A Grammar of Touch: Caste and Un/Touch/Ability: Ajinkya Ghawate

Among the primary sensory modalities—olfaction, vision, audition, and others—touch occupies a central place. It is the most immediate of the senses, yet also the most socially regulated. Traditionally, vision has dominated theoretical thinking in Western academia. Even in Indian philosophy, often called Darshan-shastra, vision plays a central role in understanding the surrounding world. However, the recent ‘sensory turn’ in socio-anthropological thought has questioned the hierarchy of the senses — a turn to the haptic allows us to rethink how the social world can be understood through a ‘sense of touch’. Within the Classical Greek tradition, Aristotle considered touch the most intelligent and sensitive of the senses, arguing that if an animal is deprived of touch, it is also deprived of life. For Aristotle, the significance of touch extends beyond the biological; it is intimately linked with social structures, ethics, and material realities. Touch, he suggests, knows the difference — it can distinguish between persons and things. I intend to explore this differential ability of touch within the caste society, where being touched by an ‘untouchable’ is often perceived as an act of pollution and disruption.  Here, it is not only a matter of who touches whom—but of who can, or must not. This organizes the very grammar of the social. Through this lens, I examine the various modalities of touch, its association with caste, and its material and philosophical underpinnings as a driver of caste-based distinction.

The study of sensory modalities has long been a central philosophical concern. Aristotle argued that senses must be individuated by their intentional objects (Sorabji, 1971). In his framework, sensory modalities are defined in relation to their corresponding sense objects, making the relationship between sense organs and their objects crucial. This perspective has given rise to bodily theories of touch, which analyze tactile perception in relation to bodily awareness. As Katz has observed, touch is bipolar, allowing us to perceive both external objects and our bodies simultaneously (Vignemont & Massin, 2015), which suggests the  important epistemic role touch plays in shaping our understanding of the world. In considering how touch is implicated in the regulation of bodily behavior, I focus on its relevance in the context of caste. Within this framework, the act of touching—or not touching—is not merely a physiological experience but also a social and ethical one. It becomes a site of power, purity and exclusion. To grasp the full significance of the ‘sense of touch,’ then, we must attend to its historicity, sociality, and ethical dimensions. 

The caste system has long structured touch as a regulation, distinction, and exclusion site. In this context, touch is not merely a sensory act but a profoundly social one, carrying different meanings and ethics based on caste hierarchies. The Brahmin and Dalit bodies are not merely biological entities but socially constructed surfaces of meaning, marked by the ethics of touch, purity, and defilement. Understanding this requires an examination of the different modalities of touch and their societal organization. I first explore its sensory modalities—the organs, objects, and theories that shape how touch is understood and regulated—before moving to the different elements and forms of touch, in a genealogy of untouchability.

Modalities of Touch: Organs and Objects

In his influential study on touch, Montagu treats the skin as the primary and proper organ of touch (Sarukkai, 2009). Further, exploring the symbolism and mythology of the skin, Ariel Glucklich (2017) highlights the boundary function of the skin. He considers the body and skin as gateways to external reality and draws an inherent connection between dharma and skin, both symbolically conceived as boundaries. In the context of untouchability, skin functions as a ‘map of character’—a person whose skin is deemed untouchable is, by extension, considered untouchable. However, there are other theories that posit the absence of a singular organ for touch, which complicates the understanding of this sensory modality.

Richard Sorabji (1971) describes this as a “non-localization criterion” in his analysis of touch, raising the question of whether touch constitutes a single sense or a collection of senses. Mathew Fulkerson (2012) argues that touch, like vision, integrates multiple sensory features into coherent object representations, making it a multi-sensory experience. Aristotle identified dry, fluid, hot, and cold as the fundamental objects of touch, but as Sorabji (1971) notes, these objects do not fully explain the nature of touch. In the Indian context, untouchability complicates conventional understandings of touch, as even shadows have been considered objects of touch. Sunder Sarukkai (2009) introduces the idea of “objects specific to the sense of un-touch,” suggesting that non-touch functions as a distinct sensory experience. Before exploring this notion further, examining the elements and meanings embedded within the sense of touch is necessary.

Touch—Elements and Kinds

Aniket Jaaware, in his book Practicing Caste (2019), treats touch as the primary social constitution of caste and presents a fascinating study of how caste operates through touch. Jaaware distinguishes between touch’s physical and non-physical elements, providing two separate and simultaneous realms where touch operates—its social semantics and metaphysics of touch. Here, the purpose is to isolate the sense and experience of touch and discuss its particular characteristics. Jaaware identifies four physical elements of touch:

• Inertia: The fundamental contact between skin and another surface.
• Density: The limitation of touch based on an object’s material density (e.g., objects with extremely low density cannot be touched).
• Reality: The assertion that all touches are real—no fictive touch exists.
• Contact: The notion that content and form constitute the experience of touch.

Additionally, he outlines four non-physical elements:

• Repetition: The frequency with which touch is experienced.
• Emotion: The affective charge associated with touch.
• Sociality: How touch is socially mediated.
• Intimacy: The degrees of emotional closeness embedded in touch.

Before moving on to the social semantics of touch, it is important to examine the relationship between touch and contact. As Sarukkai has elaborated, contact is a much broader category than touch. While touch is a quality of only four material substances (earth, water, fire, air), contact extends to all nine primary substances, including internal organs, time, space, ether (akasa), and selves (jiva). This distinction is crucial for understanding caste-based untouchability, where even indirect forms of contact—such as a Dalit’s shadow—are considered polluting. In short, contact is the content and form of touch, but not all contact is experienced as touch. Since touch is both a temporal and spatial category (Lannen, 2020), its meanings shift across different historical and cultural contexts. B. R. Ambedkar (1948) also differentiates between temporal (changeable) and permanent (structural) untouchability, highlighting the need to analyze touch in its varying historical forms. To categorize touch by its social semantics, the following frames can be used (Jaaware, 2019):

Touching Oneself / Touching Others: A fundamental distinction in the sense of touch is between touching and being touched—both of which are subject to social regulation. This distinction between touching/being touched, Merleau-Ponty argues, is the same.  Caste norms determine who can touch whom, under what conditions, and with what consequences. The idea of spatiality and temporality also plays a prominent role in this understanding. 

Figural Touch: The notion of figural touch provides key insights into caste and untouchability, especially in cases where indirect contact is considered polluting. In this framework, touch is not simply about physical contact but serves a larger social or symbolic purpose. Jaaware classifies figural touch into three aspects:

• Metaphor: Touching one thing is analogical to touching another (e.g., certain objects being considered polluted due to their association with Dalits).
• Metonymy: An aspect of a body (such as a Dalit’s shadow) is treated as equivalent to the body itself, making even indirect contact polluting.
• Allegory: Two things exist in parallel but are not analogically related (e.g., the practice of touching elders’ feet as a distinct but related form of caste-based bodily discipline).

This framework highlights how the notion of touch extends beyond mere physical touch to include symbolic and metaphorical forms of contamination.

Good Touch / Bad Touch

Conceptions of “good” and “bad” touch are shaped by social practice. Caste ideology categorizes Dalit touch as “bad figural touch,” reinforcing the idea that even indirect or symbolic contact can be polluting. Here, Jaaware attempts to link the realm of touch with the realm of language and rhetoric—showing how caste norms construct touch not just as a physical act, but as a discursive and moral category. By analyzing touch through this typology, we can begin to see untouchability as not just a fixed prohibition but a historically contingent and shifting concept, which is the central assertion of this article. To understand its transformations, we must now turn to the genealogy of the words ‘untouchable,’ ‘achhut,’ and ‘asprishya’—examining how these terms have been constructed, contested, and redefined over time.

Genealogy of ‘Untouchable’

Sundar Sarukkai, in his article ‘The Phenomenology of Untouchability’ (2009), analyzes the term untouchable in two distinct ways—’not-touchable’ and ‘touch-unable’ (i.e., unable to touch). The primary difference between these formulations lies in the type of inability they emphasize. In the former, the restriction is imposed on the object of touch, centralizing the status of the untouchable person. In the latter, the focus shifts to the subject, who cannot perform the act of touching, making their inability central. As Sarukkai (2009) argues that “the real site of untouchability is the person who refuses to touch the untouchable.” In this formulation, the person who refuses to touch suffers from touch-un-ability. Through this supplementation process, Sarukkai locates untouchability within the Brahmin body itself. However, while the Dalit and the Brahmin are affected by this act of non-touching, their experiences differ. In this way, he moves beyond the binary of purity and pollution. In tracing the genealogy of the term ‘untouchable’, I want to further complicate this binary. 

In his History of Dharmashastra (Volume 2), P.V. Kane traces the use of four terms—antya, antyajaya, antyavasin, and bahya—all of which conceptualize untouchability through spatial categories. Ambedkar extends this discussion by distinguishing between impurity and untouchability. He writes, “The Untouchable pollutes all while the Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causes pollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchable causes pollution at all times” (1948, 2020). Here, the fluidity of the concept of untouchability can be understood through the frames of time and space. As the notion of untouchability transcending the material limits of touch to establish a metaphysical contact with the ontology of the body. In the North Indian context, Ramanarayan Rawat (2015) argues that the terms achhut, achhuta, and the English untouchable have distinct meanings and historical trajectories. Achhut was initially used as an adjective, meaning ‘undefiled, pure, and virgin,’ rather than a noun. Due to political shifts, its transformation into a noun occurred in the early 20th century,  when it became synonymous with ‘untouchable’ in English. From 1923 onwards, its meaning changed dramatically—from describing purity to signifying impurity and exclusion. Rawat states, “My evidence suggests that achhut as a noun referring to untouchables and an adjective referring to untouchability acquired a dramatic and widespread use only after the 1920s. In the first three decades of the twentieth century, the term achhut witnessed a fundamental change from its original meaning—pure and untouched—to a wholly opposite explanation, impure and untouchable.” (2015) 

Even in the context of Maharashtra, as Rahul Sarwate (2020) underlines, asprushta (untouched as a condition) and asprushya (untouchable as a person) have been understood differently by specific segments of society. In a Gandhian discourse, after the Poona Pact of 1932, Gandhi invited Lakshman Shastri Joshi to offer his opinion on whether the Dharmashastras sanctioned untouchability. This discussion, published in the first issue of Harijan, outlined three distinct forms of untouchability:

1. Persons classified as untouchables by birth, such as the progeny of a Shudra and a Brahmin woman (eg- Chandals).
2. Persons guilty of any of the five heinous sins or certain practices condemned in Hinduism.
3. Persons who are temporarily in a polluted state, such as during menstruation.

Overall, the debates of the 1930s emphasize the fluid and historically contingent nature of untouchability, urging a departure from its rigid binary classification as pure and impure, as Sarukkai (2009) argued.

Touch beyond Purity and Pollution

Following Louis Dumont’s Homo Hierarchicus (1966), caste is often understood through the binary of purity and pollution, with touch and untouchability at its core. Dumont’s analysis locates hierarchy primarily within the framework of ritual status and purity-pollution. His model positions the Brahmin and the Dalit at opposite ends of this spectrum, reinforcing caste as a system structured by religiously sanctioned distinctions. However, Ambedkar consciously distinguishes between impurity and untouchability, emphasizing that untouchability operates beyond the ritual realm—it structures everyday social relations. In this sense, categories like the sacred and profane are not inherent but are socially and historically produced through regulations on bodily behavior—particularly touch. These regulations do not merely reflect caste hierarchy but actively generate it through material, everyday practice.

Thus, caste and touch should be understood both as a vertical phenomenon of hierarchical stratification and a horizontal system of social and spatial exclusion. The boundaries of touch—and its articulation beyond the purity-pollution framework—demonstrate how caste functions as a system of tactile regulation. These regulations must be analyzed in light of recent shifts in caste studies, where caste is increasingly conceptualized as a form of power and ethnicity (Guha, 2013). This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of touch as a social and political practice rather than merely a ritual concern. As Sarukkai (2009) argues, caste distinctions manifest through the regulation of touch, making caste not just a social structure but a system of bodily and tactile control. Understanding caste through this lens calls for an ethics of touch—one that critically examines how social structures shape bodily interactions and explores possibilities for reconfiguring them. That is to say, touch is not merely a sensory experience but a semantically loaded and politically regulated concept.