In the sociology field, social inequality is defined as the existence and occurrence of unequal opportunities or rewards for various social castes or positions within a society and the groups therein. Social inequality has numerous fundamental dynamics which incorporate income and wealth of the individuals. Other subsidiary dimensions include power, schooling, ethnicity, race, ancestry and inheritance, and occupational prestige. Although contrastingly different from other European countries regarding titled nobility, the United States is still very stratified. For decades’ history tells us that social inequality has been a huge part of the society as well as that it is unjust. However, in the contemporary society, social inequality is considered to occur naturally and that from a peculiar perspective, it is just. As such, the paper focuses on the discussion as to why the contemporary society perceives the concept as it does. In addition, the analysis will be hinged on the contradictions and ambiguities presented in the discussion of the various theories by Andre Beteille.
Beteille critically discusses the uncertainties lying within Rosseau and Locke’s discourse and ideologies regarding inequality. Rosseau’s argument is based on the ideology that there is a separation between the equality which has been set upon by nature and the one individuals have introduced among themselves. Rosseau seems to be struggling with proving that natural inequalities do not matter and that all inequalities are social and not natural. To this end, Beteille points out the struggle Rosseau goes through to explain how and why political inequality arises if the consent of men merely authorizes it. In addition, the author points out the double-mindedness of the ideologist regarding nature’s way of distributing its gifts. Rosseau seems to be struggling with the fact whether nature distributes its gifts equally or unequally. On the one hand, he wants to prove the impartiality of nature in distributing its bounty yet, on the contrary, wants to prove how socially unequal institutions have significantly increased natural inequality of humans. In essence, the epitome of Rosseau’s contradiction is in his discourse of natural inequality among men and on the same breath discussing inequality among individuals within a state of nature.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similarly, Locke ambiguously depicts nature as a state of equality and continuously reiterates on various occasions the equality of individuals by nature. Further, Locke contradicts himself by countering his former argument that all individuals by nature are equal. Locke contends that he does not fully comprehend the diversity of all the forms of equality. Huxley is another sociologist who significantly contradicts and debunks Rosseau’s ideologies on natural inequality and social inequality. Unlike Rosseau, Huxley asserts and believes that there is a close correlation between the social and natural inequality and attributes his evidence to the success accrued from the skill and enterprise in every walk of life.
Sir Francis Galton sought to disapprove all ideologies by dedicating his research on finding out why there were unequal achievements by individuals in different walks of life. Galton hinged his research and studies significantly on the belief that heredity played a huge role in the unequal achievements thereby contradicting every other sociologist. The author posits that natural inequality is the sole reason why all other differences exist. Galton resigns by stating that natural inequality based on heredity results in unequal achievement especially in class and examinations ultimately leading to people being placed in different status and class in the society resulting in social inequality.
Beteille highlights the ambiguities in the ideologies by Mahatma Gandhi regarding varna dharma; which was the division of the society into four parts. Gandhi always maintained that varna dharma is not an act of human intervention but rather a law of nature and should thus be a governing law for every society and not for the Hindus alone. As such, it is confusing to see that Gandhi endorsed varna dharma because he believed the feelings of superiority and inferiority did not exist in the varnas yet condemned the caste system. Through this perspective, it is evident that social inequality regarding affluence and power developed naturally based on individuality and pursuit of personal gains which according to Gandhi resulted in artificial boundaries and social inequalities condemning man to the inability of discovering his true nature.
In regards to the caste ideology, Dipankar Gupta and Louis Dumont are at odds with each other. Dumont’s ideology of the caste system believes that there is only one caste system, hierarchy, that is globally accepted and acknowledged by every individual in the caste system. His thinking is based on purity and pollution as the main cornerstones with total allegiance to the purity of the hierarchy. According to Dumont’s doctrine, it is not possible for an individual to descend the hierarchy of the caste system. In contradiction, Gupta points out that it is evidently possible for a person who previously occupied a higher status and position in the caste system to go down or descend. In this accord, by Gupta’s ideology, it is possible for an individual occupying a lower position to advance up the caste system with a consistent accumulation of material wealth rather than mental ability. Gupta states that different people in the caste system have different beliefs regarding hierarchy and unlike Dumont, he points out that there are hierarchies that are not necessarily based on the ideologies of pollution and purity. Gupta goes further to provide twenty-years evidence from India which supports his ideology that, even though individuals in the lower positions are thought of as polluting, they refuse to accept their positions as polluting and, as such, consider those below them as polluting.
Beteille also was at odds with Dumont’s notion of the caste system arguing that the Dumontian idea was only focused on the structure of interest and not of value. In fact, Beteille describes the caste system using the Marxist approach stating that it is hierarchical in nature. Put simply, Dumont’s definition of caste system was in terms of its attributes and uniqueness to the Hindu while Beteille definition emphasized the definition of caste based on structural features not only found among the Hindus but also in other regions.
In essence, it is easy to observe why and how social inequality regarding power and influence arises based on the ideologies of purity and pollution especially in a contemporary society such as Britain and its leadership. In the definition of equality, no one individual should be perceived to be above the other in all dynamics. However, in the societies today, social inequality in terms of power and unequal opportunities is observed. For instance, England can only be ruled by a royal blood and no one outside the blood, what is referred to as purity of blood in the definition of caste in Portuguese. However, regardless of this being a form of social inequality, people have come to accept it as a natural and just form of distribution of power and further support it. To the English, it is not inequality but rather a natural and perfectly normal structure of their society. Ironically, based on their history, the English had abolished inequality on the basis of birth and proclaimed the universal equality of all men. Through time, the poor resigned themselves to the contentment that they had no alternative regarding their class resting their reasons to the fact that they had been born in a fixed social position. This contentment was propelled by religion and Christianity which promised riches in eternity regardless of the poor status in the real world. As such, the rich became richer and the poor poorer with everyone accepting their positions giving rise to the monarchical system of leadership that England has today (Macfarlane, 1999).
Conclusion
Social inequality is a vice that needs to be eradicated from the society. However, in so doing, comprehension of the forms of inequality and their origins is necessary. There are forms of inequality that are accepted in the society and, as such, are difficult to eliminate such as the caste system in India or the monarchical system of government in England. In the acknowledgement that inequality such as racism exists in the society, the concept alone further promotes and perpetuates inequality, therefore, hard to eliminate. However, as Beteille asserts, some measures can be taken to mitigate the vice. Ultimately, it is crucial for all societies to implement these measures.
References
Beteille, A. (1981). “The Idea of Natural Inequality” in G. Berreman, ed., 1981, Social Inequality: Comparative and Development Approaches, pp, 62-80. Print.
Macfarlane, A. (1999). André Beteille and Alexis de Tocqueville. Oxford Univ. Press, Delhi, 1999. Web. Retrieved from: http://www.alanmacfarlane.com/FILES/Beteille_Tocqueville.htm
