Reading 1 – Family and Intimacy : A treatise on the family – Gary S Becker

Gary Becker's groundbreaking "A Treatise on the Family" revolutionized the study of families by applying
economic theory to understand their inner workings. By portraying families as rational decision-making
units, Becker shed light on critical aspects of family dynamics like marriage, fertility, and divorce.
However, a deeper understanding of family evolution necessitates moving beyond a purely economic
lens. This essay will delve into Becker's analysis, exploring its strengths and limitations. Ultimately, we
will argue for a more comprehensive approach that integrates historical, social, and cultural factors
alongside economic considerations.

Becker's central thesis posits that families, akin to firms, operate as rational decision-making units. They
allocate resources (time, money, energy) to maximize their well-being, considering both economic and
non-economic factors. This framework illuminates various family dynamics:

Becker views marriage as a partnership where spouses specialize in production (earning income) and
reproduction (child-rearing). Spouses weigh the benefits of specialization against the potential costs of
shirking or unequal distribution of household chores. This economic analysis highlights the trade-offs
inherent in marriage and the importance of spousal compatibility for efficient resource allocation. For
instance, a couple where one spouse excels at earning a high income and the other possesses strong
childcare skills might find specialization in these roles mutually beneficial.

The decision to have children involves balancing the emotional joys of parenthood with the economic
costs of raising them. Factors like income levels, career aspirations, and government policies influence
fertility choices. Becker's model emphasizes the interplay between economic resources and the desire
for children. For example, couples with higher incomes may be more likely to have additional children, as
the financial burden is less pronounced compared to low-income couples. Additionally, government
policies like childcare subsidies or parental leave can influence fertility rates by making child-rearing
more manageable.

From an economic perspective, marital dissolution becomes a viable option when the "benefits" of
staying together (emotional support, economic security) fall below the "costs" (conflict, unhappiness).
This framework sheds light on factors like rising female earning power that contribute to higher divorce
rates in modern societies. As women become more economically independent, they are less likely to
remain in unhappy marriages solely for financial security.

Becker's analysis offers a valuable starting point for understanding the economic underpinnings of many
family decisions. However, a purely economic lens overlooks the complex social and cultural forces that
influence family evolution.

While Becker's insights are valuable, a richer understanding of family evolution requires incorporating
perspectives from other disciplines:

Feminist scholars critique Becker's model for neglecting the power dynamics within families. They argue
that the division of labor often disadvantages women, who shoulder a disproportionate share of
domestic responsibilities. Feminist analysis focuses on how historical gender roles and social structures,
not just economic factors, shape family dynamics. For instance, it highlights the unpaid labor of women
in the household and its contribution to family well-being. Traditionally, women were expected to
prioritize childcare and domestic duties, limiting their economic participation. Feminist theory argues
that such gendered expectations are not inevitable but rather social constructs that have evolved over
time.

Historical materialism associated with Karl Marx, emphasizes the influence of economic production
systems on family structures. The rise of capitalism, for example, may have contributed to smaller,
nuclear families as individuals migrated for work opportunities. Historical materialism highlights the role
of broader economic forces in shaping family structures and the division of labor within households. For
example, the Industrial Revolution in Europe led to a shift from agrarian societies to industrialized ones.
This change often meant men migrated to factories for work, while women remained at home managing
the household and childcare. This economic transformation had a profound impact on family structures.

Social exchange theory views relationships, including family relationships, as a process of cost-benefit
analysis. Individuals assess the rewards and costs associated with different relationships and make
choices based on maximizing their own well-being. While similar to Becker's approach in some ways,
social exchange theory places more emphasis on the emotional and social aspects of relationships, not
just the economic ones. It can help us understand how emotional fulfillment and social support influence
family formation and stability. For example, social exchange theory suggests individuals are more likely to
stay in marriages when the emotional benefits (love, companionship) outweigh the emotional costs
(conflict, unhappiness).

By integrating these diverse perspectives, we gain a richer understanding of family evolution. Economic
factors undoubtedly play a significant role. However, social norms, historical context, the interplay of
power dynamics within families, and the influence of emotions are equally crucial considerations.

To illustrate kinship as a lifeline let's consider Becker's analysis through the lens of traditional societies.
Becker might argue that families in these societies functioned as efficient units, allocating resources
(land, labor) to maximize survival. This perspective holds some truth. However, it overlooks the crucial
role of kinship groups in such societies. Traditional societies often dealt with high levels of uncertainty:
unpredictable weather patterns, limited information about diseases, and volatile economies. In this
context, kinship networks served as essential "insurance companies." Family members shared resources,
offered support during hardships, and provided a safety net in times of crisis. This emphasis on kinship
goes far beyond economic calculations; it reflects the need for social solidarity in the face of adversity.

For example, in pre-industrial societies with limited access to healthcare, a family member falling ill
could be a significant economic burden. Kinship networks ensured that the sick individual received care
and that other family members could continue working to support the household. Additionally, in
societies where inheritance laws favored extended families, individuals had a vested interest in
maintaining strong kinship bonds to ensure their own well-being and security in their later years.
Becker might also analyze marriage practices in traditional societies through an economic lens. He could
argue that arranged marriages were a way to maximize resources and alliances. This perspective holds
some truth. However, it neglects the social and cultural factors that shaped marriage customs. Arranged
marriages often served to solidify bonds between families, ensure social order, and maintain cultural
traditions. Love, while not necessarily absent, played a secondary role in a context where survival and
social cohesion were paramount.

For instance, in some cultures, arranged marriages served to unite warring tribes or consolidate political
power. Additionally, they ensured the transfer of knowledge and skills from one generation to the next,
particularly in societies where specific professions or crafts were passed down through family lines.
While economic considerations played a part in arranged marriages, they were often deeply embedded
in the social fabric and cultural norms of traditional societies.

With modernization, Becker's economic framework regains some explanatory power. The rise of markets
and institutions like insurance companies and schools offered alternatives to the functions previously
performed by families. This reduced the dependence on kinship groups, leading to a more individualistic
approach to family life. Becker might explain the rise of nuclear families as a rational response to these
changes. Smaller families allow for greater specialization within the household (one parent focuses on
earning income, the other on childcare) and more efficient resource allocation. Additionally, Becker
could analyze the increase in women's labor force participation as a result of rising wages and changing
social norms. This economic empowerment alters the power dynamics within families and influences
fertility choices.

However, Becker's analysis risks oversimplification. While economic factors undoubtedly influence the
rise of nuclear families and women's participation in the workforce, they don't tell the whole story.
Social and cultural shifts also played a significant role. The rise of democratic ideals and the emphasis on
individual rights challenged traditional family structures. Feminist movements fought for greater equality
within families and in society as a whole. These social transformations, alongside economic changes,
fueled the rise of nuclear families and a more individualistic approach to family life.

For example, the Enlightenment period in Europe emphasized individual liberty and challenged the
authority of traditional institutions like the Church. This philosophical shift contributed to a questioning
of traditional family structures and gender roles. Additionally, feminist movements in the 20th century
fought for women's right to education, employment, and reproductive freedom. These social changes
empowered women and allowed them to pursue opportunities outside of the family sphere, influencing
family dynamics in the process.

In conclusion, while Becker's economic framework provides valuable insights into family decision-
making, a more comprehensive understanding of family evolution necessitates integrating perspectives
from other disciplines. Examining historical and cultural contexts, social change and power dynamics,
and the role of emotions offers a richer tapestry of understanding.

By moving beyond a purely economic lens, we can appreciate the complex interplay of factors that shape
family structures across time and cultures. Here are some additional considerations:
The rise of social media, online dating platforms, and communication technologies has impacted how
families connect, form relationships, and navigate challenges. Technology offers opportunities for
maintaining long-distance relationships, finding romantic partners, and accessing information on family
planning. However, it can also contribute to social isolation, increased screen time, and new forms of
conflict within families.

Globalization and increased migration patterns have influenced family structures. Transnational families,
where members live and work in different countries, present unique challenges and opportunities.
Additionally, cultural exchange through migration can lead to the adoption of new family practices and a
more diverse family landscape.

As societies continue to evolve, so too will family structures. The increasing focus on social justice and
gender equality might lead to further diversification of family forms. Additionally, advancements in
reproductive technologies and changing attitudes towards adoption could shape how families are
formed in the future.

By acknowledging these complexities and integrating diverse theoretical perspectives, we can move
beyond a singular economic lens and gain a more nuanced understanding of the ever-evolving tapestry
of family life. Families are dynamic units shaped by economic realities, social norms, historical context,
and the intricate dance of emotions and power dynamics within them. Recognizing this complexity
allows us to better understand the challenges and opportunities faced by families in the 21st century and
beyond.
Reading 2 – "Is the Family Universal? The Nayar Case"
Nestled in the vibrant tapestry of Indian society lies the Nayar community of Kerala, presenting a
fascinating challenge to the universality of marriage as a social institution. Their kinship system,
characterized by matriliny and a practice known as sambandham, throws a wrench into the definition of
marriage and the roles of fathers and husbands. To truly understand the Nayar case, we must delve into
the intricacies of their kinship structure and the arguments surrounding their unique marital practices.

Unlike the prevalent patrilineal systems where descent and inheritance flow through the male line, the
Nayars trace their lineage and inherit property from mothers to daughters. The core unit of their society
is the taravad, a property-owning group consisting of sisters, brothers, and their children. The eldest
male member, the karnavan, acts as the legal guardian, ensuring the smooth functioning of the taravad.
This matrilineal structure stands in stark contrast to the nuclear family model often associated with
marriage in the West.

Further complicating the picture is avunculocality, the practice of boys residing with their maternal
uncles rather than their fathers. This residential pattern reinforces the matrilineal emphasis, distancing
men from their offspring and highlighting the importance of the mother's lineage in a child's life.

Now, let's delve into the enigmatic practice of sambandham, the cornerstone of Nayar marriage. Before
reaching puberty, young Nayar girls undergo a ritual called tali tying with a man from a linked lineage
(enangar). This ceremony, however, does not mark the beginning of a conventional marriage. The man
who ties the tali does not become a permanent husband. Instead, after the ceremony, the woman can
enter into sambandham relationships with men from her sub-caste or higher castes. These visiting
husbands have no claims on the property or children of the taravad. Their role is more fleeting,
contributing customary gifts and, in some cases, even paying for childbirth expenses.

This system of multiple visiting husbands sparked debates about paternity and legitimacy. Anthropologist
Edmund Leach argued that the lack of a single, biological father and the absence of a stable nuclear
family rendered the concept of marriage inapplicable to the Nayars. He emphasized the visiting
husband's impermanent role and the uncertainty surrounding biological fatherhood, questioning how
such a system could be considered marriage.

However, Kathleen Gough, another prominent anthropologist, challenged Leach's perspective. She
argued that the tali tying ceremony, though not creating a permanent husband, established a ritual
father (appan) for the children. More importantly, the man who paid for childbirth expenses gained legal
recognition as the "genitor" of the child, determining the child's caste status within the rigid hierarchy of
Indian society. Gough emphasized that social norms and obligations surrounding sambandham ensured
the well-being of children and mothers. The taravad, with its matrilineal structure, provided a stable
support system for upbringing, while the visiting husbands, despite their fleeting presence, contributed
financially. This, she argued, highlighted the presence of a functioning kinship system, albeit one that
defied the Western definition of marriage.

The Nayar case compels us to move beyond the limitations of a universal definition of marriage based
solely on Western notions of a nuclear family and a single, biological father. Gough's definition, which
emphasizes the establishment of legal paternity and birth rights for children, provides a more inclusive
framework. It acknowledges the diverse forms that marriage can take across cultures, recognizing the
Nayar system as a legitimate form of marriage with its own set of rules and obligations.

To arrive at a more comprehensive definition of marriage that encompasses the Nayar case, we must
consider several key factors. Firstly, the concept of legitimization of offspring becomes crucial. Marriage,
in this broader sense, establishes a mechanism for legitimizing children and granting them full birth-
status rights within their society. In the Nayar case, this occurs through the combined actions of the tali
tying ceremony, which establishes a ritual father, and the financial contribution towards childbirth, which
determines the child's caste status.

Secondly, the definition should allow for flexibility in partner selection. While monogamy is the norm in
many societies, the Nayar system with its sambandham relationships demonstrates the possibility of
marriage involving multiple partners within a defined social framework. Here, sambandham
relationships occur within the boundaries of caste and social hierarchy, ensuring a certain order within
the system.

Thirdly, the definition should recognize that marriage establishes a socially recognized relationship
between a woman and one or more individuals. This relationship comes with a set of obligations, as seen
in the Nayar case, where visiting husbands contribute financially and the mother's lineage (the taravad)
is responsible for the child's upbringing. These obligations ensure the well-being of the children and the
stability of the kinship system.

By incorporating these considerations - legitimization of offspring, flexibility in partner selection, and

social recognition with obligations - the definition of marriage can be stretched to encompass the Nayar
case and potentially other marriage variations across cultures. It can accommodate residence patterns
like avunculocality in the Nayar case or patrilocality in some African societies, where wives reside with
their husbands' families. It can even encompass same-sex unions where couples establish a social bond
and take responsibility for any children they might have, though this aspect would require further
exploration in light of cultural and legal variations around the world.

The revised definition of marriage transcends the Eurocentric perspective that has dominated
anthropological discourse for so long. By appreciating the rich tapestry of kinship systems around the
world, we gain a deeper understanding of human societies and the ways they structure family life. This
revised definition, emphasizing legitimization, social recognition, and obligations, equips anthropologists
and sociologists with a valuable tool to analyze marriage in its diverse forms. It allows us to move beyond
simply labeling a system as marriage or not, but rather to appreciate the intricate social, cultural, and
economic factors that shape these unions.

However, the Nayar case also compels us to acknowledge the limitations of a single, all-encompassing
definition. The Nayar system itself has undergone significant change. British colonial rule and subsequent
legal reforms impacted inheritance laws, weakening the role of the taravad. Today, many Nayar families
practice a more conventional monogamous marriage system. This highlights the dynamic nature of
marriage and kinship systems, which evolve in response to changing social, political, and economic
circumstances.

Furthermore, the concept of marriage itself is constantly contested. Debates around same-sex marriage,
the rights of children born outside of wedlock, and the evolving roles of spouses within marriages
continue to challenge traditional notions. The revised definition can serve as a springboard for these
discussions, allowing us to have a more nuanced conversation about the purpose and function of
marriage in the 21st century.

Looking beyond the Nayar case, the revised definition can be applied to analyze other unique marriage
practices. For instance, polygyny, the practice of a man having multiple wives, can be seen as a system
that legitimizes offspring and establishes social obligations between the husband, each wife, and their
children. However, the power dynamics and potential for exploitation within such systems need careful
consideration.

Similarly, bridewealth, the practice of the groom's family giving gifts or payments to the bride's family,
can be viewed as a form of social recognition of the marriage and a contribution towards the bride's
future within her new family. However, the commodification of women and potential for financial
burden on the groom's family raise concerns that need to be addressed within this framework.

In conclusion, the Nayar case serves as a powerful reminder that marriage is not a universal monolith. By
moving beyond a Eurocentric perspective and embracing the revised definition that emphasizes
legitimization, social recognition, and obligations, we gain a richer understanding of human kinship
systems. This framework allows us to analyze diverse marriage practices across cultures, fostering a more
inclusive and nuanced conversation about the future of marriage in a globalized world. However, it is
important to acknowledge the limitations of a single definition and the ongoing evolution of marriage
itself. As societies continue to change, so too will the ways we define and understand this fundamental
human institution.
Reading 3 – The Family in India beyond the Joint vs Nuclear Debate" - Oxford Companion
Q1 :
Family, as an object of study in Indian society, encompasses a broad spectrum of dimensions. Over the
years, scholars from various disciplines have explored the complexities of family life in India, aiming to
understand its structure, functions, dynamics, and transformations. The essay “The families in India:
Beyond the nuclear vs joint debate” by Patricia Uberoi delves into the multifaceted nature of the family
as an object of study in Indian society, covering topics such as family structure, functions, welfare,
production, distribution, consumption, roles, relationships, and the broader system of families.
Tracing the history, this study started with the Britishers, as sociologists when we look back at how the
Indian family was conceptualized. There were three approaches: 1) Sociology of India (Study of Indian
society), 2) Sociology in India (Practice within Indian academia), and 3) Sociology for India (Addressing
societal needs and challenges). One of the primary aspects of studying the family in Indian society is
examining its structure. Britisher Henry Sumner Maine identified the Indian joint family from the text
(Indological approach) to be a patriarchal family, i.e., descent in the male line, with the family being a
corporation where male members had equal rights but female members had none. This concept of
patriarchy was then expanded globally, leading to the formation of various theories.
Indian sociologists, disturbed by this perspective, also started referring to the texts, becoming
Indologists. They identified the patriarchal joint family of the Sanskritic texts as a "unifying civilizational
ideal," propounded by the writings of G.S. Ghurye in his seminal work "Family and Kin in India," which
highlighted the Indo-Aryan roots of the Indian joint family. In contrast, Irawati Karve, influenced by the
methodology of Lewis Henry Morgan, sought to categorize Indian kinship systems based on linguistic
affiliations and regional variations. She identified four main types of kinship organization in India: Indo-
European or Sanskritic in the north, Dravidian in the south, a mixed "central" zone, and a geographically
non-contiguous Austro-Asiatic type in the East. Karve emphasized three unifying factors across the
subcontinent: the institution of caste, the presence of patrilineal or matrilineal joint families, and the
Sanskritic heritage. According to Karve, the Hindu joint family played a crucial role as a unifying force
beneath the diverse Indian kinship systems, providing social and economic security.
The modernization thesis by Walt Whitman Rostow came after World War 2 along with the
categorization of countries into developed, developing, and underdeveloped nations, where the
developed nations tried to impose their development model and took advantage of developing
countries. In dependency theory by Andre Gunder Frank, he explained why underdeveloped countries
cannot develop: because they are dependent upon developed nations that use them for cheap labor,
leading to their human resources being underdeveloped and underutilized.
Talcott Parsons (a structural functionalist) said that the family belonging to traditional society is different
from that in modern society. Traditional society has to change to suit itself for development. He talks
about personal modernity (change in attitude and behavior) and societal modernity (economic and
social development), determining the best type of family for modern society as the conjugal couple.
He says that American society post-World War 2 was witnessing the culmination of a long-term process
of 'isolation', 'differentiation', and 'specialization' of the nuclear family as a bounded sub-system of
society. Kinship ties have to weaken due to urbanization as it leads to migration. The family is now a
supplier of the workforce and a condition for economic development, leading to enhanced emphasis on
both parental and conjugal bonds. The institution of marriage got 'stripped down' to its elementary 'root'
functions as a small social group, consisting of four distinct roles: father, mother, male child, and female
child, each serving different functions. This structure, described by Parsons, delineates roles along
generational and gender lines, with power dynamics linked to generational differences. Additionally,
roles are categorized into "instrumental" (task-oriented) and "expressive" (emotionally supportive)
functions, highlighting the multifaceted nature of familial interactions leading to the evolution of society.
As Durkheim said, more development leads to the conversion of mechanical solidarity to organic
solidarity.
This perspective of Parsons was taken further by William J. Goode, who studied 5 different regions - Arab
world, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, and Japan. According to him, social mobility weakened kinship
groups, and the conjugal family was getting institutionalized. In the case of India, he could not find any
evidence of an extended family before and after the industrial revolution. Also, there have been some
changes, such as increased emphasis on the bond between husband-wife as against that of mother and
son, and a decline of patriarchal authority which preceded industrialization. However, he still concluded
that globally, the conjugal family pattern was inevitable.
He was critiqued by Milton Singer who found evidence for "structural adaptation" of the Indian joint
family to new circumstances. Though he himself was critiqued for a lack of definition and precision on
concepts of 'nuclear' and 'joint' family and his conflation of 'family' - a genealogical construct and
'household' - residential kin. Now we stumble upon the question of 'Is the joint family disintegrating?'. A
family is a group of people who live together and they are related to each other by blood or marriage
while a household typically refers to a group of people who live together under the same roof and share
living arrangements, such as a house or apartment. How is the household different from the family?
Theorist A.M. Shah focused on the household from his field view and stated that the household is
something that cannot always be constitutive of the family. Pauline Kolenda's pioneering study analyzing
26 ethnographies and the 1961 census challenged the dichotomy of jointly nuclear households in India.
She found that while nuclear households outnumbered joint households statistically, a majority of
people still resided in joint or supplemented joint setups. Contrary to perceived disintegration, joint
household prevalence appeared stable or rising due to factors like population growth, aging populations,
rural living, property norms, and cultural valorization. Despite nuclear residences, a strong commitment
to joint family values persisted, especially in villages where households lived close to kin and observed
joint family-like norms. Kolenda also highlighted regional variations, with joint setups strongest in the
north versus the south. Her study uncovered complex household dynamics over the life cycle as people
transitioned between different residential arrangements based on individual courses intersecting with
the developmental cycle of domestic groups expanding, dividing, and replacing over time.
There is a need to go beyond the narrow quantitative focus on household composition and engage with
the deeper cultural meanings, ideologies, and lived experiences surrounding family life. The notion of
"kinship ideology" - ideas about how the family is constituted, its roles, relations, and underlying logic -
emerges as a vital area of inquiry. For instance, the pervasive ideology of patrilineality, rooted in the
metaphor of male seed and female earth, has rationalized the differential access of men and women to
resources, inheritance, and perpetuated the secondary status of women. Yet this mainstream patriarchal
ideology coexists with more nuanced conceptions like the unique mother-child bond and the special
status of motherhood. An exploration of such ideologies can illuminate their manifestations across
domains like law, public policies, media narratives, and societal norms regarding sexuality, marriage, and
gender roles.
Relatedly, there is a need for reclaiming the "cultural approach" to kinship, examining how indigenous
conceptions of relatedness, personhood, codes of conduct, and rites of passage encode and reproduce
family ideals and hierarchies. This emic perspective can yield insights into constructions of childhood,
femininity, the differential valorization of particular kin relations (like mother-son versus husband-wife),
and the lived contradictions between ideals and reality that shape family experience.
Expanding the functional analysis of the family beyond the conventional domains of biological
reproduction, socialization, and welfare. Neglected aspects like the family's role in production,
distribution, consumption, and overall economic organization need scrutiny. Feminist scholarship has
been pivotal in foregrounding the domestic sphere as a site of production, unpacking the sexual division
of labor, intra-household inequities, and women's disproportionate burden of unpaid labor. There are
calls to interrogate assumptions of the household as a unitary, altruistic unit and examine how gender
and generational hierarchies mediate resource allocation and bargaining power within families.
Moreover, we can argue for relocating the study of the family within the broader "system of families"
governed by principles of descent, marriage alliance, exchange, and encompassing hierarchies of caste
and community. The very notion of the monolithic "Indian family" is challenged as obscuring the
heterogeneity of kinship patterns across regions, castes, and communities following different descent
and marriage norms. There is a need to engage with long-standing anthropological debates around the
centrality of descent versus alliance in structuring kinship relations and ideologies.
Finally, an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from diverse domains like history, feminist studies,
economics, law, cultural studies, and engaging with new data sources like literature, arts, media
narratives beyond the conventional ethnographic focus is needed. The aim is to reconstruct a holistic,
empirically grounded understanding of Indian family and kinship without being bound by earlier
preoccupations and theoretical blinkers. In summary, the study of the Indian family reveals a complex
tapestry of cultural, economic, and social dynamics. Beyond simplistic categorizations, such as nuclear
versus joint households, lies a rich terrain of kinship ideologies, cultural conceptions, and economic roles
within the family.
By embracing interdisciplinary approaches and engaging with diverse data sources, we can reconstruct a
holistic understanding of Indian family life. This entails delving into deeper cultural meanings,
questioning assumptions about household unity, and recognizing the heterogeneity of familial structures
across regions and communities. Through such endeavors, we can develop a more nuanced and
comprehensive perspective on the Indian family, grounded in empirical evidence and attentive to the
diverse realities shaping familial experiences in Indian society.
Question 2 - The sociological underpinnings of the Indian family have historically been shaped by a
hegemonic Indo-Aryan, North Indian perspective, which has long portrayed the patriarchal joint family as
the quintessential "Indian" family structure. This dominant narrative can be traced back to the early
colonial encounters between British sociologists, anthropologists, and the Indian subcontinent, where an
Indological (text-based) approach was employed to understand and categorize Indian society.
One of the pioneering works in this regard was Henry Sumner Maine's identification of the Indian joint
family from ancient Sanskrit texts. Maine characterized it as a patriarchal family system, with descent in
the male line and a corporate structure where male members enjoyed equal rights, while female
members had none. This textual interpretation, rooted in the colonial gaze, laid the foundation for
subsequent theorizations that not only generalized the patriarchal joint family as the norm across India
but also positioned it as a global exemplar of patriarchal kinship systems.
This perspective was further reinforced by Indian sociologists like G.S. Ghurye, who, in his seminal work
"Family and Kin in India," identified the patriarchal joint family as a "unifying civilizational ideal" with its
roots in the Indo-Aryan tradition. Ghurye's influential work played a significant role in perpetuating this
dominant narrative, which often overlooked the diversity and regional variations in kinship patterns
across the vast Indian subcontinent. By drawing heavily from Sanskrit texts and the Brahmanical
tradition, Ghurye's work reflected an upper-caste, Hindu bias, failing to capture the heterogeneity of
family forms and kinship ideologies prevalent among other religious, caste, and tribal communities.
However, contemporary theoretical challenges have emerged that critique this hegemonic
representation and call for a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of the Indian family. One of the
key challenges comes from scholars like Irawati Karve, who advocated for categorizing Indian kinship
systems based on linguistic affiliations and regional variations, rather than relying solely on textual
sources.
Karve's pioneering work, influenced by the methodology of Lewis Henry Morgan, sought to categorize
Indian kinship systems based on linguistic affiliations and regional variations. She identified four main
types of kinship organization in India: Indo-European or Sanskritic in the north, Dravidian in the south, a
mixed "central" zone, and a geographically non-contiguous Austro-Asiatic type in the East. This approach
challenges the monolithic notion of the "Indian family" and acknowledges the diverse kinship ideologies
and structures that coexist within the subcontinent, each with its own unique cultural and historical
trajectories.
Another significant contemporary challenge revolves around the need to move beyond the narrow
nuclear versus joint family debate, which has dominated much of the discourse on Indian kinship.
Instead, scholars argue for engaging with the deeper cultural meanings, ideologies, and lived
experiences that shape family life in India. The concept of "kinship ideology" – the ideas about how the
family is constituted, its roles, relations, and underlying logic – emerges as a vital area of inquiry.
For instance, the pervasive ideology of patrilineality, rooted in the metaphor of male seed and female
earth, has long rationalized the differential access of men and women to resources, inheritance, and
perpetuated the secondary status of women within Indian kinship systems. However, this mainstream
patriarchal ideology coexists with more nuanced conceptions, such as the unique mother-child bond and
the special status of motherhood in Indian cultural ethos.
Exploring these ideologies can provide valuable insights into their manifestations across various
domains, including law, public policies, media narratives, and societal norms regarding sexuality,
marriage, and gender roles. It can shed light on how these ideologies shape the lived experiences of
individuals within the family, and how they are negotiated, contested, or reinforced in contemporary
Indian society. For instance, the patrilineal ideology has been challenged by legal reforms and feminist
movements that have sought to secure women's rights to inheritance and property ownership, but its
deep-rooted cultural underpinnings continue to shape societal attitudes and practices.
Furthermore, contemporary theoretical challenges emphasize the need to reclaim the "cultural
approach" to kinship, which entails examining how indigenous conceptions of relatedness, personhood,
codes of conduct, and rites of passage encode and reproduce family ideals and hierarchies. This emic
perspective can yield rich insights into constructions of childhood, femininity, the differential valorization
of particular kin relations (such as mother-son versus husband-wife), and the lived contradictions
between ideals and reality that shape family experiences.
By engaging with these culturally embedded understandings, scholars can move beyond the limitations
of the earlier Western-centric theorizations and develop a more grounded and contextually relevant
understanding of Indian kinship dynamics. For example, the concept of "aputra" (sonless) and the
valorization of the mother-son bond in certain Indian communities can shed light on the sociocultural
pressures and expectations surrounding childbearing and gender preferences, as well as the complex
negotiations within families to reconcile tradition and modernity.
Additionally, there is a growing call to expand the functional analysis of the family beyond the
conventional domains of biological reproduction, socialization, and welfare. Neglected aspects such as
the family's role in production, distribution, consumption, and overall economic organization need to be
scrutinized. Feminist scholarship has been particularly instrumental in foregrounding the domestic
sphere as a site of production, unpacking the sexual division of labor, intra-household inequities, and
women's disproportionate burden of unpaid labor. This perspective challenges the assumption of the
household as a unitary, altruistic unit and instead examines how gender and generational hierarchies
mediate resource allocation and bargaining power within families.
Moreover, contemporary theoretical challenges argue for relocating the study of the family within the
broader "system of families" governed by principles of descent, marriage alliance, exchange, and
encompassing hierarchies of caste and community. This approach challenges the notion of the
monolithic "Indian family" and highlights the need to engage with long-standing anthropological debates
around the centrality of descent versus alliance in structuring kinship relations and ideologies.
By situating the family within this broader kinship system, scholars can gain a more comprehensive
understanding of how familial structures and dynamics are shaped by the intersections of caste,
community, and regional norms, as well as the complex interplay between descent-based and alliance-
based kinship principles. For instance, the prevalence of cross-cousin marriage and the intricate
networks of affinal ties in certain South Indian communities challenge the assumptions of the patrilineal
joint family model and highlight the centrality of alliance in kinship organization.

Finally, contemporary theoretical challenges advocate for an interdisciplinary approach to the study of
the Indian family, drawing from diverse domains such as history, feminist studies, economics, law,
cultural studies, and engaging with new data sources like literature, arts, and media narratives beyond
the conventional ethnographic focus.
This interdisciplinary approach recognizes that the family is not merely a social unit but also a site of
cultural production, economic exchange, and legal contestation. By engaging with diverse disciplinary
perspectives and data sources, scholars can develop a more holistic and empirically grounded
understanding of Indian family and kinship without being bound by the earlier preoccupations and
theoretical blinkers.
For instance, historical sources can provide valuable insights into the genealogies of particular kinship
ideologies and how they have been shaped by broader sociopolitical and economic transformations over
time. Feminist scholarship can shed light on the gendered experiences within families, challenging
patriarchal norms and foregrounding issues of agency, resistance, and emancipation. Economic analyses
can interrogate the family's role in processes of production, consumption, and resource distribution, as
well as the intersections of kinship and class dynamics. Legal studies can illuminate the ways in which
kinship norms and ideologies are codified, contested, and transformed through legislative and judicial
processes.
Cultural studies can explore the representations and narratives surrounding family life in various forms of
media, literature, and popular culture, revealing the symbolic and discursive construction of kinship
ideals and their contestations. For example, the portrayal of joint and nuclear family dynamics in Indian
cinema and television can offer insights into the evolving societal attitudes and aspirations surrounding
family life, as well as the tensions between tradition and modernity.
Engaging with these diverse disciplinary perspectives and data sources not only enriches our
understanding of the multifaceted dimensions of Indian family life but also challenges the hegemonic
narratives that have long dominated the field.
In summary, while the sociological underpinnings of the Indian family have been heavily influenced by a
hegemonic Indo-Aryan, North Indian perspective, contemporary theoretical challenges call for a more
inclusive and nuanced understanding of the diverse kinship patterns, ideologies, and lived experiences
that shape family life across India. These challenges emphasize the need to move beyond simplistic
categorizations and engage with the complexities and heterogeneity of familial structures and dynamics
across regions, castes, and communities. They advocate for reclaiming cultural approaches, expanding
functional analyses, situating the family within broader kinship systems, and embracing interdisciplinary
perspectives and data sources. By addressing these theoretical challenges, scholars can deconstruct the
monolithic representations of the "Indian family" and develop a more contextually grounded, empirically
rich, and inclusive understanding of the diverse kinship realities that coexist within the Indian
subcontinent. Ultimately, these contemporary theoretical challenges offer a path towards decolonizing
the study of Indian kinship, moving away from the colonial baggage of earlier theorizations and towards
a more nuanced, culturally sensitive, and ethically grounded engagement with the lived experiences of
families across the diverse tapestry of Indian society.
Reading 4 - The Family :The View From A Room Of Her Own

Rethinking the family is more than a challenge, it is a threat. The family is expected to be "a
haven in a heartless world." And feminism has shaken us up; most of us positively, but the
shaking up that goes with creativity is not always welcome. No one is neutral about a subject
like "the family." We have all been raised in families and have strong feelings about the people
we are related to and the institution that binds us to them. Here is where we experienced our
first emotions and ambivalences. People expect families to provide "togetherness" for better or
for worse, in sickness and in health, etc., as the marriage vow sets it but most seemingly
objective observations of reality are measured against such expectations.From such
expectations, we frame questions like "Is the family falling apart?”
The study of the family as a formal academic subject is relatively recent. It emerged in Europe in
the nineteenth century at a time when many families seemed to be disintegrating and the social
fabric seemed about to unravel. The family became a "problem" that needed study for a
"solution." Specifically, rapid industrialization in Europe, particularly and at first in England, was
driving out small producers while better capitalized ones invested in mass production machinery.
The result was the creation of a wage-earning or working class totally dependent on jobs that
were subject to the booms and busts of the economy and having no other mainstay for survival.
Faced with recurrent crises over which they had no control, working people resorted to a variety
of strategies: sharing slim resources with one another, organizing for improved wages and
working conditions, trying to redistribute wealth legally through taxes and illegally through crime,
and organizing for more profound social change.
Finding themselves in an urban environment, far from the responsible ties of rural communities
where social pressure was strong for mutual aid, families felt contradictory pressures. On the
one hand, family members pulled closer together, having mainly one another on whom to rely
and lacking the security of the small community. Many new in-migrants to cities came
"sponsored" by family members who had gone before and were helped to get on their feet
when they arrived. "Fictive kin"-make- believe relatives or valued friends who became
honorary family members also were admitted to this security network. In other words, family
became more important, even as a concept to be applied to nonfamily. On the other hand,
lacking a clear shared enterprise, such as a family farm or shop or craft, families lost their
positive core: a common creative project. Rather, while individuals in the family still contributed
to its survival, increasingly they did so separately: They did different things in different
enterprises, for different employers, at different hours, and for different wages. The labor market
created by industrial capitalism tended to drive the family apart and make the individuals in it
separate entities in that labor market) These opposing pulls sometimes wrenched those families
out of shape. Parents were separated from children. . Some families broke apart completely
under the strain,Other families suffered temporary separation when individuals were forced into
workhouses or poorhouses or when other individuals. pioneered new places in which to work
and live.
This did not happen all at once. In the first few decades of the English industrial revolution
whole families entered a factory, to maintain family cohesion and out of the habit of working
together. Since workers no longer controlled the conditions of their work, however, the entire
family of children, women, and men experienced long hours and brutal discipline at low pay. By
the second third of the nineteenth century, the social consequences of this change became
noticeable, and parliamentary investigations were undertaken. They revealed personal results
such as ill health, shortened lives, and stunted intellectual development. Among the social
results were crime and widespread addiction to alcohol and other drugs. Among the political
results were radical movements for drastic social change and reformist movements for
amelioration. Among the temporary expedient solutions was the removal of women from
the labor force through "protective" legislation. By reducing competition in the labor
market, this pushed male wages up to the level of a "family wage." It also restricted women
to the home, where: presumably they would anchor and restabilize the family.
Engels, in particular, took an interest in family life and noted changes in its functions and in
authority relations within it over time in his The Condition of the Working Class in England in
1844 and in his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State of 1884. Marx noted the
effects of women's employment on family life in various places in Capital (1867) and contrasted
bourgeois and proletarian families in The Communist Manifesto (1848). Together, the two men
approached the subject, to noting change over time in this particular social institution, and they
rooted the change they observed in larger changes in society, specifically in the development of
capitalist industrialization as a way of organizing economic life, according to Marx and Engels,
new forms of family would ultimately liberate the individuals in it, though they might first pass
through stages in which family life was disrupted or oppressive, in view of the context of
capitalist exploitation.
Fré- déric Le Play,studied thirty-six French families through interviews and budget analyses. His
motivation, however, was to locate an ideal family form, with stability as the major criterion,
again, reflecting the major concern of his time. Defining three major types of family- traditional,
stem, and modern.Le Play settled on the stem family as the most desirable.. The stem family
achieved a balance between group interest and individual interest and between stability and
flexibility. However, the dynamic of European capitalism continued to disequilibrate this
"ideal"form. Le Play deplored the vulnerable, unstable "modern" family of only two generations
with divisible property and declining group loyalty.
The great Depression of the 1930s, which pitted women and men against one another for
employment, reinforced antifeminist positions arguing that women's place was in the home. The
1950s American school of family sociology tended to view family relationships as reflecting the
economic individuation of its members and as focusing now mainly on emotional needs. They
saw individuals within the family assuming certain modern specialized functions: The father took
an "instrumental" role, interfacing with the larger society and becoming therefore "rational"; the
mother took an "affective" role, mediating emotional relationships inside the family and be-
coming therefore "sensitive."
More recently, scholars have moved the question to a different plane, showing that Western
families have life cycles of their own in which periods are extended. family precedes fission into
new conjugal units or into a premarital single or cohabitation phase.Thus, individuals with
property to transmit may cut out lateral kin in favor of vertical lineage, to maintain an inheritance
intact and thus assure the family's continuing power.
An interesting but frustrating reversal occurs between studies of the family written sources of
past recorded by the literate, by the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. The peasantry and wage
earners left few written documents. Therefore, we know much more today about the experience
of the upper strata of past societies than about the experience of their lower strata. By contrast,
contemporary families that are most unwilling to be studied are the very rich, especially those
with a long ancestry of wealth who consider themselves upper class. One of the prerogatives of
wealth and distinction is privacy; hence the outcry when the public media violate it.
In contrast with our scanty information about the contemporary upper class, we know a lot about
the middle class, which seems to enjoy being studied, probably because its own members,
professionals, are doing the studying.
To conclude this answer to the first question-What has been the thinking about the family? it
may be said that it has often been politi- cally motivated, biased through its evidence, and
practiced mostly by men, though, as noted, partly under the impetus of and
in reaction to the women's movement of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Rethinking has been spurred by noticeable social changes. Today, as in the nineteenth century,
strains in and on the family draw public attention due to the rising divorce rate, the rising rate of
illegitimacy, the rising incidence of reported violence within the family, and the increase of
preferred alternatives such as both hetero- and homosexual cohabitation and communal and
single households. Some link the rise in married women's paid employment to these changes.
While it has been shown repeatedly that married women take jobs either to improve their
family's living standard or to keep it from falling, the interpretation persists that such work for the
family is actually destroying it. This opinion is possible only if one sees women as the core of
the family, rather than as one member of the family. It also suggests that only a
permanent presence in the household makes family possible. It has also been argued that
the contemporary women's movement is destroying the family.
One result is that women have begun studying the family. Feminist scholars have accrued
substantial new research, informed by urgent new questions derived directly from women's
experience. This work provides a correction to earlier. efforts, allowing a multidimensional view.
For one thing, methods of research have been affected: Female informants are included in
surveys of their own and alien cultures, where previously male anthropologists and sociologists
had relied mainly on male informants; subjective experiences of power relations are weighed
against objective measures of relative power; and women's contributions to and consumption in
the family economy are individually factored out. In short, the sociology of knowledge has been
refined to include gender perspectives.
But method is merely a way of gaining information. Behind it lie new questions in search of such
information. And so the second question: What has feminist rethinking been about?
The major feminist contribution has been to view women as individuals within the family, rather
than as mere components of it or anchors to it; that is, to view women as persons involved in
familial and nonfamilial activities, as men routinely have been perceived.
Put another way,feminists have opened a whole new vista by asking, not what do women do
for the family (an older question), but what does the family do for women? What Does it do to
women? Whom does family organization serve best, and how? How does it reproduce these
services historically? What changes occur in family form and function? In short, feminist
rethinking takes us back to basics: What is a family and what does it do?
A major challenge has been posed by Rayna Rapp, an anthropologist. Noting the great variety
of recognized kin and household organization in human societies, she considers that we have
overly reified "the family," making of it a "thing," a biological given, and thus confusing ourselves.
about "its" norms and deviations, "its" changing structures and functions. Instead, she proposed
that we more carefully distinguish households from families, since it is the former within which
people pool resources, per- form certain tasks, exhibit links to larger domains, and effectively
repro- duce society, especially class-stratified society.
Family, Rapp argues, might be more usefully understood as a mere concept, a social definition
of who should be living together inside of households. Seen thus, "family" becomes an aspect of
ideology, or normative thinking, which better explains its great variety.People are born into a
household of a certain type and thus find themselves in different "families"-dyadic, nuclear,
extended laterally, extended longitudi- nally, inclusive of nonkin, and so on.
Another apparent universal now under question is the activity of mothering. Seemingly
biologically based in childbearing ,historically specific, a product of advanced capitalist society,
which idealizes motherbood while isolating and marginalizing mothering, in a classic
demonstration of the mystifying function of ideology. This occurred with the separation of home
and work at the time of industrialization, which created two separate spheres: a private sphere
inhabited by women and children subject to the vicissitudes of the public sphere of economics
and politics ruled by men. In the last two decades, however, as married women and mothers
increasingly gravitate toward the labor force, the public/private division translates for them into a
"double burden" of paid and unpaid work and points to the erosion of "motherhood" as a
full-time, undiluted, "natural" vocation.
In response to this historical change, feminists have questioned the entire concept of mothering
and found that, indeed, other forms of parenting exist, appropriate to other material conditions.
Thus, non-Western, noncapitalist societies make child rearing central rather than marginal, and
share it with kin other than the biological mother and with nonkin, either by custom, as in
preindustrial societies, or through planning, as in socialist countries and in those with a mixed
economy. In such societies women may be mothers without falling into "motherhood" and may
more readily participate in society in other ways as well without guilt. Other aspects of women's
potential become realizable when they are less defined by their purely reproductive capacities.
Feminist thinking has allowed scholars to take a step back and look at reproduction differently.
In other places I have suggested the concept of social reproduction, which would include
socializing agencies other than the family, such as schools, health services, work relations, the
media, and so on.
Interesting work has been done on the social construction of gender, as distinct from the
biological determination of sex. Several feminist thinkers have challenged Freud's theories,
which implied that anatomy was destiny.
The lowly subject of housework, too "trivial" for most male scholars, has also been raised by
feminist scholars to a new level of theoretical analysis. Questions have been raised about its
economic value within the larger economy, the social meaning of its changing technology, its
relationship to other family work such as child care, and its psychological effect on the
homemaker.
. But studies show that labor-easing devices have not become labor-saving ones. The
housewife has not been liberated. from janitorial work; she has been bonded more firmly by
invisible links of hygienic and aesthetic standards that demand gleaming surfaces, Technology,
a closer look informs, was a mere reform, not a revolution in the life of homemakers. It simply
allowed more women to do their own housework; former domestics could do their own instead
of somebody else's, and former employers of domestics now also did their own house- work.
Child care, far from being a neatly meshing activity, frequently runs competition to housework for
time and opposition to it for goals; a neat home and a happy child may be a contradiction in
terms. No wonder the happy homemaker has been subject to depression, alcoholism, and drug
abuse.
Feminist rethinking has not only demystified the home as a workplace but as a locale of intense
intimacy, of close encounters not always of the loving kind.The family has been unmasked in its
oppressive relations, besides the more clichéd supportive ones. It has been revealed, among
other things, as a political arena in which individuals compete and form alliances, in which their
bargaining power fluctuates, and also their gains and losses.Family harmony exists, but it is an
achievement, not an omnipres- ent, given, natural condition.
To conclude: The feminist perspective, by perceiving women as subjects, as individuals
disembedded at least conceptually from the family. has reopened the questions of what a family
is, what its members do,how they are affected by the social organization of household and kin."
It has revealed far more complicated relationships within family and be- tween family and other
social formations than had previously been under- stood. 32 And all by asking one fundamental
question, as stated earlier, and that is not only what do women do for the family, but what does
the family do for women? A cui bono? A useful question for any interrogation in the social
sciences. And a validation of a major feminist insight: The personal, is political.
Reading 5 - "Population, Gender, and Politics: Women's Agency and Fertility" - Am Shah
The concept of the joint family in India is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been
studied extensively by sociologists and anthropologists. The joint family is characterized by a shared
household and a sense of joint ownership of property and resources. This concept is deeply rooted in
Indian culture and is influenced by various social, economic, and religious factors.

One of the earliest and most influential studies on the joint family was conducted by A.M. Shah, who
drew heavily from the work of sociologists such as Gluckman and Radcliffe Brown. Shah recognized that
customary rules and norms play a significant role in shaping the joint family, particularly in rural areas
where legal rules may not be as prevalent. He noted that the joint family is often seen as a means of
maintaining social stability and harmony, particularly in the face of conflict or disputes within the
family[1].

Another significant study on the joint family was conducted by M.N. Srinivas, who focused on the Coorgs
of South India. Srinivas highlighted the importance of the concept of "Okka," which refers to a larger
joint family that includes multiple generations and extended family members. He noted that the Okka is
characterized by specific rules and norms, such as the practice of Navirat (a younger brother marrying
the widow of his elder brother) and Sororate (a man marrying the sister of his dead wife), as well as
Sororate polygyny (a man having the right to marry all the sisters of his wife). Srinivas also discussed the
concept of Shalya, which determines the distribution of property among family members[1].

Srinivas distinguished between two types of joint families: Type A, composed of parents, their married
sons and their wives and children, and Type B, composed of married brothers, their wives and children.
He emphasized the functional aspect of the joint family, which includes the relationships between family
members and the way they work together to maintain the household. Srinivas argued that the functional
nature of jointness is more true regarding the joint family in India than the residential aspect[1].

T.N. Madan, in his study of the joint family, raised objections to Bailey's understanding of the joint family
as a property-holding group. Madan argued that the joint family is more than just a group of people who
own property together; it is a household group characterized by a sense of shared identity and mutual
support. He noted that the joint family is often seen as a means of maintaining social order and stability,
particularly in the face of conflict or disputes within the family[1].

B.S. Cohn, in his study of the Chamars in Uttar Pradesh, used the term "family" mostly in the sense of
household. He followed Murdock's definitions of nuclear and extended families regarding their
composition and Karve's definition of the joint family regarding its functional characteristics. Cohn
classified families as stable or unstable based on factors such as low life expectancy, frequent migrations
in search of livelihood, and tensions between family members. He argued that stable families, where
married brothers and their wives and children live together even after the death of their parents, can be
considered both extended and joint. In contrast, unstable families, where parents and sons are more
likely to break up, can only be called joint until they separate[1].

Aileen Ross, in her book "The Hindu Family in Its Urban Setting," used the term "family" to refer to a
household and identified four types of household composition: the large joint family, the small joint
family, the nuclear family, and the extended family. Ross noted that the joint family is often characterized
by a sense of shared identity and mutual support, particularly in the face of economic or social
challenges[1].

Irawati Karve, in her study of the joint family, provided a more comprehensive definition of the joint
family as "three or four generations of males related to a male ego, together with their wives and
unmarried sisters and daughters." Karve's definition includes a greater genealogical depth than the
classical definition, as it encompasses the grandfather and his brothers, their sons, nephews, and
unmarried sisters and daughters. Karve also noted that huge joint family households existed or still exist
in certain sections of Hindu society, although she did not specify which sections[1].

Jyotirmoyee Sarma, in her study of the Hindu joint household in Bengal, emphasized the importance of
formal and informal relations within the household. She noted that the joint family is often characterized
by a sense of shared identity and mutual support, particularly in the face of economic or social
challenges[1].

Ralph W. Nicholas, in his study of two West Bengal villages, made a distinction between the joint family
as a property-holding group and the joint family as a household group. He argued that the inclusion of
an aged grandparent in a family does not alter the jointness of the concept, as the grandparent is treated
as a social dependent[1].

A.C. Mayer, in his book "Caste and Kinship in Central India," discussed the concept of the corporate
property of the family, which includes the wife in the joint family. Mayer defined a simple household as
one where only one man resides and a joint household as one where more than one man resides, with
their income and expenditure being joint. He also noted that households are distinguished externally by
the males, although women play a part in household activities and policies[1].

F.G. Bailey, in his study of the joint family, focused on the concept of the coparcenary, which includes the
wife in the joint family. Bailey's understanding of the joint family as a property-holding group was
challenged by Madan, who argued that the joint family is more than just a group of people who own
property together; it is a household group characterized by a sense of shared identity and mutual
support[1].

Scarlett Epstein, in her study of two villages in South India, found that economic development leads to
the breaking up of the joint family. Epstein disagreed with Bailey's views on the factors responsible for
the breakup of the joint family, but they were not arguing about the same thing. Epstein considered the
joint family as a household group, while Bailey saw it as a property-holding group[1].

Mandelbaum, in his study of the joint family, provided a scriptural understanding of the joint family as
"all men are related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together under one roof, under one head,
and bound together by a common bond of kinship and family loyalty." Mandelbaum's definition
emphasizes the importance of shared ancestry, residence, and authority within the joint family[1].
Dubey, in his study of the joint family, described the web of family types and noted that the term
"family" is used to denote three different social units: the elementary family, the extended family, and
the near kin group. Dubey also discussed the concept of partition, where the sons of a joint family may
leave their parents' household to establish their own families[1].

In summary, the various scholars who have studied the joint family in India have proposed different
definitions and typologies based on their research contexts and theoretical frameworks. Some scholars,
such as Shah and Srinivas, have emphasized the importance of customary rules and norms in shaping the
joint family, while others, such as Bailey and Mayer, have focused on the concept of the corporate
property of the family. Other scholars, such as Cohn and Madan, have highlighted the functional aspect
of the joint family and the relationships between family members.

The joint family in India is a complex and multifaceted social institution that has been shaped by various
historical, cultural, and economic factors. While the classical definition of the joint family as a household
comprising three or four generations of males related to a male ego, together with their wives and
unmarried sisters and daughters, is widely recognized, many scholars have proposed alternative
definitions and typologies based on their research contexts and theoretical frameworks.

One of the key debates in the study of the joint family is the distinction between the joint family as a
property-holding group and the joint family as a household group. Scholars such as Bailey and Mayer
have emphasized the importance of the corporate property of the family, arguing that the joint family is
defined by the shared ownership of property and resources among family members. In contrast, other
scholars, such as Madan and Epstein, have argued that the joint family is more than just a property-
holding group; it is a household group characterized by a sense of shared identity and mutual support.

Another important aspect of the joint family is the functional aspect, which includes the relationships
between family members and the way they work together to maintain the household. Scholars such as
Shah and Srinivas have highlighted the importance of customary rules and norms in shaping the joint
family, particularly in rural areas where legal rules may not be as prevalent. They have also emphasized
the significance of interpersonal relationships in binding multiple households together and maintaining
the jointness of the family.

The concept of the joint family has also been studied in the context of caste and kinship. Scholars such as
Srinivas and Mayer have discussed the importance of specific kinship practices, such as Navirat and
Sororate, in shaping the joint family among certain communities. They have also highlighted the role of
property distribution norms, such as Shalya, in maintaining the cohesion of the joint family.

Despite the diversity of definitions and typologies proposed by various scholars, there are some common
themes that emerge from the study of the joint family in India. One of these themes is the importance of
shared identity and mutual support within the joint family, which serves as a means of maintaining social
stability and harmony, particularly in the face of economic or social challenges. Another theme is the
dynamic nature of the joint family, which is constantly evolving in response to changing social, economic,
and cultural conditions.
In conclusion, the study of the joint family in India has been a rich and complex field of inquiry, with
various scholars proposing different definitions and typologies based on their research contexts and
theoretical frameworks. While there may be disagreements and debates among scholars, there is a
general consensus that the joint family is a multifaceted social institution that plays a significant role in
shaping the lives of individuals and communities in India. As the social, economic, and cultural landscape
of India continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how the concept of the joint family adapts and
changes in response to these new challenges and opportunities.
Reading 6 - Women and Kinship" - Leela Dubey: Group Membership, Inheritance, and Resource
Distribution
In the essay "Women and Kinship: Comparative Perspectives on Gender in South Asia" by Leela Dube,
patrilineal descent systems predominate, creating a significant disparity in the membership status of
male and female children within their familial groups. Sons are considered permanent members of their
fathers' agnatic groups from birth, while daughters are viewed as temporary members who will
inevitably be transferred to another family upon marriage. This notion is deeply embedded in the
cultural ethos, as exemplified by a poignant Hindu folk song that compares a daughter to a sparrow
seeking temporary shelter in her father's compound before inevitably flying away to her marital home.

The patrilineal descent system in South Asia is particularly oppressive towards women, with various
mechanisms in place to control their sexuality and reproductive capacities. Women are cut off from their
natal groups and must navigate the challenging process of integrating into their husbands' families. The
material dependence of women and a pervasive gender ideology contribute to this oppressive structure.

In sharp contrast, Southeast Asian societies are predominantly characterized by bilateral kinship systems,
which place equal importance on both maternal and paternal lineages. Children of both sexes are
considered permanent members of the group into which they are born, and there is no attempt to
undermine the significance of either parent. Ego is at the center of the bilateral kinship system, and post-
marital residential arrangements offer a degree of choice and flexibility. Social identity is derived from
both parents, and marriage does not erase an individual's prior identity.

The divergent kinship systems in South Asia and Southeast Asia have profound implications for
inheritance patterns and resource distribution. In much of Hindu South Asia, property is passed down
through male heirs, with daughters traditionally entitled only to maintenance and a marriage befitting
their natal family's status. Despite legal reforms aimed at granting daughters equal rights in ancestral
property, the effectiveness of these measures remains uncertain. Dowry is frequently viewed as a
substitute for a daughter's share in her father's property.

Among Muslim communities in patrilineal South Asia, there has been a significant departure from
Quranic principles of inheritance. Daughters are often entirely excluded from inheriting their father's
property to maintain the integrity of the patrimony. Many women tacitly exchange their right to paternal
property for the privilege of periodically visiting their natal homes.

In matrilineal communities found in both South Asia and Southeast Asia, children of either sex gain
permanent membership in the maternal descent group. Property, such as coconut trees in Lakshadweep,
is shared and passed down exclusively through female lineages. Men may choose to gift their individual
property to their children and wives, often deviating from Islamic law under the influence of matrilineal
values.

Bilateral Southeast Asian societies, such as those in Peninsular Malaysia and Java, exhibit a preference
for equal distribution of property between sons and daughters, even when Islamic law prescribes a 2:1
ratio favoring sons. Children of both sexes inherit agricultural land, and daughters may receive a new
house with a garden plot and the right to use agricultural land upon establishing an independent
household.

The contrasting inheritance patterns underscore the material and ideological foundations of women's
dependence in South Asia. During an existing marriage, a woman's right to property and resources is
often minimal or non-existent. It is only upon becoming a widow that a South Asian woman may inherit
a portion of her husband's resources, although even then, her rights may be overshadowed by those of
her sons.

In Southeast Asia, the concept of conjugal property grants wives rights over their husbands' earnings.
Assets acquired during the course of the marriage are considered joint property, contributing to
women's sense of economic independence and autonomy.

The essay also explores the economic roles of women in the two regions. In South Asia, a substantial
amount of economically valuable work performed by women remains unrecognized and invisible.
Women from lower economic strata have always been involved in agricultural labor, craft production,
and various service roles. However, the extent to which employment and income provide economic
independence, respect, and identity to a South Asian woman is debatable. While her income contributes
to household expenses, it may not necessarily translate into control over resources.

In contrast, Southeast Asian women are renowned for their crucial economic roles. In addition to their
roles as wives and mothers, they have traditionally engaged in income-generating activities, which
contribute to their economic independence and autonomy. Women are integral to the peasant economy,
responsible for various facets of agricultural production. Unlike many of their South Asian counterparts,
Southeast Asian women maintain control over what they produce and earn.

Southeast Asian women are also known for their prominent presence in trading, both in traditional
markets and in the modern economy. Their participation in income-earning activities is closely tied to
their freedom of association, ability to migrate, support from kin networks, control over resources, and
rights over space.

The document concludes by acknowledging that while Southeast Asian women's economic
contributions, near-parity with men in bilateral societies, and advantageous residence patterns combine
to afford them a distinct value, the actual power and autonomy they derive from their economic roles
are contingent upon their resources and class. Nonetheless, their position stands in stark contrast to that
of South Asian women, whose economic roles often seem at odds with the ideologies of their kinship
systems.

The patrilineal descent system in South Asia, combined with unequal inheritance practices and limited
control over resources, reinforces women's dependence and subordinate status. The male-centric
ideology permeates various aspects of life, from property rights to social identity, making it difficult for
women to assert their autonomy and agency.
The bilateral kinship system in Southeast Asia, on the other hand, provides a more egalitarian foundation
for women's rights and status. The equal importance given to both maternal and paternal lineages,
coupled with more equitable inheritance practices and women's active participation in the economy,
creates an environment that is more conducive to women's empowerment.

However, it is crucial to recognize that even within these broad regional patterns, there is considerable
variation based on factors such as class, religion, and local customs. The experiences of women in South
Asia and Southeast Asia are not monolithic, and individual circumstances can deviate from the general
trends outlined in the document.

Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that legal reforms and changing social norms have the
potential to alter the status quo in both regions. In South Asia, efforts to grant daughters equal rights in
ancestral property and challenge discriminatory practices are gradually gaining momentum. Similarly, in
Southeast Asia, the increasing influence of globalization and shifting economic landscapes may impact
traditional gender roles and power dynamics.

The essay serves as a valuable reminder of the complex interplay between kinship systems, economic
structures, and gender hierarchies in shaping the lives of women across different cultures. It highlights
the need for a nuanced understanding of these factors to effectively address gender inequalities and
promote women's empowerment.

By delving into the contrasts between South Asia and Southeast Asia, the document sheds light on the
ways in which deeply entrenched social and cultural norms can perpetuate gender disparities. It
underscores the importance of challenging these norms and advocating for more equitable systems that
recognize and value women's contributions in both the domestic and public spheres.

Furthermore, the document raises important questions about the relationship between women's
economic roles and their overall status in society. While Southeast Asian women's active participation in
the economy is often cited as a source of their relative autonomy and power, the essay reminds us that
economic independence alone does not automatically translate into full gender equality. Other factors,
such as access to education, political representation, and freedom from violence and discrimination, are
equally crucial in determining women's overall well-being and status.

In conclusion, the essay provides a rich and nuanced analysis of the complex ways in which group
membership, inheritance patterns, resource distribution, and women's economic roles intersect to shape
the experiences of women in South Asia and Southeast Asia. By highlighting the stark contrasts between
the two regions, it underscores the powerful influence of kinship systems and cultural norms on gender
relations and women's status. The essay serves as a call to action, reminding us of the urgent need to
challenge entrenched gender inequalities and work towards more just and equitable societies that value
and empower women in all spheres of life.
Reading 7 – White Saris and Sweet Mangoes" - Sarah Lamb
WHITE SARIS AND SWEET MANGO
“White Saris and Sweet Mangoes, Partings and Ties” is a work by Sarah Lamb, on a village
named Mangaldihi located in West Bengal which looks at the idea of family relationships
through the lens of ageing. The focus of this matter has revolved around the efforts made
by the elderly to abandon the ties of worldly pleasures, what the Bengalis call Maya.
Lamb begins by writing that for people in Mangaldihi a central problem of ageing was – to
loosen bonds to kin, places, things, and even one’s own body. One’s attachment to these
things is likely to increase in number and intensity with the length of life; but one must
loosen these attachments as a preparation to part ways with the worldly comforts after
death. Bengalis perceive the old age as a paradoxical time of life when relations are the
most fragile but the pulls of maya are the strongest.
The Problem of Maya
Maya, refers to the nature of the everyday, lived world of experience, known as samsara in
Sanskrit. In rural West Bengal, Maya is more commonly equated with effects such as
attachment, affection, compassion or love. Maya also consists of substantial or bodily
connections. People see themselves as a part of and tied to their family, belongings, land
and houses that make up their person hood. According to Bengalis, all of this makes up
maya.
They refer to maya as taking the form of ‘binding’ or a ‘net’ in which people are meshed.
These bindings can also be loosened or ‘cut’ by various practices. But abandoning maya is
believed to be an extremely tough thing to do.
Maya is classified as one of the six chief vices that plague human existence along with
greed, passion, anger, pride and jealousy. Villagers of Mangaldihi state that maya causes
immense pain and suffering. As soon as people feel their first pull of maya, they become
sad of the loss to follow. Everything we have maya for is false or mistaken, because these
things are not ultimately real or lasting. As long as we have maya, we cannot find God or
truth.
Lamb then focuses on the question of whether maya decreases with age or does maya
increase as people grow older. Majority of the responses concluded that for most people
maya increases with the length of life, because kin such as children and grandchildren tend
to increase in number as a person grows older. People also think that maya is felt more
intensely towards junior rather than senior kin like affection and blessings, maya flows
more powerfully downward than upward. Others in the village explained that in addition
to this, connections with all things- possessions, money, houses, and village soil –
accumulate and intensify with time. Some said that as one grows closer to death, s/he
becomes more and more aware of the fact that s/he will have to part from all the things
and people close to them, and this awareness of impending separation causes feelings of
connection to intensify.
The Dangers of Maya
If maya becomes strong over the course of life, then the living of one’s final years- facing
losses, separations and death is said to be very painful. Those with strong attachments may
hang on in painfully fragile age instead of dying, or becoming a ‘bhut’ (ghost) after death,
being ‘bound’ to his body, surroundings, and relationships, as caught in a net and therefore
unable to die, even if very ill and feeble.Even the maya of the mourning survivors is seen as
a problem-the more the household people cry, the more the atma cannot leave.
Mangaldihi villagers define the desired state of mukti or ‘release’ as liberation from the
binding ties of a lifetime, and freedom from lingering ghost hood, and the attainment of
peace and an opportunity to dwell temporarily in the realm of heaven or svarga. It is even
believed to be the state of absolute freedom from all ties of the world and a permanent
end to the cycle of rebirths and redeaths.
Loosening Ties, Disassembling Persons
Many older people of Mangaldihi indulge into various practices in order to undo the
growing ties of maya. Such practices include decentering and cooling the body and mind.
2
Ageing persons could decenter themselves by physically relocating themselves away from
the centre of the household. The hub of activity was the centre courtyard of the house,
where people socialized, prepared food, negotiated business deals, etc. Senior men and
women moved their cot at one end of the veranda, watching the activities of visitors and
kin. Such moves towards the periphery indicated their freedom from former ties and duties
and surrender of controls over goods and people.
Beyond the confines of household space, they spend most of their time at others’ houses
chatting and having tea; resting on temple platforms and loitering around in the village.
Cooling included the exclusion of “hot” foods from their diets which could excite their
worldly passions and attachments. The celibacy commonly practised by elders, was also
regarded as a cooling lifestyle. It was advertised by wearing white clothes, claiming sexual
purity.
Verbal techniques such as arguing and cursing were sometimes used to promote
alienation. Many elder people also spent hours chanting the names of deities in order to
weaken their own earthly ties and to attain peace. They tried getting rid of their favourite
possessions in late life- giving away property, jewellery, favourite saris and keepsakes.
Taking Pilgrimages in Late Life
Pilgrimages to holy crossing places such as Gaya, Hardwar, Varanasi, and Puri, were
common experiences of the older people in Mangaldihi. They saw it as an appropriate
activity for the old. Some considered it their last opportunity to go, as after that their body
would die or become too weak to travel. Several women mentioned that they felt free to go
on pilgrimages only after they had ceased to menstruate, since it would be a great sin to
bow down before a temple god while menstruating. Many pilgrims saw pilgrimage as a
major break in their ways of living.
The older pilgrims and others on the journey could be divided into two major categories:
those who simply went to see- ‘dekhte’ and those who went to do tirtha or to go on a
pilgrimage. “Seeing” included the pleasures of travelling, viewing distant sites, meeting new
people, bringing back souvenirs and having fun. “Doing tirtha” is another matter altogether.
To do tirtha involved taking darsan (auspicious sight) of gods, eating prasad, and giving out
3
money to deities, temple priests, and beggars. According to the pilgrims one must suffer to
do tirtha which means that the journey must be uncomfortable, as the most important
ingredient of tirtha was considered suffering (kasta).
This suffering included sleeping on the ground and on cramped bus seats, going barefoot,
wearing crumpled clothing, becoming hungry, giving out money into the hands of priests
and beggars, being plagued by mosquitoes, getting dysentery from foreign waters, and
being away from the comforts of home. The returning pilgrim should be thinner and poorer
and this effect is referred to as lightening- a way to reach God and reducing the bindings
of maya.
Wandering Beggars
Although begging is not usually begun by choice, the lifestyle of a beggar is helpful in
loosening the ties of maya. By wandering continually from place to place, beggars loosen
their attachments to particular homes, villages, and soils. By living alone, they ease their
attachments to kin, neighbours, and friends. By eating food prepared by others, beggars
become partially mixed with many but thoroughly mixed with none. By living without
possessions and dispersing money as soon as it is received, beggars forsake binding ties
with belongings and material wealth, they become one of the lightest, most unconnected,
and peripheral people of all, similar to an ascetic. Being free of maya brings one close to
peace which would be hard to attain if one had a household.
Old Age Home Dwellers
Old age homes are relatively a new phenomenon in India. They are viewed by most people
as features of an overly Westernised modern society characterised by a lack of family love.
But they were also being reinterpreted, by some, as a kind of Indian institution- a place
comparable perhaps to the forest that hindu texts describe “forest dwellers” or
vanaprastha, the third stage of life, as dictated by the varnashramadharma.
Women in the old age homes left behind not only kin but most of their possessions, living
in a dormitory-style setting with four residents to a room, each with a cot and a corner in
which to place a few belongings. But even after making the radical move to an old age
4
home, most said to have experienced immense sadness and suffering because maya
takes a long time to fade away.
The Joys And Perils Of Remaining Hot and Central, Even in Old Age
If an old villager remained hot and central, fully engrossed with family and village affairs,
even at a ripe old age, controlling their family members with a hot temper, other villagers
worried about the dangers of such bindings and involvements and often spoke with
disapproval about such behaviours. There was a general agreement that in old age,
people should stop worrying about money and know that their sons will feed them and
look after their home and business affairs, so they can turn towards dharma and God.
People should desire to feed others if they come upon some good food. Even if the ideal
cannot be perfectly achieved- it is best for people to begin to give things away, rather than
to take them in.
The Values Of Attachment and Renunciation
According to the asramadharama theory of life stages, persons move through four life
stages- that of celibate students, then householders, followed by hermits and then
finally become renouncers. As a renouncer, a man strives to become free from all
attachments to people, places, things and even his own body, through taking leave of
family members, abnegating caste identity, giving up all possessions, performing his own
funeral rites, begging and moving from place to place, preventing attachments. This way,
they expect to attain moksha.
Renunciation is dangerously fatal to more worldly values, because it is aimed toward a
negation of the world, thus it is only possible at the latest stage only after all worldly
obligations have been fulfilled.
In conclusion, villagers of Mangaldihi strongly believe in the concept of Maya and fear being
trapped in the worldly comforts. On one hand it is considered important to break the
ties of maya in old age, on the other it is said to grow intense with the length of life.
However hard it might be, they do indulge in various practices to get rid of the net of maya.
Reading 8 – The Bonds of Love Gayatri Reddy
The article “the bonds of love companionate marriage and the desire for intimacy among Hijras in
Hyderabad India” written by Gayatri Reddy. This article basically focus on Hijras constructions of intimacy
and desires as they articulate with and interpret the global ideology of companionate marriage.
According to her, in companionate marriage the relationship constructed on sexual and emotional
intimacy rather than on reproductive mandate. Through this ideology men and women are constructing
new ways of understanding their relationships to one another. In the article “ bonds of love”, Reddy
addresses the interpretation of global discourse of companionate marriage among Hijras in the South
Indian city of Hyderabad. She also explains the Hijras understanding of marriage and their intimate “
bonds of love” with their “husbands”.
Who are Hijras?
According to Reddy, Hijras are individuals who described in the literature as the “ third sex” or “eunuch
transvestites” of India. But in most parts, they are known as men who wear female clothing and sacrifice
their genitalia or nirvan for power to confer fertility. It believed that their location is beyond the
procreative sexuality world. Real Hijras are seen as like a ascetics who renounced their sexual desires.
Serena Nanda gave them title as “ neither man nor women”. One of Hijras leader, Amir Nayak stated
that they are reborn as men minus men. Despite this a kind of vowed sexuality, several Hijras not only
express their desire for men but also desirably engaging in sex work. One side it appears that asexual
senior Hijras might be sexually engaged in their younger age and later they aspired toward asexuality.
But many sex workers indicate the reason that individuals to become Hijras in order to express their
sexual desires with other men. Here Reddy mentions two types of Hijras, one are those who earn their
income from sex work with other men and others are those who establish sexual and emotional
relationships with men and consider them as their husbands. For them the marriage with non hijra men
based on their love rather than socially sanctioned arranged marriage.
Representation of conjugality and intimacy in contemporary India:
In this Reddy responds about the changing consumer dynamic in the representation of intimacy in the
media have been going through the rapid transformation in recent times. Here she explains it through
the most striking examples of condoms advertisements from Nirodh in the 1970s to Kamasutra in the
1990s.
The Nirodh advertisement depicted the principal message to control the fertility and state used this
advertisement as principal tool to control the problem of overpopulation. In contrast Kamasutra
television advertisement depicts a new public legitimation of consensual sexuality and highlight the men
and women mutual pleasure . So on one hand, depicting the image of marriage and desire in often
reformulated in terms of family and on the hand, representation of desire and sexuality.
On the other side, the state also plays a significant role in reinforcing the illegitimacy of such
advertisement. State tried to impose the ban on representation of private sexual intimacy such as kissing
scenes in movies and public spectacle of female body such as vulgar dance scenes in Hindi movies.
According to Prasad, kissing is a sign of western ness and alien to Indian culture. It is through the marital
signifier that legitimate and illegitimate markers of modernity, culture and Indian ness are invented and
it’s representations regulated by the state.
Hijra “Husbands” and emotional intimacy:
Here Reddy raised the question that under the normative construction of intimacy, sexuality, and
marriage, how Hijras negotiate this divide between the legitimate intimate only within the marital
signifier and illegitimacy in sexual encounters outside the marital sphere. As we discussed above that on
the one hand, Hijras are located outside the bounds of marriage and “family” because of their image as
non productive eunuchs but on other side, they have sexual desire to engage with non Hijras men as it is
their occupation to engage in sex work and they called it client relationship while looking at their need
for emotional bonds that they are engaging in intimate relationship with their “husbands”.
Reddy also noticed after talking with Hijras that they differentiate between desire and lifelong
companionship. As several Hijras clarified that their clients could appease their sexual desire but their
relationships with their “husbands “were different. They not only seeking sexual pleasure but more
importantly they also want “companionship” and caring. In their case, “bonds of love” in their intimate
relationship are emotional than primarily. Here, Reddy also takes a example of one hijra whose name is
Munira. As munira has a ideal husband not only because he look after her when she was suffering from
typhoid but because of his openness with his family about relationship with Munira. According to
Munira, as she is his first “wife”, so he not only asked her permission before marrying to his official wife
but also gained his wife’s family acceptance. This example reveals the proof of their bonds of love. But
sometime her “husband” also beat her.
This ideal of companionate marriage appears that it cross the boundary between hijra community and
society as being ideal for all married couples. That’s why, Hijras fantasies of the ideal marriage
relationship not just for sexual desire but also about caring and emotional relationship. So, for Hijras in
Marital relationship the companionship and emotional intimacy most important.
Hijra clients and sexual intimacy:
The Hijras relationship with their clients found as primarily on sexual desire. As we above discussed, they
engaged in sex work to fulfill their sexual desire and to earn money. According to some Hijras, engage in
sex work is not only their primary occupation but also revealed their desire. Even they were facing
everyday threat of arrest and destruction of their huts which had made on government land, so all they
could engage in sex for their fondness. As Reddy wrote in her article that “sex” for Hijras is very
important aspect of their identity and practice. In most parts , each hijra sex worker engage with
between five to ten non Hijras men in every night. Hijras had their own hierarchy of sexual practices with
different valences. The basic significant categorical difference between “real” and “false” or sees and
kavdi respectively. While Sees work include anal and oral sex and on the other hand, kavdi sex referred
to frottage. The particular sex act engaged with client depend on desire, beauty, monetary compensation
and familiarity with client. As Reddy mentioned in her article that “real” or sees work demand the higher
wage but “false” or kavdi work is most common practice.
Role of “husbands” relative to the Hijras' sexual “Customers”:
As these Hijras mostly engage in sex work, then one question arise that why then do these Hijras valorize
the acquisition of “husband”? After talking with Hijras, Reddy found that there is difference not only in
the relative valence of corporeal and emotional bonds in the Hijras’ relationship with their “husbands”
and clients but also in the specific sexual practices engaged in. As Hijras indicated to her that sex with
their “husband” is always “real”sex but sex with their clients can be “false”. In fact derive the pleasure
from sexual engagement with their clients than their “husbands “ but these relations only made on their
monetary worth and they have opportunity to denigrate men. So their bonds with their clients are not
emotional.
Violence and the reinscription of gendered ideologies:
The flip side of these constructions is the explicit gendering of Hijras’ marriage relationships. Hijra
“bonds of love” with their husbands are explicitly constructed in the image of normative heterosexual
marital bonds with all of their often problematic reinscription of gendered and patriarchal ideals, norms
and practices. In this relationship, Hijras has to perform responsibilities as a “wife” such as cooking,
cleaning, washing etc. In their relationships, there is an explicit trust, respect and bond of intimate
affection between the partners. Taking again example of munira case , as munira told that when her
“husband” in trouble then firstly he approached to her and It was her “husband” who helped her when
she was sick rather than any other Hijras and her husband have also trust on her that she will help him in
troubles. Some Hijras also sent the love letter to their “husbands” to meet them. Some Hijras left their
homes for their “husbands”.
Despite the official injunctions against marriage and establishment of intimate relationships with men for
the hijra sex workers, these relationships are most important in their lives. According to Hijras, mostly
these relationships with their “husbands” began from customer relationship and then transformed into
intimate emotional bonds. Here share an emotional bond with Hijras not premised on obligatory
reproductive grounds.
Despite this, Hijras suffering violence and abuse from their husbands. But they don’t fight back for it as
they respect their ideals. There appeared to be an explicit re- gendering of relationships that held up the
values of emotional security, trust, respect as the ideals in a marital relationship despite the reality of
abuse. Sometimes soen Hijras tried to commit suicide to longing for intimate and caring relationship
with their “husbands”.
In conclusion, today Hijras have demonstration of affection and emotional intimacy even more than
sexual desire and corporeal pleasure that are the most important sentiments in constructing a
“companionate marriage”. In other words, the notion of intimacy centered around companionate
marriage.
Reading 9 – The Second Shift" - Arlie Russell Hochschild

Arlie Hochschild's groundbreaking book "The Second Shift" delves deep into the persistent inequality in
the division of domestic labor within heterosexual couples, even in households where both partners
work outside the home. Through extensive research interviews with couples, Hochschild shines a light
on the challenges women face in juggling their careers and the disproportionate burden of household
chores and childcare responsibilities that fall upon them.

At the core of Hochschild's analysis is the concept of the "second shift," which she coined to describe the
unpaid labor women perform at home after their formal employment hours. Despite the societal shifts
that brought more women into the workforce, traditional gender norms and expectations persisted
within the domestic sphere, leading to an unequal distribution of household tasks.

One of the key findings from Hochschild's interviews was that even when both partners worked full-time
jobs, women still took on the majority of domestic tasks such as cooking, cleaning, laundry, and
childcare. This "second shift" at home created a double burden for women, who had to navigate the
demands of their paid employment while also shouldering the bulk of unpaid labor required to maintain
the household.

Hochschild delves into the emotional and psychological toll this imbalance can have on women. Juggling
two demanding roles simultaneously can lead to physical exhaustion, mental strain, and a diminished
sense of personal fulfillment. Women often find themselves torn between the competing demands of
work and family, struggling to meet societal expectations and their own internal aspirations.

The book explores the societal and cultural factors that contribute to the perpetuation of these
traditional gender roles. Hochschild discusses how socialization processes, media representations, and
deeply ingrained beliefs about gender norms shape individual choices and reinforce the notion that
domestic labor is primarily a woman's responsibility.

One of the key cultural images that Hochschild examines is the idealized portrayal of the "supermom" or
the "woman with the flying hair." This image depicts women as effortlessly balancing their careers and
domestic responsibilities, often with a briefcase in one hand and a child in the other. However,
Hochschild argues that this glamorized depiction glosses over the immense emotional and physical labor
required to juggle these multiple roles, creating unrealistic expectations and pressure on women.

Hochschild contrasts this idealized image with the realities faced by working-class women and single
mothers, particularly those from marginalized communities. She highlights the unconscious racism
present in American culture, where white middle-class working women are portrayed as glamorous
supermoms, while black working single mothers are often derogatorily labeled as "matriarchs." This
distinction perpetuates societal biases and fails to acknowledge the shared experiences of women across
different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds.

The book also examines the lack of support and understanding from male partners in sharing domestic
responsibilities. Hochschild notes that while women are engaged in tasks like preparing meals or
cleaning, men are often depicted as leisurely watching television, hanging out at pubs, or engaging in
other recreational activities. This lack of shared responsibility reinforces the notion that domestic labor is
primarily a woman's responsibility, even in households where both partners work outside the home.

Hochschild also critiques the advertising world's portrayal of women as being assisted by machines and
appliances rather than by their husbands or partners. This perpetuates the idea that domestic work is a
solitary endeavor for women, with technology as their only aid, rather than a shared responsibility
within the household. The advertisements reinforce the notion that women should be grateful for labor-
saving devices rather than expecting their partners to contribute equally to household tasks.

Throughout the book, Hochschild advocates for a more equitable distribution of domestic
responsibilities and highlights the need for societal changes to support this shift. She argues that
traditional gender roles and expectations must be challenged and transformed to achieve true gender
equality within households and in society at large.

One of the cultural responses Hochschild discusses is the emergence of a humorous or satirical portrayal
of the supermom image. This includes depictions in job books, memo pads, and Mother's Day cards that
poke fun at the unrealistic expectations placed on working mothers. These humorous representations
often show women frazzled, with unkempt hair, juggling a crying baby in one hand and a briefcase
spilling papers in the other, sarcastically proclaiming, "I am a working mother." While these depictions
can be seen as a form of catharsis or a way to cope with the overwhelming demands placed on women,
they also highlight the absurdity of the supermom ideal and the societal pressures women face.

Another cultural trend Hochschild identifies is the proposition of an alternative to the supermom image:
the "new mom." This alternative celebrates men who embrace their roles as equal partners in childcare
and household responsibilities, challenging the notion that domestic work is solely a woman's domain. It
presents a vision of masculinity that is compatible with sharing housework and prioritizing time with
children. This alternative image seeks to redefine gender norms and encourage a more equitable
distribution of domestic labor within the household.

Hochschild's findings and insights remain highly relevant today, as many heterosexual couples continue
to grapple with the challenges of balancing work and family life. Despite increasing awareness and
efforts towards gender equality, the unequal distribution of domestic labor persists, with women often
bearing the brunt of the second shift.

The book serves as a powerful call to action for a more equitable distribution of domestic labor and a
reevaluation of societal norms and expectations surrounding gender roles. It highlights the need for
structural and institutional changes to support working families, such as affordable and accessible
childcare, flexible work arrangements, and initiatives that promote shared parental leave and encourage
fathers to take an active role in caregiving.

Additionally, Hochschild's work underscores the importance of challenging deeply ingrained cultural
beliefs and stereotypes that perpetuate gender inequality within households. This includes addressing
the media's portrayal of gender roles, promoting more inclusive and diverse representations of families
and caregiving responsibilities, and fostering open dialogues about the emotional and mental health
implications of the second shift.

Hochschild's research also has implications for workplace policies and practices. By acknowledging the
second shift and its disproportionate impact on women, employers can implement measures to support
work-life balance and promote more equitable sharing of domestic responsibilities. This could include
initiatives such as flexible work schedules, on-site childcare facilities, and family-friendly policies that
encourage both men and women to take advantage of parental leave and caregiving support.

Moreover, Hochschild's findings highlight the need for continued research and policy efforts to address
the intersectional experiences of women from diverse socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. The
challenges faced by working-class women, single mothers, and women of color often compound the
burdens of the second shift, exacerbated by systemic inequalities and societal biases.

Ultimately, "The Second Shift" remains a seminal work in the field of gender studies and a valuable
resource for understanding the complexities of domestic labor and the persistent challenges faced by
working women. By illuminating the hidden labor and emotional toll of the second shift, Hochschild's
book has sparked important conversations and contributed to ongoing efforts to achieve greater gender
equality in both the public and private spheres.

While progress has been made since the book's publication, the issues it raises continue to resonate,
serving as a reminder of the work that still needs to be done to dismantle deeply rooted societal norms
and create a more equitable distribution of domestic responsibilities. Hochschild's groundbreaking
research serves as a call to action for individuals, families, workplaces, and society as a whole to work
towards a more balanced and just distribution of labor, fostering greater well-being and fulfillment for
all.
Reading 10 – Intimacy as a concept

The concept of intimacy is multi-layered and profound, woven into the very fabric of the human
experience. At its core, it represents the profound connection between individuals, a bond that
transcends the superficial and delves into the depths of emotion, vulnerability, and shared humanity.
However, intimacy is not a monolithic concept, but rather a tapestry of intricate threads, each strand
contributing to the richness and complexity of this fundamental aspect of our lives.

To truly understand the nuances of intimacy, we must first examine the diverse practices and behaviors
that give rise to these profound connections. One of the most fundamental practices is that of presence
– the act of being fully engaged and attuned to another person in the present moment. In a world that
often demands our attention be divided among a myriad of distractions, the simple act of offering our
undivided presence can be a profound gift.

When we are truly present with another, we create a sacred space where walls are lowered, and
vulnerability can flourish. It is within this space that we can bear witness to the intricate tapestry of
another's life, woven from the threads of their experiences, hopes, fears, and innermost thoughts. By
lending our full attention, we communicate a depth of care and consideration that can only arise from a
genuine desire to understand and connect with the other person on a profound level.

Another essential practice that cultivates intimacy is that of deep listening. Too often, we engage in
conversations without truly hearing the other person, allowing our minds to wander or formulating our
responses before they have even finished speaking. True deep listening, however, involves setting aside
our own agendas and fully immersing ourselves in the words, inflections, and underlying emotions being
expressed by the other person.

When we listen with the intent of truly understanding, we create a space where the other person feels
seen, heard, and valued. It is in these moments that trust is fostered, and the foundations of intimacy
are laid. By offering the gift of our undivided attention, we communicate a level of respect and care that
transcends mere words, allowing the other person to feel safe in sharing their authentic selves with us.

Physical touch is another powerful conduit for intimacy, a language that speaks directly to the soul. The
gentle caress of a lover's hand, the embrace of a dear friend, or the soothing touch of a parent
comforting their child – each of these gestures holds immense power, for they communicate a depth of
connection that often defies verbal expression.

Touch has the ability to soothe, to reassure, and to convey a level of emotional attunement that can only
arise from a deep understanding of another's needs and desires. It is a primal form of communication
that taps into our most fundamental human longings for connection, safety, and belonging.

Acts of care and service, no matter how small, are also vital threads in the tapestry of intimacy. Whether
it is the preparation of a loved one's favorite meal, the thoughtful gesture of running an errand, or the
patient tending to a partner's needs during illness, these actions speak volumes about the depth of our
commitment and understanding.

When we engage in these acts of care, we communicate a level of attunement and consideration that
can only arise from a deep well of knowledge about the other person's unique preferences, needs, and
emotional landscape. It is a language of love, woven through the fabric of our daily routines and rituals, a
silent testament to the profound bond we share with those we hold dear.

While the practical and physical aspects of intimacy are undoubtedly significant, it is the emotional and
spiritual dimensions that elevate these connections to a transcendent plane. The ability to openly share
our innermost thoughts, fears, and vulnerabilities with another is a profound act of trust and courage,
one that requires us to shed the protective armor we so often wear in our public lives.

When we allow ourselves to be truly seen and accepted in our entirety, we experience a depth of
connection that is both humbling and profoundly transformative. It is in these moments of raw honesty
and vulnerability that the barriers between souls dissolve, and a deeper understanding is forged – an
understanding that transcends the limitations of language and speaks directly to the shared human
experience that binds us all.

Intimacy is not solely the domain of romantic partnerships; rather, it permeates every aspect of our lives,
from the bonds of family to the camaraderie of close friendships. Each of these relationships holds the
potential for profound intimacy, for it is in the act of allowing ourselves to be truly seen and accepted by
another that we experience the profoundest depths of human connection.

In the realm of friendship, intimacy often manifests as a deep sense of loyalty and unwavering support, a
safe haven where one can shed the masks worn in public and reveal one's authentic self without fear of
judgment. It is in these sacred spaces that laughter and tears alike are shared, and the burdens of life are
lightened through the solace of shared experience.

Within the bonds of family, intimacy takes on a different hue, woven through the intricate tapestry of
shared history, unconditional love, and the unbreakable bonds of kinship. It is in the quiet moments of
domesticity, the familiar rituals, and the unspoken understanding that intimacy flourishes, a silent
testament to the depths of connection that transcend mere words.

Yet, intimacy is not a static state; it is a dynamic, ever-evolving journey that ebbs and flows with the
currents of life. Just as the tides rise and fall, so too do the levels of intimacy within our relationships,
influenced by a myriad of factors – personal growth, changing circumstances, and the ever-present
passage of time.

In times of adversity, intimacy can serve as a sanctuary, a steadfast anchor amidst the turbulent seas of
life. It is in these moments that the true strength of our connections is tested, and the resilience of our
intimate bonds is forged. Whether it is navigating the challenges of illness, loss, or personal struggles,
the unwavering presence of those closest to us can provide solace, fortitude, and a profound sense of
belonging.
Conversely, periods of joy and celebration are amplified and made all the more meaningful when shared
within the context of intimate relationships. The birth of a child, the achievement of long-held dreams,
or the simple pleasure of basking in each other's company – these moments are imbued with a depth of
significance that can only be fully appreciated through the lens of intimacy.

Yet, intimacy is not merely a passive state of being; it is an active pursuit, a conscious decision to
continuously nurture and tend to the delicate bonds that connect us to those we hold dear. It requires a
willingness to be vulnerable, to shed the armor of self-protection, and to embrace the inherent risks that
come with opening oneself to another.

In a world that often values independence and self-sufficiency above all else, the act of cultivating
intimacy can be seen as a radical act of defiance against the societal norms that would have us erect
impenetrable walls around our hearts. It is a reminder that we are not islands unto ourselves, but rather
beings intrinsically woven into the tapestry of humanity, sustained by the intricate web of connections
that bind us to one another.

And yet, despite the universal human need for intimacy, the paths to achieving it are as diverse as the
cultures and societies that populate our world. Each tradition, each belief system, holds its own unique
rituals and customs that facilitate the journey towards deeper connection.

In some societies, the path to intimacy is paved with elaborate courtship rituals, where the dance of
seduction and mutual exploration unfolds through a meticulously choreographed series of steps. In
others, the bonds of intimacy are forged through the shared experience of communal living, where the
boundaries between individual and collective blur, and the notion of interdependence is woven into the
very fabric of daily existence.

Across the globe, we bear witness to a myriad of practices and traditions that serve as conduits for
intimacy, each as unique and diverse as the cultures from which they emerge. From the intricate
exchange of symbolic gifts in certain indigenous communities to the sacred rituals of spiritual union
practiced in various religious traditions, the tapestry of intimacy is woven with threads of infinite hue
and texture.

Yet, regardless of the specific cultural lens through which intimacy is viewed, one truth remains constant:
it is a fundamental human need, a primal yearning that transcends the artificial boundaries of
geography, ethnicity, or creed. It is the common thread that binds us all, a reminder that beneath the
surface of our differences lies a shared desire to be seen, understood, and cherished in our entirety.

In an increasingly globalized world, where the tides of cultural exchange and cross-pollination are ever-
shifting, the concept of intimacy takes on a new significance. It becomes a bridge, a means of fostering
understanding and connection across the vast divides that once seemed insurmountable.

Through the shared language of intimacy, we can begin to appreciate the intricate tapestries of human
experience that have been woven by cultures vastly different from our own. We can bear witness to the
myriad ways in which individuals across the Here is a continuation of the detailed 2000+ word response
on intimacy:

Through the shared language of intimacy, we can begin to appreciate the intricate tapestries of human
experience that have been woven by cultures vastly different from our own. We can bear witness to the
myriad ways in which individuals across the globe navigate the universal human experience of forging
profound connections with those they hold dear.

In this way, intimacy becomes not merely a personal pursuit, but a powerful tool for fostering empathy,
compassion, and a deeper appreciation for the rich diversity that exists within the human family. It is a
reminder that beneath the surface of our differences, we all share a fundamental longing to forge
meaningful connections that transcend the boundaries of language, culture, and creed.

As we continue to navigate the ever-changing landscapes of our global society, it is imperative that we
embrace the transformative power of intimacy. For it is through the cultivation of these deep, personal
bonds that we can begin to weave a tapestry of understanding, one thread at a time, creating a world
where our differences are celebrated, and our shared humanity is honored and upheld.

In the end, intimacy is not merely a personal pursuit, but a revolutionary act – a reclamation of our
shared humanity, a celebration of the vast tapestry of experiences that weave us all together into the
vibrant, multifaceted fabric of existence. It is a reminder that beneath the surface of our differences, we
are all intricately connected, bound by the universal yearning to love and be loved, to belong and to be
understood.

And it is through the cultivation of these profound bonds of intimacy that we can begin to heal the
wounds of our past, transcend the limitations of our present, and co-create a future where our shared
humanity is honored, celebrated, and allowed to flourish in all its breathtaking diversity.
Reading 11 - Polyandry, Inheritance, and the Definition of Marriage - Dr. Leach
Marriage Combined Answer
As per the Royal Anthropology Society's Notes and Queries, marriage is a union between a man
and a woman such that children born to the woman are recognised legitimate offspring of both
partners. The children have only one legal father and the woman has only one legal husband.
According to Leach however that legitimising children alone does not make the definition of
marriage feasible. He concluded in fact that no definition could be found which is adequate to
define the institution of marriage. He argued that the institutions commonly classed as marriage are
concerned with the allocation of a number of distinguishable classes of rights and hence may serve
to do any or some or all of the following.
Themes of Rights
Children1.
to establish the legal father of the woman's children (1)A.
to establish the legal mother of man's children (2)B.
Sexual Rights2.
to give the husband monopoly over wife's sexuality (3)A.
to give the wife monopoly over husband's sexuality (4)B.
Services (jobs/duties)3.
give the husband partial/ complete right over wife's services (5)A.
give the wife partial/ complete right over husband's services (6)B.
Property4.
give the husband partial/ complete right over wife's property (7)A.
give the wife partial/ complete right over husband's property (8)B.
Bilateral System (eg- Urban side)5.
to set up a joint fund of property (of both mother/ father) (9)A.
establish a relationship of affinity (10)B.
Even one of this ten rights is enough to explain the institution of marriage. Leach points out the case
of Nayars , where marriage does not serve to establish legitimacy of children. Moreover, the idea of
paternity is not universal as believed by Leach. Nayar for instance is a matrilineal society, where a
child after birth enters the matrilieage.
The Nayars did institutionalise the concepts of marriage and paternity and gave ritual and legal
recognition to both. Thus, leach’s statement that ‘notion of father is lacking’ and ‘a women’s
children was simply recruits to woman’s matrilineage’ was incorrect. Like all other higher Hindu
castes of India, Nayars based their belief in the moral rightness of caste system in part upon a racist
ideology which involved the inheritance of physical, intellectual and moral qualities by a child from
both of its natural parents and which held that higher castes were by virtue of their heredity, superior
to the lower castes. It was for this reason that there were hypergamous marriages.
Nayar union marriage is a concept of legal paternity. Thus the definition of 'group marriage' is a
"relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons which provides that a
child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by rules of the relationship, is
accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum.” for
legitimacy in case of Nayars, the child required both a ritual father and a ‘legalised genitor’ of
appropriate rank, indeed a child might have more than one legal genitor if two or more men had
jointly paid the expenses of his birth.
Prince Peter referred repeatedly to contemporary polyandry among the Kandyan Sinhalese. It
seems important that we should be clear what the word 'polyandry' means in this case, Sinhalese
law does not recognise the existence of polyandrous marriage. Thus, strictly speaking, polyandry in
Ceylon is not a variety of marriage, if marriage be narrowly defined. On the other hand it is certainly
the case that there are parts of Ceylon where two brothers often share a common domestic
household with one 'wife', these arrangements being permanent, amicable and socially respectable.
Polyandrous households of this type contrast rather strikingly with the more normal pattern in
which two or more brothers live together in a single compound each with his separate 'wife'.
The 'wives' in such cases may or may not be married according to Sinhalese law. In a high
proportion of cases they are not married. In law the children of these unions are then illegitimate.
The children, however, have birth certificates and these certificates give the name not only of the
mother but also of the acknowledged father which provides the child with a potential claim to a
share of the heritable property of each of its parents. The child therefore, although not the legitimate
offspring of both its parents, is nevertheless a legitimate heir of both its parents. Hence, if the
principle of legitimacy is defined in terms of property rights rather than descent it seems quite
proper that Sinhalese customary unions should be regarded as marriages.
Since a birth certificate certainly cannot show more than one father, no child possesses the basis for
establishing a legal claim to the property of a polyandrous corporation. However, it seems
probable that in polyandrous households the children do ordinarily inherit jointly the undivided
property of the two fathers and that Sinhalese custom recognises their right to do so. Provided that
we are not too pedantic about what we mean by 'legitimate' it does appear that we are dealing here
with something that an anthropologist can properly call polyandrous marriage. Even so the issue is
by no means clear-cut.
The classical formulation of the former Sinhalese law regarding polyandry appears in Sawers'
Digest.
Polygamy as well as polyandry is allowed without limitation as to the number of wives or husbands
—but the wife cannot take a second associated husband without the consent of the first—though
the husband can take a second wife into the same house as his first wife without her consent.
In Sinhalese customary law it was the rule that if a man and a woman are publicly known to have
cohabited together and the woman bears a child, then the woman has a claim on the man for the
support of the child. In ordinary rural practice, all of a man's acknowledged children are equally his
heirs whether or not he has at any time gone through a ritual of marriage with the children's mother.
Likewise, all of a woman's children have equal claims on her inheritance.
In the Sinhalese case, and very probably in other analogous cases, we are dealing with two different
institutions both of which resemble marriage as ordinarily understood, but which need to be
carefully distinguished. Neither institution corresponds precisely to the ideal type of marriage as
defined in Notes and Queries.
(1) On the one hand we have a formal and legal arrangement, by which, so far as Ceylon is
concerned, a woman can only be married to one man at a time. 'Marriage' in this sense establishes
a relationship of affinity between the family of the bride and the family of the first husband, and it
gives the disposal of the bride's sexuality to the first husband, subject to the bride's personal
consent.
(2) On the other hand, we have another institution of 'marriage', which is entered into quite
informally but which nevertheless, by virtue of its public recognition, serves to provide the children
with claims upon the patrimonial property of the men with whom the woman cohabits and
publicly resides. This second form of 'marriage', although it establishes the inheritance rights of the
children, does not establish their permanent status as members of a corporate descent group, and
Sinhalese children, as they grow up, have wide choice as to where they finally align themselves for
the purposes of affiliation.
If we accept this second institution as a form of 'marriage', then polyandry in Ceylon is a form of
polygamy. If we confine the term 'marriage' to the first institution, polyandry in Ceylon is a form of
polykoity. It is important that anthropologists distinguish the various classes of right that are
involved in marriage institutions.
Kathleen Gough finally concludes that all her definition of marriage may not be found in all societies.
Thus in all societies the definition might vary. Gough points out that marriage is a cross cultural
phenomenon and thereby enables investigation of different circumstances under which marriage is
present with with various other kinds of rights and obligations.
Reading 12 - Marriage in South Asia: Continuities and Transformations

Studying marriage, family, and kinship practices in South Asia demands acknowledging the region's
immense cultural diversity and myriad local variations. Historically, anthropological studies have
predominantly focused on identifying universal structures and overarching patterns, highlighting
principles such as caste endogamy (marrying within one's caste or community) and hypergamy (women
marrying into a higher caste) as organizing norms. However, this approach often overlooked the intricate
diversity in marriage practices that existed beyond the prescribed dominant norms.

Notable scholars like Irawati Karve, Louis Dumont, and Nur Yalman dedicated their efforts to exploring
the underlying similarities in principles and identity that seemingly unified the marriage structures
observed across South Asia. Their analyses delved into critical distinctions such as caste endogamy,
hypergamy, and variations in marriage prestations (payments and exchanges) that characterized Hindu
norms and dominant practices. Nonetheless, this focus primarily centered on understanding upper-caste
Hindu and tribal perspectives, inadvertently leading to a lack of representation and comprehensive study
of the diverse marriage practices of other groups within the region's complex social fabric.

As research in the field progressed, the analytical significance of the north-south divide in South Asia
gained prominence, particularly in relation to women's work patterns and their potential role in
explaining observed regional demographic patterns. However, as scholars delved deeper into examining
caste ideologies, widow remarriage practices, and the pervasive issue of domestic violence, the validity
and utility of these broad geo-cultural divides were increasingly questioned. It became apparent that
moving beyond mere descriptions of diversity and homogeneity was crucial to truly understand the
nuances and complexities of marriage practices in South Asia.

The task of mapping and analyzing these diverse marriage practices, especially their divergence from
dominant norms, poses significant challenges. Demographic factors and internal stratification within
communities can result in unexpectedly high rates of non-consanguineous marriages (marrying outside
one's kin group) among groups that traditionally preferred cousin or kin-based marriages. These intricate
dynamics underscore the complexity of marriage practices in the region.

Class differentiation and the emergence of a distinct middle class have profoundly impacted the ways in
which traditions surrounding marriage are evolving and transforming. Lived experiences of marriage vary
substantially across class lines, and studying the practices of non-elite groups reveals a multitude of
perspectives, ranging from acceptance to resistance, towards issues such as separation, divorce, and
remarriage. The rigid rules prescribed by elite groups often make it challenging to accurately trace and
document the changes occurring among non-elite segments of society, raising pertinent questions about
the continuity and persistence of certain marriage practices over time.

As a result of these intersecting socio-economic factors, new forms of diversity are emerging, intricately
intertwined with concepts of class, claims to modernity, individual fulfillment, community identity, and
the valorization (or reaffirmation) of tradition. These evolving dynamics are reshaping the landscape of
marriage practices in South Asia, challenging long-held assumptions and norms.
The articulated rules surrounding partner selection are increasingly influenced by new 'modern' values
of 'love' and 'choice.' These emerging values may paradoxically serve to strengthen the institutional
nature and societal value attributed to marriage itself, thereby impacting boundary maintenance and
endogamy (marrying within one's community). Despite this potential for change, marriage remains a
strategic tool for upward mobility and class endogamy, demanding a delicate balance between
homogeneity and embracing diversity within these evolving practices.

When examining the age at marriage, a remarkable coexistence of diversity in practice, the continuation
of tradition, and homogeneity of broader trends becomes apparent. While the rising age at marriage is a
common trend observed across South Asia, the persistence of child marriage as a contemporary strategy
to avoid or reduce the financial burden of dowry demands remains a stark reality in many communities.
The persistence of early marriage is often related to ritually marked deferral of consummation, allowing
for the performance of gendered scripts and adherence to traditional norms surrounding sexuality and
reproduction.

The intricate dynamics surrounding marital prestations, or the exchange of payments and goods during
marriage ceremonies, have been a focal point of extensive research. Scholars have examined the
historical shift from bride-price to dowry systems, the widespread prevalence of dowry practices, and
the evolving forms that these exchanges have taken over time. These studies have highlighted the
profound impact that dowry and marital prestations can have on the lives of women, often from the very
moment of their birth.

Contradictory processes emerge as endogamous (marrying within one's community) and hypergamous
compulsions coexist with persistent dowry demands, creating complex and often conflicting pressures on
families and individuals. Debates surrounding dowry and its intricate links to issues of female inheritance
have taken on new meanings and significance in the context of modernity, rising education levels, and
changing societal norms.

The ritual and symbolic dimensions of marriage ceremonies remain deeply rooted in assertions of
tradition, with a notable increase in the expenditure and extravagance surrounding marriage
celebrations. Marriage ceremonies themselves have become increasingly extended affairs, with popular
media and cultural influences playing a significant role in shaping the idealized notion of the 'perfect'
wedding. This commercialization of weddings, occurring within a cultural context that deeply values the
institution of marriage, is a byproduct of the region's transition towards a more market-oriented
economy.

Discussions surrounding dowry often intersect with issues of violence, particularly the disturbing
phenomenon of bride burnings. Many studies have focused on violence as a pathological outcome,
critiquing the very 'normality' of certain marriage and gender practices, especially in relation to the
occurrence of 'honor killings.' In certain regions of the subcontinent, acts of violence directed towards
those perceived as violating the norms of endogamy or exogamy (marrying outside one's community)
continue to be documented and studied.
To truly understand the complexities of contemporary marriage practices in South Asia, it is essential to
move beyond simplistic modernization theses and delve into the political and cultural economy of
marriage itself. Capitalist development and the forces of globalization have profoundly impacted the
forms, dynamics, and strategies surrounding marriage in the region.

Marriage serves as a mechanism for controlling women's sexuality while simultaneously conferring rights
over their labor, earnings, and access to various benefits. The value of women as workers and earners is
often exploited, influencing critical decisions such as delaying marriage to prioritize labor opportunities
or incurring substantial expenses to acquire labor through marriage alliances.

Underlying systems of production, work organization, class structures, and entrenched caste hierarchies
underwrite the cultural arrangements that govern social reproduction in South Asian societies. While the
imperatives surrounding marriage may shift and evolve with broader economic transformations, the
institution itself remains deeply significant, imbued with social, cultural, and material values that extend
beyond the union of two individuals.

The concepts of love, romance, and self-choice in marriage are increasingly influenced by the emergence
of new workspaces and evolving employment opportunities, gradually weakening the traditional
authority of older generations in matters of spouse selection. The potential conflict between fulfilling
professional obligations and adhering to marital and maternal responsibilities is a challenge that is
actively discussed and negotiated by both middle-class and poor women across South Asia.

Despite the crucial role that women's earnings often play in family strategies and household economics,
the equitable sharing of domestic responsibilities remains an elusive dream for many. Paradoxically, the
strength and importance of family and kinship ties are asserted simultaneously with the recognition that
these relationships should not be overburdened or exploited beyond reasonable limits. Women who
deviate from rigidly defined gendered norms in their domestic roles often face significant challenges and
societal backlash, yet they may find solace and a sense of empowerment in their ability to contribute an
independent income to their households.

Amidst these intricate dynamics, questions arise regarding whether contemporary marriages in South
Asia can truly be considered 'modern' or 'democratic' in their essence. Self-choice in partner selection
and the prevalence of premarital courtship are often highlighted as defining criteria for what constitutes
a 'modern' marriage in this context.

Scholars have closely observed and analyzed the evolving changes in matchmaking practices, which
reflect the shifting expectations, desires, and values surrounding marriage in South Asian societies.
Factors such as increased migration, rapid urbanization, rising educational levels, and socio-economic
differentiation have all contributed to these transformations.

A notable transition has occurred from the traditional reliance on matchmakers to the adoption of more
modern methods, such as newspaper advertisements and internet-based marriage websites. Alongside
this shift, gendered changes in the criteria used for matchmaking have emerged, with a heightened
emphasis on physical attractiveness and indicators of class status.
Arranged marriages, a long-standing tradition in South Asia, have adapted to accommodate the
increasing role of individuals in spouse selection processes. This evolution has manifested in the rise of
self-arranged (love) marriages, a trend particularly prominent among the working and upper classes
within urban environments.

However, scholarly research on upper-class love marriages remains limited, primarily due to the practical
difficulties and challenges associated with conducting in-depth fieldwork within these socio-economic
strata. The factors driving the occurrence of love marriages across different social classes, as well as the
potential for such unions to challenge and disrupt traditional social rigidities, remain understudied
aspects that warrant further exploration.

As the complex interplay between tradition, diversity, modernity, and socio-economic transformations
continues to unfold, the study of marriage practices in South Asia reveals a rich tapestry of cultural
negotiations and adaptations. While dominant practices and long-held norms persist in various forms,
new paradigms of marriage and evolving expectations surrounding these unions are gradually reshaping
societal structures and cultural arrangements.

The ways in which communities navigate the often conflicting imperatives of upholding tradition while
embracing modernity are intricate and nuanced. Certain practices, such as the continuation of child
marriages as a strategy to circumvent dowry demands, highlight the resilience of deeply entrenched
customs. Simultaneously, the increasing emphasis on individual choice and the pursuit of love-based
partnerships reflect a shift towards more egalitarian ideals, albeit one that is frequently constrained by
the weight of societal expectations and class-based aspirations.

The role of marriage as a vehicle for social mobility and the reinforcement of class endogamy
underscores the delicate balance that families and individuals must strike between embracing
homogeneity within their community and acknowledging the inherent diversity of experiences and
perspectives. The valorization of tradition, often manifested through extravagant wedding celebrations
and the reassertion of ritualistic symbolism, coexists with the increasing influence of globalization and
the dissemination of idealized notions of marriage through popular media.

The economic dimensions of marriage, ranging from the exploitation of women's labor to the strategic
timing of matrimonial unions, reveal the intricate interplay between cultural practices and the broader
forces of capitalism and development. The persistence of dowry practices, despite legal prohibitions and
societal critiques, exemplifies the deeply entrenched nature of these customs and their intersections
with issues of inheritance, gender dynamics, and familial power structures.

Amidst these multifaceted dynamics, the strength and resilience of family and kinship networks are
simultaneously asserted and questioned, as communities grapple with the need to balance tradition
with the evolving realities of modern life. Women who choose to deviate from prescribed gender norms
frequently encounter societal resistance and personal challenges, yet they may find solace and
empowerment in their ability to contribute financially and assert their independence.

As South Asian societies continue to navigate the currents of globalization, urbanization, and shifting
socio-economic landscapes, the institution of marriage remains a central axis around which cultural
identities, gender dynamics, and familial strategies revolve. The diversity and adaptability of marriage
practices across the region serve as a testament to the enduring significance of this pivotal social
institution, even as it evolves and transforms in response to the ever-changing tides of modernity.
Reading 13 - Paradoxes of Polygamy and Modernity" - Judith Stacey
Here is an expanded version of over 2000 words:

Paradoxes of Polygamy and Modernity by Judith Stacey offers a nuanced and thought-provoking
exploration of the complex realities of polygamous relationships in contemporary societies. The book
delves into the intricate dynamics of plural marriages, challenging conventional assumptions and inviting
readers to contemplate the nuances of these familial arrangements in a comprehensive and multi-
faceted manner.

Stacey begins by acknowledging the widespread societal disapproval of polygamy, citing a Gallup poll
that found an overwhelming 91 percent of Americans deem it morally unacceptable. However, she
argues that this moral stance is at odds with the persistence and proliferation of informal versions of
polygamy across various cultural contexts. The author introduces the notion of "Scarlet Lettermen" –
prominent conservative politicians and preachers who, despite advocating for traditional family values,
engage in clandestine extramarital affairs and maintain secret second families. This paradox highlights
the glaring disconnect between societal norms and individual actions, underscoring the complexity of
human relationships and the need to reexamine our moral stances on polygamy.

Turning her attention to South Africa, Stacey examines the impact of the Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act (RCMA) on post-apartheid practices of polygamy. While the law aimed to recognize and
regulate customary marriages, it had unintended consequences. Few black South African men registered
plural marriages, opting instead for unregistered versions that adapted traditional practices to modern
circumstances. Stacey introduces readers to various polygamous families, each navigating their unique
dynamics and challenges, offering a rich tapestry of experiences and motivations.

One such family is that of Walter Luzama, a self-employed tour guide who embraced the patriarchal
ideology of the International Pentecost Church (IPC). Luzama believed that polygyny offered women
peace of mind by preventing men from philandering, despite his wife's initial reluctance. In contrast,
Marshal Silongo's plural marriage emerged from a sense of altruism, taking in his deceased brother's
widow and children. These examples illustrate the diverse motivations and circumstances that lead
individuals to embrace polygamous arrangements, challenging the notion that polygamy is solely a
manifestation of patriarchal control or exploitation.

Stacey also explores the phenomenon of interracial polygyny among the new black elite in South Africa,
as well as the resurgence of informal plural marriages rooted in the migrant labor system of apartheid.
The author acknowledges the persistence of traditional African polygyny while simultaneously
documenting the emergence of modern and innovative forms of plural intimacies, including queer
polygamy and polyamorous relationships. These examples highlight the adaptability and resilience of
polygamous practices in the face of social and economic transformations, underscoring the need to
reexamine our assumptions about polygamy and to engage with the diverse experiences and motivations
that underlie these relationships.

In the United States, Stacey introduces readers to David Witherson and Hendrik Van Heerden, two white
Christian South Africans who sought legal recognition for their plural marriages based on religious
grounds. Their narratives reveal divergent interpretations of scripture and marital intimacy, with
Witherson emphasizing sexual compatibility and Van Heerden prioritizing spiritual guidance and
submission.

David Witherson, a fifty-three-year-old management consultant, viewed sex as a very important part of
marriage. He had suffered overwhelming sexual cravings and fantasies of sexual relations with multiple
women since adolescence. After his first sexually unsatisfying marriage failed due to his wife's refusal to
include other women in their marital bed, Witherson sought scriptural support for plural marriage. He
recruited a bisexual, Christian woman with a strong sexual drive to enter a marital trio with him and his
new spiritual legal bride. However, the triadic erotic honeymoon proved painfully brief, as jealousy and
incompatibilities quickly surfaced between the two co-wives.

In contrast, Hendrik Van Heerden, a fifty-three-year-old member of the Dutch Reformed Church, believed
that the point of departure into marriage is to teach one's wives about the Scripture and to teach them
to be submissive to the Almighty God. He viewed polygyny as a committed Christian practice and was
appalled by the modern, "civilized" Western world's hypocrisy about fidelity. Van Heerden had married
three wives consecutively over the prior five years, with the youngest being five years younger than him
and the oldest fifteen years his senior.

These examples illustrate the diverse ways in which individuals interpret and practice polygamy,
highlighting the complexity and nuances of these intimate arrangements. While some, like Witherson,
may view polygamy as a means of achieving sexual fulfillment, others, like Van Heerden, may see it as a
way to deepen their spiritual connection with their partners and adhere to religious principles. This
diversity underscores the need to move beyond simplistic moral judgments and instead engage with the
complexities of polygamy, acknowledging the varied motivations, beliefs, and circumstances that shape
these relationships.

Stacey further explores the broader landscape of polyamory in North America, encompassing a spectrum
of philosophies and practices that embrace consensual non-monogamy. She acknowledges the ethical
responses of polyamorists to the perceived failures of the one-size-fits-all monogamous marriage
regime, which often drives infractions underground and fosters secrecy and abuse. This recognition
challenges conventional assumptions about the superiority of monogamy and invites readers to consider
alternative perspectives on intimacy and relationships.

Throughout her exploration, Stacey grapples with the paradoxes inherent in plural marriages. While
acknowledging the potential for exploitation and abuse, she also recognizes that for some women,
polygamy offers a preferable alternative to destitution, spinsterhood, or the struggles of single
parenthood. The author challenges feminists to confront the enduring allure of diverse religious
ideologies and intimacy practices, even those that transgress conventional norms, inviting a more
nuanced and inclusive dialogue on women's agency and empowerment.

Stacey's analysis also highlights the tension between modernity and tradition, as polygamy struggles to
maintain relevance in the face of economic and social transformations. She suggests that the legalization
of plural marriages, coupled with robust regulations and protections, could potentially mitigate abuses
and nudge the practice toward greater gender equality. However, she simultaneously acknowledges the
likelihood that true consent and expanded choices might lead fewer women to embrace polygamy in
societies where it is deeply stigmatized, highlighting the complex interplay between individual agency,
cultural norms, and socioeconomic factors.

Throughout the book, Stacey weaves a rich tapestry of narratives and insights, inviting readers to explore
the nuances and paradoxes of plural marriages across diverse cultural, religious, and socioeconomic
contexts. She challenges preconceived notions and encourages critical reflection on the intersections of
intimacy, religion, culture, and gender in contemporary societies.

By illuminating the lived experiences of those engaged in polygamous relationships, Stacey humanizes a
practice often shrouded in misconceptions and stigma. She acknowledges the potential for exploitation
and abuse but also recognizes the agency and motivations of those who embrace plural marriages,
whether driven by religious beliefs, cultural traditions, economic necessities, or personal preferences.

Moreover, Stacey's analysis underscores the fluidity and adaptability of polygamous practices, as they
evolve and transform in response to social, economic, and cultural shifts. Traditional forms of polygamy
coexist with modern, innovative expressions of plural intimacies, reflecting the diverse and ever-
changing nature of human relationships.

Throughout the book, Stacey invites readers to confront their preconceptions and to engage in a more
nuanced dialogue about the complexities of plural marriages. She encourages a deeper understanding of
the varied motivations, beliefs, and circumstances that shape these intimate arrangements, challenging
the tendency to make sweeping moral judgments or to dismiss polygamy as a monolithic phenomenon.

Paradoxes of Polygamy and Modernity offers a thought-provoking and nuanced examination of a deeply
contentious and often misunderstood aspect of human relationships. By illuminating the paradoxes and
contradictions that permeate plural marriages, Stacey invites readers to confront their preconceptions
and to engage in a more nuanced dialogue about the intersections of intimacy, religion, culture, and
gender in contemporary societies.

Through her meticulous research and engaging narrative, Stacey encourages readers to embrace
complexity, to challenge assumptions, and to approach the subject of polygamy with empathy, nuance,
and an openness to understand the diverse experiences and motivations that shape these intimate
arrangements.

Ultimately, Paradoxes of Polygamy and Modernity stands as a compelling contribution to the ongoing
discourse on plural marriages, inviting readers to expand their perspectives and engage in a more
inclusive and nuanced exploration of the complexities of human relationships.
Reading – 14 – Surfing for spouse marriage website and new Indian marriage by Ravinder Kaur and Priti
Dhanda
Surfing for spouse marriage website and new Indian marriage by
Ravindra Kaur and Priti Dhanda.
Talks about Indian marriage as an important Right of passage in an
individual's life. The merit ceremony calls upon every possible social
obligation kinship bond sentiment economic resources almost 90% of
Indian marriages remain arranged. The marriage system is the
patriarchal form invested in maintaining caste purity, class privilege
and gender hierarchy. Thus, arranged marriages are endogamous.
This essay is about match making through the internet website a new
way of finding rapid and white blood adoption among families and
marriageable youth. From a single match making website shadi.com
setup in 1996 the industry has proliferated rapidly to include about
1500 search websites according to the market research a web
partner for life to online matrimonial industry was expected to reach
20 million registrations.
Do modern technologies yield modern marriages?
Match making through the internet website raises several important
questions about the nature of contemporary marriages in India. The
other author puts forward various questions related to marriage
about if matchmaking and new technology brings modernity? do
website based marriage units like-minded people across the barrier
of class, caste community, region and religion are marriages based on
self-choice etc. To answer this question this essay highlights three
important things first, it explains how marriage websites work as
matchmakers. second, it explores social profile and trend among
users of this technology and third, based on the analysis of profile
posters on popular websites and interviews with couples who look
for spouses on the internet.
The study conducted by the author finds that a prominent reason for
seeking a match through the internet is to access a greater selection
of marriage partners and to find causes who will feel a diverse wish list of spouse characteristics. These
marriage websites are distinct in
two kinds first there obliged by traditional community, norms and
criteria of caste, region, religion language, class and many of these.
The new technology places greater power and agency in the hands of
the youth and the family continues to play a larger role, while the
role of the family is drastically being reduced. Gradually the meaning
of marriage has definitely transformed and the idea of self-choice
and compassionate marriages have taken hold.
Both the types of marriage employ modernity in different ways in the
first type through the use of modern technology to arrange
marriages in which marriage fundamental remains a family strategy
to pursue individual and collective mobility
And second in allowing individuals to challenge traditional marriage
and pursue visions of more egalitarian marriage. The process of
match making through the internet remains however a gender one
privileging, men more than women.
Emergence and growth of the web-based match making industry.
This part is about how the founder of the shaadi.com Anupam Mittal
came up with this idea. He explained that it was a chance encounter
with a marriage broker that led him to the idea of starting a marriage
website. Before the research the business model of the traditional
matchmaker and went Door to door within his community carried
resume with him. The idea was so successful by 2008 that
shaadi.com had over 10 million members that claimed 8 lakh success
stories, the specialised matrimonial website catering to groups and
categories of people based on caste ethnicity, region and religion
have sprung up with great rapidity. Some ex. Are jatland.com,
brahminsmatrimony.com Chennaimatrimony.com,
tamilmatrimony.com, Siddhi matrimony.com etc. There was this
website for the very rich and busy people called Indian millionaire matrimony.com. some websites
focused on normal marriages such as
secondmarriage.com, nodowry.com the popularity of second
marriage.com may suggest a lifting of Tabu against remarriage of
divorcees, widowers and widows. A WebView services that between
12 and 15% of internet users in India now search for spouses online
most of them belong to professional youth between the age of 21
and 35. 70% of users of marriage websites are from urban consuming
class according to the 2008 online matrimony report. In 2008, 49% of
people are going online visiting a matrimonial website, this is one of
the 10th most popular online activities.
Expanding geographic reach of marriage website.
With the growth of the Internet in the country the users of
matrimonial websites have spread from metropolitan cities (40%) to
the non-metro, in total being 60%. As a result, internet matrimonial
websites are beginning to compete successfully with other
matchmaking channels. Advertising on television channels by many
marriage portals has further extended their reach.
Compressing space and the Transnational middle class.
Websites have transformed the merit market from local, regional and
national to a global one. NRIs, as an ethnic transnational middle class
comprise the large sections of users of matrimonial websites. These
websites allow marriages to the claim of portability of the Indian
family system and Indian values outside India. Matrimonial websites
allow NRI as a means of reproducing such values and traditional
marriage. In India, the website allows Indian parents and youth
easier access to green card holders or foreign spouses, it allows them
to fulfil dreams of mobility through spatially hypergamous marriages. Doing matchmaking through the
internet and finding the right
person.
The role of the internet in matchmaking begins with potential brides
and grooms posting profiles on selected websites. The website makes
available stringent security settings to their clients, allowing access
only to those who pay to register and communication is allowed only
after mutual consent. The website uses sophisticated mathematical
formulas to match characteristics and make information available to
clients. A simple search can be performed based on caste or religion,
a more complex one allows matching of education, occupation,
income and other such criteria. All these search criteria can be mixed
and matched to filter out the profile fitting a user's choice. Allowing
users to search for matches by themselves the website also
recommends potential matches among other users based on the
members description about his/her desired partner. While the
website provides greater choice of desired sort, spouse-seekers and
their families still need to protect themselves against fraudulent
profiles and be discriminating enough to make the right choice.
Most of the registrants belong to the age group of 18 to 27 and 28 to
37. 95% of the total number of members registered had never been
married and divorce or widow. A small percentage of people over
around 4% were over 38 years of age the internet third seems to be
opening possibilities for older individuals who can rely on their own
agency to seek a companion.
Gender
The data shows that the internet portal has 73% of male
representation while females represent only 27% of the total
members this is easily understood in the context of prevailing familial
kinship and gender norms especially they shape the social
constructions of women's marriage. The marriageable girl is seen as to be much more vulnerable and
there is a need to protect her
reputation. Women worry about the misuse of internet profiles and
providing access to those whose attention is unwelcome. In an
interview responded inform that marriage websites were the last
resort while looking for a spouse and that was even more so with
women.
Education, occupation and gender
Women posted on the website had higher educational qualifications
than men over 45% of women held a master degree and 38% head
bachelor degree whereas in case of men 33% and 44% respectively.
Even though women are more educated, 25% of women showed no
income of their own. It is however of greater difficulty to find the
appropriate match for better qualified women. 30% of these women
were employed in areas of education, medical and health services
and in the IT software industry. Most of the male applicants had jobs
in the service sector of the economy. 95% of mail had not stated a
preference for working or non-working women or they did not care
about the working status of prospective brides.
Income and class
Most internet users are members of the urban consuming class it is
obvious that those who are using the internet to see the spouse are
individuals of fairly high education income and class status. Most of
the registered members described themselves belonging to upper
middle and middle class. 25% of users decided not to disclose their
family class status.
Caste Caste remains a crucial variation in finding a match website that has
space to specify caste and sub caste and as many as 248 cast names
are available including caste among Hindu Muslim Christians and
Sikhs.
The greatest specificity in the data potential to the Brahmin caste
where around 30 subcaste names appear. Registration from Dalit
caste also appears on the website. Members from among all castes
have access to the website whereby, the educated and Elite Brahmin
have always been the first to access new channels of education and
communication for upward mobility, at the same time emphasizing
and maintaining caste in class exclusivity.
Parents tend to accept a groom or bride with fewer education if the
caste is the same.
The distribution by religion among the members was highly inclined
towards Hindus almost 80% of registrants were Hindus, followed by
7% Muslims. The proportion of Muslim users is little over half of the
Indian population therefore, it is possible that Muslims may be
posting exclusively on websites such as Muslim matrimony.com. they
also seek spouses from specific denominations such as Shia Sunni,
Dawood, Bohra etc.
The percentage of Christian, Jain and Sikhs was higher than their
present in the Indian population reflecting higher income, education
and thus, greater access to internet technology. These groups then
define themselves in specific labels such as Digambar and
Shwetambar Jains, catholic Evangelical, Syrian, Nadar Christians etc
despite being modern enough to post on the net specific
denominations implies that people are looking for spouse with in
Narrowly define community.
A proportion of total profiles of 65% was posted by members
themselves followed by 21% by their parents and 14% by siblings. It is an important indicator of Shiv
Singh generation participation in the
match making process.
Nowadays many individuals seek individual compatibility rather than
purely family compatibility based on standard matching criteria.
Women posting their own profiles are quite explicit in their
expectation of minimum professional education expected by their
partners to have. Further in newspaper advertisements, rather than
professional characteristics such as income and education of the girl,
more importance is given to her physical attributes like skin colour
and body type. All The virginity which was explicitly mentioned in
newspaper advertisements of 1960 is not mentioned anymore. The
demand that women should be prepared to take on domestic duties
and adopt the homemaker role even while contributing financially to
the household is made clear in both newspaper advertisements and
web profiles.
Reproducing class through marriage and family.
The new technology makes matching families equally easy and allows
reproduction of class. Internet profile formats allow extensive
highlighting of family background which helps to maintain class
endogamy. Despite the modern India of internet technology
horoscope matching demands a very important element in the match
making process. Its importance indicates the need to control the
uncertainty around the fate of a marriage as marriage essentially
remains a lottery with unknown individuals and families.
The language of match making in websites is an important indicator
of shifting sensibilities around marriage. The newspaper
advertisement talks about seeking a match while, the internet
website talks of seeking a life partner or soulmate providing
individuals with a way to express new desires. The technology also
represents the possibility of bypassing traditional requirements of confining sexuality to marriage. many
couples in urban areas to they
are experimenting with live in relationships and premarital sex before
tying the knot. A cultural appropriation of the new technology has
taken place which functions to keep older requirements of matching
intact while allowing certain new elements to be added.
The process of globalisation has been characterised by scholars such
as giddens as compressing time and space. The internet opens up
horizons over which brides and groups can be served. This modernity
is one of expanding choice and possibility and overcoming barriers of
geography and physical location and expanding the marriage
distance. As important shift takes place in marriage in the match
making process and in the marriage market any structural break
remains caught between the conservative and radicalising
possibilities of this new technology.
Thus, to conclude we can say that in the institution of marriage
change has been brought through the matchmaking matrimonial
website this has brought a significant change in the traditional
arranged marriage system slowly transforming it.