M.N. Srinivas defines "Sanskritization" as a process where a lower caste, tribal, or other group elevates its social status by adopting the customs, rituals, and ideologies of higher castes, particularly of twice-born Hindus, indicating internal cultural shifts . In contrast, "Westernization" refers to changes due to contact with British socio-economic and cultural practices, representing an external influence on India's culture . Sanskritization reflects efforts to move up the traditional social hierarchy, while Westernization involves integrating new practices and values introduced from colonial encounters. Together, these processes signify a complex interplay of indigenous social mobility and external cultural transformation within India .

The concept of "Sanskritization," as defined by M.N. Srinivas, has significant implications for understanding social mobility and hierarchy in Indian society. It indicates that social mobility is possible within the rigid caste structure by adopting the customs, rituals, and lifestyle of higher castes, particularly Brahmins. This process reflects an internal mechanism for change and adaptation within the social hierarchy, enabling lower castes to improve their status without altering the caste system itself . It suggests a dynamic model where cultural adoption is a strategic tool for social elevation and highlights the deep-rooted desire for upward mobility despite structural constraints .

The concept of "Dominant Caste" introduced by M.N. Srinivas is pivotal in understanding the hierarchical structure and dynamics within Indian society. Dominant castes are those that wield considerable economic or political power and occupy a high position in the hierarchy . These castes possess significant land ownership, numerical strength, educational attainment, involvement in politics, and overall social influence, leading other lower castes to regard them as reference groups . This dynamic shapes the social fabric by creating a model for upward mobility through processes like Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt the customs and practices of the dominant caste to elevate their social status .

Srinivas' work on "Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India" was fundamental in shaping his broader theories on Indian social change. The study allowed him to observe first-hand the process of Brahminization, where lower-caste groups adopted the rituals and customs of Brahmins to improve their social status . These observations informed his concept of Sanskritization, encapsulating the broader social mechanisms of emulating higher castes beyond just religious practices. This work provided empirical evidence for his theories on social mobility, influencing his understanding of cultural adaptation as pivotal to Indian social dynamics and furthering his inquiry into how traditional societies respond to and incorporate change .

The concept of "Dominant Caste" plays a crucial role in the process of Sanskritization by acting as a reference point for lower castes seeking upward mobility. Dominant castes, possessing economic and political power and high social status, influence other castes to emulate their customs and lifestyle to enhance their position within the socio-cultural hierarchy . This imitation aids in the Sanskritization process by providing a tangible model for lower castes to follow, thereby reinforcing their own aspirations for improved social standing. Consequently, it affects social stratification by perpetuating the existing hierarchies while allowing for limited upward movement based on cultural assimilation rather than systemic change .

Criticisms of M.N. Srinivas’ concepts of Sanskritization and Dominant Caste include their perceived alignment with cultural nationalism, such as Hindutva . By emphasizing cultural imitation and assimilation within the existing hierarchy, these concepts may be seen as reinforcing the status quo rather than challenging inherent caste-based inequalities. Additionally, Srinivas’ focus on upward mobility through cultural adaptation does not adequately address the structural barriers faced by the economically and socially disadvantaged. Critics argue that these concepts overlook the agency of lower castes by not advocating for more transformative societal changes or addressing the oppression inherent in caste dynamics .

M.N. Srinivas introduced methodological innovations in the study of Indian society by emphasizing the "field view" approach, prioritizing empirical observation over theoretical speculation informed by texts, also known as the "book view" . His extensive fieldwork, notably with the Coorgs, emphasized direct engagement with communities, thus enhancing the authenticity and depth of sociological insights. By bridging traditional Indological studies with empirical sociological research, Srinivas provided a nuanced understanding of social structures and changes, which resulted in more grounded and comprehensive analyses of caste dynamics and cultural transformations in India. This shift improved the methodological rigor and contextual relevancy of sociological research .

M.N. Srinivas diverged from traditional Indological perspectives by emphasizing a "field view" over a "book view" in understanding Indian society. Traditional Indology often relies on literature and texts to study societies, known as the "book view" . However, Srinivas prioritized "field view," using direct observation and empirical research to study society, as seen in his intensive study of the Coorgs and other communities . This approach provided a more grounded, real-world insight into Indian society, contrasting with the more abstract, text-based analyses typical of Indological studies.

M.N. Srinivas’ concept of Brahminization laid the groundwork for his later development of Sanskritization. Brahminization focused on the imitation of Brahmin rituals and life-styles by lower castes, specifically highlighting the adoption of religious and cultural aspects . This concept eventually evolved into Sanskritization, which broadened the scope to include the adoption of practices from any higher caste, not just Brahmins. This transition signifies an understanding of social processes in India as dynamic and continuous, with cultural adaptation serving as a key mechanism for social mobility. It reflects Srinivas’ effort to capture the diverse ways in which social transformation occurs within the hierarchical framework .

The structural-functional approach significantly influenced the understanding of caste and social systems in India by viewing society as a complex and interdependent system where caste acts as a fundamental unit . Prominent sociologists like G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas, and S. C. Dube advocated this approach. They explored how various social structures, including castes, contribute to the stability and functionality of the larger social system . This perspective underlined the role of caste in maintaining social order and provided insights into the sustained social stratification in Indian society, analyzing both the structural elements and the functions they fulfill.