Breaking down the question
The question has two commands. Define social movement asks for a precise conceptual statement — a movement is more than a crowd or a riot, and the definition must capture its distinguishing features. Elucidate the role of reformist movements in social change then narrows to one type, the reformist, and asks how it works upon society.
The pivot is the contrast, usually left implicit, between reformist movements — which seek limited, partial change within the existing order — and revolutionary movements, which seek to overturn that order altogether. To elucidate the reformist role is to show that gradual, institutional change is a genuine and consequential mode of transformation, not a mere half-measure.
At 10 marks the answer should offer a tight definition with its elements, a clear placement of the reformist type, and a focused account of its role illustrated by concrete movements.
How to approach it
Open with a working definition of social movement — organised, sustained, collective action by a group with shared ideology, aiming to promote or resist change — noting its key components. Then classify movements by their goal, drawing the reformist–revolutionary distinction and locating the reformist type as one seeking partial change within the system.
Devote the core to the reformist role: how such movements alter law, custom, and institutions; raise consciousness; and channel discontent into orderly reform. Illustrate with the nineteenth-century Indian social reform movements against sati, for widow remarriage, and against untouchability. The protest movements and revolution note situates the reformist type within the broader family. Close by assessing both the achievements and the limits of reformism as an agent of change.
Model answer
A social movement may be defined as a sustained and organised collective effort by a group of people, united by a shared ideology or set of grievances, to promote or resist change in society. Four features distinguish it from transient or individual action: collective action rather than isolated behaviour; a degree of organisation and continuity over time, separating it from a momentary crowd or riot; an ideology or set of goals that gives it direction and legitimacy; and an orientation towards change — whether bringing it about or opposing it. M. S. A. Rao, in his study of Indian movements, stressed precisely this element of oriented collective mobilisation carrying an ideology of change.
Movements are commonly classified by the scope of the change they seek. Revolutionary movements aim to overthrow the existing social order and replace it with a new one, often by radical or violent means. Reformist movements, by contrast, accept the basic framework of society and seek to modify particular institutions, laws, or customs within it — partial, gradual change rather than wholesale transformation. Herbert Blumer's typology of general and specific movements, and the reform–revolution distinction it informs, situates the reformist movement as the characteristic agent of piecemeal, institutional change.
The role of reformist movements in social change can be elucidated through several functions. First, they achieve legal and institutional reform: by mobilising opinion and pressing the state, they secure changes in law that reshape social practice. The nineteenth-century Indian social reform movements are the classic illustration — the campaign led by Raja Rammohun Roy contributing to the abolition of sati in 1829, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar's efforts securing the Widow Remarriage Act of 1856, and later movements against untouchability feeding into constitutional abolition. Second, they perform a consciousness-raising function, challenging entrenched custom and superstition and reshaping public attitudes so that reforms, once won, take root in belief and not only in statute. Third, they channel discontent into orderly, constructive avenues, offering an alternative to both passive resignation and violent upheaval, and so contributing to change without rupturing the social fabric. Fourth, by winning limited gains they can build capacity and legitimacy for further change, so that a series of reforms cumulates over time into substantial transformation.
Reformist movements are therefore genuine engines of social change, but their role has limits that a balanced answer must note. Because they work within the existing order, they may secure surface reforms while leaving deeper structures of power and inequality intact; critics on the radical side argue that gradualism can defuse pressure for the fundamental change that revolutionary movements demand. Yet the historical record shows that reformist mobilisation has abolished cruel customs, extended rights, and modernised social institutions with a durability that abrupt upheavals often lack. The reformist movement thus occupies an indispensable place in the repertoire of social change: it transforms society not by destroying it but by reforming it from within.
Examiner's perspective
At 10 marks, examiners expect the definition to be quick and complete — collective, organised, ideologically oriented action for or against change — before the answer turns to the reformist type. Scripts that define the term loosely, or conflate a movement with a riot or a pressure group, lose the opening marks.
The elucidation is where the answer is won. Examiners reward the explicit reformist–revolutionary contrast and a functional account of the reformist role — legal reform, consciousness-raising, the channelling of discontent — grounded in concrete Indian illustrations such as sati abolition, widow remarriage, and anti-untouchability campaigns. A closing note on the strengths and limits of gradual reform signals the critical balance that distinguishes a strong response.