“Doctors, engineers, academics and other professionals enjoy greater esteem than most other members of society. It is difficult to explain fully why this should be so….” (Beteille 1991: 6).
Ever since its inception in 1857, the Indian Civil Service (ICS) has been an integral component of the idea of India. From creating able administrators to facilitating the rule of the British Raj to enabling the makings of a nationalist consciousness to challenge it, the services have been a source of aspiration for the young. These aspirants have gone on to inspire generations, to further aspire, making it one of the most sought-after career choices for occupations. 12th Fail, the popular Hindi film released in 2023 only went further to solidify some of these ideas and (re)present how grit, determination and a combination of social locations enable (or deny) access to such aspirations. But what happens when such an aspiration gets inextricably tied to both ascribed and achieved categories of class, social status and power? How does power get reorganized and what are the strategies social groups employ to produce and reproduce privilege?
With a spate of recent contestations that relate to gaining entry and access to the services using unethical means, the sanctity of this ‘much coveted’ and ‘ideal’ profession can certainly be questioned. Probably it is such an element of prestige that makes classes go to desperate lengths to invest in this career path for their future generations. And in doing so, these social elites are then able to maintain their firm grip over power. The purpose of this article is to highlight some of these facets amid ongoing controversies that have demonstrated the strategies classes may use to attain, what they may not be able to achieve otherwise. The article is certainly not suggesting that one must not continue the pursuit of becoming a bureaucrat; it is only highlighting some of the problems of fixating our mental selves with our existing social conditions. In doing so, it seeks to open the debates on re-imagining social inequalities as posited through a Weberian lens.
Power, Prestige and the Bureaucracy
Max Weber was a pioneer in championing and positioning rationality as integral to modernity—with the bureaucracy serving as its catalyst.[1] Over time, Weber’s work on bureaucracy has become not just the ‘cornerstone of the sociology of organizations’ (Ritzer, 1975). It has become essentially important to understand the field of organization studies and managerial decision-making. More importantly, his work has helped us conceive how ‘positively privileged groups justify their power, advantage and privilege ideologically’ (Waters and Waters, 2016: 7).
Power and prestige go hand in hand, they are intricately related to each other. But according to Wegener (1992: 257), ‘for Weber, prestige is not based on achievement, money, occupation, productive assets, or authority……rather, in Weber’s thinking, prestige is a quality shared by members of the same status group in identifying with that status group’. This is where Beteille’s work on weaving the significance of occupation or profession for gaining high social prestige in postcolonial conditions becomes crucial.
Beteille (1991) states that Independence from colonial rule brought an expansion in occupations whether be it professional, administrative or managerial. Such occupations were highly valued by members of society and brought about larger bureaucratization. Notwithstanding, he was also quick to note that although bureaucracy had a functional importance, and reduced income disparities among professional classes, it introduced a ‘new kind of inequality’ that was associated with the rank and authority of office.
Same yet different, new yet old
Although scholars and commentators have signalled a shift in conceptualising the middle classes from ‘old’ to ‘new’, indicating a change in value orientations; many of their aspirations remain the same. One of them pertains to their desire for a ‘sarkari naukri’ (government job). In many postcolonial nations such as ours, the sarkar (and its naukris) are seen as firm guarantees of security. Such securities of economic, social and political nature are crucial to its citizens. Nonetheless, families have invested time, money and energy in desiring and aspiring for such positions. Whilst the civil services examinations are one of the toughest to crack in the world, is what makes the investment of time as well as other resources longer, higher and extended than predicted.
Investments of time have only increased the waiting time for these aspirations to fructify. Waiting for such a job has oftentimes been presented as time is devoted to ‘tayyari’ (preparations). This journey of preparation for the Examinations has led to the mushrooming of an entire universe of coaching centres that continues to thrive on the idea of enabling aspirants to achieve their dreams and attain success. Unsurprisingly, the names of the coaching centres tend to resonate (or even reverberate) with these categories. At least that is what these coaching companies want us to believe. The moment one opens a newspaper, the front pages are laden with advertisements guaranteeing sure-shot success or something close to it. For the so-called or even self-proclaimed average middle class, nothing can be more assuring than guaranteed success. But must success be guaranteed at the cost of not obliging with guarantees of social justice and fundamental rights?
Amid the ongoing controversies concerning entry into the administrative services, such instances of whataboutery are only going to further demoralise and dishearten the moral middle classes, especially the aspiring young engaged in the process of tayyari. The middle class has come a long way since its inception, and it rightly believes that with occupation comes prestige and with higher-valued professions comes greater recognition and symbolic capital. But prestige as an exclusive entitlement consequently becomes exclusionary. Insensitive comments and unfair methods of access would deeply hurt the sentiments and prospects, and in this context especially of people with disabilities. In very many ways, it can be attested that the ‘moral’ middle class probably needs to deeply introspect their moral selves, and thereby alter their choices, orientations and aspirations. Probably then we may be able to explain why certain professions are (not) more valued than……!
References:
Béteille, A. (1991). The Reproduction of Inequality: Occupation, Caste and Family. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 25 (1), 3-28.
Mommsen, W. J. (1974/2021). The Age of Capitalism and Bureaucracy: Perspectives on the Political Sociology of Max Weber (2nd edition). New York: Berghahn Books.
Ritzer, G. (1975). Professionalization, Bureaucratization and Rationalization: The Views of Max Weber. Social Forces, 53(4), 627–634.
Waters, T., Waters, D. (2016). Are the terms “Socio-economic status” and “Class status” a Warped Form of Reasoning for Max Weber? Palgrave Communications, 16002.
Wegener, B. (1992). Concepts and Measurement of Prestige. Annual Review of Sociology, 18: 253-80.
[1] As Mommsen (2021: 17) puts it, the ideal type of bureaucracy was deliberately designed by Weber in such a way as to serve as a yardstick that could be used to ascertain in exact terms the tremendous cultural significance which the rise of modern bureaucracies possesses for conscientious citizens living in liberal societies of the western type, and in a wider sense also for those living in other types of societies.
***
Soumodip Sinha teaches Sociology at Alliance University, Bengaluru. His areas of interest include social stratification and political sociology.