Revision summary
Closed systems still leak persons and group styles. Marx: class places can hold while individuals circulate. Srinivas: Sanskritisation may leave hierarchy standing. Structural change needs new rules of property, office, or honour. Comment: do not equate vertical mobility with a new system.
Model answer
Introduction
Vertical mobility is movement up or down a ranked order. A closed system ascribes rank by birth. The statement claims that even there, rises and falls change the structure. Comment: some mobility changes persons; structural change needs a shift in the rules of closure.
Body
Closed systems and leak
- Caste and estate approximate closure. Pitirim Sorokin still found some vertical movement.
- M. N. Srinivas’s Sanskritisation is group mobility of style. The ranked structure can remain.
When mobility is not structural change
- Karl Marx: circulation of persons can leave class places intact. A few rise; the proletariat remains.
- Max Weber’s status honour can absorb new wealth without opening marriage.
When it does bite the structure
- Repeated group mobility plus political power, as in Mandal-era office holding, can rewrite legitimate domination in Weber’s sense.
- Demographic saturation of a rank, or a new mode of production, changes the system, not only the names in it.
- Gendered glass ceilings show that some vertical moves never arrive; that too is structure.
Comment
- The statement overstates “even”. Mobility is a solvent only when rules of ascription, property, or office change.
- Treat person-move and structure-move as two measures.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD VM[Vertical mobility] --> PER[Persons move] VM --> STY[Sanskritisation style] RULE[Rules of closure change] --> STR[Structural change] PER --> NOT[Not automatically structure]
Conclusion
Vertical mobility in a closed system is often a leak or a style shift, not a new structure. Marx, Weber, and Srinivas warn against confusing biographies with the hierarchy. Structural change needs altered rules of closure, not only a few successful lives.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Elucidate the basic premises of Davis' structural-functional theory of social stratification. How far is it relevant in understanding contemporary Indian society.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q2(a)). View answer →
-
Is any promotion structural change?
No. It is a biography unless the channels and closures of the system shift.
-
Can a closed system survive much mobility?
Yes, if endogamy, property, and honour rules still sort the next generation.
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 · 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 · Q1(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
"No society can either be completely open or completely closed." comment. -
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.