Revision summary
Parsonian functionalism collapsed under conflict and 1960s critique. Marxism faced 1989, missing polarisation, and gender-race gaps. Lyotard named the fall of metanarratives as a postmodern rupture. Giddens and Beck describe radicalised or reflexive modernity, not an end. Indian capitalism and caste show modern structures still at work.
Model answer
Introduction
From the 1960s, Parsonian functionalism lost authority and Marxist certainties split or stalled. Postmodern and late-modern writers called this a rupture of modernity. The coincidence is partial. Institutions of capitalism, state, and science did not end when the two grand theories wobbled.
Body
Collapse of functionalism
- Talcott Parsons’ system over-integrated conflict and history.
- C. Wright Mills, Ralf Dahrendorf, and later phenomenology accused it of a conservative consensus myth.
- 1960s movements made “system needs” look tone-deaf.
Bankruptcy charges against Marxism
- Actually existing socialism, 1989, and missing polarisation in rich capitalism damaged a textbook sequence.
- The New Left, feminism, and race studies said class did not exhaust domination.
- Cultural Marxists and world-systems theory, after Immanuel Wallerstein, were reconstructions, not a simple death.
Rupture of modernity?
- Jean-François Lyotard named incredulity toward metanarratives, including functional progress and Marxist emancipation.
- Zygmunt Bauman’s liquid modernity and Ulrich Beck’s reflexive modernity describe a changed, not ended, modern.
- Anthony Giddens: modernity radicalises, it does not politely close.
Why coincidence is overstated
- Max Weber’s iron cage and rationalisation already doubted both consensus and redemptive history.
- Indian liberalisation, informal labour, and caste politics show modern institutions thickening, not a postmodern holiday.
- Feminist and Dalit theory criticised both functionalism and orthodox Marxism without leaving modernity’s questions of rights and the state.
Discussion
- Intellectual collapse of two school orthodoxies did coincide with a crisis of modern self-confidence.
- That is not the same as the end of modern structures.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD FUN[Functionalism collapse] --> CRISIS[Crisis of grand theory] MARX[Marxism crisis] --> CRISIS CRISIS --> TALK[Rupture talk] INST[Capital state science] --> CONT[Modernity continues] TALK --> PART[Partial coincidence]
Conclusion
Functionalism’s fall and Marxism’s crisis travelled with a rupture in modern self-description. They did not prove that modernity itself ended. Weber, Giddens, and Indian capitalist-caste modernity show continuity with new risks and voices.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Define patriarchy. How does patriarchy manifest in interpersonal relations?
Next question in the 2018 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
If Marxism is bankrupt, is class dead?
Class analysis continues in informal labour and global production. The party-state script failed.
-
Is India postmodern?
It has postmodern culture in pockets. Its state, census, and markets remain modern apparatuses.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2018 · Q1(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
The focal point of sociology rests on interaction. How do you distinguish it from common sense? -
2018 · Q1(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Do you think T and Me are central terms in Mead's work -
2018 · Q3(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Define patriarchy. How does patriarchy manifest in interpersonal relations? -
2018 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
According to Marx, how are human beings alienated from their human potential and what does he suggest to change this? -
2018 · Q5(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Is the theory of cultural lag valid in present times? Discuss -
2018 · Q6(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Explain with examples, the explanatory and exploratory designs of social research. -
2018 · Q7(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
What, according to Pareto, are the basic characteristics of elites? Discuss. -
2017 · Q1(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Explain how sociology has emerged as a distinct discipline based on rationality and scientific tamper
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
The focal point of sociology rests on interaction. How do you distinguish it from common sense?
Sociology
Sociology focuses on interaction as action oriented to others. Weber, Mead, and Goffman named that object. Common sense is Schutz’s unexamined stock of typifications. Durkheim’s rates and caste studies show why everyday talk is not enough. Sociology uses common-sense language and then tests it.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Distinguish between fact and value in Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Sociological Thinkers: Karl Marx
Weber split value-relevance of the problem from value-discipline in proof. The question of modern capitalism is culturally selected. The claimed fact is elective affinity with inner-worldly asceticism. Ideal types organise the comparison. The book does not preach Calvinism as a duty.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2018 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Do you think T and Me are central terms in Mead's work
Sociology
Yes: I and Me are central in Mead. Me is the organised attitudes of others, the self as object. I is the unpredictable response that allows novelty. Play, game, and generalised other form the Me. Blumer’s interactionism inherits the pair.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.