THE FAMILY IN INDIA : BEYOND THE NUCLEAR

VERSUS JOINT DEBATE

Patricia Uberoi

SUMMARY

Family varies based on region, epoch, and other factors. The Indian joint family shapes
the nation's perception of tradition and culture. Patricia Uberoi's essay explores the
definitions and debates surrounding family, and focuses on Indian kinship. It analyses
the future of the joint family amid modernization and examines the concepts of
household and family.

The ideal of the Indian joint family has been an important ingredient in national
self-imaging, and has been met with criticism due to its narrow-minded and
homogenous perspective that dismisses the various other types of family patterns
present within the subcontinent. This homogenisation was the product of British colonial
administration which in order to create certain laws and legal systems, tried to
understand the indigenous systems of kinship and marriage by turning to the Hindu
sacred texts such as the Dharmashastras and Shariat law, thus forming the basis of
‘Indological approach’. This was later supported by many Indian sociologists as well
such as G.S Ghurye; they regarded the patriarchal joint family of the Sanskrit legal and
sacred texts as the unifying civilisation ideal that was widely held by all hindus.

One of the pioneers in shaping the Indological approach and putting Indian Family on
the map of comparative studies was Henry Sumner Maine who expressed the Indian
Joint family as a living example of the earliest forms of social organisation and defined it
as a ‘patriarchal family’ which functioned as a corporation with coparceners in a joint
estate. This, he believed, would undergo several evolutionary stages, which would be
replaced by the monogamous conjugal family of the contemporary western type. Irawati
Karve identified four main types of kinship organisation by linking the vocabularies of
kinship terms to the major subcontinental language groups and sub-linguistic areas.

The belief that the Indian joint family system was declining gained popularity during
British rule, influencing early Indian sociologists. After World War II, the concept of
'modernisation' emerged, promoting the Anglo-American nuclear family as best suited
for modern, industrial societies, emphasising parental and conjugal bonds. Talcott
Parsons made a significant contribution to family sociology during this period. He
argued that the demographic changes indicating the breakdown of the American family
were merely transitional stresses, not dysfunction. Parsons believed that individualism,
capitalism, and modern occupational systems replaced the kinship unit, leading to
isolation and loss of function in nuclear families. Uberoi critiqued Parsons' formulation,
calling it candid and narcissistic for portraying a stereotypical white American
middle-class family, ignoring other family forms.

William J. Goode further developed Parson’s functionalist perspective on family

organisation. He believed the process of industrialisation brought critical pressures on
traditional family structures and that all societies would undergo this process to move
towards the conjugal family pattern as in the west which he considered to be a morally
and socially superior system of family organisation. He however expressed that India's
case in particular was problematic and had observed that ideological change was often
far more ahead than behavioural change; family patterns in India did not follow a set
pattern. They were largely dynamic and were not merely dependent on the process of
industrialisation.

The essay delves into the household versus family debate, which lacks consistent
definitions. Terms like 'joint' or 'nuclear' are ambiguous, and the concepts of family and
household often get mixed up. Unlike the abstract and multi-meaning family, the
household is defined more precisely, based on communal relations, co-residence, and
shared production, distribution, and consumption within a community. A.M. Shah and
Pauline Kolenda contribute to clarifying the conceptual issues in understanding Indian
family dynamics. Shah warns against relying solely on normative texts for data, as it
may lead to overgeneralizations. Kolenda's classification scheme sheds light on hidden
aspects of households. While they dispel the myth of the disintegration of Indian joint
households, improvements are needed to monitor complex processes and changes.

The concept of 'household' surpasses the 'family' in empirical precision, but disregards
the family's ritual and property-sharing aspect. Understanding unilineal descent groups
requires grasping the concept of kinship ideology or descent ideologies to justify their
rights and obligations. The patriarchal kinship system prevalent in South Asia justifies
differential access to resources for men and women. Women have a secondary status
in patriarchal households, depicted by Leela Dube's metaphor of “seed and the earth” ,
the man as the active agent providing the child's identity and the woman as the passive
"earth" nurturing the child. Despite their secondary status, mothers play a crucial role in
determining the child's caste identity. The 'descent' approach to kinship studies,
focusing on biological relationships, is challenged by cultural and alliance approaches
that emphasise the influence of cultural norms, practices, and beliefs.

Apart from the different interpretations that have been unfolded by the cultural approach
to family and kinship studies, there are certain social functions that a family is meant to
perform. They are:
Biological reproduction: Biological reproduction impacts family values and structures in
society. Previously, fertility studies focused on a macro-level perspective, but in the
1980s, a micro-level approach gained prominence. Monica Das Gupta discovered that
despite economic development, higher birth order girls had low survival rates due to
limited medical attention, resources, and maternal education. This micro-level approach
highlighted the need for population control, which often burdens women. New
reproductive technologies, like amniocentesis and sex-selective abortion, have negative
social implications. Milton Singer proposed the concept of 'adaptive capacities,'
suggesting that modernization and economic development may exaggerate traditional
structures and pathologies instead of eliminating them.

Sexuality: While sociologists have avoided studying Indian sexuality, anthropologists

have explored it with an exoticized approach. The indological model of sexuality only
considers procreation of male offspring, disregarding pleasure. Female puberty carries
complex meanings, from maturation and marriageability to vulnerability and threat to her
family. Urban settings add further intrigue, questioning whether a girl's coming of age is
stigmatised or celebrated, marked ritually or left unmarked, viewed secularly or
medicalized. Customary laws have reformed matrilineal kinship and marriage, imposing
restrictions on women's freedom. These dynamics highlight the complexities of Indian
sexuality and the evolving constraints on women's actions.

Socialisation: The family is considered as the fundamental institution responsible for

socialising individuals and facilitating reproduction. Within this context, children are
prepared for their future adult life by being inculcated with societal values and norms.
Based on Krishna Kumar's insights, Uberoi highlights how modern-day lifestyle
demands have led to a growing separation between children and adults due to
increased school activities and hectic schedules of parents. The process of socialisation
is also crucial in internalising the gender identities and roles through a variety of
life-cycle rituals like puberty, marriage, succession and so on. For instance, a girl is
made aware that she would “belong” to her affinal kin once married.

Welfare: The family is recognized as the primary unit that provides care for children, the
ill, disabled and the elderly. In India's public discussion, issues related to providing
welfare services to families are commonly associated with familial crises rather than
other possible reasons behind these challenges. The joint family is believed to be
perfectly adapted to provide maximum security to its members in times of despair.
However, feminist scholars have been vary of the valorisation of the joint family. They
argue that in times of calamity, the real burden falls upon the women of the household
who are expected to act as caregivers and make the sacrifices necessary.

Production, Distribution and Consumption: Patricia Uberoi explores the complexities of

production, distribution, and consumption within the Indian family structure. She
addresses the issue of consumption patterns within Indian households- seens as
self-regulating administrative units. She argues that consumption is influenced not only
by economic factors but also by social and cultural dynamics. Indian families often
engage in conspicuous consumption, where the display of wealth and material
possessions become a means of displaying social status and prestige. Uberoi also
looks at the production of sexual labour in the public and private spheres of the
household. She elucidates how women play a crucial role in reproducing class status.
Uberoi's research offers a sophisticated comprehension of how production, distribution,
and consumption take place in Indian households. Instead of engaging in simplistic
dichotomies, her work uncovers the complex interplay between different aspects of
family dynamics in India and sheds light on the diverse influences that affect economic
roles as well as patterns of consumption among families.

Quantitative studies on family roles and relationships are often overshadowed by

qualitative methods such as surveys, interviews, and observations. Literature, arts,
mass media, and folklore also serve as valuable sources, shedding light on cultural
norms and subtle critiques. Dyadic relationships play a significant role in the study of
kinship structures worldwide, with North America focusing on conjugal relations and
Indian kinship centering more around mother-son or father-son dynamics. Marriage is
viewed as a transformative milestone, contrasting a wife's previous identity as a
daughter or sister. Indian cinema portrays a dichotomy between married women and
liberated, seductive women. This shared theme highlights marriage as a transformative
phase, where a woman's sole identity is as a wife fulfilling her husband's needs and
serving her affinal kin. However, the emphasis on romantic companionship, as predicted
by Talcott Parsons, has caused cultural conflicts and strained the meaning of marriage
in India.

Overemphasis on 'the family' in South Asia raises several issues. Firstly, it fails to
acknowledge the diverse family structures beyond the patrilineal North joint family type.
Secondly, the concept of family itself is subjective, with different interpretations given by
scholars like A.R. Radcliffe, Talcott Parsons, and Claude Levi-Strauss. In reality, kinship
norms vary, with some cultures accepting marriage with first cousins while others permit
only third cousin unions. Contrary to the Western perception, marriage in the Indian
subcontinent is viewed as an alliance between families, fostering social mobility,
establishing ties, and forming alliances. This perspective challenges the primitive
portrayal of arranged marriages as power struggles and oppression, instead
emphasising cultural sensitivity and inclusivity.

The Indian family embodies continuity and change, reconciling persistence and
adaptation to evolving times. It serves as both a nurturing and inflexible entity,
simultaneously described as a site of oppression and violence, as well as a haven in a
heartless world. However, the study of the family has been limited by the biased
perspectives of metropolitan sociology and anthropology, primarily focused on values
and norms. This neglects crucial aspects such as breakdown, deviance, and pathology.
To truly understand the complexities of kinship organisation, a more inclusive and
sensitive approach is needed. Mere empirical analysis falls short; we must diversify
resources and challenge existing paradigms. Kinship studies should avoid careless
generalisations and instead focus on detail-oriented exploration. Dismissing kinship
systems in marginalised communities without question, while favouring hegemonic
Indo-Aryan or North Indian practices, should be abandoned. It is crucial to reevaluate
our object of study and embrace a more open-minded and comprehensive perspective.