Latter as new generation of this native chieftains grew up educated and they were taken into the prestigious Ceylon civil services, legislative and later the state council. Entering into this upper class were successful merchants who gained wealth in the lucrative mining industry of the time. The 20th century brought several changes to the social structure of Sri Lanka.
By the s when Ceylon gained independence from the British in , there were four social groups. Upper class. Made up primary of landowners. Upper middle class. The political leader of new dominion of Ceylon came from these two classes.
Lower middle class. Made up persons who were educated but held less prestigious, but respected jobs such as lower level public servants, policemen and teachers. The poor. These people would typically be on low incomes and dependent on state benefits. It is one of many systems in the world.
As everywhere, a Sri Lankan caste can be functional, religious, ethnic, tribal or even composite in origin. Caste as we know it today appears to have been introduced to Sri Lanka by Prakrit-language- speakers from North India. Caste among Sinhalese: Kandiyan Up Country b.
Caste among Sinhalese: Southern Low Country c. The majority caste among the Sinhalese population now is the Goyigama. It appears that the Goyigama comprise at least half of the Sinhalese population. The traditional occupation of this caste is cultivation, and most members are still farmers in villages almost many places in Sri Lanka. In traditional Sinhalese society, they were the landed proprietors. The Sinhalese system is divided between the Kandiyan up and Low country.
Kandyan Up-Country Caste System. In the central highland, some traditions of the Kingdom of Kandy survived after its collapse in , preserved in unique forms of the caste system until the post- independence period. The connection of caste and job is still stronger in the central highland, and at events such as the Kandy Perahara, an annual festival honoring Hindu Gods and the Load Buddha, the various castes still perform traditional functions.
Southern Low Country Caste system. There are still major differences between the caste structure of the highland and those of the low country, although some service groups are common to both. The South- west coast is home to three major castes other than the majority Goyigama common to both low country and up- country. Sri Lankan Tamils Nothern Caste. Just like amongst the Sinhalese, the caste structure of the Northern Tamils is somewhat different compared to the Eastern Tamils.
Northern Tamil caste system is mostly dominated by the Vellalar except in some coastal region where the Karayar have numerical and ritual superiority over others. Sri Lankan Tamils Eastern Caste. In the east coast, the fisher castes are dominant numerically that they have used to create ritual superiority over other castes except the Vellalar who seem to be newer arrivals from the North. Paradoxically, the Mukkuvars who are at the bottom of the caste hierarchy in the North are almost at the top in the East.
Castes amongst Hill Country Tamils. The Tamils of Indian origin or Hill Country Tamils who were brought over by the British as indentured labourers were mainly from the lower Indian castes. Their caste structure resembles that of Tamil Nadu villages. Consequently, three classes can be defined: land owners, that receive rent; owners of capital, that make a profit; workers, that receive wages ibid.
Stratification theories were also continued to be developed by various French sociologists in the th centuries, as Foucault , cited in McCarthy and Logue, - states. They considered such antagonistic social groups as rich and poor, working class and elites, owners and non-owners Nisbet, For example, French historians Guizot and Thierry showed the antagonism of class interests and their inevitable collision McCarthy and Logue, - The influence of the Industrial Revolution on the stratification also served as an important object of the studies Nisbet, Marx also developed his theory in Capital, that has been published in Levitsky, These theories currently serve as significantly influential and fundamental to a majority of further developments of the views on stratification Wallimann et al, - Although the theories are frequently contradicted to each other, they may be described as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
Firstly, both theorists highlighted property as a criterion of class differentiation. According to Marx and Weber, society is primarily divided on those who possess the property, and those who do not Wright, - However, Marx and Weber had different views on the determination of social classes and the complexity of stratification.
Marx and Engels 24 defined social classes as economically determined and genetically conflicting groups, where the presence or absence of property serve as the basis of the separation into these groups. The concept of private property was closely connected to the exploitation of labour: a class that possesses the private property controls and determines social relations Marx, It also owns the means of production capital, factories, raw materials and controls them ibid: Due to the economic power of the ruling class, it carries the fate of those who are working for it, and the members of this class occupy the highest social status ibid: Thus, the feudal lord and serf in feudalism, bourgeois and proletarian in capitalism may serve as representatives of antagonistic classes that inevitably emerge in any society with a hierarchical structure that is based on inequality.
There are also objective and subjective indicators of the class definition Jackman and Jackman, - Possession of property is an example of objective indicators ibid. Hence, the fully formed social class can exist only when the members of society are aware of their social class and work together in the interests of the class. His theory is multidimensional: class relations intersect with other bases of association, notably status and party Weber, - The concept of party refers to political power - the ability of a particular strata to influence the society Hurst, ; whereas status is understood as an affiliation of an individual to the particular strata ibid: Weber - considered these components of inequality interrelated yet independent in essential respects.
Weber did not consider classes in terms of tough categorisation. He applied the principle of continuum that is located within the boundaries of the highest to lowest in order to regulate classes Macionis and Plummer, Whereas Marx saw social prestige and power only as reflections of the economic condition idem , Weber argued that these concepts are of the same importance as wealth and may be totally independent of it.
Moreover, Weber did not associate power with wealth. Weber defined power as the ability of a person or group to implement plans, take action or to conduct certain policies disregarding the objections of other people and groups. Consequently, in modern society, for example, high-paid managers are on the relative bottom of the bureaucracy hierarchy.
Thus, they do not possess considerable power or prestige. However, they may be paid higher salaries than university lecturers, that serve as representatives of prestigious profession. Thus, Weber described social stratification in societies as a multidimensional distribution of people by rank rather than a simple hierarchy of specific classes.
Secondly, Marx and Weber dedicated a considerable attention to the historical aspects of inequality. It includes technology, division of labour and the relations between people in the process of production ibid: , , Marx also attempted to explain the transition from one mode of production to another see Marx and Engels, ; Marx, In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels 15 concluded that the process of modes of production changing played a key role in the formation of capitalist bourgeoisie.
Weber, in his turn, noted that different indicators of social inequality may be clearly observed at different points of history and development of society. For instance, in agrarian society particular importance is attached to the status or social prestige which is subordinated to a code of honour Macionis and Plummer, Members of these communities acquire the status by following cultural norms that are peculiar to the category that they belong idem.
Industrialisation and the development of capitalism level rankings based on birth, however, lead to a significant financial inequality idem. Weber - argued, that people of the same class have roughly the same life chances, thus the opportunity to get public benefits.
These chances are higher for those who owns property ibid. Thus, prominent businessmen and high-ranking officials become the new elite Wright, 69 - However, highly skilful individual who does not possess the property may be in demand in the labour market and, therefore, has a considerable income.
Sharma and Chandra state that according to Weber, it is typical for the industrial societies to develop bureaucratic state. An increased number of officials and the spread of various types of organisations also increase the role of power in the stratification system Macionis and Plummer, Thirdly, theories are different in terms of focusing on the origins of income.
Weber seems to be uninterested in the origins of wealth of the higher classes and the poverty of the lower classes. Finally, there is a a conflict in terms of the ideological purpose of theories. One of the differences is that Marx's theory captures the class antagonism that is typical for the capitalist economy in mid-nineteenth century, as the theory has been introduced during this period of time.
However, in this sense theories also serve as complementary. The point is that they reveal the features of capitalist system on the different stages of its development, providing a consistent description of capitalism history. Firstly, Marx considered only two classes in one dimension. Weber, in his turn, structured society in the multiple dimensions. He also considered such factors as status and power in addition to class, as the main principles of stratification.
Secondly, the theories of Marx and Weber offer convincing explanations of social stratification in the time periods that they describe. Consequently, Marx's theory is relevant to societies of the mid-nineteenth century, whereas the theory of Weber is relevant to the modern societies. This is a common case to be observed in modern society. Hence, the theory of Max Weber offers the most convincing explanation of social stratification in modern societies due to its high polarisation and modernity.
History of Political Thought, 26 2 , - Anurin, V. Economic Stratification. Sociological Research, 34 6 , 50 - Bourdieu, P. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 32 1 , 1 - Bromley, D. Constitutional political economy: property claims in a dynamic world. Contemporary Economic Policy, 15 4 , 43 - Burris, V. The neo-Marxist synthesis of Marx and Weber on class. In Wiley, N. Coby, P. Why are there Warriors in Plato's Republic?
History of Political Thought, 22 3 , - Gadamer, H.
0コメント