M. N.

Srinivas: Ace Interpreter of Indian Society

Victor S. DSouza *
Abstract
This paper attempts to assess the work of M N Srinivas and the
appropriateness of his methodology. The distinction in methodology
between idiographic and nomothetic sciences is crucial to any such
assessment. Intensive fieldwork and participant observation propagated
by Srinivas was appropriate to the idiographic nature of work he carried
out. An example of this is his path-breaking study on the religion and
society of Coorgs of South India. Social Change in Modern India, a
product of his insightful observations of the traditional nature of Indian
society based on the trilogy of concepts, Sanskritization, Westernization
and secularization, is another example. However, the problematic aspects
of Indian society can be analyzed only through propositional or axiomatic
models, which are not Srinivas forte. Yet, his contribution will have an
enduring value for Indian sociology.

M. N. Srinivas was one of the most celebrated Indian sociologists, both at

home and abroad. As a senior professional colleague, I had always valued his sage
advice and held him in high esteem, and have been greatly stimulated and benefited
from his writings. Srinivas claimed to be a social anthropologist and also sociologist.
However, when regarded as a sociologist, Srinivas had been an enigma to me until
I had to figure out for myself, the real reason, according to me, for his being acclaimed
as an outstanding Indian sociologist notwithstanding his undisputed stature as a
renowned social anthropologist.
Let me first explain my reason for doubting the credentials of Srinivas as a
thoroughbred sociologist. Srinivas defined anthropology, I think, in too restricted
a sense, as the study of society other than ones own. In that sense, a foreigner
studying Indian society would be regarded as an anthropologist, whereas an Indian
scholar studying the same society becomes a sociologist, the reason being that in
order to study a society sociologically a scholar, first of all, should be familiar with
the meaning the members of that society attribute to their actions. As compared
with the foreign scholar, the native scholar is assumed to be already equipped with
such insights. Such a definition of anthropology and sociology is only partially
true. But there are others, including myself, who maintain that the major distinction
between sociology and anthropology lies, not so much in their subject matter as in
their different approaches and methodologies.
*

Former Professor of Sociology, Panjab University.

Vol. III, No.1

DSouza: M. N. Srinivas Ace Interpreter of Indian Society

145

The anthropologists principally employ the method of intensive fieldwork

and participant observation for data collection, and holistic and conceptual
description for presentation, which was what Srinivas followed. Sociologists, on
the other hand, are inclined toward the use of the modern scientific method, which
calls for the use of deductive and inductive reasoning, the logic of probability, and
appropriate statistical tools and techniques to deal with qualitative and quantitative
data. Ideally, the sociologists present their findings in the form of propositional
statements. Unlike anthropological studies, sociological studies have to be designed
in a manner capable of being replicated by other scholars so that their objectivity
and validity can be continually put to test. Thus, anthropology is, by and large, an
idiographic science whereas sociology follows the pattern of nomothetic discipline.
There are also basic differences in the type of explanations that are possible
in the two types of disciplines. The idiographic model of explanation consists of
describing a variety of factors that lie behind a given phenomenon to be explained;
whereas the nomothetic model is designed to provide the greatest amount of
explanation with the least number of causal variables, and is also aimed at uncovering
the general pattern of cause and effect.
Given the models of explanations aimed at in anthropology and sociology,
it follows that in anthropology a wide variety of information needs to be collected
and the explanation dawns on the researcher even during the process of study, but
it has to be concretized at the time of writing the report. It can therefore be recognised
that intensive fieldwork and participant observation are techniques of data collection
that are well suited for the study of anthropology. On the other hand, in welldesigned sociological studies the explanation has to be arrived at before the
collection of data, purpose of the data being to verify if the explanation is valid.
Therefore, the method of sociology is parsimonious in the collection of data as the
data are precisely targeted by formulating beforehand, the variables to be measured.
All these procedures of sociological research are spelt out in the complex of research
procedures known as survey research methods.
In India, the initiation of teaching programmes in sociology preceded the
introduction of training in survey research methods. The research method that was
practised and advocated in the department of sociology, Bombay University, where
Srinivas received his initial research training, was anthropological fieldwork. When
Srinivas continued his research studies at Oxford, his guide there was A. R. RadcliffeBrown, a well-known social anthropologist, who too favoured the anthropological
fieldwork method. In this manner, Srinivas was firmly set in the anthropological
fieldwork technique. Therefore, when he started his teaching career in India with an
opportunity of shaping the programmes in sociology both at Baroda and Delhi
Universities, he spontaneously introduced his research students to the methods
he inherited from his teachers.

146

Journal of Social and Economic Development

Jan. June 2001

Oddly enough, the training programmes for research students in survey

research methods were first introduced in India mostly in the departments of
Economics by American sociologists under the sponsorship of the Ford Foundation,
in the 1950s. Later on, when reports of some city surveys began to appear, the
established Indian sociologists reviewed them with snide comments (Mukherjee
1978:66). The sociologists, however, were not entirely unjustified, for, unless theory
and method are deftly integrated in the design of the study, which was rarely the
case, the survey results can be sterile. All the same, training programmes in social
science research methodology soon found their entry into departments of sociology
in most of the Indian universities including the Department of Sociology of Delhi
University headed by Srinivas. However, as for himself and for his own research
students, Srinivas strictly adhered to the anthropological fieldwork method.
Arguably, it is his phobia for mathematics, which he developed during his early
schooling (Srinivas 1996: 2), which discouraged him from acquiring new skills of
survey research methods. But it is also possible, as I will show presently, that the
particular research method he clung to was admirably suited to the nature of the
subject matter that he was investigating.
I have dwelt upon the research methodology of Srinivas in a rather too
detailed a fashion, in order to make two important observations which, I hope, will
be helpful in evaluating Srinivas works as well as the appropriateness of his
methodology. First, let me refer to the quality of the knowledge content of his works
in general. In this context, I should like to advert to my earlier remarks about the
distinction between the methodology and explanatory models in idiographic and in
nomothetic sciences. Such a distinction is important to recognise the fact that the
properties of knowledge are also influenced by the type of methods and models
employed in its production. Srinivas works are mostly cast in the idiographic
mould. Therefore, in evaluating his contributions one has to exercise caution lest
one should put to test idiographic knowledge by nomothetic criteria.
I should like to illustrate my point with a simple example. Srinivas is well
known for the theoretical development of the concept of Sanskritization, which has
proved seminal to his descriptions of several social-cultural phenomena. However,
he has used this concept in different places with different causal implications but
without adducing valid evidence for varying his stand. He first used this concept in
his book, Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India. In that study, he
describes Sanskritization as a cultural process of social mobility in the caste system,
whereby a lower caste can move up in the caste ranking by imitating the ritual way
of life of a higher caste. In the causal sense, here he uses Sanskritization as an
independent variable. At a subsequent point of time when Srinivas uses the concept
in connection with another of his concepts Westernization, he elaborates
Sanskritization by treating it as one among the three main axes of power namely

Vol. III, No.1

DSouza: M. N. Srinivas Ace Interpreter of Indian Society

147

the ritual, the economic and the political, Sanskritization being the ritual dimension.
In this context, he employs Sanskritization as an interdependent variable (Srinivas
1962: 45). The concept of Sanskritization is subjected to further elaboration when
Srinivas is explaining social change in modern India. Here he tries to correct the
impression conveyed by his initial use of the term which leads one to think that
Sanskritization automatically results in the achievement of higher status for the
group, and now accepts the possibility of Sanskritization also being a dependent
variable when the economic and political dimensions become independent variables
(Srinivas 1962: 56-57). I have given this illustration not in order to pick holes in
Srinivas analysis but to demonstrate the inherent limitations of his methodology
when verifiable information is called for. The problem of causality can be resolved
efficiently only through the nomothetic approach. All the same, Srinivas analysis
is stimulating and thought provoking, regardless of all the uncertainty about the
nature of the causal connections between the variables he is investigating.
My second observation relates to the appropriateness of Srinivas
methodology to the subject matter he has dealt with. It can be better expressed in
Srinivas own words. In one of his more recent writings entitled Social Anthropology
and Literary Sensibility, he makes it clear that the nature of the social reality that he
was studying defies the distinction between sociology and social anthropology,
and so makes the use of fieldwork incumbent upon the scholar. And I quote,
I consider sociology and anthropology as fundamentally the same, both
concerned with the study and understanding of human societies in space and time.
Such a view is particularly relevant in India for it would be irrational to separate the
study of tribal societies from that of peasants, and the upper castes, minorities, and
the working and middle classes in urban areas. All these groups and categories are
an integral part of Indian culture and civilization, and they share certain institutional
forms, beliefs, ideas, values, and modes of worship, though it may not always be
easy to identify the tribal and near-tribal elements in the culture of the so-called
higher groups. But the former are there, and surface during crises in the life of an
individual, family or community. Recognition of the existence of several layers in
the culture, and of the links between them, is necessary for a proper understanding
of Indian culture even though the elite tend to ignore the existence of the lower
layers.
Further on, he states, While there is need to use statistical methods, and
quantify information when necessary, there are vital areas of social life which demand
different skills and qualities. He amplifies that areas of social life he has in view
has strong links with history, in particular, social and economic history and
philosophy. And it becomes clear from his following statement that the special
skills and qualities required for the study are those implied in anthropological
fieldwork. I quote his statement: Fortunately, in both social anthropology and

148

Journal of Social and Economic Development

Jan. June 2001

sociology, a tradition of fieldwork has come to be accepted as part of the

disciplines. Srinivas also has left us in no doubt as to what type of explanations
he was seeking in his analyses. Explanation often consists in elucidating the
relationship of an institution or complex of institutions, with other institutions or
institutional complexes. This is what is meant by placing an institution in the total
context of social life and culture (Srinivas 1998: 2525-26).
As a sample of Srinivas explanation, we may consider his following
conclusion about the religion of Coorgs of South India: Coorg religion was a
variant of Hinduism, the latter consisting of several levels which I labelled local,
regional, peninsular, and All India. (Srinivas 1966: 149). Srinivas was able to
arrive at such a conclusion by an intensive field study of the Coorg society and by
synthesizing his insights drawn from that study with his knowledge of Indian
history, religion, philosophy and civilization as a whole. As he puts it, Actually, the
study of a village or a small town or a caste provides a strategic point of entry for
the study of Indian society and culture as a whole (Srinivas 1966:158). It is from
such studies as this that Srinivas has been able to derive some of his theoretical
formulations such as Sanskritization and Westernization which are rich in meanings,
enabling us to have a grasp of the traditional Indian society and its changing
contours.
In this connection it needs to be pointed out that in his theoretical
formulations, Srinivas has made use of the structural-functional theoretical framework
as developed by Radcliffe-Brown. Unlike other scholars who regard structural
functionalism as a theory, Srinivas refers to it as the structural functional method in
which theory and data are fused together in an inseparable whole, setting a new
trend for the writing of monographs. He further points out that the structural
functional method rendered unfashionable the previous tendency to explain
contemporary institutions and ritual by reference to the sacred scriptures of the
Hindus, and in its place the new method shows a better way of finding explanations
in the inter-relationships of the ongoing system itself (Srinivas and Panini 1973:
201). Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that fieldwork has served well Srinivas
analytical purposes.
Having made the aforesaid observations on Srinivas methodology, let me
now say something about the distinctive contribution of Srinivas to our
understanding of Indian society. Here again, it is useful to keep in view the nature
of the social reality that he is investigating, the type of social data he is dealing with
and the theoretical model in which he has presented his data.
Srinivas regarded himself as an empiricist who did not identify himself
with any school of theoretical perspective (Shah 1996: 217). As an empiricist, what
Srinivas was doing was to interpret the meaning present in the Indian society of his
time, which, although linked with sacred scriptures and historical evidence, could

Vol. III, No.1

DSouza: M. N. Srinivas Ace Interpreter of Indian Society

149

not be directly deduced from them. He was one of those sociologists who strongly
advocated the cultivation of the field view of society compared with the earlier
popularity of the book view.
Generally, in collecting information from the field or the current society,
the social facts are distinguished in terms of their two different dimensions, one
stressed by Durkheim, and the other, by Weber. Durkheim laid stress upon the
externality and objectivity or the thing-like character of social facts, whereas
Weber drew attention to the intentionality of social action. Since Srinivas was
especially concerned with the meaning existing in the society, he naturally had to
concentrate on the dimension stressed by Weber and this again justifies Srinivas
strong preference for the method of anthropological fieldwork which pays attention
to the subjects own meaning for his or her behaviour.
The pioneers of Indian sociology did recognise the strong religious base
and qualitatively distinct nature of the Indian society, but could not hit upon the
right methodology of studying society as conceived by the people themselves.
Srinivas got his chance when he went to Oxford where he studied under RadcliffeBrown. From his guide he learnt both the major technique for the analysis of a
religiously pervasive society as well as an appropriate model of organising such
data. The language of religion is ritual and Srinivas learnt how to decipher that
language from Radcliffe-Brown who had propounded a theory of ritual (Singer
1996: 23).
Srinivas path-breaking contribution to Indian sociology, Religion and
Society among the Coorgs of South India, came out of his Ph.D. dissertation which
he submitted to the Oxford University. In that study, as pointed out by Milton
Singer, Srinivas goes considerably beyond Radcliffe-Browns redefinition of the
sacred in terms of ritual value and an analysis of rituals and myths in terms of
symbolic action and symbolic thought. His most original contribution to a
theory of ritual is his analysis of the hierarchies of ritual purity and ritual pollution
among different castes, occupations and age and sex groups. Srinivas linking of
this analysis to social strategies that different groups adopted for changing their
social and normal ritual status by changing their ritual practices and beliefs
generated the famous theory of sanskritisation and desanskritisation, and his
later theory of secularization and Westernization (Singer 1996: 4950).
It is well known that traditional Indian civilization was conceived in a
sacred world view of the natural as well as the supernatural universes compared
with the traditional western civilization in which sacredness is attributed only to the
supernatural universe. Srinivas has interpreted the sacred world view of the Indian
people by rank-ordering categories of people as well as things according to their
degrees of sacredness and in his concept of Sanskritization he brings out the
intertwining of religion and society in a virtual inextricable way (e.g., Srinivas 1989:
5171).

150

Journal of Social and Economic Development

Jan. June 2001

Finally, it is because of his insightful characterization of the nature of

traditional Indian society that Srinivas is able to describe with a similar discernment,
the qualitative changes that Indian society is undergoing. In his slender volume,
Social Change in Modern India (Srinivas 1966), he gives a comprehensive yet
succinct view of the qualitative changes taking place in the nature of Indian society
by deftly using the trilogy of theoretical concepts of Sanskritization, Westernization
and secularization. Each concept signifies a system of meanings as well as a process
of transformation affecting not merely social consciousness but also culture and
social structure.
Through the use of his concept of Sanskritization, Srinivas explains the
process of institutionalization of Hinduism, which one may regard as the foundation
of traditional Indian civilization. Sanskritization explains how in Hinduism the various
exclusive tribe-like groups are integrated in a hierarchical order of caste system. In
the caste system each group retains its primordial loyalties but the several groups
are integrated into a hierarchical moral order on the basis of a pantheistic religious
world view, in which religious beliefs and practices of the highest caste are regarded
as the superior model. Thus religion and social structure are closely intertwined so
much so that Srinivas regards the caste system as the structural basis of Hinduism.
By using the concept of Westernization, Srinivas depicts the fundamental
changes brought about in the traditional society as a result of British rule.
Westernization implies a new system of meanings linked to the introduction of new
technology, institutions, ideology and values, which are at variance with their
traditional Indian counterparts. Westernization set in motion a process of
secularization that led to de-Sanskritization in which the members of the upper
castes who were closer to the British power were the first ones to be affected. It is
these westernized Indian elite who became the trailblazers in the accentuation of
the process of secularization in Indian society.
Although the process of secularization was set in motion as part of
Westernization it became more pronounced and broadbased after Independence
and with the declaration of India as a secular state. The concept of secularization
has two dimensions, namely, desacralization of society and rationalization of thought
and action. Because of the peculiar religious world view of Hinduism, the
desacralization process in India is much more complex as compared with the West.
Srinivas gives a graphic account of the growing irrelevance of the rules of purity
and pollution and of the sacred-ritual elements connected with life-cycle events
and group cults, and the corresponding changes in the basic institutions of the
traditional Indian society. Such changes, as pointed out by Srinivas, are reflected in
the growing tendency to reinterpret the Hindu religion itself in a more puritanical
fashion by dismissing the now desacralized elements as being extrinsic to Hinduism.
I have referred to some of the significant features of Srinivas works so as
to highlight the kind of knowledge he has generated, which relates to the basic

Vol. III, No.1

DSouza: M. N. Srinivas Ace Interpreter of Indian Society

151

character of Indian society and culture. It enables us, for example, to compare
Indian society with other societies, say, European or Japanese; or to compare the
emerging modern Indian society with its pre-modern counterpart. This in itself is no
mean achievement. However, if we were interested in explaining the problematic
aspects of the Indian society we would have to develop theoretical knowledge in
the form of propositional or axiomatic model, which is not Srinivas forte. But even
for the building up of such knowledge, Srinivas contribution would provide a solid
foundation. It is in that sense, I believe, Srinivas contribution will have an enduring
value for Indian sociology.

References
Mukherjee, Ramakrishna (1979). Sociology of Indian Sociology . Allied Publishers.
Shah, A.M. (1996). M. N. Srinivas: The Man and His Work. In Shah, et al. (eds.) (1996):
197218.
Shah, A. M., B. S. Baviskar, and E. A. Ramaswamy (eds.) (1996). Social Structure and
Change, Volume I: Theory and MethodEvaluation of the Work of M. N. Srinivas.
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Singer, Milton (1996). On the Semiotics of Ritual: Radcliffe-Browns Legacy. In Shah, et al.
2054.
Srinivas, M.N.(1962). Caste in Modern India and Other Essays. Bombay: Media Promoters.
Srinivas, M. N. (1966). Social Change in Modern India . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
Srinivas, M. N. (1996). Indian Society through Personal Writings. Oxford University Press.
Srinivas, M. N. (1998). The Cohesive Role of Sanskritization. In M. N. Srinivas,The Cohesive
Role of Sanskritization and other Essays. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 5671.
Srinivas, M. N. (1998). Social Anthropology and Literary Sensibility. Economic and Political
Weekly,. 33 (39): 25258
Srinivas, M. N., and M. N. Panini. The Development of Sociology and Social Anthropology
in India. Sociological Bulletin, 22(2): 179215.

Received: June 9, 2000

Accepted: June 25, 2001