FAMILY SYSTEM

Family: Concepts and Forms

• Family as a reproductive or biological unit consists of a man and a woman with a socially approved sexual relationship, and any offspring (natural or adopted) they might have.
• As a social unit, family is described as a group of persons of both sexes, related by marriage, blood, or adoption, performing roles based on age, sex, and relationship.
• Aileen Ross defines family as a group of people related by some kindred, who may live in one household, and whose unity resides in the patterning of rights and duties, sentiments, and authority.
• She distinguishes four sub-structures of family:
  • Ecological sub-structure: spatial arrangement of family members, i.e., household size and type.
  • Sub-structure of rights and duties: division of labor within the family.
  • Sub-structure of power and authority: control over members’ actions.
  • Sub-structure of sentiments: relationships between members, e.g., between husband and wife, parents and children, and siblings.
• K.P. Chattopadhyay defines three types of families:
  • Simple family: man, wife, and unmarried children.
  • Compound family: two simple families, e.g., ego’s family and ego’s parents.
  • Composite family: lineal and collateral joint families.
• Families can be classified based on authority:
  • Husband-dominant, wife-dominant, equalitarian, and autonomic families.
• Burgess and Locke classify families as institutional and companionship:
  • Institutional families: members controlled by mores and public opinion.
  • Companionship families: members’ behavior arises from mutual affection and consensus.
• Based on kinship ties, families are classified as conjugal (priority on marital ties) and consanguine (priority on blood ties).
• Zimmerman classifies families as:
  • Trustee family: members conform to family norms with no individual rights.
  • Atomistic family: conventional mores lose significance, and members make their own choices.
  • Domestic family: intermediate type between trustee and atomistic.
• The concept of fissioned family refers to a nuclear family separated from the parental family.

Joint Family: Nature, Types and Characteristics

• The concept of joint family varies across scholars. Some emphasize co-residentiality, while others focus on joint ownership of property and fulfillment of obligations.
• Irawatı Karve defines a joint family as a group living under one roof, eating from a common hearth, holding property in common, engaging in family worship, and being related by a particular type of kinship.
• According to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, joint property means that all living male and female members up to three generations have a share in paternal property.
• I.P. Desai emphasizes intra-family relationships over co-residence and common kitchen, defining a functional joint family as two families living separately but under one authority.
• Ramakrishna Mukherjee describes joint families as co-resident and commensal kin-groups with specific relationships like conjugal, parental-filial, inter-sibling, lineal, and affinal.
• K.M. Kapadia defines types of families: nuclear, nuclear with married sons, lineal joint, collateral joint, and nuclear family with dependants.
• Aileen Ross also defines four types of families: large joint, small joint, nuclear, and nuclear with dependants.
• A joint family is described as a multiplicity of genealogically related nuclear families, living together under one authority.
• M.S. Gore views joint families as families of co-parceners and their dependants, where filial and fraternal relationships are prioritized over conjugal relationships.
• Fissioned family refers to a nuclear family separated from the father’s or married brother’s family, either independently or dependent on another nuclear family.
• Characteristics of joint family:
  1. Authoritarian structure: Decision-making power rests with the head of the family (patriarch).
  2. Familistic organization: Individual interests are subordinated to the family’s interests.
  3. Status hierarchy: Status is determined by age and relationship, with higher status for older generations and men over women.
  4. Preference for filial and fraternal relationships: Husband-wife relationship is subordinated to father-son or brother-brother relationships.
  5. Joint responsibility: Family members share responsibilities, such as repaying loans for family matters.
  6. Equal attention for all members: Children from both rich and poor brothers are treated equally (e.g., in education).
  7. Seniority-based authority: Authority is based on seniority, limiting individualism and potential for power delegation.

Changing Pattern of Family

• Joint family structure in India is not disappearing, but the cutting off point of jointness is changing.
• Large joint families are transforming into locally functioning small joint families of two generations or so.
• A nuclear fissioned family (husband, wife, and unmarried children) will not be totally independent but will remain functionally dependent on some primary kin (e.g., father or brother).
• This trend is supported by empirical studies conducted by various scholars across the country.
• Changes in jointness can be analyzed at two levels: structural and interactional.

Structural Changes

Desai (1964) studied urban families in Mahuwa, Gujarat, and found that:

• Nuclearity is increasing, and jointness is decreasing.
• Half of the households are joint with others, but the radius of kinship is shrinking.
• Joint relations are primarily lineal (father-son-grandson) and collateral (siblings, uncles-nephews).

Kapadia (1956-1962) studied families in rural and urban Gujarat and concluded:

• Rural communities have an almost equal proportion of joint and nuclear families.
• Higher castes have predominantly joint families, while lower castes tend to have more nuclear families.
• In urban areas, there are more joint families than nuclear ones.
• Impact villages resemble rural patterns rather than urban ones.
• Joint family structure is not being nuclearised.

Ross (1961) studied Hindu families in Bangalore, finding:

• A trend towards breaking from traditional joint families into nuclear families.
• Small joint families are now typical.
• People are spending part of their lives in single-family units.
• Distant relatives are becoming less important, and sons are more spatially separated from relatives.

Shah studied families in a Gujarat village (1955-1958), finding:

• One-third of families were complex (two or more parental families), while two-thirds were simple.
• Indicating the breakdown of the joint family system in rural India.

Gore (1960) studied families in Delhi, rural areas, and fringe areas of Haryana, concluding:

• Families typically consisted of husband, wife, and unmarried children, and husband, wife, and married sons.

Sachchidananda (1977) studied families in Bihar, finding:

• One-fourth of families were nuclear, and three-fourths were joint.
• More nuclear families were found in upper castes than in lower or middle castes.
• Nuclearity rises with education.

Kolenda (1968) analyzed data from 26 studies (1950s-1970s), concluding:

• Majority of families are nuclear.
• There are regional differences in joint family proportions.
• Upper and landowning castes have more joint families than lower and landless ones.

Ram Ahuja studied families in Rajasthan (1976, 1988) and found:

• Nuclear families are increasing but do not indicate the end of joint families.

Ramakrishna Mukherjee studied families in West Bengal (1960-1961) and found:

• Family size is not an indicator of joint or nuclear structure.
• Joint families tend to shrink as the root couple ages and passes away.

Analysis of structural changes in family:

• The number of fissioned families is rising, but they still fulfill traditional obligations.
• Rural communities tend to have more joint families, while urbanization and industrialization increase nuclearity.
• The size of joint families is becoming smaller.
• As long as traditional cultural values persist, functional joint families will survive.
• The shift from traditional to transitional families includes trends like new-local residence, equality for women, and individual aspirations.

Values sustaining joint family:

• Filial devotion of sons.
• Lack of economic viability among brothers.
• Absence of a state-organized social security system for the elderly.
• Material incentive of family labour as the capital for production.

Factors breaking joint family:

• Differential earnings of brothers causing family tensions.
• Death of the root couple, leading to the breakdown of the parental couple role.
• The disappearance of family labour as cash economy rises.
• Emerging social security systems, savings, and earning opportunities leading to nuclearisation.

Interactional Changes

• Intra-family relations can be examined at three levels: husband-wife relations, parental-filial relations, and relations between daughter-in-law and parents-in-law.
• Studies by Goode (1963), Kapadia (1966), Gore (1968), and Murray Straus (1969) highlight the changes in husband-wife power dynamics:
  • Power allocation in decision-making has changed.
  • The emancipation of the wife is evident.
  • Closeness between husband and wife has increased.
• In traditional families, wives had no voice in decision-making. In contemporary families, wives are now involved in budgeting, disciplining children, purchasing goods, and giving gifts.
• Though husbands maintain an instrumental role and wives an expressive role, both often consult each other before making decisions.
• The shift from cultural power to resource-based power has occurred. The partner contributing more resources holds more power.
• Murray Straus’ (1975) study supports the resource theory, indicating that middle-class families have more joint decision-making and less husband dominance compared to working-class families.
• Resources are important in today’s conjugal bonds, but culture still plays a role in power dynamics, where women’s ideological power is being replaced by pragmatic power.
• The increasing emancipation of wives in urban areas shows their active participation in social activities with husbands. Wives are no longer seen as inferior or passive; they are consulted on important matters.
• Closeness between husbands and wives has increased, with educated husbands now being close to both their wives and mothers.
• In parent-child relations, authority has shifted from the patriarch to parents who now consult children on important matters.
• Grandparents’ authority has diminished, and children are more involved in decisions regarding education, occupation, and marriage.
• Children today enjoy more freedom and are more likely to oppose their parents. Legislative changes have also given children more rights.
• Parents no longer use physical punishment but prefer economic and psychological methods like denying money, scolding, and reasoning.
• Despite these changes, children still respect and fear their elders and care about the welfare of their parents and siblings.
• Relations between daughter-in-law and parents-in-law have changed, though not as significantly as between husband and wife or parents and children.
• Educated daughters-in-law no longer observe pardak from their father-in-law and openly discuss family and social issues with them.
• In conclusion:
  • The younger generation now claims more individuality.
  • Conjugal relationships are becoming more significant than consanguineous ones.
  • Along with cultural and ideological factors, resource-based power now affects intra-family relations.