Sociology 2024 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q6

(a) Underline the role of social media in contemporary social movements and describe its challenges. (20 marks) (b) How does a multicultural society accommodate diversities of all kinds — ethnic, linguistic and religious? Discuss its major challenges. (20 marks) (c) Discuss the concept of animism and differentiate it from naturism. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समकालीन सामाजिक आंदोलनों में सोशल मीडिया की भूमिका को रेखांकित कीजिए और इसमें निहित चुनौतियों का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) एक बहुसांस्कृतिक समाज विभिन्न प्रकार की विविधताओं — प्रजातीय, भाषायी एवं धार्मिक — को कैसे समायोजित करता है? इसकी मुख्य चुनौतियों की चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) आत्मवाद की अवधारणा की चर्चा कीजिए और बताइए कि यह प्रकृतिवाद से किस प्रकार भिन्न है। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Sociology questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' requires balanced exploration with critical engagement across all three parts. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its 20 marks and complexity, 35% to part (b) for its multi-dimensional coverage, and 25% to part (c) for its conceptual focus. Structure as: brief intro acknowledging the three distinct sociological domains → part-wise treatment with clear sub-headings → integrated conclusion linking digital politics, multicultural governance, and religious sociology to contemporary Indian society.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Social media as mobilisation infrastructure (Twitter/Instagram activism, hashtag movements) vs. slacktivism critique; challenges include algorithmic bias, surveillance, misinformation, digital divide
  • Part (a): Indian cases — CAA-NRC protests (Shaheen Bagh), farmers' protest (Twitter/X mobilisation), MeToo India; theoretical anchors: Castells' network society, Tufekci's 'Twitter and Tear Gas'
  • Part (b): Multicultural accommodation mechanisms — constitutional safeguards (Articles 29-30, 350A-B), federalism, minority rights, plural citizenship; Kymlicka's multicultural citizenship vs. Indian syncretism
  • Part (b): Challenges — majoritarianism, linguistic state reorganisation limits, religious polarisation, competitive communalism; Indian examples: Northeast insurgencies, Kashmir autonomy erosion, anti-conversion laws
  • Part (c): Animism (Tylor's 'minimum definition of religion', soul/belief in spiritual beings; Marett's pre-animism critique) vs. Naturism (Max Müller's nature worship, solar mythology; Frazer's critique)
  • Part (c): Differentiation criteria — object of worship (spirits/beings vs. natural phenomena), emotional basis (fear/awe vs. dependence), evolutionary stage debate; contemporary relevance: indigenous rights, environmental sociology

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'underline' as demanding prioritised emphasis on transformative potential before challenges; for (b), 'discuss' engages both accommodation mechanisms AND challenges with evaluative balance; for (c), 'differentiate' produces systematic comparison table/criteria, not mere juxtaposition.Recognises the three directives but treats them descriptively; (a) lists roles and challenges without prioritisation, (b) describes accommodations and challenges separately without integration, (c) defines both concepts without rigorous differentiation.Misreads 'underline' as mere highlighting without analytical weight; treats 'discuss' as description and 'differentiate' as listing differences; conflates parts or misses one sub-part entirely.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate theorists for each part: (a) Castells/Tufekci/Bennett on connective action; (b) Kymlicka/Taylor on multiculturalism, Madan/Nandy on Indian pluralism; (c) Tylor/Marett/Frazer on animism, Müller on naturism with Durkheim's Elementary Forms critique where relevant.Names some theorists but applies them loosely or incorrectly; may use generic 'sociologists say' without specificity; theoretical framing present but not tightly integrated with empirical content.No theoretical anchoring; answer reads as journalistic commentary or general knowledge; major theoretical confusions (e.g., conflating animism with naturism, or using outdated evolutionism uncritically).
Indian / empirical examples20%10Rich Indian grounding: (a) Shaheen Bagh, farmers' protest, Hathras case mobilisation with platform specifics; (b) Article 370 abrogation impact, NRC-Assam, linguistic reorganisation (Punjab, Telangana), Sachar Committee data; (c) Indian tribal religions (Sarna, Donyi-Polo) as animist practice, not just textbook examples.Mentions Indian cases but without specificity (e.g., 'social media helped farmers protest' without platform/scale details; 'India is multicultural' without constitutional/empirical backing); some parts may lack Indian examples.Relies entirely on Western/global examples (Arab Spring, US multiculturalism, African animism) without Indian adaptation; or provides no empirical grounding beyond assertion.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows dialectical thinking across parts: (a) social media as democratising vs. surveillance capitalist tool; (b) multiculturalism as emancipatory vs. essentialising/creating vote-bank politics; (c) animism/naturism as evolutionary stage vs. valid epistemology (Viveiros de Castro's perspectivism); engages postcolonial critique of classical theories.Acknowledges one counter-position per part but treats it superficially; analysis remains largely one-sided or presents opposing views without synthesis.Entirely one-sided presentation; no recognition of scholarly debate; treats classical evolutionism (Tylor/Müller) as settled truth without acknowledging postcolonial/decolonising critiques.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts to identify a meta-theme: how contemporary India negotiates difference through digital, constitutional, and cosmological registers; connects personal troubles (individual identity) to public issues (democratic erosion, majoritarianism, ecological crisis); proposes research or policy direction; demonstrates reflexivity about sociology's own colonial inheritances in studying 'primitive' religions.Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no analytical lift beyond restatement; limited connection between micro and macro.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; fails to connect the three seemingly disparate parts; no demonstration of sociological imagination (Mills' sense of biography-history interplay).

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 2024 Paper I