Sociology 2022 Paper I 50 marks Critically analyse

Q7

(a) Critically analyse Parsons views on society as a social system. (20 marks) (b) Discuss how 'environmentalism' can be explained with new social movements approach. (20 marks) (c) Illustrate with examples the role of pressure groups in the formulation of social policies. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) सामाजिक व्यवस्था के रूप में समाज संबंधित पारसन्स के विचारों का समालोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) नव सामाजिक आंदोलन दृष्टिकोण से 'पर्यावरणवाद' की व्याख्या कैसे की जा सकती है ? विवेचना कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) सामाजिक नीतियों के निरूपण में दबाव समूहों की भूमिका को सौदाहरण स्पष्ट कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Sociology questions

Directive word: Critically analyse

This question asks you to critically analyse. 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 'critically analyse' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with internal critique; 'discuss' for (b) and 'illustrate' for (c) require explanatory and exemplar treatment respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its theoretical weight and 20 marks, 35% to part (b) covering new social movements theory, and 25% to part (c) with concrete Indian pressure group examples. Structure: brief integrated introduction → three clearly demarcated sections with sub-headings → synthetic conclusion linking system theory to contemporary social movements and policy advocacy.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Parsons' AGIL schema (adaptation, goal-attainment, integration, latency) and the pattern variables; internal critique via Lockwood's 'social integration vs system integration' and Gouldner's 'coming crisis of Western sociology'
  • Part (a): External critique from conflict theorists (Dahrendorf, Mills) and symbolic interactionists (Goffman) on Parsons' normative consensus and reification
  • Part (b): New social movements (NSM) theory: Melucci, Touraine, Habermas; distinction from old labour movements; identity politics and post-material values
  • Part (b): Environmentalism as NSM: Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan, climate strikes; 'life politics' (Giddens) and 'risk society' (Beck)
  • Part (c): Pressure groups in India: formal (CII, FICCI) and informal (Narmada Bachao Andolan, Right to Food Campaign); insider vs outsider strategies
  • Part (c): Policy influence: MGNREGA (rural employment), RTI Act, Forest Rights Act 2006; limitations of elite capture and state corporatism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), 'critically analyse' is executed as systematic internal-external critique, not description; for (b), 'discuss' explores multiple NSM theorists; for (c), 'illustrate' uses named pressure groups with causal policy links, not mere listing.Recognises directives but (a) becomes descriptive summary of Parsons, (b) lists NSM features without theoretical depth, (c) names groups without showing policy mechanism.Misreads all directives: (a) as 'explain Parsons', (b) as 'define environmentalism', (c) as 'list pressure groups' with no exemplification or policy connection.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys AGIL with pattern variables accurately; contrasts with Lockwood/Gouldner critiques; for NSM, uses Melucci/Touraine/Habermas precisely; connects pressure group theory (Grant/Jordan) to Indian corporatism.Names Parsons' AGIL but garbles components; mentions 'new social movements' without theorist attribution; pressure groups discussed without theoretical framework.Confuses Parsons with Durkheim or Merton; treats environmentalism as old class politics; no theoretical vocabulary for pressure groups beyond common-sense 'lobbying'.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a), cites Indian applications (Srinivas on sanskritisation as system adaptation); for (b), detailed cases: Chipko (Bahuguna), NBA (Medha Patkar), climate litigation (MC Mehta cases); for (c), specific policy wins: NREGA via Right to Food Campaign, FRA 2006 via forest dweller mobilisation.Generic mention of 'environmental movements in India' without named leaders or outcomes; pressure groups listed as 'business groups and NGOs' without policy examples.Western-only examples (Greenpeace USA, Sierra Club) for (b)-(c); no Indian grounding; or fabricates non-existent movements/policies.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10For (a), presents functionalist-consensus and conflict-action alternatives fairly before evaluation; for (b), weighs NSM against resource mobilisation and political opportunity structure approaches; for (c), contrasts pluralist, corporatist and neo-Marxist state theories in explaining pressure group efficacy.Acknowledges one alternative perspective per part briefly without systematic comparison; conclusion favours one view without justification.Single-paradigm treatment throughout; dismisses alternatives or unaware of competing frameworks; no evaluation, only advocacy.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts: Parsons' system maintenance vs NSM's system challenge vs pressure groups' institutionalised mediation; connects to contemporary India (climate justice, farmer protests 2020-21 as hybrid movement-pressure group); proposes research agenda or policy insight.Summarises three parts separately without cross-connection; generic conclusion on 'importance of sociology'.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; or conclusion introduces entirely new content not argued in body; fails to demonstrate sociological imagination linking biography-history-structure.

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