. Caste – Ideology or Subtle Substance? Brahmans work as priests, and religion is most often an integral part of explanations of the caste system, its origin, function and hierarchy. The problem is, however, to relate text to context. Ideological and religious foundations of castes are based on the Sanskrit texts, and among them, the Bhagavad-Gita and Manu. The Bhagavad-Gita (Bg) distinguishes four castes: “Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras are distinguished by the qualities born of their own natures in accordance with the material modes (…)” (Bg. 18.41). The duties and the qualities are further described: “Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness - these are the natural qualities by which the brahmanas work. Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of work of the ksatriyas. Farming, cow protection and business are the natural work for the vaisyas, and for the sudras there is labour and service to others. By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect” (Bg. 18.42-45). Thus, there are four classes in the hierarchical order: (1) the sacerdotal and learned class, the members of which may be, but not necessarily priests, (2) the regal and warrior caste, (3) the trading and agricultural caste and (4) the servile caste, whose duty is to serve the other three. Declan Quigley argues that it is impossible to explain caste as a product of a particular ideology, and he sustains a critique not only of Dumont’s theory but all who emphasise the Hindu ideas when explaining castes (Quigley 1996:1, 12-13). Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus (1970) has been the most influential contribution to the recent debate on caste, but nowadays few scholars advocate his ideas. Therefore, his theory of the castes is a point of departure for the debate and the disputes of the caste system(s). Fundamental in Dumont’s concept of caste and hierarchy is totality: “So we shall define hierarchy as the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole, it being understood that in the majority of societies it is religion which provides the view of the whole, and that the ranking will thus be religious in nature” (Dumont 1970:66, original emphasis). His theory is based on a social principle; hierarchy, and thereby distinctions between the castes. It defines groups in a hierarchy of ritual purity and pollution and prescribes inter caste relations, especially regarding marriage and commensality (Bennett 1983:8). According to Dumont, “Superiority and superior purity are identical: it is in this sense that, ideologically, distinction of purity is the foundation of status” (Dumont 1970:56). The fundamental opposition between pure and impure is not the cause but the form of all distinctions between caste (ibid:26). “It is generally agreed that the opposition is manifested in some macroscopic form in the contrast between the two extreme categories: Brahmans and Untouchables. The Brahmans, being in principle priests, occupy the supreme rank with respect to the whole set of castes” (Dumont 1970:29). Dumont’s theory cannot cope with the role of priests whose status is at best seen as intensively ambiguous and at worst defiled (Quigley 1999:308). “Perhaps the central feature of caste is that one cannot ride roughshod over one’s ritual obligations without fear of losing one’s status, one’s very position in the community” (ibid:313). It is not necessary at this point to challenge or criticise Dumont’s approach to caste, but it is cogent to merely point out that his theory of caste represents one side in the debate. The other interpretative framework, based on a “coded substances theory”, is mainly advocated and developed by the “ethnosociological school” or the “Chicago School” (e.g. Marriott and Inden 1974, 1977, Marriott 1976, 1990). The caste structures and principles are seen from the “inside” and from the actors’ perspectives. Caste systems may be defined as “moral systems that differentiate and rank the whole population of a society in corporate units (castes) generally defined by descent, marriage and occupation” (Marriott and Inden 1974:982). In the “coded substance theory” the stress is put on the non-duality of South Asian social thought; “South Asians do not insist on drawing a line between what Westerners call “natural” and what they call “moral” things; the Hindu moral code books are thus filled with discussions of bodily things, while the medical books at many points deal with moral qualities” (Marriott and Inden 1977:228). Moral qualities are thought to be altered by changes in the body resulting from eating certain types of food, sexual intercourse and participation in rituals. When a Bengali 118 The Proceedings of the Manchester Conference on Archaeology and Religion woman is being married it is believed that her body is transformed as well as her inborn code for conduct (Inden and Nicholas 1977). “The code for conduct of living persons is not regarded as transcendent over bodily substances, but as immanent within it”, and as such “Bodily substances and code for conduct are thus thought to be not fixed but malleable, and to be not separated but mutually immanent features: the coded substance moves and changes as one thing throughout the life of each person and group. Actions enjoined by these embodied codes are thought of as transforming the substances in which they are embodied” (Marriott and Inden 1977:228). Seen from the “coded substance theory”, moral and social codes are presumed to be inherent in every kind of generic category, and each single person has an embodied moral code of this world. Persons are therefore “unique composites of diverse subtle and gross substances derived ultimately from one source; and they are also divisible into separate particles that may be shared or exchanged with others” (Marriott and Inden 1977:232). These substances exist prior to birth in the parents (seeds, food). In life a person becomes what one eats. This high-lights consumption of food as fundamental in transactions and creations of moral qualities, but also the defilement from bodily substances which are disposed of such as menstrual blood, semen, excreta, and those associated with death. All bodily genera are descended from the original cosmic Purusa, and “person and genera are thus conceived of as channelling and transforming heterogeneous, eveflowing, changing substances” (ibid:233). Simply presented and with a container metaphor as point of departure, the body is a “vessel”. This “vessel” metaphor is crucial in the understanding of castes as transactions of coded substances. A pure person that has been defiled by temporary impurity, basically through water or food consumption, has to purify his body (“vessel”) through subsequent rites. Therefore, all interactions and transactions of substances are potentially dangerous because it may involve defilement of one’s purity. Each substance has a value, an entity which in theory is both morally and religiously defined, and society is structured around the different transactions that are hierarchically regulated through sanctions and taboos. Those who perceive themselves as being purer than others are particularly concerned about interaction with people they see as less pure than themselves. These personal perceptions are difficult or impossible to rank in one model because most people put themselves on top of the social ladder in terms of status and purity. There is a general concern about one’s own purity and possible social interactions and transactions of substances which may threaten the personal purity. The body as a “vessel”, which each and everyone is concerned with, is fundamental in castes when perceived as moral substance codes. The Funeral Priests who conduct cremations and mourn the dead are called Mahabrahmans which literally means the “great Brahmans”, but this sub-caste of Brahmans are also known as Mahapatra which means “great vessels” (Parry 1994:76). Their role in funerals as “great vessels”, which are filled with sin and pollution, is the crux of debate regarding the caste hierarchy and the common assumption that Brahmans are ranked highest because of their purity.