Contemporary discourses: contextualisation, indigenisation, native categories, sociology for and of India
Sociology - Indian Society Continuity and Change · Unit V, topics 1 to 5 · Topic 15 of 16 · 4 min read
On this page
Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.
Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.
1. The background
Sociology came to India through colonial ethnography, British anthropology and American modernisation theory. After independence, Indian sociologists asked whether concepts like class, individual, religion or state, formed in Europe, describe Indian reality, or whether they distort it. Three positions emerged: universalism (one science everywhere), indigenisation (concepts from within), and a middle path of contextualisation.
2. Contextualisation
Meaning: placing concepts, theories and methods in the specific social, historical and cultural context of the society studied, rather than applying them as context-free universals.
- The poet and scholar A.K. Ramanujan, in “Is There an Indian Way of Thinking?” (published in Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1989), argued that Indian thought is context-sensitive: rules differ by caste, stage of life (ashrama), place and time (desa, kala), while Western thought aims at context-free universal rules. Manu prescribes different punishments for the same offence by different castes; Kant seeks a rule valid for all.
- For a sociologist, contextualisation means testing a Western concept against Indian data and modifying it: “class” must be read together with jati; “family” with the joint family and kin obligations.
- It accepts universal science but insists that its concepts be reworked in context.
3. Indigenisation
Meaning: developing a sociology rooted in the society’s own intellectual traditions, concepts and problems, freeing it from intellectual dependence on the West.
- Roots in the Lucknow school: D.P. Mukerji held that an Indian sociologist must first know Indian traditions; Radhakamal Mukerjee built a value-based sociology.
- The 1970s and 1980s brought calls (Yogendra Singh, Indian Sociology: Social Conditioning and Emerging Concerns, 1986) to examine how Indian sociology was shaped by colonial and Western conditions, and to make it relevant to Indian problems.
- Partha Nath Mukherji and others discussed indigeneity and universality in South Asian social science.
- Criticism: risk of cultural nationalism and of treating Indian categories as unchanging; science must remain open to comparison.
4. Use of native categories
Native (indigenous) categories are the concepts the people themselves use to understand their world. Using them lets the sociologist see society from the inside.
| Category | What it explains |
|---|---|
| Varna and jati | The difference between textual rank and lived caste |
| Purity and pollution (shuddha, ashuddha) | Hierarchy, food rules, untouchability (Dumont) |
| Dharma and karma | Duty by station, acceptance of inequality, ethics |
| Purusharthas and ashramas | Life goals and stages: the life course |
| Jajmani | Hereditary exchange of services between patron and servicing castes (W.H. Wiser, The Hindu Jajmani System, 1936) |
| Biradari, gotra, khandan | Kinship and marriage rules |
| Great and little tradition; Sanskritisation | Cultural change (Marriott, Srinivas) |
McKim Marriott and Ronald Inden (1977) built an ethnosociology from Hindu categories of substance and code, and Marriott later edited India through Hindu Categories (1990). Merits: avoids ethnocentric distortion; captures meaning. Limits: native categories are often those of the upper castes and the texts; Dalit, tribal and women’s categories may differ.
5. Sociology for India and sociology of India
Sociology of India. In the first issue of Contributions to Indian Sociology (1957), Louis Dumont and David Pocock wrote “For a Sociology of India”. They argued that a sociology of India lies at the confluence of sociology and Indology: one must understand India through its own ideas and values (hierarchy, purity, renunciation) found in the texts, not by importing Western categories. The approach is civilisational and comparative.
Sociology for India. The counter-position, taken by Indian scholars in the debates that followed (and in the journal’s new series from 1967), was that sociology in India should serve Indian needs: development, planning, poverty, caste inequality, national integration. It should be empirical, problem-oriented and policy-relevant, studying contemporary India rather than texts. The emphasis is on relevance.
6. Contribution of Indian sociologists (for the 10-mark essay)
- Ghurye: founded the discipline at Bombay; caste, tribe, sadhus.
- Radhakamal Mukerjee and D.P. Mukerji: the Lucknow school; ecology, values, tradition and modernity.
- M.N. Srinivas: field-view; dominant caste, Sanskritisation, Westernisation.
- S.C. Dube: village studies and development.
- A.R. Desai: Marxist analysis of nationalism and the state.
- Iravati Karve: kinship zones.
- Ambedkar: caste from below.
- Yogendra Singh: Modernization of Indian Tradition (1973).
- Andre Beteille: caste, class and power.
How this is examined
The native-categories essay needs the meaning, four or five categories with what they explain, Marriott’s ethnosociology and a critique. Short notes on contextualisation, sociology of India and sociology for India each need the meaning, the author (Ramanujan; Dumont and Pocock) and one example. Expect one Unit V question from this note and one from Sanskritisation and Westernisation.
Now try the real questions: Sociology - Indian Society Continuity and Change past question papers.