Sociology 2022 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Elaborate

Q1

Write short answers, with a sociological perspective, on the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Elaborate on M.N. Srinivas's structural-functionalist approach to the study of Indian society. (10 marks) (b) Do you agree that the agrarian class structure in India is changing? Justify your answer with illustrations. (10 marks) (c) Elucidate the challenges of integration for tribal communities in India. (10 marks) (d) In the context of the changing Indian society, how do you view Andre Beteille's conceptions of harmonic and disharmonic social structures? (10 marks) (e) Explain Leela Dube's concept of "Seed and Earth". (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का, समाजशास्त्रीय दृष्टिकोण से, संक्षिप्त उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में लिखिए : (a) भारतीय समाज के अध्ययन के लिए एम.एन. श्रीनिवास के संरचनात्मक-प्रकार्यवादी उपागम की विस्तारपूर्वक व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) क्या आप सहमत हैं कि भारत में कृषि वर्ग संरचना परिवर्तित हो रही है ? दृष्टांतों के साथ अपने उत्तर की पुष्टि कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) भारत में आदिवासी समुदायों के एकीकरण की चुनौतियों को स्पष्ट कीजिए । (10 अंक) (d) परिवर्तनशील भारतीय समाज के संदर्भ में आंद्रे बेते की सुसंगत (हार्मोनिक) तथा विसंगत (डिसहार्मोनिक) सामाजिक संरचनाओं की अवधारणाओं को आप किस प्रकार देखते हैं ? (10 अंक) (e) लीला दुबे की "बीज तथा भूमि" की अवधारणा को समझाइए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Elaborate

This question asks you to elaborate. 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 'elaborate' demands detailed expansion with theoretical depth and empirical grounding. Allocate ~30 words/2 minutes per sub-part (equal marks distribution). Structure each 150-word answer as: brief theoretical anchor → key concept explanation → 1-2 Indian illustrations → critical nuance. For (a) focus on Srinivas's functionalism vs. Dumont's structuralism; (b) requires balanced stance on agrarian change with Jan Breman/Thorner evidence; (c) needs integration vs. assimilation distinction with Sixth Schedule cases; (d) apply Beteille's framework to contemporary caste-class tensions; (e) locate Dube's gender symbolism in kinship studies.

Key points expected

(a) Srinivas's structural-functionalism: village as integrated system, 'dominant caste' concept, ritual-status vs. power distinction, critique of Dumont's pure hierarchy
(b) Agrarian class structure change: capitalist transition debate (Breman's 'labour bondage' vs. depeasantisation), new agrarian classes (rich farmers, agrarian proletariat), contract farming illustrations
(c) Tribal integration challenges: isolation vs. integration policy tension, Sixth Schedule successes (Mizoram) vs. failures (displacement for mining), identity erosion, developmental exclusion
(d) Beteille's harmonic/disharmonic structures: caste-class-ethnicity alignment (harmonic) vs. cross-cutting cleavages (disharmonic), application to contemporary Indian politics
(e) Leela Dube's 'Seed and Earth': gender symbolism in kinship, male as seed (active principle) and female as earth (passive receptacle), critique of biological determinism, South Indian kinship illustrations
Cross-cutting theme: Indian sociology's engagement with Western theory and indigenous empirical reality

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a) 'elaborate' produces layered exposition of Srinivas's functionalism with internal critique; for (b) 'justify' demands explicit stance with evidence weighing; for (c) 'elucidate' unpacks integration's multidimensional challenges; for (d) 'view' requires application not just description; for (e) 'explain' connects metaphor to feminist kinship theory. Each directive matched to appropriate cognitive operation.	Recognises directives but treats all sub-parts similarly—either all descriptive or all evaluative—missing the subtle variation between 'elaborate,' 'justify,' 'elucidate,' 'view,' and 'explain.'	Misreads directives uniformly as 'describe' or 'list'; (b) lacks stated position; (d) merely defines Beteille without applying to change; no awareness that different verbs demand different answer structures.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	(a) Locates Srinivas in post-war British social anthropology and Indian village studies; contrasts with Dumont, Marriott, Bailey; (b) deploys Lenin's 'development of capitalism' or Chayanovian peasant economy; (c) uses Xaxa's 'tribe as indigenous people' or G.S. Ghurye's integrationist framework; (d) Beteille's pluralism vs. Marxist class analysis; (e) Dube's feminist anthropology and critique of Levi-Strauss. Theorists named, concepts operationalised, not merely mentioned.	Names Srinivas, Beteille, Dube correctly but uses their concepts loosely; conflates structural-functionalism with structuralism; no explicit theoretical framework for agrarian change beyond 'classes are changing.'	No named theorists or incorrect attribution (e.g., calling Dube's work 'feminist economics' rather than kinship studies); theoretical concepts used as labels without application; complete absence of theoretical positioning for any sub-part.
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	(a) Cites specific Srinivas fieldwork (Rampura, Mysore villages) with 'dominant caste' illustrations; (b) uses NSSO landholding data, Green Revolution regions (Punjab, Haryana), or Jan Breman's Gujarat studies; (c) names specific tribes (Santhal, Gond, Bhil) with Sixth Schedule/Northeast cases; (d) applies harmonic/disharmonic to specific caste movements or regional politics; (e) grounds 'seed and earth' in South Indian kinship ethnography (Tulu, Malayali). Examples precise, dated, located.	Mentions 'village studies' or 'tribes' generally without specificity; 'Green Revolution' as blanket term without regional or temporal precision; examples correct but generic and undifferentiated across sub-parts.	No Indian examples or inappropriate ones (Western tribal groups for (c)); examples factually wrong (attributing Srinivas's work to North India); purely hypothetical illustrations ('for example, a village in India').
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	(a) Acknowledges critique of Srinivas (elite bias, static view, Oommen's 'Srinivas effect'); (b) presents both change and continuity theses with evidence; (c) weighs integration against autonomy arguments (Jaipal Singh, Kaka Kalelkar); (d) contrasts Beteille's pluralism with Madan or M.N. Srinivas's alternative formulations; (e) notes Dube's critics or subsequent feminist revisions. Shows awareness that Indian sociology contains contested positions, not settled truths.	Brief nod to critique in one sub-part (usually (a)) but other parts one-sided; counter-arguments mentioned but not engaged; no sense of ongoing scholarly debate.	Wholly uncritical exposition; treats all theorists as correct and compatible; no awareness of methodological or political critiques; presents sociology as consensus rather than contested field.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Each sub-part concludes with connection to broader Indian social transformation: (a) village studies' relevance for globalised India; (b) agrarian change and food sovereignty; (c) tribal futures in climate crisis; (d) Beteille's relevance for understanding democratic deepening; (e) Dube's legacy for contemporary gender and kinship studies. Demonstrates Mills's 'sociological imagination'—linking biography/history, private troubles/public issues—implicitly or explicitly.	Sub-parts end with summary restatements rather than analytical conclusions; no explicit connection to contemporary relevance; final sentences merely repeat earlier points.	Abrupt endings or no conclusions; last sentences introduce new unrelated material; no sense of why these classical concepts matter for understanding present-day India; purely academic exercise with no social relevance claimed.

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 →