Model Answer:

Queer Kinship: Redefining Family Beyond Traditional Boundaries

Queer kinship refers to non-normative systems of support, intimacy, and care among LGBTQ+ individuals that fundamentally challenge traditional kinship structures based on consanguinity (blood) and affinity (marriage). As Kath Weston argues in ‘Families We Choose’, these relationships question conventional definitions of family.

De-centering Biological and Heteronormative Ties

• Traditional kinship privileges biological descent and heterosexual marriage as primary bonds
• Queer kinship subverts this by prioritizing chosen relationships over biological ones
• Demonstrates kinship as social achievement rather than biological given
• Example: During 1980s AIDS crisis, gay men formed caregiving networks when biological families abandoned them—these chosen families made medical decisions and inherited property

Challenging the Nuclear Family Model

• G.P. Murdock’s functionalist model centers on heterosexual reproductive couples
• Queer kinship decouples family from this heteronormative framework
• Example: Lesbian couples co-parenting with gay friends or polyamorous households sharing child-rearing directly challenge two-parent heterosexual norm

Elevating Friendship to Kinship

• Blurs boundaries between friendship and family ties
• Creates durable bonds based on shared identity and experience
• Example: Ballroom culture’s “House” system where rejected queer youth are adopted by “House Mothers/Fathers” who provide shelter, guidance, and belonging

Conclusion: Queer kinship redefines family as performative practice—”doing” rather than “being”—offering inclusive models beyond biological determinism and heteronormativity.

Model Answer:

Civil Society Organizations and Grassroot Social Change

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), operating as the “third sector” beyond state and market, are pivotal agents of social transformation. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) exemplify how civil society catalyzes grassroots change by empowering communities and amplifying marginalized voices.

1. Empowerment and Capacity Building

SHGs foster economic and social empowerment through collective action. By pooling resources for micro-credit, they enhance financial independence, particularly among women. This process builds what Robert Putnam calls ‘social capital’—networks of trust and reciprocity enabling collective decision-making.

Example: Kerala’s Kudumbashree mission has empowered millions of women through SHG networks, improving livelihoods and enhancing participation in local governance while challenging patriarchal structures.

2. Advocacy and Policy Influence

NGOs function as pressure groups, advocating for marginalized communities and influencing bottom-up policy formation. Operating within Habermas’s ‘public sphere’, they facilitate democratic debate and hold the state accountable through what Gramsci termed counter-hegemonic action.

Example: The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan spearheaded the grassroots movement instrumental in enacting the national Right to Information (RTI) Act, transforming governance transparency.

3. Service Delivery and Governance Gaps

CSOs bridge critical gaps where state machinery remains weak or absent, providing essential services in education, health, and sanitation. They ensure last-mile delivery of government schemes while maintaining community ownership.

Example: Pratham’s Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) highlights learning gaps in rural schools, prompting policy interventions and community-led educational initiatives.

4. Mobilization and Consciousness Building

CSOs transform individual grievances into collective movements through Paulo Freire’s conscientization approach. They raise awareness about constitutional rights, gender equality, and sustainable development, fostering active citizenship.

Example: The Narmada Bachao Andolan mobilized tribal communities against displacement, bringing environmental justice and human rights to national attention.

Conclusion:

NGOs and SHGs are indispensable for grassroots transformation. By empowering marginalized groups, advocating rights, supplementing state efforts, and mobilizing communities, they strengthen participatory democracy and foster inclusive development from below.

Model Answer:

Sustainable development represents a transformative paradigm that balances social, economic, and environmental objectives while ensuring intergenerational equity. The Brundtland Commission (1987) defined it as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Moving beyond traditional linear growth models and purely economic indicators like GDP, it integrates three interconnected pillars: economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection.

The UNDP’s 2015 report operationalized this concept through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, built upon 17 interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) organized around five core elements—the “5 Ps.”

Elements of Sustainable Development: The 5 Ps

1. People
– Aims to end poverty and hunger in all forms
– Ensures human potential fulfillment in dignity, equality, and healthy environment
– Encompasses SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 2 (Zero Hunger), 3 (Good Health), 4 (Quality Education), and 5 (Gender Equality)

2. Planet
– Protects Earth from degradation through sustainable consumption and production
– Promotes sustainable management of natural resources and urgent climate action
– Addresses SDGs 13 (Climate Action), 14 (Life Below Water), and 15 (Life on Land)

3. Prosperity
– Ensures prosperous, fulfilling lives for all people
– Harmonizes economic, social, and technological progress with nature
– Includes SDGs 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and 9 (Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure)

4. Peace
– Fosters peaceful, just, and inclusive societies free from violence
– Recognizes interdependence between peace and sustainable development
– Embodied in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions)

5. Partnership
– Mobilizes global solidarity and multi-stakeholder collaboration
– Revitalizes Global Partnership bringing together governments, private sector, and civil society
– Captured in SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

Conclusion: The SDG framework’s five elements represent an integrated, indivisible agenda for transforming our world, embodying the principle of “leaving no one behind” while ensuring sustainable development for present and future generations.

Model Answer:

The relationship between science and religion in modern society transcends simple dichotomy, encompassing conflict, independence, and dialogue. While classical sociologists predicted religion’s decline with scientific rationality, both domains remain influential forces shaping contemporary life.

The Conflict Thesis

This perspective posits fundamental incompatibility between scientific empiricism and religious faith.

• Max Weber’s “disenchantment of the world” thesis suggests rationalization and intellectualization replace supernatural explanations with scientific ones, diminishing religion’s scope.
• Auguste Comte envisioned humanity progressing from theological through metaphysical to positive (scientific) stages.
• Example: The evolution-creationism debates in American schools exemplify ongoing conflict. Similarly, bioethical issues like stem cell research and cloning pit scientific possibilities against religious moral doctrines.

The Independence Thesis (NOMA)

This model proposes science and religion operate in separate, non-conflicting domains.

• Stephen Jay Gould’s “Non-Overlapping Magisteria” (NOMA) argues science covers empirical reality (how the universe works) while religion addresses ultimate meaning and moral values (why we exist).
• Scientists can study the Big Bang’s physics without invalidating personal religious beliefs—one explains ‘how,’ the other ‘why.’
• Example: ISRO scientists conducting prayers before launches demonstrates compartmentalization of scientific practice and religious belief.

The Dialogue and Integration Thesis

Contemporary perspectives recognize potential for constructive engagement and mutual enrichment.

• Robert Merton’s thesis on Puritan ethos fostering the scientific revolution suggests historical synergy between religious values and systematic empirical inquiry.
• Example: Pope Francis’s encyclical ‘Laudato Si’ integrates climate science with religious stewardship. During COVID-19, religious organizations collaborated with health officials, promoting vaccination while adapting practices based on scientific guidelines.

Conclusion:

The science-religion relationship in modernity is neither monolithic conflict nor complete harmony but contextual negotiation ranging from confrontation over factual claims to peaceful coexistence in separate spheres, and collaborative dialogue on shared societal concerns. Both persist as distinct yet influential systems for understanding and navigating contemporary world.

Model Answer:

The classical sociological triumvirate—Marx, Weber, and Durkheim—provide foundational yet contrasting theories on religion’s role in society, reflecting their broader theoretical orientations of conflict, interpretive, and functionalist sociology respectively.

Karl Marx: Religion as Opiate

From a conflict perspective, Marx viewed religion as an instrument of class oppression, intrinsically linked to the economic base:
– Superstructure Element: Religion forms part of the ideological superstructure shaped by the economic base, legitimizing ruling class power
– “Opium of the Masses”: Religion dulls exploitation’s pain by promising otherworldly rewards, preventing proletarian class consciousness and revolution
– False Consciousness: Creates illusion that social inequality is divinely ordained, making the existing order appear natural and just
– Historical Materialism: Predicted religion would disappear with capitalism’s overthrow

Max Weber: Religion as Catalyst for Change

Weber’s interpretive approach challenged Marx’s economic determinism, highlighting religion’s transformative potential:
– Independent Variable: Religious ideas shape individual motivations and social action autonomously
– Protestant Ethic Thesis: Demonstrated how Calvinist values (predestination, worldly asceticism) created “elective affinity” with rational capitalism in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
– Comparative Analysis: Studies of world religions showed how belief systems could promote or inhibit economic development
– Rationalization Process: Traced religion’s evolution toward disenchantment in modern society

Emile Durkheim: Religion as Social Integration

Durkheim’s functionalist perspective emphasized religion’s vital role in maintaining social solidarity:
– Collective Conscience: Religion symbolically expresses shared morals binding society together
– Sacred-Profane Distinction: All religions distinguish between sacred (set apart) and profane (mundane), forming belief’s foundation
– Society Worshipping Itself: In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, argued that totem worship represents society venerating its own power
– Ritual Functions: Religious rituals reinforce social bonds and reaffirm collective values

Conclusion:

While Marx saw religion as oppression’s tool and Durkheim as integration’s source, Weber uniquely highlighted its dynamic potential for social transformation. These contrasting perspectives—whether religion maintains inequality, promotes solidarity, or drives change—remain fundamental to contemporary sociological analysis.

Model Answer:

Sampling in Social Research

Sampling is the methodological process of selecting a representative subset of individuals or units from a larger population to make inferences about the whole group. It is fundamental in social research when studying entire populations is impractical due to constraints of time, cost, and resources. The primary goal is ensuring the selected sample accurately reflects population characteristics, allowing for valid generalizations.

1. Probability Sampling

This method ensures every unit has a known, non-zero chance of selection, forming the cornerstone of quantitative research.

Simple Random Sampling (SRS):
– Every member has equal selection chance
– Advantage: Highly representative, free from researcher bias—the gold standard for generalizability
– Disadvantage: Requires complete sampling frame, often unavailable or impractical

Stratified Sampling:
– Population divided into distinct strata (age, class, gender) before random selection
– Advantage: Guarantees representation of key subgroups, more precise than SRS
– Disadvantage: Complex implementation, requires prior knowledge of population composition

Cluster Sampling:
– Selecting groups/clusters rather than individuals
– Advantage: Cost-effective for geographically dispersed populations
– Disadvantage: Higher sampling error than SRS

Systematic Sampling:
– Selecting every nth element from ordered list
– Advantage: Simple execution, ensures even coverage
– Disadvantage: Risk of periodicity bias

2. Non-Probability Sampling

Selection based on researcher judgment or convenience; probability of selection unknown.

Convenience Sampling:
– Participants selected based on easy accessibility
– Advantage: Quick, inexpensive, useful for pilot studies
– Disadvantage: High bias susceptibility, limited generalizability (e.g., interviewing shoppers at single mall)

Snowball Sampling:
– Initial participants refer other subjects
– Advantage: Effective for hidden/marginalized populations (undocumented immigrants, subcultures)
– Disadvantage: Network bias, non-representative

Purposive Sampling:
– Deliberate selection based on specific characteristics
– Advantage: Targets information-rich cases
– Disadvantage: Researcher bias, limited generalizability

Conclusion:
The choice of sampling method depends on research objectives, resources, and desired generalizability. While probability sampling ensures statistical rigor for quantitative research, non-probability methods remain valuable for exploratory and qualitative studies.

Model Answer:

Social Movements in the Digital Era

Social movements in the digital era have been fundamentally transformed by information and communication technologies, reshaping collective action through unprecedented mobilization capacity and global connectivity.

Enhanced Mobilization and Organization

Digital platforms enable rapid, cost-effective mobilization through what Manuel Castells terms “networks of outrage and hope.” These decentralized, horizontal networks facilitate swift information dissemination without traditional organizational hierarchies. The Arab Spring (2010-11) exemplified this transformation, using Facebook and Twitter to coordinate protests and bypass state-controlled media, mobilizing millions across nations. However, Zeynep Tufekci cautions that rapid digital mobilization may lack the organizational resilience of traditional movements.

Democratization of Discourse

Digital platforms empower movements to control narratives by:
• Bypassing media gatekeepers – Direct communication creates alternative public spheres
• Citizen journalism – User-generated content provides real-time counter-narratives
• Viral framing – #BlackLivesMatter successfully reframed police brutality as systemic racism through hashtags and videos

Transnational Solidarity

Digital connectivity transcends geographical boundaries, creating global solidarity networks. The #MeToo movement evolved from national conversation to global phenomenon, building transnational feminist consciousness and pressuring governments worldwide.

Critical Limitations

Despite transformative potential, digital movements face:
• State surveillance – Governments exploit same tools for control
• Digital divide – Excludes populations without internet access
• Slacktivism – Online engagement doesn’t guarantee offline action

Conclusion: Digital-era social movements demonstrate unprecedented mobilization capacity and narrative control, yet their effectiveness remains mediated by technological limitations and state countermeasures, creating a complex landscape of opportunities and constraints.

Model Answer:

Gender-based domestic division of labour refers to the socially constructed allocation of unpaid household work based on sex. This system traditionally assigns women to the private sphere for routine, repetitive tasks like cooking, cleaning, and childcare (what Talcott Parsons termed “expressive roles”), while men occupy the public sphere of paid work (“instrumental roles”). Ann Oakley demonstrated this division is not natural but a social construct that institutionalizes women’s economic dependence and perpetuates gender inequality.

Changes with Women’s Formal Employment

The ‘Dual Burden’ Phenomenon:
Rather than equitable redistribution, women’s employment has created what Arlie Hochschild calls the “second shift.” Women now shoulder dual responsibilities—paid work plus domestic labour. Their entry into the public sphere hasn’t been matched by men’s equivalent participation in the private sphere.

– Illustration: A female software engineer works 10-hour days but returns home to manage cooking, children’s homework, and household planning, while her husband enjoys leisure time after work.

Limited Male Participation:
Urban, educated dual-earner households show marginal increases in male involvement, particularly in childcare and weekend tasks. However, this participation remains peripheral rather than fundamental.

– Illustration: Husbands may help with weekend grocery shopping or playing with children, but daily time-intensive responsibilities—meal preparation, cleaning, emotional labour—remain predominantly women’s domain.

Class-Based Outsourcing:
Affluent families increasingly outsource domestic work to paid help, resolving couple conflicts without challenging gendered assumptions. This creates new intersections of class and gender inequality, as domestic work management still remains women’s responsibility.

– Example: Upper-middle-class working women supervise domestic workers, plan meals, and coordinate household schedules, perpetuating their role as household managers.

Conclusion:

While women’s workforce participation has initiated conversations about domestic equality, fundamental transformation remains elusive. The patriarchal ideology underlying domestic division adapts to economic realities rather than being dismantled, resulting in role-conflict and the persistence of gender inequality within households.

Model Answer:

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations and predictions about the universe, based on empirical evidence. The applicability of scientific methods to sociology remains a foundational debate, dividing sociologists into positivist and interpretivist camps.

The Positivist Argument

Early sociologists, influenced by the Enlightenment, advocated for scientific sociology:

• Auguste Comte envisioned a “social physics” to discover immutable laws governing society, similar to natural sciences
• Emile Durkheim advanced this tradition by treating social facts as “things”—external and coercive to individuals
• His work Suicide demonstrated scientific methodology by using statistical data to establish correlations between suicide rates and social integration levels, proving that seemingly individual acts have social causes
• This approach employs quantitative methods—surveys, experiments, statistical analysis—ensuring objectivity, causality, and generalizability

The Interpretivist Critique

Anti-positivists argue that sociology’s subject matter fundamentally differs from natural sciences:

• Max Weber contended that humans possess consciousness and attach subjective meanings to actions, requiring Verstehen (empathetic understanding) rather than mere observation
• To understand religious rituals, one must grasp participants’ meanings, not just external forms
• George Herbert Mead emphasized that social reality emerges through symbolic interaction

Key Limitations of Natural Science Methods:

• Subjectivity: Social phenomena contain values and meanings that resist objective measurement
• Reactivity: Subjects modify behavior when observed (Hawthorne effect)
• Complexity: Human behavior lacks deterministic laws, making prediction difficult
• Context-dependency: Cultural variations prevent universal law formulation

Contemporary Approach: Methodological Pluralism

Modern sociology embraces both approaches. Quantitative methods reveal patterns and correlations in social structures, while qualitative methods (ethnography, in-depth interviews) capture meanings and processes. For instance, studying poverty requires statistical income data alongside understanding lived experiences of deprivation.

Conclusion: While rigid application of natural science methods faces limitations due to human consciousness and agency, sociology maintains scientific rigor through systematic empirical investigation. Methodological pluralism enables comprehensive understanding of social phenomena.

Model Answer:

Education and skill development are widely regarded as instruments for social transformation, though their effectiveness remains contested in sociological discourse.

Education facilitates social change through multiple mechanisms:

• Social Mobility: Provides credentials enabling occupational mobility, breaking intergenerational poverty cycles. India’s reservation system in premier institutions exemplifies this pathway for marginalized communities.

• Value Transformation: Durkheim emphasized education’s role in transmitting shared norms. Modern education promotes secular, rational values, challenging traditional practices like casteism. Alex Inkeles’ modernization studies confirm education’s role in fostering ‘modern’ attitudes.

• Empowerment: Following Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach, education enhances individual freedoms. Female literacy correlates with reduced fertility rates and increased workforce participation.

• Economic Development: Skill development creates competent workforce essential for structural transformation, as evidenced by India’s Skill India Mission.

Critical Limitations

However, education often reinforces existing hierarchies:

• Cultural Capital: Bourdieu demonstrates how education values dominant class culture, disadvantaging lower-class students. Elite private schools versus under-resourced government schools exemplify this disparity.

• Correspondence Principle: Bowles and Gintis argue schools socialize students into accepting workplace hierarchies, maintaining capitalist structures.

• Structural Barriers: Educated unemployment and caste-based discrimination reveal that credentials alone don’t guarantee mobility.

Conclusion

Education’s transformative potential depends on broader socio-economic contexts. Without equitable access, quality education, and corresponding economic opportunities, it risks perpetuating inequalities it aims to dismantle—making it necessary but insufficient for genuine social change.