Page 106 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 4: Family

Rama Krishna Mukherjee (1975: 4) studied 4,120 families in West Bengal in 1960-61 and concluded Notes
that joint family structures are being nuclearized in course of time and that replacement of joint
family by nuclear family is fait accompli.
M.S. Gore (1968: 247-48) studied 499 Agarwal families (399 in the main sample and 100 in the additional
sample) in 1960 living in or coming from Haryana region. The families in the main sample were
engaged in traditional occupation of business, trade and money-lending and had comparatively less
formal education. These families were selected from three different sectors—urban, fringe and rural.
The urban families were selected from Delhi, the fringe families from the surrounding villages of
Delhi, and the rural families from Rohtak and Hissar districts of Haryana. The families in the additional
sample included those which were engaged in non-traditional occupation, were comparatively more
educated, and living in an urban area. From each of these four types of families (urban, rural, fringe,
and additional group), Gore selected both nuclear and joint families. The urban families were further
classified as ‘local’ (in which head of the family was born in Delhi) and ‘immigrant’ families (in
which head of the family was born outside Delhi). The break-up of the 499 families in all these types
was: urban local nuclear and joint families: 50; urban immigrant nuclear and joint families: 149;
fringe nuclear: 49; fringe joint: 51; rural nuclear: 48; rural joint: 52; and additional nuclear and joint:
100. Thus, the total number of nuclear and joint families studied in the main sample was 195 and 204
respectively. From each family, Gore selected two or more respondents for interview. In this way, he
studied 1,274 persons in all—1,174 in the main sample and 100 in the additional sample. Of these, 490
respondents were from the nuclear families (422 in the main sample and 68 in the additional sample)
and 784 were from the joint families (752 in the main and 32 in additional sample).
Classifying 399 families in the main sample on the basis of six classifications, Gore (Ibid: 94-96) found
154 nuclear families of type I (that is, a man, his wife and unmarried children), 41 nuclear families of
type II and III (that is, either a man, his wife, unmarried children and unmarried brothers or a man,
his wife, unmarried children and some dependent who is not a coparcener), 137 joint families of type
IV (that is, a man, his wife, unmarried children and married sons), 47 joint families of type V (that is,
a man, his wife, unmarried children, married sons and unmarried brothers), and 20 joint families of
type VI (that is, a man, his wife, unmarried children, married sons, unmarried brothers, and married
brothers and their families). This shows that two types of families dominate over all others—one
consisting of a man, his wife and unmarried children (154 out of 399 or 38.6%) and secondly, one
consisting of a man, his wife and unmarried and married children (137 out of 399 or 34.3%).
Edwin Driver (1962: 112-120) conducted a survey in 1958 in Nagpur district in (then) Bombay State.
He contacted 2,314 families, 882 living in the city, 309 in the town and 1,123 in the villages. Of these,
93.3 per cent were Hindu families and 6.7 per cent were non-Hindu families. The analysis of the 2,314
families revealed that in the city, 22.9 per cent families were joint and 77.1 per cent nuclear; in the
town, 24.9 per cent were joint and 75.1 per cent nuclear; and in the village, 37.0 per cent were joint
and 63.0 per cent nuclear. Taking all the three areas (city, town and villages) together, 30.0 per cent
families were found joint and 70.0 per cent nuclear (see, Kapadia, 1966: 297). As is evident from these
figures, there are more nuclear families in the urban areas and more joint families in the rural areas.
Analyzing the pattern of family with reference to the income group, Driver found that in the rural
areas, joint families are more in the higher income group (Rs. 1,000 and over) than in the lower,
whereas in the urban areas, they (joint families) are less in the higher income groups than in the
lower. He also studied the family pattern with reference to generational differences. While in the
older generation, he found 16.03 per cent families joint and 28.48 per cent nuclear, in the younger
generation he found 14.0 per cent joint and 41.5 per cent nuclear, showing thereby that the joint
family is more frequent among the older couples (see, Kapadia, 1966).
The University School of Economics and Sociology, Bombay carrying out the economic survey of
Greater Bombay in 1957 analyzed the patterns of 13,369 families, out of which 74.8 per cent were
Hindu families. The data on these families showed that 11.52 per cent families were uni-member,
5.74 per cent nuclear, 8.04 per cent nuclear with some affinal relative, 34.02 per cent marginal joint,
and 40.68 per cent joint families (see, Kapadia, 1966: 297-98). This shows that nearly 75.0 per cent
were joint families and only 17.26 per cent were truly nuclear families.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 101