In India, it is often said that Sociology and Social Anthropology have merged because, in practice, their subject matter, methods, and intellectual concerns overlapped so deeply that the classical Western distinction could not be sustained. This merger is context-specific to India, not a universal disciplinary rule.

Below is a UPSC-ready, Notion-compatible explanation 👇

Why Sociology and Social Anthropology Merged in India

1. Common Empirical Focus: Indian Society

• In the West:
  • Sociology → industrial, modern societies
  • Social Anthropology → small-scale, tribal, “primitive” societies
• In India:
  • Society was simultaneously traditional, rural, caste-based, tribal, and modernising
  • Studying Indian society inevitably required tools from both disciplines

📌 Result: Same society → same problems → same approaches

2. Caste as a Central Institution

• Caste could not be neatly classified as:
  • only “traditional” (anthropology), or
  • only “modern social structure” (sociology)
• Scholars studied caste using:
  • Anthropological tools → kinship, ritual, village studies
  • Sociological tools → stratification, mobility, power

🔹 Example:

• M.N. Srinivas → village studies, dominant caste (anthro + socio)
• Louis Dumont → caste hierarchy (structural anthropology influencing sociology)

3. Village Studies Tradition

• Indian sociology developed through micro-level village studies, which were:
  • Historically an anthropological method
• Topics covered:
  • Family
  • Kinship
  • Caste
  • Religion
  • Economy
  • Politics

📌 Thus, Indian sociologists worked like anthropologists.