How sociology helps to make sense of the world!

“One should marry a woman whose virginity is intact, endowed with auspicious marks, not previously wed by another, dear to one’s heart, of the same varna, not a sapinda, younger than oneself, not diseased, not from the same pravara and gotra, possessing a brother…”

Yajnavalkaya Smriti, 1.52-55

The application of seemingly abstract field of sociology in real life made sense to me when I came across the above quote mentioned by Uma Chakravarti (2006). The relevance of this statement even to this day, almost 15-17 centuries ahead since the time of this Smriti, is startling. Controlling a woman’s sexuality, endogamy, placing expectations of purity on women is all too common even to this day. But before getting exposed to sociological imagination, much of my analysis of society was based purely on my personal experiences (also encompassing that of my family and friends) and the readings on social media and print.

“The sociological imagination allows us to see that many events that seem to concern only the individual actually reflect larger issues” (Giddens, 2001). While common sense understanding stems from a collection of personal experiences, sociological understanding of an issue requires thorough research to generate the empirical evidences. While common sense understanding could be clouded by bias and prejudice, the sociological understanding required scientific analysis of the evidence and constant evaluation of the available theories against new data according to the changing social phenomena. “Sociological work is certainly not confined to ‘factual’ description but takes a crucial stance where common-sense knowledge, fact and evidence are critically examined” (Burgess, 1986).

Common sense understanding of gender:

Unlike caste and class understanding, about which I had lesser sociological understanding, gender issue was something I thought I had a good understanding of. After studying different research papers what I realised I knew was, the various issues concerning gender. Most of it was the popular view held in print and social media.

I had a strong sense of on-going inequality against women in India and world in general. The fact that it had to be eradicated was clear in my mind. But my common sense understanding made me don an attitude that if anyone so wishes to break the gender inequality then one can do it easily. I thought all that was required was a will to bring in equality and all hurdles in the way can be overcome. I thought of gender inequality on a case-by-case basis. The examples were heavily drawn from my own life.

My sisters and I have had the privilege to be brought up without much discrimination owing to our gender. Our parents instilled the attitude that we can achieve anything if we want to. Not realising the privileged position I was in, I secretly judged all those other women in my family and friends who could not carve a life out for themselves according to their wish. When they depended on the male counterparts in their families for major decisions, I thought it to be a case of less mental resolve to overcome challenges. But what I failed to observe was the intricate patriarchy and the class differences under the influence of which, these women had lost the power to take decisions independently.

My common sense understanding about reservations (in education and employment) was apprehensive. I believed that if men and women with the same background had to compete for social goods then it has to be based purely on merit. Here my lack of understanding about the sociological background of women made me think that there shouldn’t be any reservation for women. I thought this would level the playing field and successful women can actually prove their mettle to the world. My basis for considering reservation was purely economic conditions and not a bit of social, caste or regional circumstances.

Having grown up in an upper caste family and educational institution (during my schooling), I ascribed to the definition of a ‘good Hindu girl’. I mirrored brahminical expectations on topics of dressing, language (the tone and words a girl is supposed to use) and the company I keep (friends should be modest, not outspoken and definitely not boys!). To come out of this mentality, I had to travel enough and read enough. Hence I came to look at gender stereotyping and segregation as matters of exposure. The more exposed a person is to different places and people; the more liberal one is in thinking about gender roles. This was in total opposition to the basic tenet of human freedom and expression.

Coming to the common gender stereotyping and segregation I assumed that the men and women perpetuating this need only be told about this and they would alter their behaviour/action. The apparent misjudgement in this regard was that I thought by creating a cognitive dissonance in people the issue of gender stereotyping could be overcome. Having gone through the feminist theories I can now say that in this case I assumed that systemic change in terms of socio-politico and economic opportunities do not need to be fixed for rectifying the gender divide. As happens with a lot of exposure to popular media, I looked at the whole gender issue as an attitudinal problem of the society. What it takes to solve this ‘attitudinal’ problem, I had no clue!

Sociological understanding of gender:

The biggest lesson for me was learning the functionalist view of sociology that all parts of society influence an issue. In case of my common sense understanding of gender that most importantly everything boiled down to the attitude of a person was a highly insufficient explanation of an issue as critical and convoluted as gender equality.

Ambedkar’s writing in ‘Castes in India’ illustrates a theory of how castes were born in India. This theory holds that controlling women’s sexuality by endogamy (marrying within a caste group) child marriage and resistance of widow remarriage was the tool to maintain the lineage of a particular caste. Through this, the concept of ‘purity’ arose and to this day haunts our Indian society in ways of honour killing, high resistance to inter-caste and religion marriage, child marriage, widow destitution etc., Such an endogamous system maintains the position of women in society which is always lower to that of men since the latter holds the power to use women to sustain their societal position (Chakravarti, 2006). Ambedkar argues that these high-caste practices spread to lower groups that were excluded through the ‘infection of imitation’. This has historically led to women being looked at objects of maintaining social order and confined to familial duties thereby losing out on getting an education. This is a valid explanation of the birth of patriarchy and explains how little power the women enjoy in deciding the crucial matters of their lives (choice of education and life partner).

Women often get subjected to double-discrimination due to the caste-class status that they are at and secondly due to their gender roles. Chakravarti (2006) hence posits that women’s problems should be situated in both high and low castes and classes. Acker (1994) calls for “abolition of gender as an oppressive cultural reality”. While evaluating the position of women in society one simply cannot ignore their castes and classes. Although Census (2011) reports that there has been an increase in women literacy among SC and ST women (about 14.6%), the gender gap is still very huge. While the literacy rate of SC women is 56.5% that of men is 75.2%. Similar gender divide in literacy occurs among ST women with a literacy rate of 50% and ST men with a literacy rate of 68.5%. In higher education, SC/ST girls occupy more seats in courses related to Arts, that doesn’t lead to much economic remuneration in future, when compared to Science and Commerce streams (Mishra, 2011).

Even when compared to the overall population, Indian female literacy stands at 65.46% which is far below that of men’s at 82.14%. Even in terms of labour force participation,[1] there is a 60% gap among men and women in urban area while the percentage stands at 45% for rural areas. The gender disparity in wages is also quite large in India with a difference of about Rs.150.3 for formal sector employment and Rs.73.9 for informal sector. My personal experience in our family plantation has also confirmed the same disparity in wages.

In matters of education again the issue of controlling female sexuality arises. Parents discourage secondary school going girls from attending school in fear of compromising with their sexual freedom (Nair, 2010). According to a study conducted by British Council (2014), women occupy fewer seats in higher positions of academics. The statistics is simply too significant to ignore the issue of reservation for women. Since they suffer from such deep rooted discriminations in education and employment, I am convinced to believe that positive discrimination in the form of reservation is required for women.

Acker (1994) argues that patriarchy has a material base and that it is not just a mental construct. There are three views of feminism that have different premises for defining gender discrimination and thus different focus areas for education of women. Liberal feminism that believes that the gender discrimination arises due to prejudices against women, sexist attitudes and differential socialisation calls for a focus on equal opportunities for women, equally opening up occupational and family roles for girls and choice in curriculum. Socialist feminism that holds capitalism responsible for gender discrimination thinks that women’s liberation lies in possession of property. To give the invisible and devalued labour (giving birth, cooking, elderly care and making a home) appropriate due, socialist feminists call for links between schools and motherhood; sexual division of labour in schools and gendered skill development. Radical feminism believes that patriarchy is not a product of capitalism and hence cuts across classes, castes and other systems of stratification. This calls for elimination of male dominance and patriarchal structures; abolition of male monopoly over culture and knowledge; critical analysis of sexual politics of everyday life in schools and declares the goal of education as the “abolition of gender as an oppressive cultural reality”.

The above mentioned feminist theories gave me a clear idea of different perspectives of gender equality in education and what to focus on to eliminate gender inequality.

Conclusion:

The course on Sociology in Education opened up avenues to tackle gender inequality critically. It enabled me to read numerous essays and books on feminism. To extend my understanding of feminism in a context different from that of India, I explored Gloria Steinem’s book “As if women matter” and articles to see the extent of gender inequality that plaques American society in education, employment, fashion and social expectations. Kumud Pawde’s (1992) story of her Sanskrit showed how brutal the gender discrimination can be in urban milieu. Uma Chakravarti (2006) mentioned Shivaram Karanth’s seminal work “Chomana Dudi” in one of her articles and since it was in my mother tongue Kannada, I read it. It showed the ugly face of gender violence that the women of lower caste have to go through. Santimmi’s Kannada work on describing Ramayana from Sita’s point of view showed allowed me to discover how women’s subjugation has been glorified in our mythology and history.

This course dramatically affected the way I came to look at gender inequality in the society. Peter McLaren stated that “education has been reduced to a sub-sector of the economy”. Instead of that, what we need today is Friere’s (1974) critical pedagogy that enables students and thereby the society to think critically of assumptions, biases, prejudices, stringent paradigms and hegemonic characteristics of caste, class and other social groups in the society.

References:

·        Giddens, A. (2001) ‘What is Sociology?’ In Giddens, A. Sociology, U.K: Cambridge Polity Press. (4th edition)

·        Mills, C.W. (1975) ‘The Promise’, In Mills C.W.Sociological Imagination, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth

·        Acker, S. (1994) ‘Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification’, American Sociological Review, Vol.36.

·        Pawde, Kumud, (1992). “The Story of My Sanskrit.” In Dangle, Arjun, ed. Poisoned Bread: Translation from Modern Literature. Hyderabad: Orient Longman. Pp. 96-106.

·        Weisskopf, Thomas (2004) ‘Impact of Reservation on Admissions to Higher Education in India’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.39, 4339-4349.

·        Mishra, Bojoya (2011), Higher Education of SC/ST Girls in Orissa: A Study of Participation and Attainment, Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 34

·        Ambedkar, B.R. (2002) ‘Castes in India’ in The Essential Writings of B.R.Ambedkar edited by Valerian Rodrigues, Delhi, OUP

·        Chakravarti, Uma (2006), ‘Understanding Caste’ in Gendering Caste. Calcutta, Stree.

·        Chakravarti, Uma (2006), Gendering Caste. Calcutta, Stree. (Chapter 2. ‘The Axis of Gender Stratification in India’)

·        Freire, Paulo (1974) Chapter 2, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press)

·        https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1555.pdf, retrieved on 06.05.2016

·        Critical pedagogy in the age of terror, Peter McLaren, https://www.academia.edu/195758/Critical_Theory_and_Critical_Pedagogy_Today_-_Toward_a_New_Critical_language_in_Education, retrieved on 04.05.2016

·        Nair, Nisha (2010), “Women’s Education in India: A Situational Analysis, vol 01, issue 04, https://www.iimidr.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/Womens-Education-in-India-A-Situational-Analysis.pdf, retrieved on 06.05.2016

·        https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/morley_crossouard_final_report_22_dec2014.pdf, retrieved on 06.05.2016

·        https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/it-sitas-story-not-ramas-told-women-karnatakas-villages-34954, retrieved on 06.05.2016

[1] https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp1555.pdf

Disclaimer: This write-up was part of my masters' course at TISS.