Sociology 2021 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Explain the emerging challenges in establishing gender equality in the informal sector. 10 (b) Critically examine the relevance of Vilfredo Pareto's theory of Circulation of Elites in the present scenario. 10 (c) Critically compare the views of E.B. Tylor and Max Muller on Religion. 10 (d) What is cult ? Explain the growth of cults in the contemporary world. 10 (e) Do you think Talcott Parsons gave an adequate theory of social change ? Justify your answer. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र में लैंगिक समानता स्थापित करने में उभरती चुनौतियों की व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (b) वर्तमान परिदृश्य में विल्फ्रेडो पारेटो के अभिजात-वर्ग के परिभ्रमण के सिद्धांत की प्रासंगिकता का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । 10 (c) धर्म पर ई.बी. टायलर और मैक्स मूलर के विचारों की आलोचनात्मक रूप से तुलना कीजिए । 10 (d) पंथ क्या है ? समकालीन दुनिया में पंथों की वृद्धि की व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (e) क्या आपको लगता है कि टैलकॉट पार्सन्स के द्वारा दिया गया सामाजिक परिवर्तन का सिद्धांत पर्याप्त है ? अपने उत्तर का औचित्य साबित कीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Sociology questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

This multi-part question demands five distinct 150-word responses. For (a), 'explain' requires unpacking structural barriers to gender equality in informal work; for (b), 'critically examine' tests Pareto's elite circulation against contemporary Indian politics and corporate mobility; for (c), 'critically compare' Tylor's intellectualist animism with Müller's linguistic/naturist theory; for (d), define 'cult' sociologically then explain growth via rational choice and deprivation theories; for (e), 'justify' demands evaluating Parsons' equilibrium model against conflict critiques. Allocate ~30 words per sub-part for concise definitions, ~100 for analysis, ~20 for critical conclusion.

Key points expected

(a) Informal sector gender challenges: unpaid care burden, lack of social protection, platform economy algorithmic bias, SEWA/Street Vendors Act as partial remedies
(b) Pareto's circulation: 'lions' vs 'foxes' elite types, Indian political dynasty-to-meritocracy shifts, corporate CEO turnover, critique via Mosca's organized minority and democratic institutionalization
(c) Tylor: animism as primitive science, evolutionary framework; Müller: naturism, linguistic corruption of sensory experience; both intellectualist reductionism vs Durkheim/Geertz critiques
(d) Cult definition: Stark-Bainbridge compensator-seeking group; growth factors: post-1960s spiritual marketplace, NRMs in India (Brahma Kumaris, ISKCON), internet-mediated recruitment, anomie
(e) Parsons' change: differentiation-adaptive upgrading, pattern variables; critique from conflict theory (change as rupture), Wallerstein world-systems, India's caste-gender structural lag

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	Correctly calibrates each directive: (a) explains mechanisms not just lists; (b) examines Pareto with contemporary applicability and limits; (c) compares Tylor-Müller on origins/functions, not just describes; (d) defines cult sociologically (not pejoratively) then explains multi-causal growth; (e) justifies adequacy judgment with explicit criteria.	Recognizes most directives but treats one or two descriptively—e.g., lists cult characteristics without explaining growth mechanisms, or describes Pareto without critical examination.	Misreads multiple directives—treats 'critically examine' as 'explain,' 'compare' as 'contrast' superficially, or 'justify' as 'list Parsons' concepts' without evaluative stance.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Deploys precise theoretical vocabulary: for (a) feminist political economy (Benería, Standing); (b) Pareto's residues/derivations plus Mosca/Michels critiques; (c) Tylor's 'minimum definition' vs Müller's 'disease of language'; (d) Stark-Bainbridge rational choice or Troeltsch church-sect-cult; (e) Parsons' AGIL/evolutionary universals vs. Lenski/neo-Marxist alternatives.	Names theorists correctly but uses concepts imprecisely—e.g., mentions 'circulation of elites' without lions/foxes distinction, or 'evolution' without adaptive upgrading.	Theoretical confusion: conflates Tylor with Frazer, Pareto with Mosca without distinction, or treats cult as psychological pathology without sociological framing.
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	Contextualizes each part with Indian evidence: (a) PLFS 2022-23 female workforce participation, SEWA organizing; (b) Indian political families (Gandhi-Nehru, regional dynasties) vs. technocratic rise (Raghuram Rajan, Nandan Nilekani); (c) Indian tribal animism studies (Verrier Elwin); (d) NRMs—Brahma Kumaris, Art of Living, radicalization cases; (e) Green Revolution differentiation, OBC mobilization.	Includes some Indian examples but unevenly—strong on (a) and (d), generic on (b) and (e), or uses outdated references (1991 economic liberalization without recent data).	Wholly Euro-American examples: discusses US cults (Heaven's Gate), European feudal elite circulation, or ignores empirical grounding entirely.
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	Demonstrates paradigm reflexivity: (a) recognizes functionalist (integration) vs. feminist (exploitation) readings of informal work; (b) weighs Pareto's cyclical view against structuralist (class reproduction) and institutionalist (democratic deepening) alternatives; (c) contrasts intellectualist theories with symbolist (Geertz) and materialist (Marx) critiques; (d) balances supply-side (deprivation) and demand-side (spiritual marketplace) explanations; (e) explicitly contrasts Parsons' equilibrium with conflict/world-systems theories of change.	Acknowledges alternative perspectives in one or two parts but treats others monologically—e.g., strong critical comparison in (c) but uncritical acceptance of Pareto in (b).	Single-paradigm treatment throughout: functionalist for all, or conflict-only, without recognizing sociology's theoretical pluralism.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Each 150-word unit concludes with micro-macro linkage: (a) individual worker agency vs. global value chains; (b) elite biography vs. institutional structure; (c) religious experience vs. social classification systems; (d) cult member choice vs. structural anomie; (e) Parsons' optimism vs. India's uneven modernization. Shows cumulative sociological imagination across the five parts.	Some conclusions present but formulaic—restating main points without analytical synthesis or Millsian 'troubles vs. issues' framing.	Missing or severely truncated conclusions; ends with unfinished empirical description, or five parts read as disconnected notes without cumulative argumentative coherence.

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 →