Michael Allen

Hierarchy and Complementarity in Newar Society

Introduction

Hierarchy and complementarity in newar society. Explore hierarchy and complementarity in Newar society. Distinguishes 'pure' caste hierarchy from kin-based forms based on age, seniority, and achievement, revealing complex social structures.

Abstract

IN A NUMBER of important areas of Newar social life notions of complementarity and status parity are accorded almost as much weight as are those of hierarchy and inequality.' I here suggest that though the kind of hierarchy that defines relations between the major sub-divisions of Newar society may be described as of the 'pure' caste variety, that is to say, based on clearly articulated notions of inherited ontological differences in human worth, within such sub-divisions hierarchy approximates more closely to that found typically in kin-based societies, that is to say, based on notions of differential seniority, age and achievement. Hierarchy of this latter kind, which derives primarily from the world of kinship and descent, differs fundamentally from the 'pure' hierarchy of the caste variety. Whereas the hierarchy of castes may be accurately described as a highly institutionalized form of both ontological and social inequality, the kin-based variety also incorporates notions of social equivalence and common ontology.

Review

This paper offers a compelling and nuanced re-evaluation of social stratification within Newar society, moving beyond simplistic notions of 'pure' caste hierarchy. The author proposes a sophisticated distinction, arguing that while relations between major sub-divisions adhere to a 'pure' caste model based on inherited ontological differences, intra-subdivision dynamics are shaped by a distinct, kin-based hierarchy rooted in seniority, age, and achievement. Crucially, the abstract highlights the significant weight accorded to complementarity and status parity alongside hierarchical principles, suggesting a more complex and multifaceted social reality than often acknowledged. This conceptual refinement promises a richer understanding of social organization within a well-studied community. The core strength of this contribution lies in its disaggregation of the concept of hierarchy itself. By differentiating between a 'pure' caste hierarchy, characterized by institutionalized ontological and social inequality, and a kin-based hierarchy that inherently incorporates notions of social equivalence and common ontology, the paper offers a powerful analytical tool. This approach allows for a more granular and culturally sensitive exploration of the internal dynamics of Newar sub-divisions, providing a significant theoretical advance. The explicit inclusion of complementarity and status parity further enriches this perspective, acknowledging relationality and non-hierarchical principles co-existing within a stratified system. To fully realize its potential, the complete paper should elaborate on the empirical evidence supporting this dual-hierarchy model. It would be valuable to understand the specific "important areas of Newar social life" where complementarity and status parity are most evident, and how these principles operate in conjunction with or in tension against hierarchical structures. Furthermore, a deeper exploration of the mechanisms through which the kin-based hierarchy (based on seniority, age, and achievement) is recognized, maintained, and potentially negotiated or challenged within sub-divisions would strengthen the argument. Finally, the theoretical implications of this model for comparative studies of other stratified societies, particularly those with complex kinship systems alongside caste structures, would be a compelling addition.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.