Editing Content :: Admin Scraper

Chapter

Content type

Position

Value

Patterns of Social Inequality and Exclusion Trans Gender – In general ‘male body’ and ‘female body’ as social unit Box 5.1a are unchanging identity but due to so many researches in the field of physiology, the notion of the body is now linked with ‘choice structure’. By using surgical procedures male body can be converted into female body or female bodyintomalebody.Itmeans genderindentitiescanbechosenwillingly.Transgender as concept, thus, refers to conversions of gender status of body into opposite gender by using choice or certain compulsions. Third Gender – Third gender refers to that social category of persons who are neither male nor female. In fact this category presents the persons having alternates of both genders–male and female. The identification of our self as third gender is based on self‑understanding; however, in various situations, this identification is made by group, family and society. Now the third gender persons get the legal recognition. In India a third gender person can nominate themselves to contest in elections (Parliament/ Assembly/Local government). 5.2 C aste and Tribe – S ystems J ustifying and P erpetuating Inequality The C aste System as a D iscriminatory S ystem The caste system is a distinct Indian social institution that legitimises and enforces practices of discrimination against people born into particular castes. These practices of discrimination are humiliating, exclusionary and exploitative. Historically, the caste system classified people by their occupation and status. Every caste was associated with an occupation, which meant that persons born into a particular caste were also ‘born into’ the occupation associated with their caste – they had no choice. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, each caste also had a specific place in the hierarchy of social status, so that, roughly speaking, not only were occupational categories ranked by social status, but there could be a further ranking within each broad occupational category. In strict scriptural terms, social and economic status were supposed to be sharply separated. For example, the ritually highest caste – the Brahmins – were not supposed to amass wealth, and were subordinated to the secular power of kings and rulers belonging to the Kshatriya castes. On the other hand, despite having the highest secular status and power, the king was subordinated to the Brahmin in the ritual-religious sphere. (Compare this to the ‘apartheid’ system described in Box 5.1b) However, in actual historical practice economic and social status tended to coincide. There was thus a fairly close correlation between social (i.e. caste) 75 status and economic status – the ‘high’ castes were almost invariably of high economic status, while the ‘low’ castes were almost always of low economic Reprint 2026-27