Sociology Test Series

Model Answer Test - 3

Q1. What is the Marxist notion of stratification? How did Weber criticise it?

Ans- Not being an academic sociologist, Marx never developed a systemic theory of
stratification but in his writings, one can find a discussion of the basis, structure and
consequences of stratification

For Marx stratification emerged when the institution of private property developed. Earlier
there was no stratification.

The institution of private property led to the division of society into two main classes. The
ownership and non-ownership class. Ownership class controls productive assets and economic
activity while non-owners contribute their labour to earn a livelihood.

By virtue of control over economic activity, the owner exploits the non-owners. Relations
between the two classes are antagonistic. Further, inequality tends to be cumulative, those who
control economic activity also enjoy political power and command prestige for their lifestyle.

The focus of Marx’s writings was on the capitalist society where in Bourgeoisie is the dominant
ownership class who exploits the proletariat, the non-ownership class.

As capitalism advanced, eventually the proletariat would develop a subjective awareness of the
objective reality of exploitation. They would become a ‘class for itself’ and antagonism would
be articulated.

Thus, stratification is exploitative and generates conflict. The conflict will lead to revolutionary
change, private property would be abolished and a society without stratification would result.

Weber’s critique-

Weber has been called bourgeoisie Marx because in his critique he only supplemented rather
than supplanted Marx’s notion.
According to Weber, Marx’s notion of stratification should be seen as an ideal type of
construction. A general theory of stratification is tantamount to mono-causal economic
determinism.

Weber criticised Marx’s concept of class. For him, classes were based on the market situation
and existed in capitalist society only. Furthermore, he pointed out that the three axes of
stratification may not always overlap. Weber rejected Marx’s claim about the inevitability of
revolutionary change. Weber believed that a society without stratification is not possible. Even
if private property is abolished, stratification based on unequal power and prestige will persist
in the so-called communist societies.

Q2. Even in an open system of stratification education does not ensure upward mobility
for all sections of society. Discuss

Ans- In open systems of stratification norms encourage upward mobility for all. They are
supposed to be meritocratic and emphasise the equality of opportunity.

In such systems, education is a major avenue of mobility. It is open to all and serves as the
basis of recruitment for occupational roles. However, in practice education does not ensure
upward mobility for all sections because as long as there is social inequality, there is
educational inequality too.

As Pierre Bourdieu pointed out, in hierarchical societies, education serves as an instrument of

cultural reproduction.

The educational curriculum is based on the dominant culture. Middle and upper-class students
possess cultural capital which lower-class students lack. Cultural capital influences educational
performances. Lower-class students perform poorly and drop out of the educational system
early. They continue to be in the lower strata and fail to gain upward mobility.

Furthermore, students from lower strata lack achievement, motivation and values of deferred
gratification. They tend to be fatalistic.

They have to bear high opportunity costs to stay in the education system. Even the teachers,
who belong to the middle class, tend to be biased against them. Prejudices of the teachers
adversely affect the educational performance of the poor.
There is a hierarchy of educational institutions. Middle-class students attend superior schools
while poor students are enrolled in inferior schools and suffer from educational deprivation.

Thus, pupils from deprived sections remain educationally deprived and fail to gain upward
mobilty.

Q3. Distinguish between social organisation in feudal and capitalist societies.

Ans- Feudal and capitalistic societies represent two different stages in societal evolution.
Consequently, they also differ in the ways in which work is organised in their respective
economies.

In feudal society, work is largely manually performed. It is mainly subsistence production

organised at the domestic level. On the other hand in Capitalist societies work is progressively
mechanised. Production is oriented towards the demand of the market and organised in
factories or firms.

In feudal society, work tends to be labour intensive while in capitalist societies it tends to be
progressively capital and skill intensive.

In feudal society, work being manual labour with simple skills is concerned inferior and
demeaning. Priest and warriors are regarded as superior to workers. But in capitalism, because
of heavy investment in expensive machinery work is glorified.

In feudal society, work follows traditional patterns without any overriding concern for
efficiency. In a capitalist society, work is rationally planned and frequently restructured to
make it progressively efficient.

In Capitalist societies, there is a hierarchy of mental and manual work. Mental work is deemed
superior to manual labour. No such hierarchy existed in feudal society. In feudal society, work
is performed by unfree labour which is connected through hereditary ties and subjected to non-
economic compulsion. But in capitalist societies work is performed by formally free labour
bound by contractual relations and subject to economic compulsions only.

Workers experience less alienation at work in feudal societies as compared with capitalist
societies.
According to Marx, appropriation of surplus, the owners of productive assets is open in feudal
society but is concealed in capitalist society.

Q4. “Power is not a zero-sum game”. Discuss with reference to Weber’s and Parson’s
views.

Ans- Weber and Parsons represent two alternative but complementary views on power. Weber
viewed power as a zero-sum game but Parsons rejected this view.

According to Weber, power refers to the chances of an individual or a group to realise its will
in a communal action even in the face of resistance by others. Thus, power is a resource to
achieve one's goal and overcome resistance by others. If one individual or group gains power,
others who are in opposition lose power. Consequently, power is a zero-sum game. This view
is predicated on the assumption that society has conflicting sectional interests.

Alternately Parsons begins with the assumption that social systems have a value consensus
theme for people that share common goals. Power for Parsons is the generalised ability of the
community to realise the commonly shared goals towards which commitment has been made
through public policy. Thus, power is not zero-sum rather it is variable.

With changes in organisational or technological resources the power of the community may
increase or decrease.

Thus, Weber and Parsons represent two complementary views of power.

Q5. Explain the conditions under which collective action transforms into social
movements.

Ans- Collective action refers to an emergent and minimally coordinated action by two or more
people that are motivated by a desire to change some aspects of social life or to resist changes
already taking place.

Only when collective action is sustained over time, it becomes a social movement. Certain
conditions facilitate the transformation of collective action into a social movement. According
to Smelser structural conduciveness facilitates the emergence of a social movement. The
general social condition should not inhibit the formation of a movement.

For sustained collective action, it is important that people participating in collective action
should share a common ideology. Ideology provides legitimation of goals and means of
collective action. Without an ideology, the collective action degenerates into isolated sporadic
acts.

Further, if the participants in collective action are able to mobilise certain resources a social
movement may emerge.

1. Moral Resources- they include solidarity, support by others and celebrity

endorsement.
2. Cultural Resources- they include specialised knowledge and skills needed to
accomplish specialised tasks.
3. Organisational Resources- they include organisation and networks for coordinated
action.
4. Human Resources- they include manpower, leadership and supporters with expertise
etc.
5. Material Resources- they include financial and physical capital necessary for
collective action.

Also, a tolerant attitude of the governmental authorities affects the course of the social
movement.

Q6. Ideology is crucial for social transformation in a democracy. Discuss

According to Martin Selinger, ideology is a coherent set of ideas by which men posit and justify
the ends and means of organised social action irrespective of whether such action aims to
preserve, amend or rebuild a given social order.

A democratic society permits groups in civil society to engage in organised social action for
social transformation through social movements.

Ideology plays a crucial role in organising social movements for social transformation.
In the context of a social movement, ideology offers an account of the existing order and
projects the self-image of the group engaged in social stratification. It codifies beliefs and
values, defines aspirations and advances a model of the desired future. It explains how social
transformation is to be brought about and thus diverts responses to a specific social situation.
It is both a framework of consciousness and a source of legitimising action.

Furthermore, ideology enables a principled pursuit of transformative goals hence a safeguard

against anoia.

However, the mere presence of an ideology is not enough. The ideology must be compatible
with democratic ethos. Ideologies like religious fundamentalism and Maoism etc. would go
against the democratic system and weaken democracy.

Q7. “No society can be either absolutely open or absolutely closed”. Discuss

Ans- Open Society- social inequality and stratification are universal. Open societies are those
where norms of the society encourage upward mobility. Such a society emphasises on the
equality of opportunity and the hierarchy is based on meritocratic principles. Modern industrial
societies are by and large open societies.

However, none of them is absolutely open. Perfect equality of opportunity is a myth. In

America, blacks continue to be discriminated against and face social expulsion.

Various studies in Britain (Essex study, Savage and Egerton) show that the children born in the
working-class faces various disadvantages and odds as compared with those born in the service
class as far as upwards mobility is concerned.

In India, although Constitution promises the Right to Equality but Dalits, Tribals and minorities
continue to be at the bottom of the social ladder.

Closed society- Closed societies are those where norms prescribe mobility. Occupational roles
are assigned on an ascriptive basis. Such societies have rigid hierarchies. Agrarian societies
like feudal societies in Europe and the traditional caste system in India are examples of closed
societies. But no society was absolutely closed. Social closure was never perfect. Political
power may change hands and a new political elite may emerge. Rise of Rajputs as new
Kshatriyas and Kanabi in Maharashtra because ruling elite adopted honorifics name as
Marathas.

Thus, no society is either perfectly open or perfectly closed.

Q8. How are hierarchy and exclusion the major impediments in the transformation of
societies? Discuss.

Ans- Transformation of society can be interpreted as economic development and modernisation

in developing societies.

In context of Hierarchy and Exclusion refer to extreme forms of inequality, wherein a large
section of the population exist in poverty, lacks access to education and occupational skills and
have a poor health status.

Such forms of inequality are indeed an impediment to economic development and

modernisation.

Due to such inequality, the quality of human resources tends to be poor. Productivity is low
which slows down economic growth. Technological up-gradation is hampered due to lack of
skilled manpower.

High incidence of poverty leads to low purchasing power and weak demand stimulus which
means slow growth.

Widespread poverty and inequality also hinder political modernisation. The illiterate, poor and
excluded section cannot participate actively in civil society organisations to strengthen
democracy. It may lead to authoritarianism.

The history of 19th century Europe is replete with examples of the high incidence of inequality
and exclusion generating social strife. In fact, French Revolution, Russian Revolution and
Chinese Revolution attacked hierarchy and eliminated exclusion which facilitates the rapid
modernisation of these societies.
Q9. Trace the changing nature of organisation of work in capitalist societies over the
years.

Ans- Capitalist societies are oriented toward the continuous generation of profits. So, they are
preoccupied with efficiency and productivity which in turn leads to progressive up-gradation
of technology. This has been responsible for periodic re-organisation of work to increase
productivity and to absorb new technologies.

Initially, there was a shift from domestic unit-based handicraft production to factory-based
mechanised production. This was to facilitate the harnessing of hydrocarbon sources of energy.

As the increase in wages of the workers threatened to reduce profitability, labour displacement
technologies developed leading to progressive automation of work. This process has become
more conspicuous with the use of computers and how we are entering the era of robotics.

Early 20th century witnessed the rise of Fordism in the organisation of work. It began with
assembly line production in the automobile industry. Later on, the Assembly line was adopted
by other industries too.

Assembly line technology was a system of mass production based on a system of standardised
and inflexible technologies.

This led to standardised work routines and deskilled jobs. Low wages also led to labour unrest
and militant trade unionism. Consumers also complained of a lack of variety in products.

The later part of the 20th century witnessed the decline of Fordism and marked the shift toward
post-Fordism.

Now, the focus was on the production of a wide range of highly specialised products.

This led to the flexibilization of production. It called for multi-skilled workers and there was a
reversal of the de-skilling trend. Workers were expected to adapt quickly and continually to
emergencies and contingencies. Mass workers have been replaced by specialised worker who
is treated as human resources to be nurtured and retained. Consequently, militant trade
unionism has become outdated.

Work is progressively and rationally planned using sophisticated techniques like TQM, Kanban
and Kaizen etc.
Q10. Globalisation has pushed the labour into informal organisation of work.
Substantiate your answer with examples.

Ans- Globalisation refers to rapidly increasing economic, cultural and even political integration
of the world. It has impacted the nature of labour organisations too.

If we consider the Indian economy as an example, an informal organisation of labour always

dominated. More than 90% of labour has been informally employed. However, globalisation
has further accentuated the trend.

After the neoliberal shift in the wake of globalisation, agriculture has become unrewarding and
there is a trend of labour moving to non-farm occupations like construction which has informal
organisation.

Even in the manufacturing sector because of increasing competition, companies take recourse
to cost-cutting methods by reducing the number of permanent employees and contracting out
unskilled and semi-skilled work. Also, to escape provisions of labour legislation and militant
trade unionism informal organisation is preferred.

Globalisation has been coincident with the expansion of IT-enabled services in, Tourism and
Hospitality sector. In these areas, an informal organisation of labour tends to predominate.

Furthermore, most of the growth after globalisation has been jobless. Economic employment
in the formal sector has not grown while the labour seeking employment has been growing
rapidly. Most of the new entrants tend to be poorly skilled and find employment in the informal
sector.

Thus, we find that globalisation with neoliberal shifts has pushed labour into informal
organisations.