Click here to join telegram group
Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893–1983) is widely regarded as the father of Indian sociology. As the first Professor of Sociology at Bombay University, he institutionalised sociology in India and founded the Indian Sociological Society in 1951.
However, what truly distinguishes Ghurye is his ‘theoretical pluralism’ — his ability to blend diverse theoretical and methodological traditions from both Indology and modern empirical sociology.
Meaning of Theoretical Pluralism
Theoretical pluralism refers to the use of multiple theoretical perspectives rather than adherence to a single school of thought. A theoretically pluralistic sociologist borrows from different paradigms — structural-functionalism, historical, cultural, or empirical approaches — to explain social phenomena in a holistic manner.
Ghurye exemplifies this pluralism by combining:
- Indological method (study through texts and cultural history), and
- Empirical and field-based methods of sociology.
He was neither purely a textual Indologist like Max Müller nor purely empirical like M. N. Srinivas — instead, he merged both.
1. Indological Foundation of Ghurye’s Work
Influenced by his mentor W. H. R. Rivers at Cambridge and the Indological tradition of scholars like Max Weber and A. L. Basham, Ghurye used ancient texts — Vedas, Puranas, Smritis, and Epics — to understand Indian society.
His early work, “Caste and Race in India” (1932), demonstrates how he interpreted caste through Sanskritic sources, viewing it as a product of both race and social organisation.
→ Theoretical perspective:
- Cultural-Historical and Textual Analysis
- Influenced by Orientalism and Cultural Evolutionism
- Yet combined with Weberian understanding of status and Durkheimian ideas of solidarity.
2. Integration of Western Sociological Traditions
Ghurye did not reject Western sociology; he appropriated it for Indian contexts.
Western Influence | Reflected in Ghurye’s Work |
---|---|
Functionalism (Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown) | He examined how social institutions like caste, family, and religion contribute to social order and cohesion. |
Historical and Comparative Sociology (Weber) | His studies of Hindu civilization linked social institutions with religious and cultural ethos. |
Cultural Anthropology (Rivers) | Field-based studies on tribes, kinship, and urban life. |
Hence, his sociology was not derivative but synthetic — rooted in Indian culture yet theoretically cosmopolitan.
3. Empirical Turn in Ghurye’s Later Works
While his early writings were text-based, Ghurye later moved toward field research.
He guided numerous empirical studies on:
- Urbanization (Cities and Civilization),
- Tribal life (The Scheduled Tribes),
- Family and kinship (Family and Kin in Indo-European Culture).
This marked his shift from “book-view” to “field-view,” combining Indological, historical, and empirical approaches — the very essence of theoretical pluralism.
4. His Students as Continuators of Theoretical Pluralism
Ghurye’s pluralistic approach influenced a whole generation of Indian sociologists:
- M. N. Srinivas – developed the field-view and concepts like Sanskritization.
- Yogendra Singh – combined structural-functionalism with modernization theory.
- A. R. Desai – took Ghurye’s framework toward Marxism, offering a class-based critique of Indian society.
This shows how Ghurye’s pluralism provided an open theoretical platform rather than a rigid paradigm.
5. Ghurye’s Works Reflecting Theoretical Pluralism
Work | Approach Reflected | Description |
---|---|---|
Caste and Race in India | Indological + Historical + Comparative | Uses textual evidence and sociological reasoning to explain caste evolution. |
Family and Kin in Indo-European Culture | Comparative + Functionalist | Studies kinship across civilizations. |
Indian Sadhus | Cultural + Functional | Analyses asceticism as both a cultural and social institution. |
The Scheduled Tribes | Empirical + Integrative | Critiques isolationist policies; calls tribes ‘Backward Hindus’. |
6. Critical Evaluation
- Positives:
- Blended diverse perspectives for contextual understanding.
- Created an indigenous framework without rejecting Western theory.
- His work built the foundation for Indian sociology’s autonomy.
- Criticisms:
- His reliance on Sanskritic texts led to a ‘Brahmanical bias’, overlooking subaltern or non-Hindu voices.
- Neglected issues of class and economic structure, unlike Marxist sociologists.
- His integration was more synthetic than critical — he juxtaposed theories rather than reconciling their contradictions.
Conclusion
G. S. Ghurye’s sociology is best understood as a harmonious synthesis of multiple theoretical traditions — Indological, functionalist, historical, and empirical.
This pluralism enabled him to craft a uniquely Indian sociology, balancing tradition with modernity, textual analysis with fieldwork, and cultural specificity with universal theory.
Thus, it is entirely appropriate to characterise Ghurye as a “practitioner of theoretical pluralism”, whose intellectual legacy continues to shape the methodological diversity of Indian sociology.