Revision summary
Closed systems restrict mobility by birth and marriage. Sanskritisation is group status mobility in caste research. Mandal routes are political mobility. Hypergamy can move women without opening the group. Leaks do not equal an open class contest.
Model answer
Introduction
Closed systems tie rank to birth and police marriage. Mobility is restricted, not always zero. Research shows group mimicry, political routes, and rare individual leaks rather than a free contest.
Body
Closure as the rule
- Caste and estate approximate closed systems: ascription, endogamy, and honour.
- Max Weber’s status group is the mechanism of closure inside a market.
Research illustrations
- M. N. Srinivas’s Sanskritisation: a caste group raises style and claim, which is collective status mobility, not open class circulation.
- Mandal-era OBC politics: mobility through the state, which Andre Beteille read as mixing class, status, and power.
- Louis Dumont stressed holism; empirical village studies still found some occupation shift at the edges.
- Gendered hypergamy moves women as persons without opening the caste for men of the lower group.
Answer
- Possible as limited, often group and political, mobility.
- Not possible as equal contest mobility of the liberal school myth.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD CL[Closed ascription] --> LIM[Limited mobility] LIM --> SAN[Sanskritisation] LIM --> POL[Reservations party] LIM --> NOT[Not contest of all]
Conclusion
Closed systems allow some mobility of groups, styles, and political quotas. Srinivas and Mandal research illustrate that. They do not become open class systems by those leaks.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
What is Weberian critique of Marxist notion of social stratification
Next question on this syllabus topic (2017 · Q4(a)). View answer →
-
If a Dalit becomes an IAS officer, is caste open?
A person moved. Endogamy and honour can still close the system for the many.
-
Is any mobility proof of an open system?
No. Openness is about typical chances, not about exceptions.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2019 · Q1(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Davis and Moore made it clear that social stratification is a functional necessity and also an unconscious device. Discuss -
2019 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Modernization presupposes class society; however caste, ethnicity and race are still predominant. Explain -
2019 · Q6(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Why is gender dimension of social stratification ? How does gender intersect other dimensions of inequality based on caste, class, race and ethnicity ? -
2018 · Q1(d) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What is the difference between natural and social inequality examples from caste and class dimensions -
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.
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.