Questions & explanations
1. How is Sanskritization different from Westernization?
Sanskritization means adopting traditional upper-caste Hindu practices, while Westernization means adopting Western ways like eating beef, wearing jeans, or using English. Sanskritization is inward-looking, aiming to gain status in the caste system. Westernization is outward-looking, often linked to modernity and global culture. Sometimes both happen at once: a low caste might learn English (Westernization) and also stop eating meat (Sanskritization). The key difference is the direction of change—Sanskritization moves towards ancient Hindu norms, Westernization towards modern foreign norms. Both can be used to gain social mobility, but they serve different goals.
2. What does the capabilities approach say about poverty?
The capabilities approach, developed by economist Amartya Sen and philosopher Martha Nussbaum, says poverty is not just low income but a lack of real freedoms to live a good life. These freedoms are called 'capabilities'—for example, the ability to read, be healthy, or take part in society. Poverty means you cannot achieve valuable 'functionings' like being well-nourished or having shelter. This view shifts focus from what people have to what they can actually do and be. It recognizes that two people with the same money may have different abilities to use it. So fighting poverty means expanding people's capabilities, not just raising their income.
3. Compare the culture of poverty thesis with a structural explanation of poverty.
Structural explanations say poverty is caused by things like limited jobs, low wages, poor schools, and discrimination. They look at society's setup, not individual behavior. The culture of poverty thesis argues that even if structures improve, poor people's values may stop them from taking advantage. For example, a structural view would say that providing job training is enough. The culture view would say that poor people might not even apply due to distrust or lack of ambition. Most modern researchers think both matter, but structures are more important. If you fix the structures, behaviors often change too. So blaming the poor alone is unfair.
4. Why might the standpoint of a marginalized group be considered epistemically privileged?
An epistemic privilege means having a better or more complete understanding of social reality. Marginalized groups often have this privilege because they must understand both their own experience and the dominant group's perspective to survive. For instance, a disabled person knows how society is built for non-disabled people, but also knows the barriers they face. The privileged group does not need to understand the marginalized view, so they miss important truths. This does not mean all members of a group know everything, but their position gives them unique insights. Standpoint theory values these insights as more accurate about oppression.
5. What is one criticism of Srinivas's Sanskritization model?
A major criticism is that Sanskritization assumes all castes want to imitate Brahmins, but many today reject Brahminical hierarchy. It ignores alternatives like Westernization or politicization, where castes unite to demand rights. The model also overlooks that some lower castes have their own valued traditions and do not want to change. Moreover, Sanskritization alone cannot explain modern challenges such as education, jobs, and migration. Critics argue that Srinivas focused too much on culture and not enough on economic and political power. Thus the theory is less useful for understanding caste in urban settings or among Dalit movements.
6. What is the North-South gap?
The North-South gap refers to the large difference in wealth and development between richer countries mostly in the Northern Hemisphere (like the US, Europe, Japan) and poorer countries mostly in the Southern Hemisphere (like in Africa, parts of Asia, Latin America). Northern countries have higher incomes, better health care, and more education. Southern countries often struggle with poverty, debt, and less access to technology. This gap is not just about money; it also includes power and influence in global organizations. The gap has existed for centuries and is often linked to colonialism and unfair trade rules that favor the rich North.
7. What is care ethics?
Care ethics is a moral approach that focuses on relationships, responsibility, and meeting others' needs. Unlike traditional ethics that stress rules or individual rights, care ethics emphasizes compassion and interdependence. It grew out of feminist thought, noticing that women often do most care work like raising children or nursing the sick. Care ethics argues that caring for others is a basic human activity that should be valued and central to morality. It challenges the idea that being independent is best, because everyone needs care at some point. Care ethics also looks at how care is distributed unequally by race, class, and gender.
8. What is Sanskritization according to M. N. Srinivas?
Sanskritization is a process where a lower caste changes its customs, rituals, and lifestyle to imitate a higher caste, often the Brahmins. It is a way for groups to move up in social status without changing their caste name. Srinivas observed this in rural India, where communities adopt vegetarianism, worship of Sanskritic gods, and Brahminical practices. This process helps explain social mobility within the caste hierarchy. However, it does not change the system itself, only the position of a group. Critics say it ignores economic and political factors that keep caste rigid. Overall, Sanskritization shows how caste can adapt over time.
9. How has the underclass theory been used in policy debates?
Underclass theory has been used to argue for stricter welfare rules. Some policymakers said that generous benefits encourage people to stay in the underclass by not working. They promoted 'workfare' programs that require recipients to work for benefits. Others used it to push for more police and punishment in poor neighborhoods. The theory also inspired programs to change behaviors, like teaching 'middle-class values' in schools. But evaluation shows that such programs rarely reduce poverty on their own. Today, most experts agree that fixing structural problems like education, jobs, and housing is more effective than blaming the poor.
10. What is Ghurye's integrative approach to studying caste?
Ghurye's integrative approach means he saw caste as a complex system that can be understood only by looking at all its parts together: social, religious, economic, and historical. He did not focus only on one feature. For Ghurye, caste had six main characteristics: segmental division, hierarchy, restrictions on eating and social interaction, hereditary occupations, and civil and religious disabilities. He believed studying caste required combining fieldwork with historical texts. This approach differed from earlier views that looked at caste only from a religious angle. Ghurye's work helped make sociology more comprehensive in India.
11. Why might some lower castes choose Sanskritization instead of other methods to improve their status?
Lower castes may choose Sanskritization because it uses accepted cultural values within Hindu society. It does not challenge the caste system directly, so it faces less opposition from higher castes. Adopting Brahminical practices can bring immediate social esteem and access to temples or services. It also allows a group to build a new, respected identity without fighting politically. For example, by becoming vegetarian and learning sacred texts, a caste can claim purity. However, Sanskritization only works if the group has enough economic power to support the changes. Poor groups may not afford the required rituals or costly goods.
12. How does the capabilities approach differ from measuring poverty by income?
Income-based poverty measures only look at money. They say a person is poor if their earnings fall below a line. The capabilities approach looks at what a person can actually do. For example, a disabled person might have the same income as an able-bodied person but cannot move around easily, so they are poorer in capability terms. Also, a woman might earn money but face violence at home, which limits her freedom. The capabilities approach asks: can she participate in community life? Can she get an education? These questions reveal hidden poverty that income measures miss. So this approach gives a deeper understanding of well-being.