Comment on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Normative approach in Political Science (10 marks) (b) Multicultural…

Comment on the following in about 150 words each: (a) Normative approach in Political Science (10 marks) (b) Multicultural perspective on rights (10 marks) (c) State of Nature as State of War (Hobbes) (10 marks) (d) Foucault's concept of power (10 marks) (e) Decline of political theory (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक पर लगभग 150 शब्दों में टिप्पणी कीजिए : (a) राजनीति-विज्ञान में मानकीय उपागम (10 अंक) (b) अधिकारों का बहुसंस्कृतिक परिप्रेक्ष्य (10 अंक) (c) प्राकृतिक अवस्था, युद्ध की अवस्था के रूप में (हॉब्स) (10 अंक) (d) फुको की शक्ति की अवधारणा (10 अंक) (e) राजनीतिक सिद्धांत का पतन (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' requires balanced exposition with critical insight for each sub-part. Allocate approximately 30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (150 words × 5 = 750 total, but strict 150 per part). Structure each part as: brief definition (1 sentence) → core argument (2-3 sentences) → critical observation or contemporary relevance (1-2 sentences). No introduction or conclusion spanning parts—treat as five independent short notes.

Key points expected

(a) Normative approach: distinguishes from empirical/behavioural; mentions value-laden inquiry, 'ought' questions; cites Leo Strauss or Sheldon Wolin; notes revival via Rawls/Nozick
(b) Multicultural rights: contrasts with universalist liberalism; mentions Will Kymlicka or Charles Taylor; distinguishes group-differentiated rights from individual rights; Indian context: minority rights, Article 29-30, Shah Bano debate
(c) Hobbes' state of war: bellum omnium contra omnes; three causes (competition, diffidence, glory); sovereign as solution; contrasts with Locke/Rousseau
(d) Foucault's power: power as productive not merely repressive; capillary power, bio-power, governmentality; panopticism; resistance inseparable from power
(e) Decline of political theory: Easton/behaviouralism critique; 'end of ideology' thesis; resurgence via Rawls (1971); Indian debate: Rajni Kothari, Ashis Nandy

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Correctly interprets 'comment' as requiring both exposition and critical evaluation for each sub-part; for (a) evaluates normative vs empirical tension; for (b) assesses multiculturalism's tension with liberal equality; for (c) evaluates Hobbes' pessimism; for (d) critiques Foucault's neglect of state-centric power; for (e) weighs whether decline was overstated	Provides descriptive coverage of all five parts but treats 'comment' as mere description; offers definitions without evaluative edge; misses at least two sub-parts' critical dimensions	Misreads directive as 'define' or 'list'; provides bullet points without sentences; omits critical dimension entirely; confuses sub-parts (e.g., treats Foucault as Hobbes)
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates precise conceptual command: for (a) distinguishes normative from empirical without conflating; for (b) accurately presents Kymlicka's categories; for (c) correctly attributes causes of war to Leviathan Ch. 13; for (d) captures power/knowledge nexus; for (e) correctly dates Rawlsian revival; no factual errors	Broadly accurate but imprecise: conflates normative with 'traditional' approach; mentions multiculturalism without theorist names; describes Hobbes' war correctly but misattributes to 'Social Contract' title; vague on Foucault's periods; dates decline/resurgence approximately	Major conceptual errors: confuses normative with behavioural; attributes multicultural rights to Rawls; conflates Hobbes with Locke's state of nature; describes Foucault as 'post-Marxist' without substance; claims political theory 'died' without mentioning revival
Structure & flow	20%	10	Each 150-word segment is self-contained with internal coherence: clear opening definitional sentence, logically sequenced middle, crisp closing insight; transitions between sub-parts marked clearly ((a), (b), etc.); no paragraph bleeding across parts; disciplined word economy	Covers all parts but structure uneven: some parts over-developed (200+ words) forcing others to under 100; weak internal organization within segments; missing or inconsistent sub-part labelling; readable but not crisp	Unstructured stream of consciousness; no sub-part demarcation; severe imbalance (e.g., 400 words on Foucault, 50 on others); fragments and incomplete sentences; illegible organization suggesting time mismanagement
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Strategic deployment: for (a) cites Strauss's 'What is Political Philosophy?' or Isaiah Berlin's value pluralism; for (b) references Indian Constitution Articles 29-30, or Quebec/Canadian model; for (c) quotes Leviathan directly; for (d) references 'Discipline and Punish' or 'History of Sexuality'; for (e) mentions Easton's 'The Political System' or Kothari's 'Politics in India'	Mentions some thinkers but imprecisely: 'some scholars' instead of names; generic 'Western democracies' for multiculturalism; no textual references for Hobbes or Foucault; vague '1970s revival' without Rawls; Indian examples absent or forced	No thinker names or textual references; invented quotes; anachronistic examples (e.g., Foucault discussing colonial India); irrelevant case law (e.g., Kesavananda for multicultural rights); examples contradict the concept explained
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Each sub-part closes with distinctive insight: for (a) connects normative revival to contemporary populism/legitimacy crises; for (b) assesses multiculturalism's limits in majoritarian democracies; for (c) evaluates Hobbes' relevance to security studies; for (d) critiques Foucault's inattention to global power; for (e) synthesizes decline thesis as methodological pluralism's victory	Generic closing sentences: 'thus we see,' 'in conclusion,' without specific insight; repetitive summaries of what was said; no forward-looking or evaluative closing; some parts lack any conclusion	Abrupt endings mid-argument; no attempt at synthesis; contradictory final sentences; conclusion contradicts body; missing conclusions on 2+ sub-parts; purely descriptive endings adding no value

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 →