It is argued that the large, extended or joint families were characteristic of preindustrial and agrarian societies and that the nuclear family is a product of industrial revolution and is a characteristic of industrial society, in fact, some sociologists propose that (a) there is a perfect harmony between nuclear family and the needs of an industrial society, and that ( b) amongst all the family forms, nuclear family is the only one attuned to the requirements of modem industrial societies.
The following points are advanced in support of their argument:
I. Industrial societies require a high degree of geographical mobility which only a small family can adapt to quickly. Men and women have to go in search of jobs and many a times, change jobs for better prospects. This search may involve dislocation in space. Further, the employers may transfer a wage earner which is a condition of their service. A small, nuclear family cart comfortably and quickly pack up and shift as compared to a large joint family where it will be extremely difficult to shift all the members.
2. In an industrial society’ status is achieved and not ascribed. Traditional families like the Hindu joint family. Tor example, give more importance to ascription. Roles and statuses were determined by gender and age. In the nuclear family, on the other hand, the emphasize is not so much on gender and age but on achievements or skills. For example, if the son is a Surgeon and the father is a Driver, the son is given independence to take his own decisions and is not subject to parental authority as would be in the case of joint families.
3. Since nuclear families tend to be small, the parents can afford to give the best of education to their children. An Industrial -society needs talented and skilled people and the nuclear family is in a better position to fulfill this need.
Therefore, it is argued that the nuclear family is the product of industrialization and is very well adapted to the needs of an industrial society
However, not many sociologists agree with this interpretation. They point out that
(a) The pre-industrial family in Europe was not always, as is believed, large and extended. On the contrary, the nuclear family house-holds seem to have been quite popular. Peter Laslett of the Cambridge University Found that only 10% of the house-holds between the period 1564 to 1821 A.D. in England could be considered as extended families. Therefore, to argue that the nuclear family is a product of industrialization is not correct. Even in India, the census figures of 1901 prove that a majority of families were small.
(b) The fact that nuclear family has adapted itself well or is comparatively better suited to the requirement of modern society does not mean that the other forms of family are obsolete and incongruous in an industrial setting. For example, many of the successful entrepreneurial families in India like those belonging lo the Jain, Marwari and Chettiar communicates are large and fit into the traditional Hindu joint family pattern. In foci, jointness is an advantage for them. The younger members desirous of setting up new industry find Joint family a great advantage as they can mobilize resources quickly and easily from amongst the family members rather than approach banks and financial corporations. In any case, they enjoy an Initial advantage as compared to a youngster who comes from a nuclear family environment.
3) lack of monitoring on children , work and family imbalance , deviant behavior of children , loneliness , depression and suicidal thoughts etc.. evils present in industrialized nuclear family.
One tends to conclude that nuclear or jointness of the family is amongst other factors, shaped more by cultural values of a given society.