Q7
(a) Critically evaluate different types of social stratifications with suitable examples. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the bio-social determinants of fertility and fecundity. (15 marks) (c) What is Anthropometry? Discuss its role in assessing the nutritional status and sports capability of a person. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ विभिन्न प्रकार के सामाजिक स्तरीकरणों का समालोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) उर्वरता और प्रजनन-क्षमता के जैव-सामाजिक निर्धारकों की चर्चा कीजिए । (15 अंक) (c) मानवमिति क्या है ? किसी व्यक्ति की पोषण स्थिति और खेल क्षमता का आकलन करने में इसकी भूमिका की चर्चा कीजिए । (15 अंक)
Directive word: Critically evaluate
This question asks you to critically evaluate. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.
See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.
How this answer will be evaluated
Approach
The directive 'critically evaluate' for part (a) demands balanced assessment with strengths and limitations; parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' treatment with analytical depth. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction, then three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, followed by a synthesizing conclusion that connects stratification studies to bio-social and applied anthropological methods.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Distinguish between open (class) and closed (caste, estate) stratification systems with Weber's three-component theory and Marx's conflict perspective; evaluate with Indian caste (jajmani system) and American class examples
- Part (a): Critically assess functionalist (Davis-Moore) versus conflict theories of stratification, noting their explanatory limits for contemporary mobility
- Part (b): Explain biological determinants (age at menarche/menopause, genetic factors, health status) and social determinants (education, economic status, family structure, contraceptive use) of fertility/fecundity
- Part (b): Distinguish fecundity (biological capacity) from fertility (actual reproduction); cite Indian NFHS data or Kerala-Tamil Nadu demographic contrasts
- Part (c): Define anthropometry (body measurements: stature, weight, skinfolds, circumferences) and its historical development (Bertillon, Hrdlička)
- Part (c): Explain nutritional assessment applications (BMI, MUAC, wasting/stunting indices in ICDS) and sports capability (somatotyping, ISAK protocols, talent identification in Indian sports academies)
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise definitions across all parts: for (a) correctly distinguishes class, caste, estate with their mobility characteristics; for (b) rigorously separates fecundity from fertility; for (c) accurately describes anthropometric indices (BMI, WHR, skinfold equations) and their standardization | Generally correct definitions but some conflation (e.g., treats caste/class as interchangeable, or confuses fecundity/fertility); anthropometric indices mentioned without technical precision | Major conceptual errors: misidentifies stratification types, conflates fecundity/fertility completely, or describes phrenology/physiognomy instead of anthropometry |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | For (a) deploys Marx, Weber, and Davis-Moore with critical synthesis; for (b) integrates Bongaarts' proximate determinants framework or biosocial theory; for (c) references Sheldon's somatotyping or contemporary ISAK standards with awareness of methodological critiques | Mentions major theorists superficially without critical engagement; biosocial approach stated but not elaborated; anthropometric theory limited to basic description | Absent or incorrect theory: no mention of Weber/Marx for stratification, purely descriptive treatment of fertility, or no theoretical grounding for anthropometric applications |
| Ethnographic / Indian examples | 20% | 10 | Rich Indian specificity: for (a) cites Dumont's Homo Hierarchicus, Srinivas's Sanskritization, or village studies (Shah, Beteille); for (b) uses NFHS-5 data, Kerala model, or son preference studies; for (c) references ICMR anthropometric standards, Khasi sports talent, or ICDS nutritional surveys | Some Indian examples but generic (e.g., 'caste system in villages' without specificity); demographic data mentioned without source; sports examples limited to cricket clichés | Relies entirely on Western examples (American dream, European fertility transition) or no examples; anthropometry described without Indian context or applications |
| Comparative analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a) systematically compares stratification systems (class vs. caste mobility, India vs. Japan caste); for (b) contrasts high-fertility (Bihar, UP) vs. low-fertility (Kerala, Tamil Nadu) states with explanatory factors; for (c) compares nutritional anthropometry (clinical vs. field methods) and sports applications (endomorph/mesomorph/ectomorph suitability) | Some comparison attempted but uneven—strong on (a), weak on (b) and (c); or comparisons stated without analytical development | No comparative dimension: treats each stratification type, fertility determinant, or anthropometric application in isolation without relational analysis |
| Conclusion & applied angle | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes how stratification studies, biosocial demography, and applied anthropometry together constitute holistic anthropological method; notes policy relevance (reservation debates, population policy, sports talent hunt/Nutrition Mission) with balanced critical reflection on limitations | Summarizes main points without true synthesis; applied angle mentioned superficially (e.g., 'useful for government policy') without specificity | Absent or abrupt conclusion; no applied dimension; or uncritical advocacy without acknowledging methodological limitations (e.g., anthropometric reductionism, stratification theory's Eurocentrism) |
Practice this exact question
Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.
Evaluate my answer →More from Anthropology 2021 Paper I
- Q1 Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Animism and Deep Ecology (10 marks) (b) Marriage Regulations and Alliance Theory…
- Q2 (a) What are the physical and cultural characteristics of Homo erectus? Discuss its phylogenetic status. (20 marks) (b) Elucidate the conce…
- Q3 (a) How do political organisations of simple societies establish power, authority and legitimacy? (20 marks) (b) Explain the genetic mechan…
- Q4 (a) Elaborate the scope of anthropology and elucidate its uniqueness in the field of other social sciences. (20 marks) (b) Mention the majo…
- Q5 Write notes on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Human adolescent growth spurt (10 marks) (b) The losses and gains of erect postur…
- Q6 (a) What is acclimatization? Discuss adaptive responses to high altitude and cold climate. (20 marks) (b) How are the cases of disputed pat…
- Q7 (a) Critically evaluate different types of social stratifications with suitable examples. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the bio-social determinant…
- Q8 (a) Discuss various tools of data collection in conducting anthropological research. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the physiological and evolution…