1.
What’s McNeill’s argument?
· In this paragraph, McNeil is arguing
that despite the fact that the Minoans of ancient Greece and the Aryans of
ancient India were both influenced by other people that bordered them, they
both developed independently in significantly different ways. This difference was partly because of their
different ways of organizing and administering their societies. These differences accounted for the dissimilarity
of subsequent histories of Indian and European society.
2.
How does McNeill define Caste? Does this match up with the textbook’s
definition?
· McNeil Defines caste as a “group of
persons who sill eat with one another and intermarry, while excluding others
from these two intimacies.” He is
essentially saying that the relations that are present among individuals
determine castes. If two individuals are
close enough to marry or eat with each other, they should be considered to be
of the same caste. This significantly
differs from the book’s definition of caste, which defines it as a hereditary
classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or
pollution and of social status. Instead
of defining a caste based on social and political hierarchy, McNeil is basing
it off of human relations.
3.
What three feelings and thoughts helped to maintain the idea of caste?
1. The feeling of ceremonial purity – People of Indian society
feared of contaminating themselves by associating themselves with people of
lower class than them. This primarily
had to do with the skin colors (light-skinned Aryans and the darker-skinned
Dravidians). This resulted in people of
high rank refusing to associate themselves with people or lower castes.
2. The feeling of humbleness – One of the most important
affects of the caste system was that all but the most miserable and marginal
members of society could look down upon somebody. Humbler groups had emerged from “primitive”
forest life, therefore having different customs and habits. These newcomers were persuaded to abandon
their different ways and were assimilated into Indian society within a few
generations.
3. A theoretical doctrine: the doctrine of reincarnation
and “Varna.” – This declared that the men
of Indian society were divided into four castes, the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas,
the Vaishyas, and the Shudras. This put
a stress on the caste system, giving each caste a specific position in society. However, this system stabilized the society
and established an institution, which was hereditary from father to son.
4.
Are these convincing?
· These points are indeed convincing
because they substantiate his main argument that Indian society was determined
in large part due to the caste system. The
caste system dictated many aspects of the Indians’ life, such as with whom
people associated themselves, the social and political hierarchy, and the
organization of power. It can be easily
understood from McNeil’s points concerning the idea of caste that caste played
a major role in determining the departure of Indian society from its original
similarity to Greek society.
5.
Why did caste itself not cause strong political organization to form?
· The caste system itself did not cause
strong political organization to form because a caste ordinarily lacked both
definite internal administration and territorial boundaries. Forms of leadership were not discussed within
the caste system, even though it can safely be assumed that the Brahmins, the
dominant caste, held a majority of the leadership positions in Indian
society. Because of this, no king or
ruler could command the undivided loyalty of people who felt they to belong to
a caste rather to a state. People viewed
their loyalty towards their castes before their loyalty to their government or
state.
6.
What causes Indian religion to shift from deity pleasing to the act of worship
itself?
· Indian religion shifted from deity
pleasing to the act of worship itself because of the Aryan preoccupation with
correctness of detail. As the Vedas,
handbooks of religious rituals, was passed down orally, people began to become
blurred in actually understanding what the texts meant. This lead to them feeling that every
misplaced line or mispronounced world could nullify an entire sacrifice and provoke divine
displeasure. This shifted the emphasis
from the gods of the Aryan pantheon to the act of worship and invocation
itself.
7.
How did the Upanishads change the nature of Indian religion and thus the goals
of Indian society?
· The Upanishads changed the nature of
Indian religion and this the goals of Indian society in that they conceived the
end of life in a dramatically different way.
The overall goal of the Aryans became to escape the endless round of
life and rebirth. The Upanishads
promoted not seeking riches, health, and long life, but rather living a good,
sinless life, so one could possible escape the eternal cycle of life and death.
8.
How does McNeill define “Territorial Sovereignty?”
· McNeil defines “Territorial Sovereignty”
as the mentality of the early Greeks towards expansion of their territory. The early Greeks centered the city-state, or
polis, so that they expanded their military empires. McNeil writes, “tamers of horses…overran
priest-led agricultural societies,” showing that Greek society was transformed
from an agricultural society into a militarized one. This mental frame of “Territorial
Sovereignty” marked the point at which Green and Indian societies departed from
one another.
9.
Why did Greeks turn away from religion as an explanatory factor in organizing
society?
· Greeks turned away from religion as an
explanatory factor in organizing society because
· Religion, as well as art, literature,
philosophy, and other cultural factors, took the attention of the citizens away
from their central goal of expanding their empire. These cultural factors “engulfed the object
of the citizens’ affections,” thus showing that if it had been a part of the
organization of society, not enough emphasis would have been placed on the
military aspect of life.
· It distracted them from their main goal
of expanding their empire.
10.
What was the consequence of the Greeks’ rigid adherence to the polis?
· The consequence of the Greeks’ rigid
adherence to the polis was that people no longer strived for purification,
salvation, and for holiness, since a majority of their time was devoted to
military expansion instead of cultural expansion. Though religion was not nearly as prominent
in early Greece as it was in early India, there were certain periods of time
during which religion flourished.
Another negative aspect about this rigid structure of Greek society was
that the intensity of the political tie excluded ranges of activity and
sensitivity that were not compatible with the territorial organization of human
grouping. This “sowed seeds of civil
strife.”
11.
Do you buy his argument? Why or why not?
· I buy his argument, primarily because
of the strength of his arguments, using the Upanishads, Vedas, and the example
of the Greek Polis as credible examples.
His argument follows a logical succession and makes sense. I can see exactly why McNeil believed that
Indian and Greek societies differentiated due to their political systems as
well as castes and social hierarchies.
No comments:
Post a Comment