American Verna
“The American Verna” Why is that humans were able to practically “take over”
their environment and leave all other animal species far behind in the race of
survival? Not many would argue that we were able to do so just because we can
walk upright and we have unspecialized teeth. In fact, humans are capable of
many things that separate us from the animals. Our far most important trait is
the ability to analyze and comprehend complex subject matters. From that we can
learn, understand and communicate with one another so we could accomplish things
as a group, a group which one day became so complex that without structure and
laws, chaos would preside. In our times, we see many distinct cultures where
each has its own way of organizing and way of keeping its people in harmony.
Although most of the world is leaning towards democracy, there are few nations
who believe in the ancient ways. One of the most controversial civilizations
studied is the Indian civilization, which developed and flourished as early as
7000 B.C.E. The controversy rises from a harsh though well-thought
classification of people due to their skin color and other physical
characteristics. To democratic America this may sound a bit horrifying although
some even argue that the United States maintains some sort of a caste system
perhaps even as harsh as the one in India. This idea can surely be proven wrong
through a close comparison of the Indian social structure and the American
freedom. A false conclusion should not be made that there is no sort of a caste
system in America, but one that is not as rigid nor providing social importance
as the one in Ancient Indian culture.
The way a culture develops and evolves
plays a major role of how the system would stand. As explained later, there are
few theories of how and why a caste system is created, but all studied caste
systems have common foundations. One common issue is that there are physical
differences between each caste whether they associate with the way a person can
perform activities or not. However, a major difference is how the separate
classes serve and correlate with one another. Manu, one of the earliest rulers
of India, wrote a description of the Indian social structure. The Law of Manu
consists of a brief explanation of what are the objectives and duties of each
Indian class, also know as Varna. Even though the lower castes were involved in
more physical obligations, it clearly shows that the upper classes were also
involved in someway of serving the lower classes: Teaching, studying performing
sacrificial rites, so too making others perform sacrificial rites, and giving
away and receiving gifts- these he assigned to the [Brahmins]. Protection of the
people, giving away of wealth, performance of sacrificial rites, study, and
nonattachment to sensual pleasures- these are, in short, are the duties of the
kshatriya. Tending to cattle, giving away of wealth, performance of sacrificial
rites, study, trade and commerce, usury, and agriculture- these are the
occupations of the Vaisya. The lord has prescribed only one occupation [karma]
for a Sudra, namely, service without malice of even these other three classes.
Within the Indian culture, there is a great level of interaction between the
different classes, unlike in the early United States, where Americans imported
an entire society and forced them to serve as their lower class. The slaves were
treated with unbearable conditions, which made them develop hate and the need to
revolt. The aftermath of the civil war included the abolishment of slavery
though racism still plays a major role. Just the fact that there was a need for
a revolution shows how negatively based the American system became.
Lower
classes wanted to climb the social ladder and are now able to do so. In Indian
societies the movement up the hierarchy is not as simple as getting your
education and working a good job. In fact, the concept of changing one’s Varna
during his lifetime was unheard of. In order to “get bumped up” the Indians had
to follow the Dharma which is described as “a law regulating human behavior and
imposes different requirements on different individual depending on their status
in society.” Living by the Dharma creates good Kharma, which is measured with
death. Good Kharma could be vaguely compared to money, not in a sense of buying
materialistic objects, but in a sense of gaining in order to have a better life.
If the good Kharma had been obtained through the person’s life, he would have
the opportunity to reincarnate and achieve higher status in the next lifetime.
This is also a reason why Indians seem to live and accept their status since
they have the constant belief that things would be better after death.
Revolting, would just create bad Kharma and “ruin” the person’s future life. The
degree of Social mobility, as Vijai Singh points out, is inversely related to
the extent of the association between status of parents and status of children.
Because of the strong relation of one’s class to his parents, social mobility is
very difficult to achieve. In contrast, in the United States, there are many
institutions, which help lower class people (those with low financial means) to
break the patterns of their parents, receive an education, and obtain a career,
which would grant them a brighter future. When comparing how rigid different
social structures are, we must examine how easy it is to achieve mobility
between the classes.
There are two perspectives when examining social mobility;
as a society, the progress towards perfect social mobility, would eventually
eliminate the caste structure. As an individual, the advance towards social
mobility comes with the accepting of the existence of the individual’s place in
the caste system. Political movements toward social mobility in the United
States show how the caste system is becoming more and more malleable as time
goes by. Unlike other ancient societies, India’s Caste System did not change
much through the years. A cause could be in the human’s nature of the need for
belonging to a whole. There are two main approaches that could break the
firmness of a social structure. One comes from outside the system by
enculturation, and attacks the un-fairness of the structure with compare to
other ones. A second approach could be made by the lower classes demanding for
better conditions. In India, there seems to be a form of harmony and peace
within the lower classes. The “Herd Theory” explains this phenomenon by going
back to the nature of human behavior. As other animals, people seem to think
that a great form of self-defense is associating with ones who seem share common
characteristics. By belonging to a “herd” one’s opinion is backed up by others
and seem to have greater impact. If one were to leave the group, he would feel
lonely, powerless and more vulnerable. A caste system cannot be more rigid than
the one that its own people are happy with. In the United States, which is also
known as the “Salad Bowl”, there are so many separate groups where one does not
have much to loose when trying to make a change. The more diverse a society is,
the more different opinions it contains, and the harder it is for people relate
to one main group. If a person steps out of his group to voice his opinion, many
others would follow him and create a new subgroup. This new group would shake
the structure by offsetting the position on the ladder of other groups.
A lack
of diversity keeps a structure solid. Although there are differences between the
castes, there is still a sense of nationalism and belonging to a culture, not
just a caste. In the U.S., Non-Americans have a hard time adapting a sense of
belonging to a whole and therefore feel insecure. Also lack of diversity creates
less of a difference between the body of religion and the body of law. In many
societies, there are times where the following of religion interferes in with
the way of the law. Perhaps a radical example, human sacrifice is still
practiced by few religions. If it were not for the prohibition of performing
such acts, maybe those religions would be more accepted and popular within
contemporary societies. The incorporation of law and religion makes a system
much less complex, therefore more rigid. In India, there is a major integration
of both law and religion. However, it seems as though religion comes first, in
the supporting of the caste system. Louis Dumont suggests in his book that the
caste system was developed as a result of the corruption of the Brahmins. He
says that the “philosophy of enlightenment, ‘superstition’ was an invention of
the priests, for their own benefit.” This theory supports their strong belief in
religion. The people of the lower castes were so ‘religiously naïve’ that
thoughts of corruption in this religious class were non-existent. This strong
belief in religion is perhaps the backbone of the strong Indian social
structure. Although similarities between the American and the Indian Caste
systems exist, an important difference emerges due to the antiquity of the
system. Because of how comparably new the American system is, it is therefore
more flexible and modern. The Indian structure is so old, that it’s laws seem to
be carved in stone. Movement from strict adherence of religion towards objective
thinking is directly caused by the development of science and technology.
However, emphasis on tradition kept the Indian system in tact. From the American
point of view, the Indian caste system could serve as a goal to strive for, or
something it should avoid. Both views prove how rigid the Indian caste system
is. If seen as a goal, it would take many years, as it took for the Indians, to
develop such strict system. In contrast, if it were seen as something to avoid,
then the American system would surely stray from such rigid laws and behaviors.
It is known to be a part of human’s nature to strive for superiority and power.
But we should not think that this superiority would always lead to greed and
corruption. From the Indian system we learn that the direct effects of outlining
the requirements and power of people are peace, order, and the triumph of a
unique culture. What emerged from the early Hinduism and Buddhism stays with us
today. The way the Indians accept the terms and conditions already given to them
is remarkable and perhaps the main reason why the Indian culture has been so
successful over thousands of years. Their wants needs, and duties are outlined
through a complex interaction of religion and law, but ironically they just seem
to be happy with whatever they have. In America, the fact that there is such an
option of creating a better life already depicts a significant difference from
the Indian social structure. Freedom of making decisions is considered a basic
need for an individual, but it may promote the deterioration of a strong
structure. While racism still plays a major role in the American way, many
Americans are fighting in order to abolish it and many changes have been
introduced during that last century. Such movements are not seen in India as
often since the construction of its society has little to do with money and
power. It is strongly based on tradition, religion and the aspiration of living
a better life in the afterworld
|
