Sociology 2021 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) Discuss the changing nature of kinship relations in the contemporary world. 20 (b) Describe the role of Science and Technology in enabling us to face the challenges triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. 20 (c) Highlight the roles and functions of civil society in a democratic system. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समकालीन विश्व में नातेदारी संबंधों की बदलती हुई प्रकृति की विवेचना कीजिए । 20 (b) कोविड-19 महामारी से उत्पन्न चुनौतियों का सामना करने हेतु हमें सक्षम बनाने में विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी की भूमिका का वर्णन कीजिए । 20 (c) लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था में नागरिक समाज की भूमिकाओं और कार्यों पर प्रकाश डालिए । 10

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

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' for part (a) requires weighing multiple perspectives on kinship change, while 'describe' for (b) and 'highlight' for (c) demand systematic exposition. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks and theoretical depth, 35% to part (b) for its empirical COVID-19 coverage, and 25% to part (c) for civil society functions. Structure: integrated introduction linking all three to social transformation → three distinct body sections with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how kinship, technology and civil society together constitute contemporary social resilience.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Decline of extended/joint families and rise of nuclear/diverse family forms (single-parent, same-sex, live-in); impact of migration, urbanization, women's workforce participation, assisted reproductive technologies
  • Part (a): Continuity thesis — resilience of patrilocality, arranged marriages, dowry practices in India; McDonaldization vs. Indian family values debate (Uberoi, Patricia Uberoi)
  • Part (b): Vaccine development (mRNA platforms), genomic surveillance (INSACOG in India), telemedicine expansion, digital contact tracing (Aarogya Setu), e-governance for welfare delivery during lockdowns
  • Part (b): Digital divide exacerbation; surveillance concerns; unequal access to healthcare technology reinforcing class/caste disparities in pandemic response
  • Part (c): Civil society as intermediary between state and citizens; watchdog functions (RTI activism, environmental litigation); service delivery gap-filling (NGOs during COVID); deliberative democracy and social capital (Putnam)
  • Part (c): Critique — elite capture, foreign funding regulation (FCRA amendments), co-optation by state; civil society's role in democratic deepening vs. destabilization debates
  • Cross-cutting: Technology-mediated kinship (WhatsApp families, digital rituals) and civil society's digital mobilization — showing interconnection between all three parts

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'discuss' as weighing continuity vs. change, not just listing trends; for (b), 'describe' is fulfilled with systematic categorization (health, governance, social) not mere enumeration; for (c), 'highlight' selects most significant functions with prioritization, not exhaustive listing.Recognizes different directives but treats all three parts similarly — mostly descriptive with limited engagement; (a) lists changes without debate, (b) becomes a technology inventory, (c) produces an undifferentiated list.Misreads all directives as 'write what you know about'; (a) becomes family sociology summary, (b) general science praise, (c) NGO definition; no attention to directive-specific demands.
Theoretical framing20%10(a) Deploys Goode's modernization thesis, Parsons' nuclear family fit, or Uberoi's 'family in flux' with Indian specificity; (b) Uses Beck's risk society, Foucauldian biopolitics, or STS perspectives on sociotechnical systems; (c) Applies Gramsci (hegemony/counter-hegemony), Putnam (social capital), or Chatterjee's 'political society' to Indian civil society.Names theorists correctly but applies loosely — e.g., mentions Parsons without explaining structural-functional fit, or cites Putnam without operationalizing social capital; frameworks serve as labels rather than analytical engines.No named theories; or confuses theorists (e.g., attributes risk society to Giddens without nuance); argument remains atheoretical description.
Indian / empirical examples20%10(a) Cites NFHS-5 family structure data, Uberoi's NCAER studies, or specific regional patterns (Kerala's matrilineal decline, North Indian joint family persistence); (b) References specific Indian S&T responses — Covaxin development, CoWIN platform, PMGKAY digital delivery, ISRO's ventilator production; (c) Names specific civil society actors (MKSS/RTI movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan, SEWA, Goonj during COVID) with their specific democratic functions.General Indian references without specificity — 'joint families are declining in India,' 'Aarogya Setu was used,' 'NGOs helped during COVID'; no disaggregated data or named organizations with their particular roles.Western-centric examples dominate (American family changes, European COVID apps, Tocqueville on American civil society); or entirely generic statements without any empirical anchor.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10(a) Engages both modernization thesis and its critics (Uberoi's continuity, Palriwala's agrarian family persistence); (b) Balances techno-optimism with critical STS (surveillance capitalism, vaccine apartheid, Adivasi exclusion from digital health); (c) Presents civil society as democratic deepening force AND critiques elite capture, foreign dependency, state co-optation (post-FCRA constraints).Acknowledges counter-positions in passing but doesn't develop them; e.g., mentions 'some say families haven't changed' without evidence, or notes 'privacy concerns' without elaboration; one part may be balanced while others are one-sided.Wholly one-sided treatment across all parts — unilinear family decline narrative, uncritical technology celebration, or romanticized civil society portrait; no recognition of sociological debate.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesizes all three parts through a unifying sociological lens — e.g., how technology mediates both kinship reconstitution (digital families) and civil society mobilization, constituting new forms of social solidarity; or connects personal troubles (family strain, COVID loss) to public issues (state capacity, democratic resilience); proposes forward-looking research agenda or policy direction.Summarizes three parts separately without integration; adds no analytical lift beyond restatement; may have conclusion for each part but no overarching sociological framing.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; or conclusion merely restates question without any synthesis; fails to demonstrate Mills' sociological imagination in connecting biography and history across the three domains.

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 Sociology 2021 Paper I