Breaking down the question
The command word is analyse, and the object is the relevance of Parsons's pattern variables specifically for the study of social change. So the answer must do two things: explain what pattern variables are, and then assess how far they illuminate — and where they fall short in explaining — the transition from traditional to modern society.
Pattern variables are dilemmas of orientation that every actor must resolve before acting. Parsons offered them as a way of characterising whole social systems: traditional societies cluster on one pole, modern societies on the other. Their relevance to social change lies in their capacity to describe the direction of modernisation as a shift across these five polarities.
How to approach it
List the five pattern variables clearly, each as a paired choice: affectivity versus affective neutrality; particularism versus universalism; ascription versus achievement; diffuseness versus specificity; and collectivity-orientation versus self-orientation. Show that the first term of each pair typifies traditional society and the second modern society.
Then analyse the relevance: pattern variables give social change a measurable direction and a comparative vocabulary, informing modernisation theory. Balance this with the standard critiques — the dichotomy is too neat, change is not unilinear, and the scheme underplays conflict. Draw on Parsons on the social system and pattern variables.
Model answer
Talcott Parsons devised the pattern variables as a set of five dichotomous choices that confront every actor and characterise every role relationship. Before acting, an actor must resolve each dilemma of orientation, and the pattern of choices that prevails in a society reveals its structural type. The five pairs are: affectivity versus affective neutrality — whether a relationship permits emotional gratification or demands restraint; particularism versus universalism — whether others are judged by their particular relation to us or by general standards; ascription versus achievement — whether status is given by birth or earned by performance; diffuseness versus specificity — whether a relationship is broad and open-ended or narrow and defined; and collectivity-orientation versus self-orientation — whether the collective interest or private interest guides conduct.
Their relevance to social change lies in the observation that the first term of each pair typifies traditional society while the second typifies modern society. In a village kinship order, relationships are affective, particularistic, ascriptive, diffuse and collectivity-oriented. In an industrial-bureaucratic order, they become affectively neutral, universalistic, achievement-based, specific and self-oriented — think of the impersonal, rule-bound relation between an official and a citizen. Modernisation, on this view, is a systematic shift across all five polarities. The scheme thus supplies a precise vocabulary for describing the direction of change and for comparing societies at different stages, and it fed directly into modernisation theory, including studies of developing societies.
Yet the analysis must be critical. The tradition-modernity dichotomy is too rigid: real societies mix the poles rather than sitting cleanly on one side, and India's persistence of caste alongside meritocratic institutions shows both patterns coexisting. The scheme implies a unilinear movement from tradition to modernity, neglecting the possibility of reversal, uneven change, or alternative modernities. Being rooted in structural functionalism, it emphasises consensus and equilibrium and underplays conflict, power and the role of colonialism or capitalism in driving change. Critics also find it abstract and static — better at classifying states than at explaining the mechanisms and causes of transition.
On balance, pattern variables remain relevant but limited. They offer a valuable analytical map of the qualitative differences between traditional and modern social relations and a comparative language for tracking modernisation. But as an explanation of social change they are incomplete, describing the endpoints of transition more convincingly than its dynamics. Used descriptively, and supplemented by theories of conflict and political economy, they retain real utility.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner expects all five pattern variables, correctly paired and correctly assigned to the traditional or modern pole — an incomplete or garbled list is the commonest way scripts lose marks here. Getting universalism versus particularism and achievement versus ascription right, with a concrete illustration, signals genuine command.
Because the command word is analyse, description alone caps the mark. The higher bands require a balanced verdict: pattern variables usefully map the direction of modernisation but, as functionalist constructs, they are too dichotomous, too unilinear and too consensus-focused to explain change fully. An Indian example of coexisting patterns, and a closing judgement of qualified relevance, lift the answer.