1.4 - Society Notes 03

Elaborate Notes

Life Cycle of Joint Family

The concept of a ‘life cycle’ in relation to the joint family posits that family structures are not static but dynamic, undergoing cyclical changes between joint and nuclear forms. This idea challenges the linear view that joint families are universally disintegrating into nuclear ones due to modernization.

• Definition of Joint Family: A joint family is typically defined as a multi-generational family unit where two or more generations live together, sharing a common residence, kitchen, and property. It is characterized by filial and fraternal solidarity, with authority usually resting with the eldest male member (Karta). Sociologist K.M. Kapadia in “Marriage and Family in India” (1955) defined it as a group of people who are generally descended from a common ancestor, live under one roof, eat food cooked at one hearth, hold property in common, and participate in common family worship.
• The Cyclical Process:
  • Sociologist I.P. Desai in his study of the town of Mahuva, Gujarat (“Some Aspects of Family in Mahuva”, 1964), argued that families go through a process of fusion and fission. A nuclear family can expand to become a joint family when sons marry and continue to live with their parents. Conversely, a joint family may break up (fission) into smaller nuclear units due to factors like migration, death of the patriarch, or internal conflicts. These new nuclear units may, in turn, grow into joint families again, continuing the cycle.
  • This cyclical nature is influenced by both economic and social factors. The practice question correctly identifies a key debate on the primary driver of this cycle.
• Economic Factors: These are often the primary triggers for the fission (disintegration) of the joint household.
  • Migration: The search for employment in urban and industrial centers, a consequence of globalization and industrialization, often compels individuals or small family units to move away from the ancestral home, leading to the formation of nuclear households.
  • Occupational Diversification: Modern economies offer a wide range of jobs that are not tied to ancestral land or caste-based occupations, reducing the economic interdependence that held the joint family together.
  • Individualism and Consumerism: A market-driven economy fosters values of individualism and personal achievement, which can conflict with the collective ethos of a joint family. The desire for a higher standard of living and consumer goods can lead to disputes over shared family income.
• Social Values: These forces often act as a centripetal force, promoting fusion or maintaining ‘functional jointness’.
  • Filial Piety and Kinship Obligations: Traditional values emphasizing respect for elders and mutual support among kin persist. Even when living separately, family members often maintain strong ties, fulfilling social, economic, and ritual obligations. This is what I.P. Desai referred to as “functional jointness” where the spirit of jointness continues despite separate residences.
  • Social Security: The family remains a crucial source of social security, providing care for the elderly, children, and the unemployed, especially where state-sponsored social security is weak.
  • Ritual and Ceremonial Functions: Life-cycle rituals like birth, marriage, and death ceremonies necessitate the coming together of the wider kin group, reinforcing family bonds.

Emergent Forms of Family

Modernization, globalization, and legislative changes have led to the diversification of family structures beyond the traditional joint and nuclear models.

• Nuclear family with extended ties: This is arguably the most common form in urban India. While the residential unit is nuclear (parents and unmarried children), strong functional linkages with parents, siblings, and other relatives are maintained. Sociologist Milton Singer in his study of industrial leaders in Madras (“When a Great Tradition Modernizes”, 1972) observed that industrialists lived in nuclear households for practical reasons but maintained the joint family ideology, fulfilling their kinship obligations. This model combines the autonomy of a nuclear family with the support system of an extended one.
• Single-parent family/household: The rise of these households is attributed to:
  • Changing Norms around Marriage and Divorce: The stigma associated with divorce has reduced, facilitated by laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This, coupled with the desacralization of marriage due to global cultural flows, has led to higher divorce and separation rates.
  • Women’s Empowerment: Increased financial independence allows women to leave abusive marriages or choose not to marry.
  • New Reproductive Technologies and Adoption: Legal frameworks such as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and liberalized adoption norms under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have enabled single individuals, including women, to have children.
• Female-headed household: This is distinct from a single-parent family as the headship can be de jure (legal) or de facto (in practice).
  • Male-specific Migration: Large-scale migration of men from rural areas for work leaves women to manage the household, farm, and children, leading to what is termed the “feminization of agriculture.”
  • Feminization of Old Age: Women generally have a higher life expectancy than men, resulting in a large number of elderly widows who often head their households.
  • Empowerment and State Policy: The rise of female entrepreneurs, professionals, and choices like ‘sologamy’ (marrying oneself) reflect a shift in gender dynamics. Additionally, government welfare schemes often identify women as the primary beneficiary (e.g., rations under PDS, bank accounts under Jan Dhan Yojana), empowering them within the household.
• Live-in Relations or Cohabitation:
  • Socio-cultural Drivers: This trend is influenced by Westernization, emphasis on individual autonomy, and the impact of cinema. It is often seen as a practical step before marriage or as an alternative to it, avoiding the legal and social complexities of divorce.
  • Legal Recognition: The Supreme Court of India in several judgments, such as S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal (2010), has held that living together is not an offense and is a part of the right to life under Article 21.
  • Sociological Debate: One perspective sees cohabitation as a threat to the institution of marriage. Another, more nuanced view suggests it reinforces the importance of marriage by allowing couples to test compatibility, potentially leading to more stable long-term marital relationships.
• Dual-career family: Both partners are engaged in paid employment. This is a direct consequence of women’s increased participation in higher education and the workforce. It challenges traditional gender roles but also creates new pressures related to work-life balance and childcare.
• Conjugal symmetrical family: This concept, developed by British sociologists Michael Young and Peter Willmott in “The Symmetrical Family” (1973), describes a family where spouses share domestic labor, childcare, and decision-making more equitably. It reflects a move towards a more egalitarian and companionate marital relationship, where bargaining power is more balanced.
• DINK Families (Double Income, No Kid): This is a voluntary choice made by some dual-career couples to not have children. The reasons range from a focus on career advancement and financial stability to a desire for personal freedom and concerns about the environmental or social future.

Impact of Globalization on the Institution of Joint Family

Globalization has acted as a powerful catalyst for change, affecting both the structure and functions of the Indian family.

• Impact on Structure:
  • Disintegration of Joint Household: Globalization has accelerated migration and urbanization, physically breaking down the joint residential unit.
  • Persistence of Family Ties: As discussed earlier, it has not necessarily destroyed the ‘family’ as a network of kinship. Technology (mobile phones, internet) has made it easier for geographically dispersed members to maintain contact and uphold functional jointness.
  • Emergence of New Forms: Globalization has fostered an environment of individualism, gender equality, and cultural exchange, directly contributing to the rise of dual-career, DINK, and live-in relationships.
• Impact on Function:
  • Economic Function: The family has largely transitioned from a unit of production (as in an agrarian society where all members worked on the family farm) to a unit of consumption. The rise of the factory system and the formal economy separated the workplace from the home.
  • Educational Function: The function of imparting traditional skills and knowledge has been largely taken over by formal institutions like schools, colleges, and vocational training centers, which are necessary to compete in a globalized job market.
  • Spouse Selection: While the family still plays a significant role, its monopoly has been challenged. The rise of matrimonial websites, dating apps, and increased social interaction in workplaces and educational institutions has given individuals greater autonomy in choosing their partners.
  • Persistence of Core Functions: Despite these changes, the family continues to be the primary institution for primary socialization (the initial process of learning the norms and values of a society), as conceptualized by Talcott Parsons. It also remains a key agency of social control and provides emotional and psychological security to its members.
  • Internal Dynamics: Globalization has promoted democratic values, leading to more egalitarian relationships between spouses and between parents and children. The status of women, in particular, has seen improvement through education and economic independence. However, the over-penetration of technology can also lead to social isolation and neglect within the family unit.

Caste System

The caste system is a unique and deeply entrenched form of social stratification in India.

• Concept: It is a system of hierarchically arranged, closed, endogamous social groups (Jatis), where membership is determined by birth (ascriptive). G.S. Ghurye, in his seminal work “Caste and Race in India” (1932), provided the most comprehensive definition, outlining its key features.
• Features of Caste System (as per G.S. Ghurye):
  1. Segmental Division of Society: Society is divided into a number of castes, which are well-developed social groups with their own councils and systems of governance.
  2. Hierarchy: These groups are arranged in a ladder of social precedence, with the Brahmins at the apex and the ‘untouchables’ (Dalits) at the bottom. This hierarchy is based on the principle of purity and pollution.
  3. Restrictions on Feeding and Social Intercourse (Commensality): Strict rules govern the kind of food and water that can be accepted and from which castes.
  4. Civil and Religious Disabilities and Privileges of Different Sections: The higher castes enjoyed numerous privileges, while the lower castes, especially the ‘untouchables’, faced severe disabilities, including denial of access to temples, public wells, and schools.
  5. Lack of Unrestricted Choice of Occupation: Occupations were traditionally hereditary and fixed by caste.
  6. Endogamy: Marriage is restricted to within one’s own caste or sub-caste.
• Models of Caste System:
  • a) Varna Model: This is the ‘book view’ derived from ancient Sanskrit texts like the Vedas and Dharmashastras. It presents a four-fold division of society (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra) as a pan-Indian framework. The 1931 census was the last official British census to collect detailed data on caste.
  • b) Jati Model: This is the ‘field view’ emphasized by sociologists like M.N. Srinivas. It reflects the ground reality of thousands of distinct endogamous groups (Jatis and sub-castes) that are the effective units of the caste system. The Jati hierarchy and practices are localized and vary significantly across regions.
• Theories on the Origin of Caste:
  • a) Divine Origin Theory: This theory is rooted in the ‘Purusha Sukta’ hymn of the Rig Veda (Mandala 10), which describes the creation of the four Varnas from the body of the primeval being, Purusha (Brahmins from the mouth, Kshatriyas from the arms, Vaishyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet). This provides a religious sanction for the Varna hierarchy.
  • b) Karma and Transmigration Theory: This philosophical doctrine posits that a person’s birth in a particular caste is a consequence of their actions (karma) in a previous life. Adherence to one’s caste duties (swadharma) is seen as a way to earn merit for a better rebirth in the next life.
  • c) Occupational Theory: Propounded by J.C. Nesfield, this theory argues that the caste system originated from the division of labor. Different occupations, ranked based on their perceived importance or purity, evolved into hereditary caste groups over time.
  • d) Racial Theory: Associated with Herbert Risley (Census Commissioner, 1901), this theory links caste to racial differences. It suggests that the light-skinned Indo-Aryans invaded India and subjugated the darker-skinned indigenous population (Dravidians or Dasas), establishing the Varna system to maintain their racial purity through endogamy.

Continuity and Change in the Caste System

While the traditional features of the caste system have been significantly weakened, caste identity remains a potent force in contemporary India.

Traditional Features of Caste System	Forces of Change	Contemporary Reality
Hierarchy (based on Purity and Pollution)	Modern Value System (Rationality, Equality)	The ritual hierarchy has been significantly challenged, especially in urban public spaces. However, notions of purity and pollution still persist in private spheres, particularly concerning marriage and domestic life.
Separation of Contact (Commensality)	Urbanization (Anonymity, Heterogeneity)	In cities, anonymity and the necessity of inter-caste interaction in offices, public transport, and restaurants have made commensal restrictions largely defunct in public. These restrictions may still be observed in rural and domestic settings.
Occupational Division of Labour	Industrialization & Caste Neutral Jobs	New economic opportunities in the formal and informal sectors are based on skill and education rather than caste. This has delinked caste from occupation to a large extent, though some traditional occupations are still caste-based.
Disabilities and Privileges	Role of the State (Constitution, Laws, Policies)	The Constitution of India (e.g., Article 17 abolishing untouchability) and laws like the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, have legally abolished caste-based discrimination. Affirmative action policies (reservations) have provided opportunities for upward mobility.

• Role of the State in Transforming Caste:
  • Reservation: Affirmative action in education, government jobs (Articles 15(4), 16(4)), and political representation has provided avenues for secular mobility for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This has helped improve their socio-economic status.
    • Ritual vs. Secular Mobility: While reservation improves secular status (class), it may not necessarily improve ritual status (caste rank). For ritual mobility, some groups have historically resorted to Sanskritization, a process defined by M.N. Srinivas as the imitation of the customs, rituals, and lifestyle of a higher “twice-born” caste.
    • ‘Class within Caste’: A major critique of reservation is that its benefits have been cornered by a small, influential section within the beneficiary castes, creating an elite group or a ‘creamy layer’. This has led to the emergence of class-like divisions within a single caste.
  • Land Reforms: Post-independence land reforms, such as the abolition of the Zamindari system, transferred land ownership from absentee upper-caste landlords to intermediate peasant castes who were the actual cultivators. This economic empowerment, combined with their numerical strength, gave rise to what M.N. Srinivas termed the ‘Dominant Caste’ in his essay “The Dominant Caste in Rampura” (1959).
    • Features of Dominant Caste: A caste is considered dominant when it wields economic and political power at a regional level. Key features include significant land ownership, numerical strength, and a high position in the local secular hierarchy. Examples include Jats in Haryana, Patidars in Gujarat, and Marathas in Maharashtra. They act as cultural role models, conflict resolvers, and powerful pressure groups.
    • Contemporary Paradox: Despite their historical dominance, many of these groups (Jats, Marathas, Patidars) are now demanding inclusion in the OBC category for reservation benefits, citing agrarian distress and a lack of employment opportunities in the globalized economy.
  • Mandal Commission: The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990, which extended reservations to OBCs in central government jobs, fundamentally altered caste dynamics. It shifted the caste discourse from a vertical system of ritual hierarchy and stigma to one of horizontal competition among various caste groups to be classified as ‘backward’ to gain access to state resources.

Role of Caste in Politics

The relationship between caste and politics is a dynamic one, where each has profoundly influenced the other.

• Pre-independence:
  • British colonial policies, such as the census which categorized and enumerated castes, made people more conscious of their caste identities.
  • Christian missionaries’ critiques of practices like untouchability and the introduction of secular English education created an educated elite. This led to social reform movements from within the upper castes (e.g., Brahmo Samaj) and anti-caste movements from the lower castes (e.g., the Self-Respect Movement of E.V. Ramasamy in Tamil Nadu; the Satyashodhak Samaj of Jyotiba Phule in Maharashtra). This period laid the groundwork for caste-based political mobilization.
• Post-Independence:
  • Phase I: Dominance of ‘Entrenched Castes’
    • Immediately after independence, political power was held by the upper castes (Brahmins, Thakurs, etc.) who had benefited from colonial education and administrative opportunities. These can be termed ‘entrenched castes’ as their power was consolidated in both ritual and secular domains.
    • This phase was marked by a power struggle between these entrenched castes and the newly empowered ‘dominant castes’ who had gained from land reforms and had numerical strength.
  • Phase II: Politicisation of Caste
    • This phase saw political parties begin to strategically use caste for electoral mobilization. Sociologist Rajni Kothari in his book “Caste in Indian Politics” (1970) argued that it was not caste that was defining politics, but politics that was “politicising” caste.
    • Features:
      1. Candidate Selection: Parties started selecting candidates based on the caste arithmetic of a constituency.
      2. Cabinet Formation: Governments sought to give representation to all major caste groups to maintain social balance and electoral support.
      3. Caste-based Patronage: Political parties openly wooed specific caste groups with promises of benefits and representation in return for their votes, creating ‘vote banks’.
  • Phase III: Casteisation of Politics
    • Contrary to the predictions of modernization theory that caste would wither away with development, it has become even more central to politics. This phase is characterized by the ‘casteisation of politics’, where caste identity itself becomes the primary ideology and organizing principle of political parties.
    • In this phase, caste is no longer just a passive vote bank but an active political actor shaping the political discourse and agenda.

---

Prelims Pointers

• I.P. Desai: Sociologist who studied the family in Mahuva, Gujarat, and proposed the concept of ‘functional jointness’.
• K.M. Kapadia: Author of “Marriage and Family in India,” provided a classic definition of the joint family.
• Milton Singer: Studied Madras industrialists and found they maintained joint family ideology despite living in nuclear households.
• Michael Young and Peter Willmott: Coined the term “Symmetrical Family” to describe egalitarian family structures.
• Purusha Sukta Hymn: Located in the 10th Mandala of the Rig Veda, it describes the divine origin of the four Varnas.
• G.S. Ghurye: Author of “Caste and Race in India” (1932); outlined six primary features of the caste system.
• Herbert Risley: Proponent of the Racial Theory of caste origin; was the Census Commissioner for the 1901 Census.
• M.N. Srinivas: Coined the concepts of ‘Sanskritization’ and ‘Dominant Caste’. Emphasized the importance of the ‘Jati model’ (field view) over the ‘Varna model’ (book view).
• Last Caste Census: The last comprehensive caste census conducted by the British was in 1931.
• Mandal Commission: Established in 1979 to identify socially or educationally backward classes; its report was implemented in 1990.
• Rajni Kothari: Author of “Caste in Indian Politics” (1970); argued that politics was ‘politicising’ caste.
• Article 17 of the Constitution: Abolishes “Untouchability” in all its forms.
• Articles 15(4) and 16(4): Enable the state to make special provisions (reservations) for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
• Examples of Dominant Castes: Jats (Haryana, UP), Thakurs (UP), Patidars (Gujarat), Marathas (Maharashtra), Vokkaligas and Lingayats (Karnataka), Reddys and Kammas (Andhra Pradesh).

---

Mains Insights

On Family

1. Continuity and Change in Family Structure: The key debate is not about a linear transition from joint to nuclear families, but about adaptation. The Indian family demonstrates remarkable resilience by changing its form (structure) while retaining its core functions and values (spirit). The concept of ‘functional jointness’ is crucial here. While households are becoming smaller and nuclear, the kinship network remains a vital source of support.
2. Social Implications of Emergent Family Forms:
   • Cause-Effect: Women’s education and economic independence are primary causes for the rise of dual-career families, female-headed households, and DINK families. The effect is a significant challenge to patriarchal norms, a re-negotiation of gender roles, and new social issues like elderly care and work-life balance.
   • Ethical Dimensions: The rise of live-in relationships and single-parent families raises questions about social norms, the welfare of children, and the role of the state vs. individual liberty. This ties into GS Paper IV (Ethics) concerning social values and personal freedom.
3. Globalization’s Dual Impact: Globalization is a double-edged sword for the family. On one hand, it fosters individualism and market logic that can weaken collective bonds. On the other, technology (a product of globalization) strengthens communication among dispersed kin, and global discourses on human rights and gender equality can lead to more democratic family relationships.

On Caste System

1. Caste: Weakening or Adapting?
   • The traditional ritualistic and occupational aspects of caste have undeniably weakened due to urbanization, education, and economic modernization.
   • However, caste has not disappeared. It has adapted and taken on new forms, particularly in the political and social realms. Caste identity has become a powerful tool for social mobilization, access to state resources (reservations), and matrimonial alliances (endogamy remains strong). This is often referred to as caste taking on a ‘new avatar’.
2. Paradoxes in Caste Dynamics:
   • Dominant Castes and Reservation: The demand for reservation by economically and politically powerful ‘dominant castes’ is a major paradox. It reflects the failure of the agricultural sector to provide sustainable livelihoods and the intense competition for limited government jobs, forcing these groups to leverage their caste identity for state benefits.
   • Reservation and Inequality: Affirmative action was designed to create a casteless society, but it has, in some ways, reinforced caste identities. The debate over the ‘creamy layer’ highlights the problem of intra-caste inequality, where benefits are not reaching the most marginalized, leading to the creation of a ‘class within a caste’.
3. Caste and Politics: A Symbiotic Relationship:
   • From Politicisation to Casteisation: The analysis should move beyond Rajni Kothari’s initial observation of ‘politicisation of caste’. The contemporary reality is closer to ‘casteisation of politics’, where caste is not just one factor among many, but the central organizing principle of political competition in many states.
   • Impact on Democracy: This has mixed implications. On one hand, it has given a political voice to marginalized groups and deepened democracy by bringing them into the political mainstream. On the other, it can lead to divisive identity politics, undermine developmental agendas, and compromise meritocracy in governance. It represents a shift from a vertical patron-client relationship between castes to a horizontal assertion of caste solidarity.