Dumont here contributes to the comparative sociology of ideologies, ideas and basic values of cultures or societies, by distancing evidences that we hold dear. It makes its first perspective in general terms: distinguishing an ontology (a "furniture inventory" of the Universe ") of the substance - of the self-sufficient element - and an ontology of constituent relationship II. then passes this level to that of the sociological object itself. The structural analysis, epistemological aspect of ontology relationships, is adequate to traditional societies.
Most of Homo Hierarchicus is an illustration of this proposal.
The reader unfamiliar with the literature and Indian history may be discouraged and disoriented. Private ownership of the authors, the year by which Dumont takes the foot-cons of these and establishes a dialogue it will be tedious.
In the same vein, his theoretical contribution to social anthropology requires a patient and careful absorption to be appreciated. After our sacred repulsion for the hierarchy, the reasons for this difficulty include the style and the personality of the author. Dumont appears understated, nuanced, refraining bombast and rhetoric, from which it seems to follow that the headlights and central passages, the highlights of the presentation does not come out with evidence - were confounded in the lot.
The background assumption here is that companies rely everywhere the same constituent features (empirical or biological individuals, government, religion or ideology: ideas-values); traits, however, arranged and prioritized differently from one to another, and traits whose identity is transformed and modified according to the hierarchical arrangement that defines them.
I am devoted to a defense and rehabilitation of the holistic metaphysical anthropology in recent years, with only a knowledge of Dumont through work: that is to say through criticism of its work. I now feel that this criticism (especially those of Appadurai), few of them seem to me to make the weight; considering in particular the care taken by Dumont to show the fluidity and flexibility of caste distinctions and interdependencies arising from their relational definition. Above all, it is clear to me that this metaphysical Dumont defended with an equally undeniable that discreet authority.
