Family, Household & Marriage — Theoretical Perspectives
UPSC evaluates clarity on concepts (family/household/marriage), theories (functionalist, conflict, feminist, anthropological), and India-specific scholarship. This upgraded module adds dedicated thinker sections with mechanisms, applications, critiques, and quick-revision visuals.
0) Rapid Concept Recap — Family ≠ Household; Marriage = Alliance & Regulation
| Unit | UPSC-precise Definition | Core Functions | Key Distinction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Kinship-based relational unit (conjugal/consanguineal) | Socialisation, care, identity, regulation | May span multiple households |
| Household | Co-residential consumption/production unit | Budget/food/dwelling management | Need not be kin (roommates) |
| Marriage | Socially sanctioned union creating affinal ties | Regulates sexuality, legitimises children, allocates property & residence | Civil/religious/customary variants |
1) George Peter Murdock — Universal Functions of Family
Thesis Family is universal because it fulfils four irreducible functions across societies: sexual regulation, reproduction, economic cooperation, and educational/socialisation of the young. Variations exist (polygyny, matriliny, etc.), but a family unit persists because alternative institutions cannot collectively replace all four functions in small-scale settings.
| Component | What It Does | UPSC Hook | Critiques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual | Regulates sexuality; reduces conflict | Link to norms (endogamy/exogamy) | Underplays non-marital sexuality |
| Reproductive | Legitimises children; kin allocation | Connect to descent/inheritance | ARTs/surrogacy diversify reproduction |
| Economic | Pooling labour/income; risk-sharing | Rural vs urban household economies | Ignores market/state substitutes |
| Educational | Primary socialisation; values transfer | Parsons’ socialisation tie-in | Schools, media co-perform |
Evaluation Strong on function cataloguing; weak on power/inequality and historical change. Use Murdock to justify why family persists, then balance with Engels/Feminists for critique.
2) Talcott Parsons — Structural Differentiation & the Nuclear Family
Thesis With industrialisation, functions differentiate to specialised institutions (schools, firms, state). The nuclear family becomes structurally “fit” for a mobile, achievement-oriented economy, retaining two key functions:
- Primary socialisation of children into societal values (e.g., achievement, universalism).
- Stabilisation of adult personalities (“warm-bath” function) through emotional support.
| Element | Mechanism | UPSC Application | Critiques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Structural Fit | Small size aids mobility; achieved roles | Urban/industrial contexts | Over-generalises “fit”; joint families co-exist in India |
| Socialisation | Internalising values via nuclear unit | Link to schooling, peer groups | Underplays class/caste/gender differences |
| Adult Stabilisation | Emotional support reduces anomie | Mental health/role stress answers | Ignores domestic conflict/violence |
3) Friedrich Engels — Origin of Family, Private Property & State
Thesis Monogamous family crystallised with private property to ensure patrilineal inheritance; it institutionalised women’s subordination and control over sexuality and labour. Family thus reproduces class relations and patriarchy.
| Strength | Limits/Critique | UPSC Use |
|---|---|---|
| Links family to economic structure & inheritance | Over-historicised evolution; diversity of family forms | For inequality/patriarchy answers; pair with feminist updates |
| Foregrounds women’s unpaid labour & control | Underplays agency; heterogeneity among women | Bridge to domestic labour debates & laws |
4) Feminist Perspectives — Domestic Labour, Patriarchy & Intersectionality
Oakley showed domestic labour’s skill and burden; Delphy & Leonard theorised the domestic mode of production where men appropriate women’s unpaid work; Sylvia Walby mapped six structures of patriarchy (household, paid work, state, violence, sexuality, culture). Intersectional approaches (caste/class/community) explain variation in women’s experiences.
| Theme | Mechanism | India Illustration | Policy Angle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domestic Labour | Unpaid care sustains labour markets | Time-use surveys show gender gap | Creches, parental leave, care services |
| Bargaining | Income/assets → decision power | SHGs, joint titles, microcredit | Property rights, inheritance equality |
| Violence | Control through threat/force | DV within households | Protection of Women from DV Act, 2005 |
5) Claude Lévi-Strauss — Alliance Theory of Marriage
Thesis Marriage is a system of alliance between groups via the exchange of women. Rules of exogamy/endogamy structure who can marry whom. He distinguishes elementary structures (prescriptive rules—e.g., cross-cousin marriage) from complex structures (preferential rules).
| Concept | Meaning | UPSC Use | Critiques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elementary Structures | Prescriptive rules (must marry X) | Cross-cousin systems, tribal cases | Patriarchal bias; agency underplayed |
| Complex Structures | Preferential rules (should marry X) | Urban India preferences | Economic/class logics ignored |
| Alliance vs Descent | Focus on affinal ties vs lineage | Balance with descent for completeness | Over-formalised structures |
6) India Scholars — A. M. Shah & Irawati Karve (with Quick Hooks)
6.1 A. M. Shah — Joint Family as Cooperation Beyond Co-residence
Thesis “Jointness” is not only co-residence; it includes co-operation and joint property/obligations across households. Urbanisation creates nuclear residences but kinship solidarity (rituals, remittances, caregiving) persists.
| Idea | Mechanism | UPSC Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Functional Jointness | Resource pooling, ritual ties | Brothers in separate flats sharing parental care |
| Urban Adaptation | Linked families via digital coordination | Festivals, remittances, eldercare |
6.2 Irawati Karve — Kinship Zones & Regional Variation
Thesis India has distinct kinship zones (e.g., North—gotra exogamy & village exogamy; South—cross-cousin rules and matrilineal residues in pockets). Marriage regulations reflect regional ecology, economy and ritual systems.
| Zone (Illustrative) | Regulative Rules | Residence/Descent | UPSC Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| North India | Gotra & village exogamy; caste endogamy | Patriliny; patrilocality | Khap regions; hypergamy patterns |
| South India | Preferential cross-cousin marriage | Patriliny with distinctive affinal ties | Alliance logic vs North descent rules |
| North-East / Matrilineal Pockets | Clan exogamy | Matriliny (e.g., Khasi); avunculocal traces | Inheritance and maternal uncle’s role |
Extra hooks: Patricia Uberoi on family ideology & marriage debates; A. M. Shah on continuity of kinship amidst urban change.
7) High-Yield Theory Comparatives — Quick Revision Tables
| Thinker | Core Proposition | Mechanism | Strength | Key Critique |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murdock | Family is universal | 4 functions (sex, reproduction, economic, education) | Explains persistence | Underplays power & change |
| Parsons | Nuclear “fit” to industrial society | Differentiation; socialisation & stabilisation | Clear role-function link | Ignores conflict/diversity |
| Engels | Family tied to property & patriarchy | Patriliny, monogamy, control of women | Links economy & gender | Over-historicised, limited agency |
| Feminists | Patriarchy & unpaid care | Domestic production; six structures | Power-sensitive, policy link | Varied within women (intersectionality) |
| Lévi-Strauss | Marriage = alliance/exchange | Prescriptive vs preferential rules | Clarifies affinal logic | Formalism; economics muted |
| A. M. Shah | Jointness beyond co-residence | Functional cooperation & shared obligations | Explains Indian “linked families” | Measurement challenges |
| I. Karve | Regional kinship zones | Rule sets vary by region/ecology | Nuanced India mapping | Boundaries can blur |
8) Marriage Forms & Norms — Exam-Ready Matrix
| Axis | Types | UPSC Definition | India Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical | Monogamy; Polygyny; Polyandry | Number of spouses | Monogamy legal norm; rare polyandry historically |
| Choice | Arranged ↔ Love ↔ Hybrid | Selection authority & negotiation | Urban growth of self-choice; SMA pathway |
| Endogamy/Exogamy | Caste/community endogamy; clan/village exogamy | Group boundary rules | Gotra/village exogamy; inter-caste increasing |
| Residence | Patri/Matri/Neo/Avunculocal | Post-marital dwelling | Patrilocal common; neolocal rising |
9) Law & Policy Hooks — Use 1–2 Where Relevant
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 — civil marriage enabling inter-caste/inter-faith unions.
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — marriage/divorce among Hindus; reforms in marital rights.
- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — daughters as coparceners in joint property.
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — civil protections within households.
10) UPSC Answer Toolkit — How to Write
- Define precisely (Family ≠ Household; Marriage = alliance/regulation).
- Pick 2–3 thinkers per question: e.g., Murdock + Parsons for functions/fit; Engels + Feminists for inequality/gender; Lévi-Strauss + Karve for marriage rules/regions.
- Show mechanism with one diagram (M1/P1/E1/F1/L1) and one table (theory comparative or marriage matrix).
- Indianise: A. M. Shah’s jointness, Karve’s zones, SMA pathway, women’s bargaining/property rights.
- Conclude: continuity + change — negotiation, law reform, care economy, and inclusion.
