Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Top Posters

[Notice] This Forum will shut down from 1st November 2014. Click me to know more.
Preparing Sociology

  • @Sanjay86,
    Please also specify word limit for questions
  • @amn131,
    thank you :-)
  • @amn131,
    good answer on social fact.
    I like to add some points along with ur answer, if dey given for 20 to 30 m,,,,,,,it ll b helpful to add extra points on social facts..

    George Ritzer says that ED talks abt types of social fact ie
    1. material social fact: refers to structural component of society like state , church etc.
    ex: population size, population density. it was used by him in his study of DOL.
    2. non material social fact: refers to morality , collective conscience.

    morphological setting -> social currents -> patterned -> institutionalised -> becomes social fact.

    morphological- under physical and geographical settings,


  • @Shwe,
    That's correct there is just the otheway of saying the same thing as social facts can be classified under structural, institutional and non institutional. I dint mention everything about social fact as it was just short note :)
  • @All,
    Anyone has softcopy of George Ritzer ?
  • Welcome shwe and prerana :)

    Shwe what amn said is true we usually do not write critic and other thinkers view on short notes. But if it is compare then we can write critic like my previous Q.


    Sacred and profane:

    Sacred and profane are the central Idea of Emile Durkheim work on religion. According to Durkheim Sacred things are those which are religious Interdictions that protect and isolate Profane things. Those to which these interdictions are applied and which must remain at a distance from the first. Sacred is ideal and transcends everyday existence, it is extra-ordinary, potentially dangerous, awe-inspiring, fear inducing. The sacred refers to things set part by man including religious beliefs, rites, duties or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. Almost anything can be sacred – a god, a rock, a cross, the moon, the earth ,a tree, an animal or bird etc. These are sacred only because some community has marked them as sacred. Once established as sacred they become symbols of religious beliefs, sentiments and practices.

    The profane is mundane, anything ordinary, It embraces those ideas, persons, practices and things that are regarded with an everyday attitude of commonness, utility and familiarity. The unholy or the profane is also believed to contaminate the holy or sacred. It is the denial or sub-ordination of the holy in some way.The attitudes and behaviour toward it are charged with negative emotions and hedged about by strong taboos.

    The sacred and profane are closely related because of the highly emotional attitude towards them. According to Durkheim the circle of sacred objects cannot be determined then once and for all. Its extent varies indefinitely according to different religions. The significance of the sacred lies in the fact of its distinction from the profane
    He also insists that elements will change between the profane and sacred from society to society and in the same society when it progress.

    My content is same with amn for social facts.

    Please comment on my Sacred and profane
  • @sanjay86 , @amn131
    atleat v discuss 1 r 2 questions daily,,,,,, give d questions to discuss the answers...
  • Lets answer following question-
    Show how Durkheim through of totemism demonstrates the reality of religion (30 marks)
  • Lets answer following question-
    Show how Durkheim thought of totemism demonstrates the reality of religion (30 marks)
  • My take on above question-

    Durkheim's work on religion is based on elementary forms of religion. As per him only when the elementary forms of religion are studied, we are able to study the more complex form of religions. He considers totemism as the simplest form of religion. Totemism is practised by aborigines of central Australia which is linked with social organisation or clan. For e.g. animal, plant or other object can be treated as totem. Aborigines are claimed to have descended from totem which may be treated like an emblem of clan. Totem apart from being an emblem also is endowed with sacredness and mostly tabooed. It is not that the totem is worshipped but the clan itself is worshipped. It is possible that clan members may not be related by blood relations but by the common emblem or totem they are attached to. Totems gives the feeling of collective representations among individuals.

    People worship totems which are part of society only but they are in turn worshipping society only. Society is 'sui-generis'. Durkheim's reality of religion is nothing but giving society itself a divine form because it stands outside individual, exerting physical and moral constraints on individuals. The totems give a feeling of awe which aborigines can easily direct and visualise. This is one reason why people do not directly worship society. Its authority is feared, respected and worshipped. For e.g. soldier dying in front of a national flag is not sacrificing his/her life for the flag but for the nation as a whole.
    Worshipping society produces its members a feeling of oneness, solidarity and creates enthusiasm among them. Totemism helped Durkheim visualise the fact which led him to conclude that 'Society is God'.
  • @All,
    Please evaluate and share your answers too.
  • Hi friends, this is Vijay.

    My optional is also sociology. I had started with 'Introduction to sociology' 1st paper.. One day back i finished that. Now im planning to start 'Kinship' in paper-1. If you have IGNOU material please let me know.
  • @Nivjay02,
    Welcome to the discussion. Currently we are discussing about sociological thinker - Emile Durkheim. If you have gone through him then you can also take part in it else you can first go through him so that you get involved in the discussion.
  • my answer,

    Durkheim's last major book for totemism- 'an elementary form of religious life'.In this book , he tries to demonstrate his methodology ie application of positivism to explain the functional need.
    Durkheim's study was based on arunta tribes studied by Spencer and gillin.

    acc to him, totemism is the earliest form of religion. the class members involve in collective worship of objects that may b animate or inanimate ex: tree, plants etc which are considered as ancenstors and his collective worship is called as totemism.
    the object of worship is called as totem.
    he justified his choice of totemism by sayg that,true character of religion can be known only by studyg religion in its simplest form,coz complexity of advanced religion tends to camouflage the true character of religion,.

    durkheim identifies certain characteristics of totemism:
    1. all members of the totemic gp refer themselves by a command name.so it designates as social gp.
    2. totem beliefs compels them to recognize duties and obligation towards each other which are similar to those observed by blood relatives ie kinship obligation and duties given by totem even though they are not members.
    3. it is a system of interdiction(do's and don't).
    4. it leads to social cohesiveness r solidarity among the member of d gp.
    so while comparing religion,,,,,,,religion Al's has a moral character as it gives. people a feeling that, they fulfillg a duty towards religion.
    hence religion ,
    1. gives a sense of identity.
    2. gives them a sense of belongingness.
    3. regulates conduct of individual.
    4. cements social bond.
    thus totem worship acts as a system of beliefs and rites which binds people together in a social gp around a sacred object.....
    In collective worship, showing respect ie sacred to the object which is a symbol given to society.
    religious norms are sacred version of social norms,.
    worshipg sacred object is nothing but worshipg society.coz sacred is society divine,..


    plz review
  • @amn131,
    30 marks .,,,,,so I elaborated,,,,,,,
  • @Shwe,

    You have not mentioned any where the fact Durkheim thinks that people worship society. Durkheim believes that people worship totem but in turn they are worshipping society. So notion of reality of religion is missing from your answer rather it is just explaining totemism. In my opinion elaboration of totemism is required in this answer but the question demands and important aspect of religion which I stated in first sentence also need to be mentioned. Durkheim studied totemism to arrive at the the concept of Society is God which was definitely criticised by other thinkers.

    This question was asked in UPSC 2012

    @All,
    Others pls comment.
  • @amn131,
    ya I forgot to mention DAT point,,,,,,at last I mentioned,,,,,,
    thanks for review
  • @amn131
    ya u r rite in analysing d question.
  • :). Others pls participate.
  • Durkheim's study on suicide (300) words
  • Suicide which is said to be more of a individual action where individual is the cause for his own action. Emile durkheim conducted a studies on suicide to prove collective conscience and external facts facts play a major role in suicide than individual.
    Primarily he disproved other theories that were related to suicide, like climate theory, Economic theory, Alcoholic theory, Racial theory, Geographical theory.
    In every social structure their is a suicidogenic current which passes through, which is dependent on rate of social change. On the data he got from he categorised Suicides
    Protestant v/s Catholics
    War v/s peace time
    Men v/s women
    unmarried v/s married
    Family with no children v/s family with children
    In the above groups he found that the suicides are more in the former than the latter due to less integration and more integration respectively. Rate of suicide is directly related to the degree of solidarity.
    Through this study he propounded that suicides are caused due to integration and regulation. Due to lack of integration individuals commit suicide which he termed as egoistic suicide. On the other hand excess of integration as well leads to suicide altruistic suicide eg: suicide bombers for the sake of group. Lack of regulation leads to anomic suicides even excess of regulation leads to Fatalistic suicide like that of army camps.
    Therefore the cause to suicide is social and not individual.

    Pls evaluate the answer
  • My take on question-

    Durkheim in his famous work "Suicide: A Study in Sociology" studied types, causes and features of suicide. As per him suicide is not an individual act but it is rather a product of social forces external to individual. He maintained the fact that real laws are discoverable through his research on suicide. Durkheim distinguishes types of suicide under the following heading-

    1. Egoistic suicide - This happens when individual is not properly integrated and his ego is of utmost importance. It is characterised by weak solidarity.
    2. Altruistic suicide- When the society is over integrated. It occurs for cause of society like in early indian system people perform sati, jauhar etc.
    3. Anomic suicide - It occurs when there is a state of normlessness. This can happen when there is a sudden setback or gain in business or political upheavels.

    Durkheim argued that suicide rate is a social fact. It follows a rule that suicide rate will be higher where social integration is lower and vice versa. So we can say that suicide rate is inversely proportional to social integration. Durkheim's studied some statistical correlations based on European societies. He found that catholic religion integrates its members more strongly into a religious community. The long established belief and traditional rituals of the catholic church provide a uniform system of religious beliefs and practices. The individual in catholic religion are integrated by belief and rituals. By contrast Protestants are encouraged to develop their own interpretation of religion. They are therefore less integrated and more liberal in their religious view. So as per Durkheim suicide rates in Protestants are far greater than Catholics. Similarly unmarried are likely to have higher suicide rates than married because they are less integrated and responsibility than married persons. Same logic can be applied to high suicide rates in older than young ones.

    So cause of suicide rate is in society and not in individual. Durkheim's study of suicide is considered as a model in research methodology in sociology. It has been judged successful because its findings are based on data which can be directly observed and measured.
  • @Sanjay86,

    In my opinion your answer should be more elaborative in nature rather than appearing as one liner facts. This is my personal view.
  • @amn131 thanks, will try to be more elaborative from my next answers...:)

    Discuss the contribution of Durkheim to sociology. How far did his methodology influence sociological traditions. (This is 60 marks Q lets write it for 30 marks).
  • my answer on suicide questn:

    Durkheim published his book suicide : A study in sociology.
    He chose to study suicide coz of availability of suicide statistics from a number of European countries. He regarded these could be used to find sociological causes of suicide rates.

    Acc to him , suicide is defined as all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from the positive or negative act from the victim itself, which he knows will produce this effect.
    Positive act- act of commission of doing something out of the way. ex: consumg poison.
    Negative act- act of omission which means refusing to do something needful. ex: refusing to take medicine and dying.

    He doesnt not look into the psychic motive,,, he defines sucide in objective manners.
    In his methodology, he puts preconceived notions abt suicide in emperical testing.
    These pre- existing theories like climatic theory, economic theory, alcoholic theory, racial theory, geographical theory.

    Therefore the cause of suicide is social and not individual and the rate of suicide is actually social rate of suicide. It represents a factual order and independently existing pattern independent of individual wishes.
    Thus suicide is a social fact......
    Every social structure generates collective suicidal tendency called suicidogenic current which compels individual from outside and drive them towards suicide.

    Again he processed the data arrived at some observable pattern:
    *Protestants are more prone to suicide than catholics
    *Men tend to commit more as compared to women
    *Unmarried people are more prone to suicide than married people
    *Family with children has fewer tendencies to commit suicide than family with less children.
    He made generalisation ie protestant,wartime, men, unmarried person fell in category which is characterised by low solidarity.
    While catholics, peacetime, women, married person characterised by high solidarity.
    He says that " rate of suicide is inversely proportional to the degree of solidarity".

    Later he classified suicide into 4 types:
    1. Egoistic suicide: individual conscience is in conflict with collective conscience. where individual is not integrated in society.
    2. Altruistic suicide: when one is too much integrated with the group( priority to a gp than to oneself) ex: sati, LTTE suicide squad.
    3. Anomic suicide: high integration and lack of regulation could cause suicide. Higher at times of economic slumps or booms. Which means normative deregulation. Sudden change.
    4. Fatalistic suicide: excessive regulation coz they are deprived of any choice . ex: slave
    Thus there are 2 forces which lead to suicide ie integration and regulation.

    So cause of suicide rate is in society and not in individual.
    Durkheim's study of suicide is considered as a model in
    research methodology in sociology.


    plz review.
  • 300 words so I elaborated more....
  • others PLZ participate ....only amn131 and sanjay86 r participating,,,,,,
  • yes pls participate...this discussion is becoming dormant now.
  • Lets try answering Sanjay's last question-

    Discuss the contribution of Durkheim to sociology. How far did his methodology influence sociological traditions
  • French sociologist Durkheim attempted to establish sociology as an independent and distinct science. In the classical era of development of sociological tradition there is a connectivity bw the conditions prevalent and the ideas developed at that time. Thus the social conditions at the time of French revolution had influenced Durkheim's thought.

    Durkheim considers that social fact must be a subject matter of sociology. Social facts are those ways of acting, thinking, and feeling which are capable of exerting an external constraint on an individual which are generally diffused throughout the society and which can exist in their own life independent of their individual manifestation ex: language, law and shared beliefs are social facts and regard social facts as things are the foundation of Durkheim methodology.

    He traced the development of the modern relation bw individual and the society. DOL is the second doctoral thesis of ED. With the increase in DOL, the social solidarity in the society decreases, and vice versa. Society develops and reaches the stages of organic solidarity , integration gradually lower.

    He published his book suicide: A study in sociology., which is the paradigmatic example of how a sociologist should connect theory and research. Ie if integration is high, he calls that type of suicide altruistic. Low integration as egoistic suicides. Fatalistic suicide is associated with high regulation, and anomic suicide with low regulation. als he demonstrated that not all religions provide same degree of protection from suicide. Thus argued that social currents cause changes in the rates of suicide.
    ie sui generis forces, coz they dominate the decisions of individuals,.

    His theory on religion and society has dealt in his famous book, the elementary forms of religious life. It deals a description and a detailed analysis of the clan system and of totemism in the Arunta tribe of Australian.,, gives totemism as a study of simplest and most primitive form of religion. he says , by worshipping religion man indirectly worships the society,.

    Thus , he has contributed a lot to make sociology as a scientific discipline. His views on social fact, religion & society, suicide and dol are of paramount importance as far as the sociological investigation is concerned. He is called " pioneer of modern sociology" who wanted to provide sociology a distinct subject matter with its own methodology.

    plz review
  • @All,
    Please participate.
  • @amn131,
    review my answer
  • Emile Durkheim is best remember for his efforts in making sociology accepted as an autonomous academic discipline. He was concerned with outlining the nature and scope of sociology. He considered philosophy as a source from where all sciences have emerged viz natural and social sciences.

    Durkheim's contribution to sociology can be viewed under following headings-

    1. SOCIAL FACTS:
    To Durkheim society is 'sui generis'. It can be best studied in terms of social facts. Social facts as per him are the ways of acting, thinking or feeling which are independent of individual's desire. They are external to individual and are coercive in nature. Legal codes, morals, religious beliefs practices are some of social facts. Social facts can be structural like population, communication system, institutional like legal moral codes and non institutional which have not acquired crystallised forms. The main characteristic of social facts are its
    a. Externality b. Constraint c. Independence d. Generality

    2. DIVISION OF LABOUR:
    Durkheim tried to trace the history of social development in terms of division of labour. He observes that primitive society there was no or negligible DOL. There was fight for survival as the resources were scarce. People used to perform activities in entirety. This society is bound by mechanical solidarity where there is a close knit among individuals. There is a feeling of likeness, brotherhood in mechanical solidarity. Individuals are bound by customs, beliefs and other social facts. Sometimes there were harsh punishment if the same are violated. While capitalist society is governed by DOL. As population and material density grew, the same task could not be done in entirety by a single individual. People in this type of society are bound by organic solidarity which is by the type of work they do. For e.g. working in a factory of shirt making individual may be in contact with stitching, cutting, finishing individuals. Also DOL helped individual gain specialisation of tasks along with simultaneous survival in society. People here are not closely knit like in mechanical solidarity. There may not be punishment for violation of social facts.

    3. SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION:
    Durkheims work on sociology is based on elementary forms of religion. He studied aborigines of Australia and found that the elementary religion of these aborigines is a totemism. Totem can be regarded as a symbol or emblem which the clan relates to. They are bonded by the totems and not necessarily by blood relations. He observes that people worship totem but in fact they worship society only. As totem is a part of society and it gives aborigines a feeling of awe in symbolising it and hence they worship totems and not society. He arrived at the notion that society is god.

    4. WORK ON SUICIDE:
    Durkheim in his famous work "Suicide: A Study in Sociology" studied types, causes and features of suicide. As per him suicide is not an individual act but it is rather a product of social forces external to individual. He maintained the fact that real laws are discoverable through his research on suicide. Durkheim distinguishes types of suicide under the following heading-
    a. Egoistic suicide - This happens when individual is not properly integrated and his ego is of utmost importance. It is characterised by weak solidarity.
    b. Altruistic suicide- When the society is over integrated. It occurs for cause of society like in early indian system people perform sati, jauhar etc.
    c. Anomic suicide - It occurs when there is a state of normlessness. This can happen when there is a sudden setback or gain in business or political upheavels.
    Durkheim argued that suicide rate is a social fact. It follows a rule that suicide rate will be higher where social integration is lower and vice versa. So we can say that suicide rate is inversely proportional to social integration. For e.g unmarried are likely to have higher suicide rates than married because they are less integrated and responsibile than married persons.

    Durkheim was the first sociologist who tried to use empirical and scientific methods. He relied on data, statistics to arrive at the results there by giving true sense of the science to sociology. His principles apply over the whole society including its deviant aspects. His theory of anomie in Division of labour finds application in criminology precisely in study of juvenile groups. His theory of religion is still relevant as religions serves the function of solidarity.

  • @Shwe,

    Your answer looks fine. But you have not given fair justice to the second part of the question "influence of Durkheim on sociological tradition".
    Even I feel I have also not elaborated much as I am not getting anything here to write :(
    Others pls contribute so that we can get a good content for the second part of the question.
  • how far did his methodology influence sociological traditions?
    I think 4 dis answer...... v r suppose to write Durkheim's methodology ie rules of observation, rules of classification, rules of explanation of social fact nd rules of testing sociological explanation... I am not sure..
  • Yes that's what I was also thinking of but I never read Durkheim's 'Rules of Sociological Method'. Hope anyone here who has gone through this topic can enlighten us regarding the same.
  • Till we get the answer of our above question-

    Lets try answering following question-

    Why does the individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend more upon society? (Durkheim). How has the author tried to answer this question? UPSC -1991
  • My take on above ques-

    Durkheim's classical work on 'Divison of Labour' classified human societies into primitive society which is bound by mechanical solidarity and modern society which is bound by organic solidarity. As per him primitive society where individuals are closely knit have sense of likeness, brotherhood bound by strict social facts. As the division of labour was minimal so was the dependence on society. Every individual is working on activities in entirety. Hence he/she is not dependent on other individuals for performing his activity.

    In modern society there is an increased material and moral density. DOL is pronounced in such type of society. Individuals in modern society are bound by organic solidarity which is based on difference and complementarity of differences. Heterogeneity and differentiation are the characteristics of modern society. Individuals can gain specialisation in their fields as now the work is sub divided in components. Individualism and personal freedom becomes prominent as the social norms loosens grip in organic solidarity. Individuals become more autonomous. But there is a great deal of dependency on others as the work becomes more complex and stratified. Complementary and cooperation were the catch words of modern society. For e.g. in factory there is a great deal of difference in work, social status and income of a worker and manager. Yet manager is meaningless without the cooperation of workers and workers in turn need to be organised and managed by managers. Also if we take an example of a shirt making factory and assume that tasks are divided into cutting, stitching, finishing departments each doing their respective jobs, then an individual in a finishing of shirt tasks will depend on stitching department and the same will depend on cutting department. Each individual in such departments are autonomous and specialised yet there is a huge amount of cooperation and dependency on society.
  • @amn131,
    good answer with example...
    by cg d question I was thought in one side ie dol concept , v have to explain using solidarity topic.....I had doubt DAT organic solidarity is characterised by decline of collective conscience. the individual becomes increasingly more free of interdependence,,, so how it depends more on society in dis case.....
    by cg ur answer with example ......I understood clearly,,,,
    thank you....
  • Next question-

    What are the basic questions which inspired Durkheim to study the division of labour in society? Critically comment on his conclusions. (UPSC -1992)
  • Durkheim was trying to answer questions like,
    1. how an individual being more autonomous be more solidarity? ie dependent on society.
    2. what causes change in DOL?
    3. why industrial society is in a state of conflict and chaos even though, it has high DOL?
    4. how can this conflict be mitigated?

    His study on DOL is an attempt to find an answer to this question DOL is a process whereby complex task are split up into simpler task and assign to member of society,, classical economist argued that doing simpler task, always guarantees the efficiency,. but acc to Durkheim , the consequence of DOL therefore must be seen in those term which pertain to society as a whole rather than only in economic terms,.

    Every aspect of social type must get specialized simultaneously ex: specialisation of skills tech, educatn,family....
    so, the fundamental question shld be what consequence does increase in DOL does have on solidarity. but herbert marcuse says that high Dol leads to deskilling of work which is stupefying as it destroys innovation.

    He tried to answer questions by constructing a typology which is logically constructed and not empirically . like logically there are two types of society and hence 2 diff types of DOL ie simple societies - low DOL and modern soceities - high DOL..
    change from simple society to complex soceity in DOL when there is a increase in material volume ie population size, it gives rise to increase in material density ie cities along with these develop transport and communication. there would be increased moral density ie increased frequency of social interaction.thus theses segments are performed.
    which led to a new branch ie social Demography, tries to understand the relation bw population dimension and social organisation and nature of social relation.

    Acc to him organic solidarity is more solidarity than mechanical solidarity coz organic s has inbuilt solidarity.
    however the above mentioned discussion refers to what organic s ought to be,..it doesn't describe the actual situation in modern industrial society.

    His study of DOL is a speculative study. no research was carried out, but despite all this, it has remained as a landmark study that has influenced the development of future course of sociology,.,
  • Durkheim lived in age in which Europe was experiencing 'Industrial Revolution'. Industrial revolution was characterised by shift in technique of production, large scale mass production in factories. Social stability and order was under threat. Durkheim's basic theme was social order and integration. He wanders what about basic question like What holds the society together? What keeps it integrated?

    His predecessors like August Comte said that social and moral consensus holds society together while Herbert Spencer thought that it was mutual selfish interest of individuals that holds society together. Durkheim observes that if social and moral consensus holds society together then why society is moving to industrial revolution which is flourishing. He also thinks otherwise with Herbert Spencer that if individual selfish interest were motive to bind society then conflict and tension will arise and society will soon crumble. So is individualism the enemy of social integration and solidarity? These were the basic questions/concerns which led him to formulate concept of division of labour in society.

    Durkheim distinguishes society primarily into primitive and modern society. Social integration and solidarity differ in both type of societies. Primitive society is bound by mechanical solidarity which is the feeling of likeness, brotherhood. People are restricted by social facts and any violation may amount to punishment. DOL is minimal here. Modern society is characterised by high division of labour which is marked by increased moral and material density. As the work become stratified individual can now gain specialisation in their field and now they feel personal freedom. Individualism is prominent in society marked by high DOL. Individual now feel less constraint by social facts but they themselves are now more dependent on society as every task is stratified and needs cooperation to complete the same. DOL is nothing but itself is promoting social integration and solidarity.

    Durkheim now thought that if modern society which is characterised by DOL promoting solidarity and integrity ideally should not have conflicts and tension and the society should not be crumbling. This led him go a step further to view the anomaly in DOL. He views following ill effects of DOL-
    1. Anomie - This happens when there is a normlessness in society. Material density increased exponentially leaving behind moral density.
    2. Dehumanising - This phase appears in individuals when they see no meaning in the type of work they are doing. It is possible that and individual may be involved in very small task of a big production firm. He may feel his work as worthless and feel alienated.
    3. Inequality - DOL based on inequality of classes loosed social integration and solidarity. Indian caste system is direct example of this as the division of work is determined by caste which is set by birth viz Kshatriya, Brahman, vaishya and shudras. This leads to tension, frustration and conflict in society.

    Durkheim provided an excellent analysis of division of labour. He feels that DOL is necessary evil which is required to keep pace with modern society characterised by high pace developments. He sees deviation of DOL as normal types which need to be worked by out social acts, motivation, participation etc.
  • Pls review my answer and post your feedback
  • @amnn131 hey guys no internet here from last week will post my answers once i get internet.... and also with amn131 q's.
  • Guys, Can you please suggest me which is a better source for Societal problem in India (for GS-1). I know 2- 1) IGNOU-ESO16 2) Ram Auja's book.
  • @Aspirant22,
    You can go through - IGNOU MPS 003 India democracy and Development besides ESO16. I think IGNOUS is enough for GS1 socio stuff. However if you want to study more then you can go with Ram Ahuja's book
  • @Amn131, Thanks buddy.. I have started with NCERT- XIIth class for Silent feature of Indian Society...I will then move to IGNOU for problems.. I Will come to you guys whenever some conceptual clarity is needed... Thanks in advance !! :)
  • Guys,

    Shall we move on to other thinkers like Karl Marx or we want to discuss more about Durkheim?