Page 104 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 4: Family

Desai (1964: 41) had studied 423 families in 1955-57 in Mahuwa town in Gujarat with a population of Notes
about 25,000 persons and 4,800 households. Of the total population, 78 per cent were Hindus and 22
per cent were Muslims. Classifying 423 families in his sample on the basis of the generation depth, he
found that 4.02 per cent families were one-generation nuclear families, 57.45 per cent were two-
generation nuclear families, 32.86 per cent were three-generation joint families, and 5.67 per cent
were four or more generation joint families. In other words, 61.47 per cent families were nuclear and
38.53 per cent were joint, showing thereby that nuclearity prevails more than jointness.
Classifying 423 families on the basis of relationship with other households, that is, in terms of the
degree of jointness, Desai (Ibid: 69) found that about half of the families were joint with others in
terms of residence, property and functioning, and about one-third were joint with others only in
terms of functioning. In 4.96 per cent cases, he found zero degree of jointness; in 26.48 per cent cases,
low jointness (that is, jointness in mutual obligations only); in 17.02 per cent cases, high jointness
(that is, jointness in mutual obligations and property); in 30.26 percent cases higher jointness (that is,
marginal jointness, or jointness in residence (less than three generations), mutual obligations, and
property); and in 21.28 per cent cases, highest jointness (that is, traditional jointness, or jointness in
residence (involving three or more generations), mutual obligations, and property).
Thus, Desai (1956: 154-56) gave three conclusions pertaining to the change in the urban family: (1)
Nuclearity is increasing and jointness is decreasing, and the husband-wife-children group is
predominant in the residential and compositional pattern of the families. (2) Spirit of individualism
is not growing, as of the households that are residentially and compositionally nuclear, little less
than 50 per cent are actively joint with other households in the same town or outside it. (3) The radius
of kinship relations within the circle of jointness is becoming smaller. The relations between parents
and sons, brothers and brothers, and uncles and nephews predominated in joint families. In other
words, the lineal depth of relationship is found between father, son, and grandson, and the colateral
relationships are between a man and his father’s brother and his own brothers.
Kapadia’s study (1956: 112), conducted in 1955-56, gave comparative change of urban and rural families
(unlike Desai’s study which painted the pattern of change only in urban family). He had studied one
town—Navsari—and its fifteen surrounding villages in Surat district in Gujarat. In all, he studied 1,345
families of which 18 per cent were from Navsari town and 82 per cent were from its surrounding villages.
Analyzing the structure of family by taking the urban and the rural areas together, Kapadia (Ibid:
113-15) found that 49.1 per cent families were nuclear and 50.9 per cent were joint. The conclusions
about the family patterns were delineated by Kapadia as follows:
1. In the rural community, firstly, the proportion of joint families (49.7%) is almost the same as
that of nuclear families (50.3%). Secondly, when the nature of the family pattern is viewed in
relation to castes, higher castes (e.g., Patidars, Brahmins, and Banias) have predominantly joint
family, its proportion to the nuclear family being nearly 5: 3. The lower castes show a greater
incidence of nuclear family, the proportion of the joint family to the nuclear being 9: 11. Thus,
while among the higher castes, there is 0.6 nuclear family per one joint family; among the lower
castes, every joint family has its counterpart 1.2 nuclear families. Thirdly, the joint family is
predominant not only among the agricultural castes (for example, Patidars and Anavils) but
also among the functional castes (that is, carpenter, tailor, gold-smith, black-smith, grocer, potter,
oil-presser, bangle-seller, etc.) which shows that it is doubtful whether the joint family is now
necessarily a concomitant of the agricultural economy.
2. This is against the general presumption that people in cities and big towns live in nuclear
families and that towns and cities have disintegrative influences on the structure of the family.
3. In the ‘impact’ villages (that is, villages within the radius of 7 to 8 km from the town), the family
pattern closely resembles the rural pattern and has no correspondence with the town pattern
(that is, the proportion of joint families is almost the same as that of nuclear families). Secondly,
as far the pattern showing the caste variations is concerned, unlike other villages, in ‘impact’
villages, the functional castes show a gradual increase of nuclear families and agricultural castes
(Patidars, etc.) show a gradual decrease of nuclear families. It is difficult to say whether this is
due to the impact of the town or is merely an expression of caste variations.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 99