Modernity and postmodernity T&M

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Most students answered all questions on the paper showing that the allocated time was appropriate, where timing was an issue it had an impact on the final question. This was also the question which saw the weakest answers amongst students. This may have been because theory is often addressed later in the academic year, which unfortunately coincided with national lockdown. This question proved the most challenging on the paper. Many students were unable to develop ideas beyond the item. Students had little knowledge of postmodern ideas and were not able to add depth to their points. Many were unable to name postmodern thinkers and there was little development of the discussion of late modernity. Where students were able to evaluate, they relied on the theories named in the item, students were not able to develop these ideas to meet the demands of the question and evaluative statements often bordered juxtaposition. If students did run out of time, there was often an impact on this question. This could be addressed by schools and colleges by timing practice in assessments.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• top band debates postmodernism against late modernity, Marxism, functionalism and feminism
• hardest question on the paper: many could not go beyond the item, name postmodern thinkers or develop late modernity, and evaluation bordered on juxtaposition

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

In general, answers here were of a reasonable standard but there was wide variation. The weakest answers were usually simply limited developments of information in the Item, or in some cases mere paraphrasing of its content. Weaker answers generally took a topic-based approach, describing inequalities in particular institutions in contemporary society, such as education or the criminal justice system. Many of these answers gave accounts of reasons for class differences in educational achievement but were unable to apply relevant Marxist ideas such as the correspondence principle, reproduction or legitimation, focusing instead on labelling, speech codes and the like. By contrast, the best answers had a solid and extensive knowledge of general Marxist concepts and were able to examine Marxism's contribution to our understanding of today's society via discussion of specifically Marxist approaches to particular topic areas. Evaluation tended to take two paths: firstly, criticism of Marxism from other perspectives, usually functionalist, feminist and/or postmodernist; and secondly, the view that Marxism is outdated - for example because there is now more mobility or equality, or a more complex class structure than when Marx wrote, or because the predicted revolution and/or classless society has failed to materialise. Some answers that took the first path became side-tracked into lengthy accounts of other perspectives, losing sight of the need to bring them into debate with Marxism. Some answers offered a positive evaluation, drawing on empirical evidence to argue that Marxism remains relevant to contemporary society. Other answers showed analysis and evaluation by considering the relative merits of different Marxist approaches, such as those of Althusser and Gramsci.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• AO grid not printed
• must evaluate Marxism's contribution to understanding today's society
• topic-based accounts of inequality without Marxist concepts (e.g. class and achievement via labelling) score low
• long accounts of other perspectives must be brought into debate with Marxism
• top band: debate with functionalism, feminism, postmodernism and/or humanistic vs structuralist Marxism (Gramsci vs Althusser)
• item hook 'outdated' invites points on mobility, complex class structure, failed revolution
• AO split from AQA's standard grid for this paper (this year's mark scheme does not print it).

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Most students managed their time appropriately however a small minority left some questions unanswered. This mainly occurred for Question 06, often resulting from students giving a very broad answer for Question 04. There was a wide range of responses to this question, ranging from the non-response to a sustained examination of two problems of using the functionalist perspective to study today’s society. Many students performed less well on this question than on the rest of the paper. In addition to the issue of timing, this appeared to be due to some students lacking confidence in answering a theoretical question. Whilst the majority of students were able to offer two factors (common responses being ‘outdated, ‘rose tinted’, deterministic or not explaining conflict) few were able to develop these ideas with depth of understanding and analysis. Often good examples of specific functionalist ideas were used and critiqued by Marxism, feminisms or post-modernist perspectives. The best answers showed a clear knowledge of functionalism and why their identified issue is problematic along with sophisticated analysis and application of examples such as fragmentation, diversity and inequalities in society and changing roles and family structures. A small number of students understood the question to be more about the methods used by functionalists, equating functionalism with Positivism. Whereas this was an acceptable approach, it was then difficult for students to develop their response in any depth. Centres are reminded that there are no marks for evaluation for this question. A small number of students had specific evaluative statements regarding the strengths of the functionalist perspective ‘tagged on’ to the end of responses that were not awardable.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• no marks for evaluation in this question type (tagged-on strengths of functionalism not credited)
• drift into how functionalists explain a phenomenon such as crime = 1–3
• common problems: outdated, conservative bias, ignores conflict, deterministic, no value consensus in postmodern society
• many lacked development
• equating functionalism with positivism accepted but hard to develop