VAID'S ICS – Best UPSC Anthropology Coaching in Delhi Since 1985

Comprehensive Classroom Course · Admissions openRegister now
+91 93113 37737
  • +91-93113 37737, +91-99999 46748
  • 73(FF), Old Rajender Nagar Market, Delhi - 110060
  • MON to SUN 9.00 am - 6.00 pm
Facebook Youtube Instagram
Menu
Enquire Now
Home/Anthropology/Mains PYQ/2019/Paper I/Culture & Society
UPSC MainsAnthropology Optional Paper I 2019 20 Marks Model Answer Available

Approaches to Social Stratification — 2019 Paper I

Question · 2019 · Paper I · 20 Marks

Discuss social stratification according to any three major approaches.

Model Answer

VAID ICS

Approach

  • Demand of Question: Discuss social stratification through any three major theoretical approaches and show how each explains inequality differently.
  • Structuring the Response: Use Marxian, Weberian and functional approaches, compare their bases of stratification, and conclude with an integrated anthropological view.
  • Key Dimensions to Cover: Marx, Weber, Davis-Moore; class, property, status, power, functional necessity, inequality and social mobility.

Model Answer

Introduction: Social stratification refers to the structured and persistent inequality among individuals and groups in access to wealth, prestige, power and opportunities. Anthropologists and sociologists have explained it through several approaches, of which the Marxian, Weberian and functional approaches are particularly influential.

  1. Marxian approach: Karl Marx located the basis of stratification primarily in the organization of production and property relations.

Society is divided according to people’s relationship to the means of production:

  • owners of productive resources;
  • non-owners who sell their labour.

Under capitalism:

Bourgeoisie → Ownership/control of means of production
Proletariat → Sale of labour power

For Marx, class inequality produces:

  • exploitation;
  • unequal distribution of surplus;
  • conflicting material interests;
  • class consciousness and struggle.

Thus:

Property relations → Class division → Exploitation → Class conflict

The Marxian approach is valuable for analysing economic inequality, but may understate autonomous roles of prestige, ethnicity, caste and gender.

  1. Weberian approach: Max Weber rejected a purely economic explanation and proposed a multidimensional model of stratification.

He distinguished:

  1. Class: Based on economic position and market opportunities.
  2. Status: Based on social honour and prestige.
  3. Party: Based on access to political power and organized influence.

Thus:

Economic position + Social prestige + Political power → Social stratification

A person may possess wealth but lack prestige, or possess ritual status without corresponding economic power.

This approach is especially useful in India, where caste rank, class position and political power do not always coincide.

André Béteille’s study of Sripuram similarly demonstrated the changing relationship among caste, class and power.

  1. Functional approach: Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore viewed stratification as functionally necessary for complex societies.

They argued that:

  • social positions vary in functional importance;
  • some require scarce skills and prolonged training;
  • greater rewards motivate individuals to fill such positions.

Hence:

Functional importance + Scarcity of personnel → Differential rewards → Stratification

The approach explains persistence of unequal rewards but has been criticized because:

  • it may justify existing inequality;
  • “functional importance” is difficult to measure;
  • inherited privilege can restrict access to highly rewarded positions.

Comparative understanding:

Approach Basis of stratification Main emphasis
Marx Property and production Class and conflict
Weber Class, status and party Multidimensional inequality
Davis-Moore Functional differentiation Differential rewards

Anthropological perspective: Actual societies combine several bases of inequality such as:

  • caste;
  • class;
  • gender;
  • age;
  • ethnicity;
  • political authority.

Therefore no single approach completely explains all systems of stratification.

Conclusion: Marx highlights the economic foundations and conflict of stratification, Weber its multidimensional nature, and the functionalists its relation to social differentiation and rewards. Together, they show that social inequality is produced through interacting structures of property, prestige and power.

2025 Culture and embodiment. 2025 Critically examine the drawbacks in assuming culture as an 'integrated-closed' system in understanding of contemporary society. 2025 Describe briefly the theoretical perspectives in linguistic anthropology to explain the relationship of culture, language and thought. 2024 Attributes of culture

Want feedback on your answer?

Join the Anthropology workshop or get structured answer-writing guidance from VAID ICS.

Join Workshop Contact VAID ICS

UPSC Anthropology Optional 2019 — Paper I

28 questions

5(a) Adaptive primate radiation

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 1.5 Characteristics of Primates > Evolutionary trend and primate taxonomy
2019Paper IHuman Evolution & PrimatologyModel answer available

1(d) Cultural Materialism

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 6. Anthropological Theories > Cultural Materialism
2019Paper IAnthropological TheoriesModel answer available

1(b) Cultural Relativism

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 2.1 The Nature of Culture > Ethnocentrism vis-a-vis Cultural Relativism
2019Paper ICulture & SocietyModel answer available

5(c) Olduvai Gorge

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 1.6 Phylogenetic status, characteristics and distribution > East African hominid sites
2019Paper IHuman Evolution & PrimatologyModel answer available

1(c) Pastoralism in India

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 3. Economic Organization > Modes of subsistence > Pastoralism
2019Paper IEconomic & Political AnthropologyModel answer available

1(e) Relative Dating Methods

10 Marks150 words
Syllabus: Paper I > 1.8(a) Chronology: relative and absolute dating methods
2019Paper IPrehistoric ArchaeologyModel answer available