The Plural Society Model in Caribbean Society - Paper Example

The Caribbean society is described as one whereby a plethora of factors is responsible for its dynamic cultural, social, and political form. The most predominant of these factors are colonialism and political independence in the post-independence era. For these reasons, the Caribbean society is viewed as a collective community although this collective definition is often viewed as insufficient because it does not explain the effect of the heterogeneity and tensions that characterize the real-life experiences of the Caribbean diaspora. These factors are significantly attributed to the development of stratification of the Caribbean society in all islands. The social structure of the islands is characterized by unique differences in race, ethnicity, class as well as the shared history of colonialism (Williams, 2016). Given that race, class, and ethnicity are weighty in defining the social structure of the Caribbean society, the plural society model best describes its social structure.

The plural society model, coined by Smith in 1965, asserts that the societies in the Caribbean region are divided into various ethnic groups which interact but do not combine (Smith, 1974). In particular, Smith defined Jamaica as a plural society that comprises of three cultural different societal groups: the blacks, the whites, and the browns. The plural society model is significant in explaining the complexities of the Caribbean societies. However, scholars such as Benn (1974) have criticised the model arguing that it does not take into consideration of the social classes that stratify ethnic groups.

According to Smith (1974), the Caribbean region is inhabited by many ethnic groups and each of them has nearly complete social institutions. By reviewing social anthropological theories used in the study of the Caribbean societies, Smith (1974) views that each of the ethnic groups has a unique family system, language, economic system, political system, and religion. However, the societies are controlled by one dominant group politically. The scholar further identified that the blacks trace their ancestry to slaves while the Indians descended from indentured labourers. Although each of the group is distinct from the other and has its own institutions, they are controlled politically by a foreign power. Hence, the idea of a plural society is demonstrated by the control of all the ethnic groups by a foreign colonial power. Smith (1974) noted that problems emerged with the departure of the colonial master. Unlike Smith (1974) who argues that the societies are bound together by the colonial masters (political institution), Furnivall (1948) argues that the communities are brought together by the economic system of the market place.

A study conducted by Raghuram, Sahoo, and Maharaj (2008) revealed that the East Indian group was differentiated from the Caribbean population in Trinidad and British Guiana. In other regions, the whites, the blacks, and the browns formed a standard group that is structurally and a politically dominant segment in the region. Despite the existence of racial and cultural differences between the three groupings, assimilation and acculturation led to the development of only one continuum in terms of cultural, racial, and social aspects. Earlier studies on these groups specifically on Afro-American acculturation provide evidence that the societies did not have race limitations hence a reflection of the high affinity of assimilation of the locals (Doumerc, 2003). However, it is important to note that there exist major cultural and social differences within the white-black grouping. In particular, the juries were only selected from the wealthy groups and those with light pigmentation. The primary schools were for the labourers which were mainly blacks. In addition, the family structures and the mating patterns of the peasants differed significantly from those of the black elites or the whites. Such differences were also noted in property forms, occupations, economic system, and religion of the lower class.

People born in West Indies were referred to as Creoles, although the East Indians did not fall in this category. Simply, the Creoles comprised of people of a mixed black-white race whose ancestry was from the Caribbean. The Chinese retained their identity exclusively and were only referred to in national aspects. While the historical interaction between the Africans and the Europeans can be described as a period of symbiosis, the association between the West Indians of African ancestry and those of Indian ancestry is characterized by competition. Overall, the Caribbean region under the British rule had a similar black-white cultural and racial basis. For instance, there were minority groups of Jewish, Syrian, and Chinese origin in British Guiana, Trinidad and in other colonies (Smith, 1974). The comparative analysis of these distinct cultural and social groups shifts focus to the differences between cultural and ethnic pluralism. It is important to note that ethnicity has many overlapping yet distinct references including nationality, culture, racial origin, and language. These references introduce ambiguity into the idea of ethnic pluralism. On the other hand, the issue of the cultural plurality is clear.

In order to ascertain that a society is culturally plural, it is critical to conduct a detailed evaluation of the societys institutions to understand their variety, form, and distribution. As noted by Doumerc (2003), a culturally homogeneous society has similar institutions of marriage, property, and religion. However, in a culturally plural society, the population has different institutions of marriage, property, and religion. Given that the population practices different forms of these institutions which entail a pattern of activities, the social relations and idea systems are different in terms of their social organization, the system of belief, and institutional activities. In situations where such conditions exist, the societies are described as plural societies (Doumerc, 2003). By definition, plural societies are considered as units in the political sphere only. Each unit has its own government but the government can only rule a culturally diverse population consistently only if one segment dominates the political sphere or if a federal system of government is adopted. In both instances, the political sphere of plural societies comprises mainly of the relations between their cultural segments. Removing the government and law from the equation, the institutional features that represent cultural plurality relate to family, property, marriage, language, and education. Looking for the differences in these features within the black-white Caribbean society, it is clear that there is a cultural plurality. Major differences are noted between the black-white Creole group and the East Indians.

Smith (1974) argues that where compatibility of institutional norms represents ethnic pluralism, cultural pluralism can be explained by the incompatibility of the institutions. Typically, societies rely on integration to have consistency in their interdependent systems. For this reason, societies with groups that have incompatible institutional allegiances often encounter unique problems. These problems exacerbate when the ruling dominant group has cultural traditions different from the mass population. This characterizes the British Caribbean society. It is worth noting that the Caribbean society has a rich history of assimilation, acculturation, and miscegenation. In such societies, the issue of ethnicity has little meaning even with the consideration of minority groups as the Chinese and the Jews. The Jews and the Chinese are national minorities hence further classifying them in terms of culture or race is dependent on the definition of race. While analyzing the black-white Creole group, it is important to address race, social relations, and culture directly as well as determine their independence. Although the relationship between the East Indian and Creole groups can be analyzed from the perspective of these terms, it is feasibly difficult to carry out such analyses considering the ambiguous nature of the idea of ethnicity.

In the Caribbean region, the economic system and the government are the two main providers of the social order. On one hand, the government limits the likelihood of conflict and maintains or increases the chances for acculturation. On the other hand, the economic system integrates the whole population but in different ways. For instance, the poor practice mixed farming, subsidence farming, and exchange. The townsfolk, on the other hand, are primarily engaged in the exchange system. The division of labour, which is based on the cultural group and race, also plays a key role in maintaining order. In particular, the East Indians comprise the majority of the labourers in sugar plantations in British Guiana and Trinidad while the blacks were the majority labourers in other colonies. The browns dominated the clerical jobs while the whites dominated the executive and management positions. However, the higher ranks of local service professions contained people from all racial groups. While distributing these positions, skill and cultural performance were weightier than racial status. As a result, the continued historical inequality of opportunities was primarily due to cultural groupings and partly due to racial groupings. The effects of this criterion are evident in the distribution of opportunities whereby the blacks dominated the labourers category with only a handful of the browns and fewer whites.

One of the major events that define a plural society is the making of the decision whether to eradicate or maintain their internal differences. The issue of cultural and social integration of the units is often raised as a choice. Throughout the history of the British Caribbean, there have been significant efforts aimed at solving the complexity of integration on three occasions. Although there have been other drastic changes in the government system, the replacement of the Crown Colony rule in 1945 is the most effective. The new government was anchored on adult suffrage and operated through ministerial systems (Smith, 1974). Under the new government, political parties and trade unions gained freedom and became more active. Despite the publicization of the idea of British Caribbean Federation, some colonies have remained defiant. The resultant federal structure slowed down the pace of change in the constituent territories instead of accelerating.

References

Benn, D. (1974). The theory of plantation economy and society: A methodological critique1. The Journal Of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 12(3), 249-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14662047408447216

Doumerc, E. (2003). Caribbean civilisation: The English-speaking Caribbean since independance. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail.

Furnivaljl., S. (1948) Colonial policy and practice. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Raghuram, P., Sahoo, A. K., & Maharaj, B. (2008). Tracing an Indian Diaspora: Contexts, Memories, Representations. New Delhi: SAGE India.

Smith, M. G. (1974). The plural society in the British West Indies. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Williams, S. (2016). Caribbean Social Structure. Academia.edu. Retrieved 9 February 2018, from https://www.academia.edu/32435330/Caribbean_Social_Structure?auto=download