Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Death of the Indian Social

Rohan Bastin


The figure of Dumont continues to loom large in the anthropology of South

Asia, notwithstanding the fact that arguably the last thing he published on

India was the preface to the 1980 edition of his masterpiece Homo Hierarchicus.

2 Yet what Dumont shows in that preface is that he has loomed large while

and perhaps because other anthropologists have pointed accusatory fingers at

him, especially those from Britain and within the tradition of British social

anthropology and social science. So what was it that so ruffled the feathers of

the British bulldog? Was it Dumont’s attack on the atomistic individualism of

British social theory? Was it that he appeared to reduce every aspect of Indian

caste to the structural dyad of pure and impure? Was it his argument (more

fully developed in Dumont 1977) that the ideological notion of the economic as

a distinct social category is the product of a historical juncture, and that historical

materialist or Marxian analysis is as much an ideology as it is a theory

of ideology? Or was it simply Dumont’s insistence that India is seen in its own

terms, and not from the (ideological) position that stressed the fundamental

inequalities and injustices of the Indian social system as something in need of

change? Was Dumont, in short, a conservative apologist for caste writing in an

era in which the social was regarded as something that could be changed?

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or log in to access all content.