Historical Context: Angkor and Early Social Order
Ancient Cambodia, especially during the Angkor Empire (9th–15th centuries), exhibited a highly stratified social hierarchy. The society was roughly organized in layers reflecting an Indian-influenced model of varna (class) introduced via Hinduism . At the apex stood the divine king (devarāja) and his royal kshatriya nobility – royalty, warlords, and military elites . Below them were Brahmin priests and advisers who legitimized the king’s rule through ritual, alongside high officials in the royal court . Commoners such as traders, artisans, farmers and fishermen formed the broad base of the population . At the very bottom were slaves – often prisoners of war or debt bondsmen – who performed forced labor . This hierarchy was buttressed by religion: the Hindu state cult elevated the king as a god-king and relied on a priestly caste to conduct ceremonies and maintain social order .
Religious institutions played a key role in shaping social roles. During the Angkor period, Hindu Brahmins enjoyed high status as ritual specialists and educators at court. However, Cambodia’s social stratification was never as rigid as India’s caste system. Historians note that while Indian terminology (e.g. varna) was adopted, the strictly hereditary, endogamous caste structure (jati) “was not reproduced in Cambodia” . Membership in social strata was somewhat fluid; individuals could move between levels through merit or royal favor, which contrasts with the fixed birth-based castes of India . The introduction of Buddhism (gradually becoming dominant by the 14th century) further eroded caste-like ideas. Theravada Buddhism promoted moral merit and offered avenues for social mobility (any man, rich or poor, could become a monk). As a result, the old Hindu caste framework gave way to a more egalitarian ethos emphasizing karma and virtue over birth status . For example, kings ceased claiming Hindu divine status and instead styled themselves as Buddhist monarchs, and the Buddhist sangha (monkhood) became an influential social institution open to all classes. In summary, ancient Cambodia had a pronounced hierarchy – king, priests, nobility, commoners, slaves – but this was a class hierarchy influenced by caste concepts rather than a formalized caste system, with Buddhism encouraging more social leveling over time .
Traditional Cambodian Hierarchies (Post-Angkor to 20th Century)
After the Angkor era, Cambodian society retained a hierarchical structure under successive Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms. Roles were often organized by royal lineage, occupation, and patronage relationships, though not by caste law. Pre-colonial Cambodia functioned much like a feudal or patron-client society: the king and royal family stood at the top, supported by a layer of nobility and officials (commonly titled oknha, chao ponhea, etc.) who administered provinces and collected tribute . These titles and offices were typically attained through family ties and loyalty to the crown, creating a semi-hereditary elite class . Below the nobility were local leaders and the Buddhist clergy. Buddhist monasteries were influential but did not constitute a hereditary caste – monks came from all social backgrounds, and while the monkhood conferred prestige, it was not a closed birth group .
The vast majority of Cambodians were peasant farmers, fishermen, and craftsmen who formed the lower class. By the 19th–20th century (under French colonial observation), society was essentially a pyramid with a tiny elite and a broad peasant base . Social strata included: an upper class of the royalty and high officials (often born into privilege), a modest middle class of traders, minor officials, and educated professionals, and a large lower class of rural peasants and laborers . Each stratum had its own internal ranks and titles, and upward mobility was limited. Before 1970, the highest positions were largely occupied by those born into elite families . Nonetheless, social mobility was not impossible – a commoner of talent might rise by obtaining education or joining the monkhood or civil service . For instance, becoming a Buddhist monk (even temporarily) could elevate a man’s status, and some educated commoners entered the bureaucracy or military officer corps . These avenues, however, were available to only a few, so the social order remained relatively stable and inheritance-based.
Ethnicity also figured into traditional hierarchies. The Khmer ethnic majority held most positions of power, while minority groups were often relegated to specific niches. Ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese in Cambodia commonly became merchants, shopkeepers or artisans, placing many of them in the middle stratum of towns . In contrast, indigenous hill tribes (the Khmer Loeu) and the Muslim Cham minority were largely rural and poor, and historically they occupied the lower rungs of society . Highland tribal groups were even viewed by lowland Khmers as “uncivilized” and were targets of slaving raids in earlier centuries . Vestiges of this prejudice persisted – well into the 20th century, Khmer officials spoke of the hill tribes with a paternalistic or contemptuous attitude, seeing them as backward people in need of “development” . The Cham, for their part, settled as farming and fishing communities; they generally did not have representation in the high elite, and many Cham remained among the peasantry. Despite these ethnic dimensions, it is important to note that Cambodia’s social divisions were never codified into an ethnic caste system – for example, Khmer and Chinese or Cham villagers lived under the same local patronage networks, even if the minorities lacked political influence.
Crucially, remnants of a formal hierarchy survived in social customs and language. The Khmer language developed distinct speech registers for different social levels: one lexicon for royalty, one for monks, and another for common folk . For example, there were separate words for “eat” depending on whether one was speaking about a king, a monk, or an ordinary person . Using the correct honorific language was (and still is) a way to show deference according to rank. Such linguistic and cultural codes reinforced Cambodia’s stratification, functioning much like caste etiquette (e.g. India’s rules of address) even though the underlying social divisions were based on status and title rather than inherited caste. In sum, traditional Cambodian society was highly hierarchical – organized by kingship, nobility, religious clergy, and commoner status – but these were class-like strata maintained by royal patronage and custom, not by an unyielding caste system. Individuals’ positions were influenced by birth and connections, yet not absolutely fixed from birth in the way of a true caste; merit and loyalty could (occasionally) change one’s status within the hierarchy .
The Khmer Rouge Era: Dismantling Social Hierarchy
Cambodia’s social structure was violently upended in the 1970s during the Khmer Rouge regime. When the ultra-communist Khmer Rouge took power in 1975, they set out to eradicate all existing class distinctions in pursuit of a radical classless society. Pol Pot’s ideology, inspired by Maoism, decreed that Cambodia must “start at Year Zero” and return to an egalitarian golden age of peasants . To achieve this, the regime abolished traditional hierarchies and ruthlessly targeted those at the top and middle of society. The monarchy was abolished and royal family members killed or driven into exile. Institutions of religion were destroyed – Buddhist monks were defrocked or executed, and temples were closed – in an attempt to eliminate the Buddhist clergy’s social role . The urban educated classes, landowners, merchants, and professionals were deemed enemies of the revolution. In the Khmer Rouge worldview, only the rural poor “base people” were pure; all others (the urban masses dubbed “new people”) had to be reformed or exterminated .
The Khmer Rouge explicitly divided society into categories in their doctrine, but in practice they sought to collapse all Cambodians into a single class of peasant-laborers. They eliminated all social ranks except the poorest farmers . Money, private property and titles were outlawed. People were forced out of cities into communal farming camps, regardless of former occupation. Teachers, professionals, and intellectuals were especially persecuted (even wearing glasses was enough to be suspected of bourgeois background). By “eliminating all social classes except for the ‘old people’ – poor peasants who worked the land,” the Khmer Rouge attempted to wipe the slate clean . This regime thus dismantled the traditional stratification of Cambodian society more thoroughly than any event in its history.
However, the Khmer Rouge’s version of equality was brutally paradoxical. In destroying the old hierarchies, they imposed a new, fear-based hierarchy of their own. Communist party cadres and soldiers held power over ordinary people, and distinctions emerged between the “base people” (original rural supporters who were given slightly better treatment) and the “new people” (evacuated city-dwellers who were often worked to death) . Furthermore, the regime’s extreme xenophobia and social engineering led to the targeting of ethnic minorities. The Cham Muslim community, for example, was singled out for especially harsh repression – their religious practices were banned and many were massacred for resisting assimilation . Other minorities, like ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia, were also killed or expelled. In effect, while the Khmer Rouge destroyed Cambodia’s traditional class and caste-like structures, they did not create a truly egalitarian society; instead, they enforced a different form of stratification based on revolutionary loyalty and ethnic purity. After the Khmer Rouge fell in 1979, the remnants of the old social order (such as the monarchy and Buddhism) gradually reasserted themselves, but the genocide had left the class landscape nearly unrecognizable by wiping out a whole generation of educated and elite people.
Modern Cambodian Society: Class and Ethnic Divides
In present-day Cambodia, there is no formal caste system, but pronounced social stratification exists along lines of wealth, power, education, and sometimes ethnicity. Since the early 1990s, Cambodian society has been reshaped by free-market economic growth and the restoration of the monarchy, resulting in new social classes. Inequality has widened greatly: a small circle of wealthy elites (tycoons, top politicians, and connected business families) controls a large share of the nation’s resources, while the majority of Cambodians remain in poverty or modest livelihoods . One report in 2016 categorized the population into three broad groups: a tiny “New Wealth” upper class, a growing but still limited middle class, and a lower-income majority comprising about 62% of people . These divisions are informal but palpable. For example, Phnom Penh’s expanding class of millionaires and high officials lead lives entirely different from rural farmers in distant provinces. Education and urbanization are key separators: those with higher education and city jobs form a nascent middle class, whereas rural youth often lack such opportunities and remain in subsistence farming or low-wage work.
There are also remnants of traditional hierarchy in modern guise. The Cambodian monarchy was reinstated in 1993, and although today’s king holds mainly symbolic power, the royal institution still commands public deference. Similarly, old honorific titles have been revived. Notably, the title “Oknha” – historically meaning a noble or lord – is now granted (by royal decree) to wealthy individuals who donate large sums to the state . This practice has effectively created a new patron class of politically connected tycoons, sometimes criticized as a form of plutocracy (titles effectively “for sale” to the rich) . The revival of oknha and other honors has restored an elite class in Cambodia’s kingdom, illustrating how social prestige is still tied to wealth and royal favor in a way faintly reminiscent of the past . Meanwhile, at the local level, social etiquette of hierarchy endures: people continue to use respectful language towards monks, officials, and elders, reflecting ingrained notions of rank and respect, even though legally all citizens are equal.
In modern Cambodia, ethnicity intersects with social stratification, though not through a codified caste system but via historical marginalization. Approximately 90% of the population is ethnic Khmer, and they dominate political and economic life. Minority groups – such as the Cham, Vietnamese, Chinese Cambodians, and indigenous hill tribes – occupy varying positions, generally less advantaged. The Cham Muslims (around 4–5% of the population) are generally integrated as Cambodian citizens today, but they remember the Khmer Rouge’s genocide against them and sometimes face subtle discrimination or stereotypes in society . There have been instances of social exclusion or local prejudice towards Cham (often based on religious differences), although overt hostility is less common now than in the past . The indigenous “Khmer Loeu” tribes of the northeast (such as the Jarai, Tampuan, and Bunong) remain among the most marginalized communities. Historically viewed with “an air of superiority, or even contempt” by lowland Khmers , these groups today struggle with high rates of poverty and lower education. They often live in remote areas and have less access to services, which keeps them in a lower socio-economic bracket. In Cambodian discourse, there is a notion that these minorities need to be “developed” or assimilated into mainstream Khmer culture – a legacy of the old attitude that regarded highlanders as primitive. This indicates a lingering social divide: while not a caste hierarchy, there is a perceived cultural hierarchy where urban, lowland Khmer Buddhists are at the center and minority groups at the periphery.
It is important to stress that contemporary Cambodian law forbids discrimination, and there is no legal stratification of citizens by caste, race, or origin. The social divisions are informal and socioeconomic. Wealth and power often trump ethnicity – for instance, some people of Chinese Khmer descent are among the wealthiest business elites, and they are part of the de facto upper class. By contrast, many ethnic Khmer farmers in rural villages are very poor despite belonging to the majority group. In other words, modern Cambodia’s stratification is more similar to a class system found in many developing countries (rich vs. poor, educated vs. uneducated, urban vs. rural) than any formal caste arrangement. Corruption and patron-client networks (carry-overs from the past) do reinforce these divisions, as the elite consolidate privilege. Nonetheless, there is social mobility in today’s Cambodia: with education or entrepreneurship, individuals from humble backgrounds can rise economically, something that a rigid caste system would prevent. Overall, present-day Cambodia does not have castes, but it does have stark social inequalities and enduring hierarchical mindsets, some of which echo the old order in a modern context.
Comparison with Caste Systems in Other Countries
When comparing Cambodia’s social stratification to caste systems elsewhere, the contrast with India’s caste system is particularly instructive. India’s Hindu caste system is a well-defined, hereditary structure of endogamous jati groups, traditionally enforced by strict rules of marriage, occupation, and ritual purity. Cambodia, by contrast, never developed such a fixed, birth-determined caste order . While ancient Cambodia imported the concept of varna (the broad Brahmin–Kshatriya–Vaishya–Sudra classes) from India, this remained more of an elite ideological model than a lived reality . The Indian notion of untouchability – where certain castes are deemed ritually impure and segregated – did not exist in Cambodian society. No group of Cambodians was ever permanently excluded from touch or social interaction in the way Dalits were in India. Social divisions in Cambodia were relatively fluid: for example, a commoner could become a monk or gain favor with a prince and thus improve his station, something virtually impossible under a rigid caste system . The absence of strict endogamy (marriage was not absolutely constrained within one’s birth group) also differentiates Cambodia’s system from true caste hierarchy . For instance, nobles in Cambodia could (and often did) marry commoners or people of other ethnicities if it suited political or personal interests, whereas in India such mixed marriages would be socially taboo in a caste context.
Cambodia’s stratification is better likened to a class or feudal hierarchy. In that sense, it had more in common with medieval European feudalism or with neighboring Theravada Buddhist kingdoms like Thailand and Laos, rather than the caste society of India. Like Cambodia, Thailand historically had a king and aristocracy, and commoners could become monks or officials, but it had no formal caste system either. Anthropologist May Ebihara succinctly noted that Cambodian society should be described “in terms of strata and hierarchy but […] not castes” . The key distinction lies in rigidity: Indian caste status is (even today) typically inherited permanently at birth, whereas Cambodian social status, though influenced by birth, was mutable over a lifetime through personal achievement, patronage, or ordination. Moreover, Cambodia’s social categories were not defined by religious purity in the way Hindu castes are. Even the highest Khmer social ranks (royalty and Brahmins) did not shun physical contact with those of lower status – the barrier was one of power and prestige, not spiritual pollution.
In summary, Cambodia’s social stratification both past and present is stratified but not caste-based. It shares with caste societies a clear ranking of groups and the influence of birth on one’s opportunities, but it lacks the formal, religiously-sanctioned immutability that characterizes systems like India’s. Modern Cambodia’s divisions are informal and economic, comparable to class divisions in other countries, rather than any codified caste system. While issues of inequality and social hierarchy persist in Cambodia, they are maintained by historical habit, economic conditions, and political power structures – not by a binding scriptural law of caste. This makes Cambodia’s situation unique: a society with deep hierarchical tradition, yet without the existence of caste per se, as confirmed by expert analyses of Khmer history and social organization .
Sources: Historical and social analyses of Cambodian society ; academic commentary on caste versus class in Cambodia ; modern reports on Cambodian social structure and minorities ; and documented accounts of the Khmer Rouge era’s impact on social hierarchy .