IGNOU MSO 001 FREE Solved Assignment 2022-23 PDF 

IGNOU MSO 001 FREE Solved Assignment 2022-23 PDF  : MSO 001 Solved Assignment 2022 , MSO 001 Solved Assignment 2022-23, MSO 001 Assignment 2022-23, MSO 001 Assignment, IGNOU Assignments 2022-23- Gandhi National Open University had recently uploaded the assignments of the present session for MEG Programme for the year 2022-23. Students are recommended to download their Assignments from this webpage itself.


1. Explain the relationship between theory and paradigm. 

Ans. The theory explains the phenomenon based on certain criteria while the paradigm provides the background or the frame that allows a theory to be tested and measured. A paradigm can have a number of theories within its framework and the paradigm acts as a reference point for the theory.  These two concepts operate with each other but have their differences. Paradigms and theories are the backbone of science and the discussion points of great masterminds like Einstein and Newton.  However, these high and lofty disciplines of science can also be applied to everyday life and help with understanding of the meaning of our environment.

The Historian of Science, Thomas Kuhn, gave a basic definition to the meaning of paradigm.  He said ‘a paradigm is used to describe a set of concepts within a scientific discipline at any one time.’  It is a science philosophy, a set of concepts or thought patterns including theories, research and standards to contribute to a field of science or philosophy.  Paradigms are usually behind theories and allow the scientist to look at the situation and investigate the theory from every angle.  The paradigm provides the model or the pattern for the community that is investigating its theories.  It shows what is to be observed, how the observation should be conducted and begins the primary theory.  The paradigm helps show how experiments should be conducted and what equipment is best to use in that situation. It also acts as guidance to the interpretation of results.

Thomas Kuhn added to his ‘Structure of Scientific Revolution’ the idea that science goes through periods of so called ‘normal science’ when existing paradigms and models dominate the scientific world.  Then revolution comes along and reality, the existing paradigm, undergoes change.  When a perception changes a paradigm shift occurs and the normal image can ‘flip’ from one state of reality to another. New paradigms become dramatic in their content when they occur in sciences that appear stable and defined. At the end of the nineteenth century it was claimed that there was nothing new in science and that scientists should just keep on measuring and updating data.  Then Albert Einstein published his paper on ‘Special Relativity’ and challenged the rules published by Newtonian Mechanics. Scientists had to make a paradigm shift.

In this situation there is a refusal to see past a model of thinking that exists and the new model or paradigm is not accepted.  A prime example of this is the rejection of Galileo’s theory of a heliocentric Solar System.  The heliocentric solar system is the theory that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun.   This paradigm of our current solar system was vastly different in the days of the early explorers.

A paradigm is really more than a theory and several theories can be attached to one paradigm. The etymology of paradigm describes the word as Greek in origin and means, example or sample.  A paradigm is not rigid or mechanical in its approach but has a measure of flexibility.  The word paradigm has several synonyms and these help to understand the work and its usage.

Paradigm synonyms are criterion, exemplar, model, pattern and prototype to name a few.

The only noted antonym is anthisis.  This helps to makes it clear and shows that a paradigm is cooperative in its meaning with a number of synomns and virtually no antonyms.  It is visionary concept and creates a model or pattern to work from.  In the modern parts of speech context, paradigms offer descriptions of how we are in context with others. It helps with understanding how  we fit into the paradigm of our society for instance.

2. Compare and contrast the functional approaches of Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski.

Ans. There are many anthropological theories within the national traditions of Great Britain and USA. The British School mainly emphasized on the issues of society, social institutions and relationships. While the American tradition focused on culture, cultural beliefs, practices and ideologies. The French tradition explored the intricacies of human mind and its functioning following a universal principle.

The anthropological theories we are going to discuss here are:

  • Evolutionism
  • Diffusionism
  • Historical
  • Particularism Functionalism
  • Structure-Functionalism
  • Structuralism
  • New-ethnography
  • Post-structuralism
  • Post modernism

functionalism which has been considered one of the prominent schools of thoughts in order to understand various aspects of culture and society. Functionalism arose as a reaction to evolutionism and diffusionism in early twentieth century. Functionalism looks for the function or part that is played by several aspects of culture in order to maintain a social system. It is a framework that considers society as a system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach of theoretical orientation looks at both social structure and social function. It describes the inter-relationship between several parts of any society. These parts or the constituent elements of a society could be named as norms, traditions, customs, institutions like economy, kinship, religion etc. These parts are interrelated and interdependent. Functionalism was mainly led by Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe Brown. Both were purely functionalists but their approach slightly differed as Malinowski is known as functionalist but Radcliffe-Brown is mainly known as Structural Functionalist. Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs (reproduction, food, shelter) and these needs are fulfilled by the social institutions. He talked about four basic “instrumental needs” (economics, social control, education, and political organization), that require institutional devices to get fulfilled. While Radcliffe-Brown focused on social structure rather than biological needs. He considered society as a system. He looked at institutions as orderly sets of relationships whose function is to maintain the society as a system. Radcliffe-Brown was inspired by August Comte who was also a functionalist.

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942): He was one of the founding fathers of British social anthropology. He did his honours in subjects like mathematics, physics and philosophy and in 1910 he enrolled in the London School of Economics to study anthropology. With Radcliffe- Brown, Malinowski pushed for a paradigm shift in British Anthropology that brought a change from the historical to the present study of social institutions. This theoretical shift gave rise to functionalism and established fieldwork as the constitutive experience of social anthropology. Malinowski’s functionalism was greatly influential in the 1920s and 1930s. As applied methodology, this approach worked, except for situations of social or cultural change. However, Malinowski made his greatest contribution as an ethnographer. He also considered the importance of studying social behaviour and social relations in their concrete cultural contexts through participant-observation. He considered it essential to consider the observable differences between what people say they do and what they actually do. His detailed descriptions of Trobriand social life and thoughts are among the well known ethnographies of world and his Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) is one of the most widely read works of anthropology. He was one of the leading Functionalists of 20th century.

Malinowski’s Functionalism Malinowski was an anthropologist from Poland and is one of the most famous anthropologists of 20th century. Malinowski at times is also known as father of Ethnography due to his extensive fieldwork in Trobriand Islands. He was strongly functionalist. This can be understood in following two ways:

  • He believed that all customs and institutions in a society are integrated and interrelated so that, if one changes the other would change as well. Each then is a function of the other.

For example: Ethnography could begin from anywhere in a society but eventually get at the rest of the culture. A study of Trobriand fishing could lead to the ethnographer to study the entire economic system say role of magic, religion, myths, trade and kinship etc as all these institutions are interconnected. A change in any of the part of society would ultimate affect the other. So in order to do a holistic study the ethnographer might have to consider other parts of the whole also.

  • The second strand of Malinowski‟s Functionalism is known as „needs‟ functionalism‟. Malinowski (1944) believed that human beings have a set of universal biological needs and various customs and institutions are developed to fulfil those needs. The function of any practice was the role it played in satisfying these biological needs such as need of food, shelter etc.

Malinowski looked at culture, need of people and thought that the role of culture is to satisfy needs of people. Malinowski identified seven biological needs of individuals. Due to the emphasis on biological needs in Malinowski‟s approach,his functionalism is also known as Bio-cultural Functionalism.

3. Explain the concept of liberty in the writings of Isaiah Berlin.

Ans. Isaiah Berlin (1909–97) was a naturalised British philosopher, historian of ideas, political theorist, educator, public intellectual and moralist, and essayist. He was renowned for his conversational brilliance, his defence of liberalism and pluralism, his opposition to political extremism and intellectual fanaticism, and his accessible, coruscating writings on people and ideas. His essay Two Concepts of Liberty (1958) contributed to a revival of interest in political theory in the English-speaking world, and remains one of the most influential and widely discussed texts in that field: admirers and critics agree that Berlin’s distinction between positive and negative liberty remains, for better or worse, a basic starting point for discussions of the meaning and value of political freedom. Later in his life, the greater availability of his numerous essays began to provoke increasing interest in his work, particularly in the idea of value pluralism; that Berlin’s articulation of value pluralism contains many ambiguities and even obscurities has only encouraged further work on this rich and important topic by other philosophers.

Berlin’s best-known contribution to political theory is his essay on the distinction between positive and negative liberty. This distinction is explained, and the vast literature on it summarised, elsewhere in this encyclopedia; the following therefore focuses only on Berlin’s original argument, which has often been misunderstood, in part because of his own ambiguities. It should be stressed that the essay in question is principally concerned with political liberty, not with what, late in life, he dubbed ‘basic liberty’, which is freedom of choice (or free will), without which any other kinds of liberty would be impossible: indeed, ‘which men cannot be without and remain men’.

In Two Concepts of Liberty Berlin sought to explain the difference between two (out of more than two hundred, he said) different ways of thinking about political liberty. These, he said, had run through modern thought, and were central to the ideological struggles of his day. Berlin called these two conceptions of liberty negative and positive. Berlin’s treatment of these concepts was less than fully even-handed from the start: while he defined negative liberty fairly clearly and simply, he gave positive liberty two different basic definitions, from which still more distinct conceptions would branch out. Negative liberty Berlin initially defined as freedom from, that is, the absence of constraints on the agent imposed by other people. Positive liberty he defined both as freedom to, that is, the ability (not just the opportunity) to pursue and achieve willed goals; and also as autonomy or self-rule, as opposed to dependence on others. These are not the same.

Berlin’s account was further complicated by combining conceptual analysis with history. He associated negative liberty with the liberal tradition as it had emerged and developed in Britain and France from the seventeenth century to the early nineteenth. He later regretted that he had not made more of the evils that negative liberty had been used to justify, such as exploitation under laissez-faire capitalism; in Two Concepts, however, negative liberty is portrayed favourably, and briefly. It is on positive liberty that Berlin focused, since it was, he claimed, both a more ambiguous concept, and one which had been subject to greater and more sinister transformation, and ultimately perversion.

Berlin traced positive liberty back to theories that focus on the autonomy, or capacity for self-rule, of the agent. Of these, he found Rousseau’s theory of liberty particularly dangerous. For, in Berlin’s account, Rousseau had equated freedom with self-rule, and self-rule with obedience to the so-called ‘general will’. By this, Berlin alleged, Rousseau meant, essentially, the common or public interest – that is, what was best for all citizens qua citizens. The general will was quite independent of, and would often be at odds with, the particular wills of individuals, who, Rousseau charged, were often deluded as to their own genuine interests.

This view clashed with Berlin’s political and moral outlook in two ways. First, it posited the existence of a unique, ‘true’ public interest, a single set of arrangements that was best for all citizens, and was thus opposed to the main thrust of pluralism. Second, it rested on a bogus transformation of the concept of the self. In his doctrine of the general will Rousseau moved from the conventional and, Berlin insisted, correct view of the self as individual to the self as citizen – which for Rousseau meant the individual as member of a larger community, an individual whose identity and well-being were exactly the same as those of the larger community. Rousseau transformed the concept of the self’s will from what the empirical individual actually desires to what the individual as citizen ought to desire, that is, what is in individuals’ real best interest, whether they realise it or not.

For Berlin, this transformation became more sinister still in the hands of Kant’s German disciples. Kant himself had identified ‘positive’ freedom with autonomy, or self-determination, by the rational personality – the self freed from all that renders it ‘heteronymous’ and irrational. Later German philosophers influenced by Kant went further in identifying the ‘self’ whose self-determination constitutes freedom with entities other than the individual. Freedom becomes a matter of overcoming the poor, flawed, false, empirical self – what one appears to be and want – in order to realise one’s ‘true’, ‘real’, ‘noumenal’ self. This ‘true’ self may be identified with one’s best or true interests, either as an individual or as a member of a larger group or institution.

In Berlin’s account, the main connection between pluralism and liberalism is the centrality of choice to both. His argument goes as follows. The conflicts between values and ways of life that are the subject matter of pluralism require people to make choices. These choices are of the utmost importance, because they involve the most basic and essential questions of human life – what one is to be and do. Those who have to make such choices are therefore likely to care about them, and to want to be the ones to make them. Furthermore, the freedom and ability to make one’s own choices between conflicting values and possible lives is the crux of one’s identity as a moral agent. (This step of the argument, it should be noticed, does not strictly follow from pluralism itself; but it is an assumption central to Berlin’s moral individualism, which Berlin imports into his pluralism.

Why might one deny individuals the opportunity to make choices for themselves? One possible answer (though not the only one) is that individuals may make the wrong choices, so that it is necessary to coerce or manipulate them into choosing correctly. But pluralism holds that, where there are conflicts between genuine values, there may be no single right choice – more than one choice may equally serve genuine human values and interests, even if they also involve the sacrifice or violation of other values or interests that are neither more nor less true and important. Similarly, there is no single ideal life, no single model of how to think or behave or be, to which people should attempt, or be brought, to conform. There are indeed chooseable options that are beyond the pale from any humane viewpoint, because they conflict with the ‘core’ of universally shared moral principles, and these may reasonably be blocked off. But the limits of humanity should not be confused with the limits of a particular perspective as against other reasonable possibilities that satisfy the joint conditions of lying within the ‘human horizon’ and not offending against the moral core.

Pluralism, then, for Berlin, both undermines one of the main rationales for violating freedom of choice, and corroborates the importance and value of being able to make choices freely. Some interpreters have argued that the high value that Berlin accords to the freedom to choose, while it rests in part on his pluralism, also requires the addition of moral principles, ideals and assumptions external to pluralism (though this need not, contra John Gray, mean that pluralism is incompatible with, or necessary undermines, liberalism). Others (such as George Crowder) have argued that Berlin’s liberalism can be deduced from his pluralism alone, though more recently Crowder has modified his view, now holding that pluralism justifies liberalism only under the historical conditions of modernity.

At the same time, while pluralism is a key ingredient in Berlin’s argument for the importance of liberty, it also modifies and moderates his liberalism, and prevents Berlin from being (as many proponents of negative liberty in the twentieth century and after have been) a dogmatic, unqualified classical liberal or libertarian. Negative and positive liberty are both genuine values which must be balanced against each other; and political liberty of any sort is one value among many, with which it may conflict, and against which it needs to be weighed. Berlin was more sensitive than many classical liberal or libertarian thinkers to the fact that genuine liberty may conflict with genuine equality, or justice, or public order, or security, or efficiency, or happiness, and therefore must be balanced against, and sometimes sacrificed in favour of, other values. Berlin’s liberalism includes both a conservative or pragmatic appreciation of the importance of maintaining a balance between different values, and a social-democratic appreciation of the need to restrict liberty in some cases so as to promote equality and justice, and to protect the weak against victimisation by the strong. Nevertheless Berlin remains a liberal in maintaining that the preservation of a certain minimum of individual liberty is a political priority.



4. Examine the relationship between identity and identification.

Ans. Identification

Identification asks the question: “Who are you?” When a new user completes the registration process, they are identifying themselves for you. Some companies limit their identity management process to just identification, taking the information users provide at face value. This can be very risky.

Without additional steps to ensure the user is who they claim to be, companies often have no way of knowing whether the person is using their real identity or a fraudster is using a fake name or stolen identity. For example, bad actors can easily create social media accounts with fake names and personas for a variety of nefarious purposes, including human trafficking.

Identity Verification

Verification moves from “Who are you?” to “Prove it.” To verify the person is using their real name, address, phone number and so on, enterprises ask for verification. Verification can be in the form of a driver’s license or government issued ID card, or biometric data, such as fingerprints or verified photos to be used for facial recognition.

Verification is typically used once, during the registration process. Identity verification can be integrated directly into mobile apps to help ensure customers are who they claim to be.

If a verification process isn’t in place, fraudsters with stolen identities or credentials can  successfully use them. At the beginning of the pandemic, organized crime rings used stolen identities to file fraudulent unemployment claims and collect millions of dollars in benefits. Once the scope of the fraud was uncovered, states started using identity proofing services that compared selfies to official photo documentation to ensure applicants were legitimate. Because fraudsters couldn’t provide the required selfies, they were stopped from committing additional fraud. Unfortunately, real applicants who didn’t have devices capable of taking selfies were kept from collecting legitimate benefits.

Authentication is also used to prove users are who they claim to be. Authentication typically occurs every time a user signs on, and can also be implemented when a user attempts a high-value transaction or tries to access sensitive data from a high-risk location, like an airport.

Types of authentication fall into three main categories, also known as authentication factors:

Knowledge – Something you know. Information or secrets unique to you, including passwords, PINs and answers to security questions.

Possession – Something you have. Possessions include smartphones, cards, key fobs and physical tokens that can either generate or receive one-time passwords or codes.

Biometrics – Something you are: These are unique physical traits, confirmed through fingerprint scans, voice recognition, facial recognition and other scanning techniques that require some type of device.

Two-factor authentication (2FA) and multi-factor authentication (MFA) require users to provide proof from more than one category, which stops bad actors with compromised passwords or other credentials from accessing accounts.

Identification is the first step in the process, where a user provides information about themselves when setting up an account. While a legitimate user will provide accurate information, a fraudster can provide false or stolen information.

Verification forces the user to prove the information they provided is true. Because stolen identities can be used to set up accounts, this step stops fraudsters unable to provide the required proof of identity from creating fake accounts. Users may be asked to provide a fingerprint, facial scan, copy of a driver’s license or other form of verification.

Authentication also requires users to prove their identities and can occur every time a user logs on. Methods used for verification are also used for authentication, including fingerprint scans and facial recognition. Risk-based, adaptive authentication incorporates contextual data into the decision-making process, stepping up the need for additional proofs based on whether the user is logging on at an unusual time, location or other factor.

5. What is sovereignty? Discuss the difference between internal and external sovereignty.

Ans. Sovereignty, in political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty—one of the most controversial ideas in political science and international law—is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government and of independence and democracy. Derived from the Latin superanus through the French souveraineté, the term was originally understood to mean the equivalent of supreme power.

Internal sovereignty means supreme authority within one’s territory, while external sovereignty relates to the recognition on the part of all states that each possesses this power in equal measure.) As Europe colonized much of the rest of the world from the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries, the state system spread around the globe. Through this time, sovereign authority was clearly not extended to non-Europeans. However, the process of drawing boundaries to clearly demarcate borders would be critical for defining sovereign states during decolonization.

The second, current, movement appears to be the gradual circumscription of the sovereign state, which began roughly after World War II and continues to the present. Much of international law, at least until WWII, was designed to reinforce sovereignty. However, driven by the horrors of the Nazi genocide and the lessons of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, the society of states forged a series of agreements under the auspices of the United Nations that committed states to protect the human rights of their own citizens, a restriction on authority whiting the state. The post-war period also saw the growth of intergovernmental organizations to help govern interstate relations in areas ranging from trade and monetary policy to security and a host of other issue areas. At the same time, much of the non-Western world gained their independence in the decades after World War II, setting up a scenario in which many of the new states were not fully sovereign. Granting former colonies independence and recognizing them as sovereign states, they joined intergovernmental organizations and were ostensibly the equals of European states. At the same time, there was a general lack of capacity to govern the state, combined with arbitrarily drawn borders, that left different groups leery at best in providing a government with supreme authority. Today, sovereignty is essentially based on borders, not any capacity on the part of governments. This was adopted because it was the only means for so many colonies to become independent quickly. Now, sovereignty also entitles developing states to development assistance.

Although many see threats to state sovereignty from a wide variety of sources, many of these can be grouped in three broad areas: the rise of human rights, economic globalization, and the growth of supranational institutions, the latter being partially driven by economic integration and the cause of human rights.

The emergence of human rights as a subject of concern in international law effects sovereignty because these agreed upon principles place clear limits on the authority of governments to act within their borders. The growth of multinational corporations and the free flow of capital have placed constraints on states’ ability to direct economic development and fashion social and economic policy. Finally, both to facilitate and to limit the more troubling effects of these developments, along with a range of other purposes, supranational organizations have emerged as a significant source of authority that, at least to some degree, place limits on state sovereignty. It is too early to tell for certain, but recent US action in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest that sovereignty will be further constrained in the fight against transnational terrorism.

IGNOU MSO 001 FREE Solved Assignment 2022-23 PDF get here all ignou solved assignment 2022-23 , ignou guess paper , ignou help books and ignou exam related material. We help students to get their assignment done with our handwritten services, you can access our all material and services through WhatsApp also , 8130208920

Leave a Comment