Q.Competing interests do not always reflect clear class divide. Explain with suitable examples.

The passage situates workers' rights—the eight-hour day, equal pay, social security—within the framework of social movements, implicitly invoking the tradition of collective action that Karl Marx both analysed and championed. Marx's view of crowds and collective violence was fundamentally different from the dismissive attitudes of nineteenth-century elites, who saw urban mobs as irrational, destructive forces threatening civilised order.

Marx argued that what appeared to the propertied classes as mindless rioting was in fact purposeful protest grounded in material deprivation. The urban poor—factory workers, the unemployed, the dispossessed—were not anarchic hooligans bent on chaos for its own sake. They were people responding rationally to exploitation and hunger. When they took to the streets, smashed machinery, or stormed grain stores, they did so because the formal channels of power were closed to them. Public protest, even violent protest, became the only available language for expressing grievances that the state and employers refused to hear.

Crucially, Marx saw these crowds as possessing a shared understanding of justice. Their actions were not random. They targeted symbols of oppression—factories that ground them down, landlords who evicted them, merchants who hoarded food during famines. This collective sense of right and wrong, born from shared experience of exploitation, was precisely what gave working-class movements their coherence and revolutionary potential. Far from being a formless rabble, the crowd embodied an emerging class consciousness.

Now examine the options: …

The study of social movements is central to sociology because it reveals how ordinary people, acting together, can challenge and reshape the structures of power and authority in a society. Social movements are not random outbursts of anger; they are organised, sustained efforts by a group of people to bring about or resist social change. This is why sociologists pay close attention to them — they are a window into the tensions, inequalities, and conflicts that lie beneath the surface of everyday life.

Option (A) captures this idea most accurately. Social movements are indeed about protests — whether marches, strikes, boycotts, or other forms of collective action — and these protests are often perceived by elites (those who hold power, wealth, or status) as a major threat to the established order. Why? Because a social movement directly challenges the existing distribution of resources, rights, or recognition. Elites, who benefit from the current arrangement, naturally see such challenges as dangerous. For example, the Indian independence movement was seen by the British colonial administration as a grave threat to their rule. Similarly, the civil rights movement in the United States was viewed by many white segregationists as a threat to the social order they controlled. Sociology studies these movements precisely because they expose the fault lines in society and show how change happens from the bottom up.

Now, let us see why the other options are incorrect.

Option (B) says social movements were not seen as forces that led to disorder. This is the opposite of the truth. Elites and established institutions almost always view social movements as disorderly, disruptive, and threatening. Even peaceful movements like the Chipko Andolan or the anti-apartheid struggle were labelled as sources of disorder by those in power. So (B) is factually wrong. …

Ecological movements are a significant type of social movement that emerged in response to growing concerns about environmental degradation and the unsustainable use of natural resources. Drawing from Social Movement Theory, these movements are collective actions by groups of people who seek to bring about or resist social change related to environmental issues. Their core aim is to protect the natural environment, promote sustainable practices, and address the social and economic consequences of environmental damage.

Let us examine each characteristic presented:

• I. Identity politics: Many ecological movements are deeply intertwined with the identities of the communities involved. When a community's way of life, cultural practices, or very existence is threatened by environmental destruction (such as deforestation, dam construction, or pollution), their struggle for environmental protection becomes a struggle for their identity. Indigenous communities, for instance, often have a profound spiritual and cultural connection to their land and natural resources. Their fight to protect these resources is inherently a form of identity politics, as their identity is inseparable from their environment.

• II. Greater exploitation of natural resources: This is not a characteristic of ecological movements. In fact, ecological movements fundamentally oppose the greater exploitation of natural resources. Their primary goal is to advocate for conservation, sustainable management, and the reduction of resource depletion and environmental damage. They arise precisely because of concerns about excessive exploitation, not to promote it.

• III. Cultural anxieties: Environmental degradation often leads to significant cultural anxieties within affected communities. The loss of traditional livelihoods (like farming, fishing, or forest gathering), the destruction of sacred sites, or the disruption of age-old practices due to environmental changes can cause deep distress and a sense of cultural loss. For communities whose culture is intrinsically linked to their natural surroundings, environmental threats translate directly into threats to their cultural heritage and identity, leading to profound anxieties about their future. …