Does America have a caste system?

[Belsnickel]

I recommend clicking on the link, as there are some embedded links for further reading in the article itself.

Quote:In the United States, inequality tends to be framed as an issue of either class, race or both. Consider, for example, criticism that Republicans’ new tax plan is a weapon of “class warfare,” or accusations that the recent U.S. government shutdown was racist.

As an India-born novelist and scholar who teaches in the United States, I have come to see America’s stratified society through a different lens: caste.

Many Americans would be appalled to think that anything like caste could exist in a country allegedly founded on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. After all, India’s atrocious caste system determines social status by birth, compels marriage within a community and restricts job opportunity.

But is the U.S. really so different?
What is caste?

I first realized that caste could shed a new light on American inequality in 2016, when I was scholar-in-residence at the Center for Critical Race Studies at the University of Houston-Downtown.

There, I found that my public presentations on caste resonated deeply with students, who were largely working-class, black and Latino. I believe that’s because two key characteristics differentiate caste from race and class.

First, caste cannot be transcended. Unlike class, people of the “low” Mahar caste cannot educate or earn their way out of being Mahar. No matter how elite their college or how lucrative their careers, those born into a low caste remain stigmatized for life.

Caste is also always hierarchical: As long as it exists, so does the division of people into “high” and “low.” That distinguishes it from race, in that people in a caste system cannot dream of equality.

It’s significant that the great mid-20th-century Indian reformer B. R. Ambedkar called not for learning to “live together as brothers and sisters,” as Martin Luther King Jr. did, but for the very “annihilation of caste.”

Caste, in other words, is societal difference made timeless, inevitable and cureless. Caste says to its subjects, “You all are different and unequal and fated to remain so.”

Neither race nor class nor race and class combined can so efficiently encapsulate the kind of of social hierarchy, prejudice and inequality that marginalized Americans experience.

Is America casteist?

In Houston, that sense of profound exclusion emerged in most post-presentation discussions about caste.

As children, the students there noted, they had grown up in segregated urban neighborhoods – geographic exclusion that, I would add, was federal policy for most of the 20th century. Many took on unpayable student loan debt for college, then struggled to stay in school while juggling work and family pressures, often without a support system.

Several students also contrasted their cramped downtown campus – with its parking problems, limited dining options and lack of after-hours cultural life – with the university’s swankier main digs. Others would point out the jail across from the University of Houston-Downtown with bleak humor, invoking the school-to-prison pipeline.

Both the faculty and the students knew the power of social networks that are essential to professional success. Yet even with a college degree, evidence shows, Americans who grow up poor are almost guaranteed to earn less.

For many who’ve heard me speak – not just in Houston but also across the country at book readings for my 2017 novel, “Ghost in the Tamarind” – the restrictions imposed by India’s caste system recall the massive resistance they’ve experienced in trying to get ahead.

They have relayed to me, with compelling emotional force, their conviction that America is casteist.
Caste in the US and India

This notion is not unprecedented.

In the mid-20th century, the American anthropologist Gerald Berreman returned home from fieldwork in India as the civil rights movement was getting underway. His 1960 essay, “Caste in India and the United States,” concluded that towns in the Jim Crow South bore enough similarity to the North Indian villages he had studied to consider that they had a caste society.

Granted, 2018 is not 1960, and the contemporary United States is not the segregated South. And to be fair, caste in India isn’t what it used to be, either. Since 1950, when the Constitution of newly independent India made caste discrimination illegal, some of the system’s most monstrous ritual elements have weakened.

The stigma of untouchability – the idea that physical contact with someone of lower caste can be polluting – for example, is fading. Today, those deemed “low caste” can sometimes achieve significant power. Indian President Ram Nath Kovind is a Dalit, a group formerly known as “untouchable.”

Still, caste in India remains a powerful form of social organization. It segments Indian society into marital, familial, social, political and economic networks that are enormously consequential for success. And for a variety of practical and emotional reasons, these networks have proven surprisingly resistant to change.
Casteist ideologies in America

At bottom, caste’s most defining feature is its ability to render inevitable a rigid and pervasive hierarchical system of inclusion and exclusion.

What working-class Americans and people of color have viscerally recognized, in my experience, is that casteist ideologies – theories that produce a social hierarchy and then freeze it for time immemorial – also permeate their world.

Take, for example, the controversial 1994 “The Bell Curve” thesis, which held that African-Americans and poor people have a lower IQ, thus linking American inequality to genetic difference.

More recently, the white nationalist Richard Spencer has articulated a vision of white identity marked, caste-like, by timelessness and hierarchy.

“‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created unequal,’” he wrote in a July 2017 essay for an alt-right website. “In the wake of the old world, this will be our proposition.”

Add to these ideological currents the evidence on the race gap in higher education, stagnant upward mobility and rising inequality, and the truth is damning. Five decades after the civil rights movement, American society remains hierarchical, exclusionary and stubbornly resistant to change.

Caste gives Americans a way to articulate their sense of persistent marginalization. And by virtue of being apparently foreign – it comes from India, after all – it usefully complicates the dominant American Dream narrative.

The U.S. has a class problem. It has a race problem. And it may just have a caste problem, too.

So what do you think? Do you see evidence of a latent caste system in our society? It's definitely thought provoking to read this and think about how our society is structured.

[BmorePat87]

No. A caste system restricts mobility. We have an open class system that goes beyond generational. People can move from the lowest class to the highest within their life.

The meat of the author's point is noted, but we use specific language in sociology for a reason.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 11:44 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No. A caste system restricts mobility. We have an open class system that goes beyond generational. People can move from the lowest class to the highest within their life.

The meat of the author's point is noted, but we use specific language in sociology for a reason.

Mobility is virtually non-existent in today's society, though. In addition to this, just to provide some fodder for conversation, when you look at those that have managed to alter their economic standing in their lifetimes they often encounter difficulties in social circles. New money versus old, that sort of thing. So as the author points out, even in India a Dalit can gain power (and presumably wealth), but that doesn't change their caste. Someone can gain wealth in their lifetime, but there are still certain social circles that other wealthy people may shun them from because of the status of their birth.

Just food for thought on that.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 11:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Mobility is virtually non-existent in today's society, though. In addition to this, just to provide some fodder for conversation, when you look at those that have managed to alter their economic standing in their lifetimes they often encounter difficulties in social circles. New money versus old, that sort of thing. So as the author points out, even in India a Dalit can gain power (and presumably wealth), but that doesn't change their caste. Someone can gain wealth in their lifetime, but there are still certain social circles that other wealthy people may shun them from because of the status of their birth.

Just food for thought on that.

It's hard, no doubt, but it is possible and it's not based on anyone refusing to allow it, just rather economic hardship and the lack of resources in addressing it. Even though we like to say our hard work determines our standing, we also like to think that anyone can get to where we are with the same hard work and generally encourage social climbers that we think share these traits.

Social strife occurs within ethnic groups, though, where "hierarchy" isn't necessarily based on your economic power. At the same time, your social standing within your social group also doesn't impact your power within society or over government. We have a lot of identities in this country and we have membership in many different groups. It's hard to suggest a caste system in such a complex system like this especially when the definition requires being locked into membership. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-29-2018, 11:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I recommend clicking on the link, as there are some embedded links for further reading in the article itself.

So what do you think? Do you see evidence of a latent caste system in our society? It's definitely thought provoking to read this and think about how our society is structured.

No.  This is a poor attempt at forcing the mores of your own culture into a lens through which you view another.  There is no stratified code of conduct or behavior associated with social status, wealth or ethnicity in the United States.  There are group traits, that vary by region, ethnicity monetary wealth etc. but these traits are not reinforced through a code of conduct that is enforced on any level other than individual to individual.  Quite honestly, this assertion is a very poorly thought out. 

[fredtoast]

Mobility is difficult in the United States, but not to the level of a caste system.

Two of our last four Presidents (Clinton, Obama) came form low to middle class families.

That being said the UNited States has one of the highest measures of inter-generational income elasticity. That means that in the United States your parents wealth/income is a strong statistical indicator of your wealth/income. The benefits of being raised with money (better schools, more resources, better family contacts) are passed down from parent to child.

[Au165]

The main difference is we champion people rising up, where as in a caste system as noted it simply isn't going to happen.

As to can it be done? Yes, it can. My parents (in their mid 50's) both now are six figure earners with neither attending college after both growing up lower middle class. One started out as a waitress, while the other was a warehouse worker and both have made their way up the ladder through grinding it out. When I was growing up we were broke. I am talking "do we eat or keep the power on" broke in the early years. My dad would hustle side jobs on the weekends building fences and decks, plowing snow, or literally hustling pool. In the early days of the internet and Ebay they would go to garage sales every weekend then spend the evenings during the week reselling items to make extra money to allow us to do things like eat out and do "fun" things.

I am in a position where I grew up without money, but later we had some money as I got older. The thing this did for me was instill the idea that hard work can change your situation if your willing to do what others aren't. In that rise through their careers, my parents were willing to uproot and move the family multiple times in order to advance their careers. We moved to places where we knew no one, but since others in the companies weren't willing to relocate it gave my parents a chance to advance. Eventually they had advanced to the point where they could turn down relocation assignments and we got to lay down roots.

I ended up going to college on a scholarship and being able to get to a situation where I am going to be able to give my kids a head start in life, which I think is every parents dream. I think it is important though to always remind my future kids what my parents did for us, and in turn them, to get them to a situation where they can keep moving up in life. I agree that things like this are passed between generations, but at the same time someone has to be willing to take on the burden of being the foundation of that upward movement for a family. I am grateful my parents did that for me and my siblings.

[Belsnickel]

So my own commentary on this article is that, while I agree with critiques of the US and the ever increasing difficulty of socio-economic mobility, I think the author is not making a very strong point. I think they are looking at what the white nationalists would like to see done and saying "we are there because they have power right now". This isn't an accurate statement in the slightest and makes a logical leap that has no real foundation.

The article is thought provoking, but the written and unwritten rules of a caste system just aren't in place here. Do some exist in a minor form? I would argue they do, but not to an extent to call it a casteist society.

But I just wanted to have a good discussion, so I figured I'd post it for you all.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 02:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So my own commentary on this article is that, while I agree with critiques of the US and the ever increasing difficulty of socio-economic mobility, I think the author is not making a very strong point. I think they are looking at what the white nationalists would like to see done and saying "we are there because they have power right now". This isn't an accurate statement in the slightest and makes a logical leap that has no real foundation.

The article is thought provoking, but the written and unwritten rules of a caste system just aren't in place here. Do some exist in a minor form? I would argue they do, but not to an extent to call it a casteist society.

But I just wanted to have a good discussion, so I figured I'd post it for you all.

Like I said, the whole reason he invokes the idea of a caste system, to point out the trouble with upward mobility in the US, is valid. It's a hyperbole, though, and if we're just discussing this idea (like when people argue we have an oligarchy) there's not a ton of merit to it. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Quote:First, caste cannot be transcended.

Didn't even have to get a third of the way through it and it already is shown as a silly article.

There's a lot of people who can't (or don't genuinely want to) get out of their class, but there's also a lot of people who take humble beginnings and make something of themselves. Is it easier to be successful if you're already rich, or have wealthy family? Absolutely. Does that mean you can't become successful otherwise? Absolutely not.

The biggest thing that I take from this article is that there's a guy going around telling minorities that they don't even need to try to make their lives better because it's not on them, it's because they're stuck in a caste system. That's a self fulfilling prophesy right there. Tell enough people to not bother trying to live a better life because it's impossible, and so they don't, then you point at them later and say "See! They can't get a better quality of life! I was right!"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'm glad to see such a consensus on this subject and I thank Matt for bringing it up for discussion.  One thing I didn't point out in my first response, and it troubles me, about this article and its supposition is that it falls right into place with the current trend to abdicate personal responsibility.  It also provides the perfect excuse for a person's lack of success, "I'm the victim of a caste system, thus my failures are not my fault".

As was excellently pointed out above, we celebrate a person raising themselves from humble, or poor, beginnings and achieving great success.  This, on its own, obliterates the idea of a caste system existing in this country.  We really don't need more "victims" giving up before they even begin because the system "won't allow" them to succeed.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm glad to see such a consensus on this subject and I thank Matt for bringing it up for discussion.  One thing I didn't point out in my first response, and it troubles me, about this article and its supposition is that it falls right into place with the current trend to abdicate personal responsibility.  It also provides the perfect excuse for a person's lack of success, "I'm the victim of a caste system, thus my failures are not my fault".

As was excellently pointed out above, we celebrate a person raising themselves from humble, or poor, beginnings and achieving great success.  This, on its own, obliterates the idea of a caste system existing in this country.  We really don't need more "victims" giving up before they even begin because the system "won't allow" them to succeed.

I always think it's important to have these conversations. An article like this can be thought provoking, even if you don't agree with it. It's just one of those things where I like to discuss why we don't agree, because I think that gets lost in some threads.

I will say that there are systemic problems in place, structural violence if you will, that do make things more difficult for some than others when it comes to this socioeconomic mobility. But that conversation is one that is more nuanced than what the author of this piece brings forward. It's why it has been so difficult to attack from a policy position, because broad answers don't seem to exist.

Claims like those made by this author do more to discredit legitimate positions coming from the social sciences that show these societal issues than they do to help resolve them, and that is a problem.

[*Nately120*]

(01-29-2018, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As was excellently pointed out above, we celebrate a person raising themselves from humble, or poor, beginnings and achieving great success.

Meh, this seems like a big ol' line of feel good emptiness to me, but I'm a cynic.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-30-2018, 01:56 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Meh, this seems like a big ol' line of feel good emptiness to me, but I'm a cynic.  

Hah, I'm as cynical as they come, but to deny the American public doesn't love an underdog makes good story is just wrong.

[*Nately120*]

(01-30-2018, 02:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hah, I'm as cynical as they come, but to deny the American public doesn't love an underdog makes good story is just wrong.

Everyone loves an underdog makes good unless you're talking about Obama, Oprah (just in case she's getting any ideas about running), Justin Beiber (ok, I get this one), most of those scumbags in hollywood, celebrities in general, over-paid professional athletes, and blah blah blah.

The amount of seething ire our culture has for success is palpable.  We just love to hate people who have it better than us and come up with reasons they don't deserve it.  Meanwhile, the political party of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" can't stop fluffing guys like Bush/Romney/Trump while thumbing their noses as Obama (who had it even harder, if you believe his origin story according to his detractors), Jimmy Carter, and so on. I'm still not surprised that people who voted for Trump could tell me they voted for the best businessman when I voted for Gary Johnson. Argh, such is life.

Americans are egotistical creatures, and most of us aren't very successful, ergo once the underdog becomes anything but an underdog we seek to make excuses why we aren't successful (being underdogs, and all).  You can't out cynic me!

[treee]

Obviously we don't literally have a codified class system, but it is an interesting thought experiment.

I'd say that in a political lens, we have the 'donor class' and then everyone else. The statistical likelihood of someone from middle or lower class to become part of the donor class is, in effect, zero (though it does happen on very rare occasion).

The donor class have the ability to use money to influence the government, rather than just votes, which gives them a higher degree of representation than your 'average' citizen.

The donor class has the ability to render most enforcement of laws against them null, with world class litigation and defense attourneys.

The donor class is not financially beholden to the society that creates its wealth, due to it's ability to retain tax law experts to scour every nook and cranny of the tax code.

It is not literally a caste system, clearly. But it certainly is something that resembles one.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 02:51 AM)treee Wrote: Obviously we don't literally have a codified class system, but it is an interesting thought experiment.
...
It is not literally a caste system, clearly. But it certainly is something that resembles one.

This is one of the reasons why I said a latent caste system. I think it's very important to specify that in the conversation because, while I don't necessarily agree even a latent one exists, it is quite obvious that we don't have something as overt as what exists in India.

[fredtoast]

(01-29-2018, 03:20 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The biggest thing that I take from this article is that there's a guy going around telling minorities that they don't even need to try to make their lives better because it's not on them, it's because they're stuck in a caste system. That's a self fulfilling prophesy right there. Tell enough people to not bother trying to live a better life because it's impossible, and so they don't, then you point at them later and say "See! They can't get a better quality of life! I was right!"

(01-29-2018, 04:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   It also provides the perfect excuse for a person's lack of success, "I'm the victim of a caste system, thus my failures are not my fault".

 We really don't need more "victims" giving up before they even begin because the system "won't allow" them to succeed.

We also don't need any more people claiming that in a system that guarantees there will be both winners and losers (capitalism) everyone will be a winner if they just try hard enough.

We need to get past the myth of "everyone can succeed" before we can address what we are going to do with the losers that are guaranteed to exist in a capitalist society.

[Au165]

(01-30-2018, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We also don't need any more people claiming that in a system that guarantees there will be both winners and losers (capitalism) everyone will be a winner if they just try hard enough.

We need to get past the myth of "everyone can succeed" before we can address what we are going to do with the losers that are guaranteed to exist in a capitalist society.

I think most believe anyone can succeed, not that everyone can succeed. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 01:16 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think most believe anyone can succeed, not that everyone can succeed. 

I don't see the two as exclusive. If anyone can succeed, then that means that you just need to do it. But if everyone does it, then some won't succeed, even if motivated and doing what should work.

Capitalism is a system in which there will be winners and losers, but our social safety net acts as if that is not the case.