Paper 1, Summer 2013
An example of poor research:

Family life in the Hindu religion appears to raise above the importance of a career, house, status etc. Anything that the West holds high in value, and also what they look down upon, seems to be the opposite of Hinduism.

This is given as an impression of what life in India is like. However, no evidence is given to back it up. The student claims that the values of Hindus are the reverse of Western values. That is not a good route to achieving a good understanding of a foreign culture. A culture that is very different is not likely to be simply a mirror-image of our own culture. For example, the claim is made that Hindus value their family life more than their house or career. That makes no sense - if you value your family, you need to provide them with a place to live, and a career enables you to do so. Many Hindu gods and goddesses are valued precisely because it is believed they can help people achieve these goals, for example Sri Laksmi is associated with prosperity. The whole custom of arranged marriages is a way of forming alliances that will aid the prosperity of the family.

I wonder whether the student who wrote this has misunderstood the difference between an individualistic and a collectivist society. Individualism is not the same as selfishness, nor collectivism as altruism. Rather, they are two different ways of taking care of yourself. In an individualist society, my duty is to take care of myself and, if applicable, my nuclear family - wife and children (deo volente). If I was in financial trouble, I might ask my parents for help, but it would never occur to me to ask my uncle or my cousins to help me out. I would also be surprised if my cousin were to ask me for a large sum of money. It isn't that I don't like my cousins or try to help them, but they would understand that I am not going to dig deeply into my savings to rescue them - I need my savings to look after my immediate family. In a collectivist society, bonds of obligation stretch further: you can ask your uncles and aunts for help, and you are obliged to offer help. Your savings are not just for you, your wife (husband) and children (if any): they are part of the fortune of your extended family. But in both cases, you are likely to do what you can to improve the status and well-being of your family.

Moral: make sure that your comments on other cultures are backed up by empirical evidence, and give precise details about that evidence. For example:

An example of good research:

However more flexible Indian society is on gender than western societies, India is currently a deeply homophobic country. A countrywide poll in 2011 showed that 73% of Indians consider that homosexuality should be illegal, while 83% of them did not feel that homosexuality was part of Indian culture (Bedi 1).

[Bedi, Rahul. "Homophobia Persists in India Despite Court Reforms" Telegraph.co.uk The Daily Telegraph, 05 July 2011. Web. 03 June 2013


This is good research for two reasons. First, the student is not merely looking for anything written about hijras. The study of hijras naturally leads to questions about Indian attitudes to homosexuality, and the student has sought out accurate information about this. We do not merely have an impression based on anecdotes, but reference to an opinion poll that gives a very clear picture. Also, notice that this information reveals a gap between the legal reality and popular opinion. Unnatural sexual acts were made illegal in India in 1860 (under British rule). The Supreme Court of India recently decided that this law is unconstitutional, because the constitution of India guarantees equality. However, we also see that this legal change does not reflect a change in popular attitudes. The reform has come from the top down. The same might also apply to the case of hijras: in recent years, they have been granted legal rights, perhaps partly due to pressure from outside organizations. However, this does not mean that, in practice, most Indians now treat hijras with respect and dignity. This in turn points to an interesting issue about social change in societies that are highly stratified with a rigid hierarchy. It is often the people in the middle of the social stratification who try to keep down those immediately beneath them. If I am secure in my position at the top of the society and I extend a hand of friendship to someone at the bottom, this actually reinforces my superior position, demonstrating that I have the power to offer my help. But if my social status is low, it is important for me to demonstrate that there are some people who are lower still - negative attitudes to hijras might be most likely to come from people whose own social status is somewhat fragile, and who need to demonstrate their superiority to someone. Notice that here, I have framed a hypothesis - it would require further research to see whether this has any empirical support. That is how one good piece of information leads to more questions.

Back to REL 3145.