TNE FAMIL SsIEM THE FAMILY sYsIEM

lanilies re
borizonal).
hushand-dmunaNL hting
hasis of
ot authority, the
Me dovminant, classitiedcd as
and cqualtariun families, 7That dividualism. The atomistic lamily is one in which the conventional
mores lose their signiticance and cach member has to make his owr
On the famity where husband and wile make nost of(the deeisions
cqualitrian
which cqual choice. The authority of the family over its members is minimum
the onc in
ontlv is calkd
n c nfamily and partners is called numbcr of Zimmerman's contention is that American family has changed from
trustee to atomistic type. Is Indian family following the same pattern as
<parae devisions are assignad
to both
autonomic
classificd families as tnstitu
claimed hy Burgess and Zimmernan?
family
and Lxke (1963. 26) have the bchaviour o t . Traditional (Joint) Family in India
Burgcsscomnanonshp on the hasis ol The concept of 'jointness" in the term 'joint family' has varied with dit
hOnl and hehaviour of the memhers is
In the institulional family, the while in the ferent scholars. When some scholars (like Iravati Karve) regard 'co
divduals
trolled by morcs and
family,
public opinion,
hehaviour ariacs from
the mutual
alfection
has
and
family
companonship
leonsensus of its
changed from in-
residentiality` as important in jointness, others (B.S. Cohn, S.C. Dube,
Harold Gould, Pauline Kolenda, and Ramkrishna Mukherjee) regard
co-residentiality and commensality as essential ingredients of jointness,
bolds that American
memhers Burgessompanionship type. yet others (F.G, Bailey. T.N. Madan) give importance to joint owner
statutional type to kinship ties, the-families have becen classified ae ship of property or co-parcenary, irrespeclive of type of residence and
On the:hasis of the to m
comsanguine. ln the former, the priority isgiven commensality; and a few (like LP. Desai) give imporlance to fulfilment
coRjweal and is no
of obligations towards kin, even ie residence is separate and thcre
Lies and in the latter to hlood tics. The American independent Duc t
conjugal onc,while in contrasl, Iho common ownership of property. 'Fulfilment of obligations" refers to
family system is described as a
filial, (raternal and sibling rela: identilying oneselfas member ofa particular family, rendering financial
dian family systcm emphasizes on
over marital relations. In a conjugal system, a man may leave his narot and other kinds of help, and following joint amily norms.
consanguine system, the wile i According to Iravati Karve (1953: 21), the ancient family in India
andcleave into his wife", but in a rdinated to the continuity
be subordir (in the Vedic and Epic periods) was joint in terms of residence, property
outsiderwhose wishes and nceds must lamilies ar and functions. She terms this lanmily as traditionalfamily or jointfamily.
conjugal
and welfare of the joint/extended kin group. The death of the parents Kapadia (1966: 220), however, maintains that our carly family was not
Lransitory in character and disintegrate with the long time joint or patriarchal alone. Side by side with the patriarchallamilies, we
cotsanguinc families, on the other hand, continue for a veryany couple had individual families too.
because the cxistence of the family does not depend upon
are other kin But in spite of this trend towards individualism, the lamily was
Even if the father or mother die prematurely, there
role. After he d k of maintained as joint and agnatic. Karve has given five characteristics of
facets of the parental
absorb the several Iraditional (joint) family: common residence, common kitchen, com
grandparents, control of the lamily passes on to the next generation, mon properly, common familyworship, and some kinship relationship.
Zimmerman (1947: 120) has classificd families as trustee, domestic Thus, her criteria of jointness are: _ize, reidence, property, and income
and atomistic. However, he has stated that these are ideal family types On this basis, she defines joint family (1953: 10) as "a group of people
rather than empirical family types. The trustee family has the right and who generally live under one roof, who eat food cooked at one hearth.,
power to make the family members conform to its wishes as this family who hold property in common, who participate in commnon family wor
has no concept of individual rights. The authority of the family head is ship, and who are related to each other as some particular type of
not absolute but it is delegated to him in his role as trustee for carrying kindred". The word 'common' or 'joint property' here, according to the
out family responsibilitics. The domestic family is an intermediate type Hindu Succession Act, 1956, means that all the living male and female
hetween trustee and atomistic families, having characteristics of both members upto three generations have a share in the paternal property
the lamilies. It maintains a balance between formalism and in and without the co-parcener's consent, the property cannot be sold or
 IEM
THE FAMILY SYS two THE FAMILY SYSTEM 29

a man with
his
disposcd off. Thus,grand-daughlers
wile, two sons,
daughters,
his pro two
sball have lo divide i ty tn
(i) nuclear lamily (which is separate in ternms of residence and
function
and four ing), (ii) functionally joint family (which is residentially nuclcar
grandsons and two distributedamongst his wile children but
eoually joint with other houscholds by way of fulfilment of mutual
five shares to be cqually parent's property. The heirs i (iii) functionally and substantively joint family (which is obligations,
grandchildren will share their daughler shall ake betwee he residentially
The pre-deceased son or nuclear but joint in terms of property, functioning and fulfilling
branch of cach mutual
place un... obligations). (iv) marginally joint family
property and functions but consists of two(which
One share. leels that we cannot is joint in residence.
148), however, dimensiong Cm
Desai (1956: kitchen as generations only,
phasis on co-residence and a common
lhe joint
int
famil, traditional joint (amily (which, like thc marginal joint family, is and
joint
(v)
in
would be lailing to recognize residence, property and functions but consists of three or more
ness, hecause doing so According to himn genera
and a functioning uni. tions). Diagramatically, the sub-types of marginal joint and the tradi
a set of social relationshins members ol a bouschold among themet tional joint families, may be shown as in
is the relationship between thehouschold that determines the type of Diagram 3.
ves and with those of another nuclear tamily from ioin
household. What distinguishes
of that Diagram 3
family pattern of
familv is the difference in the role relations and thenormative fami: Ego + Wi Br Wi B
that when two KO, tS Wile and/or unmarried
behaviour among different relatives. He thinks maricd son(s) wth
having kinship relationship are living separately but function under one So Wi children and
it functionaljoint family married brother(s) with or without
authority, it will be ajoint family. He calls we have thrce or no children
residential joint family, be says that unless
generations living together, it will not be a traditional typc ofjoint fami Fa or Mo
lv. According to him, two-generation families will constitute marginal Marginal Joint
Family
Ego, his wife, his unmarried
brother(s) and sister(s) and his
joint family. He, thus, takes three criteria for explaining joint [amily: Sub-typel Ego + Wi Br one parent (i.e., cither Fa or

generation depth, rights and obligations, and property. Mo).

Rama Krishna Mukherjee (1962: 352-98) while giving five types of

relations--conjugal, parental-filial, inter-sibling, lineal, and affinal Fa or Mo
Ego, his wife, unmarried
has maintained that a joint family is one which consists of one or more Sub-type II
Ego Wi
children, his one parent, and
his unm arried brothers and
of the first three types of relations and either lineal and/or affinal rela sisters.
tions armong the members.
Nature of Traditional Family
Desai (1964: 153-156), on the basis of his survey of 423 families con Ego Wi
Sub-type lll Ego, his wife and/or unmarried
ducted between 1956 and 1958, bas given two different classifications So wi son(s) without children
of families: (i) in terms of the relationship among members measured by
its generation depth, and (iü) on the basis of their relationship with other Ego Wi Ego, bis wife, unmarried
houscholds. On the first basis, he has furtber classified families into four Sub-type lV hildren and bis unmarried
types: one generation, two generations, three generations, and four or brothers
more generations lamilies. The first two types of families are
by him as nuclear families and the last two described Ego + Wi
as joint families. Sub-tvpe V (Widow)go, his wile, unmarried
In terms of relationship with other children, and his widowed aur
housebolds and the degree ol
jointness, Desai (Jbid: 157-61) has classified families into five or siste of nicce.
lypes:
 SYSTEM lamilyin
HE
FAMILY
marginaljoint Desai'hiss classifi
maTriifeicdati
30 and THE FAMILY sYSTEM 3
suh-typeof unmarried children,
Thethird
without issues)ishisconsidcred
wife, as nuclearlamily by Kapadia (1959:.74so
man, Diagram 4 (ii)
(Inat is, a ilit is composed of :aperson,b
is nuclear
Fa+Mo
family unmarried. that is, it i
He
maintainsthatthe marricd or
children, orrunmarried, providel
sa groupo EgoWi

wile and
their
their
children, marriedown, Inthe latler case the manTarries
(that
So.w Se Da
parents and of their whe
nochildren own), it will turn i (iü) Two married brothers with their wives and children.
children have
thc children of their
families: (1) itsell inlo ajoa
nuclear
family.
have
the children gives five types of
Kapadia
nuclear lamily
with familyv
sons; (3) lineal jointt
marriedwith
Diagram 4(iiü)

marricd sons;(2) family widowed Ego+Wi

Iy.(4)colaeral joint
family; and (5)
dependent.
a
sister andlo
her children,
that is, with
nuclearfamilyin Kapadia's above c
(whichTheissecond
described
clas ificatiog
typeasof marginal joint family by Desai) iis considered
smalljountfamuly by Aileen Ross. Ross (19611: 34) has given Iour type
The large joint family, according to Ross, consists of a man, his
wile, parents, unmarried children, married children with or without their
of families: (1) large joint family, that is, family composed of (hrec o offsprings, and his brothers (married and unmarried).
more ocnctations living togelber In tne sa ousoOKIng In the san
pooling Diagram 5
property in common, and incomes tor
commonOWning
Fa+Mo
kitchen, spcnding: (2) small joint family,, that is, family consisting d
unmarried children, or two brothers Egowi Brtwi
parents, marricd sons and
Logether with their wives and children; (3) nuclear family, that is Fa tivin So
wth one or both parenls and their Unmarried children; and (4) nucle SoWi
family with dependents, that is, parents, their unmarricd children and
one or more dependents.
The small joint family has been classified by Ross in three sub-typs Alltheseclassifications show that there is no unanimity amongst the
as under scholars in the concept of joint family. Taking the concepts ol all these
(1)A man, his wife, unmarried children and married son(s) withou scholars together, it may be said that "a joint lamily is a multiplicity of
children. geneologically related nuclear families, joint in residence
resi and commen
sal relations and functioning under one authority". It has also been
Diagram 4 (i) defincd as "wo or more co-resident and conmmensal kinship units"
Ego+Wi (Dhirendra Narain, 1975: 2). M.S. Gore (1968: 6-7), however, feels that

Soiw a more correct approach to explaining joint lamily should be lo view il

(1) A man, his wife, his parents, his unmarried children and hisma
ried sons without children,
as a family of male co-parceners and their dependents, instead of view
ing it as a multiplicity of nuclear families, because in the latter approach,
the emphasis is on conjugal relationship whereas in joint family, he em
phasis should be on filial and fraternal relationships, as we find in the
former approach.
According to Gore (lbid: 4) as an ideal type, the joint family consists
of a man and his wife, their adult sons, their wives and
children, and
 SYs IEM TE FAMILY SYSTEM
THE FAMILY
This type of lamilyhave.
nay "e
be
parcntal couple.
the Tamily may and the joining togcther of two such nuclear units gives us a new pattern
younger children of andfilal joint family. Thisother as of family. But knowing that 'nuclear family was not our basic unit, it is
described as fraternal
variations: onc, as filal joint only, and
family diagramatically Iralermalbelow:
shown as jcint nccessary that we take 'traditional family as basic family unit and un
Thcse three tvpes may be derstand other forms in this context.
familv only. Diagram6 The normal custom in Indian society is that a young man and his
wife begin their married lite not in an independent houschold but with
the husband's parents. Contrary to this, in westerm society,even if a man
Son Wife and his wife begin their married life under the same roof with his or her
Daughter parents, as sometimes happens because of the housing shortage, they
Fhal gn ratoal sam
will consider such an arrangement to be an emergency measure and.,
Nwill set up an inde
therefore, temporary. As soon as it is pISsible, they
Eg+ Wife pendent householdof their own. If for some reason they are unable to do
so and if in the ensuing months there are some marital difficultics, the
Son +Wile first thing that they would do would be to move out from under the
GA parental roof. Because of this structural ideal, the basis of classifying our
families should neither be the number of persons composing the
BWi S houschold (as done by Bowman) noror thee orientation of ctions of the in
Frater'am
Egoie dividual members (as done by Desai), but residence, dependence and
range of kinship relationship taken together. On this basis, we may
classify families in two groups: "traditional' and fissioned".The former
Gore (/bid 94) identifies two basic types of families--nuclear and may furher be sub-classified as large-range kinship family, inter
joint-cach having three sub-types. The sub-types of a nuclear rlamily mediate-range kinship family, and small-range kinship family; and the
are: (i) husband, wife and unmarried children; (ii) husband, wife. latter may be sub-classified as dependent family and independent ami
children and unmaried (and unearning) brothers; and (iii) husband, ly.
wife, children and widowed mother as dependent or other dependents Diagram
who are not co-parceners. The sub-types of ajoint family are: (i) hus Family Types
band, wife, unmarried and married children (lincal joint family): (ii)
husband, wife, unmarried and married children and unmarried brothers Tradiional Fissiongd
(raternal joint family; and (ii) busband, wife, married sons, married +
brothers and their families (lineal and fratemal joint family). Large-range
kinship family
Intermediale
range kinshin
Small-range
kinship (amily
Independent fam Dependent
Iy family
My contention is that the structural ideal of the Indian family is en family
tirely different from the western family. Since carly family in India was
one what is called 'joint family' today, we should consider this family as The fissioned independent family, consisting of husband, wife and
our basic family unit and should term it as a'traditional' family while the their unmarried children, is one where the head of the family (of
so-called 'nuclear' family should be termed as a 'fissioned' family, that procreation) is neither subject to the authority of Iany of his relatives nor
is, one which has separated from its parental unit. After the cconomically dependent upon them; and the fissioned dependent family
residential
separation, it may continue to be dependent on its parental unit is one where the members (husband, wife and unmarried sons and
or may daughters) live in a separate house but remain dependent on their k1n.
function as a completely independent unit.The term 'ioint'
propriate only when we take nuclear lamily as our basicwould
family
be ap
unit
 properiy. This unit is also
FAMILY sYSTE M
uIL FAMILY SYSI M 35
THL
functioning or in terms ol
either in lerms
of living palriarch. comnri.
Diagram 8 (ii)
authority of a common kinshiP Jumily Intermediate-range Kinship Traditional Family
under the the large-range
families, Imayals.
dislant.
In traditional seoondary, tertiary, and of:
fourtypes of kin: primary,
Ego 0) Wife (W)
of procreation f at le:ast si-
consisting of families (sayA
described as lamily adjacent generations and B in So (A) Wi
blings in cach (at least two
Generation IIl in Diagram S() with one or
So (B)+ Wi So (C) Da (D)
Gencration ll and Cand Fin this lamily would GrSo 19)
Diagram 9). An example of Gr Da (F
both parents as H W in married brothers (A and B in Dagram 8 In the Diagram 8(ii), the three types of kin
two
a family consisting of and unm
wives, married sons (C and ) grandson. tertiary) involved are:
(primary, secondary n
parentss) (HW),
with their and unmarried
G) and daughters (E and K)
ricd sons (D and granddaughters
Primary: Hu/Wi/So/Da/Fa/Mo/Br/Si
(N and P). Secondary. FaFa/FaMo/FaBr/FaSi
(M and O) and kin (primary, secondary,
lertir.
Tertiary: HuBrWi/FaBrWi
In Diagram 8(i), the four types of The
and distant) involved are: small-range kinship family consists of only two types of kin
Primary: HuWiFa/Mo/Br/Si/So/Da primary and secondary. IL may also be described as lamily of only two
Secondary: FaFa/FaBr/BrSo/SoSo/BrWi/SoDa/FaSi related familics of procreation of the same generation (as family Z') or
Tertian: FaFaFa FaFaBr/FaBrSo/BrSoSoSoSoSo adjacent generations (family 'Y'). For example, two married brothers
D:stant FaFaBrSo/FaFaBrSoSo (say family Z' of two brothers A and B in Diagram 8 (iii) )
lypes of without their
The intermediate-range kinship family consists of three as lamily parents and without children; or ego with his wife, unmarried son
kin: prumary, secondary, and tertiary. It may also be described married son with his offspring (for example, family Y in Diagramand8
consisting of familics of procreation of one individual in the one senior (ii) ).
generation (say Hin Generation I in Diagram 8 (i)) and at least in
Diagranm 8 (iiü)
dividual in the lower generation (say A in Generation llI). For example,
ego (H) with his wife (W) and unmarricd son (C) and daughter (D) and
Small-range Kinship Traditional Family
married sons (A and B) with their wives and offsprings (E and F). Family (X Family (n
Family (Z)
Ego Wi Ego+Wi
Diagram 8 ()
Large-range Kinship Traditional Family So+Wi
So-Wi Ego+Wi(A) Br+Wi(B)
Fa + Mo
S
() (W)
In the Diagram 8 (ii), the two types of kin (primary and
Ego (A)*Wife Br (H)* Wife involved are: secondary)
Son (C)+ Wife Sn Daug BrSo (P) + Wife Bso BrDaK Primary:. Hu/Wi/So/Da/Fa/Mo Br/Si
(D) hier (E) (G Secondary. BrSoBrDa/BrWi/Fa Fa/FaMo/FaBr/SoSo/SoDa
Grand Grand BrsoSa BrSoDa Thus, in our classification of families, generation depth is not
important. Even a family of one generation or two generations canatbcall
son (M) dauehte (OY (P)

joint family (as small-range kinship family Z and a

Diagram 8(ii) ). family X* in
 THE FAMILY SYSTEM
THE FAMILY SYS TEM 37
Traditional Family characteristics as described
36
Characteristicsof bas several will also have the same lacility to get education in such a costly
lamily
The traditional joint) Authorilarianism school. This is based on the idea of pooling of income tor running
below: authoritarian
structure: here meansS
pass judgements istu. in the
the household.
an decisions and obediencCe (7) The authority in the family (beween mnen and women, nen and
() has power to make
that the
person who
demands
immediate
vested in one or While
in
more
in
men, and women and women) is determined on the principle of
hands ofone (amily, the authority is seniority. Though the eldest male (or female) may delegate the
a
democralic
basis of
competence and ability, in an authority to someone else but even this delegation is based on the
dividuals on the
the power is
traditionally given
only to the principle of seniority, which limits the scope for the development
authoritarian family, his age and seniority. of individualism.
family because of
family; The
eldest male of the freedomto other
individual members and Changing Family Pattern
head allows litle consult them in decision -making. But inIn a Let us now examine how is
not part of the traditional (joint) lamily changing in our
may or mayfamily, it is obligatory on the
weightage to
head to con- society. Is it disintegrating?
democratic
members and give due their opinions Nature of Change
sult other decisions.
before making any This refers to the
My contention is that 'iointness of family (that is, co-resident and com
(2) It has
familisticorganization: esubordination of
he lamily as a whole
mensed kin group) is not disappearing and that slage can never be en
individual's interests to the interesis of must be the goals of tL visaged in India when the joint family will be lost in the mental horizon
that the goalsof the family of people; only the 'cutting ofr point of jointness' is
w
ktdnlmemhers Ifa child wants to continuc his higher educa. changing. Inslead
of large joint families, we will have only locally functioning effective
the lamily shop for Ionk
tion after graduation but is asked to sit onsubordinate his interest te
to
small joint families of two generations or so. At the same time, even the
ing after the family business, he has majority of those nuclear families in which a man, his wife and unmar
the family's interest. ried children live separately, will continue to be 'joint' with their
their age and relationship:
(3) Status of members is determined hisby wifc; primary kin like father or brother in terms of functioning'.
The status of a man is higher than in two generations, the
higher than the status Empirical Studies on Change
status of a person in the higher generation is generation, the What do various empirical studies point out in this
connection? The
of a person in the lower generalion; in the same broad conclusion is that the old-style family in the sense
of a person of
status of aperson of higher age is higher than the status
the status families living together is much rarer now than is commonly numerous
of lower age; and the status ofa woman is determined by
The Census Commissioner of 1951 supposed.
of her husband in the family. observed that a large
small households (33 %in villages and 38% in towns) is proportion of
(4) The filial andfraternal relationship gets preference over conjugal a prima facie
indication that lamilies do not continue to be 'joint" according to the
relationship. In other words, husband-wife relationsbip is subor traditional custom of the country and the habit of breaking
dinated lo father-son or brother-brother relationship. the joint family and setting up away from
separate households in quite strong.
(5) The family functions on the ideal ofjoint responsibility: Il a father /Several sociological studies made in different parts of the country be
lakes loan lo marry his daughler, it is also the responsibility of his tween 19SOs and 1980s also indicated that the
sons to repay the loan. rare and the natureofjointness is changing fromold-style
that
joint family is
of 'residence' to
(6) All members get equal attention: If a son of one brother carnng one of
"fulfilling obligations.
in Indian family in two areas,
We will attempt to analyze these
changes
more than Rs. 4,000 a month is admited in an expensive conven namely, change in structure, and changin
school, a son of another brother carning hardly Rs. 1,500 a monb interpersonal relations.
 THE FAMIL Y
SYSTEM 39
THE FAMILY SYSTEM
3
and grandson, and the
Change in Structure scholars for r analyzing the depth of relationship is foundbetween father, son,
Ofthe
by a few
studies conducled we will discuss here only
in India,
structure of lamily like I.P. Desai, K.M.
Kapadia,
the changin,
outstandiMena
Aileen Ross,
colateralrelationships are hetween a man and
own brothers.
his father's brother andhis

Kapadia's study(1956: 112), conducted in 1955-56, gave compara

surveys ofscholars
Shah and
Sachchidananda.
lamilies in 1955-57 in tive change of urban and rural families (unlike Desais
study which
Gore, A.M. studied 423 studied one
Desai (1964:
41) had
population of about 25,000 persons and
with a cent were Hindus and
townin Gujaratthelolal population, 78 perr c
a Mahun
22be
painted the pattern of change only in urban family). He had
townNavsariand its fiftecn surrounding villages in Surat district in
Gujarat. In all, he studied 1,345 families of which 18 per cent were from
houscholds. Of families s in his sample on
families thebasi
423
Classifying Navsari town and 82 per cent were from its suTounding villages.
cent were Muslims. he found that 4.021 per cent were one
generation depth, Analyzing the structure of family hy taking the urban and the rural
of the
generation nuclear lamilies,57.45 per
cent werettwo-genceration nucle
three-generalion joint
49,l per cent families
arcas together, Kapadia (/bid: 113-15) found that conclusions
were families, and S.61 were nuclear and S0.9 per cent were joint. The about the
families, 3286 per cent generalion joint families In other
per cent were four or
more words family patterns were delineated by Kapadia as follows:
61.47 ner cent lamilics were nuclcar and 36.55 per cent were iol 1. In the rural community, firstly, the proportion of joint
familics
more than jointness (49.7%) is almost the same as that of nuclcar families (50.3%). Sccond
showing thercby that nuclearity prevails with ot
Classifving 423 (amilies on the basis of relationship ly, when the naturc of the family pattern is viewed in relation to castes,
(/bid 60
households, that is, in terms of thc degree ol joinlness, Desai higher castes(e.g., Patidars, Brahmins, and Banias) have predominantly
found thal about half of the families were joint with others in terms nf joint family, its proportion to the nuclear lamily being nearly 5:3. The
residence, property and functioning, and about onc-third werciojnt wis lower castes show agreater incidence of nuclear family, the proportion
of the joint lamily to the nuclear being 9:11. Thus, while among the
others only in terms of functioning. In 4.96 per cent cases, he found zern
degree of jointness; in 26.48 per cent cases, low jointness (that is, join!. higher castes, there is 0.6 nuclear family per one joint family; among the
ness in mutual obligations only), in 17.02 per cent cases, high jointness lower castes, cvery joint family has its counterpart 1.2 nuclear families.
(that is, jointness in mutual obligations and property); in 30.26 per cent Thirdly, the jointfamily is predominant not only among thc agricultural
cases higher jointness (that is, marginal jointness, or jointness in castes (for example, Patidars and Anavils) but also among the functional
residence (lessthan three generations), mutual obligations, and proper castes (that is, carpcnter, tailor, gold-smith, black-smith, grOcer, potler,
1y); and in 21.28 per cent cases, highest jointness (that is, traditionil oil-presser, bangle-seller, etc.) which shows that it is doubtful whether
jointncss, or jointness in residence (involving three or more genera the joint family is now necessarily a concomitant of the agricultural
tions), mutual obligations, and property). cconomy.

Thus, Desai (1956: 154-56) gave thrce conclusions pertaining to he 2. In the urban community, there are more joint families (56.5%)
change in the urban family: (1) Nuclcarity is increasing and jointnessb than nuclear families (43.5%), the proportion being 0.77 nuclear family
decrcasing, and the husband-wife-children group is predominant in s for every one joint family. This is against the general presumption thas
residential and compositional pattlern of the families. (2) Spirit ol people in cities and big towns live in nuclear families and4that
t lowns and
dividual1sm not growing, as of the
is cities have disintegrative influences on the structure of the family.
and compositionally nuclear, liule households
that are residenliany 3. In the 'impact' villages (hat is, villages within the radius of 7 to
with other houscholds in the less than 50 per cent are aclively J 8 km from the town), the family patlern closcly resembles the rural pal
same town or outside it. (3) The radius ol tern and has no correspondence with the town patlern (that is, the
kinshiprelations
"elations
within the
between parents andcirclesons,
of jointness is becoming
brothers and brotherS,small
andunckes proportion of joint families is almost the same as that of nuclear
in nephews families). Secondly, as far the patlem showing the caste variations is
predominated in joint familics. In
other words, tn
 SYS TEM villages, the functional cas.
10 THE FAMILY "impact' and THE FAMILY SYSTEM 4
villages,in
Concerncd,.unlikeother
increase of nuclearfamilies agricultural castes
ofnuclear families .It is
which make visitors less
less welcome than in the large joint family), and
ls show
gradual decrcase difficulh
show a gradual impact of the townnor is mercly an ex consequently less under their influence and control than in the tightly
(Patidars, etc.) the spalially bound joint family.
whether this is due to
to say variations. gave two A.M. Shah studied 283 houscholds in one village (called
pression of caste
In the light of
the above
not being
imporlant
data, Kapadia nuclcarized
,
and (2)
con- Radhvanaj) in Gujarat in between 1955 and 1958. This village is
family structure is lamily patterns is the the situaled al a distance of about 35 km from Ahmedabad and had 283
clusions: (1) joint houscholds and a total population of 1,185 persons belonging to twen
the urban
difference in the rural and pattern hy
cconomic factors. ly-one castes at the time of study. Of the total houscholds, 34.3 per cent
moditication of the caste studiedthe patlern of change middle and
id were small houscholds (with three or less members), 47.0 per cent were
303)
Aileen Ross(1961: studicd 157 families medium-sized households (with four to six members), 15.5 per cent
families in an urban area. She describe tl
upper clas interviewees were asked to when the composition were large households (with seven to nine members), and 3.2 per cent
galore in 1957. Her time: irst, they time
were were very large houscholds (with ten or more members).
of their households
attwo periods of
and second, at thc *grow-
W
In lerms of the composition, Shah classified the households into two
their childhood)
ing up' (that is, in al the imc ol groWing un'
121 groups: 'simple" and 'complex". Simple houscholds were defined as
intervicw'. The answers revealcd Ihat generati
joint((hat is, wilh three or more those which consistedof whole or part of the parental family, while com
per cent families were large kin), 23,0 per cent Were small joint (that is plex households were defined as those which consisted of two or more
with lineal and/or colaleral children and marricd sons wiho it off parcntal or part of the parental families.Theparental familywas defined
cither a man, his wife, unmaried as one consisting of a man, his wife and unmarried children. Shah main
children and married sons
spring, ora man, bis wife, parents, unmarried with their wiVes and unmar. tained that a simple household had six possible compositions: ()a man
without offspring, or two marricd brothers and his wife, (ii) either only a man or only his wife, (iii) a man, his wife
were nuclear, and 10.8 per cent were nuclear
ried children), 49.l per cent of the and his unmarried children, (iv) unmarried brothers and sislers, (v) a
the structure
with dependents. At the time of interview, father and his unmarried children, and (vi) a mother and her unmarried
per cent
respondents households was found to be large joint in 5.1 children. Likewise, a complex houschold had three possible composi
in 43.3 per cent cases,
cases, small joint in 30.6 per cent cases, nuclear tions: (i) two or more parental families, (i) one parental family plus part
cases (/bid: 36-37).
and nuclear with Jcpcndents in 21.0 per cent of a parental family, and (ii) part of one parental family plus part of one
On the basis «f chese figures, Ross (Jbid: 49) concluded that: (1) the other parental family.
trend of family forn in India today is towards a break away from the On the basis of this classification, Shah found that 68.0 per cent
traditional joint family form into nuclear family units; (2) the small joint households in the village were simple houscholds and 32.0 per centwere
family is now the most typical lorm of family life; (3) agrowing number complex households. Since simple' household in Shah's analysis rep
of(people
p now spend at least part of their lives in single family units; (4) resentedla nuclear family and 'complex' household
represented a joint
living in several types of family during a life-time seems so widespread family, it could be maintained that Shah's study also revealed the break
that it is possible to lalkofa cycle of family types as being the normal se down of joint lamily system in rural India.
quence for city-dwellers; (5) distant relatives are less important to he Rama Krishna Mukherjee (1975: 4) studied 4,120 families in West
Bengal in 1960-6l and concluded that joint family structures are being
present generallon than hey were to their parents and granopac
tend to see them less often and bave less affection and nuclearized in course of time and that replacement of joinl family by
responsibility for them; and (6) the cily-dweller son bas become more nuclear family is fait accompli.
spatially separated from allrelatives(dueto small accommodation in the M.S. Gore (1968:247-48) siudied499 Agarwal families (399 in the
house and the changing attitudes towards individuality and priVa main sample and 100 in the additional sample) in 1960 living in or com
 IEM THE FAMILY SYSTEM 43
THE FAMILY SYS sample vwere
familics in the main
42
Haryana region, The
trade and
money-lending , engaged
and had 34.3%).
ing lrom occupation of busincss,
were selected Edwin Driver( 1962: 112-120) conducted a survey in 1958 in Nag
in traditional education. These lamuies
families.
comparatively less (ormal andrural. 1he urban
pur district in (then) Bombay State. He contlacted 2,314 families, 882
scctors-urban, fringe surrounding
e
living in the city, 309 in the town and 1,123 in the villages. Of these, 93.3
thrce different
sclected from Delbi. the (ringe
families
families fromthe
from Robtak and
vil agesSof
Hissar district per cent were Hindu families and6.7 per cent were non-Hindu families.
Delhi, and the ural those wk: The analysis of the 2,314 families revealed that in the city, 22.9 per cent
lamilies in the additional sample included
comparativelv families were joint and 77.1 per cent nuclear; in the town, 24.9 per cenl
Harvana, The were
non-traditional occupation,
werc engaged in From cach of these lour tyDes or were joint and 75.1 per cent nuclear; and in the village, 37.0 per cent
cducated, and living in an uban arca.
additional group), Gore selected bet were joint and 63.0 per cent nuclear. Taking all the three arcas (city,
and
familics (urban, rural, fringe, urban lamilies were lurther classified ae town and villages) together, 30.0 per cent families were found joint and
jo families.theThelamily was born in Delhi) and 'immiorat
nuclcar and Ijoint 70.0 per cent nuclear (see, Kapadia, 1966: 297). As is evident (rom these
"local' (in which hcad of was born outside Delhi), Th. figures, there are more nuclear families in the urtban areas and more joint
(amilics (in which head of the family families in the rural arcas.
was: urban local nuclear
brcak-up of the 499 familics in all these lypes lamilies: 14o Analyzing the pattern of lamily with reference to the income group,
nuclear and joint
and joint families: 50; urban immigrant nuclear: 48; rural joint: 52, and Driver found that in the rural arcas, joint families are more in the higher
frnge nuclear: 49; fringe joint: S1; rural number of nuclear and income group (Rs. 1,000 and over) than in the lower, whereas in the
additional nuclear and joint : 100. Thus, the total respectively
urban areas, they (joint families) are less in the higher income groups
joint familics studied in the main sample was 195 and 204 for interview than in the lower. He also studicd the family patlern with relerence to
From each family, Gore selected two or more respondents
sample generational dilferences. While in the older generation, he found 16.03
In this way, he studicd 1,274 persoDs in all-1,174 in the main
were from
per cent families joint and 28.48 per cent nuclear, in the younger genera
and 100 in the additional sample. of these, 490 respondents tion he found 14.0 per cent joint and 41.5 per cent nuclear, showing
the nuclear families (422 in the main sample and 68 in the additional thercby that the joint family is more frequent among the older couples
sample) and 784 were from the joint familics (752 in the main and 32 in (see, Kapadia, 1966).
additional sample). The University School of Economics and ISociology, Bombay car
Classifying 399 families in the main sample on the basis of six clas rying out the economicsurvey of Greater Bombay in 1957 analvzed the
sifications, Gore (Jbid: 94-96) found 154 nuclcar families of type I (that patlerns of 13,369 families, out ol which 74.8 per cent were Hindu
is, a man, his wife and unmarried children), 41 nuclear familics of type families. The data on these families showed that 11.52 per cent families
II and IIl (that is, either a man, his wife, unmarried children and unmar were uni-member, 5.74 per cent nuclear, 8.04 per cent nuclear with
ried brothers or a man,1, his wife, unmarried children and some dependent some afinal relative, 34.02 per cent marginal joint, and 40.68 per cent
who is not acoparcener), 137 joint families of type IV (that is, a man, his joint familics (see, Kapadia, 1966: 297-98). This shows that nearly 75.0
per cent
wife, unmarried children and married sons), 47joint familics of type V were joint families and only 17.26 per cent were truly nuclear
families.
(that is, aman, his wife, unmarried children, married sons and unmarried
brothers), and 20 joint families of type VI (that is, a man, his wile, un Sachchidananda (1977) studied 720 (amilies in 1970 selected from
thirty villages in Shahabad district in Bihar. From each village, h
marricd children, married sons, unmarried brothers, and married
selected twenty-four farmilies on the stratified random sample basis. The
hrothers and their families). This shows thal two types of families three variables used for stratifying the families were: caste (two levels).
dominate over all others-one consisting of a man, his wife and unmar
ried children (154 out of 399 or 38.6%) and secondly, one consisting ol size of landholding (three levels) and sharecropping (two levels). He
man, his wife and unmarried and maried children (137 out of 399 or selected two families from each level-group. The families in the sample
 THE FAMILY SYSTEM 45
THE FAMILY SYSIEM
44
were nuclclcar and74.2
cOvered 6,675 pesons. studied, 25.8percent dependents "Rights Women: A Feminist Perspective" in 198S). In the first
total (amilies the also)
familySach
Out of the included project, 4,181 respondents (studenLs) were studied in one city (Jaipur),
(here nuclear family betweenntthe type of
the
Per centjointanalyzedthe relationship landholding, and si of and the
while in the sccond project, 753 lamilies were studied in eight villages
chidananda caste, education, of onedistrict (Jaipur). Both the studies showed that the joint family sys
dilferent variables like
though the number
ofjoint swas high in all
families
tem has not completely disappeared, though the number of nuclcar
Tamily. He foundthat upper (70.0%), middle (76.0%%), and lamilies is large. In the 1988 study, 51.8 per cent families were found
of castes
the thrce types (89.0%)-but contrary to expectations, there were joint and 48.2 per cent nuclear.
in
schedulcd casles
nuclear families in
upper castes
(30.0%) than middle castes
Relating cducation
The EmergingTrends
more castes (11.0%). with family Taking all the above-mentioned empirical studies together (of Desai.
(24.0%) and scheduled tends to rise with
the level I of
pallern, he foundthat
cent
nuclearity
families were
nuclear where the level of education.
family
Kapadia, Ross, Shah, Mukherjce, Gore, Driver, Bombay University.
Sachchidananda, Kolenda, and Ahuja), the following conclusions may
While 39,0 per
and above, only 24.0 Per cent Tamilies e be derived regarding the change in family struclure in our country:
educatjon was matric cducation was middle
or
nuclear where the level of family 1. The number offissioncd familics is increasing, that is, sons prefer
relationship betweenen the family pattern and landholding is to live separately from their parents but at the same time continue
regards he landholdings increase, the number of iot to fulfil their traditional obligations towards them.
concerncd, he (ound that as landholdings, less the joint fami:
families also increase, or less the analvzine
2 There is more jointness in traditional communities and more
thejoint familics. Lastly, nuclearity in communities exposed to oulside influences.
and more the landholdings, more
efound that 26.0 per cent families consisted 3. The size of the traditional family (that is, co-resident and com
range of kin constituents, he consisted of primary and sccondar. mensal kinship unit) has become smaller.
of only primary kin, 62.0 per cent secondary, tertiary, and dis. 4. So long the cultural ideal that a male should look a•ler his parents
kin, and 3.0 per cent consisted of primary, and his teen-age brothers and sisters persists, the functional type
tant kin.
Pauline Kolenda (1968) used the uve on theFposj
dataunits)
Tamily joint family will be sustained in our society
Tonot houscholds (co-tesidential twen Itis nol possible to specify when the Indian family began to undergo
tion
vil.
xstudies conducted between 1950s and 1970s, including nine dis changes. The system neverwascompletely static of course, and change
lage studics, ten studies of individual castes, and surveys from seven proceedcd slowly throughout thetwentieth century. Until the end of the
Iricts. Her findings are:(1) While the majorily of the people may live in third decade of the twentieth century, however, there was no political,
joint and supplemented nuclear families, the majority of households
social or industrial power that could successfully break Indian family's
self-imposed isolation from the families of the rest of the world. Marked
families are nuclear in structure. (2) Regional differences are more evi change followed from the fourth decade of the twentieth century, par
dent in the proportions of joint families. There are higher proportions of
joint families on the Gangetic plain than in Central India or Eastern India
ticularly after the independence.
It could now be said that changes from 'raditional' to 'transitional"
(including West Bengal).(3) The joint family is more characteristic of family include trends toward: (1) neo-local residence, (2) funclional
upper and landowning castes than of lower and landless castes. (4) Caste jointness, (3) equality of individuals, (4) equal status for women, (5)
rank is more closcly relaled to the sIZe and ne pop of joint
rcareful re joint male-sclection, and (6) weakening of family norms.
families, However, Kolenda's assumptions require
Neo-local Residence
search.
After marriage, children may live for some time with their parents but
This author also studied the family paltern while cngaged in two dil
ferent research projects (on "Drug Abuse Among StudenLs" in 1976 and soon they prefer to live separately. As urbanization and industrialization
procced, more and more young married couples and their families find