SOCIAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL...

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.


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%



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



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%



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.


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



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%



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%


**OCB- Other members of own caste/ biradari


. 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

SOCIAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL...

Documents

Transcript of SOCIAL INTERACTION: AN ANALYTICAL MODEL...