Sociology 2022 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q5

Write short answers of the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Critically examine the relevance of Durkheim's views on religion in contemporary society. (10 marks) (b) Discuss various theoretical perspectives on the family. (10 marks) (c) Explain the implications of feminization of work in the developing societies. (10 marks) (d) Write a note on global trends of secularization. (10 marks) (e) Trace the trajectory of development perspectives on social change. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का संक्षिप्त उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लिखिए : (a) समकालीन समाज में धर्म संबंधित दुर्खीम के विचारों की प्रासंगिकता का समालोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) परिवार पर विभिन्न सैद्धांतिक परिप्रेक्ष्यों की चर्चा कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) विकासशील समाजों के कार्यक्षेत्रों में नारी की उपस्थिति में वृद्धि के आशय की व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) धर्मनिरपेक्षता के वैश्विक प्रवृत्तियों पर टिप्पणी लिखिए । (10 अंक) (e) विकास के परिप्रेक्ष्यों में सामाजिक परिवर्तन का मार्ग निर्धारण कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 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

Critically examine demands balanced evaluation with evidence-based judgment. Allocate ~30 words per mark (150 words × 5 parts = 750 total). Spend roughly equal time on each part (a)-(e) since all carry 10 marks. For (a), weigh Durkheim's functionalism against contemporary critiques; for (b), contrast structural-functional, conflict, and feminist perspectives; for (c), assess both empowerment and exploitation dimensions; for (d), balance Euro-American secularization with desecularization in the global South; for (e), trace evolution from modernization to post-development critiques. Conclude each part with a synthetic judgment.

Key points expected

(a) Durkheim: collective conscience, totemic principle, functional integration; critique via rational choice (Stark), lived religion (McGuire), post-9/11 religious resurgence; Indian case: temple economy and electoral mobilization
(b) Family theories: Parsons' functional fit, Goode's modernization convergence, Marxist-feminist (Engels, Delphy) critique of domestic labour, postmodern diversity (Stacey, Weeks)
(c) Feminization: global care chains (Hochschild), informalization in India (SEWA data), double burden, deskilling vs. NGO-led empowerment (Kudumbashree)
(d) Secularization: classic thesis (Berger, Wilson), supply-side critique (Stark-Iannaccone), desecularization (Casanova), Indian exceptionalism (Madan, Nandy)
(e) Development trajectory: modernization (Rostow, Lerner), dependency (Frank, Amin), world-systems (Wallerstein), sustainable development, post-development (Escobar), decolonial alternatives

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), moves beyond description to evaluate Durkheim's continuing relevance through contemporary religious phenomena; for (b), 'discuss' generates genuine theoretical comparison rather than listing; for (c), 'explain' unpacks causal mechanisms of feminization; for (d), 'note' captures complexity of global variation; for (e), 'trace' shows chronological and paradigmatic shifts with evalative edge.	Recognizes directive verbs but treats them descriptively; (a) summarizes Durkheim without critical evaluation; (b) lists theories without systematic comparison; (c) describes feminization without explaining implications; (d) narrates trends without pattern recognition; (e) presents theories as disconnected snapshots.	Misreads directives: (a) becomes 'write about Durkheim'; (b) conflates all theories; (c) drifts into general women-in-work description; (d) equates secularization with atheism; (e) confuses development theories with economic policies.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Deploys named theorists accurately across all five parts: Durkheim/Weber on religion; Parsons/Goode/Engels on family; Hochschild/Benería on feminization; Berger/Casanova/Stark on secularization; Rostow/Frank/Wallerstein/Escobar on development; shows internal consistency and appropriate application.	Names major theorists but misapplies concepts or uses them as labels without integration; e.g., cites Parsons without explaining 'functional fit' or mentions Escobar without 'anti-politics machine' logic.	No named theorists or confused attributions; treats sociology as common-sense commentary; conflates Marx with dependency theory or Durkheim with Weber.
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	Grounds each part in Indian evidence: (a) temple-based social capital or Sabarimala controversy; (b) joint family persistence vs. nuclearization (NFHS data); (c) SEWA, anganwadi workers, or IT sector feminization; (d) Indian secularism model, Sachar Committee findings; (e) Kerala model, Narmada Bachao Andolan, or SDG-India Index.	Mentions India in passing or uses only one generic example across multiple parts; e.g., 'in India too' without specific data or case.	Entirely Euro-American examples or no empirical grounding; treats Indian society as absent from global sociological patterns.
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	Demonstrates paradigmatic tension in each part: (a) functionalism vs. rational choice vs. post-secular critique; (b) consensus vs. conflict vs. symbolic interactionist family; (c) neoclassical labor market vs. Marxist-feminist vs. capabilities approach; (d) secularization vs. desecularization vs. multiple modernities; (e) modernization vs. dependency vs. post-development; synthesizes rather than merely juxtaposes.	Presents two perspectives per part but treats them as separate boxes without dialogue; misses third paradigm where relevant.	Single-paradigm treatment throughout; e.g., only functionalism for religion, only modernization for development; no recognition of theoretical contestation.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Each 150-word segment concludes with Mills-style connection of personal trouble to public issue: (a) individual belief to collective representation crisis; (c) woman's double burden to global care chain restructuring; (e) local development experience to world-system position; overall shows reflexive awareness of sociology's own historical location.	Summative conclusions that restate main points without analytical escalation; no explicit sociological imagination framing.	Abrupt endings or missing conclusions; final sentences introduce new information; no integration of micro-macro levels.

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 →