Adaptive Extended Family in India Today (1)

5/28/2018 Adaptive Extended Family in India Today (1)

1/11

The Adaptive Extended Family in India TodayAuthor(s): A. A. KhatriSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1975), pp. 633-642Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350528.

Accessed: 07/02/2014 02:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relationsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 203.199.213.66 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:02:48 AM
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/350528?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/350528?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr


2/11

All bj JSTOR T d C di i

h e A d a p t i v e xtended a m i l yn I n d i a T o d a y

A. A. KHATRI**UniversityqfAlabama in Birmingham

This paper critically examines hypothesized trends towards the conjugal family inIndia. The author offers empirical evidence on the involvement of family membersand outside kin in decision-making in nuclear, joint, and extended households, aswell as upon attitudes towards thejoint family on the part of a sample of 118 adultrespondents firom families of children from two schools in Ahmedabad, India.Among the nuclear households, in about half the cases, nonresidentialfmily mem-bers were involved with decisions of respondents'sfamily members. It was also foundthat the overwhelming majority of respondents from nuclear, extended and jointhouseholds andfrom various socioeconomic strata (upper and middle class) were infavor of the joint family. Other trends which have been interpreted as supportingmovements towards the Western model of the conjugal family have been criticallyexamined. These trends are also consistent with another model of thefamily, tenta-tively titled The Adaptive Extended Family.Goode (1963) has hypothesized that thefamily organizations all over the world aregravitating gradually, but inevitably towardsthe ideal typical Western model of theconjugal family. Among the determinants ofthis inevitable march, postulated by anumber of sociologists, are industrialization,industrial urbanization, exposure to Westernideology and democratization. The role ofhumanism and scientific rationalism are notadequately emphasized in these attempts tosearch for the determinants of family change.As India is increasingly exposed to thesedeterminants, the Indian family is bound to

move towards the conjugal family, accordingto these sociologists.In order to understand the realistic ormythical character of this march, it isnecessary to present here the ideal types ofthe Indian joint family and the Westernconjugal family. The following are among thecore characteristics of the ideal typical jointfamily in India:' Marriage as a sacrament,and as a religious and social duty; familialresponsibility for arrangement of marriage inthe context of sex segregation; casteendogamy and other family-oriented consid-erations; indissolubility of marriage; pat-rilocal residence; domination of parent-childover husband-wife relations; young husband-wife relations characterized by variousconstraints and restricted interaction; pre-

*This paper is a modified and somewhat extended ver-sion of the paper, The Joint Family in India Today,presented before the family section of the AmericanSociological Association Meeting held at Montreal,Canada, in August, 1974. It is based on a study whichwas conducted in 1968 as part of the Family InteractionProjectwhile the author was Chief Psychologist at B.M.Institute, Ahmedabad (India). This project was partiallyfunded by the Indian Council of Medical Research. Theauthor thanks Dr. Harold Wershow, Dr. MurrayBinder-man, Dr. Jane Christian, Dr. Joan Aldous, and Dr. Wil-liam Liu for making fruitful comments to an earlier draftof this paper. The manuscript has also benefited fromconstructive comments of two anonymous reviewers andof Dr. Elina Haavio-Mannila, the International Editor ofthis journal. However, responsibilityfor the present for-mat rests solely with the author.

**Department of Sociology, School of Social and Be-havioral Sciences, University College, University of Ala-bama in Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.

'As Hindus constitute the majority to the extent ofabout 85 per cent of the population in India, the generalterm Indian is used in the title as well as the mainbody of the paper, in accordance with the English usageof a figure of speech of synecdoche ( whole for apart ). Again, most of the Muslims and Christians inIndia have been converted from Hinduism. The ideal-typical joint family derived from Hindu scriptures has aprofound influence on family organization, familial be-havior and attitudes of the non-Hindu population in theopinion of the present author. At the same time, itshould be emphasized that in a very heterogeneous In-dian society with religious, regional, caste, social classand other subcultural variations, generalizations shouldbe drawn with extreme caution from the limited data inthe study.

August 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 633

This content downloaded from 203.199.213.66 on Fri, 7 Feb 2014 02:02:48 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/11

mium placed on reproduction of sons;familial responsibility for survival andsocialization of children; common residenceof patrilineally-related males, their spousesand children; common property; commonpurse; dominance of seniorityand male sex inthe hierarchy of intrafamilial relations; finalauthority of decision-making vested in thefamily head (usually the eldest living male);and identity of the joint family as a social unitin their caste and the community. Descrip-tion of characteristics of the ideal type of theIndian joint family, and accounts ofinterpersonal relations within the jointfamily, their caste, class and regionalvariations etc., have received attention frommany investigators of the Indian family.2Among core characteristics of the idealtype of the Western (particularly American)conjugal family are the following: autono-mous mate selection based on heterosexuallove; marriage as a contract; domination ofspousal overparent-child relations; establish-ment of a self-sufficient social and economicunit as a pair (to the exclusion of the kin) andacceptance of the identity of the conjugaldyad in the community; fulfillment of sexual,companionate and affectional needs fromeach other; reproduction on a voluntarybasis; responsibility for survival and social-ization of children; and the conjugal dyad asa decision-making unit without kin involve-ment or interference. A vast volume ofliterature is available on the Westernfamily-ideal typical and reality-based-andits diversevariations (Aldous and Hill, 1966).Considerable evidence about changes inthe Indian family has been presented bymany investigators. This evidence, along withchanges in Indian law, has been interpretedto providea basis for the conclusion by Goodeand others that the Indian family is movingtowards the Western conjugal family. It issubmitted here that (1) this evidence is at

times conflicting; (2) just as this evidence canbe interpreted to provide indices of movestowards the conjugal family, it can be alsoconstrued to fit in with a form of familyorganization different from the Westernconjugal family; and (3) much of thisevidence does not negate the currentexpression of the core characteristics of theideal type of joint family as described above.It is proposed here to present evidencebased on partial analysis of the data securedas part of the author's efforts to quantifydimensions of the ideal type of the jointfamily in India (Khatri, 1971). This evidencesheds some light on (i) involvement of familymembers and outside kin in decision-makingin nuclear, joint, and extended households,3and (ii) attitudes towards the joint family.Evidence concerning specific propositionsderived from the ideal type of the conjugalfamily and that of the joint family would bepresented and discussed, and would befollowed by a critical examination of thepresumed trends towards the conjugal familyin India. The specific propositions are asfollows: (1) In the conjugal family, decisionsconcerning the important family affairswould be made by the conjugal dyad andwould not involve kin. (2) In the joint family,decisions would be made by the family head.In cases where the joint family is split up inseparate households on residential level,decisions concerning important family mat-ters would be taken in joint consultationbetween family members of these households.Certain key concepts are now brieflydescribed. A respondent's family is calledhis/her residential family, while family unitsresiding separately are called his nonresiden-tial families. These are residential and

2Agarwala, 1955, 1962; Carstairs, 1957; Conklin,1973; Cormack, 1961; Desai, 1955, 1956, 1964; Devan-andan and Thomas, 1966; Dube, 1955, 1958; Dumont,1964; Dumont and Pocock, 1957; Goode, 1963; Ghurye,1952, 1954-55; Gore, 1962, 1965, 1968; Kaldate, 1962;Kannan, 1963; Kapadia, 1947, 1954-55, 1956, 1957,1959, 1966; Kapoor, 1965; Karve, 1968; Khatri, 1962,1963, 1966, 1970a, 1970b, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974;Khatri and Sutaria, 1973; Kolenda, 1968; Madan, 1965;Mandelbaum, 1970; Minturn and Hitchcock, 1963;Morrison, 1959; Prabhu, 1963; Ross, 1961; Sarma,1951, 1964; A. M. Shah, 1964, 1974; B. V. Shah, 1964;Srinivas, 1942, 1966; Straus and Winkelmann, 1969.

3In this section of the paper wherethe author's empiri-cal study is reported, only the household size dimensionhas been considered to distinguish nuclear family (onecouple), joint family (at least two couples), and ex-tended family (one couple plus one or more relativeswithout spouse/s). However, the term joint family hasbeen used by different investigators to designate variouscombinations of characteristics of Indian family orga-nization, such as common residence of patrilineally re-lated males, their wives, and their offspring; commonkitchen, common property, common purse and authorityof decision-making vested in the family head-usuallythe eldest living male. Due to the controversial nature ofwhat constitutes The Joint Family, and also due to theadaptive character of the family organization in contem-porary India, the present author has termed the lattermodel as The Adaptive Extended Family and de-scribed it in some detail later in the paper.634 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 1975

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/11

nonresidential stems of a potential jointfamily. The potential joint family consists ofthose patrilineally related males with/withouttheir spouses and children who would havestayed together under one roof as one familyunit bound by ties of common residence,common kitchen, common property, com-mon purse managed by pater familias (theeldest active living male usually who hasauthority to decide about important familymatters) but who do not reside together.SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE

The sample consisted of 118 adultrespondents from families of childrenstudying in (a) Balghar, a nursery-kinder-garten and primaryschool and (b) Sharada, aschool for the retarded operated by B. M.Institute, Ahmedabad. One respondent fromeach of these families was interviewed.4Therespondent was usually the father or motherof the child studying in each of these schools.For the purpose of determining reliability,one additional member, usually the otherparent, was interviewed. In the presentanalysis, protocols for fathers were used whentwo protocols of one family were available.Twenty-nine (93.55 per cent) of 31 families ofSharda were interviewed and included in thesample. Ninety-one (96.81 per cent) of 96families of Balghar were interviewed. How-ever, only 89 families (94.68 per cent) wereincluded in the sample. Two families who hadbeen interviewed were not included becausethe children's parents were residing indifferent towns. The children ranged in agefrom 2 years to 14 years and 8 months. Themean age of the sample was seven years.Socioeconomic status as measured byKuppuswami's scale (Kuppuswami, 1962)was predominately upper class (I) andupper-middle class (II) in the case of Balgharfamilies while upper-middle (II) and lower-middle class (III) for Sharada families. Thesample is small and slanted towards upper

socioeconomic status. Again the sampleconsists of families of young school children.Thus it is not representativeof the populationof families of Ahmedabad. Hence itsgeneralizability is grossly limited.

FINDINGSThe following findings deserve mention:(1) In nuclear households, in about halfthe cases (46.1 per cent) nonresidential familymembers are consulted by respondents'family members in important matters likeselection of a mate, career, etc. (decision-making Mode I, Table 1). With about thesame frequency (50.1 per cent), decisions aremade within the nuclear household (ModesII-VII). (2) In the joint households, consulta-tion with nonresidential kin has taken placein 21.9 per cent of cases. (3) The conjugaldyad is involved in decision-making in 44.3per cent of cases in nuclear households whileonly in 15.7 per cent in joint households(Mode VI). (4) In only 1.8 per cent of thecases, the individual whom a given decisionprimarilyaffected (decision-making Mode V,the party concerned) has decided on his ownwithout consulting other family members(Table 1).An attempt was also made to investigatethe role of types of households andsocioeconomic status on attitudes towards thejoint family. The overwhelming majority ofrespondents from nuclear, extended and jointhouseholds and from various socioeconomicstrata (upper and middle class) are in favor ofthe joint family (Tables 2 and 3).

DISCUSSIONIn the present study, we have consideredevidence concerning decision-making innuclear and joint households and expressionof attitudes towards the joint family. Analysisof different sectors of data from the samestudy reported elsewhere (Khatri, 1973)revealed involvement of the residential familyin decision-making in 37 per cent of 392 kinhouseholds. Again, the possibility of con-sultation among nonresidential stems them-selves is not contraindicated. Thus, kininvolvement stands out conspicuously in asignificant number of households.Though the conjugal dyad is involved indecision-making to an appreciable extent innuclear households (44.3 per cent), it plays a

4A number of training sessions were held before inter-viewing was conducted. The author offers thanks toChinubhai Patel, Madhuben Shroff, Pragnaben Bha-chech, Junjabale Majmuder, Mrudulaben Vyas--Balg-har teachers; Hansaben Patwa, Harishbhai Upadhyay-Sharada teachers; Devi Mangaldas, Rupande Sutaria,Urvashi Shah, and Gargi Munshi-research workers.The author is also indebted to Smt. Kamalini Sarabhoy,Director, B.M. Institute, Ahmedabad (India), for re-leasing school and other personnel and providing neededfacilities.

August 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 635



5/11

TABLE 1. FAMILY TYPES* AND DECISION-MAKING**Family Types

Nuclear Family Joint Family Extended Family TotalDecision-making Patterns (N= 52) (N= 32) (N= 26) (N= 110)I The sole mode*** 36.5 18.8 23.1 28.2I One of the modes 9.6 3.1- 11.5 8.2II The sole mode 1.9 6.3 7.7 4.5II One of the modes 3.9 0.0 7.7 3.6III The sole mode 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0III One of the modes 0.0 6.3 0.0 1.8IV The sole mode 0.0 25.0 15.4 10.9IV One of the modes 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.9V The sole mode 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.9V One of the modes 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.9VI The sole mode 38.5 6.3 7.7 21.8VI One of the modes 5.8 9.4 15.4 9.1VII The sole mode 0.0 21.9 11.5 9.1VII One of the modes 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.8VIII The sole mode 13.5 3.1 11.5 10.0VIII One of the modes 0.0 6.3 3.8 2.7Totals: The sole mode N 47 27 20 94% 90.4 84.4 76.9 85.5One of the modes N 10 10 12 32% 19.2 31.3 46.2 29.1

*Three cases of broken family and five other cases were omitted for smallness of sample and other reasons. Nu-clear Family = one couple; Joint Family = at least two couples; Extended Family = one couple plus one or morerelatives without spouses/s.**Decision-making patternswere classified into the following modes: I. Joint consultation between residential andnonresidential family members. II. Residential family head only. III. Family head and party concerned aboutwhom decision is made. IV. Residential family head consults other residential members. V. The party concernedon his own. VI. Consultation by mother and father. ( Mother and Father of the child studying in a school fromwhose family an adult member was interviewed.) VII. Family head and one or more residential family members ex-cluding mother. VIII. Any other; total.***When any one of several decision-making patterns was the only mode adopted, it is referred to as the solemode.****Percentages do not add up to 100 as in 16 families out of 110 more than one mode of decision-making are re-ported, thus contributing 32 modes rather than 16 modes. Two modes are adopted by each of remaining 5NF, 5JFand 6EF types.

TABLE 2. ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE JOINT FAMILY ACCORDING TO THREE FAMILY TYPESAttitudes Towards Nuclear Family Extended Family Joint Family Totalthe Joint Family (N =46) (N= 19) (N= 29) (N= 94*)

% % % %AStrongly Approve 43.5 42.1 37.9 41.5BMildly Approve 32.6 42.1 51.7 40.4CDo not care about itone way or the other 6.5 10.5 0.0 5.3

DMildly Disapprove 8.7 5.3 6.9 7.5EStrongly Disapprove 8.7 0.0 3.5 5.3

*Data on this section Attitudes toward Jointness were also analyzed according to socioeconomic class reportedin Table 3. On 24 out of 118 interviewees, data pertaining to socioeconomic status and attitudes towards the jointfamily were not available.

636 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 1975



6/11

TABLE 3. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE JOINT FAMILYSocioeconomic Status Levels

Attitudes Towards Level Number I LevelNumber II LevelNumber III Totalthe Joint Family (N= 56) (N= 28) (N= 9) (N= 93*)% % % %AStrongly approve 33.9 53.6 44.4 40.9B

Mildly Approve 44.6 35.7 33.3 40.9CDo not care about itone way or the other 5.4 7.1 0.0 5.4DMildly Disapprove 12.5 0.0 0.0 7.5EStrongly Disapprove 3.6 3.6 22.3 5.4*On 24 out of 118 interviewees,data pertainingto S.E.S. and attitudes towards the joint family were not available.There was only one case belonging to socioeconomic status level IV. This has been omitted.

rather insignificant role (15.7 per cent) indecision-making in the joint households(Table 1, Decision-making Mode VI). Mostof the respondents who are either mothers orfathers of children in the schools studied,express positive attitude towards the jointfamily while they play an insignificant role indecision-making as referredto above. This isall the more noteworthybecause the sample ispredominantly middle and upper socio-economic status with many educated res-pondents. Furthermore, autonomy in de-cision-making on important matters is a rarephenomenon (1.8 per cent). The abovefindings are corroborated in Gore's study ofAggarwal families in and around Delhi. Inthe joint family, primarydecisions were madeby parents in 12 per cent of the rural and 19per cent of the urban samples while in 81 to88 per cent of instances, parents madedecisions in nuclear families. The partyconcerned made decisions in only a smallminority of cases (Goode, 1963:249).This study has pointed out the currentexpression of only one dimension (i.e.,decision-making) of ideal types of theconjugal and joint families in a small sampleof contemporary families in an industrialtown in India.Here this author's attempt to explore theconcept of jointness held by respondents bymeans of an open-ended question may bementioned. Analysis of their spontaneousresponses reveals that common residence ismentioned by 66.1 per cent of therespondents as either the sole or one of thecharacteristics of the joint family while

pooling of income and jointness in propertyaltogether are mentioned by 16.8 per cent.Thus, a large number of respondents (66.1per cent) consider common residence as thecore dimension of jointness.As the focus of this paper is considerationof trends towards the conjugal family inIndia, we would briefly deal with the evidenceon the trends which have been interpreted assupporting movement towards the Westernmodel of the conjugal family.Reference has been made to increasinginvolvement of Indian boys and girls in themate selection process. However, there ishardly any evidence of emergence of the corecharacteristics of the Western conjugalfamily, such as (1) heterosexual love withconcomitant idealization of the mate as aprelude to mate selection and (2) aftermarriage, the emergence of the conjugal dyadas an intensely involved identity recognizedas such by each other, by kin, by primaryandother groups. In the early phase of conjugalrelationship, emotional involvement of In-dian spouses remains predominantly in theirfamily of orientation.Changes in other areas-increase in age atmarriage, expansion of educational oppor-tunities for both boys and girls, reduced holdof caste endogamy and dowry, preference fornuclear households, lessened restrictions onheterosexual relations, widow remarriage anddivorce, expression of attitudes in theirfavor-these are the changes which havebeen reported to have taken place (Ghurye,1952, 1954; Goode, 1963; Gore, 1968;Kapadia, 1954-55, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1966;August 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 637



7/11

Khatri, 1964, 1970a, 1970b; Kuppuswami,1957; Merchant, 1935; Ross, 1961). Findingsof a number of these studies are conflicting.There is no firm evidence of increase inincidence of nuclear family households.Findings of incidence of nuclear and jointhouseholds are conflicting due to diversity ofsamples drawn, methods used and definitionsadopted (Desai, 1964; Goode, 1963; andKhatri, 1972). Shifts in family types areinevitable and a part of the Indian culturalpattern (Goode, 1963; Karve, 1963; Khatri,1972; Kolenda, 1968; Mandelbaum, 1970; A.M. Shah, 1974). Again these changes are notnecessarily moves towards the conjugalfamily. They are also consistent with anothermodel of the family radically different fromthe ideal type of the conjugal family. Themodel is tentatively titled the AdaptiveExtended Family, abbreviated as AEF.Its main features are as follows: (1)Though common residence of patrilineallyrelated kin-particularly ego, his brothers,married and unmarried, their spouses andchildren, and parents of ego-is valued, AEFpermits the possibility of formation ofseparate households in the event of migra-tion, restricted space, etc. If a nuclearhousehold is formed, members of thishousehold would continue to hold allegianceto the AEF household from which it becameseparated. Very significant relationshipswould be maintained with the AEF in thecontext of a network of rights andobligations. In her study of 135 Khatrihouseholds, Kapoor (1965) found a numberof interhousehold relationships among theseparated households. Khatri (1963) foundlikewise in his study of a sample of Gujaratifamilies. Agarwala (1955), Desai (1955, 1956,1964), Kapadia (1959, 1966), Dube (1955),Ross (1961) and Prabhu (1956) have providedsubstantial evidence for various involvementsof trunk and stem families. (2) TheAEF still considers that it is its responsibilityto arrange for selection of marriage partnersfor its unmarried boys and girls. Almost allmarriages in India are negotiated by familyelders. However, needs of the young, usuallyof educated wards, for some degree ofinvolvement on their part-specifically apreview of prospective mates and perhapseven limited interaction between them-arefelt and to some extent fulfilled by the AEF(Ghurye, 1952, 1954; Kannan, 1963; Kapa-

dia, 1966; Khatri, 1964; Ross, 1961; B. V.Shah, 1964). Even professional young menworking in Western countries fly to India toget married through the aid of their families.(3) The AEF does not act as a barrier in theprocess of industrialization and industrialurbanization. Christian (1973) found a fitbetween the family organization of threecastes of silk weavers in South India andmodern demands of business and industry.Agarwala (1955, 1962) found that hisMarwari community owning a significantsector of industry in India utilized thetraditional pattern of joint family manage-ment admirably to fulfill the needs ofindustrial management.Kapadia (1956) found no conflict betweenindustralized urbanization and extendedfamily organization. Desai (1964) has re-ferred to economic benefits from joint familyownership and management of a string ofshops. Further corroborative evidence hasbeen presented by Lambert (1963), Orenstein(1961), Rao (1968), and Singer (1968). Muk-herjee (1965) found emphasis on the extendedfamily increasing with passage from villagesthrough small towns to big cities. (4) In theAEF a rigid hierarchy of family relations withformal distance and awe may be reduced asemancipation and democratizationlimelight the role of formal education inaddition to sex and age as criteria of rank.Strict observance of Rules of Avoidanceand such sex-segregating practices are not anintegral part of the AEF. However, respectfor persons higher in the family hierarchy cancontinue to be fostered without throttling theuniqueness of the individual and thefulfillment of personality needs which neednot be diametrically opposed to familywelfare in the AEF. Some evidence for anideological gap between generations, respectfor family elders, and adjustment of theelderly to the needs and demands of theyoung is present in a number of studies(Kapadia, 1966; Madan, 1965; Mandel-baum, 1970; Ross, 1959, 1961).Residentially any family type (nuclear,extended, joint, even broken as describedearlier) can be an AEF if it remainsemotionally, economically and socially in-volved with various stems of the potentialjoint family. The model presented above isneither the prototype of the ideal type of thejoint family, though it retains some of its

638 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 1975



8/11

salient dimensions; nor is it an accuratereflection of any specific contemporaryIndian family pattern, though diverse familytypes in various parts of India mayapproximate this model in varying degrees.This model of the AEF is more likely to fulfillthe economic and emotional needs of familymembers in a developing country like Indiaand also to support the cultural moresdeep-seated in its ethos. The model excludesthe core characteristics of the ideal type of theconjugal family; i.e., heterosexual love withits concomitant idealization of the mate,neolocal residence immediately followingmarriage, identity of the conjugal dyad as anexclusively emotionally involved pair and asocial unit with decision-making primarilyconfined within its four walls.It is necessary at this stage to distinguishbetween the conjugal family as prevalent inthe United States, and the nuclear householdas found in India. Even though both areresidentially nuclear, attitudes and expecta-tions towards and from each spouse and theirnonresidential relatives are radically dif-ferent. Similarly, if parents of the malespouse stay with the conjugal dyad in theUnited States, this fact of common residencedoes not convert the conjugal family into the

joint family. Here, at any rate, psychologicalattributes are more significant than struc-tural properties of the family. Psychologicaldimensions of the ideal type of the conjugalfamily need not flow from prolongedresidence of an Indian couple in a nuclearhousehold as has been assumed by somesociologists. Slight changes in the overtbehavior of the Indian spouses moving aboutin pairs, etc., should not be considered asexpressions of conjugal dyadic identity in theWestern sense. In the cultural contextcharacterized by sex segregation, familialarrangement of marriage, constraints andrestricted interaction governing the husband-wife relations in the patrilocal Indian family,connotative significance of closeness astapped by Gore (1961, 1968) and ofegalitarianism of conjugal role patterns asfound by Conklin (1973) are not likely toapproximate emotional intimacy and identityof the conjugal dyad in the cultural con-text characterized by spontaneous hetero-sexual relationships, autonomous mate selec-tion, and the romantic complex governing thespousal relations in the neolocal Westernfamily. There is growing dissatisfaction withthe Western conjugal family in its ability tofulfill sexual, affectional, security andFIGURE I. INDICATING POSSIBLE TRENDS OF THE FAMILY ORGANIZATION IN THE UNITEDSTATES AND INDIAPresumed Trendsnthe American amily Trendsnthe IndianFamilyPredominantInfluencein:ThePast I. The AmericanFarmFamily I. TheIndianJointFamily

The Present II. TheConjugal amily II. (a) The (b) The Adaptive (c) TheJointFamily/ ExtendedFamily*/ Conjugal amily ?)**

TheFuture III. a. TheFragileFamilywith III. a. TheFragileFamilywithManyAlternatives.*** ManyAlternatives(?)***b. Various ormsofthe b. Various ormsoftheextendedamily? extendedamily.*The Adaptive Extended Family is an emergent model that has evolved out of the ideal type of the joint family.**The symbol (?) means that though theoretically possible, serious doubts exist concerning the transformation ofthe family into the model in question in the foreseeable future.***The fragile familywith many alternativesis also an emergent American model which reflects high divorce rate,social acceptance and increasing incidence of live togethers, of spouse swapping, group sex, communal living, groupmarriage, lesbian and homosexual relationships.August 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 639



9/11

personality needs of emancipated, freedom-loving, variety and stimulation-seekingindividuals. The emergence of communes,the increasing number of singles andone-parent families, wife-swapping andgroup sex are among the phenomena whichappear to reflect doubts concerning thevalidityof the ideal type of conjugal family forincreasing numbers of persons involved inthese alternative life styles.5Figure 1 describes the author's perceptionof trends in the American and Indian familyorganizations. It is essential that familyresearchers in different parts of the worldcritically examine the hypothesized trendstowards the conjugal family and conductinvestigations aimed at a detailed under-standing of changes in their specific familypatterns. So far as India is concerned,perceptions of trends of the Indian familytowards the ideal type of the conjugal familymay be myths, imposed from a Westernperspective, rather than verified aspects ofIndian reality.

REFERENCESAdams, M.1974 The single woman in today's society: a reap-praisal. In A. Skonick and J. H. Skolnick(eds.), Intimacy, Family, and Society. Boston:Little, Brown.Agarwala, B. R.1955 In a mobile commercial community. Insymposium: caste and joint family. Sociologi-cal Bulletin 4:138-146.1962 Nature and extent of social change in a mobilecommercial community. Sociological Bulletin11:141-145.Aldous, J. and R. Hill1966 International Bibliographyof Research in Mar-riage and the Family, 1900-64. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.Bartell, G. D.1972 Group Sex Among the Mid-Americans: Inti-mate Life Styles. J. S. Delora and J. R. Delora(eds.), Palisades, Cal.:Goodyear.Cadwaller, M.1975 Marriage as a wretched institution. In G. J.Wells (ed.), Current Issues in Marriage and theFamily. New York:Macmillan.

5Adams, 1974; Bartell, 1972; Constantine and Con-stantine, 1972; Cadwaller, 1975; Davidson, 1972; Den-feld and Gordon, 1972; Delora and Delora, 1972; Dur-ham, 1973; Farson, 1974; Glenn, 1972; Gordon, 1972;Haughey, 1972; Hunt, 1975; Kanter, 1973, 1974; Kripp-ner and Fersh, 1972; Lyness et al., 1975; Moran, 1972;Neubeck, 1969; Otto, 1975; Perrucci and Targ, 1974;Roy and Rustum, 1970; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1974;Toffler, 1972; G. J. Wells, 1975; T. Wells and Christie,1972.

Carstairs, G. M.1957 The Twice Born: A Study of a Community ofHigh Caste Hindus. London:The HogarthPress.Christian, J.1973 Structure of communication: acquisitionamong Hindi and Telugo learning children ofIndia. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofTexas; Austin.Constantine, L. L. and J. M. Constantine1972 The group marriage. In M. Gordon (eds.),The Nuclear Family in Crisis. New York:Har-per and Row.Cormack, M.1961 She Who Rides a Peacock. Bombay:Asia Pub-lishing House.Conklin, G. H.1973 Emerging conjugal role patterns in a jointfamily system: correlates of social change inDharwar, India. Journal of Marriage and theFamily 35:742-748.Davidson, S.1972 Open land: getting back to the communalgarden. In G. B. Carr (ed.), Marriage andFamily in a Decade of Change. Reading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Delora, J. S. and J. R. Delora (eds.)1972 Intimate Life Styles: Marriage and Its Alterna-tives. Palisades:Goodyear.Denfeld, D. and M. Gordon1972 The sociology of mate swapping. In J. S.Delora and J. R. Delora (eds.), Intimate LifeStyles. Palisades:Goodyear.Desai, I. P.1955 An analysis. In Symposium: Caste and

Joint Family. Sociological Bulletin 4:97-117.1956 The joint family in India: an analysis. Socio-logical Bulletin 5:144-156.1964 Some Aspects of Family in Mahuva. New York:Asia Publishing House.Devanandan, P. D. and M. M. Thomas1966 The changing pattern of family in India.Bangalore: Christian Institute of Study of Reli-gion and Society.Dube, S. C.1955 Indian Village. Ithaca, N.Y.:Cornell UniversityPress.Dumont, Louis1964 Marriage in India: the present state of the

question; postscript to part one. Contribu-tions to Indian Sociology 7:77-98.Dumont, Louis and D. Pocock1957 Kinship. Contributions to Indian Sociology1:43-64.Durham, M.Experiments in marriage. In A. A. Khatriand E. Porterfield (eds.), Perspectiveson Mar-riage and the Family: A Reader. Lexington,Mass.:Xerox.Farson, R.1974 Why good marriages fail. In S. Friedman

(ed.), Readings in Marriage and Family. Guil-ford, Conn.:Dushkin.640 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 1975



10/11

Ghurye, G. S.1952 and Social change in Maharastra. Sociologi-1954 cal Bulletin, 1.1 and 3.1.1955 Family and Kin in Indo-European Culture.Bombay:Oxford University Press.Glenn, M.1972 Intimacy and oppression. In G. B. Carr(ed.), Marriage and Family in a Decade ofChange. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Goode, William J.1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns. NewYork:The Free Press of Glencoe.Gordon, M. (ed.)1972 The Nuclear Family in Crisis: The Search foran Alternate. New York:Harper and Row.Gore, M. S.1962 The husband-wife and the mother-son rela-

tionships. Sociological Bulletin 11:91-102.1965 The traditional Indian family. Pp. 209-231in M. F. Nimkoff (ed.), Comparative FamilySystems. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.1968 Urbanization and Family Change. Bombay:Popular Prakashan.Haughey, J. C.1972 The commune-child of the 1970's. In J. S.Delora and J. R. Delora (eds.), Intimate LifeStyles: Marriage and Its Alternatives. Pali-sades:Goodyear.Hunt, Morton1975 The future of marriage. In G. J. Wells (ed.),Current Issues in Marriage and the Family.New York:Macmillan.

Kaldate, S.1962 Urbanization and disintegration of rural jointfamily. Sociological Bulletin 11:103-111.Kannan, C. T.1963 Intercaste and Intercommunity Marriage inIndia. Bombay:Allied Publishers.Kanter, R. M.1973a Communes. In A. A. Khatri and E. Potter-field (eds.), Perspectives on Marriage and theFamily. Lexington, Mass.:Xerox.1973b Communes for all reasons. In S. Friedman

(ed.), Readings in Marriage and Family. Guil-ford, Conn.:Dushkin.Kapadia, K. M.1947 Hindu Kinship: An Important Chapter inHindu Social History. Bombay:The PopularBook Depot.1954- Changing pattern of Hindu marriage and

55 family. Sociological Bulletin 3(1, 2) and 4(2).1956 Rural family patterns: a study in urban-ruralrelations. Sociological Bulletin 5:111-126.1957 A perspective necessary for the study of socialchange in India. Sociological Bulletin 6:43-60.1959 The family in transition. Sociological Bul-letin 8:68-99.1966 Marriage and Family in India. 3rd ed. Bom-bay:Oxford University Press.Kapoor, S.1965 Family and kinship groups among the Khatrisin Delhi. Sociological Bulletin 14:54-63.

Karve, I.1963 The individual case study and the statisticalmethod in social investigation. The EconomicWeekly 15(7):1-6.1968 Kinship Organization in India. 3rd ed. Bom-bay:Asia Publishing House.Khatri, A. A.1962 Social change in the Hindu family and its pos-sible impact on personality and mentalhealth. Sociological Bulletin 11:146-165.1963 Rationale for a scale to measure jointness-nuclearity of families. A paper presented be-fore Anthropology Section, Indian ScienceCongress, Delhi.1964 Hetero-sexual friendships and involvement inthe mate selection process of secondary and pri-mary teacher trainees in Ahmedabad. To bepublished as a chapter in George Kurian (ed.),The Family in India: A modern regional view.Mouton:The Hague.1966 Marriage and family in India: an overview ofresearches. Researches in ChildDevelopment,Marriage and Family Relations Done in IndianInstitutions of Teaching and Research. Ba-roda:Department of Child Development, Fac-ulty of Home Science, University of Baroda.1970a Personality and mental health of Indians (Hin-dus) in the context of their changing family or-ganization. In E. J. Anthony and C. Kouper-nik (eds.), The Child in His Family. New York:John Wiley.1970b Marriageand family relationships in Gujaratifiction. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.1971 Manual of the Scale to Measure Jointness ofFamilies in India. Ahmedabad, India:B. M.Institute.1972 The Indian family: an empirically derivedanalysis of shifts in size and types. Journal ofMarriage and the Family 34(3):725-734.1973 Decision-making and mutual consultationamong patrilineally related families in India.Mimeographed.1974 Understanding changes in the family in con-temporary India: a few hypotheses. Presentedbefore a meeting of the Family Research Com-mittee of the International Sociological Asso-ciation during the VIII World Congress ofSociology, Toronto, Canada, during August,1974.

Khatri, A. A. and E. Porterfield (eds.)1973 Perspectives on Marriage and the Family. Lex-ington, Mass.:Xerox.Khatri, A. A. and R. R. Sutaria1973 Familytypes and lineality-collateralityin fam-ilies in India-glimpses into their jointness.Mimeographed.Kolenda, Pauline Mahar1968 Region, Caste, and Family Structure: A Com-parative Study of the Indian Society. M.Singer and B. S. Cohn (eds.). Chicago:AldinePublishing Company.Krippner, S. and D. Fersh1972 Spontaneous paranormal experience amongmembers of intentional communities. In G.

B. Carr (ed.), Marriage and Family in a De-August 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 641



11/11

cade of Change. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Kuppuswami, B.1957 Study of Opinion Regarding Marriage and Di-vorce. Bombay:Asia Publishing House.1962 Manual of Socioeconomic Status Scale (Ur-ban). Delhi:Manasayan.Lambert, R. D.1963 Workers, Factories and Social Change in In-dia. Princeton:Princeton University Press.Lyness, J. L. et al.1970 Living together: an alternative to marriage.In G. P. Carr (ed.) Marriage and Family in aDecade of Change. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Madan, T. N.1965 Family and Kinship: A Study of the Pandits ofRural Kashmir. New York:Asia PublishingHouse.Mandelbaum, D. G.1970 Society in India. Berkeley:Universityof Califor-nia Press.Mead, M.1974 Too many divorces, too soon. In S. Fried-man (ed.), Readings in Marriage and Family.Guilford, Conn.:Dushkin.Merchant, K. T.1935 Changing Views on Marriage and Family.Madras:B. G. Paul.Minturn, L. and J. . Hichcock1963 The Rajputs of Khalapur, India. Pp. 203-361in B. B. Whiting (ed.), Six Cultures: Studies ofChild Rearing. New York and London:JohnWiley and Sons.Moran, R.1972 The singles in the Seventies. In J. S. Delora

and J. R. Delora (eds.), Initmate Life Styles.Palisades:Goodyear.Morrison, W. A.1959 Family types in Badlapur: an analysis of achanging institution in a Maharasthian vil-lage. Sociological Bulletin 8:45-67.Mukherjee, R. K.1965 The Sociologist and Social Change in India To-day. Delhi:Prentice-Hall.Neubeck, G.1969 Extra-martial relations. Englewood-Cliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Orenstein, H.1961 The Recent History of the Extended Family in

India. Social Problems 8:341-350.Otto, Herbert A.1975 Has monogamy failed. In G. J. Wells (ed.),Current Issues in Marriage and the Family.New York:Macmillan.Perrucci, C. and D. B. Targ1974 Marriage and the Family: A Critical Analysisand Proposals for Change. New York:DavidMcKay.Prabhu, P. N.1956 Bombay: a study on the social effects ofurbanization. In UNESCO: The Social Impli-cations of Industrialization and UrbanizationSouth of Sahara. Paris:The International Afri-

can Institute.1963 Hindu Social Organization-A study in SocialPsychological and Ideological Foundations. 4thed. Bombay:Popular Book Depot.Rao, M. S. A.1968 Occupational diversification and joint house-hold organization. Contributions to IndianSociology, New Series, 2:98-111.Ross, A. D.1959 Education and family change. SociologicalBulletin 8:39-44.1961 The Hindu Family in its Urban Setting.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.Roy D. and Rustum1975 Is monogamy outdated? In G. J. Wells (ed.)Current Issues in Marriage and the Family.New York:Macmillan.Sarma, J.1951 Formal and informal relations in the Hindu

joint household of Bengal. Man in India 31:51-71.1964 The nuclearization of joint family householdsin West Bengal. Man in India 44:193-206.Sennett, R.1970 Brutality of modern families. In G. B. Carr(ed.), Marriage and Family in a Decade ofChange. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.Shah, A. M.1964 Basic terms and concepts in the study of fam-ily in India. Indian Economic and Social His-tory Review 1:1-36.1974 The household dimension of the family in In-dia. Berkeley:Universityof California Press.Shah, B. V.1964 Social change and college students of Gu-jarat. Baroda:University of Baroda.Singer, M.1968 The Indian joint family in modern industry.

Pp. 423-452 in Milton Singer and B. S. Cohn(eds.), Structure and Change in Indian Society.Chicago:Aldine Publishing Company.Skolnick, A. and J. Skolnick1974 Intimacy, Family and Society. Boston:Little,Brown.Srinivas, M. N.1942 Marriage and Family in Mysore. Bombay:NewBook Company.1966 Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley andLos Angeles:University of California Press.Straus, M. A. and D. Winkelmann1969 Social class, fertility and authority in nuclearand joint households in Bombay. Journal ofAsian and African Studies 9:61-74.Toffler, A.1972 The fractured family. In J. R. Delora and J.S. Delora (eds.), Intimate Life Styles. Pali-sades:Goodyear.Wells, Gipson J. (ed.)1975 Current Issues in Marriages and the Family.New York:Macmillan.

Wells, T. and S. L. Christie1972 Living together: an alternative to marriage.In J. S. Delora and J. R. Delora (eds.), Inti-mate Life Styles. Palisades:Goodyear.642 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY August 1975


Adaptive Extended Family in India Today (1)

Documents

Transcript of Adaptive Extended Family in India Today (1)