DUET Last 10 Years 2011-2021 Question Papers With Answer Key || Delhi University Entrance Test conducted by the NTA
| Sr.No | Question Body | Id | Question Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In the fall of 2011, global media were characterized by strikingly similar images of the repression of urban citizen movements throughout the world. Similar military tactics to dislodge protesters from Tahrir Square in Egypt and Occupy encampments in the L among other examples, raising the question of whether security forces in these differ do indeed collaborate, and to what extent. In his latest work, Cities Under Siege, Ste Graham-co-author of the classic Splintering Urbanism -provides a probing insight i interrogative. The multi-thematic, 400-page-plus book revolves around one main arg experiments in urban warfare in cities of the global south have led to the increasing militarization of North American and European cities, in a classic example of Foucault boomerang effect.' Drawing on historical examples of the transfer of models of urbar and surveillance from the space of the colony to that of the metropole (see Ross 1996 Graham understands a similar transfer of techniques to be occurring in the present. E juxtaposing the proliferation of security within cities of the Global North, the 'urbicide Palestinian and Iraqi cities, the militaristic undertones of U.S. car culture, and the wo proliferation of U.S. military bases, he aims to show "...how resurgent imperialism an geographies characteristic of the contemporary era umbilically connect cities within metropolitan cores and colonial peripheries." (p. xxvii). The result of this process he c new military urbanism."...The first three chapters touch on the broad themes of the militarization of cities of the global south and parts of cities of the global north, and t ideological binaries (Manichean geographies) that legitimize this militarization. Graha discusses the multiple ways in which the 'new military urbanism' is manifested, incluc multiplication and militarization of borders, an increased collaboration between police military, a creep in function between neoliberal and security infrastructure, and a ten conflate internal urban minorities with external enemies. On this basis, the book then into a series of thematic chapters dealing with the proliferation of borders and surveil within urban settings, ranging from the increased technologization and depersonaliza war, to 'urbicide' and targeting of urban infrastructure in military operations. Graham the role of the U.S., from the simultaneous proliferation of urban military bases abroa domestic urban training centers to the spread of large militaristic SUVs in U.S. cities. closes with a focus on urban counter-geographies. [Source: Illaria Giglioli, book revie Stephen Graham's Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, in Berkeley Planni Journal, 2012, 25 (1): 235-239.] The author of the above passage is: | 24104 | DU_J19 MPHIL_SO CIO_Q01 |
| 2 | In the fall of 2011, global media were characterized by strikingly similar images of the repression of urban citizen movements throughout the world. Similar military tactics to dislodge protesters from Tahrir Square in Egypt and Occupy encampments in the among other examples, raising the question of whether security forces in these differ do indeed collaborate, and to what extent. In his latest work, Cities Under Siege, Ste Graham—co-author of the classic Splintering Urbanism —provides a probing insight i interrogative. The multi-thematic, 400-page-plus book revolves around one main arg experiments in urban warfare in cities of the global south have led to the increasing militarization of North American and European cities, in a classic example of Foucault ‘boomerang effect.’ Drawing on historical examples of the transfer of models of urba and surveillance from the space of the colony to that of the metropole (see Ross 199 Graham understands a similar transfer of techniques to be occurring in the present. juxtaposing the proliferation of security within cities of the Global North, the ‘urbicide Palestinian and Iraqi cities, the militaristic undertones of U.S. car culture, and the wo proliferation of U.S. military bases, he aims to show “...how resurgent imperialism an geographies characteristic of the contemporary era umbilically connect cities within metropolitan cores and colonial peripheries.” (p. xxvii). The result of this process he new military urbanism.” . . .The first three chapters touch on the broad themes of th militarization of cities of the global south and parts of cities of the global north, and t ideological binaries (Manichean geographies) that legitimize this militarization. Graha discusses the multiple ways in which the ‘new military urbanism’ is manifested, inclu multiplication and militarization of borders, an increased collaboration between polic military, a creep in function between neoliberal and security infrastructure, and a ten conflate internal urban minorities with external enemies. On this basis, the book the into a series of thematic chapters dealing with the proliferation of borders and surveil within urban settings, ranging from the increased technologization and depersonaliza war, to ‘urbicide’ and targeting of urban infrastructure in military operations. Graham the role of the U.S., from the simultaneous proliferation of urban military bases abro domestic urban training centers to the spread of large militaristic SUVs in U.S. cities. closes with a focus on urban counter-geographies. [Source: Illaria Giglioli, book revie Stephen Graham’s Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism , in Berkeley Planni Journal, 2012, 25 (1): 235 -239.] Based on the above passage, what does the book review focus on? | 24105 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q02 |
| 3 | In the fall of 2011, global media were characterized by strikingly similar images of the repression of urban citizen movements throughout the world. Similar military tactics to dislodge protesters from Tahrir Square in Egypt and Occupy encampments in the L among other examples, raising the question of whether security forces in these differ do indeed collaborate, and to what extent. In his latest work, Cities Under Siege, Ste Graham-co-author of the classic Splintering Urbanism -provides a probing insight i interrogative. The multi-thematic, 400-page-plus book revolves around one main arg experiments in urban warfare in cities of the global south have led to the increasing militarization of North American and European cities, in a classic example of Foucault boomerang effect.' Drawing on historical examples of the transfer of models of urbar and surveillance from the space of the colony to that of the metropole (see Ross 1996 Graham understands a similar transfer of techniques to be occurring in the present. E juxtaposing the proliferation of security within cities of the Global North, the 'urbicide Palestinian and Iraqi cities, the militaristic undertones of U.S. car culture, and the wo proliferation of U.S. military bases, he aims to show "...how resurgent imperialism an geographies characteristic of the contemporary era umbilically connect cities within metropolitan cores and colonial peripheries." (p. xxvii). The result of this process he c new military urbanism."...The first three chapters touch on the broad themes of the militarization of cities of the global south and parts of cities of the global north, and t ideological binaries (Manichean geographies) that legitimize this militarization. Graha discusses the multiple ways in which the 'new military urbanism' is manifested, incluc multiplication and militarization of borders, an increased collaboration between police military, a creep in function between neoliberal and security infrastructure, and a ten conflate internal urban minorities with external enemies. On this basis, the book then into a series of thematic chapters dealing with the proliferation of borders and surveil within urban settings, ranging from the increased technologization and depersonaliza war, to 'urbicide' and targeting of urban infrastructure in military operations. Graham the role of the U.S., from the simultaneous proliferation of urban military bases abroa domestic urban training centers to the spread of large militaristic SUVs in U.S. cities. closes with a focus on urban counter-geographies. [Source: Illaria Giglioli, book revie Stephen Graham's Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, in Berkeley Planni Journal, 2012, 25 (1): 235-239.] Based on the above passage, which of the following statements is incorrect. | 24106 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q03 |
| 4 | In the fall of 2011, global media were characterized by strikingly similar images of the repression of urban citizen movements throughout the world. Similar military tactics to dislodge protesters from Tahrir Square in Egypt and Occupy encampments in the L among other examples, raising the question of whether security forces in these differ do indeed collaborate, and to what extent. In his latest work, Cities Under Siege, Ste Graham-co-author of the classic Splintering Urbanism -provides a probing insight i interrogative. The multi-thematic, 400-page-plus book revolves around one main arg experiments in urban warfare in cities of the global south have led to the increasing militarization of North American and European cities, in a classic example of Foucault boomerang effect.' Drawing on historical examples of the transfer of models of urbar and surveillance from the space of the colony to that of the metropole (see Ross 1996 Graham understands a similar transfer of techniques to be occurring in the present. E juxtaposing the proliferation of security within cities of the Global North, the 'urbicide Palestinian and Iraqi cities, the militaristic undertones of U.S. car culture, and the wo proliferation of U.S. military bases, he aims to show "...how resurgent imperialism an geographies characteristic of the contemporary era umbilically connect cities within metropolitan cores and colonial peripheries." (p. xxvii). The result of this process he c new military urbanism."...The first three chapters touch on the broad themes of the militarization of cities of the global south and parts of cities of the global north, and t ideological binaries (Manichean geographies) that legitimize this militarization. Graha discusses the multiple ways in which the 'new military urbanism' is manifested, incluc multiplication and militarization of borders, an increased collaboration between police military, a creep in function between neoliberal and security infrastructure, and a ten conflate internal urban minorities with external enemies. On this basis, the book then into a series of thematic chapters dealing with the proliferation of borders and surveil within urban settings, ranging from the increased technologization and depersonaliza war, to 'urbicide' and targeting of urban infrastructure in military operations. Graham the role of the U.S., from the simultaneous proliferation of urban military bases abroa domestic urban training centers to the spread of large militaristic SUVs in U.S. cities. closes with a focus on urban counter-geographies. [Source: Illaria Giglioli, book revie Stephen Graham's Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, in Berkeley Planni Journal, 2012, 25 (1): 235-239.] Based on the above passage, what is a characterist military urbanisms"? | 24107 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q04 |
| 5 | In the fall of 2011, global media were characterized by strikingly similar images of the repression of urban citizen movements throughout the world. Similar military tactics to dislodge protesters from Tahrir Square in Egypt and Occupy encampments in the L among other examples, raising the question of whether security forces in these differ do indeed collaborate, and to what extent. In his latest work, Cities Under Siege, Ste Graham-co-author of the classic Splintering Urbanism -provides a probing insight i interrogative. The multi-thematic, 400-page-plus book revolves around one main arg experiments in urban warfare in cities of the global south have led to the increasing militarization of North American and European cities, in a classic example of Foucault boomerang effect.' Drawing on historical examples of the transfer of models of urbar and surveillance from the space of the colony to that of the metropole (see Ross 1996 Graham understands a similar transfer of techniques to be occurring in the present. E juxtaposing the proliferation of security within cities of the Global North, the 'urbicide Palestinian and Iraqi cities, the militaristic undertones of U.S. car culture, and the wo proliferation of U.S. military bases, he aims to show "...how resurgent imperialism an geographies characteristic of the contemporary era umbilically connect cities within metropolitan cores and colonial peripheries." (p. xxvii). The result of this process he c new military urbanism."...The first three chapters touch on the broad themes of the militarization of cities of the global south and parts of cities of the global north, and t ideological binaries (Manichean geographies) that legitimize this militarization. Graha discusses the multiple ways in which the 'new military urbanism' is manifested, incluc multiplication and militarization of borders, an increased collaboration between police military, a creep in function between neoliberal and security infrastructure, and a ten conflate internal urban minorities with external enemies. On this basis, the book then into a series of thematic chapters dealing with the proliferation of borders and surveil within urban settings, ranging from the increased technologization and depersonaliza war, to 'urbicide' and targeting of urban infrastructure in military operations. Graham the role of the U.S., from the simultaneous proliferation of urban military bases abroa domestic urban training centers to the spread of large militaristic SUVs in U.S. cities. closes with a focus on urban counter-geographies. [Source: Illaria Giglioli, book revie Stephen Graham's Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism, in Berkeley Planni Journal, 2012, 25 (1): 235-239.] Who does the author attribute the "boomerang effe | 24108 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q05 |
| 6 | Despite the abundance of material, there have been few systematic works on compar political systems of primitive societies. In the available literature, two main approach discerned. The first, best exemplified by African Political Systems (Fortes and Evans 1940), is to differentiate between the "stateless," so-called segmentary societies and societies with centralized governmental and political organizations. Aidan W. Southall famous monograph Alur Society not only quoted Durkheim's definition of "segmentar but also developed his own conception of "segmentary structure" and "segmentary system". The second approach to the study of comparative primitive political instituti exemplified in the works of Colson (1954), Gluckman (1954a) and Peristiany (1954); a somewhat different point of view, Hoebel (1954). While most of these works deal w one tribe or society, they provide, either explicitly or by implication, possible compara applications. Their main concern has been to show that in all primitive societies ran small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms such as those of Zulu, Swazi, and D there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the resolves conflicts arising among its component groups. In the words of Gluckman (19 the most important among these mechanisms are "the inherent tendencies of groups segment and then to become bound together by cross-cutting alliances." The general assumption is that most of these mechanisms are in one way or another common to a primitive societies-whether "segmentary," centralized or some other. This approach p problem of the conditions under which various regulatory mechanisms operate, either any specialized roles and organizations, or through specialized roles and organization are devoted mainly to the performance of regulatory tasks. Also implicit in some of th studies is the question of which area of life (economic, ritual, and so forth) makes suc regulation most important and necessary. Hoebel's work on primitive law touches on these problems, mainly from the standpoint of the development of legal institutions. summarized above have laid the foundations for the comparative study of primitive p institutions, but they are inadequate in several ways. First, there has been little comp work using the criteria of comparison offered; second, some of these criteria have no sufficiently systematic, as shown by Smith (1956); third, there has been too great an on the groups which perform governmental functions rather than on the functions the and an inadequate differentiation between various types of governmental functions; a there have been few attempts to relate the organization of various political functions aspects of the social organization. [Source: S. N. Eisenstadt, "Primitive Political Syster Preliminary Comparative Analysis", in American Anthropologist, 1959, 61(2):200-220 are the different types of political systems found in Africa? | 24110 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q06 |
| 7 | Despite the abundance of material, there have been few systematic works on compar political systems of primitive societies. In the available literature, two main approach discerned. The first, best exemplified by African Political Systems (Fortes and Evans 1940), is to differentiate between the "stateless," so-called segmentary societies and societies with centralized governmental and political organizations. Aidan W. Southall famous monograph Alur Society not only quoted Durkheim's definition of "segmentar but also developed his own conception of "segmentary structure" and "segmentary system". The second approach to the study of comparative primitive political instituti exemplified in the works of Colson (1954), Gluckman (1954a) and Peristiany (1954); a somewhat different point of view, Hoebel (1954). While most of these works deal w one tribe or society, they provide, either explicitly or by implication, possible compara applications. Their main concern has been to show that in all primitive societies ran small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms such as those of Zulu, Swazi, and D there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the resolves conflicts arising among its component groups. In the words of Gluckman (19 the most important among these mechanisms are "the inherent tendencies of groups segment and then to become bound together by cross-cutting alliances." The general assumption is that most of these mechanisms are in one way or another common to a primitive societies-whether "segmentary," centralized or some other. This approach p problem of the conditions under which various regulatory mechanisms operate, either any specialized roles and organizations, or through specialized roles and organization are devoted mainly to the performance of regulatory tasks. Also implicit in some of th studies is the question of which area of life (economic, ritual, and so forth) makes suc regulation most important and necessary. Hoebel's work on primitive law touches on these problems, mainly from the standpoint of the development of legal institutions. summarized above have laid the foundations for the comparative study of primitive p institutions, but they are inadequate in several ways. First, there has been little comp work using the criteria of comparison offered; second, some of these criteria have no sufficiently systematic, as shown by Smith (1956); third, there has been too great an on the groups which perform governmental functions rather than on the functions the and an inadequate differentiation between various types of governmental functions; a there have been few attempts to relate the organization of various political functions aspects of the social organization. [Source: S. N. Eisenstadt, "Primitive Political Syster Preliminary Comparative Analysis", in American Anthropologist, 1959, 61(2):200-220 acknowledges Durkheim's work on segmentary political system? | 24111 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q07 |
| 8 | Despite the abundance of material, there have been few systematic works on compar political systems of primitive societies. In the available literature, two main approach discerned. The first, best exemplified by African Political Systems (Fortes and Evans 1940), is to differentiate between the "stateless," so-called segmentary societies and societies with centralized governmental and political organizations. Aidan W. Southall famous monograph Alur Society not only quoted Durkheim's definition of "segmentar but also developed his own conception of "segmentary structure" and "segmentary system". The second approach to the study of comparative primitive political instituti exemplified in the works of Colson (1954), Gluckman (1954a) and Peristiany (1954); a somewhat different point of view, Hoebel (1954). While most of these works deal w one tribe or society, they provide, either explicitly or by implication, possible compara applications. Their main concern has been to show that in all primitive societies ran small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms such as those of Zulu, Swazi, and D there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the resolves conflicts arising among its component groups. In the words of Gluckman (19 the most important among these mechanisms are "the inherent tendencies of groups segment and then to become bound together by cross-cutting alliances." The general assumption is that most of these mechanisms are in one way or another common to a primitive societies-whether "segmentary," centralized or some other. This approach p problem of the conditions under which various regulatory mechanisms operate, either any specialized roles and organizations, or through specialized roles and organization are devoted mainly to the performance of regulatory tasks. Also implicit in some of th studies is the question of which area of life (economic, ritual, and so forth) makes suc regulation most important and necessary. Hoebel's work on primitive law touches on these problems, mainly from the standpoint of the development of legal institutions. summarized above have laid the foundations for the comparative study of primitive p institutions, but they are inadequate in several ways. First, there has been little comp work using the criteria of comparison offered; second, some of these criteria have no sufficiently systematic, as shown by Smith (1956); third, there has been too great an on the groups which perform governmental functions rather than on the functions the and an inadequate differentiation between various types of governmental functions; a there have been few attempts to relate the organization of various political functions aspects of the social organization. [Source: S. N. Eisenstadt, “Primitive Political Syste | 24112 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q08 |
| 9 | Despite the abundance of material, there have been few systematic works on compar political systems of primitive societies. In the available literature, two main approach discerned. The first, best exemplified by African Political Systems (Fortes and Evans 1940), is to differentiate between the "stateless," so-called segmentary societies and societies with centralized governmental and political organizations. Aidan W. Southall famous monograph Alur Society not only quoted Durkheim's definition of "segmentar but also developed his own conception of "segmentary structure" and "segmentary system". The second approach to the study of comparative primitive political instituti exemplified in the works of Colson (1954), Gluckman (1954a) and Peristiany (1954); a somewhat different point of view, Hoebel (1954). While most of these works deal w one tribe or society, they provide, either explicitly or by implication, possible compara applications. Their main concern has been to show that in all primitive societies ran small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms such as those of Zulu, Swazi, and D there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the resolves conflicts arising among its component groups. In the words of Gluckman (19 the most important among these mechanisms are "the inherent tendencies of groups segment and then to become bound together by cross-cutting alliances." The general assumption is that most of these mechanisms are in one way or another common to a primitive societies-whether "segmentary," centralized or some other. This approach p problem of the conditions under which various regulatory mechanisms operate, either any specialized roles and organizations, or through specialized roles and organization are devoted mainly to the performance of regulatory tasks. Also implicit in some of th studies is the question of which area of life (economic, ritual, and so forth) makes suc regulation most important and necessary. Hoebel's work on primitive law touches on these problems, mainly from the standpoint of the development of legal institutions. summarized above have laid the foundations for the comparative study of primitive p institutions, but they are inadequate in several ways. First, there has been little comp work using the criteria of comparison offered; second, some of these criteria have no sufficiently systematic, as shown by Smith (1956); third, there has been too great an on the groups which perform governmental functions rather than on the functions the and an inadequate differentiation between various types of governmental functions; a there have been few attempts to relate the organization of various political functions aspects of the social organization. [Source: S. N. Eisenstadt, “Primitive Political Syste | 24113 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q09 |
| 10 | Despite the abundance of material, there have been few systematic works on compar political systems of primitive societies. In the available literature, two main approach discerned. The first, best exemplified by African Political Systems (Fortes and Evans 1940), is to differentiate between the "stateless," so-called segmentary societies and societies with centralized governmental and political organizations. Aidan W. Southall famous monograph Alur Society not only quoted Durkheim's definition of "segmentar but also developed his own conception of "segmentary structure" and "segmentary system". The second approach to the study of comparative primitive political instituti exemplified in the works of Colson (1954), Gluckman (1954a) and Peristiany (1954); a somewhat different point of view, Hoebel (1954). While most of these works deal w one tribe or society, they provide, either explicitly or by implication, possible compara applications. Their main concern has been to show that in all primitive societies ran small bands of hunters or fishermen to kingdoms such as those of Zulu, Swazi, and D there exists some basic mechanism of social control which regulates the affairs of the resolves conflicts arising among its component groups. In the words of Gluckman (19 the most important among these mechanisms are "the inherent tendencies of groups segment and then to become bound together by cross-cutting alliances." The general assumption is that most of these mechanisms are in one way or another common to a primitive societies-whether "segmentary," centralized or some other. This approach p problem of the conditions under which various regulatory mechanisms operate, either any specialized roles and organizations, or through specialized roles and organization are devoted mainly to the performance of regulatory tasks. Also implicit in some of th studies is the question of which area of life (economic, ritual, and so forth) makes suc regulation most important and necessary. Hoebel's work on primitive law touches on these problems, mainly from the standpoint of the development of legal institutions. summarized above have laid the foundations for the comparative study of primitive p institutions, but they are inadequate in several ways. First, there has been little comp work using the criteria of comparison offered; second, some of these criteria have no sufficiently systematic, as shown by Smith (1956); third, there has been too great an on the groups which perform governmental functions rather than on the functions the and an inadequate differentiation between various types of governmental functions; a there have been few attempts to relate the organization of various political functions aspects of the social organization. [Source: S. N. Eisenstadt, “Primitive Political Syste | 24114 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q10 |
| 11 | These nuclear households remain firmly invested in matrilineal ideology. Although sta to prop up men as breadwinners and heads of households are well known to rural Minangkabau, husbands do not assert claims to their wives' land nor to land that is re through joint effort. Nor do they articulate a right to the new houses that they help b their earned income. People in the village maintain that a new house belongs to the v daughter, whether or not a husband/father's income helped to build it. In addition, a right to her husband's income but the husband does not have the same right in his w income. In sum, women claim rights both to jointly built houses and to land that was with husband's help. Some of these new houses may even become matrihouses in the a married daughter stays at home to raise her family. These claims to houses and lar reinstantiate matrilineality by incorporating new small houses and new resources into matrilineage. Although in a few individual cases a husband provides the majority of h income, the control he thereby gains operates within a matrilineal ideology that empo women to appropriate land and resources to their matriline. Even if a father passes o purchased to a daughter, this inheritance practice does not instantiate patrilineality b daughter keeps such land for her matriline. State efforts to establish husbands in the of household heads conveniently ignore local relations without subverting women's co houses and land. Matrilineal ideology provides the foundation for household relations use this ideology to configure new houses to their advantage. [Source: Evelyn Blackw 1999. Big Houses and Small Houses: Doing Matriliny in West Sumatra, Ethnos 64(1): married daughter may stay in her mother's house: | 24116 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q11 |
| 12 | These nuclear households remain firmly invested in matrilineal ideology. Although sta to prop up men as breadwinners and heads of households are well known to rural Minangkabau, husbands do not assert claims to their wives' land nor to land that is re through joint effort. Nor do they articulate a right to the new houses that they help b their earned income. People in the village maintain that a new house belongs to the v daughter, whether or not a husband/father's income helped to build it. In addition, a right to her husband's income but the husband does not have the same right in his w income. In sum, women claim rights both to jointly built houses and to land that was with husband's help. Some of these new houses may even become matrihouses in the a married daughter stays at home to raise her family. These claims to houses and lar reinstantiate matrilineality by incorporating new small houses and new resources into matrilineage. Although in a few individual cases a husband provides the majority of h income, the control he thereby gains operates within a matrilineal ideology that empo women to appropriate land and resources to their matriline. Even if a father passes o purchased to a daughter, this inheritance practice does not instantiate patrilineality b daughter keeps such land for her matriline. State efforts to establish husbands in the of household heads conveniently ignore local relations without subverting women's co houses and land. Matrilineal ideology provides the foundation for household relations use this ideology to configure new houses to their advantage. [Source: Evelyn Blackw 1999. Big Houses and Small Houses: Doing Matriliny in West Sumatra, Ethnos 64(1): 56.] The creation of nuclear households among the Minangkabau: | 24117 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q12 |
| 13 | These nuclear households remain firmly invested in matrilineal ideology. Although sta to prop up men as breadwinners and heads of households are well known to rural Minangkabau, husbands do not assert claims to their wives' land nor to land that is re through joint effort. Nor do they articulate a right to the new houses that they help b their earned income. People in the village maintain that a new house belongs to the v daughter, whether or not a husband/father's income helped to build it. In addition, a right to her husband's income but the husband does not have the same right in his w income. In sum, women claim rights both to jointly built houses and to land that was with husband's help. Some of these new houses may even become matrihouses in the a married daughter stays at home to raise her family. These claims to houses and lar reinstantiate matrilineality by incorporating new small houses and new resources into matrilineage. Although in a few individual cases a husband provides the majority of h income, the control he thereby gains operates within a matrilineal ideology that empo women to appropriate land and resources to their matriline. Even if a father passes o purchased to a daughter, this inheritance practice does not instantiate patrilineality b daughter keeps such land for her matriline. State efforts to establish husbands in the of household heads conveniently ignore local relations without subverting women's co houses and land. Matrilineal ideology provides the foundation for household relations use this ideology to configure new houses to their advantage. [Source: Evelyn Blackw 1999. Big Houses and Small Houses: Doing Matriliny in West Sumatra, Ethnos 64(1): 56.] New houses that men may help build: | 24118 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q13 |
| 14 | These nuclear households remain firmly invested in matrilineal ideology. Although sta to prop up men as breadwinners and heads of households are well known to rural Minangkabau, husbands do Minangkabau, husbands do not assert claims to their wives' land nor to land that is re through joint effort. Nor do they articulate a right to the new houses that they help b their earned income. People in the village maintain that a new house belongs to the v daughter, whether or not a husband/father's income helped to build it. In addition, a right to her husband's income but the husband does not have the same right in his w income. In sum, women claim rights both to jointly built houses and to land that was with husband's help. Some of these new houses may even become matrihouses in the a married daughter stays at home to raise her family. These claims to houses and lar reinstantiate matrilineality by incorporating new small houses and new resources into matrilineage. Although in a few individual cases a husband provides the majority of h income, the control he thereby gains operates within a matrilineal ideology that empo women to appropriate land and resources to their matriline. Even if a father passes o purchased to a daughter, this inheritance practice does not instantiate patrilineality b daughter keeps such land for her matriline. State efforts to establish husbands in the of household heads conveniently ignore local relations without subverting women's co houses and land. Matrilineal ideology provides the foundation for household relations use this ideology to configure new houses to their advantage. [Source: Evelyn Blackw 1999. Big Houses and Small Houses: Doing Matriliny in West Sumatra, Ethnos 64(1): 56.] Women claiming rights to both jointly built houses and land gained with their hu help indicates: | 24119 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q14 |
| 15 | These nuclear households remain firmly invested in matrilineal ideology. Although sta to prop up men as breadwinners and heads of households are well known to rural Minangkabau, husbands do not assert claims to their wives' land nor to land that is re through joint effort. Nor do they articulate a right to the new houses that they help b their earned income. People in the village maintain that a new house belongs to the v daughter, whether or not a husband/father's income helped to build it. In addition, a right to her husband's income but the husband does not have the same right in his w income. In sum, women claim rights both to jointly built houses and to land that was with husband's help. Some of these new houses may even become matrihouses in the a married daughter stays at home to raise her family. These claims to houses and lar reinstantiate matrilineality by incorporating new small houses and new resources into matrilineage. Although in a few individual cases a husband provides the majority of h income, the control he thereby gains operates within a matrilineal ideology that empo women to appropriate land and resources to their matriline. Even if a father passes o purchased to a | 24120 | DU_J19_ MPHIL_SO CIO_Q15 |
--- Content provided by FirstRanker.com ---
This download link is referred from the post: DUET Last 10 Years 2011-2021 Question Papers With Answer Key || Delhi University Entrance Test conducted by the NTA