Greek and Indian Civilization

1. What’s McNeill’s argument?

McNeill is arguing about how India’s caste system and Greece’s territorial sovereignty had completely different effects on the development of society.

2. How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s definition?

McNeill describes a caste as being a group of people who eat with one another and intermarry; this group also excludes people of a different group from doing these tasks with them.  The textbook says that castes are the levels of a social hierarchy marked by inherited social distinctions.  Jati are subcastes that eat with one another and intermarry.  McNeill’s definition of caste aligns with the textbook’s definition of jati. 

3. What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste:

            1. Ceremonial Purity: A person of a higher status would contaminate themselves if they came in contact with someone of a lower caste.

            2. Maintaining customs: Within a caste, certain groups were able to maintain their peculiar customs without having to be assimilated.

            3. Reincarnation: The castes that one was placed in were a reward or punishment for deeds done in a past life.

4. Are these convincing?

In these situations, it was convincing.  Brahmans were justified in their wealth, and they had the ability to limit association with lower castes.  In fact, nearly everyone had the ability to look down upon certain lower castes.  The caste system allowed newcomers to practice peculiar traditions.  The caste system also discouraged the paying of taxes (people identified strongly with a caste than the state).

5. Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?

People of a certain caste associated themselves firstly with their caste.  These castes set rules as to avoid contact with other castes.  Kings and other rulers were unable to win loyalty from people who valued the caste more highly than the state.

6. What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship itself?

The obsession with detail of the Vedas shifted the religion to worship.  Priests believed that mispronounced words during sacrifice would displease gods, so they dedicated themselves to correctness of detail.

7. How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals of Indian society?

The Upanishads changed the goal from being rich and living long to focusing on the end of the reincarnation cycle.  This could be achieved by self-discipline and meditation.  Because this can only be achieved through one’s own body, people began to ignore priests and observance of ceremonies.

8. How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”

Territorial sovereignty is the division of land into territorial states that, rather than focusing on religion, explained the world through laws of nature.

9. Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing society?

The Greeks realized that there were multiple theories as to why planets aligned or how the world was created.  Greek philosophers looked into it and found that the explanations were unsupported and conflicting.

10. What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?

Because of the polis and the way it was organized, there was hardly any value in introspection, salvation, or purification.  When Pythagoras found an order that would allow introspection, the Pythagorean Order was persecuted.

11. Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?

I do think that McNeill has a valid argument.  The Caste system encouraged interest in only those that would help you directly, thus leading to weak kings unable to obtain large amounts of power.  Greece adhered to territorial sovereignty, so they were encouraged to aid in the development of their state.  Greek civilization had a rich civilization that came into strife with other cities, but India had a self-interested society that led to less strife.