Q6
(a) According to Mead the idea of self develops when the individual becomes self-conscious. Explain. (20 marks) (b) Analyse the nature of transition from ideology to identity politics in India. (20 marks) (c) How do little tradition and great tradition coexist in contemporary Indian society ? (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) मीड के अनुसार आत्मन का विचार तब विकसित होता है जब व्यक्ति आत्म सचेतन हो जाता है । स्पष्ट कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) विचारधारा आधारित राजनीति से अस्मिता आधारित राजनीति के संक्रमण के स्वरूप का विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) समकालीन भारतीय समाज में लघु परंपरा तथा महान परंपरा किस प्रकार सह-अस्तित्व में हैं ? (10 अंक)
Directive word: Explain
This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' for part (a) requires unpacking the process of self-development through Mead's stages; 'analyse' for part (b) demands examining causal mechanisms of transition; 'how' for part (c) needs process-tracing of coexistence. Allocate approximately 40% word budget to (a) given its 20 marks and theoretical density, 40% to (b) for its analytical complexity, and 20% to (c). Structure: brief integrated intro → (a) Mead's I-me dialectic and significant symbols → (b) transition from class-based ideology to ascriptive identity politics with Indian cases → (c) Redfield-Singer model applied to contemporary syncretism → conclusion synthesising all three around agency-structure debate.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Mead's stages — preparatory, play, game; emergence of 'generalised other'; I-me dialectic; significant symbols and role-taking as mechanisms of self-consciousness
- Part (a): Distinction between biological organism and social self; self as process not substance; Cooley-Mead comparison on looking-glass self
- Part (b): Ideology politics (class-based, 1950s-70s: CPI, Congress socialism) versus identity politics (ascriptive, 1980s onward: Mandal, Mandir, regional assertions)
- Part (b): Drivers of transition: post-Mandal politicisation, decline of Congress system, globalisation's cultural anxieties, electoral arithmetic of competitive populism
- Part (c): Redfield's little tradition (local, oral, folk) and great tradition (Sanskritic, textual, universal); Singer's cultural performance and compartmentalisation
- Part (c): Contemporary coexistence: folk religion at Sabarimala/Tirupati alongside Vedic rituals; Bollywood's folk-classical fusion; tribal festivals with state patronage
- Cross-cutting: Agency-structure tension — Mead's active self-formation, identity politics' structural determinism, tradition coexistence's negotiated agency
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), treats 'explain' as unpacking a causal-process (how self-consciousness emerges), not mere definition; for (b), 'analyse' is executed as examining mechanisms of transition with periodisation; for (c), 'how' is answered through dynamic process-tracing rather than static listing. | Recognises the three directives but executes them unevenly — strong on (a) but descriptive on (b) and (c); or conflates 'analyse' with 'describe'. | Misreads all three directives as 'define' or 'list'; produces three disconnected definitional segments without processual or analytical depth. |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Deploys Mead's complete conceptual apparatus (I-me, generalised other, significant symbols, role-taking) with precision; for (b) uses at least one framework (Laclau-Mouffe hegemony, Kothari's Congress system decline, or Chatterjee's political society); for (c) applies Redfield-Singer or Marriott's universalisation-parochialisation model correctly. | Names Mead and Redfield but uses concepts loosely or partially; for (b) lacks explicit framework, relying on implicit common-sense political sociology. | No named theorists or misattributes concepts (e.g., confusing Mead with Cooley or Goffman); part (b) entirely atheoretical. |
| Indian / empirical examples | 20% | 10 | For (a): Indian socialisation contexts (joint family, caste-based play groups) as empirical ground; for (b): specific transitions — 1989 Mandal implementation, BJP's Ram Janmabhoomi, DMK/AIADMK Dravidianism, regional party proliferation post-1989; for (c): concrete cases like Bhakti movement's little-to-great circulation, contemporary Durgā Pūjā's folk-Sanskritic synthesis, or tribal deities in Hindu temple networks. | Mentions 'Mandal' or 'Ayodhya' without specificity; for (c) vague reference to 'village festivals' without naming traditions or regions. | No Indian examples for (b) and (c); for (a) uses only Western childhood illustrations; or invents non-existent empirical cases. |
| Multi-paradigm analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): acknowledges symbolic interactionist limits (neglect of power, structure) and briefly contrasts with Foucault or Bourdieu; for (b): presents counter-argument that ideology persists (Left in Kerala, class in Bihar) alongside identity; for (c): notes tension/ conflict cases (Sabarimala women's entry, ghar wapsi) not just harmonious coexistence. | One-sided presentation for each part; for (b) treats transition as complete rather than contested; for (c) only harmonious coexistence narrative. | No awareness of alternative readings; treats Mead as absolute truth, identity politics as unidirectional, tradition coexistence as frictionless. |
| Conclusion & sociological imagination | 20% | 10 | Synthesises all three parts around core sociological tension: Mead's agentic self-formation versus identity politics' structural determination, mediated by tradition's cultural resources; proposes research direction (e.g., digital age's impact on generalised other); demonstrates Mills' sociological imagination linking personal biography (self) to historical change (politics, tradition). | Summarises three parts separately without integration; adds no new analytical insight or research proposal. | No conclusion, or mere restatement of question; or conclusion contradicts body (e.g., claiming structure dominates after emphasising Mead's agency). |
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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Delimit the scope of Sociology in relation to other social sciences. (10 marks)…
- Q2 (a) What aspects of 'Enlightenment' do you think paved way for the emergence of sociology ? Elaborate. (20 marks) (b) Explain the different…
- Q3 (a) What are the shortfalls of positivist philosophy that gave rise to the non-positivist methods of studying social reality ? (20 marks) (…
- Q4 (a) What characterizes degradation of work in capitalist society according to Marx ? (20 marks) (b) Social stratification is claimed to con…
- Q5 Write short answers of the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Critically examine the relevance of Durkheim's views on religio…
- Q6 (a) According to Mead the idea of self develops when the individual becomes self-conscious. Explain. (20 marks) (b) Analyse the nature of t…
- Q7 (a) Critically analyse Parsons views on society as a social system. (20 marks) (b) Discuss how 'environmentalism' can be explained with new…
- Q8 (a) Sociologists argue for democratization of science and technology for inclusive development. Comment. (20 marks) (b) Are traditional soc…