social interaction: an analytical model...
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER IV
SOCIAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL
' .... identities are not simply given, rather they are continually constructed and reconstructed through interaction with others'.
(Encyclopedia of Nationalism: Leaders, Movements and Concepts Vol. 2)
Identity can also be studied from two perspectives, an
objective and a subjective one. The two approaches are more
complementary than mutually exclusive. In the objective
approach identification and membership criteria such as
language, religion, customs and traditions, are established by
observers. This is done regardless of whether an individual
attaches importance to them. From this point of view they are
guided by internalized principles which translate into
routinized practices. This was the focus of the previous
chapter. The subjective approach examines identity from the
standpoint of the involved individuals. Variations in identities
are according to the features emphasized by an individual with
the goal to distinguish oneself from 'others'. This implies that
an individual has a choice in deciding to emphasize a feature
(read- a course of action) in various social situations.
Identities are then constructed and reconstructed depending
upon the situation encountered. So the social process through
which an individual becomes aware of their distinctive
features is the emphasis of subjective perspective and of this
chapter.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND INTERACTION
Social interaction between Hindus and Muslims in
various social situations is a process whereby they become
aware of the differences between them. Now the question
arises, what is the relationship between social structure and
interaction? How does one influence the other? This issue has
been discussed by founding figures of sociology belonging to
different theoretical schools. Among functionalists, Durkhiem
through his concept of 'social facts' highlighted the
constraining impact of social structure on an individuals'
behaviour. According to him, 'social facts' (ways of life, laws
and cultural items) are external to individual. This is in the
sense that they are born into it which is part of ongoing
society. The society has already 1n place a system of
organization which coerces individual to behave (act) in a
particular way. On this individual has little or no control
(Durkhiem: 1960, Lyder: 1981). Marx had a different notion on
this issue. He was of opinion that in capitalist society the
material substratum produces the constraint for individual's
behaviour. In the preface to 'A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy' he states 'in the social production of their
life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable
and independent of their will' (quote from Lyder 1981: 96). The
relations of productions are coercive because they are based
on pre-established structures of ownership and distribution of
products of labour. There are obvious difference between
Durkhiem and Marx, one emphasized the ideational aspect
whereas other concentrated on material structure of the
society. However, on closer examination it is apparent that
there is concurrence between both the authors. Both
78
emphasize the primacy and the constraining effect of social
structure on individual's behaviour.
In the subjectivist school of thought i.e. phenomenology
and interactionist sociology, the primacy is given to individual
and their intention, interpretation and general social and
interactional skills. The emphasis is now on the importance of
the idea that social reality is a flexible and fluid affair and is a
product of negotiations and construction of social actors
(ibid.). As Harste and Mortensen (2000) opined that in
interactionist theory, society is not only which we officially
think i.e., in political dramas, financial transactions or public
administration decision making processes but a large part of
society exists in 'between the lines' in people's completely
unnoticed and taken for gran ted daily interactions. This
implies that social interaction is a formative process which
redefines and transforms human relations.
All these theoretical approaches tend to be reductionist
in nature. In the functionalist's and Marxist's view interaction
is the mechanical effect of objective social structure whereas
for subjectivists the structure is the accomplishment of social
actors or the outcome of their interaction. However, the need
is to synthesize both approaches while preserving the
distinction between social structure and interactions. Lyder
( 19 81) proposes a theoretical model such kind of synthesis. He
distinguishes between what he terms 'contextual structure'
(representing the objective structure) and 'interactional
structure' (representing the interactants reality construction).
Contextual structure refers to the context that provides the
conditions of existence of specific interaction. The set of rules
79
and resources that the actors draw upon during interactive
engagements are part of this. Like objectivist notion this is
also a priori to the individual. This is described as 'contextual'
vis-a-vis interaction because all interaction takes place within
a context. It constrains interaction from the outside by setting
the parameters and by defining the possible modes of routine
interaction. This takes place in two ways. It does this first, by
providing the negative constraints, whereby possible modes of
interaction and interactional resources are defined in advance.
Second, it also supplies positive facilitators in the sense that
these provide cues and resources from which interactions are
built.
Interactional structure (which is both a product of
structuring context and are partially autonomous, and have
situation specific features of routine interaction) highlights
the core properties of all interaction i.e. the ability to develop
its own situation specific features. These features are
ultimately dependent upon contextual attributes. It constrains
interaction from within the situations as an effect of the
skilled accomplishment of the actors. Thus contextual
structure envelops and constrains the creative possibilities of
interactants in routine encounters while interaction structures
retain the partial autonomy through the production of
situation specific constraints (ibid).
In this theoretical model production and reproduction of
objective structure has not been viewed as a product of
routine interaction of 'active subjects'. Rather contextual
structures are preconstituted. Therefore it is the effect of
situated interactions. It is reproduced by reaffirmation and
80
revitalization in day-to-day encounters. The only sense one
can speak of production of contextual structures via
interaction is in the historical sense of accounting for various
contextual features that came into being in the first place
(ibid.). From the above it follows that the analytical focus of
the reproduction of social structure shifts to interactional
structures instead of interaction itself. Furthermore,
interactional structures are produced by the interpretative
capacities and reflexivity of the situated actors. Such skills
presuppose and are dependent upon contextual structural
resources, from which actors draw upon to inform their
behaviour. Hence, production here refers to a process whereby
contextual constraints are translated into interaction. It also
implies the products of interpersonal negotiations in situated
interactions. This results in working definitions of reality.
In the light of the above theoretical model, how do
Hindus and Muslims of both villages choose the course of
action in any social interaction? The choice of the interacting
partner by a Hindu or a Muslim individual would provide the
answer. This implies that an individual have a range of
options of interacting partners in any situation. Among the
alternatives the most suitable one (also in accordance with
demands of the situation and constraint imposed by the social
structure) is preferred by the individual. This brings out the
salient identity to the fore. Moreover, the commitment to an
identity would also determine the choice of the interactants.
To analyse the interaction pattern between Hindus and
Muslims of both villages an analytical model has been
proposed. In this model the unit of analysis is the individual
81
but the results have been presented as aggregates in terms of
upper, agrarian and subaltern castesjbiradaris. The reason is
that apart from community, the castes/biradaris are the
aggregate category of identification for the individual.
THE ANALYTICAL MODEL
The basic assumption underlying this model is that the
commitment to an identity determines the choice of
interactants in a social situation. The guiding principle is
following the 'behavioural prescription' i.e., role expectation
attached to an identity. In the context of intra-community
interaction, it also denotes salience of caste or biradari
identity. Here term 'norm' has not been used. The reason 1s
that failure on the part of individual would result in
punishment (Akerlof & Kranton: 2000) or his behaviour being
termed 'deviant'. In this research it would mean non
commitment to an identity. This is a utility function model
which incorporates commitment to a 'identity' as a reason for
choosing a particular category of interaction partner. An
individual in interaction is taken as 'rational'. This means that
individual has set of objectives and his or her chosen form of
action is rational because it is most likely to satisfy those
objectives (Heap ed. 1992 :3). In this regard it must be
mentioned that traditionally it has been assumed that
objectives can be arranged on a single scale by comparing the
satisfaction one gets out of them. Hence, the objectives
generate a preference ordering. An individual can prefer one
bundle of goods (category of interactants) to other or can
remain indifferent between them. Thus, while making choice
an individual compares the utility generated by each action
82
(choice). This connotes that a rational individual actor makes
choices to maximize his or her utility.
An action is rational if it satisfies the basic axioms of
rationality- reflexivity, completeness, transitivity,
monotonicity or non-satiation and continuity.
• Reflexivity demands any bundle is as good as itself.
That is either any bundle is preferred or is
considered indifferent.
• Completeness means that any two bundles can
always be compared and ranked. Preferences can
be expressed between two bundles.
• Transitivity entails that if an individual prefers A
over B, B over C, then they should prefer A over C.
Consistency of preference is required by axiom
'transitivity'.
• Monotonocity or non-satiation means that bundle A
will be preferred to bundle B, if A contains more of
at least one good and no less of any other. This
implies that the more of each good a bundle
contains, the better it is, the individual is never
assumed to be satiated with goods.
• Continuity implies that, in a bundle of any two
goods, it will always be possible- by reducing the
amount of one fractionally and increasing the
amount of the other fractionally- to define another
bundle. This new bundle is indifferent to the first.
This means that there is no good in a bundle, which
83
is absolutely necessary in some amount and which
cannot be traded off at the margin for another good.
The axioms of reflexivity, completeness and transitivity
define preference ordering. However, when all axioms hold
there exists a utility function which is well defined.
Social interaction is defined here as interpersonal
communication on face-to-face basis involving two or more
people. Utility function model is applied in such situations
with modifications. In interaction situation interactants are
also individuals with ascriptive and achieved attributes. Their
choice and preference are determined by the utility
maximization. One person's actions can have meaning for and
evoke responses in others (Akerlof & Kranton: 2000). In terms
of identity construction, this implies following consequences.
First, identity is a result of one's own action, and that others'
action can also influence ones' identity. Further, apart from
interacting partners, third parties can also generate changes
in one's identity. Finally, the choice of identity is dependent
upon the proscription of others (ibid). The last two conditions
are particularly significant for group identification. This is
because third parties take the role of gatekeepers of the
community f group, so the interactants adhere to the
prescriptions. This ensures that interactions are within the
defined parameters of community. Thereby group identity is
maintained.
The utility function of an individual in social interaction
is dependent upon several factors. First, in terms of our
analysis the social category of being Hindu or Muslim is
84
significant. Second, within the community it also matters
which caste or biradari they belong to and the position of that
caste or biradari in overall hierarchy of the community. Third,
class position and material endowments of individual are a
significant attribute. Fourth, on the attributes of interaction
partner i.e., their community, caste jbiradari and class
position. Fifth, on the proscriptions of the community in the
interaction situations. On the basis of above factors the utility
function of an individual can be represented as:
Where
au >o aa_ik
a= Interaction
j = community
i = individual
~i = other than i
au --->0
k = particular caste/ biradari
~ k = other than particular caste/ biradari
wN = material endowments
w_N = other than rna terial endowments
>0
When j = H, this means Hindu and when j=M, it means
Muslims.
85
Based on the above representation, the utility function of an
individual in a social interaction will have positive value if
they interact with: (a) an individual who belongs to their
kinship; (b) if the interactant is from same castejbiradari; (c)
if the interacting partner belong to different castejbiradari,
then hierarchical position must be lower than the first
persons' caste f biradari. Conversely if interactan ts'
castejbiradari is higher then the utility function would have
negative value; (d) similarly, if class position and material
endowment of interacting partner were lower than the
individual then value of utility function would be positive.
However, in reverse situations i.e., when class position and
material endowment of interactant is higher than the
individual, then value would be negative; finally (e) the non
material endowments such as status and power over other
community members of individual should be higher than
interaction partner for value to be positive. In the reverse case
the value would be negative. The value of utility function has
its impact on the identity construction of the individual.
Before analysing the social interaction data of Hindus
and Muslims of villages Mani Kalan and Samdaha it is
important to highlight two issues. First, there are social
interactions which are based specifically upon ascriptive
attributes of individuals. In such situations the prescriptions
of community is not followed. Even the utility generated out of
such interaction does not come within the ambit of the above
mentioned utility function. Take for example, the social
interactions at the time of childbirth for availing the services
of traditional midwife. In rural areas traditional midwives
belong to the lowest caste i.e., Chamar. On normal days none
86
of the upper or agrarian castes would ever interact with her.
However, since birth pollution is recognized among Hindus, so
her service becomes most crucial at the time of childbirth.
Other examples are social interaction with service castes or
biradaries on occasions like during marriage or when someone
dies. Second, the direction of social interaction has important
bearing upon the utility maximization and hence on the
identity construction. The point of origin and termination of
interaction determines the utility generated by the interacting
partners. Except in altruistic social interactions, in all other
kinds of interaction the individual who initiates, has less
utility than the individual with whom it terminates. This is the
focus of next chapter- The Net-Working. The main point is an
individual acquires an edge in terms of social power when
interaction terminates with him or her. This is why when
several interactions terminate at an individual they become a
node as a result of which they facilitate and regulate the flow
of resources.
THE DATA
Social Interaction data, as mentioned in the chapter
'Introduction', was collected in the second round of fieldwork.
A supplementary questionnaire was administered on all the
respondents interviewed in the first round of fieldwork.
Respondents were asked to name the persons they would
interact with, in different social situations listed in the
questionnaire. Broadly there were four kinds of social
situations on which enquires were made. They were: (a) family
rites and festivals;
situations; and (d)
(b) occupational activities; (c) crisis
miscellaneous. These situations were
87
divided into several sub categories. For example, family rites
and festivals was divided in six situations such as birth,
death, marriage, thread ceremony, circumcision and family
celebrated festivals. Miscellaneous category was an assortment
of various sub categories. As interaction with more than one
person was possible in each situation so multiple entries were
made. This raises the issue of categories to which interactants
belonged. For this interacting partners of respondents were
divided into various categories such as (a) Kins (b) Neighbours
(c) Friends (d) Other members of one's own caste or biradari
(e) Members of other caste or biradari and (f) Village elders.
Several of these categories were further sub divided. For
example, category of 'neigh hour' was divided in to ( 1) Physical
and occupational neighbour and (2) Hindu and Muslim
neighbour. Physical neighbours are those who live beside one's
house. Those people whose agricultural land or business
establishment are beside each other are occupational
neighbours. This is because fortunes of such people are
related. Similarly, category 'friend' was divided into Hindu
friends and Muslim friends. The category 'members of other
castes/biradaris' was also divided into upper and lower
castefbiradari for the purpose of analysis.
INTERACTION PATTERN
The flow of analysis of interaction pattern is from the
larger soCial categories to the smaller ones. It begins with
inter-community interaction. Then it moves on to intra
community i.e., inter-caste/biradari, and finally to intra
castejbiradari interaction. At the community level all
situations are analysed together whereas at intra-
88
castejbiradari level situation specific scrutiny has been
carried out.
INTER-COMMUNITY INTERACTION
Across the communities, in both villages 'neighbours' and
'friends' are the two most important categories of interactants
as far as inter community interaction is concerned. This is
true for all the social situations listed in the questionnaire. In
overall terms, such interaction is low compared to interaction
with neighbours and friends of same community. The table 4.1
below also bear out this fact.
Community
Hindu
Muslim
Table 4.1
Inter-Community Interaction*
Neighbours
Hindu Muslim Both Hindu
98.6% 12.9% 15.6% 81.0%
33.3% 100% 45.7% 13.6%
Friends
Muslim
6.8%
79.0%
*Figures don't add up to 1 00% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
Both
21.1%
42.0%
A comparison of both categories of interactant makes it clear
that neighbours are preferred over friends for interaction. An
analysis of reasons reveals that an individual has more choice
in interaction vis-a-vis friends. This is in the sense that not
interacting with friends is not a socially unacceptable act.
However, the continuous presence of neighbours round the
corner makes it impossible for an individual not to interact
with them. The question is which neighbour is preferred for
interaction in most of the situation?
89
Community
Hindu
Muslim
Table 4.2
Interaction with Neighbours*
Physical Occupational
98.6% 55.1%
98.8% 55.6%
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
Both
77.6%
77.8%
As the table 4.2 brings out that 'physical' neighbour 1s
universally preferred over 'occupational' neighbours. This
means that sharing the same life conditions with the physical
neighbour is an important factor in determining the
interaction. Moreover, in most cases socio-economic status of
people of a physical neighbourhood is same. But this is not
true for occupational neighbours. Furthermore, seven out of
10 respondents also reported that they interact with both
kinds of neighbours. The extrapolation of table 4.1 with table
4.3 makes clear that it is the physical neighbour of same
community who are most preferred in almost all situations
over occupational neighbours.
From the table 4.1, it is also apparent that Muslims
engage 1n more inter-community interaction with both
categories of interactants than Hindus. Again they also
interact more with neighbours than with friends from 'other'
community. However, like the Hindus, Muslims interact more
with the physical neigbours in comparison to occupational
neighbours. Does this mean that Muslims are more liberal as
far as inter community interaction is concerned? The table 4.3
below brings out the answer.
90
Table 4.3
Villageawise Inter-Community Interaction*
Village Community Hindu Muslim
Samdaha
Hindu 99.0% 4.8%
Muslim 41.7% 100%
Mani Kalan
Hindu 97.7% 32.6%
Muslim 31.9% 100%
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
Both
14.4%
83.3%
18.6%
39.1%
Hindus of both villages seem to be less inclined for interaction
with Muslims. This could imply that Hindus are more
conservative than the Muslims of those two villages. An
interesting difference between both villages is that inter
community interaction in the village Mani Kalan 1s
comparatively higher than village Samdaha. There are two
reasons for this. (a) Unlike Mani kalan, in village Samdaha
there is only one biradari of Muslims i.e. Dhobi (washerman).
Many of them are engaged in their traditional occupation.
Hence, a majority of inter-community interactions are for the
above purpose. (b) The settlement pattern of a village has its
influence on the inter-community interaction pattern. In
village Samdaha, Tolas (colonies) are named after castes or
biradaries. In such Tolas, a majority of inhabitants belong to
the same castejbiradari. In such situations, the scope for
inter-community interactions is very low. In village Mani
Kalan, Hindus and Muslims do not live in segregated colonies,
except for people from the 'Chamar' caste. Rather, Mohallas
91
(colonies) have a good intermix of both communities. This
increases the chance of interaction with members of the other
community.
Hindu and Muslim community is divided in various caste
and biradari groups. During the fieldwork, it became evident
that respondents were aware of the hierarchical position of
their caste or biradari in the community as well as in the
overall village social structure. The upper, agrarian and
subaltern caste and biradari has been arranged in this
research work on the orthodox/traditional criteria. The figure
below presents the inter-community interaction of various
caste and biradari groups of Hindus and Muslims respectively.
Table 4.4
Inter-community Interaction of Different Caste/Biradari Groups*
Community Caste I Birardari Neighbours Friends groups
Hindu Muslim Both Hindu Muslim
Hindu Upper Caste 96.9% 6.3% 18.8% 71.9% 9.4%
Agrarian Caste 100% 15.8% 13.2% 78.9% 7.9%
Subaltem Caste 100% 10.5% 15.8% 92.1% 2.6%
Muslim Upper Biradari 38.5% 100% 43.6% 5.1% 84.6%
Agrarian 30.0% 100% 63.3% 23.3% 80.0%
Biradari
Subaltem 30.0% 100% - 20.0% 50.0%
Biradari
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
From table 4.4, it is apparent that Hindus from agrarian
castes and Muslims from upper biradaris interact most with
92
Both
21.9%
21.1%
18.4%
33.3%
46.7%
60.0%
the other community. Subaltern biradaris and upper castes
among Muslims and the Hindus respectively engage least in
inter-community interaction. In interaction with friends from
other community, upper castes and agrarian biradaris are
highest, whereas subaltern castes and upper biradaris are
lowest among Hindus and Muslims. This interaction pattern
also represents the social structure of both villages. This
highlights the absence of the upper and lower Muslim
biradaris in village Samdaha and the upper castes in village
Mani Kalan. Following the assumption that people belonging
to similar hierarchical positions in different communities tend
to have interaction among themselves, it can be inferred that
inter-community interaction also takes place between both
these villages. This seems to be the case for the upper and
subaltern caste Hindus of village Samdaha. A similar situation
exists for the upper biradari Muslims of village Mani Kalan.
Otherwise, even this level of interaction between communities
would not be possible given the absence of the upper castes in
village Mani Kalan and the upper and subaltern biradaris 1n
village Samdaha.
In the above context the inter-community interaction in
various social situations becomes important to analyse. As the
table 4.5 highlights that situations which are
93
Table 4.5
Inter-Community Interaction in Different Social Situations*
Social Community Neighbours
Situations
Hindu Muslim Both Hindu
Family Rites Hindu 97.3% 1.4% 6.1% 74.1%
Muslim 9.9% 98.8% 27.2% 6.2%
Occupation- Hindu 60.5% 9.5% 10.9% 22.4%
Farming
Muslim 12.3% 30.9% 16.0% 3.7%
Occupation- Hindu 1.4% 1.4% - 8.2%
Other than
Farming
Muslim 3.7% 2.5% - -
Crisis- Family Hindu 7.5% - - 2.7%
Muslim 2.5% - - -
Crisis- Medical Hindu 85.7% 2.0% 2.7% 33.3%
Muslim 11.1% 90.1% 9.9% 2.5%
Crisis- Hindu 78.2% 1.4% 1.4% 29.3%
Immediate/
Intermediate
Muslim 3.7% 92.6% 1.2% 3.7%
Miscellaneous Hindu 53.7% 2.0% 0.7% 17.0%
Muslim 1.2% 48.1% 3.7% 2.5%
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
Friends
Muslim
2.7%
71.6%
2.7%
14.8%
1.4%
21.0%
0.7%
40.7%
0.7%
40.7%
0.7%
39.5%
0.7%
28.4%
Both
19.7%
39.5%
4.1%
3.7%
5.4%
9.9%
-
-
5.4%
13.6%
5.4%
14.8%
5.4%
7.4%
economic in nature attract more inter-community interaction.
Take for example, the interaction between both communities
for occupation (farming) and medical crisis. In both these
situations, interaction involves the exchange of resources such
94
as money, manpower and implements (also vehicles for
transporting the patient to hospital). Even the 'neutral'
situations like 'family rites and festivals' attract higher level of
interaction. Conversely, situations wherein family status and
reputation is at stake there exists a lower level of inter
community relations. For example, in situations of family
crisis (such as marital disharmony and dispute between
brothers on division of ancestral property) very few
respondents have interacting partners from the other
community. Even when disputes over ancestral property is
referred to village panchayat, the respondents' preference of
interactants begins with 'Kin' to 'other members of their own
castefbiradari' to 'members of other caste/biradari'. In
situations where nobody even from other castejbiradari from
one's own community is available, only then they approach the
'other' community. This implies that Hindus and Muslims of
both villages make conscious choice of interaction partner 1n
different social situations. The reason is that choices are
governed by prescriptions as well as social structure of the
community. This also reflects the type of constructed identity
people want to be associated with. To reiterate: Muslims in
general engage in more inter-community interaction, and
neighbours are preferred over friends in almost all social
situations.
INTRA·COMMUNITY INTERACTION
If community identity is constructed in interaction with
'others' of different community, then caste/biradari identity is
the result of inter- and intra-castejbiradari interaction. In
this section we would analyse the intra-community interaction
95
pattern and hence the resultant identity. Interactions within a
community are of two types: inter-caste/biradari interaction
and intra-castejbiradari interaction. The identities
constructed as a result of such relations are composite
outcome of both types of interaction. At this point it is
imperative to highlight that respondents categories of
interactant is dependent upon their own notion of hierarchy.
There were two categories of responses in any situations of
inter-castejbiradari interactions. They were: upper
castejbiradari and lower castejbiradari. These categories are
in variance to the orthodox/traditional categories such as the
upper, middle and lower castejbiradari, which are generally
the basis of analysis. On closer examination, this indicates
that respondents perception differ from the
orthodox/traditionally determined criteria of clubbing various
castes/biradaris in a particular group. This difference is
because of absolute and relative notions of castes/biradaris
positions in hierarchy. In orthodox/traditional criteria, the
hierarchical position is determined on the basis of distance
between a caste or a biradari from the Brahmins or the
Sheikhs among Hindus and Muslims respectively.
There are scholars who have emphasized that in recent
times it is the economic and the political endowments of
castejbiradari that rearranges the hierarchy. My proposition
is that traditional system of hierarchy has certainly been
replaced, but within a particular caste/biradari group i.e.
among middle castesjbiradaris or among lower
castes/biradaris. This new kind of arrangement has not been
able to replace the overall orthodox/ traditionally determined
hierarchical structure. Hence, due to political or economic
96
upliftment 'Ahirs' might say that they are superior to 'Kewats',
but they would never claim that they are higher than
Brahmins in ritual hierarchy.
As far respondents perception of hierarchy is concerned,
the aforementioned categories were perceived differently. This
is in the sense that they placed others in relation to the
position of their own castefbiradari. This means that
categories of upper and lower castes/biradaris had different
connotations for respondents belonging to various
castes/ biradaris. For example, if a Brahmin reports
interaction with the upper castes then it denotes that
interactants were from Rajput or Gosain caste. Here they are
referring to the orthodox/traditionally determined category of
the upper caste. But for a Kewat this would signify that either
the interacting partner is from the orthodox/traditionally
determined upper castes or from the middle castes. The reason
is among middle castes also there are many castes that are
higher than Kewats. Lower caste or biradari respondents imply
similar categories when they report interaction with the upper
castes/biradaris. In other words, respondents put the
hierarchical position of their own castefbiradari in the centre
and depending upon the perceived distance between their own
and interactant's caste or biradari, they categorize the
interactants. The categories are dichotomous in nature i.e.
those above them belong to the upper castefbiradari and
below are considered as the lower castefbiradari. The only
exception in this is the notion of the upper caste for Brahmins
and lower caste category for Harijans, which is in consonance
with the orthodox/traditional categories.
97
The data on inter-caste and inter-biradari interaction
have been analysed keeping 1n mind the respondents'
categories. The table 4.6 below highlights the overall
interaction pattern of the upper, agrarian and subaltern
castes/biradaris with upper, lower and both castesjbiradaris
(respondents' category). It is apparent from the table that as
we move down in the hierarchy, interactions with the upper
castes also go down.
Muslims.
A similar trend also exists among
Table 4.6
Overall lnter-Caste/Biradari Interaction * Community Castes or Biradaris
Upper Lower Both
Hindu Upper Caste 100% 81.3% 62.5%
Agrarian 75.0% 77.6% 75.0%
Caste
Subaltern 60.5% 89.5% 68.4%
Caste
Muslim Upper 92.3% 79.5% 38.5%
Biradari
Agrarian 66.7% 86.5% 50.0%
Biradari
Subaltern 70.0% 90.0% 90.0%
Biradari
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each
situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
Moreover, in table 4.6, the interaction with categories 'lower'
and 'both' castesjbiradaries exhibits reverse pattern. Those
98
respondents who have reported interaction with category 'both'
imply that in some situations their interacting partner
belonged to both the upper and lower castes/biradaris.
However, agrarian castes' interaction with category 'both' is
equivalent to their interface with the upper castes. These
patterns imply that respondents' choice of interactants is
based on their notion of hierarchical categories rather then
orthodox/traditionally defined groups. This is the reason for
which interactants of similar or lower hierarchical positions
are preferred over others. Such interaction patterns indicate
that in various situations of interactions respondents are
aware of the implication of their choice.
At this point one needs to examine the situations specific
inter castejbiradari interaction pattern. This is because, as
has been mentioned above, that in specific situations there
are different patterns of interactions. Table 4. 7 indicates
toward two patterns of interaction. The first kind emerges for
those social situations which attract maximum inter
castejbiradari interaction. Take for example, the situations
such as farming and immediate/intermediate crisis. In both
situations, needs has to be met within a time frame. In this
respect, it also involves interaction with other
castesjbiradaris. There are also social situations wherein
inter-caste/biradari interface is minimal. Examples of such
situations are family crisis and occupations other than
agriculture. Now both these situations are of very different
nature. Lower level of interaction in family crisis is expected
because of notion of family reputation attached to such crisis.
However, for occupations other than farming one would expect
higher level of interaction. Though this would be dealt in
99
detail in the next chapter, but it is worth mentioning here that
nature of occupation is such that it does not require much
economic interaction with other castes at least in the initial
stages. This highlights the fact that social situations of an
economic nature have higher level of interaction in comparison
to other situations.
Table 4. 7 also highlights the fact that the level of
interaction between the upper castesfbiradaris and subaltern
castes/biradaris is dependent upon the type of situation
encountered. In this paragraph the assumption is that the
upper castefbiradari is the initiator of interaction which
terminates with lower castefbiradari (respondents' category).
In family rites and festivals upper castes/biradaris have least
interaction with subaltern castes/biradaris. But for farming
the interaction is very high. This points to the fact that the
interactions between these two categories of people are need
based. That is, most of the agricultural labourers required for
farming are from subaltern castesfbiradaris. Given the fact
that the upper castesfbiradaris have maximum landholding,
with the average of 8.61 bighas per person. This necessitates
interaction between the upper and subaltern castesfbiradaris
but no such condition is there in situations like family rites
and festivals.
An analysis of interaction between subaltern and upper
castefbiradari reveals that except for two situations i.e. in
immediate/intermediate crisis and miscellaneous situations
(40%), in none of the other situations is it more than 24%. In
this paragraph subaltern castesfbiradaris is the initiator of
interaction which terminates with the upper castes/ biradaris
100
(respondents' category). In the context of traditional social
structure of both villages, such pattern of interaction denotes
a significant shift. For subaltern castesjbiradaris the choice
of interactants in all social situations do not end with the
upper castesjbiradaris. This means that in their perception
there are other options (choice of interactants) available for
meeting various needs i.e., ranging from borrowing
agricultural implements in peak agricultural season to
garnering support during panchayat cases. Unlike earlier
period, they also perceive that by interacting among
themselves they can fulfill their needs. It is for this reason
that the interaction within subaltern castesjbiradaris is
significantly high in the table 4. 7 below. Now if we correlate
this with the increased rural-urban connection (Chapter- II),
then this points to the fact that the monopoly of rural elites
(upper castes/biradaris) in determining the fortune of
subaltern castesjbiradaris is gradually waning. This has
important implication for identity construction of subaltern
castes/biradaris. Since all the interactions initiated by
subaltern castes/biradaris does not end with the upper
castejbiradari, so the resultant identity is also not determined
by them. Rather, they emerge from the choice of interacting
partner of subaltern castesjbiradaris.
101
Table 4.7
Situation Specific Inter-Caste/Biradari Interaction*
Communit Caste/ Family Rites Occupation- Other Family Crisis Medical Crisis
y
Hindu
Muslim
Biradari Farming Occupation
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Upper 78.1 - 15;6 46.9 78.1 18.8 - - 3.1 12.5 - - 31.3 3.1 12.5
Agrarian 13.1 28.9 27.6 22.4 59.2 19.7 5.3 1.3 - - - 1.3 5.3 5.3 13.2
Subaltern 2.6 15.8 7.9 21.1 21.1 34.2 13.2 - 2.6 - - 2.6 23.7 2.6 7.9
Upper 66.7 - 12.8 15.4 76.9 17.9 5.1 - - - - - - - -Agrarian - 13.3 10.0 10.0 46.7 6.7 6.7 - - - - - 3.3 6.7 -Subaltern 10.0 60.0 30.0 10.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 - - - - - 10.0 - -
*Figures are in percentages and don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Legend: 1- Upper caste or biradari;
2- lower caste or biradari;
3- both caste or biradari.
Source:Fieldwork200 1
102
Immediate!lntermedi Miscellaneous
ate Crisis
1 2 3 1 2 3
62.5 6.3 25.0 43.8 - 6.3
39.5 19.7 43.4 36.8 11.8 10.5
23.7 86.8 50.0 7.9 10.5 10.5
51.3 5.1 10.3 30.8 - 5.1
43.3 46.7 43.3 33.3 - 16.7
40.0 50.0 90.0 40.0 10.0 20.0
Intra-Caste/Biradari Interaction
During the fieldwork, it was observed that 'Patidar' 1 (kin)
as a category of people plays an important role in the life of
villagers. It also became clear that respondents share a love
and hate relationship with 'Patidars'. The reason was that they
were the ones who had asked for their share in ancestral
property sometime or other. They are also the ones who help
in time of crisis. Furthermore, it is the Patidars who are
custodians of the traditional social structure. That is, if
anybody deviated from the 'prescriptions' they are there to
correct or rebuke the person. The most common refrain for
respondents would be that 'Mere patidar kya kaheinge?' (What
would my kin say?). In other words, at a micro level they are
considered as representatives of the castejbiradari who
ensures that prescriptions are properly adhered to. Hence, in
the analysis of inter-caste or biradari interaction 'kin' is an
important category of interactant. The other category of
interacting partner in intra-caste/ biradari relations is 'other
members of one's own castefbiradari.
From table 4.8 it is apparent that in all castejbiradari,
interaction among kins is very important. They are preferred
over other members of one's own castejbiradari. Though, nine
out of 10 respondents also reported interaction with other
members of their own caste/biradari. However, further
analysis reveals that on comparison, the interaction with kin
is concentrated in four to five situations with maximum and
minimum at 74% and at 20% respectively.
1 Etymologically the word 'patidar' has its root in word 'Patta' which means deed of land. In this sense it would mean one who has share in deeds of land.
103
Table 4.8
Interaction with Own Caste/Biradari
Community Members of Own Caste or
Biradari
Kin Other Members
of One's Own
Caste I Biradari
Hindu Upper Caste 100% 96.9%
Agrarian Caste 100% 98.7%
Subaltern Caste 100% 100%
Muslim Upper Biradari 100% 97.4%
Agrarian 100% 96.7%
Biradari
Subaltern 100% 80.0%
Biradari
*Figures don't add up to 1 00% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
The interaction with other members of own one's
castefbiradari is concentrated in less than three situations
with maximum and minimum at 94.7% and at 61.3%
respectively .. Except for the upper castes, none of the
castejbiradari groups interact with other member of their own
castefbiradari in all the situations. This means that not
104
Table 4.9
Interaction with Kin and Other Member of Own Caste/Biradari
in No. of Situations
Commu Caste Kin Other Members of One's Own
nity /Biradari Caste or Biradari
~3 4-5 6-7 ~3 4-5 6-7
Situations Situations Situations Situations Situations Situations
Hindu Upper 15.6% 46.9% 37.5% 61.3%
Agrarian 11.8% 56.6% 31.6% 77.3%
Subaltern 21.1% 73.7% 5.3% 84.2%
Muslim Upper 5.1% 64.1% 30.8% 94.7%
Agrarian 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% 93.1%
Subaltern 70.0% 20.0% 10.0% 100%
*Figures don't add up to 100% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
Source: Fieldwork 2001
35.5%
22.7%
15.8%
5.3%
6.9%
-
only other members of ones caste or biradari is not preferred,
but in some situations the respondents have no interaction
with them. This does indicate that across castes or biradaris
distinction between 'we' and 'them' is very strong even within
one's own caste or biradari. That is, there is strong
identification with kin than with others from one's own caste
or biradari. At this point it is imperative to examine the
situation specific distribution of interaction between various
castes /biradaris.
105
3.2%
-
-
-
-
-
Table 4.10
Situation Specific lntra-Caste/Biradari Interaction*
Social Category Hindu Castes Muslim Biradaries
Situations of
lnteracta
nts
Upper Agrarian Subalte Upper Agrarian
rn
Family Rites Kin 96.9% 98.7% 100% 100% 100%
OCB** 90.6% 92.1% 100% 94.9% 96.7%
Occupation- Kin 53.1% 52.6% 36.8% 28.2% 36.7%
Farming
OCB 40.6% 56.6% 52.6% 23.1% 30.0%
Other Kin 25.0% 25.0% 21.1% 38.5% 40.0%
Occupation
OCB 6.3% 1.3% 5.3% 2.6% -
Family Crisis Kin 59.4% 65.8% 42.1% 87.2% 73.3%
OCB 15.6% 17.1% 23.7% 7.7% 26.7%
Medical Kin 90.6% 92.1% 86.8% 89.7% 86.7%
Crisis
OCB 59.4% 26.3% 13.2% 5.1% 6.7%
Immediate/ Kin 75.0% 80.3% 52.6% 89.7% 86.7%
intermediate
Crisis
OCB 25.0% 10.5% 2.6% 2.6% 6.7%
Miscellaneou Kin 84.4% 80.3°/ci 73.7% 76.9% 73.3%
s
OCB 46.9% 61.8% 39.5% 51.3% 33.3%
*Figures don't add up to 1 00% reason being multiple responses for each situation.
**OCB- Other members of own caste/ biradari
Source: Fieldwork 2001
. 106
Sub alter
n
100%
60.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
-
90.0%
-
100%
-
80.0%
-
50.0%
30.0%
Table 4.10 makes it clear that in each category of the social
interactions among all castejbiradari groups the interaction
with kin is much higher than other members of their own
castejbiradari. In percentage terms also interaction with kins
is much higher than distantly related 'others' from one's own
caste or biradari. This is particularly so in crisis situations.
Subaltern biradari among Muslims have no interaction with
'others' from their own caste in situations such as other
occupations, crisis- family, medical and
immediate/intermediate crisis. As mentioned earlier, this
means that for all situations lower caste or biradari people
view their kin as one of the most important alternative among
the host of interactants. Given the same socio-economic status
of kin it indeed was difficult to meet the requirements of
situations particularly at the time of crisis. This implied a
change in perception of lower caste and biradari. Moreover,
this points to the fact that in crisis situations the individual
forgets his secondary group identities and reverts to primary
group identity (Parsons: quoted from Chaterjee: 1989). In this
case it is the identification with the kin.
In summing up two issues can be highlighted. First, from
the interaction patterns presented in the above sections, it
can reasonably be inferred that as one moves from micro to
macro categories, the level of interaction goes down. If one has
to arrange the level of interaction among different categories
of interactants in descending order then highest level of
interaction is among the 'Kins'. They are followed by 'other
member of one's own castejbiradari'. Then comes the place of
interacting partner from other castes and biradaris. It is only
as the last choice that interaction takes place with somebody
107
from other community. Again people belonging to same
hierarchical position in other community are preferred over
others for interaction. On correlating interaction pattern with
assumptions of analytical model proposed above, it seems that
while making the choice of interacting partner in any situation
respondents are clear about the objective. To satisfy those
objectives they rationally make the choice. The result of which
is the construction of an identity, which is commensurate with
the prescription of the community. Second,) Situation specific
analysis of interaction pattern makes it apparent that neutral
situations attract higher level of interaction with others,
particularly from other castesfbiradaris and other community.
That is, situations where reputation of the family is at stake,
interaction with any type of 'other' is limited except with kin.
The next chapter- 'The Net Working' deals with
interaction pattern among various categories at individual
level in the framework of 'social network analysis'. Three types
of interaction vis-a-vis networks are analyzed in this chapter
namely economic, political and social networks of respondent.
108