Dec 17, 2017 - this time, women's suffrage movement began at Seneca Falls 1848. 2. The second stage ... Masters and Johnson's (1966) physiological research on human sexual response and Ira ...... York: Aldine de Gruyter. Popenoe, D.
Family Studies in India:
Historical development, debates, and future directions
B. Devi Prasad Former Professor Centre for Equity and Justice for Children and Families School of Social Work Tata Institute of Social Sciences Mumbai
Acknowledgements At the outset, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers' comments which were immensely useful in improving the focus of the paper. I am also grateful to Prof B. Vijayalakshmi and Prof K.V.Ramana who went through the drafts of the paper at its various stages and gave their valuable feedback. I thank my students, Apurva Kashyap, Bhumika Sahani, Samdrita Das, and Shubha Sharma who read the paper and offered their helpful critical comments. The flaws if any in the paper are solely mine.
Family Studies in India: Historical development, debates, and future directions Abstract The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the historical development of family studies in India and in the West, especially US starting from early 1920s, and to compare the trends in the discipline in both contexts with a view to analyze the developmental shifts the discipline has gone through in the Indian Context. The two key contributions of this paper are - a comparative perspective of the journeys of the discipline in Indian and the West contexts, and the problematization of individualism in the contemporary family context. As part of the latter contribution, the paper covers two interlinked debates i.e., 1) the debate on nuclear vs. joint family including their association with variables such as caste, class or region, and 2) about the nature of value orientations in Indian families i.e. familism vs. individualism, and their implications. The paper will conclude with suggestions for future research in family studies. Keywords: Family studies, Indian family, nuclear vs. joint family, familism, individualism.
1
Family Studies in India: Historical development, debates, and future directions
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the historical development of family studies in India and in the West, especially US starting from early 1920s, and to compare the trends in the discipline in both contexts with a view to analyze the developmental shifts the discipline has gone through in the Indian context. The two key contributions of this paper are - a comparative perspective of the journeys of the discipline in Indian and the Western contexts, and the problematization of individualism in the contemporary family context. This paper is divided into five sections. Section I deals with the meaning and scope of family studies as an emerging discipline both in the West and in India, followed by a few caveats. Section II provides a critical analysis of two major debates pertaining to family studies in India. Section III undertakes a mapping of the broad developments and trends in family studies in the West and in India with a view to compare the developmental shifts the discipline has gone through in Indian context. Section IV contains a critique of and reflections on the arguments presented thus far followed by Section V which covers suggestions for future research on families. In this paper, I made a conscious choice of using 'families' instead of 'family' wherever it is appropriate. To my mind, 'family' is not a monolithic unit but exists in diverse forms such as extended, nuclear, step, single parent, or same-sex, each with its own boundaries and attributes as a family form (Bernardes, 2002; Ribbens McCarthy & Edwards, 2011). Also, I have chosen to use 'family studies' as the term for the discipline especially in the Indian context in view of its wider usage.
2
I History of family studies: Establishing an identity and finding a name If we consider that the study of families comprises of an inquiry into family's internal dynamics and relations with the external environment, then it can be traced to have begun in the West in early 1920s though the research perspective at that time was that of a white male with a predominant focus on concerns about the functioning of the heterosexual urban middle or upper middle class white family (Broderick, 1988; See also Zinn, 2000). From this point of view, Burgess’ article, The Family as a unity of interacting personalities (1926) can be seen as one of the earliest works on family as a social group. In 1927, Groves published the first family-focused college text book: Social problems of the family and in 1938 Burgess and his colleagues co-founded the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR), a professional organisation in the US which played an important role in shaping the field. The following year, NCFR launched a journal entitled Marriage and Family Living now titled Journal of Marriage and Family. By the early 1980s, the discipline was offered in around 50 universities in the U.S. At about the same time, Kingsley Davis (cited in Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline, 1987) suggested that family studies as a discipline can be classified under the category of secondary disciplines. According to him secondary disciplines such as Political science or Family studies though rely on primary disciplines such as Sociology or Economics for their explanations - can also provide independent theoretical explanations on their own. Burr and Leigh (1983) argued that family studies can be treated as a discipline in its own right and suggested Famology as a name for the discipline. In 1984, the NCFR appointed a Task Force to identify a name to the discipline. Davis (cited in Task Force, 1987) coined the term 'Family science' though it did not gain much usage among academic circles. In fact, in a survey conducted by NCFR, 'Family Studies' came out as the most preferred term followed by 'Family science' (Burr & Leigh, 1983; Bailey & Gentry, 2013). Finally, after a period of initial usage the term Family Science (Smart, 2009) later came to be seen as having positivist connotations because of the presence of the word 'science' in it. On the other hand, Family Studies was seen as more neutral in the light of the qualitative research methodologies which came to be used later in the discipline. Gradually, the label Family studies came into wider usage. Currently, courses offered under this discipline use 3
either of these labels for their programmes. In this article, I shall use the term family studies to denote the discipline. Definition of Family Studies Family studies is an inter-disciplinary field for studying families which draws its theoretical frameworks from sociology, social anthropology, economics, education, psychology, biology, demography, and legal studies to mention a few. Hollinger (2002) defined it is a domain of inquiry that is interdisciplinary in nature, yet conceptually unique. The Task Force (1987) report look at it as a field of study where the primary goals are the discovery, verification and application of knowledge about the family. A careful scrutiny of what has been published, and debated under the subject lead us to define family studies as an interdisciplinary field with a focus on the scientific study of families and households in relation to their structure, processes, relationship with other areas of social systems such as for example law and family policy, and application of the knowledge thus produced for the better functioning of families (Ribbens McCarthy & Edwards, 2011). In view of constraints of space, I did not include in this paper, for example, the reviews covering interventions, impact of law, policies, and programmes on families which in themselves constitute a vast area. Moreover, the task I have taken up will be better served if I focus on studies relating to structure and processes. About the Indian Context Family Studies as a discipline is not yet popular in India. Moreover, the field appears to be scattered between disciplines such as sociology, social anthropology, home science, social work, human ecology etc. Even though the field has passed through several important stages of disciplinary growth, and a number of robust reviews delineating the trends of the field have been written (Patel, 2005; Uberoi, 2014), I have not come across a review which made an effort to fit the research on Indian families into the disciplinary frame work of family studies. For instance, a few reviews used the term 'family studies' in their titles (Kannabiran, 2006; Konantambigi & Saraswathi, 1996; Oommen, 1991; Rajalakshmi, 1993; Shah, 2005). Shah (2005) covered, under the title family studies, a discussion on concepts of family and household, family relationships and family change whereas Rajalakshmi (1993) provided a review of studies on family under the term. Konantambigi and Saraswathi (1996) focused on the theoretical and methodological concerns of the field in India and the West in a comparative perspective. Kannabiran (2006) identified family studies as “a multilayered practice of sociology...to evolve a more nuanced understanding of the family” (p.4427). But, none of the 4
reviews tried to define the term as such. In this paper an attempt is made to trace the emergence of the family field by using a comparative perspective of Indian and the Western studies with a hope to understand the differences between these two contexts. In India, family studies as a subject is mostly offered under the discipline of Home Science. The M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, the Babasaheb Bhimarao Ambedkar University, Lucknow, and the Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, are some of the institutions which offer this course under Human Development and Family Studies. The Unit for Family Studies established in 1984 at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai brought out important publications on family (Bharat and Desai, 1995; Unit for Family Studies, 1991) and undertook research and policy advocacy. In 2013, a Global Consortium for International Family Studies1 (comprising of University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of New Castle, Australia and Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai) launched a one-year online M.A International Family Studies. Evidently there is still time for all these strands to merge into a unified academic discipline under the name of family studies. Some caveats about studying families – Methodological and cultural. Even though objectivity and value-freeness are expected stances in studying families, I consider that the field is a value-laden area and personal and cultural experiences may influence one's agreement or disagreement with certain explanations of changes in families, in terms of their form and structure. To my mind there is no one as a value-free social scientist nor there a sociological research that is entirely free from human subjectivity. Many family researchers stress that our own understanding of family lives may reflexively influence the research approach by acting as a barrier or inform our stance as a researcher in interpreting the data more meaningfully (Allen, 2000; Ribbens-McCarthy & Edwards, 2011). I consider some of our personal experiences in specific cultural contexts as assets in understanding a particular description of a system or phenomenon. From this point of view, some may understand life in a nuclear family but it may be difficult for them to grasp the experience of life in a joint family or for that matter in a tarawad family of Nayars of Kerala even if they read the textual description of these settings (Saradamoni, 1999; Fuller, 1976; Gough, 1961). Do we consider tarawad an extended family? Some may even find it difficult to look at it as a family at all2.
1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BJUFBPv8W8&feature=player_detailpage
2
See for a discussion, Reiss, 1965. 5
Therefore, as social scientists when we study families and family practices, we tend to nod in agreement with certain explanations when they match with our personal experience. With this idea in mind and as a backdrop, I am providing some of my experiences in the cultural context of my region. The period I refer to here was between the 1950s and 70s. i) In my grandparents’ village, at least a quarter of the households were joint with more than two generations – parent(s), married sons and their unmarried children and occasionally an extended relative - staying under one roof. ii) I have known brothers dividing their properties immediately after the death of their father and I witnessed the sittings/meetings and squabbles that they went through in the process. Extravagant while living in the joint family, they became extremely prudent with their money and resources after the division of their joint family property and settled into separate residential units (veru kumpati implying each establishing a separate hearth). Srinivas (1952) in an interesting ethnographic account captured a joint family dispute in a Mysore village. I have also known a close friend from the vaishya (business) community to maintain a list of properties and valuable assets acquired by him with his salaried job so that these are accounted for at the time of property division among the brothers. iii) In the event of death of one of my paternal uncles (my father’s paternal cousin), all the adult men and those boys who have crossed their adolescence had to get their heads and faces clean shaved as part of the funeral rites! Those who were residing in another town at that time went through the same process on that day (distance ritualization?). Thus, all the related male members of the kinship group followed this ritual and this made us feel that we were part of the same kin group (a mutuality of being, as Sahlins, 2013 observed) and that ours is a family beyond the limited boundary of the elementary families in which we were living. iv) I am a South Indian and in villages of both maternal and paternal sides of my family as well as in other villages and nearby small towns the uncle-niece and cross-cousin marriages were a common practice across castes – be it backward caste, vaishya or other communities. I can still recall the perplexity with which I encountered the readings on North Indian marriage practices and the relations prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (Uberoi, 2016). It is Karve’s work (1953) that gave me a critical and comparative understanding of families and kinship systems in India. At many junctures I had been made aware of my socialization in a nonbrahmin extended family set up that is predominantly male-centric. For me, one of the challenges had been to realize and step out of this male centric standpoint towards a more 6
unbiased universal one, and at the same time understanding the social scenes as they are without judging them. My standpoint comes from within the context of this socio-cultural framework. II Major themes and trends in the study of families in India As a student of Indian family I was drawn to the major debates about family change due to industrialization, urbanization and resultant modernization. It may neither be possible nor necessary for me to discuss all of them in detail due to the limitation of space. Therefore, I shall cover only two important but interlinked debates i.e., 1) the debate on nuclear vs. joint family including association between these types of families with variables such as caste, class or region, and 2) about the nature of value orientations in Indian families i.e. familism3 vs. individualism4, and their implications. 1. The debate on Nuclear vs. Joint family/household. There has been a substantial and prolonged debate on whether the joint or extended family in India was giving way to the nuclear or conjugal family as a result of industrialization and urbanization. Curtain to this debate was raised by E.A.Gait, the then Census Commissioner of India, in his report on the 1911 Census. In this report he argued that in view of the substantial increase in the proportion of nuclear families and the smaller mean household size, it could be held that the joint family was disintegrating, though the pace of transition was at a slower rate. This view continued in all the Census reports till 1951 (Caldwell, Reddy & Caldwell, 1984). The major debate that followed during the period of 1950s-70s engaged the sociologists and social anthropologists in India in unravelling the myth of the disintegration of the joint family. A majority of the census officials from time to time and both Indian and western scholars (Kaldate, 1961; Nimkoff, 1959; Ross, 1961; Goode, 1963) upheld the views expressed by Gait. It was thought that the western liberalism and individualism acquired by the educated Indian elite percolated down to create ideologies and tendencies toward formation of nuclear families in urban and, though to a lesser extent, in rural areas. Another group of scholars such as I.P.
3
Familism is defined as an ideology where the needs of the family as a whole take precedence over the needs of any of the family members. 4
According to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2004) individualism is an outcome of a process whereby people are released from their pre-given ties, social relations, and belief systems to develop spaces of their own with allegiance to themselves or to spaces created and systems created by them. 7
Desai, A.M. Shah, M.S. Gore, P. Kolenda, I. Karve, P. Uberoi, T. Patel to name a few, have led a debate countering these arguments. A careful examination of this discourse highlights three interlinked issues: a) Equating the elementary family form in India with the western model of conjugal family, b) Use or rather misuse of western model of ‘fit between nuclear family and industrial society’ to explain family transition in India, as well as in other South Asian countries, and c) Absence of distinction between the concepts - family and household to explain why the above mentioned two theses failed to explain the direction of family change in Indian and in other South Asian contexts. a) Equating the elementary family form in India with the western model of conjugal family: Much has been written on this aspect. A glance at the writings of Bailey (1960), Caldwell et al., (1984), D'Cruz and Bharat (2001), Desai (1981a, 1981b), Goode, (1964), Gore (1968a), Gupta (1994), Kapadia (1958), Nimkoff and Gore (1959), Orenstein (1961), Patel (2005) Shah (1998 & 1973), Uberoi (2003), to mention a few, help us capture the major points of this debate. Let us first begin with the West, especially Europe and the United States. What is the nature of nuclear family in these societies? Structural isolation of the family and high individualization of its members are depicted as its major characteristics. Consider Parsons' (1959) argument that - middle class American urban family is characterized by the structural isolation of the individual conjugal family. Thus, in the West, the transition from agricultural society to predominantly industrial society during the past two centuries was accompanied by a transition from extended family with its emphasis on kinship relations to a largely small, independent nuclear family revolving mainly around the wife and husband and their offspring 5. It was argued that with the shift of labour from family to factory, the functions of family narrowed down to reproduction, socialization, and affectional relations. It transformed predominantly into a ‘husband-provider, wife-homemaker’ type of family (Ogburn and Nimkoff, 1955;
5
During 1970s, some family historians have argued that the western family was nuclear even during pre-industrial times thus refuting the thesis that the extended family broke down under the impact of industrialisation. They however noted that the 'modern' nuclear family of the West was characterized by its isolation from the extended kin, and transfer of production and other functions to outside institutions. Thus, the modern family is privatized, nuclear, domestic, and child-centred with conjugal bond forming the crucial basis for family interactions (Refer Hareven, 1987 for a comprehensive discussion of this perspective). 8
Parsons and Bales, 1955; Goode, 1963). It was further pointed out that the American nuclear family in its process of adaptation to a modern industrial society increasingly became independent of its extended kin networks as residential mobility and distances hindered the maintenance of an intimate relationship between family and kindred (Christensen, 1975; Goode, 1964, p.52; Nimkoff, 1959, p.419). Further, the changes in the character of family life following the economic depression of 1930s and World War II (Farber, 1966 , chap. 3) were also seen as responsible for this transition towards relative independence from kinship contacts. Though it cannot be argued that there are no bonds between members of nuclear family and other consanguineous relatives, the relationships were certainly weaker compared to other societies such as for example South Asia, Middle East and South Africa (Goode, 1964). Thus, greater structural isolation of the individual conjugal family from other consanguineous relatives with obligations and interactions concentrated within the nuclear family (Robins & Tomanec, 1966) has emerged as an important characteristic of the family in the West. Similar trajectories were documented in Europe as well (Goody, 1983). These changes in the western nuclear family structure have simultaneously brought out changes in the attitudes of members in the family leading to greater individuation and autonomy. For example, Zaretsky (1976) proposed that with the introduction of industrialization, labour moved out of family thus creating a new space for personal life in which an individual’s self could be valued for itself. Similarly, romantic love, a ubiquitous permissible feeling and an expected prelude to marriage so characteristic of American courtship, is one of the manifestations of the expression of individualism in the context of family. However, in other societies which are less individualistic, romantic love was seen as a destabilizing emotion for family stability and kin network, and therefore was strongly deemphasized (Goode, 1959, p.40). Beck (1986) argued that men and women started thinking ‘I am I’ more than earlier times because of the impact of historical changes in sexuality, law, and education propelling the dynamic of individualism in the western family. Similarly, rising age of marriage and low fertility freed more time for women in the family. Released from their traditional and ascribed roles, these men and women in contemporary society are more and more in search of a life of their own. Increasingly, life can be fulfilled with non-presence of other as there is no space left for other (Beck, 1986). The levels of individuation in the contemporary western society reached to the extent that individuals are singled out in pools of self-love (Luna, 2016). To my mind, some of the self-presentations promoted by the Facebook, Instagram and other social media are manifestations of this self-love with selfie as its ultimate 9
expression (Mehdizadeh, 2010; Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Though Indian society is exhibiting these symptoms, they are yet limited to certain sections. Notwithstanding these individualistic trends observed in certain urban and cultural contexts in India, which I shall discuss later under ‘familism and individualism’, the model of western nuclear family failed to capture the nature of family in Indian context for a number of reasons. One of the major reasons is that though Indian families became structurally nuclear they remained connected with extended kin networks. There has been substantial evidence in support of this explanation. I mention here a few such studies (Beteille, 1964; Caldwell et al, 1984; Desai, 1964; Gore, 1968b; Khatri, 1975; Orenstein, 1961; Ross, 1961; Singer, 1968). Desai (1981a) explained that the concept of jointness is more relational than residential. According to him in the Indian context the family is not merely a residential group of a household. Instead, it is a system of relationships, rights and duties and the norms that the members try to live up to. b) Using western model of 'fit between nuclear family and industrial society' to explain family transition in India According to this theory, the typical nuclear (conjugal) family is a functional adaptation to the requirements of modern industrial and urban society where the family changed from extended to nuclear to fit the family to the demands of these major forces. Both Parsons (1959) and Goode (1963) proposed this fit theory and have written extensively about how the western family transformed into nuclear family structure in response to the needs of the modern, industrial society. This hypothesis was posited to explain family change in India. Supporters of this view argued that the decline in the family size, increase in the number of elementary or nuclear families, and their greater independence from the extended kin and community give credence to the fact that joint families were breaking down into nuclear families with the advent of industrialization and modernization. A number of studies supporting and opposing this hypothesis were undertaken during the period 1950-70s (Kaldate, 1961; Orenstein, 1961). While there is no disagreement about the fact that families in India underwent changes as a result of industrialization and urbanization though at a slow pace, the manner in which families in India or for that matter countries such as China and Japan changed is not similar to the 10
trajectory of changes the Western families had gone through because of industrialization. Hareven (cited in Xu & Xia, 2014: p.33) commented that in the context of cross-cultural comparisons the phenomena of social change that appeared similar on the surface between regions or societies need not necessarily be the same underneath. To him, grand social changes are mediated through local cultures, and social changes mediated though local cultures produce different outcomes in different regions. Therefore, the traits of families coming from these cultural contexts might have been different which interacted with the processes of industrialization to produce significantly variant outcomes. Based on this assumption let me state that - i) the relationships in Indian families have different orientation compared to western families; ii) the extended family adapted itself to the industrial context and continued in modified forms, and lastly iii) the nuclear and extended divide in Indian context is more fluid as they are seen as stages in a development process. i) The foundation of western family structure is the institution of marriage and the principle of individualism and independence. In oriental societies where extended families are prevalent, individuals see themselves and their roles in society only in relation to the family and community to which they think they belong. These extended relationships are predominantly kinship and caste based. While it cannot be said that the conjugal relationship is less important, it is given less preference compared to paternal and fraternal relationships in the family. It is for this reason a joint family cannot be seen as a conglomeration of nuclear families (Desai, 1981a). Evidence showed that though the families were staying apart, their behaviors indicate the value frameworks of joint family living (Desai, 1964; Gupta, 1994; K.J.S., 1986; Supriya & Mala, 2012; Uma, 1986). These studies cover upper caste (though this holds true for other castes as well), Hindu undivided joint family settings. They capture scenarios of pooling of incomes by family members including daughters in-law, taking care of dependents, and owning of assets jointly by the family. For example, Gore’s (1962) study indicated that from the point of view of a majority of the male respondents, filial bond was still preferred over conjugal bond in the Indian society. Collectivistic societies are less prone to nurture interpersonal dependency in a marital relationship since the location of feelings of affection and intimacy is spread in family relationships with parents, siblings and extended kin (Dion & Dion, 1993). However, not much scholarly attention was paid during the recent decades to understand how these arrangements and relationships, including gender dynamics have changed or continued in Indian context. 11
A series of other studies explored the relational dimensions of the migrant families (Beteille, 1964; Kapadia, 1958; Mines, 1976; Ross, 1961; Vatuk, 1972). These families resemble other south Asian family forms as to their reciprocal relations with their natal families or families of orientation and the importance given to the continuation of kinship network. In a sense, the nuclear/branch family is embedded in the extended family in several ways though the jointness may vary depending on distance, conflicts in relationships (for example, daughter-in-law and mother-in-law conflicts or conflicts among brothers’ wives or among brothers themselves), economic status achieved by the branch family and other structural realities6. ii) Singer's (1968) study challenged the argument that joint or extended family cannot co-exist with the phenomenon of industrialization. His study of 19 industrialists of Madras showed that these business families lived as joint families which continued over generations in the urban context. In fact, many other studies (Gore 1968b; Uma, 1986) showed that families involved in occupations like farming or business were likely to follow joint or extended family systems. It will be highly instructive to briefly mention here the debates occurred in China with regard to the adaptive changes in their family structure and values following industrialization. Some scholars (Desai, 1975; Laslett, 1972, pp.5-6) have drawn parallels between India, China, and Japan about the manner in which families from these cultural contexts negotiated the forces of industrialization and the similarities between the adaptations. At one point, the household size in mainland China became the focus of intense sociological analysis where it was argued that industrialization and modernization led to the nuclearization of the Chinese extended family (Hu, 2004; Wang, 2007), hence the increase in number of small families and declining size of households. In an interesting analysis, Xu and Xia (2014) disagreed with this thesis and argued that the declining household size as reflected in the Census data could be explained by the emergent changes in the hukou7 - (a Chinese residency registration system which fixes your rural or urban residence and your household ownership in either of these locations) due to economic liberalization in the country leading to one family owning multiple apartments, 6
Structural realities refer to the distances or distinct culture acting as serious constraints to continue relations with kin networks. For example, in the case of military families where mostly by compulsion, for reasons such as inaccessibility in terms of communication and transport, some of these families tend to become structurally independent of their kin network over a period of time (Hall, 2008; Knox & Price, 1995). 7
In urban areas, hukou is always used as an identity proof for one to get consumer provisions, housing, resettlement compensation, inheritance of public housing leases, and so forth. This complicated registration system led to serious inconsistencies between actual family/household population size and the registered household population size in China. 12
impact of one-child family policy8 and extensive migration of rural population to urban leaving families behind in the village communes. iii) Lastly, about the fluidity of family structure in these societies. Fei (1982) argued that in China the structural transition from nuclear to extended is rather fluid and dynamic. Thus, a Chinese family may begin and end with an extended family. Even if the couple lives in a separate apartment, there will be continued interdependencies and reciprocal obligations. Xu and Xia (2014) termed such families as ‘two headed families’ a new living arrangement that emerged in China to meet the demands of industrialization and urbanization. This is similar to Khatri’s (1975) description of the interesting adaptations of joint family to urban living. According to Khatri, the preference for nuclear households, propelled by better educational and employment opportunities but coupled with commensality (sharing) and mutual support of jointness, gave rise to a new family form called 'adaptive extended family'. In this family system, nuclear households are interdependent while maintenance of inter-household relationships is based on rights and obligations. Therefore, at any given point of time it may be difficult to differentiate the family form as joint or nuclear since they are in a development process in the sense that a nuclear household is embedded in a future joint household (Desai, 1981b, p.113) with the boundaries remaining fluid (See Shah, 2014a, p.3 & 482). c) Distinction between the concepts - family and household This brings us to the next debate regarding the need to recognize the distinction between the concepts of family and household and to understand these as two different analytical categories. The concept of household was introduced in place of family from 1951 Census onwards. In the 1971Census a household was defined as a group of persons who commonly live together and would take their meals from a common kitchen unless exigencies of work prevented them from doing so. It is also important to recognize that the concept of family in India is more relational and subjective than residential (Desai, 1981a; Shah, 1973 & 2014b; Bailey, 1960; Gore, 1968a). Family is characterized by group membership which is mainly based on consanguine and affinal relationships. A household, on the other hand, is a co-residential socio-economic unit regardless of kinship ties. It can have non-family members such as servants who are not members of that family. In this sense, families can come under the concept of households but 8
China introduced its new economic policy and privatization of its economy beginning from 1978 and around the same time (1970) Chinese government implemented its one child policy. 13
not all households can be termed as families.
Thus, a family member is one who can
participate in the interactions, decisions of the family including access to inner spaces and rituals which is not applicable to a non-family member though treated as a member of the household. For example, in Gore’s description of Phyllis’ (wife of Gore) first visit to his home (Gore, 2007), there was Waman - a same caste, long-term resident and a trusted servant of the family who participated in the family interactions and yet never crossed "the un-drawn line between a servant and a family member" (p.163). Therefore, Waman was a member of the Gore household but not a member of their extended family. In studies on families, the conceptual differences between the kinship-oriented family and residence-oriented household as two analytical categories had been a subject for detailed discussion during 1970s-80s (Desai, 1981a & 1964; Lobo, 2005; Orenstein, 1961; Patel, 2005; Shah, 1998 & 1973; Uberoi, 2014, etc)9. One of the conceptual flaws that some scholars committed was drawing inference about the type of family (nuclear or extended) from the size of a household. Orenstein (1961) after considering census data of different states on these dimensions came to the conclusion that it would be a methodological flaw to draw inferences about type of family, i.e. whether it is extended or nuclear, from the observed changes in household size. This also gave the researchers a clear handle on observing changes in the household composition vis-a-vis other demographic variables such as caste, region and occupation (Shah, 1998 & 1973). Uberoi (2003, pp.282-283) provided an excellent summary of the research conducted on the changing household composition in India of which only those most relevant to the current discussion will be highlighted here while advancing evidence wherever necessary. First, she commented on the fluid nature of the boundaries of joint, nuclear and single person households. Though nuclear households are statistically predominant, most people in India would have an experience of living in different types of households during their lifetime. Thus, nuclear households grow into joint households through birth and affinal relationships which may break into nuclear or single person households thereafter. 9
In these debates, the concept of ‘household’ was given more space and time to the neglect of the study of family as a subjective relational space, especially the study of internal dynamics such as changes in dyadic relationships such as private vs. public dimensions of family, father-son, mother-son, brothersister – in the context of family change (Uberoi, 2014: p.284; Shah, 2005). Gore (1962) also emphasized that for a student of social change, focus on relational aspects of family will be useful to understand family change better. He conducted an interesting study exploring these relations. 14
Second, she pointed out that studies on the household size in India did not show much variation in terms of decline. This observation is important in the light of debates about the disintegration of joint family into nuclear families based on the inference drawn from the changes in the household size. As seen in Table 1, when the average household size showed an increase from 4.98 in 1951 to 5.3 in 2001, and 4.9 in 2011 which is approximately equal to 1951 household size, the trend itself challenges the theory that industrialization and urbanization led to the formation of nuclear households resulting from disintegration of the joint family. Table 1. The mean household size in India by Census year Census Year Mean household size
1911
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
2001
2011
4.9
4.98
5.08
5.46
5.55
5.51
5.3
4.98
Source: Census of India In fact, it had been shown that the joint and nuclear household percentages increased over the time and as Kolenda (1987) had further shown that there appears to be significant regional differences in the prevalence of joint households. According to Kolenda’s (1987) observation, the presence of joint households is thick along the contiguous northern states such as Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh whereas the presence is thin in the southern parts of India. This phenomenon can be observed even in the latest Census 2011 (See Table 2). If we assume that a household with ‘three’ married couples approximates the form of a joint/extended household, according to Census 2011, following are the region-wise percentages of households against the national percentage of 3.21 of the total number of households. Table 2. Percentage of households with 3 married couples by state Northern states
Percent
Southern states
Percent
Uttar Pradesh
5.86
Tamil Nadu
1.0
Rajasthan
5.56
Andhra Pradesh
1.1
Haryana
5.09
Odisha
1.5
Punjab
4.33
Kerala
2.3
Bihar
4.14
Karnataka
2.7
Source: Census 2011; Series-H. Tables on Houses, Household amenities & Assets.
15
Another interesting debate which cannot be ignored was around the association of variables such as caste, occupation, economic status, education, region, and individualistic orientation with a specific household type (joint or nuclear). A number of studies (Goody cited in Laslett, 1972: p.122; Gore, 1962; Kaldate, 1961; Kapadia, 1958; Kolenda, 1987a; Lobo, 2005; Morrison, 1959; Uma, 1986) lead us to conclude that the middle status castes, households with agriculture and business occupations irrespective of education tend to prefer joint living, be it filial or fraternal. Therefore, it can be concluded that i) the type of family (i.e joint or nuclear) cannot simply be inferred from the size of the household, ii) the different forms of households that we see at a particular point of time are part of a developmental cycle, and iii) that the types and size of households in most societies are influenced by various socio demographic factors such as occupation, caste and geographical region. 2) Familism Vs. Individualism The discussion around families in India also reflects a debate about shifting family values from familism to individualism. Familism is defined as an ideology where the needs of the family take precedence over the needs of individual family members. Though there has been a broad trend toward individuation all over the world due to industrialization, urbanization, and democratisation, there is a difference of opinion about the manner in which this change took place and the consequences that followed (Caldwell, Reddy & Caldwell, 1984; Greenfield, 1966; Uberoi, 2003). By and large, in most of the Indian family situations, individualism was seen as a negative influence from the West and pursuing personal interest was viewed as selfish. According to Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2004, p.503) individualisation is a process whereby people are released from pre-given ties, social relations, and belief systems. More specifically, they referred to institutional individualisation where educational systems, property and inheritance laws, labour market, and most of the state policies become ‘engines’ of individualisation. In other words, these systems tend to address individuals as units rather than family as a unit and therefore act as engines of individualisation. When did individualism as a value begin to impact families in India? If industrialization, small family, population expansion, and westernisation are seen as markers of the spirit of individualism and decline of familism, Orenstein (1961) traced it to the middle of nineteenth 16
century (when the coal and jute industries began to develop rapidly) and the beginning of twentieth century as evidenced by the community studies conducted in India. He mentioned one of the interesting but lesser known legislations called the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 (Act No. XXX of 1930), passed by the British to unleash the spirit of individualism in Indian joint families. According to this Act, a member of a Hindu undivided family holds the rights to all property acquired by him10 through his learning, be it education, art or craft, even though the learning had been supported by the joint funds of his family or by any member of the family. The legislation in fact did not impact the conduct of many of the members of the joint families especially those whose family occupations were farming, business etc. However, it constitutes an interesting example of institutional individualisation. Zaretsky (1976) traces the origin of individualism to the beginnings of capitalism. He argued that with industrialization, the home and the workplace have both become two distinct spheres, thus creating a new space to engage with individual’s self - the ‘I’- and value it for itself. Whereas, some sociologists have argued that with modernization and urbanization, the extended family had given way to smaller nuclear families, a process in which greater stress was placed on conjugal relationship as well as the role of the individual. They argued that kinship ties continued to figure though weakly because of some non rational and sentimental factors (Farber, 1966, p.17). Another most frequently stated explanation is the association of the East with familism, and the West with individualism. It was explained by some scholars that these differences are rooted in the religious teachings which dominated these regions. Thus, it was observed that (Glick, 1979 & Dumont, 1981 cited in Goody, 1983: p.23) while Christianity gave birth to modern individualism, the collective notions of kinship and the family and the emphasis on inter-group relations are the result of religious faiths such as Islam in the Middle Eastern regions. Likewise, collectivism displayed in the south East Asian countries, a major attribute of familism, can be seen as the articulation of the eastern religious traditions such as Confucianism, Taoism, and Hinduism, to mention a few. These diverse cognitive orientations or world views are the result of the internalization of the cultural scripts embedded in literature, education and other values which affect people's ways of viewing the world.
10
Only masculine gender was used in the Act. 17
I shall take this argument a step further by shifting my discussion to the implications of these distinguishing features to family and kinship relations in different regions of the world and how the basic distinction between collectivist/familism and individualist/individualism orientations impacts the extended or nuclear family forms and forms of marriage. I shall present here the results of a study - World Family Map Project – 2013 (Child Trends, 2013) which was based on a study sample of 45 countries. The sample was selected from out of a universe of 200 countries in the world representing a majority of the world’s population, with a regional representation of high, middle, and low-income countries. The findings are shown in Figure 1.
As indicated in Figure 1, extended families, that is, parent (s) plus kin from outside the nuclear family, appear to be common in Asia, the Middle East, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Similarly, adults are most likely to be married in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, and less likely to be married in Americas - with Europe, and Oceania falling in between. Although two-parent families are becoming less common in many parts of the world, the likelihood of children living in two-parent families in Asia and the Middle East is more and is somewhat less in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The results further show that children are more likely to live with one or no parent in the Americas, Europe, Oceania, and 18
Sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions. It can be seen that cohabitation is found to be more common among couples in Europe, North America, Oceania, and—especially—in South America. Understandably, wherever marriage popularity showed a decline, higher incidence of cohabitation, and non-marital childbearing were reported. Extended family type went with two parent family form with the exception of South Africa probably because of its more westernized outlook compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. Interestingly, when asked about their trust in family, respondents from Asia, Middle East followed by Sub-Saharan Africa reported higher percentages of trust compared to the other three regions. However, in most of these societies family is still seen as the place where some of the individual’s emotional and social support needs are met. Thus, it is evident that the family value orientations are connected to a great extent with the cultural values of each region. III Comparison of trends in family studies in the West and in India In this section, as mentioned earlier, I shall make an effort to briefly trace the historical developments in studying families in the West and in India from the beginning of 19th century and compare the trends the family field had gone through in both contexts. Even a cursory glance at some of the early publications on family reveals certain noticeable trends in the discipline. I began with a few relevant sources (Adams, 1988; Broderick, 1988; Doherty et al., 1993; White, 2010, & 2013) useful in arriving at a quick bird's eye view of the evolution of family studies in the West, more specifically the US. Most are scholarly reviews based on the published research in the Journal of Marriage and Family, and other sources. Similarly, a number of scholars attempted to chronicle the trends in research on families in India. Some useful reviews are by D'Cruz and Bharat, 2001; Desai, 1975 & 1981b; Konantambigi & Saraswathi, 1996; Patel, 2005; Shah, 2005; Shah, 2014b; and Uberoi, 2003. Based on these writings, I made an attempt to trace the evolution of the field in both the contexts as presented in Table 3. History and development of family studies in the West Though there were attempts to capture the history of family in the West (Adams, 1986, pp.912), Christensen's (1964) attempt at dividing the history of family into four stages based on the progress made in terms of methods and approaches used in studying families was found to be useful to my current endeavour and hence his approach was chosen. However, the interpretations I made in the course of comparisons are not final and I am aware that there is scope for the reader to disagree with the interpretations. Even the periodisation of the history 19
may appear to be an over simplification. The main purpose is to get an idea of lag in the understanding about the family in two historical and cultural contexts. The four stages used by Christensen (1964) are: 1. Pre-research comprising studies conducted prior to 1850s during which philosophical speculations about family dominated with little relation to empirical findings. It is during this time, women's suffrage movement began at Seneca Falls 1848. 2. The second stage encompassed the latter half of 19th century which was predominantly based on book view and primarily focused on showing how the western models of family evolved compared to the non-western, native family forms. Most family scholarship was based on theories put forward by white, western and male writers. Classic examples are Westermarck’s The History of human marriage (1891/1925) and Engels’ The origin of the family, private property and the state (1884/2010). Engels himself drew most of his ideas from L.H. Morgan’s work. To my mind, the 1920s symbolized the threshold of transition to individualism in the West, graphically captured by Edith Wharton (1920) in her novel The Age of Innocence whose protagonist Newland Archer struggled with making a choice between individual freedom and his commitment to old values of duty and honor. 3. The third stage, the first part of 20th century, witnessed a number of influential works analyzing the most crucial dimensions of marriage and family. Some examples are studies of Havelock Ellis (1936) and Alfred Kinsey (Kinsey et al., 1948) on human sexual behaviour. Systematic study of family as a social group also began during this period (Adams, 1986, p.8). Broderick (1988) did a review of 800 scholarly articles on family published before 1930s based on which he remarked that family scholarship was alive and prospering during this period. Burgess’ (1926) article the Family as a unity of interacting personalities signified this beginning. In fact, the conceptual foundation for family field was laid during this period. The content of research focus was interpersonal relationships within the family and the sources of data were mostly life histories, personal documents (Ex. Woodhouse, 1930; Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918; Ellis, 1936) and case records of workers working with families. By this time, an organisation for sociological discipline and a journal to publish research were already in place. However, the researchers were able to observe what mores permitted them to observe and despite Bertrand Russell's (1929/2009) call for a new moral order, the interior of middle class family remained relatively inaccessible to 20
research. Emphasis on individualism during this period, however, was not as strong (Doherty et al., 1993). During this stage, though there was a shift from book view to field view, the male perspective focused on the white middle class heterosexual nuclear family remained (Emery & Lloyd, 2001). This period also witnessed the beginning of studies of sexuality and their influence on family research. Beginning from 1940s, it can be identified by four landmarks (Adams, 1988). The first was Freud's (1938) view of human sexuality, with its theory of psychosexual stages followed by Kinsey's research on sexual behaviour. The third was Masters and Johnson's (1966) physiological research on human sexual response and Ira Reiss's (1986) sociological analysis, Journey into Sexuality can be considered as the fourth landmark study on sexuality. 4. The fourth stage, 1950s was seen as a decade of stability with low divorce, high marriage and low birth rates (Popenoe, 1993; Doherty, 2008). It is after 1950s, that there were attempts at theory building based on empirical testing of theories. Thus, 1960s was called the decade of conceptual frameworks (Adams, 1988). Until this time, family studies did not pay much attention to the development of conceptual frameworks from the extensive data gathered. Later, throughout the 1960s and 1970s, a number of conceptual schemes were developed (Christensen, 1964; Nye & Berardo, 1966; Goode, 1963) and by the 1980s and 1990s, some frameworks grew into theoretical perspectives (Sprey, 2000). The decade of the 1970s reflected several interesting trends. Though 1960-80s witnessed feminist movements and ethnic minority perspectives impacting family studies, very few systematic studies of black families (for example, Frazier, 1932 and his other studies) figured on the horizon of western social sciences till this period and if figured they were distorted or disvalued (Billingsley, 1970; Bryant & Coleman, 1988). Also, questions and concerns about declining importance and authority of families in individuals’ lives figured prominently during 1970s-80s. Equating men with public and women with private spheres was prevalent. The engagement of feminism with family studies began questioning the glorified class-specific family form of 1950s as a benchmark. Thus, what functionalists saw as structural differentiation, feminists identified as the core of family politics and exploitation (Zinn, 2000, p.45). Firestone (1970, p.72) unmasked the idealized version of family and family relationships. To her the nature of the bond shared by woman and children with man in the family is no more than shared oppression. Bernard (1972) in her classic work 21
on marriage argued that there were two marriages in every marital union - his and hers - and that his was better than hers. Though 1970s witnessed high divorce rates, they declined in 1980s. It is during this period that research on cohabitation, gay and lesbian families, and step families gained visibility. Formal theory construction, use of quantitative methodological approaches, and multivariate statistical techniques dominated the discipline (Doherty et al., 1993). Boundaries of the discipline of family studies also began to take shape (Burr & Leigh, 1983) and the 1980s witnessed a movement to create a separate field such as family science with its own domain of knowledge and methods of study (Smart, 2009; Hollinger, 2002).
The dominant trends of 1990s were
theory building and the emergence of new family forms such as complex families, same sex families became the emerging foci of research (See Table 3). History and development of family studies in India The journey of studies on family in India had been rather slow and protracted while going through certain stages. It traversed from the indological orientation to joint versus nuclear family debate to the use of Census data for understanding changing family structures (Mandelbaum, 1948; Shah, 2014b, pp.147-167) followed by changing functions and roles of individuals, and effects of industrialization and urbanization on these aspects. While starting from early 1940s, the debate over the question of disintegration of joint family into nuclear households spanned over a period of three decades till it tapered off in 1980s and shifted to the study of alternate forms of families such as single parent, adoptive etc. In the initial stages, Indian family was studied more as a property holding, ritual performing unit only. The focus was more on kinship norms, and household structure than as a social or economic construct (Khatri, 1961).
Two important sociological journals - Sociological Bulletin (1952) and
Contributions to Indian Sociology (1957) were launched during 1950s which made a significant contribution to the publication of research on Indian and South Asian families. Comparatively, two of the important journals the American Sociological Review and The Journal of Marriage and Family (first edition) published in 1936 and 1938 respectively in the West had begun publishing articles based on empirical data in the 1930s itself.
22
Table 3. A comparative view of the emergence of family studies in India and the West Period Pre - 1920s (before 1919)
1920s - 30s. (1920-1939)
1940s-50s (1940-1959)
1960s-70s (1960-1979)
India Predominantly Indological in orientation with Sanskrit and liturgical texts as sources. Researcher's stance - Book view. Study of family, mostly joint family, as a property holding and ritual performing unit. Hindu, upper caste male-centric view. Continued dependence on Indological sources. Studies mostly confined to West and North India. Colonial construction of laws including marriage and family laws. Strong influence of Henry Maine's Indological sources based work on family research. (Uberoi, 2014). Book view stance continued.
Though few, most studies on kinship and family (Hill, 1958). Regional over representation in the studies continued. Heavy reliance on Census data focused on family structure and size. Joint versus nuclear family debate became the dominant discourse and subject for research. 1950s-Two important journals started publishing articles on family. 1960s- Shift from book review to field review (Patel, 2005; Shah, 2014b). Overwhelming interest on family next to caste (Dube, 1974) Heavy reliance on census data continued, with survey research gaining ground focused on family size, structure, regional variations 23
The West Discourse on origins and evolution of marriage & family Predominantly - Book view Stance of a moral reformer in studying families (Adams & Steinmetz, 1993). White western, middle-class malecentric view. Women’s suffrage movement began at Seneca Falls (1848). 1930s- Family scholarship was alive and prospering (Broderick, 1988). Focus on the psychosocial interior of family life. Unit of study- heterosexual, twoparent, white middle class nuclear family. Influence of psychoanalytic theories began. Shift from book view to field view Research using survey method and secondary data usage took hold. 1930s-Two important journals began publishing family research. 1950s-systematic theory building began (Christensen, 1964). Father provider - mother caregiver model with division of publicprivate spheres of family life projected as a universal construct. 1950s frequently mentioned as a period of marital and family stability (Doherty, 2008). Classic studies on human sexual behavior published. 1960s - Systematic theory building and development of conceptual frameworks (Adams, 1986: p.9). 1970s-Feminism started engaging with family studies (Zinn, 2000). Under representation and distorted presentation of studies on black families (Billingsley, 1970).
Period 1980s - 90s (1980-1999)
2000 onwards
India etc resulting from industrialization. Continued debate on Joint versus nuclear family. Influence of western conceptual frameworks to study families. North east followed by South remained underrepresented. under representation of dalit and tribal family studies. Joint vs. nuclear family debate continued but shifted towards study of other family forms (D'Cruz & Bharat, 2001). 1975-85-the International Women’s Decade. 1980s-Women’s Studies Centres introduced by the University Grants Commission (Uberoi, 1994). 1994 - International Year of Family. Minority and lower caste families were researched. Study of sexuality and sexual relations remained unexplored. Emphasis shifted from structure to processes within family (Uberoi, 2003). A mix of use of quantitative and qualitative methodologies Less attention to studies on South Indian family forms such as matrilineal Nayar's tarwad and patrilineal Nambudri's illam. Less attention to diverse family forms such as displaced, samesex, live in relationships etc. Changed and open discourses on sexuality with the entry of HIV/AIDS agenda; Internet and digital media added a multiplier effect to individualism.
24
The West 1970s-decade of theoretical models. Focus on cross cultural and diverse family forms. Extensive use of multivariate statistical analysis 1970s - Most importantly, concerns regarding declining importance of Family began to surface strongly. 1980s-Decade of policy debates (Adams, 1988). Ethnic minority perspectives. 1984: Disciplinary boundaries of family field got established (Burr & Leigh, 1983; Task Force, 1987). Shift towards more qualitative methodologies. 1990s-Theoretical frameworks became more visible in articles (White & Klein, 2002; Boss et al., 1993). 1994 - International Year of Family 2000 - Family complexity emerged as a major topic for study (Furstenberg, 2014). Increasing attention on family stability as an area of research. Growing research attention on increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. Research focus on relationship between family structure and child well-being (Brown, 2010). Impact of digital media on families.
Family studies in the Indian context suffered from unequal scholarly attention paid to selective dimensions such as family structure, size and composition rather than to the social and psychological interactions with in the families (Uberoi, 2003). In terms of geographical representation, studies were mostly from North and Western India with less representation from South such as matrilineal Nayar's tarwad (Gough, 1961) and patrilineal Nambudri's illam and North East family forms. As a result, a skewed picture of family from a Hindu, upper caste, male-centric point of view got reflected in a majority of the studies. This was the scenario till approximately 1970s. During the period of 1950s-70s, the major debate that engaged sociologists and social anthropologists in India was about unraveling the myth of disintegration of joint family and the conceptual shift from kinship-oriented family to residence-oriented households. It was argued that Indian family retained its jointness though the members were not living jointly and that the concept of nuclear family from the West was not appropriate to capture the complexity of Indian family forms. Also it was around mid-1950s that the family field experienced a shift from book view to field view as sociologists and social anthropologists began studying families in the field rather than through legal and liturgical texts (Shah, 1988). However, this shift was sharply demonstrated during 1960s with the beginning of a range of studies conducted using empirical field data collected through a theoretical lens to understand family relations (See Shah, 2014b, pp.147150). Despite the shift to field view, the overall focus of these studies remained upper caste, Hindu, middle class with an overwhelming representation of studies from West (Maharashtra and Gujarat) and less from south and very little from north-east. Excepting a few (Cohn, 1961) there is a clear under representation of systematic studies of dalit and tribal families. The 1980-90s witnessed the use of mixed methodological innovations in addition to the use of survey, Census, and other secondary data sources, content analysis, ethnographic and genealogical approaches (Konantambigi & Saraswathi, 1996, p.72). The declaration of International Year of Family in 1994 brought the family back to centre-stage and debates around the democratic nature of Indian families and their welfare functions in a policy context (Uberoi, 1996). During the period 1980-2000s, the focus of Indian family studies shifted from structure to process with greater attention paid to study relationships, dynamics, and ideologies in the 25
family space (Uberoi, 2003). The study of these components is particularly useful in understanding the family relations in the Indian context (Patel, 2016: pp. 373-376). A major part of this shift in focus could be attributed to the emergence of women's movement, women's studies discipline, International Women's Decade (1975-85) and a much greater influence from the West. Besides these, availability of research funding, impact of industrialization and globalization processes on families has largely contributed to this shift. However, certain areas such as sexuality (for example, with the exception of Ghurye, 1939, Trawick, 1996. and Kakar, 1989), study of alternative family forms such as live in relationships, gay/lesbian families etc., remained unexplored. Women, children, girl child, and elderly in that order received focus besides the topics on violence and abuse to which these groups were subjected to in families. Some of the most sensitive explorations of Indian marriage and family relationships were carried out by psychologists (Kakar, 1989) during this period. There was a simultaneous change in the perspectives and methodologies used. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were employed in the studies though a greater presence of former methodological approach could be seen. Bharat's (1996) Family measurement in India has contributed to the documentation of methodological developments in the field. Another thoughtful publication of this period was the Indian bibliographies on the family (Bharat & Desai, 1995). The period 2000 and after is characterized by a renewed interest in family. Studies on different family forms such as cohabitation, single parents, same sex couples, sexual abuse, etc were undertaken. Impact of digital media and technology on family is coming up as a major area of interest for study (Nair, 2016). Though there is a recovery of interest in the family studies, there is an urgent need for its rejuvenation. In summary, it can be seen that there is more than four decades of lag between certain recognizable milestones in the West and in India such as the position taken by the researcher, type of family focused, sources of information used, approaches (quantitative, qualitative or mixed) adopted, and methodologies applied. Studies with a focus on family interactions came in vogue in the 1920s in the West whereas such a focus emerged in Indian studies only around the beginning of 21st century. As the philosophy of individualism crept during early 1920s into the Western thinking, questioning marriage and family institutions by social scientists began in the West as early as 1960s -70s, though some of the most radical works were published much before that i.e. during 1930s (Russell, 1929/2009; Kinsey et al, 1948; Ellis, 1936). These are 26
some of the most noticeable differences in the trends of family research between the two regions. IV Where does individualism take the family? The increasing value orientation towards individualization, western culture and values during the last few decades in India have influenced the academic disciplines especially the social sciences so much that autonomy, independence and stark individualism were projected as politically right stances, and joint living and familism, if at all, were looked upon as less favorable and negative family values. Most of the 20th century sociological literature eulogized nuclear family and demonized extended family form and its respective attributes. In fact eulogizing nuclear family values is seen as the norm of the day and studies on families in a way became a one-sided story discouraging a balanced view of the conditions and forms of families (Popenoe, 1993). In the Euro-centric academic debates where individualism and its associated attributes such as nuclear family are unilaterally debated and celebrated as progressive and evolved systems of the enlightened West, the family and cultural systems of other non-western societies have been looked at only through their (the western) lens (Said, 1979) thereby resulting in a one sided story of family systems in the world. Thus, joint or extended family, studied with an individualistic perspective, was construed as oppressive, non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and anti-woman. There has been a scenario where elementary family was projected as a better institution for women in terms of their freedoms and choices compared to extended family systems. While it is true to some extent under certain circumstances and contexts, it may be mentioned here that the same is true of even the nuclear family. Beck (1986) argued that the western nuclear family was built on the premises of industrialization which itself was built on the feudal remains of preindustrial societies. It is based on the concept of the division of male and female roles and commercialization of labour. Therefore, the foundation of nuclear family itself is built on unequal terms of work and gender and was created on an exploitative footing based on gender inequality. In fact, there have been voices of 'pro-family' (Elshtain, 1981; Popenoe, 1988) but they turn out to be simple opposites of the gender equity and individualism positions (a sort of antifeminist and pro-family rhetoric) rather than examining the family from a region-specific, culturally 27
relevant stance. However, beginning from mid-twentieth century, there were voices pointing out the negative side of the major shift that took over post 1950s' western family - the nuclear, heterosexual two-parent family living away from extended kin, under highly celebrated individualistic, self-celebrating autonomous spaces, which Beck (1986) so vividly captures in describing the 'I am I' phenomenon of the postmodern society or modernity. When Doherty (2008), Eisenberg (1998), and Etzioni (1977) asked the question whether family was becoming obsolete - it was aimed at the above genre of family. In a panel discussion on changing American family, Doherty (2008) pointed out that the key attributes of contemporary American family - high individualism, high divorce rate, family instability resulting in shorter durations of parenting associated with father's absence - were seen as harming the healthy development of children. Cherlin's (2008) statement that Americans have more partners, and children see many parents in their life time captures the family scenario that he tried to present. Trevor Noah's (2016) Born a Crime - Stories from a South African childhood is a moving description of such a family situation. The panel emphasized that family stability i.e. long-term intact couple relationship and father involvement was important for child's development and growth and that American society needs a culture shift to know what it takes to form a lasting union (Doherty, 2008). When Etzioni (1977) and Eisenberg (1998), with a gap of two decades in between asked the same question; is the family obsolete?, they were in fact referring to the American/western nuclear family. Both articles addressed child's well being and growth as the central axis for comparison. The major concerns mentioned in the two works were similar; non-marital cohabitation, separation, rising divorce rates, high incidence of premarital sex, and high percentage of single parenthood with a majority of them being women. Etzioni (1977) pointed out that the trouble was with high levels of individualization. In his words: “if any person seeks to maximize his or her own happiness and freedom without considering the consequences to others and to a relationship, the result can be highly detrimental to all those involved and to the family as an institution. People must learn to balance the personal rewards of 'doing one’s own thing' against the hurt it might entail to others. No relationship, no institution, family or society can survive otherwise” (p.8).
28
V Conclusion and suggestions Rapid social and economic changes have been taking place in India during the last two or three decades compared to the changes that happened during the pre-economic liberalization period. In view of the significant impact of these changes on families, it is important now to understand these changes in order to deal with them effectively. From this point of view, the following areas of research on families require attention. a) Family interactions and interpersonal relationships b) Studies on household size, family structure, and newly emerging forms of families. c) Individual and comparative studies about the impact of social and historical processes on families. Firstly, a sociological analysis of interpersonal relationships and interactions in families need to be given greater focus in research on families in view of the rapid changes that have taken place in Indian families influencing several aspects of family relationships including spousal, parental, sibling and others be they relatives or non-relatives. How relationships in families, father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, and sister-brother relationships are negotiated? How are families and extended kin connected or disconnected in contexts of migration, division of properties or other resources? A sociological analysis of interpersonal relationships was seen as an important contribution to understand the interactional dynamics in families undergoing changes (Gore, 1962 & 1968a; Khatri, 1961). Family measurement techniques are sometimes used by social researchers to understand interactions of various kinds (Bharat, 1996). Domestic violence, child abuse, elder abuse and neglect come under this subject area where some research has already been initiated. Secondly, though after 1970s studies about household size, family structure and family forms declined, in order to revisit the nature of change Indian families underwent, there is an urgent need for another round of such studies (Patel, 2016: p.375). Similarly, new forms of families covering diversity of forms such as foster, adoptive, alternative, same-sex, families of choice, military families, displaced families, families with disabled members or those living with mental illness need to be studied for their specific attributes. Studies on diverse family forms will inform an important area of knowledge for planning and interventions and therefore should be given greater attention. Studies on North east families, dalit and other tribal groups are still scarce and need to be encouraged. 29
Thirdly, and most importantly, comparative historical studies of changes in families across cultural contexts, and qualitative research methods to understand the experiences of families at micro level would be useful. As emphasized by Coontz (2000) the historical method could be used to better understand family. In addition, ethnographic studies about family processes such as inter-household relationships, property divisions, kinship relations and transactions (see Farber, 1966 for examples) uncovering the ineffable dimensions will be helpful. Lewis (1995) suggested that an intensive case study of families as functioning wholes, an anthropological approach, to study families can be used to obtain a better understanding of relationship between culture and individuals. Using literature and other secondary sources for study of families to understand how historical processes have impacted them would be of great value. For example, content analysis - to understand images of families in literature or other massmedia can yield interesting insights. Fiction in various languages could also be a great source for such studies. @@
30
References Adams, B.N. (1986). The Family - A Sociological Interpretation (4th ed.).New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich publishers Adams, B.N. (1988). Fifty years of family research: What does it mean? Journal of Marriage and Family, 50 (1), 5-17. Allen, K.A. (2000). A Conscious and inclusive family studies, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (1), 4-17. Adams, B. N., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993). Family theory and methods in the classics. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Source book of family theories and methods: A contextual approach(pp. 71-95). New York: Plenum. Bailey, F.G. (1960). The Joint family in India: A Framework for discussion, The Economic Weekly, 12(8), 345-353. Bailey, S.J. & Gentry, D.B. (2013).Teaching about Family Science as a discipline. In G.W. Peterson & K.R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family (3rd Ed). (pp.861883), New York: Springer Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2004). Families in a runaway world. In J. Scott., J. Treas & M. Richards (Eds). The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families, (pp. 499514). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Beck, U. (1986). 'I am I': Gendered space and conflict inside and outside the family. In Ulrich Beck, The risk society - Towards a new modernity (pp. 103-126 ). New Delhi: Sage Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. Middlesex: Penguin Bernardes, J. (2002). Family studies: An introduction. London: Routledge. Beteille, A. (1964). Family and social change in India and other south Asian countries. Economic and Political Weekly, 16: 237-44. Bharat, S. & Desai, M. (1995). Indian bibliographies on the family. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Bharat, S. (Ed.) (1996). Family measurement in India. New Delhi: Sage Billingsley, A. (1970). Black families and white social science. Journal of Social Issues. 26 (3): 127-141. Boss, G.P., Doherty, W.J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W.R., & Steinmetz, S.K. (eds). (1993). Source book of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum Broderick, C.B. (1988). To arrive where we started: The field of family studies in the 1930s, Journal of Marriage and Family, 50 (3), 569-584. Brown, S.L. (2010). Marriage and child well-being: Research and policy perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family. 72, (5), 1059-1077. Bryant, Z.L and Coleman, M. (1988). The Black family as portrayed in introductory marriage and family textbooks. Family Relations, 37(3): 255-259.
31
Buffardi, L. E., Campbell, W. K. (2008) Narcissism and social networking Web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(10): 1303–1314. doi:10.1177/0146167208320061. Burgess, E. W. (1926). The family as a unity of interacting personalities. Family, 7: 3-9. Burr, W.R. & Leigh, G.K. (1983). Famology : A new discipline. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45 (3), 467-480. Caldwell, J.C., Reddy, P. H., & Caldwell, P. (1984).The determinants of family structure in rural South India, Journal of Marriage and Family, 46 (1), 215-229. Cherlin, A. (2008 May 5). The Changing American Family - Unique U.S. family patterns (Panel discussion) accessed at http://library.fora.tv/2008/04/02/Changing_American_Family#chapter_03 on December 17, 2017. Child Trends (2013). World family map 2013 - Mapping family change and child wellbeing outcomes. Bethesda: Author (accessed at worldfamilymap.org/2013/) Christensen, H. (1964). Development of the family field of study. In H. Christensen (Ed.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 3–32). Chicago: Rand McNally. Christensen, H. (1975). The changing American family. In D. Narain. Explorations in the family and other essays (pp.410-427). Bombay: Thacker & co., Ltd. Cohn, B.S. (1961). Chamar family in a North Indian vollage: A structural contingent. Economic Weekly. 13: 1051-5 Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family studies, Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (2), 283-297. D'Cruz, P. & Bharat, S. (2001). Beyond joint and nuclear: The Indian family revisited. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32 (2), 167-194 Desai, I.P. (1964). Some aspects of family in Mahuva : A sociological study of jointness in a small town. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Desai, I.P. (1981a). Joint family - An analysis. In I.P.Desai (Ed). The Craft of sociology and other essays (pp.92-111), Delhi: Ajanta Publications. Desai, I.P. (1981b). Family research in South East Asia – An approach (with special reference to India). In I.P.Desai (Ed). The Craft of sociology and other essays (pp.112-116), Delhi: Ajanta Publications. Desai, I.P. (1975). A note on the family research. In D.Narain (Ed). Explorations in the family and other essays (pp.65-68). Bombay: Thacker & co., Ltd.
32
Dion, K.K. & Dion, K.L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49 (3): 53-69. Doherty, W. (2008 May 5). Class and family structure in the United States (Panel discussion), accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=F0Oqeov0Gcw on December 8, 2016. Doherty, W., Boss, P., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W., & Steinmez, S. (1993). Family theories and methods a contextual approach. In P. Boss et al (Eds). Source book of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp.3-30). New York: Plenum Dube, L. (1974). Sociology of kinship. Bombay: Popular prakashan Eisenberg, L. (1998). Is the family obsolete? Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 52 (1), 33-46 Ellis, H. (1936). Studies in the psychology of sex, vols 1-2. New York: Random House. Elshtain, J. B. (1981). Public man, private woman: Women in social and political thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Emery, B.C. & Lloyd, S.A. (2001). The evolution of family studies research. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 30(2), 197-222 Engels, F. (2010). The origin of the family, private property and the state. New York: Penguin. (Original work published 1884) Etzioni, A. (1977). The family: Is it obsolete? Journal of Current Social Issues, 14(1), 4-9. Farber, B. (Ed). (1966). Kinship and family organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fei, X. (1982). Views of the changes in Chinese family structure. Tianjin Social Science, 3, 615. Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: the case for feminist revolution. NY: Bantam Book Frazier, E.F. (1932). The Negro family in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freud, S. (1938). Three contributions to the theory of sex. In A.A. Brill (Ed. & Trans). The Basic writings of Sigmund Freud (pp. 553-604). New York: The Modern Library. Fuller, C. (1976). The Nayars today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Furstenberg, F.F. (2014). Fifty years of family change: from consensus to complexity. ANNALS, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS) 654, pp.12-30. Ghurye,, G.S. (1939). Sex habits of a sample of middle class people of Bombay. Paper presented at the second All India Population and Family Hygiene conference Goode, W.J. (1959). The theoretical importance of love. American Sociological Review, 24 (1), 38-47. Goode, W.J. (1963). World revolution and family patterns. Glencoe: The Free Press Goode, W.J. (1964). The Family. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc Goody, J. (1983). The development of the family and marriage in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33
Gore, M.S. (2007). Memoirs that linger. New Delhi: Serial Publications Gore, M.S. (1962).The husband-wife and mother-son relationships. Sociological Bulletin, 11, (1/2), 91-102. Gore, M.S. (1968a). Joint family as a social system. In M.S.Gore, Urbanization and family change (pp.3-39). Bombay: Popular Prakashan Gore, M.S. (1968b). Urbanization and family change. Bombay: Popular Prakashan Gough, K. (1961). Nayars: Central Kerala. In D. M. Schneider & K.Gough (Eds), Matrilineal Kinship (pp.298-631), Berkeley: University of California Press. Greenfield, S.M. (1966). Industrialization and the family in sociological theory. In B. Farber (Ed). Kinship and family organization (pp. 408-426). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Groves, E. R. (1927). Social problems of the family. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Gupta, B. (1994). Modernity and the Hindu joint family system: A problematic interaction. International Journal on World Peace, 11 (4): 37-60. Hall, L.K. (2008). The unique culture of the military family. In Lynn K. Hall, Counselling military families (pp.45-70). New York: Routledge Hareven, T.K. (1987). Historical analysis of the family. In M.B.Sussman & S.KSteinmetz (eds). Handbook of marriage and the family (pp.37-57). New York: Plenum Press. Hill, R. (1958). Sociology of marriage and family behaviour 1945-56: A trend report. Current Sociology, VII (1):1-33 Hollinger, M. (2002). Family science. Journal of Teaching in Marriage & Family, 2(3), 299328. Hu, L. (2004). From tradition to modern‒Analysis on the characteristics and reasons of changing Chinese family structure. Northwest Population Journal, 2, 29-31. Kakar, S. (1989). Intimate relations: Exploring Indian sexuality. Delhi: Penguin. Kaldate, S. (1961).Urbanization and disintegration of rural joint family. Sociological Bulletin, 11(1/2), 103-111 Kannabiran, K. (2006). Three-dimensional family: Remapping a multidisciplinary approach to family studies. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (42), 4427 – 4433. Kapadia, K. M. (1958). Marriage and family in India. Bombay: Oxford University Press. Karve, I. (1953). Kinship organization in India. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal publishers Khatri, A.A. (1961). Some neglected approaches and problems in the study of family in India. Sociological Bulletin, 10(1), 75-81. Khatri, A.A. (1975). The adaptive extended family in India today. Journal of Marriage and Family, 37(3), 633-642. Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E (1948). Sexual behaviour in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders K.J.S. (1986). The joint and nuclear family-A personal experience. Indian Journal of Social Work, 47(1):51-54. Knox, J. & Price, D.H. (1995). The changing American military family: Opportunities for social work. Social Service Review, 69 (3), 479-497. 34
Kolenda, P. (1987). Region, caste and family structure: A comparative study of the Indian 'Joint' family. In P. Kolenda., Regional differences in family structure in India (Chapter 1). Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Konantambigi, R.M. & Saraswathi, T.S. (1996). Family studies in India: Opportunities for progression and regeneration. In S.Bharat (ed). Family measurement in India (pp.6675). New Delhi: Sage. Laslett, P. (1972). Introduction. In P.Laslett & R.Wall (Eds). Household and family in past time (pp.1-86). London: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, O. (1995). An anthropological approach to family studies, American Journal of Sociology, 55 (5), 468-475. Lobo, L. (2005). Household and family among Thakors in a North Gujarat village. In T. Patel (Ed.) The family in India: Structure and practice (pp. 267-286). New Delhi: Sage. Luna, C. (2016 November 30). Romantic love is killing us: Who takes care of us when we are single? Accessed at https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/romantic-love-iskilling-us/ Mandelbaum, D. (1948). The family in India. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 4(2), 123-139. Masters, W.H. & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. New York: Bantam Books. Mehdizadeh, S (2010). Self presentation 2.0: Narcissism and self-esteem on facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking. 13 (4): 357-364. Mines, M. (1976). Urbanization, family structure and the Muslim merchants of Tamil Nadu. In Imtiaz Ahmad (Ed.) Family, kinship and marriage among Muslims in India (pp. 297317). Columbia: South Asia Books Publishers. Morrison, W. A. (1959). Family types in Badlapur: an analysis of a changing institution in a Maharasthian village. Sociological Bulletin, 8: 45-67. Nair, T. (2016). Media, technology and family: Exploring the dynamics of interactions. The Indian Journal of Social Work,11(4): 387-406. Nimkoff, M.F., & Gore, M.S. (1959). Social bases of the Hindu joint family. Sociology and Social Research, 44 (1), 27-36. Nimkoff, N.M. (1959). Some Problems Concerning Research on the Changing Family in India, Sociological Bulletin. 8 (2), pp. 32-38. Noah, T. (2016). Born a crime - Stories from a South African childhood. New York: Spiegel & Grau. Nye, F.I., & Berardo, F.M. (1966). Emerging conceptual frameworks in family analysis. New York: Macmillan. Ogburn, W.F., & Nimkoff, M.F. (1955). Technology and the changing family. New York: Houghton Mifflin Oommen, Т.К. (1991). Family research in India: Issues and priorities. In S. Bharat (Ed.), Research on families with problems in India, Vol. 1. Mumbai: TISS Orenstein, H. (1961). The Recent history of the extended family in India. Social Problems, 8 (4), 341-350. 35
Parsons, T. & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. Glencoe: Free Press Parsons, T. (1959). The social structure of the family. In R.N.Anshen (Ed). The family : Its function and destiny (pp. 173-201). New York: Harper. Patel, T. (2005). Introduction. In T. Patel (Ed.) The family in India: Structure and practice (pp1-34). New Delhi: Sage. Patel, T. (2016). New faces of the Indian family in the 21st Century: Some explorations. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 77(4): 367-386. Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest: Family change and decline in modern societies. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960- 1990: A review and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 527-555. Rajalakshmi, S. (1993). Family studies in India: Appraisal and new directions. In T.S.Saraswathi & B. Kaur (Eds). Human development and family studies in India – An agenda for research and policy (pp.122-135). New Delhi: Sage. Reiss, I. L.(1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. New York: Prentice-Hall. Reiss, I. L.(1965) The universality of the family: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 27 (40), 443-453. Ribbens McCarthy, J., & Edwards, R. (2011). Introduction. In Key Concepts in Family Studies (pp. 1 – 8). Los Angeles: Sage. Robins, L.N. & Tomanec, M. (1966). Closeness to blood relatives outside the immediate family. In B. Farber (Ed). Kinship and family organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ross, A. D. (1961). The Hindu family in its urban setting, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Russell, B. (2009). Marriage and morals. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1929). Sahlins, M. (2013). What kinship is - And is not. London: The University of Cambridge Press Said, E. (1979). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books. Saradamoni, K. (1999). Matriliny transformed. New Delhi: Sage Shah, A. M.(1973). The household dimension of family in India: A field study in a Gujarat village and a review of other studies. Delhi: Orient Longman. Shah, A. M. (1988). The phase of dispersal in the Indian family process. Sociological Bulletin, 37(1&2): 38-48. Shah, A.M. (1998). The family in India: Critical essays. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Shah, A.M. (2005). Family studies: Retrospect and prospect. Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (1): 19-22. Shah, A M. (2014a). The writings of A.M Shah. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Shah, A M. (2014b). The sociological study of the Indian family. In A M. Shah, The writings of A.M Shah (pp.140-169). New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
36
Singer, M. (1968). The Indian joint family in modern industry. In M.Singer & B.Cohn (Eds). Structure and change in Indian society (pp.423-52). New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation. Smart, L.(2009). The emergence of a new discipline 1982-2007. Family Science Review, 14, 118-128. Sprey, J.(2000). Theorizing in Family Studies: Discovering Process. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62 (1), 18-31. Srinivas, M.N. (1952). A joint family dispute in a Mysore village, Journal of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda 1 (1): 7-31. Supriya, S. & Mala, B. (2012). Money management and control in the Indian joint family across generations. The Sociological Review, 60 (1), 46-67. Task Force on the Development of a Family Discipline. (1987). A recommendation about the identity of the family discipline. Family Science Review, 1, 48 - 52. Thomas, W. I. & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The polish peasant in Europe and America: Monograph of an immigrant group. Boston: The Gorham Press. Trawick, M. (1996). Notes on love in a Tamil family. New Delhi: Oxford University Press Uberoi, P. (1994). Sociology, gender, family studies: Regressive incorporations. Economic and Political Weekly, 29 (27), 1686-1687. Uberoi, P. (1996). The family in official discourse, India International Centre Quarterly, 23. (3/4), 134-155 Uberoi, P. (2003). The family in India: Beyond the nuclear versus joint debate. In V. Das (ed.) The Oxford India companion to sociology and social anthropology (pp.161-203), Delhi: Oxford University Press. Uberoi, P. (2014). The family in India. In V.Das (ed.). Handbook of Indian sociology (pp.275307). New Delhi: Oxford University Press Uberoi, P. (2016). Saving custom or promoting incest? Post-independence marriage law and Dravidian marriage practices. In P.Archana & D. Amita (Eds). Redefining family law in India (pp.54-85). New Delhi: Routledge. Uma, K.G. (1986). Economy and family - A study of their relationship in an urban community. Indian Journal of Social Work, 47(1),15-24. Unit for Family Studies (1991). Research on families with problems in India: Issues and implications, vols 1-2. Mumbai: TISS Vatuk, S. (1972) Kinship and urbanization: White collar migrants in North India. Berkeley: University of California Press Wang, Y. (2007). An analysis of the trend toward the nuclear family in Chinese rural areas. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 5, 36-48 Westermarck, E. (1925). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan & Co. (Original work published 1891). Wharton, E. (1920). The Age of innocence. Oxford: Oxford University Press White, J.M. & Klein, D.M. (2002). Family theories (2nd ed). New Delhi: Sage
37
White, J.M. (2010). Editor's Comments: Traversing forty years of family change - An overview of the special edition. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 41(4), 487490. White, J.M. (2013). The current status of theorizing about families. In G.W. Peterson & K.R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp.11-37), New York: Springer Science and Business Media. Woodhouse, C.G. (1930). A study of 250 successful families. Social Forces, 8 (4), 511-532. Xu, A. & Xia, Y.(2014). The Changes in Mainland Chinese families during the social transition: A critical analysis. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, XLV (1): 31-53. Zaretsky, E. (1976). Capitalism, the family and personal life. New York: Harper & Row. Zinn, M.B. (2000). Feminism and family studies for a new century. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 42-56. @@@
38
