The hallmark of Srinivas perspective on Indian society was to break out from confines of textual authority. In this context critically analyse the structural-functionalist perspective in the analysis of Indian Society.

BREAKING CONFINES OF TEXTUAL AUTHORITY

→ Prior to Srinivas, Indian sociological approach was heavily influenced by the work of Indologists like Ghurye, colonial administrators William Jones, etc. → Indological approach relied on textual view of society by studying historical texts, etc. → M.N. Srinivas shifted focus to field view which manifested in the proliferation of village studies that followed. → Srinivas conducted a field study of Coorgs of Mysore in Rampura village.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

→ Emphasis on the functional unity of society comparable to the organism analogy. → Srinivas observed how the caste system served a functional integrative purpose through the interdependent interactions of Brahmins, Kamins, Bannas, etc in Rampura village. → He thus broke the myth of self sufficient and isolated view of villages propagated by Indologists by observing village haats (fairs) where interaction with other villages takes place.

SANSKRITISATION AND DOMINANT CASTE

→ While the texts presented a rigid view of the caste system with no scope for mobility, Srinivas explained how lower castes imitate the cultural practices of upper castes and over a period of time gain vertical mobility through the process of Sanskritisation.

→ He explained dominant caste as the caste group which gains economic and political influence thus breaking the rigidity of Varna scheme.

CRITICISMS

→ Yogendra Singh criticizes M.N. Srinivas's view of villages arguing that it is incorrect to generalize on the basis of observations in one single village. → Gail Omvedt argues that his views propagate Brahminical ideology and there is no example of Dalits becoming dominant caste. → Ghanshyam Shah calls dominant caste as nothing but class mobilisation.