Breaking down the question
The question has a definitional opening and a critical core. First, define social mobility clearly. Then examine the familiar textbook contrast between "closed" systems (typified by caste) and "open" systems (typified by class), and — crucially — question how neat that binary really is.
The command word is "critically examine", so a mere description of the two ideal types is insufficient. The marks lie in showing that the dichotomy is a spectrum rather than a switch, and that real societies mix elements of both. The social mobility concept, drawn from Sorokin, anchors the discussion.
At 10 marks, be economical: a tight definition, a clear statement of the two models, and a focused critique.
How to approach it
Open with a crisp definition of social mobility and its main types, crediting Sorokin who introduced the concept systematically. Then set out the closed and open models as ideal types, using caste and class as the standard illustrations.
Devote the heart of the answer to the critique: no system is purely closed or purely open, mobility exists within supposedly closed systems, and inherited advantage limits mobility within supposedly open ones. Use Indian evidence to make the point vivid.
Close with a balanced verdict that treats the classification as a useful heuristic rather than a description of reality.
Model answer
Social mobility refers to the movement of individuals or groups from one position in the social hierarchy to another. The concept was systematised by Pitirim Sorokin, whose work "Social Mobility" distinguished its principal forms. Vertical mobility involves movement up or down the hierarchy — a rise or fall in status, wealth or power — while horizontal mobility involves movement between positions of roughly equal rank. Mobility may be intragenerational, occurring within a person's own lifetime, or intergenerational, measured across parents and children. Structural mobility, by contrast, results from changes in the economy or society at large, such as industrialisation expanding white-collar jobs, rather than from individual effort.
Sociologists conventionally classify stratification systems along a continuum between two ideal types. A closed system fixes status by ascription: position is inherited at birth and movement between strata is minimal or forbidden. The Indian caste system is the classic example, with its hereditary membership, ritual ranking and restrictions on inter-dining and marriage. An open system, by contrast, allocates status largely by achievement, permitting individuals to rise or fall according to talent, effort and opportunity. The industrial class system is its standard illustration, where education and occupation can, in principle, override birth.
A critical examination shows this binary to be an oversimplification. No stratification system is perfectly closed or perfectly open; every real society lies somewhere between the poles.
Even the supposedly closed caste system permits mobility. Srinivas's concept of Sanskritisation describes how lower castes have historically raised their collective status by adopting the customs, rituals and lifestyle of higher castes. Group mobility, positional change over generations, and the effects of modern education, reservation and urban anonymity all show that caste has never been wholly frozen. The system constrains mobility severely, but does not abolish it.
Conversely, the open class system is far less open than its self-image suggests. Inherited wealth, cultural capital, network advantages and unequal schooling reproduce class positions across generations, so that the child of privilege rises easily while the talented poor face structural barriers. Studies of intergenerational mobility in industrial societies reveal considerable stickiness at the top and bottom. The promise of pure achievement is thus partly ideological.
Two further points deepen the critique. The dichotomy tends to conflate distinct dimensions — economic, ritual and political ranking may be open on one axis and closed on another. And real societies are hybrids: contemporary India combines caste ascription with class achievement, so that the same person may experience mobility on one dimension and rigidity on another.
The classification of closed and open models therefore retains value as a heuristic, capturing a genuine difference in how far status is ascribed or achieved. But it is best understood as marking the ends of a continuum, not two separate boxes. All actual systems display some mobility and some closure; the analytical task is to measure where a given society sits and along which dimensions.
Examiner's perspective
For a 10-mark answer, examiners expect the definitional part to be quick and accurate — Sorokin, and the vertical, horizontal, intra- and intergenerational distinctions — so that time is freed for the critical core. Answers that merely describe caste as closed and class as open without questioning the binary stay in the average band.
The mark is won by candidates who treat the classification as a continuum and support the critique with concrete evidence: Sanskritisation as mobility within a "closed" system, and inherited advantage as closure within an "open" one. Indian illustrations are especially valued in the optional. A balanced verdict — the typology is useful but oversimplified — signals the critical maturity the command word demands.