Revision summary
Open and closed are poles, not photographs of whole societies. Caste and estate leak; markets still close by status, property, and gender. Marx, Weber, Sorokin, and Srinivas describe mixed mobility. Comment: name channels, do not choose an extreme type as the whole.
Model answer
Introduction
Open and closed name poles of mobility and membership. A completely open society would recruit every office by talent alone. A completely closed one would freeze every rank by birth. Empirical societies sit between the poles.
Body
Why complete closure fails
- Even caste and estate leak: conversion, conquest, adoption, and M. N. Srinivas’s Sanskritisation move groups inside a ranked order.
- Karl Marx noted circulation of persons beside persistence of class places. A closed idiom still has some movement.
Why complete openness fails
- Max Weber’s status groups close interaction and marriage even in markets. Education and property sponsor some and exclude others.
- Pitirim Sorokin treated mobility as a variable of systems, not as a switch to a frictionless contest.
- Gender and unpaid care, as Ann Oakley showed, close “open” labour markets. NFHS and work data still show that closure.
Comment
- The statement is a warning against textbook extremes. India mixes ascription, exams, reservations, and informal labour.
- Measure both the person’s move and the durability of the hierarchy.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD OP[Open achievement] --> MIX[Empirical mix] CL[Closed ascription] --> MIX MIX --> MOB[Some persons move] MIX --> STR[Structure may hold]
Conclusion
No society is a perfect contest or a sealed box. Weber, Marx, Sorokin, and Srinivas all describe mixed closure. The useful task is to name which channels open and which honour rules still shut.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Differentiate between Maxian and Weberian theories of Social stratification.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2015 · Q3(b)). View answer →
-
Is industrial society therefore open?
More channels exist. Sponsorship, property, and status still block a complete contest.
-
Does reservation prove closure?
It uses birth categories to open offices. That is mixed politics, not a sealed caste cosmos.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2018 · Q1(d) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What is the difference between natural and social inequality examples from caste and class dimensions -
2018 · Q5(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
In social mobility possible in closed systems of stratification ? Illustrate from research work. -
2017 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
What is Weberian critique of Marxist notion of social stratification -
2017 · Q4(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Examine gender. Ethnicity and race as major dimensions of social stratification -
2016 · Q1(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
"Vertical mobility brings structural change even in a closed social system." Comment -
2016 · Q2(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Elucidate the basic premises of Davis' structural-functional theory of social stratification. How far is it relevant in understanding contemporary Indian society. -
2016 · Q4(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Discuss the relationship between poverty and social exclusion -
2015 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Differentiate between Maxian and Weberian theories of Social stratification.
More from this topic
Q5(b) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Does the structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification promote a status quo? Give reasons for your answer.
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Davis and Moore treat unequal rewards as devices to fill important positions. Parsons ties ranking to a shared value system and role allocation. That logic easily sanctifies the present hierarchy as necessary. Tumin asked who defines importance and why talent and reward match so neatly. Unpaid gendered labour and caste inheritance expose the payoff story. Merton’s dysfunctions qualify equilibrium but do not make functionalism a conflict theory.
Q3(a) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Compare capability deprivation approach with that of social capital deprivation in understanding chronic poverty
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Sen’s approach defines poverty as capability deprivation, not income shortfall alone. Functionings are beings and doings; capabilities are the real set of lives one can choose. Social capital is networks, trust and norms in Coleman, Putnam and Bourdieu, unequally held. Chronic poverty lasts because freedoms stay contracted or because bridges to work and credit stay closed. Dense caste bonding can coexist with capability failure. Indian SHGs, migration networks and multidimensional poverty measures illustrate the comparison.
Q1(e) · UPSC Mains 2025 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Is the social stratification theory gender-blind? Elucidate.
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Marx, Weber and Davis–Moore mapped class, status, power and function, usually with a male default. Gender-blindness means treating the household as a unit and unpaid care as non-economic. Hartmann, Walby, Oakley and Acker made patriarchy a structure of stratification. Crenshaw’s intersectionality warns against adding gender as an afterthought. Indian work on Brahmanical patriarchy and Dalit feminism shows caste and gender as one field. The elucidation is critical but not a dismissal of class analysis.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.