Sociology 2023 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q4

(a) Do you think that common sense is the starting point of social research? What are its advantages and limitations? Explain. (20 marks) (b) How is poverty a form of social exclusion? Illustrate in this connection the different dimensions of poverty and social exclusion. (20 marks) (c) Highlight the differences and similarities between totemism and animism. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आपको लगता है कि सामान्य ज्ञान सामाजिक अनुसंधान का प्रारंभिक बिंदु है? इसके लाभ और सीमाएं क्या हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) गरीबी किस प्रकार से सामाजिक बहिष्कार का एक रूप है? इस संबंध में गरीबी और सामाजिक बहिष्कार के विभिन्न आयामों का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) टोटेमवाद और जीववाद के बीच अंतर और समानताओं पर प्रकाश डालिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Sociology questions

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' demands causal reasoning and systematic unpacking of processes across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and conceptual depth on common sense vs. scientific sociology; 35% to part (b) on poverty-social exclusion requiring empirical illustration; and 25% to part (c) on totemism-animism comparison. Structure: brief conceptual introduction for each part, followed by analytical body addressing the specific demands (advantages/limitations for a; dimensions/illustration for b; differences/similarities for c), with a synthesising conclusion that connects to broader sociological methodology.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Common sense as pre-scientific knowledge (Schutz's 'natural attitude'); distinction between common sense and sociological knowledge (Garfinkel's breaching experiments); advantages (groundedness, intuitive hypotheses) and limitations (unsystematic, ideological bias, lack of falsifiability)
  • Part (a): Weber's Verstehen as bridge between common sense and scientific understanding; Berger and Luckmann's social construction showing how common sense becomes sedimented knowledge
  • Part (b): Poverty as social exclusion framework (Sen's capability deprivation; Room's multi-dimensional exclusion); distinction from income-poverty approaches
  • Part (b): Dimensions: economic (labour market exclusion), social (network isolation, shame), political (disenfranchisement), cultural (stigmatisation); Indian examples: manual scavenging communities, urban slum evictions, Adivasi displacement
  • Part (c): Totemism (Durkheim's Elementary Forms): collective representation, clan solidarity, sacred/profane distinction; Animism (Tylor, Frazer): belief in spiritual beings, individual soul-concept, intellectualist explanation
  • Part (c): Similarities: both explain non-empirical realities, establish moral communities, use ritual; Differences: collective vs. individual focus, social vs. psychological function, Durkheim's critique of Tylor's intellectualism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'explain' as requiring causal analysis of why common sense both enables and constrains research, not mere listing; for (b), demonstrates that 'illustrate' demands concrete Indian cases across multiple exclusion dimensions; for (c), shows 'highlight' requires systematic comparison matrix, not parallel description.Addresses each directive but treats them generically—(a) becomes list of pros/cons, (b) lists dimensions without deep illustration, (c) describes each concept separately.Misreads directives—treats (a) as 'define common sense', (b) as 'list causes of poverty', (c) as 'define totemism and animism' with no comparative structure.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Schutz/Garfinkel for (a) on phenomenology of common sense; Sen/Room/De Haan for (b) on social exclusion; Durkheim vs. Tylor/Frazer debate for (c), with awareness of subsequent critiques (Evans-Pritchard, Levi-Strauss).Names major theorists correctly but applies them superficially or conflates positions (e.g., treats Durkheim and Tylor as compatible).No theoretical anchoring; uses 'common sense' and 'social exclusion' as lay terms; confuses totemism with animism or cites no anthropologists.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (b), provides specific Indian evidence: NFHS/SECC data on multidimensional poverty; cases like manual scavenging (Prohibition of Employment Act 2013), urban homelessness (Sarvodaya Mandal studies), or Adivasi land alienation; for (a), cites Indian sociological studies where common sense assumptions were challenged (Srinivas's 'Remembered Village' on fieldwork reflexivity).Mentions 'caste discrimination' or 'rural poverty' as generic illustrations without specific data, legislation, or ethnographic studies.No Indian examples; uses Western cases exclusively (US ghettoisation for poverty; Australian Aboriginal totemism without Indian tribal parallels like Oraon or Munda).
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10For (a), contrasts phenomenological (Schutz), ethnomethodological (Garfinkel), and critical (Mannheim's sociology of knowledge) positions on common sense; for (b), weighs economic vs. relational/recognition approaches to poverty; for (c), presents Durkheim's functionalist critique of Tylor's intellectualism, then notes symbolic/structuralist alternatives.Acknowledges one alternative perspective per part without sustained engagement or synthesis.Single-paradigm treatment—e.g., only Durkheim for totemism, only income-poverty for (b), only 'common sense is bad' for (a).
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts: connects common sense critique (a) to recognition of how poverty narratives are socially constructed (b), and how religious classifications reflect collective self-understanding (c); proposes reflexive research ethics or policy implications; demonstrates Mills's 'sociological imagination' by linking personal troubles to public issues.Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no analytical advance.No conclusion, or mere restatement of question; fails to connect micro-macro or theory-practice.

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 2023 Paper I