A+| A| A-
A Critique of Non-Marxist Caste Studies
Caste as a system of Brahminical ideas derived from Hinduism in isolation from material conditions and history, a view common to non-Marxist caste studies, is a mystification. The Marxist view of caste as a social relation of production rooted in economic, political, and cultural conditions specific to time and space is a demystification. Neither the theory of caste nor the praxis of its annihilation, which was Ambedkar’s dream, is conceivable outside Marxism.
In his book review titled “Ambedkar as a Philosopher” (EPW, 11 December 2021), Chinnaiah Jangam writes that the author’s article (Singh 2018) titled “Three Moments in the Annihilation of Caste: Marx, Weber, and Ambedkar” in Suraj Yengde and Anand Teltumbde’s edited book titled The Radical in Ambedkar: Critical Reflections illustrates “the historic failure of mainstream Marxism to understand caste” (emphasis added). Jangam’s criticism of Marxism to understand caste is common to non-Marxist (read anti-Marxist) approaches—mainstream sociology, subaltern studies, and most Dalit studies of caste. My response below is directed not to Jangam in particular, but to non-Marxist caste studies in general.1 My objective is not the rebuttal of a particular author’s view, but an invitation to debate Marxism and caste seriously.
In my article, I use “mainstream sociology” to distinguish it from Marxist sociology. There are theoretical and methodological differences between the two. Their approach to caste is fundamentally divergent. Jangam does not provide any clue as to what “mainstream Marxism” stands for. Is there a version of Marxism other than “mainstream” with a possibly different outcome or methodology to understand caste? It would have been helpful had he provided some clarification here.
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
