Sociology of Social Work

Notes on Customs, Traditions, Folkways, mores...

CUSTOMS

Public health workers consider the customs of people and communities, especially when they try to encourage the acceptance of health promotion and disease prevention programs or policies. Customs are more than aggregates of individual habits. They are regular, patterned, learned, and traditional ways of appearing or behaving in response to a given situation or occasion. Customs may be reflected in language, greetings, communications, religion, and certainly in health practices that distinguish one social group from another. The complexity of the study of customs was emphasized by the anthropologist Ruth Benedict, who noted in the 1930s that traditional customs the world over consist of a mass of detailed behaviors more varied than that which any one person could ever evolve individually.
Customs are derived from social norms, which are those rules or standards that guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior of a group. These norms define the shared expectations of a group and enable people to anticipate how others will interpret and respond to their words and actions if there is deviation from a custom. For example, if one has an infectious disease, typically the custom within the general community is to act in a manner to prevent infecting others. Failing that, the customary responses from others may range from ignoring the individual's behavior, verbally reprimanding, or even ostracizing him or her for threatening the health of other members.
A custom may exist at the level of a folkway or a more. Each of these concepts help demarcate the strength and importance of a custom held by a particular group relevant to a particular situation. The concept of folkways was developed by the American sociologist William Graham Sumner and his followers in the early 1900s. "The ways of the folk" arose and persisted over time as repetitive and accumulative patterns of expected behavior for responding to similar social situations or individual needs. They ultimately became incorporated into tradition and received some degree of formal recognition but were not considered of moral significance. Folkways may be reflected in the everyday habits and conventions people obey without giving much thought to the matter, for example, eating three meals a day, drinking alcohol but not to a state of drunkenness, or using the group's "right way" to cure disease. People who violate folkways may be labeled eccentrics and as a rule they are tolerated by the group.
When certain folkways become well established and are regarded by general agreement as highly important and obligatory, as evidenced by strong sentiments against deviation and by severe punishment for violation, they become mores. Mores are customs that represent the absolute truth to the particular group and are the norms people consider vital to their well being and to their most cherished values. They typically take the form of laws, for example, prohibitions against incest, drunk driving, and child abuse. In contrast to folkways, violations of mores by people or groups can provoke intense reactions ranging from being ostracized, beaten, jailed, exiled, or executed.
From the moment of birth, the customs into which the people are born shape their experiences and behavior. In many groups, health-related behavior may be custom bound and very normative—tradition sets the precedent and solves problems, whether by authority or by consensus. Individuals are required to learn about the specific customs that shape their health behavior and to perform what they have learned. In reality, however, by the time children can think independently, the health-related customs of the family group have become an intimate part of their personalities. They do not question these customs, which become deeply held and extremely difficult to change over time. For example, the manner of tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in some groups and communities have become customs or norms, even though such use carries major health risks. Any attempts to eliminate or modify or reverse behaviors so integrally tied to social customs often provokes hostile resistance to a new health program that intends to reduce health-related risks. Also, in many groups the custom is not to talk about certain sensitive topics, such as cancer or the sexual activities of adults or teenagers relevant to preventing pregnancy. For instance, in a particular ethnic group, the custom of its members may be to shun any discussion of cancer. The effect of this custom discourages individuals from initiating early screening behaviors that could save their lives.
Sometimes it is necessary to try to change or circumvent established customs in a community, particularly when this can bring modern health procedures for reducing particular health-related risks. Changing folkways and mores can be a very slow process, and it is not until their functional utility has disappeared that they may gradually change. New practices may then become embedded in the community as new values to be transmitted from one generation to the next. This requires public health workers to gradually adapt the customs and values of a community rather than trying to abruptly and totally change them.

TRADITIONS
A tradition is a practice, custom, or story that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system. Tools to aid this process include poetic devices such as rhyme and alliteration. The stories thus preserved are also referred to as tradition, or as part of an oral tradition.
Tradition is a knowledge system (a means of transferring knowledge). Economists Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Sowell explain that tradition is an economically efficient way to transfer and obtain knowledge of all kinds. Sowell, for example, notes that decision-making consumes time (a valuable resource), and cultural traditions offer a rich, low-cost, consensually authenticated way to economize on the resources required to make decisions independently.^[1] Chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argues that the importance of tradition stems precisely from the fact that we know more than we can articulate, and that we amass and communicate valuable knowledge through tradition, often without conscious awareness of all the factors that influenced the development of traditions.^[2]
Traditions are often presumed to be ancient, unalterable, and deeply important, though they may sometimes be much less "natural" than is presumed. Some traditions were deliberately invented for one reason or another, often to highlight or enhance the importance of a certain institution.^[cite]Traditions may also be changed to suit the needs of the day, and the changes can become accepted as a part of the ancient tradition. A famous book on the subject is The Invention of Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger.
Some examples include "the invention of tradition" in Africa and other colonial holdings by the occupying forces. Requiring legitimacy, the colonial power would often invent a "tradition" which they could use to legitimize their own position. For example, a certain succession to a chiefdom might be recognized by a colonial power as traditional in order to favour their own candidates for the job. Often these inventions were based in some form of tradition, but were grossly exaggerated, distorted, or biased toward a particular interpretation.
Other traditions that have been altered through the years include various religious festivals such as Christmas. The actual date of Jesus' birth does not coincide with December 25 as in the Western Church. This day was chosen to capitalize on the popularity of traditional solstice celebrations


MORES
Mores [Pronounced MORE-ays] are strongly held norms or customs. These derive from the established practices of a society rather than its written laws.Taboos form the subset of mores that forbid a society's most outrageous behaviours, such as incest and murder in many societies. Usually these are formalized in some kind of moral code, e.g. commandments. Most sociologists reject the thesis that the formalization matters as much as the informal social response of disgust and isolation of offenders. The term mores (IPA [ˈmɔːreɪz]) as used in sociology is a plural noun. The Latin singular, which is not used in English, is mos--in English, the word has no singular, making it plurale tantum. The English word morality comes from the same root, as does the noun moral, which can mean the 'core meaning of a story'.
However, constant exposure to social mores is thought by some to lead to development of an individual moral core, which is pre-rational and consists of a set of inhibitions that cannot be easily characterized except as potential inhibitions against taking opportunities that the family or society does not consider desirable. These in turn cannot be easily separated from individual opinions or fears of getting caught.
Tocqueville claimed that democracy in America influenced mores properly, from a European perspective; mores became milder as conditions equalized.
Examples of mores are the differences between a man and woman walking down the street topless. While the man may receive mild sanctions a woman would receive harsh sanctions for the same act. Another example might be someone picking his or her nose; which, although harmless, is widely considered as disgusting to the general populace and goes against the normal.

FOLKWAYS
Folkways are the patterns of conventional behavior in a society, norms that apply to everyday matters. They are the conventions and habits learned from childhood.
They are one of two types of norms, the other being Mores, which are much more strictly enforced than folkways. Generally conformity to folkways is ensured by gentle social pressure and imitation. Breaking or questioning a folkway does not cause severe punishment, but may cause the person to be laughed at, frowned upon, or scolded. In western culture, folkways include wearing gender-appropriate clothing, respecting the privacy of strangers, and eating food with the proper utensil.

Indian Caste system

THE CASTE SYSTEM AND
THE STAGES OF LIFE IN HINDUISM

The pattern of social classes in Hinduism is called the "caste system." The chart shows the major divisions and contents of the system. Basic caste is called varn.a, or "color." Subcaste, or jâti, "birth, life, rank," is a traditional subdivision of varn.a.

The Bhagavad Gita says this about the varn.as:

[41] The works of Brahmins, Ks.atriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras are different, in harmony with the three powers of their born nature.[42] The works of a Brahmin are peace; self-harmony, austerity, and purity; loving-forgiveness and righteousness; vision and wisdom and faith.
[43] These are the works of a Ks.atriya: a heroic mind, inner fire, constancy, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and noble leadership.
[44] Trade, agriculture and the rearing of cattle is the work of a Vaishya. And the work of the Shudra is service.
[chapter 18, Juan Mascaró translation, Penguin Books, 1962]

There are literally thousands of subcastes in India, often with particular geographical ranges, occupational specializations, and an administrative or corporate structure. When Mahâtmâ Gandhi wanted to go to England to study law, he had to ask his subcaste, the Modh Bania, for permission to leave India. ("Bania", means "merchant," and "Gandhi" means "greengrocer" -- from gandha, "smell, fragrance," in Sanskrit -- and that should be enough for a good guess that Gandhi was a Vaishya.) Sometimes it is denied that the varn.as are "castes" because, while "true" castes, the jâtis, are based on birth, the varn.as are based on the theory of the gun.as (the "three powers" mentioned in the Gita). This is no more than a rationalization: the varn.as came first, and they are based on birth. The gun.as came later, and provide a poor explanation anyway, since the gun.a tamas is associated with both twice born and once born, caste and outcaste, overlapping the most important religious and social divisions in the system. Nevertheless, the varn.as are now divisions at a theoretical level, while the jâtis are the way in which caste is embodied for most practical purposes. Jâtis themselves can be ranked in relation to each other, and occasionally a question may even be raised about the proper varn.a to which a particular jâti belongs. As jâti members change occupations and they rise in prestige, a jâti may rarely even be elevated in the varn.a to which it is regarded as belonging.
Associated with each varn.a there is a traditional color. These sound suspiciously like skin colors; and, indeed, there is an expectation in India that higher caste people will have lighter skin -- although there are plenty of exceptions (especially in the South of India). This all probably goes back to the original invasion of the Arya, who came from Central Asia and so were undoubtedly light skinned. The people already in India were quite dark, even as today many people in India seem positively black. Apart from skin color, Indians otherwise have "Caucasian" features -- narrow noses, thin lips, etc. -- and recent genetic mapping studies seem to show that Indians are more closely related to the people of the Middle East and Europe than to anyone else. Because Untouchables are not a varn.a, they do not have a traditional color. I have supplied blue, since this is otherwise not found, and it is traditionally used for the skin color of Vis.n.u and his incarnations. Chief among those is Kr.s.n.a (Krishna), whose name actually means "black" or "dark," but he is always shown blue rather than with some natural skin color.
The first three varn.as are called the twice born. This has nothing to do with reincarnation. Being "twice born" means that you come of agereligiously, making you a member of the Vedic religion, eligible to learn Sanskrit, study theVedas, and perform Vedic rituals. The "second birth" is thus like Confirmation or a Bar Mitzvah. According to the Laws of Manu (whose requirements may not always be observed in modern life), boys are "born again" at specific ages: 8 for Brahmins; 11 for Ks.atriyas; and 12 for Vaishyas. A thread is bestowed at the coming of age to be worn around the waist as the symbol of being twice born. The equivalent of coming of age for girls is marriage. The bestowal of the thread is part of the wedding ceremony. That part of the wedding ritual is even preserved in Jainism. Ancient Iran also had a coming of age ceremony that involved a thread. That and other evidence leads to the speculation that the three classes of the twice born are from the original Indo-European social system -- the theory of George Dumézil. Even the distant Celts believed in three social classes. The three classes of Plato'sRepublic thus may not have been entirely his idea. Although there must have been a great deal of early intermarriage in India, nowhere did such an Indo-European social system become as rigid a system of birth as there. The rigidity may well be due to the influence of the idea of karma, that poor birth is morally deserved.
According to the Laws of Manu, when the twice born come of age, they enter into the fourâshramas or "stages of life."

1. The first is the brahmacarya, or the stage of the student (brahmacârin). For boys, the student is supposed to go live with a teacher (guru), who is a Brahmin, to learn about Sanskrit, the Vedas, rituals, etc. The dharma of a student includes being obedient, respectful, celibate, and non-violent. "The teacher is God." For girls, the stage of studenthood coincides with that of the householder, and the husband stands in the place of the teacher. Since the boys are supposed to be celibate while students, Gandhi used the term brahmacâri to mean the celibate practitioner that he thought made the best Satyagrahi, the best non-violent activist.
2. The second stage is the gârhastya, or the stage of the householder, which is taken far more seriously in Hinduism than in Jainism or Buddhismand is usually regarded as mandatory, like studenthood, although debate continued over the centuries whether or not this stage could be skipped in favor of a later one. This is the stage where the principal dharma of the person is performed, whether as priest, warrior, etc., or for women mainly as wife and mother. Arjuna's duty to fight the battle in the Bhagavad Gita comes from his status as a householder. Besides specific duties, there are general duties that pay off the "three debts": (1) a debt to the ancestors that is discharged by marrying and having children; (2) a debt to the gods that is discharged by the household rituals and sacrifices; and (3) a debt to the teacher that is discharged by appropriately teaching one's wife, children, and, for Brahmins, other students. The three debts are sometimes associated with the three Gods of the Trimûrti -- the ancestor debt with Brahmâ, the gods debt with Vis.n.u, and the teacher debt with Shiva.
3. The third stage is the vânaprastya, or the stage of the forest dweller. This may be entered into optionally if (ideally) one's hair has become gray, one's skin wrinkled, and grandchildren exist to carry on the family. Husbands and wives may leave their affairs and possessions with their children and retire together to the forest as hermits. This does not involve the complete renunciation of the world, for husbands and wives can still have sex (once a month), and a sacred fire still should be kept and minimal rituals performed. This stage is thus not entirely free of dharma. The Forest Treatises were supposed to have been written by or for forest dwellers, who have mostly renounced the world and have begun to consider liberation. I am not aware that forest dwelling is still practiced in the traditional way. The modern alternatives seem to consist of the more stark opposition between householding and becoming a wandering ascetic. Nevertheless, forest dwelling is an institution that doesn't really develop as such in Jainism and Buddhism. The idea that husbands and wives would engage in ascetic practices together, without celibacy, would appear extraordinary. In those terms, it is an unfortunate loss if the institution does not continue in modern Hinduism.
4. The fourth stage is the sannyâsa, or the stage of the wandering ascetic, the sannyâsin (or sâdhu). If a man desires, he may continue on to this stage, but his wife will need to return home; traditionally she cannot stay alone as a forest dweller or wander the highways as an ascetic. Thesannyâsin has renounced the world completely, is regarded as dead by his family (the funeral is held), and is finally beyond all dharma and caste. When a sannyâsin enters a Hindu temple, he is not a worshiper but one of the objects of worship. Not even the gods are sannyâsins (they are householders), and so this is where in Hinduism, as in Jainism and Buddhism, it is possible for human beings to be spiritually superior to the gods. It has long been a matter of dispute in Hinduism whether one need really fulfill the requirements of the Laws of Manu (gray hair, etc.) to renounce the world. The Mahâbhârata says that Brahmins may go directly to Renunciation, but it also says that the three debts must be paid -- and the debt to the ancestors could only be paid with husbands and wives living together either as householders or, if renunciates, as forest dwellers (indeed, the Pân.d.avas are all born in that way). There are definitely no such requirements in Jainism or Buddhism. The Buddha left his family right after his wife had a baby, which would put him in the middle of his dharma as a householder. Buddhism and Jainism thus developed monasticinstitutions, with monks and nuns, but these did not really develop as such in Hinduism: While wandering ascetics are rather like mendicant monks, we lack monasteries and nuns, and the ascetics are, traditionally, supposed to have already lived something like a normal, lay life.

The four stages of life may, somewhat improbably, be associated with the four parts of the Vedas: the sam.hitâs with the stage of the student, who is particularly obligated to learn them; the brâhman.as with the stage of the householder, who is able to regulate his ritual behavior according to them; the âran.yakas with the stage of the forest dweller, who regulates his ritual behavior according to them and who begins to contemplate liberation; and finally the upanis.ads with the stage of the wandering ascetic, who is entirely concerned with meditation on the absolute, Brahman.
The twice born may account for as much as 48% of Hindus, though I have now seen the number put at more like 18% -- quite a difference but more believable. The Shudras (58% of Hindus) may represent the institutional provision that the Arya made for the people they already found in India. The Shudras thus remain once born, and traditionally were not allowed to learn Sanskrit or study the Vedas -- on pain of death. Their dharma is to work for the twice born. But even below the Shudras are the Untouchables (24% of Hindus), who are literally "outcastes," without a varn.a, and were regarded as "untouchable" because they are ritually polluting for caste Hindus. Some Untouchable subcastes are regarded as so polluted that members are supposed to keep out of sight and do their work at night: They are called "Unseeables."
In India, the term "Untouchable" is now regarded as insulting or politically incorrect (like Eta in Japan for the traditional tanners and pariahs). Gandhi's Harijans ("children of God") or Dalits ("downtrodden") are prefered, though to Americans "Untouchables" would sound more like the gangster-busting federal agent Elliot Ness from the 1920's. Why there are so many Untouchables is unclear, although caste Hindus can be ejected from their jâtis and become outcastes and various tribal or formerly tribal people in India may never have been properly integrated into the social system. When Mahâtmâ Gandhi's subcaste refused him permission to go to England, as noted above, he went anyway and was ejected from the caste. After he returned, his family got him back in, but while in England he was technically an outcaste. Existing tribal people as well as Untouchables are also called the "scheduled castes," since the British drew up a "schedule" listing the castes that they regarded as backwards, underprivileged, or oppressed.
The Untouchables, nevertheless, have their own traditional professions and their own subcastes. Those professions (unless they can be evaded in the greater social mobility of modern, urban, anonymous life) involve too much pollution to be performed by caste Hindus: (1) dealing with the bodies of dead animals (like the sacred cattle that wander Indian villages) or unclaimed dead humans, (2) tanning leather, from such dead animals, and manufacturing leather goods, and (3) cleaning up the human and animal waste for which in traditional villages there is no sewer system. Mahâtmâ Gandhi referred to the latter euphemistically as "scavenging" but saw in it the most horrible thing imposed on the Untouchables by the caste system. His requirement on his farms in South Africa that everyone share in such tasks comes up in an early scene in the movie Gandhi. Since Gandhi equated suffering with holiness, he saw the Untouchables as hallowed by their miserable treatment and so called them "Harijans" (Hari=Vis.n.u). Later Gandhi went on fasts in the hope of improving the condition of the Untouchables, or at least to avoid their being politically classified as non-Hindus.
Today the status of the Shudras, Untouchables, and other "scheduled castes," and the preferential policies that the Indian government has designed for their advancement ever since Independence, are sources of serious conflict, including suicides, murders, and riots, in Indian society. Meanwhile, however, especially since economic liberalization began in 1991, the social mobility of a modern economy and urban life has begun to disrupt traditional professions, and oppressions, even of Untouchables. Village life and economic stasis were the greatest allies of the caste system, but both are slowly retreating before modernity in an India that finally gave up the Soviet paradigm of economic planning.