论文部分内容阅读
（Southwest Nationalities Research Academy，Southwest University
for Nationalities，Chengdu，610041，Sichuan，China ）
JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL.6，NO.5，39-47，2015（CN51-1731/C，in Chinese）
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.05.05
Abstract：
I.The Caste System and the Hierarchy： Dumont and his Indian Study
As one of the most important anthropologists in 20th century，Louis Dumont，on one hand，successfully introduced anthropological theory and methodology to Indian Studies，on the other hand，he contributed a lot to anthropology through his Indian studies.He applied structuralism and ideology in his fieldwork and ethnography，and refocused attention on comparative studies based on local concepts，categories and values.In his Homo Hierarchicus，he applied his mentor Marcel Mauss idea of totality，and emphasized that ： “it is only in relation to the totality thus reconstructed that the ideology takes on its true sociological significance.”This book is also remarked on as one of the best studies for understanding other societies based on this societys social theory.Another book by him，Essays on Individualism，is praised as presenting an anthropological way of rethinking the locality of western civilization and its ideology，instead of regarding it as universal.Based on the comparative study of“western” and “eastern” civilizations，he proposes： “our problem is： how can we build a bridge between our modern ideology that separates values and ‘fact and other ideologies that embed values in their world view？”
His most famous and important concept is “hierarchy”，which he believes is the key to understanding the Indian caste system and Indian society.He emphasizes that hierarchy cannot be explained by the western idea of class or social stratification.He defines hierarchy as a concept derived from traditional Hindu theory，as “the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole.” Hierarchy，with the caste system as its social form，is underlined by the Hindu opposition between pure and impure.Dumont highlights this opposition as a “Synthetic a priori”opposition which follow such a principle：“the whole is founded on the necessary and hierarchical coexistence of the two opposites.”This principle leads us into “a purely structural universe： it is the whole which governs the parts，and this whole is very rigorously conceived as based on an opposition.”Then，the binary structure becomes that which encompasses the contrary.As Dumont says：“the elements belong to the set，and are，in this sense，consubstantial or identical with it.At the same time，the elements are distinct from the set or stand in opposition to it.”This is what Dumont means by the expression “the encompassing of the contrary”. Hierarchy and the idea of “pure” are embedded into every aspect of the Indians life world，i.e.“That is the essential‘function of hierarchy： it expresses the unity of such a society whist connecting it to what appears to it to be universal，namely a conception of the cosmic order.If one likes，hierarchy integrates the society by reference to its values.”Therefore，hierarchy in India is “rendered perfectly univocal in principle”.In other words，based on the principle of hierarchy，prestige and authority are separated from the real power，which forms the ideal type of India in Max Webbers sense.And Dumont says，“Our first task is to grasp this intellectual system，this ideology.”
II： Principles of Brahman and Ksatra in the Brahmanas： the Secularized Kingship
The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is restricted to the conception of kingship as distinct from its actualities，or is an anthropological analysis on the Hindu conception of kinship as a social theory by examining the Hindu classics.
Being abundantly documented from the Brahmanas onwards，the principles of Brahman and Ksatra express the hierarchical relationship between king and priest.Dumont believes that “the Brahman being the source，or rather the womb，from which the Ksatrasprings，is superior; the brahman could exist without the ksatra，not conversely.”In other words，the principle of Brahman represents the universal order，i.e.dharma; while the principle of Ksatra represents a practical individual interest，i.e.artha.Brahman and Ksatra are first presented as “the two forces” in Brahmanas，but they “go together，and are to be united”.Kshatriyas and Brahmans cannot prosper separately，only in close association.
There are two myths about Vi〖KG-1.5mm〗s〖DD（-2.5mm〗'〖DD）〗〖KG-0.8mm〗vāmitra which well illustrat the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra.The first is about Kashatriya Vi〖KG-1.5mm〗s〖DD（-2.5mm〗'〖DD）〗〖KG-0.8mm〗vāmitra.When he tries to appropriate themagic cow of the Brahman Vasistha，he is driven to acknowledge that brute force is powerless against the magico-religious force which defends the right of the Brahman，and he finally decides to transform himself into a Brahman through austerity.The second is the legend of Satyavrata.Vasistha，the kings chaplain，does not prevent the prince Satyavrata from being unjustly banished for twelve years，and during that time he acts as a kind of regent.No rain falls.In the end，Visvamitra places Satyavrata on the throne again in spite of the gods and of Vasistha.Both myths express the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra which is mutual but asymmetricaldependence.This principle forms the basic relationship between Hindus religious authority and secular kingship. While presenting Hindu kingship as an exceptional one in a comparison bearing on kingship，Dumont also analyses different types of kingship.The most common one is a magico-religious as well as a political function.The alternative ones are： the king exerts the religious functions which are generally his，and exerts，at the same time，political power; or as in the Indian case，the king depends on the priests for priests for the religious functions.Dumont points out the common topic in the different kinds of kingship： dealing with the relationship between religious function and political power.In India，the king cannot be his own sacrifice.Instead he puts a priest in front of himself，thereby，losing the hierarchical preeminence in favor of the priests，and retaining for himself power only.This is how the Hindu kingship becomes secular，and is what makes it unique.
III.Conventional Kingship and Politics： the Realization of the Secularized Kingship
Dumont also reminds us，that while the Ksatra，or the king，has been dispossessed of religious functions proper，or of the official religious functions，at the core of the idea of kingship，are the elementary notions of a magico-religious nature not usurped by the Brahman.In this sense，this is the necessary basis of what may be called conventional kingship as opposed to magico-religious kingship.
Different from，but paralleling with，the western theories of contract，the shaping of conventional kingship is actually related to the thought of individualists，i.e.，of renouncers.As a result，in India，a domain forms which can be understood as “rational politics”.There are two concepts which are essential to understanding the Hindu political domain： danda and artha.Danda，in the proper sense is the stick，which means chastisement or punishment.Artha，whose meaning is close to “aiming at”，may be translated as “interest”.Dumont also compares the conception of dharma and artha.Dharma is the universal norm，hence disinterest，while artha is interest without regard to the universal norm.
By analyzing Arthashastra，Dumont suggests that taking danda and artha together would result in something like： “the exercise of force for the pursuit of interest and the maintenance of order”.And he also reminds us that even the notion of “interest of force” recalls western speculations.However，it should not be forgotten that the context is fundamentally different.Arthashastra defines the kingdom as being made up of seven limbs or natural elements： the master，the companions，the country，the stronghold or fortified town，the treasury，the army，and the ally.Dumont points out that the order of seven elements is meaningful，and must be interpreted as having a hierarchical value.This is the key to understanding the realization of secular Hindu kingship. IV.Conclusion
Although The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is not a long paper，it still established the complex process of the secularization of Hindu kingship in a global and comparative perspective.In his conclusion，Dumont emphasized two main events or stages.The first is the secularization of kingship laid down in the Brahman-ksatra relationship.The second appeared under two forms： on the one hand in the idea of contractual kingship，on the other hand，in the theory of artha.
Even though the similarities with the West are striking，Hindu kingship is still different because it did not develop an absolutely autonomous political sphere in relation to religion.By understanding India with its own theory，Dumont also suggests that we try and curb the scholars term to Indias reality.As he says，“the search for meaning reveals development，the search for changes does not produce history.”
In the end，Dumont further predicts the future of the anthropological theory and methodology： “the time has perhaps come when the mirror anthropologists direct at other societies should be turned back by them on ourselves，when we should try and formulate our own institutions in comparative language，i.e.，a language modified by what we have learnt of different societies，however incomplete.It might well be the royal road for the advancement of sociological understanding.”
Key Words： kingship;profane; the Caste System;hierarchy
References：
Georges Dumezil.From Myth to Fiction： The Saga of Hadingus，University of Chicago Press，1976.
Georges Dumezil.The Fate of a King.Trans.Alf Hiltebeitel.Chicago： Chicago University Press，1973.
Henry Frankfort.Kingship and Gods，Oriental Institute ，1978.
Liang Yongjia.chayi yu dengji： luyi dumong de bijiao shehuixue（Difference and Hierarchy： Louis Dumonts Comparative Sociology），in Chinese Review of Anthropology（15），2010.
Louis Dumont.The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India，in his，Homo Hierarchicus： the Caste System and its Implications，Oxford University Press，1970.
Louis Dumont.Homo Hierarchicus： the Caste System and its Implications，Oxford University Press，1970.
Louis Dumont.Essays on Individualism，the University of Chicago Press，1986.
Zhang Yahui.dengjiren yu pingdengren（Hierarchical Man and Equal Man），in his lishi yu shenshengxing（History and Divinity），world publishing corporation，2010.
for Nationalities，Chengdu，610041，Sichuan，China ）
JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL.6，NO.5，39-47，2015（CN51-1731/C，in Chinese）
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.05.05
Abstract：
I.The Caste System and the Hierarchy： Dumont and his Indian Study
As one of the most important anthropologists in 20th century，Louis Dumont，on one hand，successfully introduced anthropological theory and methodology to Indian Studies，on the other hand，he contributed a lot to anthropology through his Indian studies.He applied structuralism and ideology in his fieldwork and ethnography，and refocused attention on comparative studies based on local concepts，categories and values.In his Homo Hierarchicus，he applied his mentor Marcel Mauss idea of totality，and emphasized that ： “it is only in relation to the totality thus reconstructed that the ideology takes on its true sociological significance.”This book is also remarked on as one of the best studies for understanding other societies based on this societys social theory.Another book by him，Essays on Individualism，is praised as presenting an anthropological way of rethinking the locality of western civilization and its ideology，instead of regarding it as universal.Based on the comparative study of“western” and “eastern” civilizations，he proposes： “our problem is： how can we build a bridge between our modern ideology that separates values and ‘fact and other ideologies that embed values in their world view？”
His most famous and important concept is “hierarchy”，which he believes is the key to understanding the Indian caste system and Indian society.He emphasizes that hierarchy cannot be explained by the western idea of class or social stratification.He defines hierarchy as a concept derived from traditional Hindu theory，as “the principle by which the elements of a whole are ranked in relation to the whole.” Hierarchy，with the caste system as its social form，is underlined by the Hindu opposition between pure and impure.Dumont highlights this opposition as a “Synthetic a priori”opposition which follow such a principle：“the whole is founded on the necessary and hierarchical coexistence of the two opposites.”This principle leads us into “a purely structural universe： it is the whole which governs the parts，and this whole is very rigorously conceived as based on an opposition.”Then，the binary structure becomes that which encompasses the contrary.As Dumont says：“the elements belong to the set，and are，in this sense，consubstantial or identical with it.At the same time，the elements are distinct from the set or stand in opposition to it.”This is what Dumont means by the expression “the encompassing of the contrary”. Hierarchy and the idea of “pure” are embedded into every aspect of the Indians life world，i.e.“That is the essential‘function of hierarchy： it expresses the unity of such a society whist connecting it to what appears to it to be universal，namely a conception of the cosmic order.If one likes，hierarchy integrates the society by reference to its values.”Therefore，hierarchy in India is “rendered perfectly univocal in principle”.In other words，based on the principle of hierarchy，prestige and authority are separated from the real power，which forms the ideal type of India in Max Webbers sense.And Dumont says，“Our first task is to grasp this intellectual system，this ideology.”
II： Principles of Brahman and Ksatra in the Brahmanas： the Secularized Kingship
The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is restricted to the conception of kingship as distinct from its actualities，or is an anthropological analysis on the Hindu conception of kinship as a social theory by examining the Hindu classics.
Being abundantly documented from the Brahmanas onwards，the principles of Brahman and Ksatra express the hierarchical relationship between king and priest.Dumont believes that “the Brahman being the source，or rather the womb，from which the Ksatrasprings，is superior; the brahman could exist without the ksatra，not conversely.”In other words，the principle of Brahman represents the universal order，i.e.dharma; while the principle of Ksatra represents a practical individual interest，i.e.artha.Brahman and Ksatra are first presented as “the two forces” in Brahmanas，but they “go together，and are to be united”.Kshatriyas and Brahmans cannot prosper separately，only in close association.
There are two myths about Vi〖KG-1.5mm〗s〖DD（-2.5mm〗'〖DD）〗〖KG-0.8mm〗vāmitra which well illustrat the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra.The first is about Kashatriya Vi〖KG-1.5mm〗s〖DD（-2.5mm〗'〖DD）〗〖KG-0.8mm〗vāmitra.When he tries to appropriate themagic cow of the Brahman Vasistha，he is driven to acknowledge that brute force is powerless against the magico-religious force which defends the right of the Brahman，and he finally decides to transform himself into a Brahman through austerity.The second is the legend of Satyavrata.Vasistha，the kings chaplain，does not prevent the prince Satyavrata from being unjustly banished for twelve years，and during that time he acts as a kind of regent.No rain falls.In the end，Visvamitra places Satyavrata on the throne again in spite of the gods and of Vasistha.Both myths express the relationship between Brahman and Ksatra which is mutual but asymmetricaldependence.This principle forms the basic relationship between Hindus religious authority and secular kingship. While presenting Hindu kingship as an exceptional one in a comparison bearing on kingship，Dumont also analyses different types of kingship.The most common one is a magico-religious as well as a political function.The alternative ones are： the king exerts the religious functions which are generally his，and exerts，at the same time，political power; or as in the Indian case，the king depends on the priests for priests for the religious functions.Dumont points out the common topic in the different kinds of kingship： dealing with the relationship between religious function and political power.In India，the king cannot be his own sacrifice.Instead he puts a priest in front of himself，thereby，losing the hierarchical preeminence in favor of the priests，and retaining for himself power only.This is how the Hindu kingship becomes secular，and is what makes it unique.
III.Conventional Kingship and Politics： the Realization of the Secularized Kingship
Dumont also reminds us，that while the Ksatra，or the king，has been dispossessed of religious functions proper，or of the official religious functions，at the core of the idea of kingship，are the elementary notions of a magico-religious nature not usurped by the Brahman.In this sense，this is the necessary basis of what may be called conventional kingship as opposed to magico-religious kingship.
Different from，but paralleling with，the western theories of contract，the shaping of conventional kingship is actually related to the thought of individualists，i.e.，of renouncers.As a result，in India，a domain forms which can be understood as “rational politics”.There are two concepts which are essential to understanding the Hindu political domain： danda and artha.Danda，in the proper sense is the stick，which means chastisement or punishment.Artha，whose meaning is close to “aiming at”，may be translated as “interest”.Dumont also compares the conception of dharma and artha.Dharma is the universal norm，hence disinterest，while artha is interest without regard to the universal norm.
By analyzing Arthashastra，Dumont suggests that taking danda and artha together would result in something like： “the exercise of force for the pursuit of interest and the maintenance of order”.And he also reminds us that even the notion of “interest of force” recalls western speculations.However，it should not be forgotten that the context is fundamentally different.Arthashastra defines the kingdom as being made up of seven limbs or natural elements： the master，the companions，the country，the stronghold or fortified town，the treasury，the army，and the ally.Dumont points out that the order of seven elements is meaningful，and must be interpreted as having a hierarchical value.This is the key to understanding the realization of secular Hindu kingship. IV.Conclusion
Although The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India is not a long paper，it still established the complex process of the secularization of Hindu kingship in a global and comparative perspective.In his conclusion，Dumont emphasized two main events or stages.The first is the secularization of kingship laid down in the Brahman-ksatra relationship.The second appeared under two forms： on the one hand in the idea of contractual kingship，on the other hand，in the theory of artha.
Even though the similarities with the West are striking，Hindu kingship is still different because it did not develop an absolutely autonomous political sphere in relation to religion.By understanding India with its own theory，Dumont also suggests that we try and curb the scholars term to Indias reality.As he says，“the search for meaning reveals development，the search for changes does not produce history.”
In the end，Dumont further predicts the future of the anthropological theory and methodology： “the time has perhaps come when the mirror anthropologists direct at other societies should be turned back by them on ourselves，when we should try and formulate our own institutions in comparative language，i.e.，a language modified by what we have learnt of different societies，however incomplete.It might well be the royal road for the advancement of sociological understanding.”
Key Words： kingship;profane; the Caste System;hierarchy
References：
Georges Dumezil.From Myth to Fiction： The Saga of Hadingus，University of Chicago Press，1976.
Georges Dumezil.The Fate of a King.Trans.Alf Hiltebeitel.Chicago： Chicago University Press，1973.
Henry Frankfort.Kingship and Gods，Oriental Institute ，1978.
Liang Yongjia.chayi yu dengji： luyi dumong de bijiao shehuixue（Difference and Hierarchy： Louis Dumonts Comparative Sociology），in Chinese Review of Anthropology（15），2010.
Louis Dumont.The Conception of Kingship in Ancient India，in his，Homo Hierarchicus： the Caste System and its Implications，Oxford University Press，1970.
Louis Dumont.Homo Hierarchicus： the Caste System and its Implications，Oxford University Press，1970.
Louis Dumont.Essays on Individualism，the University of Chicago Press，1986.
Zhang Yahui.dengjiren yu pingdengren（Hierarchical Man and Equal Man），in his lishi yu shenshengxing（History and Divinity），world publishing corporation，2010.