The problem of giving the universal definition of the family:
The problem of giving a universal definition of the family has vexed the anthropologists for decades and has been raised but not solved several times in recent years. Anthropological researches on the family concluded that the family, consequently the institution of marriage, exists in every society. However, what it means varies from society to society. For this reason the variation in the family is very wide. Even then numerous anthropologists tried to say something in general about the family. All their efforts were in vain because the variation to formulate a final, all embracing definition of the family. This is the crux of the problem . Constitutes the family to define it as a universal group, there is a diversity of views on the definition on the type of family that constitutes the universal category of family.
Ralph Linton (1936) stated that the consanguinal family is universal, that the nuclear family as such does not exist by itself and that it is only or part of a larger family namely, the consanguinal family. He stressed that the cosanguinal bond is more important than the conjugal bond.
G.P.Murdock (1949) examined a sample of 250 societies and found three distinct forms of the family as he defined it: some societies had only nuclear families, each consisting of married couple and their offspring; in others, there were also polygamous families containing two or more nuclear units affiliated by plural marriage; and still others contained extended families in which two or more nuclear families are affiliated through an extension of sibling relationship.
Murdock concluded that the nuclear family exists as “a social group characterized by common residential, economic co-operation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes at least two of whom ” maintain a socially approved – sexual relationship and one or more children, own or adopted of the sexually cohabitating adults” distinct and strongly functional group in every society, and that it is universal because everywhere it performs four functions essential to human life: a sexual function, a reproductive function, an economic function and an educational or enculturating function.
However, W. N. Stephens (1963) identified the shortcomings of Murdock’s propositions about the universality of the family.
first, shortcomings with Murdock’s definition is its requirement that there be common residence for members of the nuclear family. This forces us to exclude several cases like Ashanti, in which husband and wife live separately. The Ashantis of Ghana had a system of duo-local residence , where husband and wife will be staying separately. Children eat with their father but stay with their mother. The wife visits her husband occasionally in the night In the Ashanti system succession is matrilineal. The children inherit property from -their mother’s brother who plays a very important role. In fact, he is like a sociological father. A woman values her relationship with her brother more than the relationship with her husband, amongst the Ashantis. Therefore, marital ties are of no great consequence either for the wife or for the children. In other case too, The Nair family of Kerala (Gough: 1955) can also be quoted as an alternative form of family where the husband-wife relationship either does not exist or is only symbolic. Women after they undergo a ritual marriage (thaalikattu kalyanam) before puberty but after attaining puberty, they were allowed to have sexual liaison or affairs with men from within the Nair caste in the village through whom they could even have children and these children were given legitimate status. The Nair household consisted of the mother, her married and unmarried daughters and sons. The mother’s brother played a very important role in the affairs of the Nair family-(Tarawad).The example of the Ashanti and Nair family systems go to prove that the nuclear family is not universal nor for that matter, common residence is a necessary condition for the definition of family.
The second shortcoming with Murdock’s proposition is its requirements that there be sexual function for the formation of nuclear family. There are societies like Onatoa and Trukese, in which pre-marltal sexual license is allowed. In some cases, like Eskimos, sexual relations are employed to reinforce conjugal relations.
The third shortcoming with Murdock’s proposition is it’s requirement that there be economic co-operation with members of a nuclear family. The economic function is carried out by the large family, and then other responsibilities vest with the nuclear family only. If the sexual and economic functions are performed in other ways, why should the marriage be universal, the family inevitable and the nuclear family an essential to human society?
The fourth shortcoming is it’s requirement that there be reproductive socializing function of the nuclear family, Marian J. Levy and L.A, Fallers proved that there are many agencies, which perform this function. There are no married couples that constitute a legal productive, distributive, residential, socializing or consuming unit. In short, there are functions that Murdock suggests as essential to the nuclear family.
The important question then is what other type of family is universal? Murdock himself admitted that there are exceptions to the propositions he has made. There may be societies that defy the existence of nuclear family. He mentioned about the Nayars. Gough spoke at length about the Nayars and said that Nayars have the marriage and the extended family. In no sense of Murdock’s proposition regarding the structure of the nuclear family, could the Nayars be said to have a typical nuclear family. The matrilinal tribes of India like the Khasi and Garo also do not have nuclear families in the sense that Murdock has used it. The presence of matri-focal families in Caribbean societies also disputes the universality hypothesis. Almost 37% of the families in British Guyana, 30% of the families in Guatemala and 40% of the families in Paraguay are matrifocal families (Smith & Hutchinson).
Experiments made with alternative to family in Russia and Israel also support the view that family is universal. The Kol-Khoz experiment carried out in Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution did not generate any great enthusiasm and, in fact, was a failure .The Bolshevicks, were not in favour of continuing with the conventional pre-revolutionajy family system, which they thought was the greatest supporter of conservatism and inequality. In the Kol-Khoz, men and women were allowed to have children but were not allowed to pass on anything to them. The children were separated at an early age and were brought up by the KolKhoz. But this experiment of collectivization did not succeed much and the authorities had lo give up the experiment.
In Israel, Kibbutzim as an alternative to the family has had a very limited degree of success. Only just about 4% of the population in Israel lives in Kibbutzim. In fact, hardly any middle class families live in Kibbutz,
(a) Monogamous marriage and shared residence for husband and wife.
(b) Dormitories for the children.
(c) Children are allowed to visit their parents only for an hour or two every day.
(d) Parents have little to do with the education of their children.
(e) No economic cooperation or sharing of house-hold duties between husband and wife. They work for the Kibbutzim.
(f) Common cooking and dining.
(g) The economic needs of the members are taken care by the Kibbutzim.
Melford Spiro (1959) said that in Kibbulz children are not brought up by parents. So was the case in Chinese communes, Soviet communes and Shaker society. These cases also defy the universal hypothesis. Adams emphasized that conjugal dyad and maternal dyad are of crucial importance in considering the nuclear family. Others say that the problem of defining the family and nuclear family as universal body has by no means been resolved to the satisfaction of all.
Radcliffc Brown makes a valid point that rather than arguing about the universal form of family, we should study units of all kinship systems- whether small or large. The mother-child unit forms an independent sub-group even in those societies which have large families or extended families or what others would call domestic groups. The debate on the universality of the family depends on the definition of the term family. If the term family includes the husband-wife- children unit be the nuclear family, then there are a number of cross-cultural evidences to show that this form of family is not universal.
The above discussion does lead one to conclude that the family is a universal social group as lone as one does not confine its definition to the conventional wife-husband-children unit
Is Marriage and Family Universal?
Marriage leads to a family. But there is an example from the Na society of China wherein there is no word for the term ‘marriage’ in their language (Blumerfield 2004, Geertz 2001, Harrell 2002). The institution in which the men and women are joined in sexual and reproductive partnerships is called sese. In this system a man spends the night in a lover’s house and goes away in the morning. The sese relationship does not hold any notion of fidelity, permanence, paternal responsibility for children born or any form of economic obligations (Shih, 2001). A child born is the responsibility of the mother and her sisters and brothers. A Na household comprises of mother and her sons and daughters, sisters and their children and the brothers.