Caste and Personal Rank in An Indian Village: An Extension in Techniques

Caste and Personal Rank in an Indian Village:
An Extension in Techniques‘
PAUL G. HIEBERT
Kansas State University
Caste is a dominant theme in the Indian status order, but observations of social behavior
in a village make it clear that caste alone does not determine fully the status order of
the villagers. The hypothesis is offered that within his home village each individual has a
personal status that is a combination of his caste status and such noncaste statuses as
wealth, power, and ogce. It is further suggested that vector analysis can offer a useful
model for perceiving personal status. T o test the hypothesis, Marriott’s caste-ranking tech-
nique was used to rank thirty Konduru castes and eighteen individuals. A comparison o f
the two tests throws light on the relative importance of caste as a determinant in the per-
sonal status order and the extent to which a man’s influence in the village is determined by
non-caste factors. There are possible implications for the concepts of caste and caste struc-
tures.
S TATUS HIERARCHY is obviously an

important factor in the Indian caste sys-
tem, and its nature has been the object of nu-
quently Freed (1963) suggested specific sta-
tistical tests for the analysis of data obtained
by Marriott’s technique.
merous anthropological studies during the The purpose of this paper is to apply
past two decades. Two questions, however, Marriott’s caste-ranking technique to a village
continue to arise: (1) Is there any objective of south India and to show that this tech-
method for determining caste ranks? (2) To nique can be extended to analyze personal
what extent does a man’s caste rank deter- ranks in the village.2 A comparison of caste
mine his personal rank in the village? and personal ranks can provide us with some
insight into the multidimensional nature of
RANKING OF CASTES IN AN ranking in the Indian setting.
INDIAN VILLAGE
The problems of reaching an objective The Village
ranking of castes have been discussed by The village of Konduru (a pseudonym)
Srinivas ( 1955a: 19-22), Mayer ( 1956: 118), lies in the middle of a small agricultural val-
Marriott (19605-18, 1968:133-171), and ley in the forested Nallamalai hills of An-
Freed (1963:879-891). Criteria used in de- dhra Pradesh. It marks the end of the grav-
termining ranks have included commensal eled road that winds up the hills from the
patterns (Dube 1955), commensal patterns plains villages below and from Hyderabad
together with pipe exchange (Mayer 1960), city, one hundred twenty miles to the north-
and the investigator’s weighted judgement west. Four smaller villages and two dozen
(Srinivas 1955a). In attempts to formulate a dependent hamlets lie scattered along the
more objective approach Mahar (1959) narrow valley.
proposed a thirteen-item questionnaire deal- More than forty castes Iive in the valley,
ing with interaction between castes and no one of which dominates the area. Kon-
Marriott devised a technique whereby ran- duru itself has thirty-two resident castes
domly selected villagers are asked to place a (Table 1). Core Hindu castes within the
series of cards bearing names of castes in four-fold religious varna scheme and Mus-
the order of their rank in the village. Subse- lim castes reside in the central portion of the
Accepted for publication 26 June 1968. village. Harijans3 and marginal castes such
434
[HIEBERT] Caste and Personal Rank 435
TABLE
1. CASTE
AND POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF KONDURU*
Major socia[ Religious Telugu caste English Families resident Percet"age

divisions varna name equivalent in Konduru Of KotrdUru
populution
Hindu castes
I. Varna castes
A. Twice-born Brahmin Smartha Family Priests
Ayyavaru Temple Priests 2 Brahmin 1.3
Karnam Land Accountants 231
Vaishya Komati Merchants 34) Merchants 6.2
Disputed Tambali 1.1
Varna Nambi
B. Panchala Disputed Ausali

Varna Kamari 2.1
Vadla
C . Once-born Shudra Reddi

Munnuru Farmer B 14
Kainma Farmer C 1 High Shudra 8.0
Golla Herdsmen 22
Mara Tailors 3
Sale Fine Weavers 2
Chenchut Tribesmen -
Kummarit Potters -
Telugut Gatherers -
Gaundlu Winetappers 35 ,Mid Shudra 8.0
Bogum Courtesans 7
Bhat Raj Bards 1
Uppari Earthmovers 1
Lambardit Gypsies -
Tsakali Washermen 57
Mangali Barbers 17
Kashat Quarrymen -.Low Shudra 13.9
Vaddat Rockcrushers -
Sevak Servants 1
Arukali Soothsayers 2,
11. Harijans Below Dasari
Varna Mala
Scheme Bainet 30.1
Madiga
Dakkalit
Outside Arabi Arabs 1'

Varna Turka Turks 113
Scheme Fakir Mendicants 4 Muslims 29.2
Kartike Butchers 5'
Tolla Skinners 5
Dudekulu Cottoncarders 35,
43 6 American Anthropologist [71, 1969
as the Lambardi-Gypsies and resettled period of two years representatives from
Chenchu-Tribesmen from the forest live be- more than thirty-eight such transient castes
side the vilIage or in adjacent hamlets. In passed through the village.
addition, members of transient castes fre- It is clear that castes and men occupy
quent the village as priests, mendicants, herb- various ranks in the village social structure.
al doctors, magicians, bards, caste histo- Residence patterns reflect the obvious dis-
rians, entertainers of all sorts, fortune tell- tinction of ritual pollution, which sets the
ers, fisherman, hunters, and beggars. In a Harijans apart from the rest of the village.
2. CASTE
TABLE AND AGE DISTRIBUTIONS
OF INFORMANTS USED IN RANKING TESTS
Informant’s Social Caste Age Remarks

code number rank
1 Vaishya Komati-Merchant 35 rich storeowner

2 Vaishya Komati-Merchant 22
3 High Shudra Munnuru-Farmer B 31 village shaman
4 High Shudra Mara-Tailor 26
5 High Shudra Golla-Herdsman 51 caste elder
6 High Shudra Golla-Herdsman 45 wealthy farmer
7 High Shudra Golla-Herdsman 50
8 High Shudra Golla-Herdsman 31
9 Mid Shudra Bogum-Courtesan 31 public school teacher
10 Mid Shudra Gaundlu-Winetapper 35 retested
11 Mid Shudra Gaundlu-Winetapper 35
12 Mid Shudra Gaundlu-Winetapper 43 wealthy farmer
13 Mid Shudra Gaundlu-Winetapper 50
14 Mid Shudra Gaundlu-Winetapper 38 guru
15 Low Shudra Mangali-Bar ber 58
16 Low Shudra Mangali-Barber 26
18 Low Shudra MangaLi-Barber 38 retested
19 Low Shudra Mangali-Barber 43 retested
21 Low Shudra Tsakali-Washerman 35
24 Low Shudra Tsakali-Washerman 60 caste headman, retested
26 Muslim Turka-Turk 32
30 Muslim Dudekulu-Cottoncdr. 40
31 Muslim Dudekulu-Cottoncdr. 33
32 Hal ijan Mala-Weaver 46
33 Harijan Mala-Weaver 51 retested
36 Harijan Mala-Weaver 53
37 Harijan Mala-Weaver 56 caste headman, retested
38 Harijan Madiga-Leatherworker 35 retested
39 Harijan Madiga-Leat herworker 26
41 Harijan Madiga-Leatherworker 66
HIEBERT] Caste and Personal Rank 437
Harijans live apart in enclaves downstream It was in the preliminary task of mapping
or aside from the main village or in nearby the basic social hierarchy of Konduru that
hamlets. They have their own gods and tem- Marriott’s ranking technique became most
ples and are served by their own priests. useful. It provided a guide for further eth-
Finer distinctions can also be observed in nographic investigations, which in turn shed
the social behavior of the villagers. Distinc- light upon the nature and characteristics of
tions are evident in food-exchange patterns, this hierarchy.
the lesser receiving water and water-cooked
Testing Procedure
foods at the hands of superior castes but not
vice versa; in sitting patterns, subordinates Marriott’s ranking technique was used first
sitting below the level of their seated super- to analyze the caste hierarchy of Konduru.
iors or standing in respect; in greeting ex- Thirty well-known castes were selected for
changes, lower men greeting higher men comparison, most of them represented in or
first; and in the general respect and rever- around Konduru itself. The rest were fre-
ence subordinates are expected to show quent visitors of the village. To rank these
those above them. castes, fifty adult male informants were se-
TABLE
3. RANKS
ASSIGNEDTO THIRTY CASTES BY FORTY-TWO KONDURUINFORMANTS
Caste Ranks assigned to castes by informants*

code Caste being ranked
number I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 Smartha-Brahmin A 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2
2 Ayyavaru-Brahmin B 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 1
3 Komati-Merchant 3 3 5 2 6 3 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 6
4 Ausali-Goldsmiths 5 5 7 7 4 7 8 7 4 5 7 1 6 5 4
5 Reddi-Farmer A 8 4 9 9 9 5 6 4 9 7 4 5 4 9
6 Tambali-Temple Asst. A 13 12 4 4 7 6 3 5 7 12 5 8 9 7
7 Kamari-Ironsmith 5 7 7 6 4 1 8 8 8 6 5 7 1 7 7 . 5 4
8 Vadla-Carpenter 5 8 7 8 4 8 8 9 5 5 7 1 8 7 . 5 4
9 Nambi-Temple Asst. B 1411 3 5 8 4 4 6 8 1 3 1 0 7 1 2 8
10 Munnuru-Farmer B 10 17 10 14 11 11 10 11 11 9 11 6 6 10
11 Golla-Herdsmen 11 9 15 10 10 9 11 10 12 14 9 9 10 14
12 Chenchu-Tribesmen 16 25 11 11 12 13 17 12 15 8 22 1 17 12
13 Kummari-Potters 20 19 14 16 16 14 14 15 14 10 13 11 13 11
14 Telugu-Gatherers 21 15 13 12 15 12 13 14 13 16 15 13 15 15
15 Gaundlu-Winetappers 9 10 16 20 17 15 15 16 16 11 12 10 16 16
16 Bogum-Courtesans 10 13 17 15 14 10 12 17 10 17 17 19 11 22
17 Uppari-Earthmovers 24 21 12 13 I3 16 16 13 17 15 14 12 14 13
18 Lambardi-Gypsies 15 20 25 17 25 25 18 24 18 18 18 24 21 25
19 Tsakali-Washer men 19 18 20 23 19 20 21 18 22 22 19 21 18 21
20 Mangali-Barbers 18 14 19 22 18 24 22 19 23 23 24 20 20 20
21 Turka-Turks 7 6 23 25 20 17 24 22 24 24 16 14 24 23
22 Kasha-Quarrymen 22 24 21 18 24 21 19 21 19 19 25 23 23 19
23 Vadda-Rockcrushers 23 23 18 19 23 22 20 20 21 20 23 22 19 18
24 Dudekulu-Cottoncarders 17 16 24 24 21 19 25 23 25 25 20 15 25 24
25 Arukali-Soothsayers 25 22 22 21 22 23 23 25 20 21 21 25 22 17
26 Dasari-Weaver Priests 26 26 26 26 29 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 26 26
27 Mala-Weavers 28 27 27 28 28 27 27 29 27 28 27 28 28 28
28 Baine-Leatherworker Pr. 27 30 28 29 27 29 28 27 29 27 29 26 27 27
29 Madiga-Leatherworkers 29 28 29 27 26 28 29 28 28 29 28 29 29 29
30 Dakkali-Pariahs 30 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
* Listed by their code numbers.

438 American Anthropologist [71, 1969
TABLE
3. (continued)

number 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 Komati-Merchant 3 6 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
4 Ausali-Goldsmiths 2 1 4 7 5 8 8 1 5 7 5 6 8 4 6 5
5 Reddi-Farmer A 4 8 4 810 4 6 3 3 5 4 10 4 8
6 Tambali-Temple Asst. A 8 717 9 5 5 4 9 8 3 16 8 13 7
7 Kamari-Ironsmith 23 4 10 6.5 8 8 16.5 8 6 7 14 5 12 5
8 Vadla-Carpenter 22 4 11 6.5 8 8 16.510 7 8 9 6 9 5
9 Nambi-Temple Asst. B 7 13 16 4 3 10 5 12 16 9 10 9 11 9
10 Munnuru-Farmer B 11 11 5 14 16 1 4 9 5 9 11 13 11 7 13
11 Golla-Herdsmen 10 10 8 12 13 6 12 6 11 10 5 13 8 10
13 Kummari-Potters 13 18 12 10 12 11 8 18 15 12 7 20 17 14
17 Uppari-Earthmovers 15 21 15 13 11 15 7 16 12 14 11 21 10 18
19 Tsakali-Washermen 25 19 19 19 20 21 18 17 19 18 19 18 22 20
20 Mangali-Barbers 24 9 18 18 19 20 20 23 23 19 20 19 23 19
21 Turka-Turks 5 16 21 20 24 22 21 14 20 21 18 16 - -
22 Kasha-quarry men 18 30 25 24 18 23 23 24 22 24 24 22 19 23
24 Dudekulu-Cottoncarders 6 17 22 21 25 25 22 21 21 22 21 17 - -
27 Mala-Weavers 28 24 26 27 27 27 27 26 26 29 29 28 26 25
29 Madiga-Leather workers 29 28 27 29 28 30 29 28 29 28 28 29 28 27
30 Dakkali-Pariahs 30 26 30 30 30 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 28
Listed by their code numbers.
lected by random sample from the 1962 vot- of Turka-Turks and Dudekulu-Cottoncard-
ers list for K o n d ~ r u .Of~ these, forty-two ers, noting that these did not belong to the
were present in the village and able to re- caste system, which they claimed was re-
spond (Table 2). The tests were adminis- stricted to the Hindus. The completed tests
tered by the author in the spring of 1964. were read back to the informants and
The names of the thirty castes were written changes made until the informants were satis-
on cards, and each informant was asked to fied with the order. To check consistency,
rank the castes in the order of their position the same test was given to eleven of the in-
in the village. Illiterate informants were asked formants a year and a half later.
to rank each new caste as it was paired with
Results
those already sorted until its place in the
order was determined. Some informants The ranks assigned to each of the thirty
treated two or three of the panchala castes castes by the forty-two informants are given
(Ausali-Goldsmiths, Kamari-Ironsmiths, and in Table 3. To test for significant variance a
Vadla-Carpenters) as equals, and this equiv- nonparametric test that assumed ordinal
alence was noted. In two instances Muslim data was needed. The Friedman two-way
informants did not rank the Muslim castes analysis of variance by ranks was selected.5
TABLE
3. (continued)

nrrmber 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
3 Komati-Merchant 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 3
4 Ausali-Goldsmiths 5 8 7 9 712 5 6 8 4 4 4 8 5
5 Reddi-Farmer A 8 5 4 7 5 6 7 5 5 5 5 7 9 1 0
6 Tambali-Temple Asst. A 7 4 1 3 5 3 5 9 3 41210 512 7
7 Kamari-Ironsmith 5 9.57 9 812 5 7 9 8 6 9 7 5
8 Vadla-Carpenter 5 9.57 9 9 1 2 514 7 7 7 8 6 5
9 Nambi-Temple Asst. B 9 7 19 4 6 4 10 8 11 14 17 22 11 8
10 Munnuru-Farmer B 11 12 10 11 11 8 8 11 6 6 9 11 10 9
11 Golla-Herdsmen 13 6 11 13 10 7 11 9 12 10 8 13 13 11
13 Kummari-Potters 15 17 5 18 12 10 14 13 14 16 11 15 16 16
17 Uppari-Earthmovers 18 20 25 19 17 18 15 19 17 24 16 20 22 19
19 Tsakali-Washermen 23 21 20 20 21 16 23 18 23 20 20 23 25 22
20 Mangali-Barbers 22 22 24 15 23 19 21 23 22 23 19 19 23 18
21 Turka-Turks 10 18 16 21 24 24 24 24 24 21 23 17 26 23
22 Kasha-quarry men 20 24 23 26 18 23 16 21 18 19 22 21 21 17
24 Dudekulu-Cottoncarders 19 16 15 22 25 25 25 25 25 22 24 18 27 25
27 Mala-Weavers 27 26 28 27 27 26 27 27 27 29 28 29 29 27
29 Madiga-Leatherworkers 29 29 29 28 28 27 30 28 28 27 27 30 1 28
30 Dakkali-Pariahs 30 30 30 30 30 30 29 30 30 30 30 26 2 30
* Listed by their code numbers.

Friedman’s Chi Square calculated for the a two-tailed test, the critical score for forty-
ranking distribution was 986, which is sig- two responses is twenty-eight, i.e., if either
nificant well above the 99th percentile. I n caste in the pair obtains twenty-eight or more
other words, a clear rank hierarchy exists. higher-rank scores, there is less than a 5
Following Freed’s suggestion (1963), the percent chance that the two castes are in
binomial test was used to locate significant fact ranked equal (for N = 42, p = 0.50,
breaks within the total rank order. Each and r = 28, in a two-tail test the probability
caste was paired with every other caste, and that either caste will rank higher than the
the number of instances in which each was other in twenty-eight or more instances is
ranked higher was noted (Table 4). Assum- 0.0436).s If neither caste of the pair has
ing the null hypothesis that there is no rank more than twenty-seven first-place scores, the
difference between a pair of castes, the level castes are considered to be not significantly
of significance, alpha, was set at 95 percent. different in rank (probability = 0.088).
This means that there is 5 percent o r less Since two informants refused to rank the
chance of accepting the alternative hypothe- Muslim castes of Turka-Turk and Dudeku-
sis that there is a significant difference be- lu-Cottoncarders for caste pairs in which
tween castes when in fact there is not. Using these are present, the number of responses is
P
P
0
35 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 40 42 42 40 42 42 42 42 41 41
BrahminA(1) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 1 1
41 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 4I 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 40 42 42 40 42 42 42 42 41 41
L _ _ _ _ _ _ _
BrahminB(2) 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 1 1
Merchant(3) 3 2 6 3 3 3 - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - ._ - - - - 1 1
21 26 26 28 41
42 39 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 40 42 42 40 42 42 42 42 41 41
FmmerA(5) 21 16 15 14 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1
19 20 29 29
33 38 38 39 34 39 39 42 42 42 37 42 42 39 42 42 42 42 41 41
TempieAsst.A(6) 23 22 13 13
9 4 4 3 8 3 3 - - - 3 - - 1 - - - - 1 1
12
-
26 30
31 34 35 36 37 38 36 41 42 42 37 41 41 38 41 42 42 42 41 41
HIGH SHUDRA 1ronsmith(7) 9 16 12
11 8 7 6 5 4 6 I - - 3 1 1 2 1 - - - 1 I
27 31
35 37 38 35 38 38 39 38 42 42 37 41 41 38 41 42 42 42 41 41
15.11 7 5 4 7 4 4 3 4 - - 3 1 1 2 1 - - - 1 1
26 26 34 35 38 32 33 39 39 42 42 36 41 41 37 42 42 42 42 41 41
Temp1eAsst.B(9) 16 16 8 7 4 10 9 3 3 - - 4 1 1 3 - - - - 1 1
23 30 36 36 38 34 37 42 42 40 36 42 42 39 42 42 42 42 41 41
FarmerB(lO) 19 12 6 6 4 8 5 - - 2 4 - - 1 - - - - 1 1
29 35 40 36 36 38 42 42 41 36 42 42 39 42 42 42 42 41 41
Herdsman(11) 113 72 6 6 4 - - 1 4 - - 1 - - - - 1 1
21
25 25 25- 29 34 38 39 33 39 39 36 38 42 42 42 41 41
21
17 17 17 13 8 4 3 7 3 3 4 4 - - - 1 1
19 26 22 33 37 38 38 34 42 42 36 42 42 42 42 41 41
'Otter (I3)
23 16 20 2 5 4 4 6 - - 4 - - - - 1 1
28 22 27 37 40 38 35 42 41 37 42 42 42 42 41 41
MID SHUDRA Gatherer (14) 1 4 2 0 1 5 5
0 2 4 5 - 1 3 - - - - 1 1
20 27 38 42 38 35 41 41 39 42 42 42 42 41 41
Winetiipper(15) 22 15 4 - 4 5 I 1 1 - - -- 1 1
25 38 40 40 32 41 41 37 41 41 42 42 41 41
Courtesan(16) 17 4
I 2 2 8 1 1 3 1 1 - - 1 1
34 40 42 42 41 41
:
W
8 2 - -1 1
E
29 42 42 42 41 41
13 - - -1 1
28 42 42 42 41 41
- - - 1 1
39 40 40 39 39
Turk (21) 18 19 1 - -1 1
19 19 40 41 42 41 40
tow SHUDRA Quarryman (22) 23 21 2 .1 1 2
40 40 40 41 40
2, 2
39 40 40 39 39
Cottoncarder (24) 1 - - 1 1
Soothsayer (25) 37 39 39 41 39
38 37 39 41
HARIJAN A Weaver Priest(26)
HARIJAN B Leatherwk. Pr. (28) 18
Leatherworker (29) I3g

Pariah (30) %
NOTES :
Code numbers in parentheses and corresponding caste names refer to both the column under which the
number is centered and the pair of rows in front of which the name and number appear.
Row caste is ranked higher than the column caste in the number of instances shown by the upper
number. Column caste is ranked higher than row caste in the number of instances shown by the lower
number.
Lines are drawn between scores showing a significant difference in rank and those that do not. Major
divisions in the social order are marked by heavy lines between the column/row headings. Caste groups
containing more than a single caste are labeled to the left.
P
P,
forty, and the critical score showing a signif- Leatherworken), and (9) Pariahs* (Duka-
icant difference is twenty-seven (probability .
li-Pariahs) Within these major sets there
= 0.038). In three instances involving the appear to be subsets, the precise nature of
panchala castes less than forty rank re- which can best be understood in the light of
sponses were obtained. For the paired re- ethnograpic data gathered in the village.
sponses 23-2 (row 4, columns 6 and 7) the From comments made by informants dur-
binomial score is less than 0.000 and the ing the testing periods, it became obvious
castes are assumed to be of different ranks. that caste ranking was perceived largely in
For the Pair 12-9 (row 7, column 7) the terms of food-exchange patterns. One caste
score is 0.66, and the castes do not differ in was ranked lower than another if it accepted
rank. water and water-cooked foods from the
Castes were ordered so as to produce as other and the other refused to reciprocate.
clear a hierarchy of significant scores as pos- Gifts of cooked food are given largely at
sible. As Marriott notes,7 this assumes tran- festivals and weddings. Water is given more
sitivity in the thinking of the villagers indi- frequently. The failure of such visible sym-
vidually and minimizes intransitivity in the bolism as food exchange to produce more
collective judgment. Using this approach, in consistency in ranking responses stems from
a few instances castes listed higher in the several facts. Informants often admitted ig-
order received fewer first-place scores than norance of the food-exchange patterns of
some listed immediately below them, but in other castes. In some instances younger in-
no case was there a significant difference in formants did not even know their own
ranks. food-exchange patterns for every caste in-
Lines are drawn on Table 4 between cluded in the rank tests, commenting that
scores that are significantly different and they would have to ask their elders. Further-
those that are not. A significant break in the more, admitted inconsistencies in food-ex-
total social hierarchy is statistically accepted change patterns do exist in the village. This
where all castes of one group rank signifi- can be seen in Table 5, which is based on
cantly above all castes of the groups below information gathered from six older infor-
it. By this criteria, nine groups appear mants at different levels of the caste hierar-
within the total social hierarchy. For analyt- chy. Unfortunately, not all the exchange
ical purposes they will be labeled as follows: patterns could be verified by actual observa-
(1) Brahmin A (Smartha-Brahmin A), (2) tion.
Brahmin B (Ayyavaru-Brahmin B), (3) Despite minor disagreement between in-
Merchants (Komati-Merchants), (4) High formants concerning food exchanges, there
Shudras (Ausali-Goldsmiths, Reddi-Farm- was general agreement on several significant
ers, Tambali-Temple Asst. A, Karmari-Iron- patterns. First, castes competing with each
smiths, Vadla-Carpenters, Nambi-Temple other for higher rank refuse each other’s
Asst. B, Munnuru-Farmers, and Golla- food. This is true for Smartha-Brahmin A
Herdsmen), ( 5 ) Mid Shudras (Chenchu- and Ayyavaru-Brahmin B and for Tsakali-
Tribesmen, Kummari-Potters, Telugu-Gath- Washermen and Mangali-Barbers. Second,
erers, Gaundlu-Winetappers, Bogum-Courte- Muslim informants claimed that they were
sans, and Uppari-Earthmovers) , (6) Low not bound by the food restrictions of the Hin-
Shudras (Lambardi-Gypsies, Tsakali-Wash- dus and would eat food prepared by any-
ermen, Mangali-Barbers, Turka-Turks, Ka- one. In no instance, however, was it ob-
sha-Quarrymen, Vadda-Rockcrushers, Du- served that Muslims did accept cooked foods
dekulu-Cottoncarders, and Arukali-Sooth- from the hands of Harijans. Third, the
sayers), (7) Harijans A (Dasari-Weaver unique position of a set of castes known as
Priests), (8) Harijans B (Mala-Weavers, the panchala (five artisan castes) is clear.
Baine-Leatherworker Priests and Madiga- The panchulu, locally represented by the
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I++lII.
I I I I I 1 1 . 1 I I I I I I I l l + + + * +
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I + + * + +
I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l + + * + + +
I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l + * + + + +
I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l + * + + + + +
I I I I I I I I I I I l l II*++++++
I I I I I I I I I I l I I I * l I - t + + + +
--
I I I I I I I I I I Ill*++++++++
--
I I I I I I I I I I II*l+++++f++
--
I I I I I I I I I I I*II+$++++++
--
I I I I I I I I I I *+++++++++++
-
I I+++++++* t+++++++++++
II++++++.t t+++++++++++
I I f + + + + * + t t+++++++++++
II+++f.++t t + + + + + + + + + + +
I I + f + * + + + t+++++++++++
II++*+f++t t + + + + + + + + + + +
I I+*+++++t t+++++++++++
II*++++f+t t + + + + + + + + + + +
Y
*+I
I I++
I++
I I I I I I
+++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++
I+lll+++++++ll+
I I I I I I I+lll+++++++ll+
I I I I I I I+lll+++++++ll+
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vorno Central Left- hand Marginal Muslim
(applies to Hindu castes castes castes castes
castes only)
BRAHMIN m
121
VAISHYA 131
SHUDRA
HARIJAN Dcl
m
rn
Hiebert 1
1. Ranking of Konduru castes by caste sets. Castes are listed by code number.
FIGURE
Ausali-Goldsmiths, Vadla-Carpenters, and have their own priests, and, for the most
Kamari-Ironsmiths, consider themselves part, speak their own dialects or languages
“brothers” and claim to be Vishva Brah- at home. Such castes would include the
mins, refusing the services of regular Brah- Chenchu-Tribesmen, Larnbardi-Gypsies,
min priests in the village. Old timers refer Arukali-Soothsayers, and Dakali-Pariahs.
to them as the “left-hand” castes in contrast I n the light of ethnographic data, it ap-
to other Hindu castes, which are “right pears that the caste hierarchy in a village
hand,” probably referring to the fact that should not be viewed as a single scale along
the left hand is defiled and subservient to which all castes are ranked. Rather, castes
the right. Local myths link the panchulu belong to different sets, each of which has a
with the Harijan caste of Madiga-Leather- clear internal rank order. Confusion arises
workers, also a left-hand caste. In matters of more in relating ranks between sets than
food the punchalu stand clearly apart. within a set.9 By combining statistical and
Hindu informants, including the lowest Shu- ethnographic data in a multiscaled model
dras, claimed that until the last decade or (Figure l ) , a clearer perspective of caste
two they had refused to touch food prepared ranking is obtained. Considering the pan-
by the punchula. The panchalu, for their chalu castes separately, the sharp distinction
part, refuse all foods prepared by all other between upper High Shudras (Reddi-Farmer
castes, including Brahmins. Only in the last A and Tambali-Temple Asst. A ) and the
few years have Low Shudras begun to re- lower High Shudras (Nambi-Temple Asst. B,
ceive food from the hands of the punchalas. Munnuru-Farmer B, and Golla-Herdsmen)
In addition to the separate caste sets of becomes statistically apparent.
Muslim castes and of left-hand castes, a In order to test whether informants ap-
third set should be noted, namely transient plied essentially the same standards in rank-
castes that share only minimally in the ing the castes and agreed on the ranking, a
Hindu social system and relate only margin- Kendal Coefficient of Concordance was cal-
ally to its hierarchy. Most of them reside culated for the rank scores. The result,
outside the village, observe their own rituals, W = 0.85, shows a high rate of agreement
among rankers ( W ranges from 0 to 1). + Rank divisions
mode by fourteen
Rank divisions
made by eleven
Rank divisions
made by eleven
In order to check consistency over time, the Vaishya, High Low Shudra Harijan
Shudro, and Mid informants informants
same test was administered to eleven of the Shudra informants
same informants a year and a half later. The I Brahmin A I I Brahmin A I Brahmin A
retests were compared with the original tests
using the Kendal Rank Correlation Coeffi-
cient. The results are given in Table 6. The
7 1 I Brahmin B I BrahmhB 1 I
average correlation of T = 0.81 for the 1 Merchant I I Merchant I 1 Merchant I
eleven informants shows considerable con- Goldsmith Goldsmith
sistency over the period of more than one Farmer A Farmer A Farmer A
Temple Asst. A Temple Asst. A Temple Asst. A
year. Ironsmith Ironsmith . Ironsmith
Do high- and low-caste informants agree Carpenter Carpenter Carpenter
Temple Asst. B Temple Asst. B Temple Psst. B
on the social divisions of the village? Hindu Farmer B Farmer B Farmer B
Herdsman Herdsman Herdsman
informants were divided into three groups; Potter Potter
high caste informants (14), Low Shudra in- Gatherer Gatherer
Potter Winetapper Winetapper
formants ( 11), and Harijan informants ( 11). Gatherer Courtesan Courtesan
Muslim informants were omitted due to their Winetapper
small sample size and marginal nature. Mus-

lim and marginal castes were omitted from
the responses so that a rank order of Hindu
castes resident in the village could be ob- I Weaver Priest 1 I Weaver Priest 1 I Weover Priest I
tained. For each group of informants, signifi-
I I
cant social divisions were calculated using Leatherworker Leatherworker
the techniques outlined above. Caste pairs Leatherwk. Pr. Leatherwk. Pr.
were set up and significantly ranked pairs Weaver I Leatherwk. Pr. I
were noted. With e = 0.05 the critical level
for 14 informants is 11 (probability = I Pariah I I Pariah I
0.057),and for 11 informants it is 10 (prob-
FIGURE2. Caste rank divisions made by infor-
mants from three social levels.
TABLE6. CORRELATIONS
BETWEEN TESTS AND
RETFSTS USlNO THE KENDAL RANK
COEFFICIE~ OF CORRELATION ability = 0.012). If either caste of a pair
equalled or exceeded the critical number in
Correlation Correlation first place scores, the castes were considered
Informant between test between test
retested and retest of and retest of
of different rank orders. The results are given
caste ranks person ranks in Figure 2. While the number of informants
in each group is low and confidence is not
1st 0.848 0.582 great, the results might suggest trends.
2nd 0.894 0.686 It is interesting to note that all varna
3rd 0.871 0.765
4th 0.890 0.621 Hindu castes differentiate clearly between
5th 0.811 0.542 Brahmins A and Brahmins B (probability
6th 0.720 0.752 scores for high caste informants 0.057, and
7th 0.906 0.634 for Low Shudra informants O.OOO), but Ha-
8th 0.825 0.673
9th 0.707 0.935 rijans lump them together (0.54). High-
10th 0.738 0.830 caste informants also differentiate clearly be-
11th 0.687 0.569 tween High and Mid Shudras, while Low
Shudras and Harijans fail statistically to sep-
Mean correlation arate them. On the other end of the scale,
for the eleven 0.809 0.690
informants all Hindus differentiate Harijan Weaver
Priests and the transient Dakali-Pariahs who
camp outside the village. But high-caste in- It would appear from observations in the
formants merge the rest of the Harijans into village that there is some flexibility for the
a single broad category, while Harijans dif- individual to acquire status outside his caste
ferentiate sharply between Mala-Weavers standing. Such factors as wealth, education,
and Madiga-Leatherworkers on the one hand, leadership abilities, and age are not com-
and the Baine-Leathenvorker Priests on the pletely ignored, at least not within the vil-
other. Since informants seem to lump to- lage, where the individual is known and
gether castes that are furtherest removed judged in his own right. How do these fac-
from themselves in the hierarchy, one might tors relate to a man’s caste status in deter-
conclude that social distance leads to igno- mining his personal rank in the village?
rance of the iiner distinctions of ranking at For theoretical purposes it is postulated
another level of the social order. that each individual has certain statuses that
There is disagreement on the rank of the are determined by his caste and certain
Muslims. Hindus of all levels equate them other statuses that are related to such non-
with the Low Shudras, while the six Muslim caste factors as wealth, education, age, and
informants unanimously place themselves power. As social contexts change, so do the
above the Low Shudras on a par with the statuses that govern the social interaction. In
Mid and High Shudras. To a man, the six some contexts caste statuses predominate, in
Barbers consider themselves higher than others noncaste statuses do. Two consider-
their rivals, the Washermen, but agree that ations, however, prevent a complete separa-
their position is Low Shudra. To a man the tion between these two. In the first
five Washermen place themselves above the place, relationships in the village are often
Barbers. multiplex; that is, multiple sets of statuses
link villagers to each other. Of these, one
may govern any given relationship, but the
INDIVIDUAL RANKING
others cannot be completely ignored. In the
Within a well-defined caste system is second place, caste and noncaste statuses
there room for the individual to extend his are not completely independent of each
sphere of influence? The caste structure has other. Caste statuses often afford advantages
been characterized as static and rigid by to individuals to acquire noncaste statuses.
Cox, Simpson, Yinger and others (Berreman Despite the interaction between them, it is
1960). Keesing observes: possible to conceive of a man’s personal rank
in the village as in some way a sum of his
But segmentation and stratification may have
crystallized to such an extent, and become caste and noncaste statuses. Such a personal
so reinforced by religious and other sanc- rank would correspond with a man’s i d u -
tions, that competition has been eliminated ence in the village.
and the whole system has become immo- In order to test this thesis, Marriott’s
bilized in terms of status and personnel.
Such a fixed class is labeled- a casie technique was used to rank eighteen well-
[1966:2823. known men of Konduru. These men were
selected on the basis of caste, wealth, and
Although the rigid nature of caste has been officesso that there would be representatives
refuted by Srinivas ( 1956), Berreman of leaders and ordinary men from each of
(1960), and others, the idea persists. Bohan- the major levels of the caste order. While
nan writes: this method of selection results in an unusu-
At the other extreme from a situs system ally large sample of leaders, it does provide
of rank is the caste system, where the social contrasts that test the importance of influ-
range of the rank is total; that is, an indi- ence in the village. Two reasons argue
vidual’s caste position affects every aspect against a selection based on random sample.
of his life, and he occupies the same rank
in all the intercaste organizations to which First, in so large a village the chances are
he belongs 11963: 1681. great that many of the men selected would
TABLE
7. C m , O C ~ A T I O N S OFFICES
, AND LAND POSSFSSIONSOF PERSONS
RANKED LISTED IN ORDER OF THEIR CASTE RANKS
Person Caste Occupation Ofice Acres

of land
~~ ~~
Balayya Brahmin A Priest, farming Family priest and guru 40

Krishna Chari Brahmin B Priest, farming Village headman, temple 60,
priest, Pres. of Naya
Panchayat
Peddayya Merchant Moneylending Caste headman, richest 17
man in the area
Balaswami Merchant Small shop, farming 10
Lalayya Goldsmith Smithing, farming Village philosopher 9
Sayanna Temple Asst. A Farming, assistant priest Priest in Hanuman 2
shrine
Narayya Ironsmith Smithing, farming Village architect, herbal 42
doctor
Kondayya Temple Asst. B Tea shop, assistant priest Priest in Hanuman 18
shrine
Lingayya Farmer B Farming Village panchayat clerk 32
Sambayya Herdsman Herding, farming Caste elder 31
Pullayya Winetapper Farming, wine contracting Caste elder 33
Lakshayya Washerman Washing clothes, farming Caste headman 24
Bakayya Barber Begging, village drunkard -
Allaudin Turk Farming Headman of Muslim 25
TUrkS
Ikbal Turk Assistant in mosque, gov- Assistant in mosque 6
ernment worker
Rangayya Weaver Farming Harijan Weaver head- 13
man
Yellayya Weaver Day labor, poor Harijan 1
Pentayya Leatherworker Leathercrafting and farming Leatherworker headman 5
* Of this, 56 acres belong to the R a m temple as trust lands.
TABLE
8. RANKASSIGNED KONDURUPERSONS BY FORTY-TWO INFORMANIS
TO E I G ~ E N
Person ranked* Ranks assigned to persons by iiformantst
Name Caste 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4
~ ~~
Krishna Chari Brahmin B 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

Balayya Brahmin A 3 5 10 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 2
Lalayya Goldsmith 1 4 8 3 7 6 6 2 3 2 4 3 3 3
Peddayya Merchant 5 2 218 4 4 4 6 4 7 2 5 5 5
Narayya Ironsmith 2 6 4 2 6 5 5 3 6 4 5 4 4 4
Lingayya Farmer B 6 7 3 7 2 3 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 7
Pullayya Winetapper 9 14 7 9 14 11 11 11 11 8 9 10 15 15
Allaudin Turk 7 3 9 512 12 12 8 8 6 7 1 4 8 11
Sambayya Herdsman 17 10 11 10 8 8 7 10 13 9 10 9 9 10
Sayanna Temple Asst. A 13 11 13 8 9 9 9 16 7 13 14 12 7 8
Lakshayya Washerman 11 16 6 14 15 14 10 7 18 12 11 11 11 16
Ikbal Turk 8 12 14 12 13 13 8 12 14 14 8 7 14 12
Balaswami Merchant 12 9 15 15 5 7 16 13 9 11 13 8 10 6
Rangayya Weaver 10 8 5 6 10 16 14 9 15 10 12 15 12 13
Kondayya Temple Asst. B 14 13 16 16 16 10 13 17 12 16 15 13 13 9
Pentayya Leatherworker 15 18 12 11 11 17 15 14 16 15 16 16 16 18
Bakkayya Barber 18 15 18 17 18 15 17 15 10 18 18 18 17 14
Yellayya Weaver 16 17 17 13 17 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 18 17
* Listed in order of their personal ranks.

t Listed by their code numka.
TABLE
8. (continued)
Person ranked* Ranks assigned to persons by informantst

Name Caste 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Balayya Brahmin A 1 2 4 3 4 7 3 3 2 2 2 2 6 2
Peddayya Merchant 4 6 2 2 5 3 2 2 3 5 4 5 2 3
Pullayya Winetapper 13 7 9 7 11 5 9 15 17 7 13 13 8 10
Allaudin Turk 5 11 13 11 9 10 11 11 9 11 8 9 5 4
Ikbal Turk 15 12 10 16 8 12 7 12 8 16 11 12 13 8
Rangayya Weaver 16 10 14 14 16 9 13 9 15 8 15 16 12 15
Bakkayya Barber 12 18 16 15 15 14 18 18 14 15 17 15 18 18
Yellayya Weaver 18 15 17 17 18 18 17 17 16 18 16 18 14 16

t Lmtcd by their code numbers.
not be known by all the informants. Second, group includes a broad range of ranks. The
the types of contrasts sought, that is high- lowest four members of this group fall
caste commoners vs. low-caste leaders, clearly below a group of men at the top, but
would probably not appear. The test is a test overlap precludes a statistical division.
of the range of status variability rather than From comments made by informants dur-
of mean variation. ing the test it became clear that Krishna
The same forty-two informants were Chari (priest, Brahmin B) ranks above Ba-
asked to rank these eighteen men on the layya (priest, Brahmin A) largely because
basis of their influence in the village. Vil- of his influence as the acknowledged head-
lagers speak of this as marru (word), refer- man of the village. In traceable history this
ring to a man’s influence in such affairs as office has circulated among dBerent Brah-
village councils. Statuses of the individuals min castes in Konduru. Yet more than caste
ranked and rank responses are given in Ta- is required. A man must have the ability to
bles 7 and 8. unite people, to provide leadership, and to
Using techniques similar to those applied help settle village disputes peaceably. Other
to caste ranks, a Friedman’s Chi Square of Brahmins in the village own more land or
560 was found for the ranking, which is sig- money yet have less influence in village af-
nificant well above the 99 percent level. In- fairs. As acknowledged headman, Krishna
dividuals were paired and significant differ- Chari controls the indigenous village coun-
ences noted. The critical levels remain the cils, and as elected chairman of the recently
same with the same number of informants. formed village Naya Panchayat he controls
Statistically, four groups are formed (Table the formal political structure.
9 ) : village headman, village priest, high The third category of men consists of
caste elders, and general villagers. The last high-caste leaders. It includes those active in
TABLE
8. (continued)
Person ranked* Ranks assigned 10 persons by informantst
Name Caste 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Balayya Brahmin A 1 1 2 2 4 3 6 2 2 6 2 2 2 7 4
Peddayya Merchant 5 3 6 3 5 4 3 6 7 4 7 6 5 2
Pullayya Winetapper 10 9 1 0 7 1 2 8 1 1 7 1 0 8 8 1 5 6 7
Allaudin Turk 6 8 5 11 10 9 14 10 12 10 6 11 12 11
Ikbal Turk 8 10 9 13 14 1.5 13 15 11 11 10 9 8 13
Rangayya Weaver 9 15 8 15 7 12 15 13 3 14 9 12 9 10
Bakkayya Barber 17 16 17 16 16 17 16 16 18 15 13 18 18 17
Yellayya Weaver 16 17 18 17 18 18 17 18 16 18 16 16 17 18

t Listed by their code numbers.
the local village government together with plex nature in comparison with the more
the village philosopher and the Vaishya mon- stable caste rank.
eylender who is the richest man in the val-
ley. Included in the main body of general COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
villagers are the leaders of the Low Shudra,
Muslim, and Harijan castes as well as com- A comparison of caste and personal ranks
mon high-caste merchants and priests. It is can give us some insight into the complex
noteworthy that Rangayya, acknowledged nature of status ranking in Konduru. In or-
spokesman for the Weaver Harijan der to compare caste and personal ranks a
caste, ranks equal with a twice-born Vaishya Kendal Coefficient of Correlation was cal-
merchant and two High Shudra priests and culated for the scores of each informant be-
significantly above the Low Shudra village tween the actual personal rank order and the
drunkard. predicted rank order of these persons based
There was less overall agreement among on their caste alone (using the informant’s
informants on personal ranks (Kendal Coef- own caste-ranking data). The distribution of
ficient of Correspondence W = 0.787) than Kendal Coefficients of Correlation for the
on caste ranks ( W = 0.848). Moreover in- forty-two informants is given in Table 10.
formants showed less consistency in ranking The average correlation of the forty-two in-
individuals over time. The mean Kendal formants was T = 0.514 ( T ranges between
Coefficient of Correlation for the retests of +
- 1 and 1) . Not only is the mean correla-
personal rank was only 0.690 compared tion low, but the range is also surprisingly
with a retest correlation of 0.809 for castes. broad (0.08 to 0.82). While caste rank plays
Both statktics seem to point out the more a significant role in determining personal
fluid nature of personal rank with its com- rank, it is obvious that such noncaste fac-
Krishna Chari 39 40 42 40 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
3 2 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30 28 32 31 42 39 42 42 40 41 42 40 42 42 42 42
Balayya 12 14 10 11 - 3 - - 2 1 - 2 - - - -
21 24 26 30 39 38 41
LakshaYYa 21 18 16' 12 3 4 1
NOTES : 24 22 29 39 38 42
Individual names refer to both the column under Ikbal 18 20 13 3 4 -
which the name appears and to the pair of rows on 40 39
which the name is centered. 2 3
Row individual is ranked higher than the col- 36 42
umn individual in the number of instances shown
by the upper number. Column individual is ranked
higher than the row individual in the number of
instances shown by the lower number.
Lines are drawn between scores showing a sig-
Eli
23
Pentayya 19
-
37
-.r
nificant difference in rank and those that d o not.

Heavy lines between names mark statistically sig-
Bakkayya ;;
nificant breaks in the rank order. Yellayya
10. DISTRIBUTION
TABLE OF KENDALCOEFFICIENTS
OF CORRELATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL
RANKINQS OF PERSONS AND CASTES
Frequency of
Range of scores
occurrence -I
5
0 * 80+ 1 w
I
0 . 7 M .79 3 t-
O.W.69 11 z
v,
0.50-0.59 9 3
0.40-0.49
0.30-0.39
8
5
E
v,
0.20-0.29 2
0.10-0.19 2
O.OO-O.09 1
HIEBERT] Caste and Personal Rank 45 1
tors as wealth and leadership are not ignored In Figures 3 and 4, the angle of tilt mea-
in the village context. sures the relative importance of caste in de-
A useful model for relating caste and termining the personal rank order of the vil-
noncaste statuses in the village can be found lage. Although the angle cannot be mea-
in vector analysis (Figure 3). Caste and sured until the whole model is quantified, an
noncaste statuses appear as the two dimen- estimate can be made from the correlation
sions in the social hierarchy. A man’s per- between caste and person rank orders and
sonal rank is the sum of these two vectors. from an application of the model to the vil-
With this model it becomes clear how an in- lage as a whole (Figure 5 ) .
fluential Harijan can rank higher in the eyes
of fellow villagers than a disrespected Shu- CONCLUSIONS
dra and equal with an ordinary high-caste
man (Figure 4). Caste rank is important in an Indian vil-
From 5. A vector model of caste and noncaste status factors in

Konduru village. The example used shows how a leading Harijan, in
this case Rangayya (a), can rank equal to a common Merchant,
Balaswami (b).
lage, but caste alone does not determine a for the whole article are taken from the United
man’s personal rank. In the context of his States Department of Commerce, National
Bureau of Standards, tables of the Binomial
own village, where he is judged as a person, Probability Distribution.
a man can gain influence through noncaste ‘ I would like to express particular apprecia-
channels. The range of personal mobility is tion to Dr. McKim Marriott for his generous
limited, however, by the dominant role advice and valuable recommendations during
played by the caste hierarchy in determining the writing of this article.
‘The English word “pariah,” derived from
a man’s personal status in the village. the Tamil word puruiyan, has come to mean
a member of a low caste of Southern India
NOTES or Burma. Although the term has accumulated
numerous other connotations, its use here is in
’The fieldwork on which this paper is based this sense only. The Dakali caste is the lowest
extended from January 1964 to December 1965 of the low near Konduru. Its members can not
in Aadhra Pradesh, India. I would like to ex- reside among the Harijans but must camp out-
press my appreciation to the Foreign Area side the village. They make a living by begging
Fellowship Program, whose support made this from the Harijan Leatherworkers.
fieldwork possible, and to Dr. E. A. Hoebel ’Some indications of the confusion in rank-
and Dr. R. F. Spencer, University of Minne- ing peripheral caste sets can be seen by com-
sota, for their guidance and valuable criticism paring the range of rank scores assigned to core
during the research period. The author assumes resident castes with the ranges of scores as-
sole responsibility for the ideas expressed. signed to peripheral caste sets. The average
‘Unknown to the author at the time of re- range of rank scores for eighteen core castes
search were some earlier attempts at using is 11.67. For five left-hand castes the range is
Marriott’s technique to rank individuals. Mar- 18.6, for transient castes 20.4, and for Muslim
riott himself reported individual ranking in castes 22.
1952 (reprinted in M. N. Srinivas 1955b:113)
and in a paper read before the A.A.A. meet-
ings in Tucson, 1952. REFERENCES CITED
a The term “Harijan,” literally “god‘s peo-
ple,” was coined by Gandhi in referring to BERREMAN,GERALDD.
those castes often called untouchable o r out- 1960 Caste in India and the United States.
caste. In Konduru the line between varna The American Journal of Sociology 66:
castes and Harijans is sharp. Harijans still do 120-127.
not enter the central Hindu temple or attend BOHANNAN, PAUL
entertainment staged in the village square; they 1963 Social anthropology. New York:
have their own temples and stage their own Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
entertainment. DIXON,W. J., AND FRANK J. MASSEY
‘Selection was made using the tables of ran- 1957 Introduction to statistical analysis.
dom numbers found in Dixon and Massey New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
1957:366-370. DUBE,S. C.
‘This test was recommended by Dr. W. J. 1955 Ranking of castes in Telangana vil-
Conover of the Department of Statistics, Kansas lages. The Eastern Anthropologist 8: 182-
State University. For the purist, the Friedman’s 190. Calcutta: Eka Press.
Chi Square is the only statistically valid mea- FREED,STANLEY A.
sure of ranking used in this analysis. While 1963 An objective method for determining
the multiple application of the binomial the collective caste hierarchy of an Indian
theorem to test internal differences undermines village. American Anthropologist 65: 879-
confidence in the level of alpha, this approach 891.
does give us a useful approximation of the KEESING,FELIX M.
rank orders. The Friedman’s Chi Square could 1966 Cultural anthropology, the science of
also have been used to determine internal divi- custom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
sions. As the number of informants increases, Winston.
both the Friedman’s distribution and the bi- MAHAR,P. M.
nomial distribution approach a normal curve. 1959 A multiple scaling technique for caste
With N = 42 there is no difference between ranking. Man in India 39:127-147. Cal-
the two tests at the critical levels. The bi- cutta: Sakti Press.
nomial theorem was used to conform to earlier MARRIOTT,M c W
practices. 1960 Caste ranking and community struc-
’Probability scores for the binomial theorem ture in five regions of h d i a and Pakistan.
Deccan College Monograph Series, 23. 195Sa The social system of a Mysore vil-
Poona, India. lage. In Village India: studies in the little
1968 Caste ranking and food transactions: community. McKim Marriott, ed. Corn-
a matrix analysis. In Structure and change parative studies of cultures and civiliza-
in Indian society. Milton Singer and Ber- tions, 6. American Anthropological Asso-
nard S. Cohn, eds. Chicago: Aldine Pub- ciation Memoir 83. Chicago: University
lishing Company. of Chicago Press.
MAYER, ADRIANC. 1955b India’s villages. Bombay: Asia Pub-
1956 Some hierarchical aspects of caste. lishing House.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
12: 117-144. NATIONALBUREAUOF STANDARDS
1960 Caste and kinship in central India. 1950 Tables of the binomial probability
Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of distribution. Applied Mathematics Series,
California Press. 6. Washington: U. S. Government Print-
SRINIVAS,M. N. ing Office.
BULLETINS
OF THE
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
REPORT,the GUIDETO DEPART-
Incorporating the ANNUAL
MENTS OF ANTHROPOLOGY, PROGRAM
the PRELIMINARY and
OF PAPERS
ABSTRACTS OF THE MEETING.Pub-
ANNUAL
lished three times a year. By subscription to nonmebers
45.00
BULLETINS
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
1703 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009

Caste and Personal Rank in An Indian Village: An Extension in Techniques

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Caste and Personal Rank in An Indian Village: An Extension in Techniques

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Caste and Personal Rank in an Indian Village:

S TATUS HIERARCHY is obviously an

Major socia[ Religious Telugu caste English Families resident Percet"age

B. Panchala Disputed Ausali

C . Once-born Shudra Reddi

Outside Arabi Arabs 1'

Informant’s Social Caste Age Remarks

1 Vaishya Komati-Merchant 35 rich storeowner

Caste Ranks assigned to castes by informants*

* Listed by their code numbers.

Caste Ranks assigned to castes by informants*

Listed by their code numbers.

Caste Ranks assigned to castes by informants*

* Listed by their code numbers.

HARIJAN B Leatherwk. Pr. (28) 18

Leatherworker (29) I3g

small sample size and marginal nature. Mus-

Person Caste Occupation Ofice Acres

Balayya Brahmin A Priest, farming Family priest and guru 40

* Of this, 56 acres belong to the R a m temple as trust lands.

Person ranked* Ranks assigned to persons by iiformantst

Krishna Chari Brahmin B 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1

* Listed in order of their personal ranks.

Person ranked* Ranks assigned to persons by informantst

Krishna Chari Brahmin B 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* Listed in order of their personal ranks.

Person ranked* Ranks assigned 10 persons by informantst

Krishna Chari Brahmin B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

* Listed in order of their personal ranks.

nificant difference in rank and those that d o not.

From 5. A vector model of caste and noncaste status factors in

Potrebbero piacerti anche