THE
ECONOMIC
February 20, 1960
WEEKLY
The Joint-Family in India
A Framework for Discussion
F G Bailey
THIS
paper is not an analysis of
the joint-family, but is rather a
series of connected questions through
which that analysis could be made.
It is a method of investigation and
not the investigation itself.
The field of enquiry is divided
into three sections, that is, into three
levels of analysis. The first of these
is an analysis of structural f o r m ;
the second is dynamic analysis of
what has been called 'repetitive'
e q u i l i b r i u m ; the t h i r d level concerns
structural change. Before I go on
to fit this type of analysis to the
joint-family, I w i l l explain in greater detail what type of question characterises the three different levels
of analysis.
S T A T I C A N D POSED
The term 'structural form' was
used by Radcliffe-Brown, although I
would not be sure that he would
endorse my use of it here. A statement of structural f o r m is a statement of the roles of both persons
and groups. The essence of such a
statement is that it describes positions which are static and—to use a
metaphor posed.
By 'static' 1
mean that no account is taken of
time and movement. By 'posed' I
mean that the various actors are not,
so to speak, photographed at work
and in the 'natural state'. They are
first posed in the position which the
investigator desires. In other words,
this kind of analysis produces a
model: and it is not even a model
which works; it remains still, and it
shows the mutual positioning of persons or groups, as if they never
moved. The words ' s t i l l , 'timeless',
'photograph', 'chart', 'map', 'posed'
suggest what I mean by "structural
form.
A characteristic of a static analysis is that it deliberately does not
take account of certain variables.
These variables must be excluded so
that the chart may remain static and
timeless. 1 call these variables 'external factors' and they are of two
kinds, which are best explained" by
examples.
In a static analysis or
description of the model j o i n t family
we do not take account of the fact
that the father or manager must
eventually die or grow-senile and be
replaced by one of his sons. That
is to say, we exclude the variable
of age, along w i t h many other factors which are not accountable by
social analysis and w h i c h vary quite
independently of social relations.
Another way of putting this point is
to say that we describe and analyse
the manager of a j o i n t - f a m i l y as a
person—that is as the carrier of a
role, of a particular set of rights
over and duties towards other persons and things—and not as an i n dividual, who grows old, or whose
actions are influenced by emotion, or
any other 'external' factor. The
second variable w h i c h is ignored in
an analysis of structural form is that
several persons are combined in one
i n d i v i d u a l . For example, the son in
a j o i n t family may also be the husband of a woman and through her
the son-in-law of another jointfamily. The role of husband and
son-in-law, as we very well know,
may make it difficult to carry out
the duties of being a member of a
j o i n t family, but in a static analysis
of the joint-family we ignore this
fact and many others like it. because these arc the very factors
which would set the static chart in
motion.
No-one is content, so far as I
know, to present o n l y a static chart
of relationships, of the type I have
described. Nevertheless it is a stage
in the analysis which cannot be
omitted without the risk of confusion. The next level of analysis is
that which takes into account external variables, but only those which
do not in the end tend to destroy
the chart of static relationships.
Both parts of this sentence will need
further explanation.
RESTORATION OF THE STATUS Q U O
l have already given instances of
these external variables. In the dynamic analysis—the name given to
this second level of enquiry one
takes account of b i r t h and death.
of the fact that many persons are
located in one i n d i v i d u a l , and of
other external factors. These external factors are viewed as threats to
the continued existence of the static
chart of relationships; they arc potential factors of disturbance. Consequently in a dynamic analysis we
study various institutions w h i c h res-
345
lore the status quo. To use again
the two examples: if the manager
dies there are institutions of succession and inheritance w h i c h restoie
the structural form of the jointfamily, although this may be embodied in actual relationships which
are different from those which existed before: again, if the conflict of
allegiance to the wife and allegiance
to the joint-family becomes serious
and overt, then either sanctions come
into play to strengthen the jointf a m i l y at the expense of the nuclear
f a m i l y , or else partition lakes place,
and the scene is set for the emergence of several joint-families in the
place of the one that had existed
before.
Let me again make use of metaphor to clarify what 1 mean by a
dynamic analysis. The static analysis of j o i n t - f a m i l y roles and relationships serves as a norm, towards
which, it is assumed, actual behaviour is always tending. Actual behaviour is continually being diverted or turned aside from this norm,
bin there always come into play
various ancillary institutions which
restoie the status quo. This type of
analysis can be conceived visually
as oscillations across a straight l i n e :
or it run be seen as a cyclical profess, some point on I he circle being
a r b i t r a r i l y chosen as the norm.
To be brief, and to reify like a
cavalier, a dynamic analysis takes
account of those external factors ( i n
our case external to joint-family relationships) with which the structure
can cope. If manager A dies, manager B takes his plate: actual relationships are different since 15 and
A are different individuals: but the
form or type of joint family remains
the same in both eases. The structure of the joint family has coped
with the disturbance set up by A"
death and restored the status que
CHANCING
NORM
SO much for the second level of
analysis—the dynamic
of a
repetitive
e q u i l i b r i u m . The third
level is the analysis of change. In
this the crises and contilicts, diets which in
a dynamic equilibrium analysis are
coped w i t h and end in a return to
the status quo, do not lead back to
the point of e q u i l i b r i u m . The static
THE
February
20, 1960
346
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
THE
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
chart becomes i n a p p r o p r i a t e a n d a
new one hay to he sought f o r , if
that
is possible.
Movement
and
v a r i a t i o n can no longer be conceived of as oscillations a r o u n d a n o r m ,
which remains constant; rather the
n o r m itself is c h a n g i n g .
I propose, then, to g r o u p question's about the j o i n t f a m i l y i n t o
these three categories:
structural
f o r m , w h i c h is a static a n a l y s i s ; a
d y n a m i c analysis, w h i c h f o r convenience can be called either 'social
circulation'
or
'repetitive
equilib r i u m " ; and
finally
questions of
s t r u c t u r a l change.
It w i l l be noted
that these three levels of analysis are
not a progressive refinement of concepts: they do not move f r o m the
lesser to the greater
abstraction.
Rather we start w i t h the remotest
and neatest abstraction, h a v i n g taken
f o r granted a p r e l i m i n a r y i n d u c t i v e
stage by w h i c h this abstraction was
reached. T h e n , in the two succeedi n g levels of analysis, we b r i n g the
static model nearer to r e a l i t y ; we
take into account more and more
v a r i a b l e s : we make it progressiveIy
less neat and more complex, in the
hope that in the end we are dealing
no longer with the model but w i t h
something w h i c h deserves, to he called ' r e a l i t y ' , relatively at least to the
model w h i c h was used at I he beginn i n g of the analysis.
Structural Form of Patrilineal
Joint-Family
To describe the s t r u c t u r a l f o r m of
the joint f a m i l y is to say of what
s u b g r o u p s or persons it consists and
how these groups or persons are related to one another. It is. in effect,
to give a m i n i m a l d e f i n i t i o n of a
joint f a m i l y , and I t h i n k this can
best be done t h r o u g h two concepts,
using Nadel's t e r m s : t h r o u g h the
concept of recruitment and the concept of activities.
In other
words
we have to say how people are rec r u i t e d into a g r o u p . and what they
do together, when we call that g r o u p
a 'joint-family".
The actual groups
w h i c h exist may contain
persons
recruited in other ways, and may do
things besides those specified, but
these 'other things are not those
w h i c h are definitive of the jointfamily.
T h e definitive recruitment is that
t h r o u g h unilineal k i n s h i p , in the
first insfancc.
It w i l l be immediately obvious w h y I say ' i n the first
instance'. The core of the j o i n t f a m i l y , in a p a r t i l i n e a l system of
descent, is the males of the lineage.
T h e i r sisters, although they belong
February 20, 1960
to the same lineage, and although
they have defined
c l a i m s on the
j o i n t - f a m i l y p r o p e r t y , cease on marriage to be members of the j o i n t f a m i l y , a l t h o u g h they may opt to
r e t u r n to it and in certain c i r c u m stances their
c h i l d r e n may inherit
joint-family property.
Recruitment,
then, is not solely by u n i l i n e a l descent, in that some who are so descended are e x c l u d e d f r o m membership of the j o i n t - f a m i l y at a certain
stage of their lives.
But secondly.
the
patrilineal
j o i n t - f a m i l y includes also the wives
of the men w h o belong to i t .
We
may make this p o i n t b r i e f l y by saying
that
the coparcenary
recruits
males of c o m m o n
p a t r i l i n e a l descent, but the
joint-family is
composed both of these men and of their
wives. The point is o b v i o u s : but 1
make it so that we may always be
clear that there are two types of
relationship r e c r u i t i n g a j o i n t - f a m i l y :
descent and m a r r i a g e .
In the dynamic analysis it w i l l become obvious
that these two types of relationship
can conflict w i t h one another.
In
b r i e f , then, for a g r o u p to be called a coparcenary, its members must
have been
recruited
by u n i l i n e a l
descent: and a coparcenary becomes
a joint-family
when we take
into
account the wives of the coparceners.
These d e f i n i t i o n s do not deal
very h a p p i l y w i t h the daughters of
the coparceners, but the position of
these daughters is f o r the moment
clear enough f r o m what I have said
earlier.
T h a i is as far as recruitment w i l l help us in d e f i n i n g the
joint f a m i l y .
COMMON
PROPERTY
As for the activities of the jointf a m i l y , only -one is d e f i n i t i v e : and
that is common o w n e r s h i p of property ( f o r the coparceners) and a
right to maintenance f r o m c o m m o n
property
I for
the
whole
joint
family).
l a v i n g under the same
proof, eating f r o m the same hearth,
or p r a c t i s i n g
c o m m o n rituals are
activities in
which a
joint-family
may indulge, but we w i l l not deny
the name
' j o i n t - f a m i l y ' to groups
w h i c h do not have these latter activities in c o m m o n .
On the other
baud we cannot
a p p l y the
term
j o i n t - f a m i l y ' and still less the term
'coparcenary to those who have no
common p r o p e r t y .
Besides the d i v i s i o n between the
coparceners on the one hand and
their wives and female children on
the other hand—between, if you like,
coparceners and dependents—there
347
are variuos other f o r m a l s t r u c t u r a l
cleavages w i t h i n the j o i n I f a m i l y ,
such as the d i s t i n c t i o n between married and u n m a r r i e d
coparceners,
between the manager and the others,
and so f o r t h .
W h i l e all coparceners have equal shares in the properly, in its management they are organized not as equals but in o r d i n a tion.
That is all 1 intend to say about
the structural f o r m of the j o i n t family.
There is o b v i o u s l y more to
be said, hut 1 have l i m i t e d myself to
these points as a sufficient d e f i n i t i o n
of the joint f a m i l y :
(1) the
distinction
between
coparceners and
dependents, and its
associated dual r e c r u i t m e n t ;
(2) the
division
into
nuclear
families:
(3) the o r d i n a t i o n of the coparccners; and
(4) c o m m o n p r o p e r t y and a particular k i n d of r e c r u i t m e n t .
Soctal Circulation and Repetitive
Equilibrium
An
equilibrium
analysis
of
a
model j o i n t f a m i l y w o u l d be as
follows.
In this model the j o i n t
family
let us say the descendenls
of one g r a n d f a t h e r and their wives
andl c h i l d r e n l i v i n g f r o m the same
piece of p r o p e r t y - is taken as the
norm, from
which a cycle begins.
Then
the
c h i l d r e n glow up a n d
m a r r y and begin to have c h i l d r e n
of their o w n .
T h e r e is a q u a r r e l
or. if not a q u a r r e l some k i n d of
d i f f i c u l t . and the f a m i l y p a r t i t i o n s
into its constituent nuclear f a m i l i e s .
The c h i l d r e n in these nuclear f a m i lies grow up and m a r r y and have
c h i l d r e n themselves. and eventually
there appears oilier joint f a m i l i e s .
similar
in form to the one
which
p a r t i t i o n e d ; and this completes the
cycle, and this is what is meant by
'repetitive equilibrium'.
T h e n " are three lines of e n q u i r y
w h i c h one may f o l l o w . I shall menlion one of them.
I be others 1 w i l l
discuss al greater length.
The first method of e n q u i r y is to
play at being Linnaeus a n d to coll e d all the incomplete f o r m s of joint
f a m i l y — - a n d also what might
be
called the
overcomplete'
families;
i e. those w h i c h i n c l u d e such per
sons as w i d o w e d sisters returned to
their natal homes, or murine dependant:
These could then be classified a c c o r d i n g to their c o m p o s i t i o n .
WHAT
C
PARTITION?
T h e second line of e n q u i r y , w h i c h
follows on the first, is to ask what
causes p a r t i t i o n , what sets the cycle
THE
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
February 20, 1960
going. This line of enquiry can be
d i v i d e ) into two Plages:
(a) We
would
enquire firstly
about, the non-social absolutes w h i c h
lead to p u r t i t i o n . An obvious one
here is the ratio between the natural
increase of the j o i n t - f a m i l y and the
size of the property which is supposed to maintain the group, and the
possibility of enlarging this property. Other things being equal—and
in t a l k i n g of models we have to use
I his phrase—-a j o i n t - f a m i l y w h i c h
does not increase in numbers f r o m
generation to generation is less likely to p a r t i t i o n than one1 w h i c h does
increase beyond the point at w h i c h
it ran be maintained by its p r o p e r t y .
deviance or cope w i t h difficulties.
These w o u l d range f r o m the author i t y structure w i t h i n the j o i n t f a m i l y
itself and the way it is maintained
and its values internalized, to the
existence of a j o i n t - f a m i l y law, codified and enforced by the courts and
based on the assumption that the
joint-family is an institution w o r t h
preserving. A g a i n there are the i n stitutions of succession and the
standardized ways of dealing w i t h
such recurrent and inevitable crises
as the death of the manager or the
necessity to find wives for the men
of the j o i n t family so that it may
be perpetuated.
( b ) A second
and p r o b a b l y
more f r u i t f u l - line of caquiry, is i n to the external relationships of the
i n d i v i d u a l coparceners, and the decree to w h i c h these lead to p a r t i t i o n . There arc many examples of
these relationships. An obvious one
is the i n d i v i d u a l coparcener's relationships w i t h his wife and through
her w i t h his wife's k i n group. A n other example would be the p o l i t i c a l
or economic relationships w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l coparceners m i g h t have
outside the j o i n t - f a m i l y . This is
the f a m i l i a r question of outside
earnings, and the tensions w h i c h may
arise when these
earnings differ
greatlv f r o m one coparcener to
another.
A g a i n , if a coparcener
who is j u n i o r and insignificant in
(he f a m i l y achieves a position of
power and prestige outside the f a m i ly, he may prove a reluctant subordinate in the j o i n t - f a m i l y and
work for p a r t i t i o n . These are only
a few examples and there are clearly other kinds of external relationships w h i c h set the cycle in motion
and account for the various incomplete or potential forms of joint-
Secondly we w o u l d have to ask
what functions the j o i n t f a m i l y
fulfils
for its i n d i v i d u a l
nuclear
families. This, I t h i n k , is p r o b a b l y
the most i m p o r t a n t factor in accounting for the return to e q u i l i b r i u m . We w o u l d probably get
at these factors by asking what are
the difficulties and disadvantages
w h i c h face nuclear families or i n complete j o i n t - f a m i l i e s when compared w i t h f u l l joint-families.
We
assume that the disadvantages w h i c h
the women p a r t i c u l a r l y feel in
joint-family life are counter-balanced—and in an e q u i l i b r i u m system,
more than counterbalanced—by the
advantages w h i c h the nuclear f a m i lies gel from l i v i n g j o i n t l y . These
may be economic advantages on the
argument not that two can l i v e as
cheaply as one hut that four can
live as cheaply as t w o ; that the j o i n t
f a m i l y provides a k i n d of social
insurance against h a r d times; that
it has a larger capital sum at its
disposal for improvement and further investment than a nuclear f a m i ly by itself; and so f o r t h . Or else
these advantages may be of a p o l i tical nature, in that the member of
a strong j o i n t - f a m i l y cannot be kicked around in the
same way as a
man on his o w n : or something of
that nature.
family.
WHAT
INHIBITS
FISSION?
The t h i r d m a i n line of e n q u i r y ,
which follows naturally out of the
second, is to ask what i n h i b i t s tendencies towards fission. W h a t , in
other words. can prevent the departure from e q u i l i b r i u m , or, once fragmentation has taken place, what
ensures that there fragments in time
built up into joint families and do
not continue 'fragmenting w i t h o u t
ever coming back to the n o r m of
joint f a m i l y life? What, in short,
are the sanctions w h i c h m a i n t a i n
j o i n t f a m i l y life?
There are various ways of approaching this question. Firstly we
can list the institutions w h i c h Corb
COUNTERBALANCING ADVANTAGES
The key question here is t h i s :
after p a r t i t i o n how can the nuclear
family fill the gaps? W h a t relationships can it call upon f o r help in
times of
distress? W h e r e can it
raise extra
capital? U p o n w h o m
can its head call to help h i m in
faction quarrels and perhaps in faction fights in the village? Y o u w i l l
notice that we are again brought
buck to asking what are the external
relationships
which
coparceners
have, and upon w h i c h they can call
when they cease to be coparceners.
348
I w i l l return to these questions later,
for they seem to me to be key questions in understanding the j o i n t f a m i l y not o n l y as a system returni n g constantly to e q u i l i b r i u m , but
also in understanding change.
In
short, whether i n e q u i l i b r i u m o r i n
change, we can only understand the
j o i n t - f a m i l y by taking it w i t h i n the
total context of social relations.
BRINGS PRESTIGE
T h i r d l y we m i g h t account for the
cycle and the r e t u r n to e q u i l i b r i u m
by saying that the people value
j o i n t - f a m i l y organization. Quite i r respective of its m a t e r i a l advantages,
they t h i n k this f o r m of life is a good
in i t s e l f — i t is a m o r a l good and
requires no material justification. Or
else—and in my o p i n i o n a much
more legitimate version—the j o i n t family is valued because it brings
prestige in the eyes of others. This
last is an acceptable explanation.
But I doubt whether the f o r m e r
statement that people value j o i n t family l i f e and regard it w i t h moral
approbation is enough to account for
the return to e q u i l i b r i u m , or for the
persistence of the i n s t i t u t i o n in the
face of change. If people have j o i n t families because they value them, we
may then ask why they value them.
Values such as honesty or equanim i t y or forbearance may be irreducible in terms of our science, but
institutional values—such
as the
j o i n t - f a m i l y or the nuclear f a m i l y
or the village republic or the nation
are applicable in terms of what
they do for the i n d i v i d u a l s who belong to them.
1 w i l l now summarize the k i n d of
question w h i c h would be asked in
an analysis of a mode] j o i n t - f a m i l y
as an e q u i l i b r i u m system, and in
doing so I w i l l t r y to give a more
impressionistic description of what
seems to me to be the m a i n question
which underlies both an e q u i l i b r i u m
analysis and an analysis of change.
O N E RELATIONSHIP, SEVERAL ENDS
The relationships w h i c h people
have w i t h one another are ways of
getting things done. It is now a
commonplace in social anthropology
that in p r i m i t i v e societies or in peasant societies one relationship may
be made to serve several ends; and
about this I w i l l talk in a moment.
Here I have in m i n d a different aspect: that to achieve a single end
there may be several possible relationships between w h i c h a person or
a group may choose. I am not suggesting that the choice is free in the
THE
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
February 20, 1960
sense that the head, f o r instance, of
every nuclear-family f r o m t i m e t o
time makes a rational assessment of
what he is g e l l i n g out of the j o i n t f a m i l y and decides accordingly for
or against p a r t i t i o n . H i s choice is
l i m i t e d in many ways by the institutional framework in w h i c h lie
operates,
cess of fragmentation. T h i s , the
t h i r d question, concerns its restoration and is in t w o parts:
( a ) W h a t institutions i n h i b i t part i t i o n ? These would be on the one
hand such crisis institutions as succession, and on the other hand
social control both outside and within the j o i n t f a m i l y ; and
I list a f e w : he m i g h t decide that,
all hough hi would he economically
helter off after p a r t i t i o n , his chances
of achieving p a r t i t i o n against the
pressures of the legul system outside
and the
system of social control
w i t h i n the j o i n t - f a m i l y are s m a l l ;
again he m i g h t t h i n k that although
he stands to gain financially by set-ing up his o w n independent nuclear
household, he cannot afford to do
without the non-economic
benefits
w h i c h he gels from j o i n t - f a m i l y life.
F r o m this single
relationship, in
other words he gains several ends,
and on balance the benefits of some
of these ends outweigh the disadvantages of others.
( b ) What are the advantages of
j o i n t - f a m i l y life that make men see*
p a r t i t i o n as an unpleasant necessity.
and look forward to the time when
they w i l l again be part of a joint-
W h e n we study the j o i n t - f a m i l y
as an e q u i l i b r i u m system we do in
fact assume that over the whole cycle
the benefits of j o i n t - f a m i l y life outweigh its disadvantages. W i l l i this
assumption in m i n d , let me repeat
briefly the questions to be asked,
under three m a i n headings;
(1) The first task would be to
collect the Incomplete" forms of
joint f a m i l y , starling from a nuclear f a m i l y and b u i l d i n g up towards what we assume to be the
n o r m . These would be then arranged in a sequence and the steps f r o m
one to the other would have to be
described,
( 2 ) T h i s description
w o u l d be
achieved first by asking ourselves
what are causes of p a r t i t i o n . W i t h in this
question I have suggested
two sub-headings:
(a) What are the non-social absolutes? For example we m i g h t find
that p r o p e r l y and the number of
people who must be maintained by
it must be in a certain ratio for a
f a m i l y to continue j o i n t and avoid
partition.
(b) W h a t relationships do the
coparceners have external to the Copareenery?
What effect do these
have in causing p a r t i t i o n ? These
relationships might be grouped as
( i ) economic.
( i i ) political a n d
( i i i ) kinship.
(3) T h e second question concerned the j o i n t - f a m i l y cycle in the pro-
family?
Y o u w i l l notice that in all these
questions we are in effect asking
t h i s : Given a particular' social, economic, and p o l i t i c a l
background,
what does the j o i n t - f a m i l y do f o r
the nuclear f a m i l y , w h i c h cannot he
done other than by the j o i n t - f a m i l y ?
Change and the Joint Family
W h e n we study structural change
and the j o i n t - f a m i l y I think we have
before us three questions. The first
is a basic question : Is the j o i n t f a m i l y a disappearing institution in
I n d i a ? Were there more j o i n t families. or a greater p r o p o r t i o n of
the population l i v i n g as members of
a j o i n t - f a m i l y , a h u n d r e d years ago.
or two
hundred years ago.
than
there are
now?
The second and
. t h i r d questions are connected w i t h
each other.
The second one is to
lake as given
to hold steady and
nor to treat as a variable
the ends
or needs w h i c h the nuclear family
desires, and to ask what alternative
relationships can be employed by
nuclear-families after p a r t i t i o n . The
t h i r d question is to take into account v a r i a t i o n in the ends or needs.
We do not lake as given the p o l i tical, social and economic background
as we d i d in the e q u i l i b r i u m analysis, but we take note of the fact that
this background may be changing.
These changes may put
forward
new prizes f o r w h i c h a man cannot
easily compete as a member of a
joint-family.
He may be able to
compete more effectively on his o w n .
or he may find it expedient to find
other kinds of relationships
to
j o i n groups of a different k i n d . 11
is also possible that new ends and
new possibilities of making a fixing.
may make it expedient for people
who d i d not f o r m e r l y live in jointfamilies, to set them up. In oilier
words some new factors may not
break d o w n the j o i n t - f a m i l y , but
rather may he such that the j o i n t f a m i l y is an advantageous g r o u p to
349
w h i c h to belong.
I w i l l take each
of these three m a i n headings in t u r n .
A
DISAPPEARING
INSTITUTION?
On the face of it the question
whether or not the j o i n t - f a m i l y is
a disappearing i n s t i t u t i o n in India
is a reasonable and s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d
question, to be answered w i t h a
"yes" or a "no".
We might even
hope that we could say
leaving
aside for I he moment the difficulties
of where to find the i n f o r m a t i o n
that twenty w a r s ago x% more
of the population lived as members
of joint-families than at the present
day. But for two reasons I t h i n k
that a question put in this way
might be less helpful than it appears
to be. The first reason is that acq u i r i n g the "information appears |o
me to present insuperable dillieub
ties, faking into account the resources at our disposal.
Secondly a
numerical answer' to this question
would
not greatly increase our
understanding of I n d i a n society. and
we can achieve some k i n d of understanding in
this
particular field
without first k n o w i n g whether or
not we are dealing w i t h a vanishing
institution.
F i r s t l y the
apparently
simple
numerical question as to what percentage of the population lives in
joint-families and what percentage
so lived twenty years ago. cannot be
answered out of the statistical mate
rial
such as the (Censuses
w h i c h we have at our disposal. It
might be answered in a field-study
of one village. but even then it
w o u l d not be easy. Such an answer could nor be generalized and
assumed to be true of the whole of
India without a further and monumental sample survey. Let us be
realists and rule out the possibility
of this survey. Even if the survev
could be undertaken I think difficulties would be encountered over
the definition of what to consider a
j o i n t - f a m i l y . I have given a narrow
definition on the c r i t e r i a of
recruitment in two ways and activity concerning property, and I think
this is enough as a base f r o m which
to make an analysis of process and
change, but I w o u l d hesitate to put
it f o r w a r d as a suitable last-is for
a survey. Taken by itself if obscures, rather than highlights, the
processes in w h i c h we are interested.
STATISTICALSTATEMENTOFUNEMPOLYMENT.
Does it then follow that our investigations
will Inhandicapped
because we cannot, for practical
and logical reasons, first discover
February 2 0 , 1 9 6 0
THE
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
THE
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
whether we are dealing w i t h a
vanishing i n s t i t u t i o n ? I do not
t h i n k so. On the contrary I t h i n k
that to hold before our eyes as an
objective
a statistical
statement
about actual j o i n t - f a m i l i e s w o u l d be
to d i v e r t our energies from a more
profitable end. T h i s end is a desc r i p t i o n of factors w h i c h serve to
m a i n t a i n or to break d o w n j o i n t families.
Even
if we could still
substantiate by figures an assertion
that the j o i n t - f a m i l y is a vanishing
institution, we would still want to
know why it is a vanishing institut i o n , or. if our figures gave the
opposite result, why it is s u r v i v i n g .
I am a r g u i n g , in short, that our
objective should not be to say whether or not the j o i n t - f a m i l y is disa p p e a r i n g ; but to discover factors
which might serve to maintain i t .
or w h i c h might break it d o w n ; the
larger question we can leave Lo historians of a future
generation or
to
people whose
resources and
techniques are more suited than
ours to the task. We do not have to
say that x is h a p p e n i n g : rather we
must a i m at being able to say. if a,
b. and c occur, then x also must
occur. I hope I have not laboured
this point too much : it is helpful
to know w h i c h are the b l i n d alleys
before one walks to the end of them.
H I T S IT THE W E A K E S T POINT
The second and t h i r d q u e s t i o n s - those w h i c h concern changes in ends
and the t a k i n g on of new relationships — I w i l l try to discuss t h r o u g h
an hypothetical example. But there
are one or two p r e l i m i n a r y points
to be cleared away. First I w o u l d
argue briefly that the e q u i l i b r i u m
model is necessary if we are to understand how change hits the j o i n t f a m i l y . I find it helps to view
change not as the sudden shattering
of joint-families, but rather to sec
it at first as an interference at a
particular point of the cycle t h r o u g h
which we describe the j o i n t - f a m i l y
as an e q u i l i b r i u m system. This
argument can be put in several
ways.
One way is to say that
change enters t h r o u g h the conflicts
w h i c h occur in j o i n t - f a m i l y life. A
more metaphorical w a y w o u l d be to
say that change hits the j o i n t - f a m i l y
cycle at the weakest p o i n t .
I n the normal repetitive e q u i l i b r i u m cycle we see the j o i n t - f a m i l y
f r a g m e n t i n g into nuclear families :
then, other things being equal, the
nuclear families r e t u r n to the norm a l we have set as o u r m o d e l ; they
February 20, 1960
become j o i n t - f a m i l i e s . The crucial
point in a study of change is that
at w h i c h the curve begins to go
u p w a r d towards the n o r m , if I may
put it that w a y . The point is at
first sight obvious : but it is important because it indicates the unit
upon w h i c h we should focus our
attention if we are to understand
change
the nuclear f a m i l y . 1
w i l l return to this at the end of
this essay.
FRAMEWORK OF QUESTIONS
N O T O F ANSWERS
I now take an hypothetical j o i n t f a m i l y and see what happens to i t .
a l l o w i n g some factors to vary and
keeping others steady. In the first
part I take as an example a background of an a g r a r i a n economy and
what we call a 'feudal' p o l i t i c a l
system. In the second part of the
description I allow the b a c k g r o u n d
to v a r y and consider what may
happen to the j o i n t - f a m i l y in a
diversified economy and a centralized political organization. I would
emphasize that this is offered as an
example of the use of a p a r t i c u l a r
method : it is not a comprehensive
account
of change in the
jointfamily:
it is. I repeat.
o n l y an
example.
I have no doubt that the
reader w i l l find exceptions to the
generalizations I
make. w i t h o u t
much difficulty. Rut what is at issue
Is not these p a r t i c u l a r generalizations in this p a r t i c u l a r example, so
much as the framework in w h i c h it
is offered.
T am constructing a
framework of questions, and not a
framework of answers.
I begin by suggesting that we agree
that the relationships w h i c h nuclear
families have w i t h i n a j o i n t - f a m i l y
serve three ends.
These a r e : f i t
economics of scale; ( 2 ) economic
security; and ( 3 ) political security.
In other words the j o i n t - f a m i l y can
manage a given piece of p r o p e r t y
more efficiently than could its constituent nuclear families by themselves : it offers some security to its
members
against
such
recurrent
crises as illness or
contingent expenses; and, t h i r d l y , the man who
belongs to a j o i n t - f a m i l y can protect his person
and his property
more efficiently than can a man on
his o w n . I do not suggest that these
are all the benefits w h i c h are to be
got f r o m j o i n t - f a m i l y l i v i n g . They
are merely the ones w h i c h 1 have
chosen to use in this example, and
they seem to me to be i m p o r t a n t
benefits.
351
I N A N AGRARIAN AND FEUDAL
SOCIETY
Let us suppose there is a j o i n t family, l i v i n g in such an agrarian
and feudal society as 1 have postulated, and let us also suppose that
these are the three m a i n benefits
which the constituent nuclear families derive f r o m being j o i n t . The
f a m i l y then p a r t i t i o n s . Since we
are excluding a diversified economy,
the k i n d of thing
w h i c h would
cause partition w o u l d be quarrels
between the women of the f a m i l y , or
the fact that some of the stirpes are
larger than others, and the smaller
nuclear families feel that they are
p u t t i n g into the f a m i l y more than
they are getting out. A man m i g h t
feel that be can do better m a i n t a i n i n g his only child from half the prop e r t y than he can by a l l o w i n g his
labour to go to the support of his
brother's three dependent children.
We now have to ask how the nuclear families after p a r t i t i o n f u l f i l
the needs
w h i c h were previously
met. by j o i n [ l i v i n g . The three
benefits are economics of scale; economic security; and p o l i t i c a l secur i t y . The first benefit, is sacrificed.
The second seems to be met, if at
a l l . by c a l l i n g upon uterine and
affinal k i n , or upon other allegiances, such as friendship or patronage.
The t h i r d need is met p a r t l y by
lineage fies which are not concerned
with properly.
In the case of a
poor man it m i g h t be met by allegiances across caste to a p a t r o n : or,
in the case of a r i c h m a n , by attract i n g clients and dependents f r o m
other castes, or by encouraging
uterine k i n to come and live w i t h
him.
These again are not. exhaustive descriptions; they are merely
examples. A n d 1 should r e m i n d
you that we are postulating only an
a g r a r i a n economy. In an e q u i l i b r i u m analysis our assumption is
that none of these allegiances, w h i c h
are intended to replace the j o i n t f a m i l y ties, are sufficiently effective
to make people prefer them for ever
in place of the j o i n t - f a m i l y ties.
In time, we assume, the nuclear
families develop i n t o joint-families.
IN A DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY
Now consider the situation when
the background is not only agrarian
and feudal, b u t is a diversified econ o m y w i t h a strong centralized
p o l i t i c a l power. The same factors
w h i c h disturbed the j o i n t - f a m i l y i n
an e q u i l i b r i u m situation ----- women's
quarrels or the differential g r o w t h
of nuclear families — m a y cause
THE
F e b r u a r y 20, 1960
partition, but we may now include
two other causes of p a r t i t i o n . These
are a shortage of land and a differentiated economy.
We connect
these two and we presume that, not
h a v i n g enough land, some members
of the j o i n t - f a m i l y have had to enter the diversified economy and obl a i n jobs as, say, peons or schoolmasters. In this way. to the causes
of p a r t i t i o n already described, we
can add the f a m i l i a r one of differential e a r n i n g by i n d i v i d u a l
members of the j o i n t - f a m i l y .
P a r t i t i o n takes place. How do
the nuclear families fill the gap in
their needs f o r security or efficient,
management of the estate, now that
they can no longer call upon joint
f a m i l y relationships? ' I t h i n k they
can s t i l l use those relationships
w h i c h I postulated when discussing
the j o i n t - f a m i l y in an a g r a r i a n and
feudal background, They can call
upon uterine ties or make allegiances w i t h persons of other caste.
Bui there are now additional resources at their disposal. In .some cases
these may lie the earnings w h i c h
they gel f r o m the diversified economy.
As part of the same process,
if they are r i c h , they can make use,
of wage labour to manage a large
estate and need not rely upon their
brothers. for aid in times of distress they need not rely only on
their uterine and affinal k i n and on
their friends, hut they can also make
contractual ties w i t h moneylenders
or w i t h co-operatives, or even w i t h
some of the agencies of the r u d i m e n tary Welfare Stale. On the p o l i t i cal side, a m a n s security and the
security of his p r o p e r l y are no
longer guaranteed only by his lies
w i t h lineage males, or w i t h powerful patrons, but by the Slate
by
the police, in other wends.
w h i c h he owned could not have been
b i g enough to afford the h i r i n g of
a manager or of wage-labour.
Il
is also possible that conditions in
the village were not sufficiently secure for an estate to be left entirely
in the hands of a w o m a n on her
o w n . In this case the most effective
allegiance on w h i c h he could call
was that w i t h his brother. The differentiated
economy
caused
the
schoolmaster to need an a d d i t i o n a l
relationship, beyond his own nuclear
f a m i l y , hut for the reasons 1 have
offered, this relationship had to be
sought in a t r a d i t i o n a l f i e l d .
FOCUS
NUCLEAR
FAMILY
I have presented a way of l o o k i n g
at joint-families, both as equilib r i u m systems and in situations of
change.
Paradoxically our m a i n
focus must be not on the j o i n t - f a m i ly, bin on the nuclear f a m i l y . We
I w o u l d argue that where the
p o l i t i c a l and economic background
changes in such a way as to p r o v i d e
new a l l c u i a n c o of this k i n d , the
scale may be l i p p e d a-ainsl the
joint f a m i l y .
This is no more than
the obvious point that the nuclear
family will not seek to ally itself
w i t h other nuclear families of the
same lineage into a j o i n t f a m i l y , if
it can achieve the ends it desires by
other allegiances.
T h e same conditions may also
b r i n g into being joint-families where
none existed be fore.
There was a
schoolmaster with became joint w i t h
his brother, when he became a
school-master.
T h i s I w o u l d exp l a i n by saying that the estate
352
ECONOMIC
WEEKLY
assume that this is not a self-contained u n i t , viable o n its o w n . I t
needs to b u i l d bridges outwards so
that i t m a y f u l f i l various needs. One
p o s s i b i l i t y is that these bridges are
to other nuclear families, w i t h i n
the f r a m e w o r k of a lineage. But,
whether the society is changing or
stable, there are other l i n k s w h i c h
may meet these needs. ( l i v e n factors a, b, and c the nuclear f a m i l y
w i l l be part of a j o i n t - f a m i l y :
given x, y and i it w i l l
build
bridges in other directions. I have
given examples of what a, b, and
c, or x, y, and z may be. These
examples arc possibly w r o n g , and
certainly inadequate. But that is
not the issue : the issue is not the
questions themselves, but whether this
is a suitable f r a m e w o r k for investigation.
London.
January I960.