ASSIGNMENT OF FAMILIES AND

INTIMACIES
Is family the universal unit? Discuss with references to existing
sociological debate and the case of Nayars in India.
As Renate Bridenthal said that family is something where we
experienced our first emotions and feelings, hate and love, joy and
pain, giving and taking. Here we learned to hope, to suffer
disappointment, to trust. She said that family is where people get their
start in life, where they experienced the most sharing and where they
expect to be able to return in need. Family is also known as the social
institution because a person is born as a biological being, then becomes
a social being by adopting the norms and values of the society in which
he/she lives as an individual. The family is the social institution where
the child first learns social norms and is socialized as an individual and
also provides emotional, social, and economic and health support for
each of its members.

Now, Becker explains the emergence of family and said that there was
a concept of commune or collective assets but when the private
property emerged, and then the emergence of family started. He
explains the multiplicity of family by explaining the traditional and
modern society concept. He said family was radically different
institution in primitive and peasant societies but now it has undergone
a considerable transformation which is considered as modern societies.
Firstly, Becker explains about the traditional families and said that the
first function of it is played as protection unit as well as insurance unit
in which close knitted family group helps in bad times which means
they are support system. For instance, if the person’s crop is failed and
he is not able to make profit then the close knitted group helps in it. In
the earlier time there is lack of private spaces due to which couple was
not able to spend their alone time and there was no idea of
romanticism. According to people there was only one work for couple
that was produced their off springs and the primary work was to
socialize their children with the proper customs and traditions which
their close knitted group followed.

But he said when we see present context things have been changed
considerably and when we talk about modern the idea of western
society come. So, basically we talk about the functions of western or
modern societies. Earlier there was the idea that family is the insurance
unit but now there is the market insurance in which means and
relations of production come together. Hence, one’s did not need to
depend on the close knitted ties for the bad times. For example, now
there is the idea of life insurance in which individual can invest and
when that person is in grievance then he/she can easily avail the
services of life insurance. So, he/she is not in need to depend on the
close knitted group to help in bad times. He said in modern societies
the concept of dating become associated with private spaces which
means that there is increase in romance and intimacies. Due to this the
market of cafes are booming in each and every part of the world. He
also talks about the women and said that in modern times women
earning power is raising. They are handling the economic world as well
and this happens when in the second world war men were died, then
women needs to go out of the homes and join the work force due to
which there is entry of tremendous number of women in work force
and after this women love to do this and continue it. This is all that
Becker talks about the family.

Patricia Uberoi talks about the Indian family in which she said that the
joint family is the ideal type in India. Most of the family in India is joint
family because it is an important ingredient as the social institution that
uniquely expresses and represents the valued aspects of Indian culture
and tradition. Indology confirmed the ‘joint family’ as the typical and
tradition form of family organization in India. The important sociologist
who works extensively on Indian family is Henry Sumner Maine. He
projected Indian joint family as a living example of the earliest or
ancient form of the human family. Maine termed this type of family the
‘Patriarchal Family’ for the reason that it was constituted by a group in
which father or the eldest male is head of the family and the descent is
reckoned by male line. Family property was equally distributed among
sons before or after the death of the ascendant. Maine said that this
ancient form of family based on the principle of ‘status’ which means
that there is no law in it, ultimately the land or property of the parents
goes to son but now it evolve through several stages into one based on
‘contract’ in which the property is not biological lineage, it depends on
the law. He said that due to this the patriarchal joint family was
replaced by the monogamous conjugal family unit of the contemporary
western type.

Now, she is talking about the most influential contribution to the

sociology of the family in the post war period was that of the American
sociologist and social theorist Talcott Parsons. He looks at the family
through functionalist perspective. He said that after the war there is
change like rising divorce rate, declining birth rate, and changes in
sexual morality which is the reason for the breakdown of the American
family, these changes he considered as the period of transition not the
sign of a trend of dysfunction and disorganization. Talcott Parsons
believed that “the nuclear family is a social system” which consists of a
straight married couple and around two to five children, “can be
distinguished, and does function as a significant group”. Parsons
believed that the family benefitted society in ways such as the
teachings of gender roles and the overall structure of society: the male
going to work and being the breadwinner which he describes the
“instrumental” function, while the wife stays at home and cooks and
nurtures the children which is the “expressive” function. After the
Second World War, the nuclear family was the most common type of
family making the structure easily “distinguishable”.

As we saw above there are different type of family like nuclear family,
joint family, homosexual family etc but there is exception in the case of
Nayars which is community based marriage. The Nayar society of
Kerala, southern India, is an example of a unique kingship structure that
differs from those typically found in India and outside India. This society
has been a subject of debate among sociologists as it is very unique and
different from other. This society in Kerala presents an exception to the
traditional concept of family, as their customs and practices differ
significantly from those in most societies. Kathleen Gough provided an
in-depth analysis of the Nayar society. He said that in this society, Nayar
girls were ritually married to a suitable Nayar man through the tali-rite
before they reached puberty. After tali- rite ceremony a woman with
his tali-rite husband was exluded for three days and then couple was
purified from the pollution of cohabitation by a ritual bath. However,
the tali husband did not live with the wife nor he was obligated to
maintain any contact with her. The wife’s only duty to her tali husband
was to mourn his death at his funeral. It was considered that
prepuberty tali-rite was essential and if the girl menstruated before
that then she should be expelled from her lineage and caste.

Upon reaching puberty, Nayar girls started having a number of visiting

or ‘sambandhan’ husbands. Typically, Nayar men were professional
warriors who spent extended periods away from their village as
mercenaries. During their time in the villages, they were permitted to
visit any Nayar women who had undergone tali- rite and belonged to
the same or lower caste. Nayar women would not allow creating
sambandh with the lower caste and if the woman does so, she was
expelled from her kin. The sambandhan husband would visit one of his
wives homes after dinner, engage in sexual intercourse, and leave
before breakfast the following day. He would place his weapons outside
the building to indicate his presence to other sambandhan husbands.
Hence this society is both polygynous and polyandrous. This unique
kingship structure in the Nayar society raises questions about the
universality of the family system and offers an interesting perspective
for sociological and anthropological studies.

Kathleen talks about some visiting husband roles and said that at each
visit men was supposed to give a gift to woman but a more regular does
not need to give it at each and every visit. It was common although not
essential for him to present the woman a cloth of the kind worn as a
skirt. Later he was expected to give a gift at the three main festival of
the year. If the men was failed to make the gifts then it was expected
that the men had ended the relationship. Most important when a
woman became pregnant, it was essential for one or more men of
appropriate sub caste to acknowledge probable paternity by giving the
gift to lower caste midwife who attended the woman in childbirth. If no
man of suitable caste would consent to make this gift, it was assumed
that woman had relation to the lower caste or to the Chirstans or
Muslims. She must then be expelled from the lineage and caste or killed
by her matrilineal kinsmen. The Nayar society was matrilineal, with the
economic unit, consisting of brothers, sisters, sisters’ children and their
daughters’ children. Marriage played no significant role in the
formation of households, socializing of children, or meeting the
economic needs of the members of the society. So, basically there is no
husband and wife like relationship in this family.

Gough argued that marriage and family existed in Nayar society but
required a broader definition of marriage to include relationships
where a child born to the woman is given full birth-status rights, as is
common in the Nayar society. In summary, the Nayar society in Kerala
challenges the traditional concept of family and marriage, presenting
an exception in India and outside it. This highlights the need for
broader definitions and understanding of family structures across
different societies and cultures.

I concluded by saying that the concept of the family as a universal unit

has been debated among sociologists for many years. While some
argue that the family is a universal institution across all cultures and
societies, others argue that the family varies across cultures and
societies. So, basically family is the universal unit but it has different
forms and is diversified and this depends on the culture to culture or
region to region. All the cultures and societies have family in some and
other way but they are different in various forms like in some society
people more prefer nuclear or conjugal family but on the same hand
others prefer joint or extended family. When two different sexes marry
each other and they have their children is a family on the other hand
the person of same sex like two men or two women marry each other is
also considered as a family. Hence, in all type of society like matrilineal
or patrilineal, patriarchy or matriarchy, matrilocal and patrilocal etc all
has family of some sort. We cannot say that a man and a woman with
their two or more children are considered as family only but the
homosexual couple is the family as well.

References:
“The evolution of the family”: Becker, G.S. (1991)

“Is the family universal: The Nayar case”: K.E. Gough (1968)

“The family in India: Beyond the nuclear versus Joint debate”: Patricia
Uberoi (2003)

“The family: A view from a room for her own”: Renate B. (1982)