29 Patterns of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion

Yogesh S

1. Introduction

Figure 1

This picture shows two men, one sitting on top of the other. The man on top is not merely sitting but holds a rope tied around the neck of the other man. The picture invokes sociologically relevant questions.Why is this picture significant? It is not because of the visible description but the meaning and interpretations one can draw from the view of this picture. The act of a man riding on another man in this picture can be read as controlling, abusing, shaming, degrading, exploiting, subordinating, exclusion and many of such insensitive and inhuman acts. This picture might be seen just as a dramatic or even a metaphoric representation of all the above. History shows us that at certain points of time the picture was a reality for many sections of societies across the globe, for example: slavery and colonialism. With the changes that the societies are going through in terms of the social and political systems this picture might not be a reality anymore. It now stands as a symbolic representation of the existing exploitation, subordination and exclusion. This module titled “Patterns of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion” discusses various aspects of exploitation, subordination and exclusion. The module aims at achieving three things:

To begin with identification of the presence of something is of utmost importance. The question is how we do this? Taking the same picture as an example, if the picture is read merely as a man sitting on another man, then there is no exploitation. When we read it as a man ‘riding’ another man it shows exploitation. The one who is riding can be read as an upper class, upper caste, educated, urban living, man and the other person on the other hand a lower class, lower caste, uneducated, non-urban living man. The question is, why is this the case? And can it ever be vice versa? These questions make exploitation, subordination and exclusion sociologically relevant. Sociological explanation introduces the language of power to class, caste, and gender. Considering power while discussing class, caste and gender will help us in understanding them not as independent entities but as existing in relation to the other institutions of society, for example, marriage, education, work place and family.

Hence, this module focuses on class, caste, and gender as units or carriers of power thus playing a role in causing exploitation, subordination and exclusion.

Imagine the above picture with a man riding on a woman. For a while, can we imagine a woman riding on a man? Both the extremes denote the same exploitation, subordination and exclusion. The only difference is the former can be imagined and later cannot even be imagined. This leads to the final section of this module, the forms of exploitation, subordination and exclusion. This section will help us to achieve a better understanding of who an exploiter is and who is exploited or who is with power and who is without power.

How to locate Exploitation subordination and social exclusion?

The definitions of Exploitation, subordination and Social exclusion explain the basic meaning of this phenomenon. Now the need is to situate this definition in a context. Why is this important? It is important because, if there is no context in which these definitions will rest, then how would we understand what exploitation is? Where is it happening? Why is it important to know about exploitation? The obvious context, I would say, is human society. Human society is not a simple entity but a complex phenomenon. It has a history, a history of evolution of society. Hence I place this history of human society as a context in which we understand exploitation, subordination and exclusion.

Auguste Comte and Karl Marx are the thinkers who had a great influence on the evolutionary theory of society. The evolutionary theory of these thinkers shaped the later works and schools in Sociology. Here I will introduce both of these theories briefly.

iii.  Auguste Comte: Law of three stages

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first to use the term Sociology. He developed his scientific view, “positivism,” or “positive philosophy,” to combat what he considered to be the negative and destructive philosophy of the enlightenment (Ritzer, 2011: 13). This new science, which in his view would ultimately become the dominant science, was to be concerned with both social statics (existing social structures) and social dynamics (social change). Comte did not urge revolutionary change, because he felt the natural evolution of society would make things better (ibid: 14).

This leads us to the cornerstone of Comte’s approach-his evolutionary theory, or the law of three stages. The theory proposes there are three intellectual stages through which the world has gone throughout its history. According to Comte, not only does the world go through this process, but also groups, societies, sciences, individuals, and even minds go through the same three stages.

The theological stage is the first stage and it characterized the world prior to 1300. During this period, the major idea system emphasized the belief that supernatural powers and religious figures, modeled after humankind, are the root of everything. The second stage is the metaphysical stage, which occurred roughly between 1300 and 1800. This era was characterized by the belief that abstract forces like “nature”, rather than personalized gods, explain virtually everything. Finally in 1800 the world entered the positivistic stage, characterized by belief in science. People now tended to give up the search for absolute causes (god or nature) and concentrated instead on observation of the social and physical world in search for the laws governing them.

It is clear that in his theory of the world, Comte focused on intellectual factors. Indeed, he argued that intellectual disorder was the cause of social disorder (Ritzer, 2011: 14).

This evolutionary theory of Comte failed to realize the relationship between human beings in a society. The relationship of human beings with the material world was also negated. Considering these relationships, we understand there is a conflict, in the human society unlike the peaceful picture the law of three stages presents. Karl Marx helps us in understanding this conflict and these relationships.

iv.  Karl Marx: Historical development

Marx’s historical studies led him to argue that there had been a very long, but structured historical development of human societies. In the ancient past, small-scale human groups existed with no developed system of property ownership. Instead, all the resources acquired were communally owned and no class divisions were present. Marx called this a form of primitive communism. The production of these groups increased. This mode of production was effectively outgrown and a new mode emerged. This time saw some private property ownership (including slavery), such as in ancient Greece and Rome (Giddens, 2009: 74). From here, societies developed based on settled agriculture and feudal property relations. The European system of feudalism was based on a class division between landowners, and landless peasants and tenant farmers, who were forced to work for the landowners in order to survive (ibid: 75).

But the feudal mode of production also reached its production limitations and the system gave way to the capitalist society. Under capitalism, class antagonisms were greatly simplified, with society ‘splitting into two great camps’-the property owners (capitalists or the bourgeoisie) and the workers (or proletariat). Capitalism has been a genuinely revolutionary mode of production. But such achievements have been based on terrible exploitation of workers and, consequently, inevitable and endemic alienation amongst the industrial workforce.

Just like feudalism, Marx expected capitalism itself to give way to another mode of production, communism, brought about by disaffected workers who develop class-consciousness (an awareness of their exploited position) in which private property is abolished and communal social relations are established (ibid: 76).

The distinction between the two theories as mentioned earlier is the consideration of the relationship between human beings and the material world. The stages of historical development by Marx introduces material world in terms of production. This analysis of the evolution of society helps us in understanding the basic cause for the existence of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion.

The historical developmental stages clearly illustrate the relationship between different people in the society. The nature of this relationship is crucial in understanding the causes of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion. Here, going back to the Figure 1, why is a particular man riding another particular man? What makes the man riding eligible to do so?

Karl Marx’s contribution in understanding such questions is credited to the theory of alienation. Alienation is an important tool to understand any form of inequality not only the class inequality and exploitation.

a) Alienation:

Marx called the distortions of human nature that are caused by the domination of the worker, the “alien will” of the capitalist alienation. Although it is the actor who feels alienated in capitalist society, Marx’s basic analytic concern was with the structures of capitalism that cause this alienation. It is a social structure that acts to break down the natural interconnections that characterize human nature in an ideal sense. Of crucial significance here, is the two class system in which the capitalists employ the workers and own the means of production (tools and raw materials) (Ritzer, 2011: 54).

Components of alienation: Alienation can be seen as having four basic components. First, the workers in a capitalist society are alienated from their productive activity. The workers don’t work for themselves but they work for capitalists. Both workers and capitalists come to believe that the payment of a wage means that the productive activity belongs to the capitalist.

Second, the workers are alienated not only from productive activities but also from the object of those activities-the product. Just like the productive activity the product belongs only to the capitalists and not for the worker.

Third, the workers in capitalism are alienated from their fellow workers. The workers work in an instrumental way just for achieving profits for the capitalist. Capitalists are much interested in not the job satisfaction of the worker but the efficiency and the production. Hence cooperation and coordination with the fellow workers is not encouraged.

Finally, and most generally, workers in a capitalist society are alienated from their own human potential. Consciousness is numbed and, destroyed as relations with other humans and with nature are progressively severed. The result is a mass of people who are unable to express their essential human qualities, a mass of alienated workers. (Ritzer, 2011: 55-6).

As I mentioned earlier, alienation even though it is conceptualized based on the class distinctions, can be used to explain other differences. In this module, we will see this in detail. The nature of alienation being descriptive of the relationship between an individual and a form of society, gives it its conceptual utility.

Now, going back to figure 1, if the two men were equal and equally powerful the picture would have been different, probably standing next to each other or sitting next to each other. But it is not the case here, thus showing inequality. So does this mean that inequality is the only cause for exploitation, subordination and social exclusion? Does this imply that inequality is the prerequisite and there is no exploitation among equals?

This module, even though it does not answer all the questions, attempts to answer a few of them. To begin with, what is Exploitation, Subordination and social exclusion? Following is the conceptual explanation of these three concepts.

Exploitation, subordination and social exclusion:

Exploitation: According to the Oxford dictionary of Sociology, exploitation is the use for unacceptable purposes of an economic resource, be it land, labour, or market position. Thus, a monopolist could use control of the market to charge consumers excessive prices, or an owner could utilize land in such a way as to damage the natural resources. In orthodox economics the term has virtually no place. In Marxism, exploitation is central, and is defined in terms of the labour theory of value, to denote the extraction of surplus value, or the difference between the value of what a worker receives in wages and that which is produced and appropriated by the capitalist (Scott and Marshall,2009: 236) .

Exploitation will occur in all societies in which a minority controls the means of production, in other words, all class societies. This is the basic cause of exploitation. According to Marx, a ruling class developed as soon as it became possible to produce more than was needed for subsistence, i.e to produce a surplus. The ruling class is the class that controls the means of production. This control enables them to force the producers to produce more than they receive. Controlling the means of production, including the producers, the ruling class also controls lives of the product of the surplus, unpaid and forced labour of the producers. The mode in which this surplus is extracted differs from one class society to another (Holmstrom, 1977: 360)

Exploitation is not a phenomenon that exists on its own. By this I mean, exploitation has a history, has a meaning, and has causes and results. For instance in the first definition, “use for unacceptable purposes of an economic resource”. Why it is an unacceptable purpose or sociologically relevant question is when does a purpose become an unacceptable purpose?

The second definition leads to the most important question that we will be dealing with in coming sections. “Minority controls the means of production” who are these minorities? Who are the majority? Why and how does this relationship cause exploitation?

Marxist literature shows an exploitative relationship between different economic classes (Bourgeoisie and proletariat). Exploitation even though largely dealt with in the Marxists literature, the concept has not been restricted to class based exploitation. Every relation in the society is recognized with the existence of power and thus exploitation in every relationship. For example, for many years the gender differences were argued and believed to be natural. But when it was recognized that there exists patriarchy which gives power to men, the exploitation was recognized.

Subordination: According to George Simmel:

“The superior causes the inferior to produce a given effect which the superior shall experience. In this operation, in case the subordination is really absolute, no sort of spontaneity is present on the part of the subordinate. The reciprocal influence is rather the same as that between a man and a lifeless external object with which the former performs an act for his own use. That is, the person acts upon the object in order that the latter may react upon him. In this reaction of the object no spontaneity on the part of the object is to be observed, but merely the further operation of the spontaneity of the person. Such an extreme case of superiority and inferiority will scarcely occur among human beings. Rather will a certain measure of independence, a certain direction of the relation proceed also from the self will and the character of the subordinate” (Simmel, 1896: 170).

The analogy that Simmel uses here is of a living, human being and a non-living object. The relationship between these two is explained by Simmel. This analogy can be critiqued in numerous ways. Firstly, how far it is true that the object is not reciprocating to the actions on it? Going with the knowledge of economics, one would argue that the analogy misses the utility of an object. Secondly, the conclusion “Such an extreme case of superiority and inferiority will scarcely occur among human beings. Rather will a certain measure of independence, a certain direction of the relation proceed also from the self will and the character of the subordinate”. This dilutes the existence of subordination among human societies. This I argue may lead to serious loopholes in understanding human societies.

In this module, I will be using the idea behind the analogy drawn by Simmel, to explain the existence of subordination. The idea is to show a non-egalitarian relationship between different human beings and thus the nature of this relationship. In the following sections these questions will be addressed.

Social exclusion: The term itself implies on one hand groups of people who are in some sense marginalized from society and on the other a societal mainstream composed of people who are not excluded. The range of excluded groups is very wide, extending from those subject to racism to older people, from those who are unemployed to those subject to homophobia, from those who are disabled to disillusioned youth, from the mentally ill to teenage mothers. (Sheppard, 2008: 586).

There are, perhaps inevitably, an equally large number of definitions, although most contain the common “mainstream-marginalization” theme. The definition that perhaps best expresses the meaning of social exclusion was provided by the child poverty action group: Social exclusion “refers to the dynamic process of being shut out fully or partially from any of the social, economic, political and cultural systems which determine the social integration of the person in society” (Walker and Walker 1997). This definition gives the sense of being “outsiders,” unable to participate fully in society, and that the problem was systemic, in that it involved-whatever the cause social system. (ibid: 586-7).

In this Module we will be discussing three forms of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion; Class, caste and gender based exploitation, subordination and social exclusion. As mentioned earlier, the basic question that has to be addressed while discussing concepts like exploitation, subordination and exclusion is, who, why, when, where and how does these occur? Considering forms of exploitation, subordination and exclusion is helpful in this regard.

How do we do this?

While understanding class, caste and gender based exploitation, subordination and exclusion, it seems like class, caste and gender function separately. Marx and Marxists scholars were, for example was critiqued for economic determinism. That is, class got over emphasized as a cause for the existing exploitation in the society. These critiques are very well applicable to all the studies of caste, gender and even race. Most of the studies look at their subject matter (i.e. caste, class or gender) as a singular phenomenon.

This module aims at avoiding such understandings. Class, caste and gender don’t function separately in specific compartments. They all function together. For example: if we are to sociologically analyze an incident of rape, how do we do it? Do we just consider the gender and sex of the person been raped and the person who has raped?

If we do this, we will reach at problematic conclusions. A girl/woman/transgender/gay/lesbian was raped because of their gender. As I have mentioned earlier, such conclusions don’t answer the question of power. Why does rape get perpetuated at all? Why is someone raped? Now, if we consider class, caste, gender, sexual orientation, biological sex of the individuals involved, the conclusions will be helpful in addressing much crucial questions.

This method is called Intersectionality.

Systems of Stratification

The primary question we started with was do exploitation, subordination and social exclusion exist? If yes, then why do they exist? We learnt without understanding the history of society, it’s not possible to identify exploitation, subordination and social exclusion. Karl Marx’s explanation of historical development made us understand the context of society which is not static, and equal but dynamic and unequal. This leads us to the question how is a society unequal? Before understanding caste, class and gender based exploitation, subordination and social exclusion, we should understand caste, class and gender as systems of stratification.

According to Anthony Giddens, Sociologists use the concept of social stratification to describe inequalities that exist between individuals and groups within human societies. Stratification occurs based on class, gender, age, religious affiliation (Giddens, 2009:432).

Stratification is structured inequalities between different groupings of people. All socially stratified systems share three basic characteristics (ibid):

According to Harold R. Kerbo social stratification refers to a system with rather predictable rules behind the ranking of individuals and groups. The existence of systems of social stratification also implies some form of legitimation of the ranking of people and the unequal ranking; it is unlikely that a stratification system would remain stable over time (Kerbo, 2007: 228)

a) Class, caste and gender:

Class: Class is defined as a large scale grouping of people who share common economic resources, which strongly influence the type of lifestyle they are able to lead (Giddens, 2009:437).

Caste: Caste system is a social system in which one’s position is given for a lifetime. In caste societies, therefore, all individuals must remain at the social level of their birth throughout life. In caste systems, intimate contact with members of other castes is strongly discouraged. Such ‘purity’ of a caste is often maintained by rules of endogamy, marriage within one’s social group as required by custom or law (ibid: 434).

Gender: Gender concerns the psychological, social and cultural differences between males and females. Gender is wrongly used as a synonym of sex. Sex is the biological and physiological differences between males and females (ibid: 600).

From the above definitions, we realize there is inequality in each of these social stratifications. These inequalities are in turn used as a base for discrimination. This can be exploitation, subordination or social exclusion

To answer this question in this section of the module, we will discuss three of such manifestations.

1. Poverty

2. Gender roles

3. Untouchability

a)Poverty: Anthony Giddens explained that Sociologists and researchers have favored two different approaches to poverty: Absolute poverty and relative poverty. The concept of absolute poverty is grounded in the idea of subsistence-the basic conditions that must be met in order to sustain a physically healthy existence. These conditions are sufficient food, shelter and clothing. The concept of relative poverty denotes, as society develops, so understandings of relative poverty must change. As societies become more affluent, standards for relative poverty are gradually adjusted upwards (Giddens, 2009: 481-3).

These concepts introduce us to different kinds of poverty that one can see. These concepts serve the policy makers to understand poverty so that suitable policies might be formulated to tackle poverty. It doesn’t feed us with much understanding of exploitation. For that we need to understand who are‘the poor’.

Giddens said, the face of poverty is diverse and ever changing, so it is difficult to present a profile of ‘the poor’. Some social groups are more likely to be poorer than others, including children, older people, women and ethnic minorities. In particular people who are disadvantaged or discriminated against in other aspects of life have an increased chance of being poor (ibid: 491).

The above concept of poor has very important ques. There are certain people who are poorer than others. This implies the inequality and relativity. Society is relatively fragmented. As we started this module, the question was why are some social groups are poor and others not poor. Marxian understandings of class distinction and alienation help us in answering these questions.

According to this understanding, the two main classes consist of those who own means of production –industrialists or capitalists-and those who earn their living by selling their labour to them-the working class. According to Marx, the relationship between classes is an exploitative one. Marx also found that it was not only economic inequality that existed. The exploitation was beyond the economic inequality, thus the concept of Alienation (Giddens, 2009: 439).

The French sociologists Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) supported the view that lifestyle choices are an important indicator of class. He argued that economic capital-which consists of material goods such as property, wealth and income-was important, but he argued that it only provided a partial understanding of class. Bourdieu’s concept of social class is extremely broad. He identifies four forms of ‘capital’ that characterize class position, of which economic capital is only one: the others are cultural, social and symbolic (cf. ibid: 459) (the definitions of the three capitals are given in the glossary).

Hence it is understood that classes are not based only on economy but also socio-cultural factors. Coming back to discussing poverty, Economic capital is the base of identifying rich and poor. But the exploitation is not merely based on economic capital. The exploitative relationship between rich and poor is also culturally and socially manifested. Here Intersectionality will be our tool to understand this.

For instance, a working class woman does not face discrimination only because she is poor and belongs to the economically lower class. One of the factors here is lower strata in the economic scale and also her gender position. To make the scenario even more complicated, the illiterate, rural-urban are the factors which are closely related to poverty. It is observed that certain social groups don’t have an easy access to education, urban lifestyles and much more that others have. Hence the lack of an economic capital, social capital, cultural capital and symbolic capital makes the poor more susceptible to exploitation, subordination and social exclusion.

b) Gender roles:

By the late 1970s, gender was the central concept for feminist research, although the issue of “sex” in relation to gender remained contentious (Sydie, 2007: 248). Feminist researchers differentiated between gender and sex. The base for such distinctions was that gender is culturally constructed and sex is biological. Judith Butler is not of the similar orientation of such feminist researchers. She in Gender trouble (1990) argued that the expressions of gendered identities illustrate that gender is ‘performative’ (Giddens, 2007: 255).

The cultural and biological distinction of gender and sex was made on the grounds of identities and behaviors. For example: Men are supposed to be strong and women should be emotional, men should not dress like a woman; behave like a man or behave like a woman, are these behaviors. Judith Butler, acknowledging the existence of such normativity, argued that there is no connection between gender and sex. Butler says that many feminists rejected the idea that gender is biologically or naturally fixed. But in doing so, they separated gender (culture) from sex (biology), arguing that gendered norms of behavior were built upon biologically determined male and female bodies.

Butler rejects this position, arguing that there are no biologically determined identities lying beneath the cultural expressions of gender. Instead, gender identities are established precisely through their continuous performance. There is simply no essential, natural or biological basis to gender even though the belief that there is such a basis is very widespread within many societies and such beliefs shape people’s behavior.

Butler’s position is that gender identity is not a question of who you are, but of what you do, and it therefore follows that gender identity is much more fluid and unstable than was previously thought (cf. Giddens, 2009: 255).

Gender as discussed earlier is one of the attributes of social stratification. In the patriarchal societies gender based stratification denotes the inferior status for women and femininity. Gender is a critical factor in structuring the types of opportunities and life chances faced by individuals and groups, and strongly influences the roles they play within social institutions from the household to the state (Giddens, 2009: 614).

According to R.W. Connell, masculinities are a critical part of gender order and cannot be understood separate from it, or from the feminities which accompany them. Gender relations are the product of everyday interactions and practices. Connell sets forth thee aspects which interact to form a society’s gender order-patterns of power relations between masculinities and feminities that are widespread throughout society, namely:

1. Labour.

2. Power.

3. Cathexis (Personal/sexual relationships).

Labour refers to sexual division of labour both within the home and in the labour market. Power operates through social relations such as authority, violence and ideology in institutions, the state, the military and domestic life. Cathexis concerns dynamics within intimate, emotional and personal relationships, including marriage, sexuality and childrearing (cf. ibid: 609-10).

Historically the reproductive function and the body of women have been used as a reason for such an inferior position. Men’s roles are generally more highly valued and rewarded than women’s roles: in almost every culture, women bear the responsibility for child care and domestic work, while men have traditionally borne responsibility for providing the family livelihood. The prevailing division of labour between the sexes has led to men and women assuming unequal positions in terms of power, prestige and wealth (ibid: 614).

This in turn has given way to various forms of exploitations. Going by the argument of Butler, the category of gender doesn’t stop at the binary of men and women. Rather, this binary of men and women is normative. Any person who is not adhering to the binary norm of gender for example, Transgender, is subjected to exploitation, subordination and social exclusion. The reason for this is the fear of “deviance” in the social structure. One way of protecting the social structure is to protect and advocate gender norms. Rapes, female infanticides and foeticides, dowry deaths, sexual harassment, abuse in the workplace are all forms of gender based exploitation, subordination and social exclusion.

c) Untouchability:

Purity and pollution are the main attributes of the caste system which is the governing principle of untouchability. The word is self explanatory. Untouchability means something not to be touched. It is not that simple a phenomenon. It is the politics of caste system to impose the notions of purity and pollution on the lower strata of the caste system.

According to Dipankar Gupta, as the ‘book view’ of the caste system is derived largely from sacerdotal Hindu texts, members of the upper castes find it extremely agreeable. It justifies the caste system in terms of purity and pollution, giving the impression that all castes-high and low-abide by this single, overarching textual hierarchy. The truth is that no caste, howsoever lowly placed it may be, accepts the reasons for its degradation. Harijans, of whatever jati, do not accept that upper-caste view that their bodies are made of impure substances. It is quite another matter that other castes insist on treating them as polluting. (Gupta, 2000: 2). Hence the caste system is not as simple as just merely a system of stratification that is hierarchical. It is a politics of power. Every caste uses the ideology of purity and pollution to maintain the ranks and the positions in the caste hierarchy. Every caste wants some other caste below them.

Gopal Guru states that, according to Manusmriti, the physical association of the upper castes, which is still under the social influence of ritual orders, with the earth, is considered to be ritually polluting. According to Manusmriti, members of the top layer in social hierarchy are not supposed to soil their hands with either the earth or mud. Using ritual pollution to assign negative quality to the earth goes completely against the Gandhian naturopathy, which treats the earth with much respect on account of its having a healing value. Gandhi considers it as healing inasmuch as it helps in pumping out the excess heat from the body. But the Manu strictures deny this medicinal value of the earth. The earth, thus, suggests a broad division based on purity-pollution thus dividing the top of the twice-born on the pure side and the shudras and ati-shudra on the impure side (Guru, 2009: 51). Here Guru is addressing the question, how is purity and pollution institutionalized? As Dipankar Gupta (2000) argued the sacred texts of the Hindu philosophy governs the ideas of the caste system. Guru takes the idea of Panchabhut in Hindu philosophy which constitutes all bodies.

In such a system, untouchability was and still is a form of exploitation which subordinates and excludes the “low castes”. Even though the law criminalizes untouchability, it is seen that in many places, till date, it is in practice. There are various research works, books, documentaries showing the reality of the existence of such practices. Gopal Guru has been very vocal in the research and academic circles for instance. The documentary ‘India Untouched’ brought out ground breaking oral narratives proving the existence of the practice.

In this module we discussed three forms of exploitation, subordination and social exclusion; Class, caste and gender and analysed who, why, when, where and how exploitation, subordination and exclusion is, does these occurs and experienced and the knowledge ideological systems that legitmise and institutionalised it.

REFERENCES:

• Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology (6 ed.). Cambridge: Polity press.
• Gupta, D. (2000). Interrogating Caste: understanding hierarchy and difference in Indian society. New Delhi: Penguin books.
• Guru, G. (2009). Archeology of untouchability. Economic and political weekly , 49-56.
• Holmstrom, N. (1977). Exploitation. Canadian journal of Philosophy , 353-369.
• Kerbo, H. R. (2007). Social stratification. In C. D. Peck, 21st century Sociology: A reference handbook (pp. 228-236). Thousand Oaks: Sage publicaton.
• Marshall, J. S. (2009). Oxford dictionary of Sociology. New York: Oxford university pess. Ritzer, G. (2011). Sociological theory (5 ed.). New Delhi: Tata McGraw hill education private limited.