Breaking down the question
This note asks you to distinguish two levels at which social change operates — change in position within a system versus change in the system itself. The distinction is central to debates on mobility in Indian society.
How to approach it
Define positional change as movement of groups within an unchanged framework, and structural change as transformation of the framework itself. Illustrate each from the Indian context and contrast their depth.
Model answer
Positional change refers to the movement of individuals or groups up or down within a social structure whose basic framework remains intact. The rules of the game do not alter; only the ranking of the players does. M. N. Srinivas's concept of Sanskritisation is the classic instance: a lower caste raises its standing by adopting the rituals, diet and customs of a higher caste, yet the hierarchical caste order itself survives unchanged. The system absorbs the mobility without being transformed.
Structural change, by contrast, refers to a transformation of the framework itself — of the very principles, institutions and relations that constitute the social order. Here the rules of the game alter. Westernisation, industrialisation, the growth of a market economy and constitutional democracy have introduced new bases of status such as class, occupation and education, weakening the ritual foundation of caste. When the hierarchy ceases to rest on purity and pollution and gives way to new organising principles, the change is structural.
Yogendra Singh used this distinction to argue that Indian modernisation combines much positional adjustment with slower, uneven structural transformation. The two often occur together, positional shifts sometimes preparing the ground for deeper structural change.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner expects the framework-within versus framework-itself contrast to be stated sharply, anchored by Sanskritisation for positional and Westernisation or industrialisation for structural change. Naming Srinivas and Singh signals theoretical grounding within the four-mark limit.