June 2007

About five decades ago, Louis Dumont (1911-1998) a French scholar of international repute, set the tone and tenor of the academic discourse in anthropology and sociology about the nature of Indian society. Dumont was a ‘pupil’ of Marcel Mauss; and he learnt Sanskrit when he was imprisoned in Hamburg during the Second World War. After the War, he went on to learn Tamil and Hindi. Thereafter he spent two years, 1949 and 1950, in Tamil Nadu. Later, he came back to India in 1957-58 to do field work in Uttar Pradesh. Beginning from the fifties and thereafter for the next few decades, his ideas have formed the backdrop of the debate and discourse about whether Indian society is similar or different from the western world. By mid-sixties, the French version of his now classic work Homo Hierarchicus was published; and the English version came out in 1970. Not surprisingly, the institution of caste and its features form the backdrop of this debate. Is it unique to India? Are there other societies with similar features and traits? These questions have been asked in the past and continue to do so even now.   For Dumont, India was a contrast to the West. At the core of his theoretical formulations about India was that India and Indians are socially represented by caste, which is opposed to the ‘individual’ in the West. This allowed India to be conceptualized as one. Secondly, India and Indians were characterized by a ‘synchronic’ (ahistorical) tradition as opposed to a diachronic or historical ‘modern’ West. Lastly, there was an encompassing ritual status over all dimensions of disparities—be they social, economic or power—as in contrast to the triumph of ‘economic’ man in the West.   The present volume makes an attempt to capture the views of Indian scholarly responses to the contributions of Dumont on caste, hierarchy and individualism. The term ‘Indian’, the editor tells us, refers to those scholars who have lived and pursued their academic profession in India, with a “few” who now live and work “abroad” (p.1). But that unfortunately leaves us bereft of some of the leading debates and commentaries on Dumont’s work by others who are non-Indians. Thus the debate that F.G. Bailey had about ‘sociology of India’ and ‘sociology for India’ (in Contributions to Indian Sociology), although written by a non-Indian nearly five decades ago, even now makes interesting and fascinating reading. Thus if ...


Table of Contents >>
Please or to Read Entire Article
«BACK

Free Access Online 12 Back Issues
with 1 year's subscription
Archive (1976-2011)
under construction.