Sociology 2023 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Examine

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Examine the relevance of corporate social responsibility in a world marked by increasing environmental crises. (10 marks) (b) How is civil society useful in deepening the roots of democracy? (10 marks) (c) What functions does religion perform in a pluralistic society? (10 marks) (d) Analyze critically David Morgan's views on family practices. (10 marks) (e) Does women's education help to eradicate patriarchal discriminations? Reflect with illustrations. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित में से प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) बढ़ते पर्यावरणीय संकटों से चिह्नित दुनिया में कॉर्पोरेट सामाजिक जिम्मेदारी की प्रासंगिकता का परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) नागरिक समाज किस प्रकार से लोकतंत्र की जड़ों को मजबूत करने में उपयोगी है? (10 अंक) (c) बहुलवादी समाज में धर्म क्या कार्य करता है? (10 अंक) (d) पारिवारिक प्रथाओं पर डेविड मॉर्गन के विचारों का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) क्या महिला शिक्षा पितृसत्तात्मक भेदभाव को मिटाने में मदद करती है? सोदाहरण विचार कीजिए। (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Examine

This question asks you to 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

The directive 'examine' requires critical investigation of each sub-part's core claim. Allocate ~30 words per sub-part (150 total): for (a) probe CSR's limits against greenwashing; for (b) trace civil society's dual role (deepening vs. elite capture); for (c) balance religion's integrative and conflict functions; for (d) apply Morgan's practice theory critically; for (e) assess education's emancipatory potential with counter-cases. Structure as five mini-essays with brief definitions, analytical middle, and synthetic close.

Key points expected

(a) CSR: Carroll's pyramid, triple bottom line, Indian CSR mandate (Companies Act 2013, Schedule VII), critique of greenwashing vs. genuine sustainability
(b) Civil society: Putnam's social capital, Habermas's public sphere, Indian civil society (MKSS, Narmada Bachao Andolan), risks of NGO-ization and elite capture
(c) Religion in pluralism: Durkheim's collective conscience, Berger's sacred canopy, Eisenstadt's multiple modernities, Indian syncretism (Sufi-Bhakti traditions) vs. communalism
(d) Morgan's family practices: practice theory vs. structure, 'doing family', reflexivity, critique of institutional vs. interactional dualism
(e) Women's education: human capital theory, Sen's capabilities approach, Indian data (ASER, NFHS on education-fertility link), counter-evidence (educated ghettoization, dowry inflation among educated)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a) probes CSR's structural limits, not just benefits; for (b) distinguishes civil society's democratic deepening from its potential for elite closure; for (c) weighs religion's pluralistic integration against exclusion; for (d) applies 'critical' to Morgan's own framework limitations; for (e) treats 'reflect' as requiring balanced assessment, not advocacy.	Addresses each directive superficially—describes CSR benefits, lists civil society functions, notes religion's harmony role, summarizes Morgan, asserts education helps women—without critical tension.	Misreads directives: treats 'examine' as describe, 'analyze critically' as praise, 'reflect' as unqualified affirmation; one or more sub-parts ignored or confused.
Theoretical framing	20%	10	Deploys at least three named frameworks accurately: for (a) Carroll/Porter; for (b) Putnam/Habermas; for (c) Durkheim/Berger/Eisenstadt; for (d) Morgan's practice theory with Giddens/Beck reference; for (e) Sen's capabilities or Bourdieu's reproduction.	Names theorists but applies loosely—e.g., mentions 'social capital' without Putnam's bonding/bridging distinction, or 'practice theory' without explaining Morgan's specific contribution.	No theoretical anchors; relies on common-sense observations or misattributes concepts (e.g., calling Morgan a functionalist).
Indian / empirical examples	20%	10	Cites specific Indian evidence: for (a) Companies Act 2013, Tata/Infosys CSR vs. Vedanta controversies; for (b) MKSS, Narmada Bachao, or recent CAA protests; for (c) Sufi-Bhakti syncretism, Ajmer Sharif, or communal violence data; for (d) Indian family studies (IPHS, NFHS on joint family persistence); for (e) ASER/NFHS education data, Kerala vs. Bihar comparison, or educated dowry cases.	Mentions generic Indian contexts—'NGOs in India', 'communalism', 'Kerala model'—without specific cases or data points.	Uses only Western examples (US corporate philanthropy, European civil society) or no examples at all; Indian specificity absent.
Multi-paradigm analysis	20%	10	Holds tension across sub-parts: for (a) CSR as solution vs. corporate greenwashing; for (b) civil society deepening democracy vs. NGO-ization/foreign funding critique; for (c) religion as pluralistic glue vs. communal mobilization; for (d) Morgan's practice theory strengths vs. neglect of structural constraint; for (e) education's emancipatory potential vs. educated unemployment, 'modern' patriarchy.	Acknowledges counter-positions briefly but doesn't develop them; argument remains predominantly one-sided per sub-part.	Wholly one-sided treatment—uncritical celebration of CSR, civil society, religion, Morgan, or education; no recognition of sociological debate.
Conclusion & sociological imagination	20%	10	Synthesizes across five sub-parts to show how institutional (CSR, civil society, religion, family, education) and interactional levels interconnect; proposes a research or policy direction; demonstrates Mills's sociological imagination by linking personal troubles to public issues of democratic sustainability and social justice.	Summarizes five sub-parts separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no analytical lift beyond restatement.	Missing or fragmented conclusion; no sociological imagination—fails to connect micro practices to macro structures across the thematic spread.

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 →