20 Family and Household

Sutapa Majumdar

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Introducing Household

3. Family in India

4. Family as a site of Inequality

5. Family and Economy

6. Family in Diaspora

Family and Household

What’s the module about?

This module is an attempt to holistically examine and understand the concept of family and household in the Indian context. Family and households are both very close to human existence and hence we tend to believe that we know everything about it just to realise that it is not that simple. Hence this module is prepared to help the readers get a very crisp yet detailed understanding of the nuances of family and household specifically focussing on Indian context.

The entire module is sub divided into various sections- ranging from introducing the concept of family and household to going deep into the form, nature, types, myths, characteristics and future of these two inseparable institutions. An attempt is made to bring in the views of different eminent scholars working on family and household. Later, the module discusses how family and household as institutions can also be a site of oppression, hierarchy and inequality. The other section of the module focuses on the impact of family on economy and how family functions in a diasporic environment highlighting the agency of women.

Although an attempt is made to bring in as many perspectives as possible for a complete understanding of family, there ought to be many more which are left untouched and is open to inclusion for understanding the concept of family.

1. Introducing family – concepts, forms, nature, types, myths and characteristics

Sociological research on Indian families has largely focused on questions of household form and structure, to the exclusion of not only the more nebulous dimensions of family life and relationships.1 The ideology of the joint family continues to influence resource distribution within a family even when most of its members spend some or the greater part of their lives in nuclear households2.

1 Patricia Uberoi, ‘The Family in India: Beyond the Nuclear versus Joint Debate’, in Veena Das (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Sociology and Social Anthropology (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), p.1073.

2 Patricia Uberoi, ‘The Family in India: Beyond the Nuclear versus Joint Debate’, in Veena Das (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Sociology and Social Anthropology (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), p.1073.

The idea that a family is a stable and cohesive unit of residence where the father is the provider and the mother is the nurturer is at present a myth, as globally we see the emergence of new forms of family which are born out of the grave of the traditional family structure consisting of both parents, their children and members of the extended family. The reality is that trends like unwed motherhood, rising divorce rates, smaller households and the feminisation of poverty is on the rise and occurring worldwide3. It is indeed difficult to define family as one might argue that we already know everything there is to know about family as we ourselves are part of it. Such confidence, negligence and assumptions about the natural understanding of the family stop us in formulating an all embracing definition of family. For instance, George Peter Murdock (1949) while illustrating the difficulties inherent in the formulation of the definition of the family which can satisfy all, defines family as “a social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation, 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 cohabiting adults.

The family as an integrated and functional unit of society has, for a considerable period of time captured the attention and imagination of researchers. Due to the multiplicity of characteristics possessed by the family, research continues to expand and grow both in volume and depth. The structural, functional, developmental and integrative functions which the family fulfils in societies the world over make it an important unit of analysis for sociological investigation. Family has indeed evolved over the years and has been subjected to extensive and, in some cases, intensive influences from within and beyond the society (Sooryamurthy 2012).

Family is one of the most important social units of the human world. Almost everyone universally belongs to a family. The family is generally regarded as a major social institution and a locus of much of a person’s social activity. It is a social unit created by blood, marriage, or adoption, and can be described as nuclear (parents and children) or extended (encompassing other relatives).

Family is a unique institution in that it is at one and the same time both private and a visibly public institution. Family is a universal institution and oscillates between the most intimate to the most public in various contexts (Patel 2005).

3 From interview with Judith Bruce, an author of the Population Council study “Families in Focus as quoted in the New York Times International,May 30,1995.

A family is a group of persons directly linked by kin connections, where the adult members take up the responsibility of taking care of the children. Kinship ties are connections between individuals, connected by blood relation or marriage. Marriage between two adult individuals- male and female connects them to a kin relation who further connects to wider kin groups- parents, brothers, sisters, and other blood relatives through marriage. Family relationships are always recognised within wider kinship groups. In almost every society, we can identify two very distinct family type- nuclear family where two adults live together with their own children or adopted children in a household, and joint family- where two adults live with their children and also parents or other members of the same family. Traditional society included a third type of family, namely the extended family where close relatives other than the married couple and children, lived either in the same household or in a close and continuous relationship with one another. An extended family usually includes grandparents, brothers and their wives, sisters and their husbands, nieces and nephews (Giddens, 2009).

Family is also defined as a reproductive or biological unit, composed of a man and a woman having socially approved sexual relationship and whatever offspring they might have. As a social unit, a family is defined as a group of persons of both sexes, related by marriage, blood or adoption, performing roles based on age, sex and relationship and socially distinguished as making up a single household or sub-household (Ahuja, 2012). Murdock (1949) defines family as a social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. Ross (1961) defines family as a group of people usually related as some particular type of kindred, who may live in one household and whose unity resides in a pattering of rights and duties, sentiments and authorities. Chattophadhyay (1961) defines family in three forms: simple, compound and composite. Simple family consists of man, wife and their unmarried children. Compound family is when one of the partners remarries after the death of one partner with children and also produces children out of the second marriage. Compound family can also be defined as a family where either or both the man and the woman remarries in spite of being married and lives with their two sets of children in a composite household, taking it to the next level of composite family.

Burges and Locke (1963), have classified families as institutional and companionship on the basis of the behaviour of the individuals. In the first type of family, all behaviours are controlled by some rules and regulations and in the second type of family; behaviour arises from mutual affection and consensus of the members. On the basis of kinship ties, families have been classified and conjugal and consanguine family. Conjugal ties gives importance to marriage and the consanguine ties is related to the blood. Zimmerman (1947) classifies families into trustee, domestic and atomistic families. Trustee families are those where individuals have no right, the power rests with the head of the family. Domestic family tries to maintain the balance between individuals and the head of the family and atomistic families give way to new ways of life, and believe that the traditional beliefs, customs and mores need to change with the changing times. Ahuja (2011) talks of fissioned family which, in structure and function is a nuclear family separated from the parent family.

Various researches on family, household and kinship suggests that globally family has developed in a phased manner , that is to say that in some parts of the world, families were either too small or too large, two extended or too constrained, too diverse or too uniform. Many sociologists argue that in the pre modern world, family type and characteristic were not very different from the present times. One striking difference may be diverse functions of the family that has evolved with the need of the time. In the olden days, family and the households were intricately connected to each other and in fact, larger community or commune functioned as a well knit family, which is very rare to find now.

There are different myths surrounding family and the conservative believes that traditional families were much better than the families of the present times because of the virtue of being disciplined, stable and connected to each other. But is it really so? Evidence shows, that in the Victorian era, families suffered many odds, beginning with a very restricted mobility of women, to overtly promiscuous men, limited life span, increased death of children and erratic work schedule. In the European world, women could hardly go out of their homes to work or spend time as they were fully domesticated which undermined women’s ability completely. There were hardly any emotional relations between men and women except for sexual intimacy and that too all sexual act was controlled by men for reproduction purpose. Hence, sex was never for pleasure but for procreation. Women had no control over their mind and body. Domestic life was very oppressive, domestic violence, abuse and alcoholism were severe and there were no mechanisms to confront these issues. Hence, one needs to think critically before claiming that traditional families were much better than the present day families.

Considering India, the belief that large and joint households were widely prevalent in pre-British India is probably false. The average size of the household in the early decades of the 19th century was more or less the same as it is now. The assumption of large households in the past has been based on confusion between the household, as a residential unity of patri-kin and their wives, and the family, conceived as an ideal or a legal and emotional entity. Such residential unity was greater in towns than in villages, and in the higher and Sanskritised castes than among others (Shah, 1968).

2. Introducing Household- concepts, forms, nature, types and characteristics

A.M. Shah (1968) while discussing about the changes in the Indian family argues that both sociology and social anthropology has distinguished between ‘household’ and ‘family’. In common English parlance the word ‘family’ has several different meanings, including ‘household’; the common Indian word for the family, viz, kutumb, has likewise several different meanings but, for the sake of technical analysis, ‘household’ should be distinguished from the other referents of ‘family’. Households may be defined as a single individuals or groups of people who share a common housing unit, common living rooms and have a common kitchen. According to the census, households may range from the most simple single member household to a very complex household of many members. A ‘simple’ household is composed of a complete elementary family or a part of an elementary family. A ‘complex’ or ‘joint’ household is composed of two or more elementary families, or of parts of two or more elementary families, or of one elementary family and parts of one or more other elementary families.

In order to understand the characteristics of household holistically, it is important to understand their structure and compositions. The structure of the household becomes more complex as more categories of relatives are included; In a one member household there is no relationship; in a two member household there is one relationship; but beyond this the addition of one relative means an addition of more than one relationship. For example, the addition of a son’s wife to a household of father, mother and son, means the addition of relationships not only between the son and his wife but also, between father-in-law and daughter-in- law and between mother-in-law and daughter- in-law. Each person in a household is involved in ‘a complex pattern of behaviour with every other member. Everyone in a household has his own likes and dislikes, habits, tastes and idiosyncrasies. Life in a household is marked by sentiments and emotions, and co -operation as well as conflict. Another very important feature of households is the process of progression and regression. One household may be undergoing progression, another may be undergoing regression. As a result, there are always households in the society which are small and simple in composition, along with households which are large and complex in composition. Whatever be the maximum extent to which the principle goes in progression in a particular section of the society, it is important to note that the processes of progressive and regressive developments go on simultaneously in the society taken as a whole. When a complex household, say, of two or more married brothers, is partitioned, two or more separate households come into existence, but at the same time a number of other relationships continue to operate. They would co-operate in economic pursuits, hold and manage property jointly, help each other on many occasions, celebrate festivals, rituals and ceremonies jointly, and so on. This is also a normal process, which highlights the importance of technical distinction between house-hold’ and ‘family’ mentioned at the outset. Thus, two or more house-holds may be separate but they may constitute one family.

3. Family in the Indian context- Type, structure, changing form and future of Indian family.

Any discussion of family in Indian context cannot start without the mention of the rich history of joint family and extended family system which were more of a community living, very different from the way joint families functions in today’s time. Indians are known for their immense ties with their families and the values and beliefs that members of the families imbibe and practice wherever they are. Globally Indians are known for respecting and continuing being in a close knit family system, no matter how problematic or difficult it may be to continue identifying oneself with family rather than being an individual.

Different scholars have defined joint family system differently. While some of the scholars like Iravati Karve understands joint family as ‘co- residentiality’, other scholars like S.C. Dube and Paulin Kolenda give importance to commensality along with ‘co-residentiality’. T. N. Madan gives importance to joint property ownerships and I.P. Desai gives importance of duties and obligations towards kin even if there is no common residenceship and joint ownership of property. M.S. Gore defines joint family as “a family of co-partners and their dependence.” He believes that a joint family has filial and fraternal relationships rather than conjugal relationships, as seen in nuclear families. Ahuja, while defining joint family, classifies them in terms of kin- primary, secondary, tertiary and distant. His understanding of fissioned family, which is a form of nuclear family, rests on the premise that these families can be completely dependent or independent on some other nuclear family related through some type of kinship. For him, Fissioned family is a form of nuclear family separated from the father’s or married brother’s family (Ahuja 2011).

According to Ahuja, important characteristics of joint families are as follows:

Joint family has an authoritarian structure, that is, the power mostly rests with the patriarch or the head of the family.
In a joint family, individual interests are always less important than the family interests, that is to say that family always comes first whenever required.
Status of the members in the family is determined by their age and relationship to the rest of family. This is very much hierarchical in nature.
In a joint family, the conjugal relationships are always subordinate to the filial and the fraternal relationships.
The family functions on the principle of joint responsibility.
All the members get equal attention as per their age and positions in the family.
The authority in the family between men and men, men and women, women and women is determined by the principle of seniority.

Focusing on the changing pattern of the family system, it may be argued that the ideas of jointness and joint family are never going to disappear from the Indian psyche as they are ingrained in our thought. What is going to happen or is already happening is that the large joint family is breaking down into small joint families, comprising of mainly two generations, who may or may not be completely independent but will be functionally dependent. This argument rests on different empirical studies conducted by various scholars like, I.P.Desai, Kapadia, Ross, Gore, A.M. Shah and many others (see Ahuja, 2011). The central arguments of all these studies are as follows:

Although the number of fissioned families are increasing, traditional obligation towards parents are maintained or at least an effort is being made to perform the duties and obligations towards parents.
Families exposed to industrialisation, urbanization and westernisation are changing into nuclear families, unlike in the rural communities.
The size of the traditional joint families has become smaller.
Functional joint family will prevail as long as old cultural values persist.
The traditional families are changing into transitional and nuclear families, giving more opportunities to women and individual members within the family thus, strengthening the notion of equality and, in many ways weakening the family norms.

Further trying to understand the future of the Indian family system; G.C. Hallen4 claims that, family can never be in a state of complete disorganization. He takes the 4 G.C. Hallen, Professor and head, Department of Sociology, J.V. College, Merrut, India position that the family is an eternal truth, an eternal reality; its seeming disintegration at any stage of national development is only a temporary phenomenon. He further argues that there is vast structural and functional difference within the institute of family generated by modernization industrialization, growth of urbanization, social movements, science and technology, modern means of communication, new ideas, and so forth. A lot of studies on structural and functional changes of the family system have generated fear regarding the sudden disappearance of the family system (Hallen, 1967). These studies point out that there is a significant change in the basic attitudes of the husband and the wife toward each other and toward the family system, their relationship being no longer characterized by mutual love and affection or a proper appreciation of the purpose of marriage and the family, but, instead, by an all-pervasive atmosphere of conflict and strife. It is further emphasized by these studies that the purpose of marriage and the family, namely, the procreation and upbringing of children and the perpetuation of the human race, has greatly changed. Marriage is now considered a source of recreation and romantic pleasure. It is considered essentially a legal bond of a temporary nature rather than a sacrament of permanent character. The studies also reflect that many modern organisation and institutions have taken over the traditional institutions, consequently transforming some of the important roles and diminishing the vital significance of the family.

For example, Dr. Panos D. Bardis, professor of sociology, University of Toledo, Ohio, reports from a major study dealing with comparative family sociology that, in India, “The large joint family household is becoming less common, while the number of smaller joint families with a shorter duration is constantly increasing. Remarriage of widows, especially ‘virgin widows’ – those whose husbands died before their marriage could be consummated – is less disapproved at the present time. Male children have been given property rights. Child marriage and female infanticide are gradually being legislated out of existence. The family is no longer functioning as an economic unit. Finally, in the area of courtship, young people are enjoying more freedom today, increasingly emphasizing romantic love, while premarital contacts between the two sexes, including practices such as ‘necking,’ have become rather common, especially in urban centres.” But is this really so? There are counter arguments by sociologists like Radhakamal Mukherjee, who believes that the fear of disintegration of traditional family is much exaggerated, as in reality, the disorganization of the Indian family has been going on, consciously or unconsciously, for several centuries, but the family system has successfully withstood this process (Hallen, G.C.1967).

The family is a fact of social life. It is spontaneous in its origin, growth, evolution, and present development. Therefore, before a hurried statement about the future of the family is pronounced on the basis of recent trends, it is imperative that this basic characteristic be fully weighed. In all developing countries, there is a fear that modern industrialization, growth of urbanization, social movements, science and technology, modern means of communication, new ideas, and so forth, have impinged upon the family system to such an extent that there is a danger of this institution disappearing in the near future.

Recent studies of structural and functional changes in the family systems in these developing societies have brought out that there is a significant change in the basic attitudes of the husband and the wife toward each other and toward the family system, their relationship being no longer characterized by mutual love and affection or a proper appreciation of the purpose of marriage and the family, but, instead, by an all-pervasive atmosphere of conflict and strife. It is further emphasized by these studies that the purpose of marriage and the family, namely, the procreation and upbringing of children and the perpetuation of the human race, has greatly changed. Marriage is now considered a source of recreation and romantic pleasure. It is considered essentially a legal bond of a temporary nature rather than a sacrament of permanent character. These studies also point out that, in modern society, many new organizations and institutions have come into existence and taken over the various traditional functions of the family, or to which the family members have deliberately transferred some of their important roles. Without these functions, which are no longer performed by the modern family, it is maintained that this institution has lost its vital significance in society, and that it has been robbed of its vigor (Hallen, G.C.1967).

Now to look a little deeper into the actual consequences of the changes in the family structure due to the changes in the social system and the future of the family, the following few points can be considered.

Family is a unique social institution. It is permanent in nature. Family performs various social, economic, political, religious, cultural, educational, and psychological functions that cannot be performed by other agencies. As far as the family system is concerned, the truth remains that, in view of its fundamental character, even a complete revolution in our social norms will not generate its permanent annihilation.

As far as the dangers of survival is faced by the traditional family in India are concerned, it appears that the impact of modern social disintegration on the family has been exaggerated. In reality, the disorganization of the Indian family has been going on, consciously or unconsciously, for several centuries, but the family system has successfully withstood this process.

In regard to the procreation of children is concerned, which is a universal phenomenon, it may be argued that the reproductive function can be best fulfilled within the family. Outside the family, this function loses its substance and meaning.

Family, being a primary unit of society, is also an essential requirement for the growth, stability, and survival of the state itself. There is a very strong case for the persistence of the family in India and elsewhere due to the positive efforts of the state. In this connection, it may be stated that the sooner the better, if the state comes to realize that the family institution must be protected against all disruptive forces, and that steps have to be taken to strengthen it by suitable legislative measures.

The Indian family as a strong, cohesive, integral and fundamental unit is a solid foundation of the Indian social structure. It has survived the test of time during several phases of social growth and transition such as industrialization, modernization and globalization. Regardless of one’s status and background (caste/class) in the society, an Indian has always been treated as part of a family and his/her existence as a member of the society has always been referred to the family s/he belongs to. For the individual, the family is the first place where one could look for everything that is needed for her/his growth and development. The individual is intertwined with the family for nurture, growth, support, values and development. All the rest succeeds after this accepted belief and practice-that the individual is basically a member of the family -in the Indian social system (Sooryamurthy 2012). Hence, undoubtedly, the Indian family system is definitely surviving strong with changes as applicable and demanded by time.

4. Family as a site of equality, hierarchy and inequality

Society is unequally structured in terms of income, esteem, class and authority among others. Some members of the society, by virtue of representing a particular class, gain automatic access to different life chances while the rest find it quite difficult to do so, even if the legal barriers are removed to ensure equality (Beteille, 1993). Beteille, in continuation further argues that family plays a crucial role in the reproduction of social structure including structure of inequality. Family is a universal phenomenon in all human societies and although the effectiveness and functionality of the family varies globally, it is observed that it does produce varied inequality in respect to socialization, assimilation, interaction and distribution of wealth. In fact, caste which has been historically thought of as a dividing factor has in modern times ceased to play an active part in the reproduction of inequality at least at the upper level of social hierarchy where it is no longer an agent of social control. Family, on the other hand, does bring inequality. Family reproduces inequality through disparities in the distribution of wealth. Unequal distribution of private wealth in the form of land and other material assets brings in disparities between families.

5. Family and its impact on the Economy

Amartya Sen (1983), while discussing the importance of family and how family can contribute to the economy argues that historically family has never been thought of as an important factor in the functioning of an economy. The standard economic theories have been emphasising on the individual and his ability to generate revenue rather than the family’s contribution. The existence of families and the different roles that they play raises important and difficult issues related to economic theory and policy. Different forms of families give rise to different kinds of inequality. Evidence of inequalities within the family is widespread across the world but in poorer and developing countries like India, resource allocation is very lopsided and gender biased; the reasons being traditional ethos, culture and practices. There is a great reluctance to enter into an area of action that has traditionally been thought to be the preserve of the family head. Hence the inequality exists and only a radical step can a bring change.

He further argues in his paper “Cooperation, inequality and family” (1989) that family relations involve a combination of congruence and conflict. Obvious benefits accrue to all parties as a result of family arrangements, but the nature of the division of work and goods determines specific distributions of advantages and particular patterns of inequality. He further suggests that it is important not to lose sight of either of these functions that families fulfil, since a model of pure conflict (e.g., a “zero sum” game being played by the man and the woman) or a model of pure congruence (e.g., every member of the family having shared goals and identical interests) would undoubtedly miss something of substance in family relations.

6. Indian family and Diaspora:

Diaspora by definition means a scattered population with a common origin settled in different geographical locations around the world. It also means displacement of people from their original homeland5. The dispersion of people from India and the formation of Indian Diaspora communities is the result of different waves of migration over hundreds of years driven by a variety of reasons: slavery under mercantilism, indentured labour under colonisation, and guest work programmes post colonialism. This transnational engagement of people, riding on the processes of globalisation has been reinforced through global networks of families, friends and businesses, which are symbiotic and which enable the exchange of shared ideas of cultural, social and economic interests6 .The term “Indian diaspora” refers to all persons of Indian descent living outside India, as long as they preserve some major Indian ethno cultural characteristics. Only nationals of Pakistan and Bangladesh are excluded from this term since those countries were part of the larger British India before 1947 and thus constitute a special case7.The Indian Diaspora is estimated to be second largest in the world and has a diversified global presence. The Diaspora, estimated at over 25 million, is spread across more than 200 countries with a high concentration in regions such as the Middle East, the United States of America, Malaysia, and South Africa8.

Since it is clear that diaspora is displacement of people, families and household, from place of origin to a place of new settlement, there ought to be changes in the nature, concept and the functioning of the families. It is indeed complex in nature. In specific context to India, we know that there are many instances in which the families and households stay back in their homeland and the male members migrate to a foreign land in search of better opportunities. What happens to such families? How does such a family sustain and function? Who takes up all the responsibilities of continuing the system? These are some of the serious concerns to be considered while understanding the complexities of diasporas and family. Migration and displacement which may be both short term and long term changes the traditional structure of family- joint and extended families may transform into single and nuclear families. Many a times one may start a completely new family through marital ties, leaving behind their earlier families back home. If we consider only the southern states of the country, we will observe that a lot of the male population have migrated to Gulf, USA and other parts of the world, leaving behind their families and household in search of better opportunities overseas. It is only women, children and the older generations who are left behind and the role and function of each agency within family shifts due to shifting nature of family due to migration and displacement.

5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora

6 Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Annual Report 2012‐13, p. 4

7 http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/emigration‐immigration‐and‐diaspora‐relations‐india

8’Engaging Diaspora: The Indian Growth Story’ – Eleventh Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (http://www.ficci.com/publications(studies), p. 32, 2013

In the northern parts of the country, especially in Punjab and Haryana, a lot of girls get married overseas and become a part of the Diaspora community. Many families have migrated permanently from Punjab to places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US but have continued their ties with their extended families back home by regular visits, practicing similar religious rituals and cultural practices and through marriage. What is interesting to note here is that Diasporic families over time has made conscious effort to retain their traditional values and structure which in many ways families back home have not been able to maintain.

Not only does migration overturn conventional understandings of the family in the diaspora, it also changes the mode of relating to the family that is left behind as argued by Supriya Singh and Anuja Cabraal in their essay ‘Contested Representations of Remittances and the Transnational Family’. The paper examines the changing meanings that are attached to the idea of money in mediating relations in the transnational Indian family across generations and life stages. Money in India flow both ways- from parents to children and from children to parents. It may be offered as a ritual gift to mark life stages such as birth, marriage and death, or it may be given in response to a financial need as an outward expression of filial relationships. Remittances sent home signify a migrant’s overt expression of belonging to and caring for the transnational family. However as the relationship with the transnational family changes, the meaning of money changes with it: when pitted against the acts of physical care giving provided by other family members, usually siblings in the home country, the value of the money sent may not be the same as the value of the money received. This discrepancy may be understood in terms of the failure of money to sufficiently signify intimacy and care. But when links between the transnational family attenuate, and the mode of maintaining affective relations changes from remittances to gifts, conventional understanding of gifts as being more intimate than money is overturned to show how it is money that now counts as the currency of closeness9.

In a diasporic setting it is very interesting to explore the women’s role and agency since in many ways they co -opt and at times subvert the communication channels in family networks in order to negotiate economic hardships and gender-based oppression. In the process they tend to either become victims or emerge as stronger,

9 Ira Raja (2013): Introduction; South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies; 2013 Vol. 36, No. 1, 3–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2012.740781

more empowered and innovative beings10. Women’s agency refers to the capacity of women to make on their own rational choices or decisions and in this sense their agency involves social competence in different areas of action. Their discursive capabilities and practical consciousness and the dialectic of control are often reflected in modes of coping with new and many times oppressive social environments. As discussed above, a substantive number of women from the Northern part of India migrate to different foreign lands after marriage and cope with the excitement of new experiences and the joys and traumas of new situations which involves constant work on their capabilities of creating and then sustaining new relationships. This is women’s agency according to Jain (2006). The other option is also possible when women stay back with the family alone and negotiate everyday existence. Indian diasporic women, much like women in India, play a key role both in construction and sustenance of nuclear as well as extended family networks. Their role in socialisation of diaspora-born children is equally central. Quite like their men, the diasporic women often follow the strategy of splitting their private and public domains and maintain a rather fossilised version of Indian culture in domestic life.

10 Shobita Jain (2006): Women’s Agency in the Context of Family Networks in Indian Diaspora; EPW, June 10, 2006.

you can view video on Family and Household

WEB LINKS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora
Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Annual Report 2012‐13, p. 4
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/emigration‐immigration‐and‐diaspora‐relations‐india

REFERENCES:

Shah, A.M (1968): Lineage Structure and Change in a Gujarat Family in “Family, Kinship and Marriages in India” edited by Patricia Uberoi; OUP, 1993, Delhi.
Ahuja, Ram( 2012): “Society in India: Concepts, Theories and Recent Trends”; Rawat Publications, New Delhi
Beteille, Andre (1993): The Family and the Reproduction of Inequality in “Family, Kinship and Marriages in India” edited by Patricia Uberoi; OUP, 1993, Delhi.
Burges and Locke (1963): “The Family: From Institution to Companionship”; American Sociological Series; American book Company.
“Engaging Diaspora: The Indian Growth Story” – Eleventh Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (http://www.ficci.com/publications (studies), p. 32, 2013
George Peter Murdock (1949): “What is family” in the site http://www.harton6form.co.uk/wp‐ content/uploads/Sociology‐2.pdf? Giddens, A. (2009): “Sociology”, Polity press, UK.
Hallen, G.C. (1967): “Family researches in India‐some strategies”. Rohini Publications, Merrut, UP.
Ira Raja (2013): Introduction; South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies; 2013 Vol. 36, No. 1, 3–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2012.74078.
Maharaj, B & Sahoo, A.K (ed.) ( 2011): “Sociology of Diaspora”; Rawat Publishers.
Mulloo, A. (2007): “Voices of The Indian Diaspora”; MBP publishers; New Delhi.
Patel, T (2005): The Family in India‐Structure and Practice; Themes in Indian Sociology, Vol 6; Sage Publications, New Delhi.
Patricia Uberoi, ‘The Family in India: Beyond the Nuclear versus Joint Debate’, in Veena Das (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Sociology and Social Anthropology (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003), p.1073.
Ross, Aileen D. (1961): The Hindu Family in Urban Setting, OUP, Toronto.
Sen, Amartya (1983): Reproduction of Inequality, Economics and the Family in “Family, Kinship and Marriages in India” edited by Patricia Uberoi; OUP, 1993, Delhi.
Shobita Jain (2006): “Women’s Agency in the Context of Family Networks in Indian Diaspora”; EPW, June 10, 2006
Sooryamurthy, R: The Indian Family: Needs for a Revisit in Journal of Comparative Family studies, Vol.43, No.1, Jan‐Feb 2012.
Zimmerman, C. (1947): “Family and Civilization”; Edited by James Kurth with an introduction by Allan C. Carlson; ISI Books, 2008