Sociology 2025 Paper II 50 marks Analyse

Q4

(a) Who is said to be the pioneer of village studies in India? Illustratively describe contributions of some Indian sociologists on village studies. How their approaches are distinct from each other? (20 marks) (b) "Industrial class structure is a function of social structure of Indian society." Do you agree with this statement? Analyze. (20 marks) (c) What is kinship? Briefly explain G. P. Murdock's contribution to the study of the kinship system. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारत में ग्राम अध्ययन के लिए किसे अग्रणी माना जाता है ? उदाहरण के तौर पर कुछ भारतीय समाजशास्त्रियों के ग्राम अध्ययन पर योगदान को बताइये । उनके उपागम परस्पर किस प्रकार से भिन्न हैं ? (20 अंक) (b) "औद्योगिक वर्ग संरचना भारतीय समाज की सामाजिक संरचना का एक प्रकार्य है !" क्या आप इस कथन से सहमत हैं ? विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) नातेदारी क्या है ? नातेदारी व्यवस्था के अध्ययन में जी. पी. मर्डॉक के योगदान की संक्षेप में व्याख्या कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Sociology questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the three distinct domains—village studies, industrial class structure, and kinship—as interconnected facets of Indian sociology. For part (a), spend ~40% of the word budget identifying S.C. Dube as pioneer and contrasting structural-functional (M.N. Srinivas, S.C. Dube) with Marxist/subaltern (Kathleen Gough, A.R. Desai) approaches using specific village studies. For part (b), allocate ~35% to analysing the debate: agree by showing how caste, agrarian hierarchy and colonial legacy shaped industrial class formation (Rudolf-Heber thesis, Ramaswamy's work on Tiruppur), but also present the counter (industrial modernisation thesis—Morris, Chandavarkar). For part (c), reserve ~25% for defining kinship and explaining Murdock's cross-cultural comparative method, kinship terminology systems, and the Social Structure (1949) contribution. Conclude by synthesising how these three domains reveal sociology's engagement with tradition-modernity tension in India.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): S.C. Dube as pioneer (Indian Village, 1955); contrast with M.N. Srinivas (structural-functional, 'dominant caste', Rampura), S.C. Dube (integrative framework, Shamirpet), versus A.R. Desai/Marxist approach (class conflict, Rural Sociology in India)
  • Part (a): Kathleen Gough (mode of production in Thanjavur), Andre Beteille (caste-class nexus, Tanjore), Bernard Cohn (historical anthropology, Senapur)—showing methodological pluralism
  • Part (b): Agreement position—industrial class structure reflects agrarian/caste origins (Rudolf-Heber: 'bullock capitalists' to industrialists; Ramaswamy: Gounder dominance in Tiruppur; caste-based recruitment in Ahmedabad mills)
  • Part (b): Counter-position—industrial modernisation creates new class logic (Morris: Bombay textile mills broke caste recruitment; Chandavarkar: working-class formation transcended village ties; IT sector meritocracy)
  • Part (c): Kinship definition—socially recognised relationships based on marriage, blood, or adoption; Murdock's Social Structure (1949)—cross-cultural comparison of 250 societies, nuclear family universality thesis, kinship terminology systems (bifurcate merging, etc.)
  • Part (c): Murdock's functional analysis—sexual, economic, reproductive, educational functions of family; critique by Leach, Needham on biological reductionism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'illustratively describe' and 'distinct approaches' as demands for comparative analysis, not mere listing; for (b), 'analyse' is executed as a balanced thesis-antithesis-synthesis weighing structural continuity vs. transformation; for (c), 'briefly explain' is calibrated to proportionate depth without over-expansion.Recognises the three directive verbs but executes them unevenly—strong on (a) description but weak on (b) analysis, or vice versa; part (c) either too brief or disproportionately long.Misreads directives—treats (a) as asking only for names without approach comparison, (b) as 'agree/disagree' opinion without analytical scaffolding, or (c) as full essay rather than brief explanation.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys specific theoretical frameworks: structural-functionalism vs. Marxism for village studies; modernisation vs. dependency/Marxist political economy for industrial class; Murdock's functionalism and its critics for kinship—each framework is named, attributed, and applied to evidence.Names theorists (Srinivas, Desai, Murdock) but uses frameworks descriptively rather than as analytical tools; conflates theoretical positions without clear distinction.No theoretical vocabulary—answers read as empirical summaries or general knowledge; confuses Murdock with Morgan or Maine on kinship evolution.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a): specific village names (Rampura, Shamirpet, Thanjavur, Senapur) with study dates and findings; for (b): concrete industrial cases (Tiruppur Gounders, Ahmedabad mill workers, Bombay textile proletariat, IT-Bangalore); for (c): Murdock's empirical base (250 societies including Indian cases like Toda, Nayar) with data awareness.Mentions some village or industrial studies but with imprecise details (wrong author-village pairing, vague 'some studies show'); for (c), mentions Murdock's book without empirical scope.Generic examples ('villages in India', 'factories') or invented studies; for (c), no empirical grounding or confuses with entirely different theorists.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10For (a), explicitly contrasts structural-functional (Srinivas-Dube) with Marxist-historical (Desai-Gough-Cohn) and subaltern perspectives; for (b), presents both 'social structure determines industry' and 'industry transforms society' as contested positions with evidence; for (c), notes Murdock's universalism vs. cultural relativist critiques.Acknowledges multiple perspectives in (a) and (b) but treats them sequentially rather than as genuine intellectual debate; (c) lacks critical engagement with Murdock.Single-paradigm answers—only functionalist village studies, only one side of industrial class debate, or uncritical celebration of Murdock.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across all three parts to show how Indian sociology's development reflects changing engagement with colonial, nationalist, and globalising contexts; connects village studies' decline to industrialisation studies' rise and kinship's persistent relevance; proposes future research directions or policy implications (rural-urban linkages, caste in globalised labour markets).Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion restates main points without analytical elevation.No conclusion, or three disconnected mini-conclusions; fails to demonstrate how sociology as a discipline evolved through these thematic shifts.

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 2025 Paper II