Even birthright castes operate as mutual-protection relationships, not pure exploitation.
Evidence
Also in traditional societies, inheritance and market exchanges are a main source of inequality of resources that may, to that extent, also be seen as fair. Still, there is more to social hierarchies than differences in skills and inherited capital. Being an aristocrat or a slave, or member of a given caste, with all the differences of rights these entail, is hardly ever thought of as a matter of fairness. Nevertheless, even in such birthright hierarchies, it can be argued that social interactions retain a clear mutualistic character. Shweder et al. (1997; cf. Shweder et al. mentioned by Sachdeva et al.) observe, for instance, that in India: … The person in the hierarchical position is obligated to protect and satisfy the wants of the subordinate person in specified ways. The subordinate person is also obligated to look after the interests and “well-being” of the superordinate person. (Shweder et al. 1997, p. 145) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 713
Categorization
- XREF: Directly feeds the reader’s analytical integration: the fumi-e trampling disrupts the mutualistic obligation between Japanese authorities and the faithful — the ritual severs the reciprocal duty the Shweder quote describes. — connects to: Aristocratic trustworthiness is enforced by community-wide exclusionary norms, not reciprocity.