THE FAMILY IN HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

SEMESTER TWO: 2022

UNIT 1: WHAT IS A FAMILY?

1.0. OVERVIEW

The structure of the family is similarly delimited, and by three factors: the fact of sexual
reproduction, the length of the human lifespan and of its dependent segments, and the activities
people engage in as members of families. Two sexes means that marriage, or something closely
equivalent to it, will involve a limited number of possibilities for singular and plural unions. The
human lifespan and generational span mean that there are usually two, but seldom more than two
adult generations alive at any one time, a fact with universal but usually unrecognized
significance for family organization. And the activities for which a family is organized in a
particular social context limit the nature of the structures a family can have and still be organized
for those activities. The activities do not create or determine the structures, because a certain
activity usually can be organized in more than one way. But they do constrain the possibilities,
and this can be used to account for much of the variation in family systems.

Kinship is a set of principles, while the family is a type of group. If kinship is a way of
organizing social relationships on the basis of parent child and husband-wife links, then the
family, by definition, is organized along kinship principles. But kinship principles have
ramifications beyond the family, whether in ego-centered networks, unilineal descent groups, or
other extended kinship organizations. The family is a special type of kinship group, one
consisting of close relatives in close cooperation in daily life. In many cases, the principles of
family organization, or the activities of the family, are not the principles of organization or the
activities of the larger kin groups in which families are embedded. In such cases, we must be
careful not to confuse the family with other kinship groups.

2. WHAT PEOPLE DO IN FAMILIES

1
To understand why a particular family system works the way it does in any particular generation
we must see it as a product of two factors: (1) the system practiced by that family's members in
the previous generation and (2) any pressures that will tend to change the activities people
perform as members of family groups. This formulation is based on two assumptions. First,
people organize families in order to reproduce themselves socially, and in order to do so, they
have to perform certain activities with, for, or to other family members. Second, in the absence
of pressure to change the way they organize these activities, people will tend to organize their
families in the manner they have learned from growing up among other people who organize
their families that way. In order to explain variation among family systems, then, we first have to
understand the activities for which families are organized. The activities organized in the family,
though varying widely in the expression and in the way they are performed, fall into a very
limited number of categories:

1. Division of labor in procuring material goods necessary for subsistence or luxury

consumption. Because of the universally present sexual division of labor, and because of the
presence of dependents (young, old, permanently or temporarily disabled) as part of family
groups, every family system will include the expectation that family members will share with
other members some of the goods they procure through hunting, gathering, cultivation, purchase,
or whatever other means. In general, people share such goods within the family on the basis of
what Sahlins (1965:193) has called generalized reciprocity: they give freely with no accounting
of requital or return, though they expect that others will share, equally freely, when they have
something to share.

2. Division of labor involved in processing goods procured by family members for consumption
by family members. This occurs for the same reasons as the division of labor in procuring goods-
there are those within the family who, by reason of youth, age, disability, or another part in the
division of labor, depend on the services of other members for processing of consumption goods.
Again, they usually share on the basis of generalized reciprocity. There is a general tendency for
the sexual division of labor to emphasize males as procurers and females as processors of goods
to be consumed. There are, however, other possible and empirically observed arrangements.

2
3. Providing and limiting access to sexual partners. In practically every family group, there are
both people who are expected to have sexual relations with each other and people who are
prohibited from doing so. Family systems also vary in the extent to which sexuality outside the
family group is permitted, discouraged, encouraged, or forbidden.

4. Socialization of children. In every system at least some, and frequently the greater part, of the
duties of enculturating children fall to family members. These duties, in fact, are of two kinds:
the care of very young children, and the education of both younger and older children.

5. Management of property and offices and their transmission to the next generation through
inheritance and succession. This is not important in all family systems-in some societies there is
nothing to succeed to or to inherit. But where it does exist, it becomes important, especially since
household membership is usually transmitted from one generation to the next through the same
or a similar pattern of routes of transmission.

6. Representation of the family in the public activities of politics or community ritual. Again,
this is not relevant everywhere. But in those communities that are part of societies where there is
a sphere of activities that is clearly public, as opposed to domestic (see below), that public sphere
often involves every member of society as an object of activity (as a head to be taxed, or as a
potential beneficiary of ritual, for example), but involves only certain members as active
participants. Where this occurs, active participants perform these public activities at least
partially on behalf of those members of their families who do not participate actively.

7. Enabling the participation of certain family members in public activities of economic

exchange, politics, and ritual. Where these activities are important, it is through the mobilization
of family labor or family goods that an individual is enabled to participate and/ or succeed in
such public activities. For example, family wealth may enable participation in political elections,
or family labor may produce some of the goods used in largescale, prestige-building ceremonial
exchanges.

8. Providing emotional warmth, support, and comfort for family members. Of all the possible
family activities enumerated here, this is the most difficult to describe and analyze, yet it may be
one of the most important. Some family relationships, everywhere, are expected to be

3
emotionally close in this way. The configuration of which relationships are expected to have
what content varies widely. In some communities such closeness is expected almost entirely
within the family group; in others, people typically look outside the family for such support and
companionship.

3. WHO ARE FAMILY MEMBERS?

Having talked about what people do as members of families, we can now consider who is doing
these things with, for, or to whom.

To begin with, we must remember that the possibilities for the structure of the family
developmental cycle are constrained by two human universals. The first is the fact of two sexes
and two aspects of their usual relations-their propensity to form long-lasting, relatively exclusive
sexual partnerships, and their participation in a sexual division of labor. Long lasting does not
mean permanent-divorce and remarriage, sometimes several times, are the norm in many places,
and exclusive does not mean rigorously one-to-one--at most times and places there are either
plural unions or some degree of sexual freedom before, between, or during the periods when
stable unions are operating. But long-lasting does mean more than casual, and exclusive means
that there are people with whom sexual relations are prohibited or strongly discouraged, a
category that may include everyone except a current spouse, or a category that may be much
more restricted. Pairing, then, in the sense used long ago by Morgan (1877) and Engels (1883)
seems to be a nearly universal fact in communities where people reproduce, often allowing for
the possibility of certain people participating in more than one pair at a time. The nature of
pairing is also limited by the nearly universal prohibition on sexual pairing between siblings or
parent and child. I accept these tendencies as given; my purpose here is not to explain them but
to describe their effects on family organization.

The sexual division of labor is, similarly, a virtual universal, based primarily on the roles of the
two sexes in biological reproduction. In general, certain activities that require prolonged travel or
prolonged, strenuous moving around are incompatible with advanced pregnancy or with
breastfeeding and have tended across most of history to become male activities. Other activities,
which may require as much strength or stamina, but not as much mobility, have tended to be

4
seen as women's work. Families contain members of both sexes not just as sexual pairs, but also
as partners in an equal or unequal sharing of the tasks of production and of both biological and
social reproduction necessary to the livelihood and continuance of the family and society.

The second universal is the life span and generational span. The physiological human life-span,
in any society, seems to be between 90 and 100 years on the average (Weiss 1981)/ but very few
people actually live that long anywhere, and the practical life-span seems to hover around
seventy years or so. The generational span varies, and tends to be shorter from mother to
offspring than from father to offspring, but twenty to thirty years seems to be the average. The
ratio of life-span to generational span thus approximates 3:1. This means that, even in where the
likelihood of living to old age is high, very few people spend much time alive at the same time as
their great-grandparents or great-grandchildren or, to put it another way, grandparents and
grandchildren are seldom adult for very long at the same time. For all practical purposes, then,
this means that there will be either one or two adult generations alive at any one time. Most
people who live past early childhood can expect to see their children grow to adulthood, and to
see their grandchildren born. It is rare that there are no adult generations alive; it is also rare that
there are three, and when there are, the eldest is usually old and dependent. Together with the
facts of pairing and the sexual division of labor this means that an ordinary family in whatever
system at any one time will contain both sexes and a maximum of one immature and two adult
generations, or that the developmental cycle in any system will consist of an alternation between
two and three generations alive at once, of which only the oldest one or two will consist of
people in marital pairs. We need not worry about large-scale group sex, about dominance
hierarchies and sexual access (except as filtered through systems of polygyny and hypergamy,
which are forms of pairing), about the relationship between young adults and their great-great
grandparents, or about six-generation extended families. The limits to the family cycle are set,
and they are fairly rigid limits.

Within these limits, there are several dimensions of variation. The major ones are the (1)
direction of connections between the elder and younger generations in a family group, (2) the
inclusiveness or restriction of inclusion of junior adults in the family group, (3) the limits of
individual participation in marital pairs, and (4) the time of transfer of statuses and their
attendant rights and responsibilities from senior generations to junior.

5
We will discuss each of these dimensions of variation in detail, but first we must detour to
introduce a graphic notation for representing family systems that will be used, with slight
variation. This notation allows us to compare systems with one another and to highlight the
salient features of each cluster of systems.

In this notation, the family into which daughters and sons are born is represented by a boundary
(in the simplest case, a square), with sons on the left and daughters on the right, elder siblings at
the top and younger siblings at the bottom (Figure 2-1).

FIGURE 2-1: The Basic Family Configuration

What the square itself represents depends on the type of family system we are portraying. It
might represent a solidary household, which cooperates in all or almost all of the activities
usually organized on a family basis. In other cases (detailed below) there may be more than one
boundary (represented, for example, by a square in a circle), as in the family and the band in
hunting and gathering bands or the small family and the household.

The parents, if necessary, can be represented by conventional male and female symbol (Figure 2-
2).

6
FIGURE 2-2: Family Configuration with Parents

A single copy of this diagram, with a boundary and some circles and triangles, represents a
family at only one stage in the developmental cycle. If we are to illustrate the developmental
cycle as a whole, we need to show the family on both sides of any transition that is crucial in
determining the form of the cycle. In most cases, the form of the developmental cycle is
determined primarily by a single transition-what happens when the younger generation reaches
adulthood. A sufficiently complete representation of the developmental cycle will thus consist of
two copies of the diagram--one showing the children before they reach adulthood and marry, and
the other afterward (Figure 2-3).

FIGURE 2-3: Two Stages in the Developmental Cycle

In this case, we see from the second diagram that the eldest daughter remains in the family upon
marriage; the other daughters and all the sons leave. But if we think about it for a moment, the
first diagram in the series will look almost exactly the same for any family system-all the
children will be in the group headed by their parents. We can thus dispense with the first diagram
7
in most cases, and just look at the second copy, which shows what happens after the children
reach adulthood, which is what differentiates one family system from another. We always
understand that the absent first diagram is implied.

3.1. The Direction of Connections Between the Elder and Younger Generations

The family, of course, includes elder and younger generations. But as children grow to
adulthood, not all of them continue to participate in all the activities of a family containing their
parents. In any sphere of activity organized in and for a family, the fact of marriage means that
there are several possibilities as to which children the parents will remain connected to after the
children are married or, in some cases, even earlier. If spouses are going to live together (with
cooperation in whatever activities this implies in a particular system) they cannot systematically
live with the parents of both. This forces the parents to retain some children in, and expel others
from, the group that lives in a house and cooperates in certain spheres of activity-will they retain
their sons and sons' wives, their daughters and daughters' husbands, or whom? The same is true
of succession to office-ordinarily only one child can succeed one parent. Descent and inheritance
do not force such a course-they can be bilateral, with every child inheriting and descending from
both parents automatically. But in practice, in many places descent and inheritance are
directional, including children of one sex and excluding those of the other (unilineal descent and
inheritance) or forcing the parents and children to make a choice of one direction or the other in
the case of each specific marriage (ambilineal descent and inheritance). In practice, there is a
strong tendency for certain directions of transmission of rights and duties (succession to office,
descent, and inheritance) to be associated with corresponding systems of residence, so that those
in line to inherit or succeed live with those they expect to inherit from or succeed to. This
correlation, of course, is not an exact one, and everyone can point to a "disharmonious" system
(Levi-Strauss 1969:323-324) in which residence rules do not keep property holder and heir, or
office holder and successor, together, but these disharmonious systems are in the minority.

The logical possibilities for the directionality of transmission of rights and duties are, as Fox
(1967:141) has pointed out, quite numerous. It is conceivable, for example, that rights and duties
connected with descentgroup membership might be passed from mother to son and from father to

8
daughter. Mead (1935, chs 10,11), in fact has reported just such a system among the
Mundugumor. Or a mother's rights might pass to all her children, and father's to nobody at all.
But these are empirically very rare or non-existent, and we do not need to spend much time in
the kind of logical fantasies that rapidly lead us to impractical solutions. In practice, systems of
transmission of rights and duties take five different values on the dimension of directionality:

1. matrilineal-transmission through mother

2. patrilineal-transmission through father

3. ambilineal-transmission through the mother or father, but not both

4. dual unilineal-transmission of some rights and duties through the mother, and other, distinct
rights and duties through the father

5. bilateral-transmission indiscriminately through the mother and father

It is important to realize that the same people can use different routes to transmit different kinds
of rights and duties. In fact, ambilineal and dual unilineal systems are simply those in which
people commonly use more than one route. It is also necessary to remember that matrilineal
transmission can occur from female to female (mother to daughter) or from male to male (senior
to junior male within a matrilineal group, commonly referred to as "mother's brother to sister's
son," using those terms in a classificatory sense). It is also possible for patrilineal transmission to
occur between females, but this is much less common.

One special form of connection between generations is residential connection-so special that
anthropologists usually relegate "residence" to a category separate from that of connections of
transmission of rights and duties, and employ a separate terminology. For our purposes, though
we can continue to employ this terminology, it is convenient to consider residence with members
of the adjacent generation as simply one more aspect of the dimension of variation in direction of
connection-as a form of passing on household or neighborhood membership. And household or
neighborhood membership is defined less by just living in the same building (lodgers in a
flophouse do that), than by cooperating in the activities normally shared by members of a family

9
group-procuring, processing, sex, socialization, etc. In this case, matrilocal residence (residence
of the married couple with or near the wife's parents) becomes matrilineal transmission of
household membership (and the activities which household membership embodies) between
females. A system of matrilocal residence can be diagrammed like this (Figure 2-4):

FIGURE 2-4: Matrilocal Residence

Similarly, avunculocal residence, of the married couple with or near the husband's mother's
brother, is matrilineal transmission of household membership from senior to junior matrilineally
related male. And so, on neolocal residence is the lack of transmission of family membership, in
respect to residence, from one generation to the next; it is comparable, for example, to the lack of
kin-based succession to political offices in modem capitalist and socialist republics. Duolocal
residence (husband and wife living with their own natal families) is comparable to "parallel
inheritance" of men's goods patrilineally and women's goods matrilineally.

We thus have a congeries of rights and duties that are transmitted from one generation to
another, including descent, succession, inheritance, and household membership, each of which
can sometimes be broken up into smaller units, such as inheritance of land and inheritance of
tools, or succession to secular office and to sacred office. In any system, people will transmit
certain of these rights and duties by one route-patrilineal, matrilineal, or bilateral, and others by
other routes. If there is a predominant route, we usually use a convenient shorthand and describe

10
the family system and/ or the total kinship system as bilateral or matrilineal or patrilineal; if there
is an obvious mixture of routes, we may describe the system as double-unilineal or ambilineal.

It should also be remembered that this dimension-the direction of transmission-is a non-

continuous dimension only for the transmission of a particular right or duty. There is no
assumption that in a system where people transmit some family rights and duties patrilineally,
they will necessarily transmit others by the same route, nor is there any implication that those
aspects of the kinship organization that lie outside the family system will operate in the same
directions of transmission in which the family system operates.

3.2. The Inclusion or Restriction of Junior Adults

The direction of transmission of rights and duties does not tell us everything about who receives
these rights and duties in the junior generation. For it is possible to pass on a certain right or duty
to only one member of the junior generation, to pass it in varying amounts to several members,
or to pass it equally to all members. For a patrilineally transmitted right, for example, this can
mean that only one son receives that right (and he, in tum, can be specified as the eldest, the
youngest, or left unspecified) (Figure 2-5); it can mean that all sons receive the right to some
degree, but that some son or sons receive more than the others (and again, the favored son or
sons may come anywhere in the sibling order) (Figure 2-6); or it can mean that all sons receive
the right equally (Figure 2-7).

11
The same range of variation is possible with sisters' sons, or with daughters, in a matrilineal
system, or with children in general in an ambilineal or bilateral system.

This dimension of variation is important for inheritance, succession, and residence. In terms of
inheritance, scholars have usually dichotomized this dimension into impartible (only one child
inheriting) or partible (more than one inheriting), but it becomes clear upon examination of the
ethnographic record that there is continuous variation from nearly absolute exclusion of all but
the chosen heir, though various unequal combinations, to almost absolutely equally parted
inheritance. In terms of succession, if we think of succession to political office as a model, it
would seem that single succession would be the rule, and it does predominate. (There is,
however, a well-documented case, that of certain Nyakyusa chiefdoms in the 19 th and
20th centuries, in which an expanding population passed on the chiefship to two sons of each
previous chief in each generation [Wilson 1951:22-23]). And succession to family headship is
not simple either; it is possible for a single successor to take over the headship of a continuing
family corporation, or for the corporation to split in each generation, with each included member
of the junior generation taking over the headship of one of the family units resulting from the
split.

Turning to residence, we find that, in general, this too has been looked upon as a dichotomous
variable; among those systems that transmit household membership to junior adults at all
(neolocal systems are, of course, outside this dimension altogether), there is usually a division
made between stem systems, in which only one child remains with the parents, and joint systems,
in which all members of the inheriting or succeeding sex (or half the children of both sexes, in an
ambilineal system) remain with the parents until the latter die. But in fact, even here there are
intermediate cases: in many systems, a specified son or daughter will succeed to household
headship, but other sons or daughters may have some rights toremain in the household for a
limited time, or with limited rights, or perhaps as long as they do not marry. So this too, is a
continuous variable.

It should be noted that household membership, if it is not totally restrictive, involves at some
point a process of household division. Except in polyandrous, or sharing, marriage systems, an
inclusive system of transmission of household membership implies that, if there are two or more

12
juniors to be included, those juniors will not stay together forever, but will eventually split the
household to form a series of new units with themselves at the respective heads. In this sense,
then, restrictive household membership means household continuity, while inclusive
membership means the destruction and re-emergence of the household in each generation.

It is possible, at the same time, that household membership is not passed on at all-that the marital
residence is neolocal and each couple sets up an independent household upon marriage (Figure
2-8).

This can be seen as even more restrictive than the stem-family or single transmission of
household membership, but it tends to correlate with inclusiveness of inheritance and of
succession to household headship, both of which are associated with either joint or nuclear
family systems. The crucial difference here is in the time of formation of the independent
households headed by the junior generation, a variable that will be treated in the section on time
of transmission.

3.3. Individual Participation in Marital Pairs

In different family systems, people may have only one spouse in their lives, or only one spouse
at once, or several at once. Most introductory treatments of kinship see three possibilities in
either the synchronic or the diachronic dimension-monogamy, polygyny, or polyandry, and some
add a fourth, called something like polygynandry (Berreman 1975:130). Logically, this is of
course correct, but here I think a too-rigorous logic runs against the true nature of the variation
on this dimension. Because almost all cases of polyandry are fraternal, the best way to look at
this dimension is in terms of how many wives a man can have, and the consequent opportunities
he has to reproduce. At the low end of this dimension, we have so-called polyandrous systems, in

13
which a man gets one wife or less-these systems are designed to maintain undivided, patrilineally
transmitted estates while allowing all brothers to marry. (This, of course, prevents many women
from marrying). In the middle of the dimension come the monogamous systems, in which a man
can have one wife, and then come the polygynous ones, in which a man can have one or more
wives.

The implications of sharing, singular, and plural unions go beyond the sphere of marital relations
themselves and affect the organization of the first two dimensions mentioned, particularly the
inclusive-restrictive dimension. Polyandrous or sharing unions, merging the rights and duties
held by two or more brothers into a single line, but allowing all sons of that line to receive the
rights and duties, are always inclusive, but without the expanding characteristics of other,
monogamous or polygynous inclusive systems. Monogamous and polygynous systems alike can
be either inclusive or restrictive, but polygyny adds another way in which the restriction or
partial inclusion can be organized. In monogamous systems, the distinctions made are those
between siblings, but in polygynous systems halfsiblings, or in some cases various kinds of half-
siblings (Gluckman 1950:195- 96; Wilson 1950:132) are treated differently. Rather than simply
distinguishing among children of different birth-orders, such systems can distinguish among
children of different wives, and in various ways.

3.4. The Time of Transfer of Statuses from Senior to Junior Generation

People do not transfer rights and duties from one generation to another in some universal,
automatic way, but rather by culturally specific processes. The timing of these processes is a
continuous dimension, ranging from the time when members of the receiving generation are
born, at the earliest, through the time when they marry, to the time when members of the older
generation die, at the latest. In practice, of course, the elders may die, for example, before any or
all members of the next generation are married, but the normative order is the other way around,
and we can thus compare systems on the basis of this normative order, realizing that the vagaries
of demography sometimes force an ad hoc adaptation to particular circumstances.

As in the other dimensions described, particular bundles of rights and duties are logically
independent of each other in their time of transfer. For example, in many neolocal systems,

14
characteristic of the early 20th-century European peasantry, though a young married couple was
expected to set up a new household on its own at the time of marriage, neither of the young
people received title to any property until their parents died. Similarly, in many dowry systems, a
woman receives her share of her parents' estate at marriage, while her husband has to wait for his
parents to die to claim· his own inheritance (Harrell & Dickey 1985). On the whole, there is a
much greater than random association between the transfer of one right or duty and that of
another, but the empirical variation between those systems that do transmit at the same time and
those that do not is also a subject for comparative study.

The structure of the developmental cycle, of the process of social reproduction of the family unit,
can be described for any system in terms of variation along the four dimensions mentioned
above. There is little, if any, structural variation that falls outside this four-dimensional matrix.

4. FAMILY TIES

4.1. Marital Ties

In some ways, ties between spouses were of much the same nature in Africa as in band societies.
They depended on each other through the sexual division of labor in procuring and processing of
subsistence goods, and sexuality was regulated to the point where spouses primarily depended on
each other there, too. In addition, however, spouses in African societies were perhaps more
vitally concerned with each other's role in reproduction, since a large number of offspring were
so widely desired in Africa.

And of course the labor of spouses was often a vital component in enabling a man to gain respect
and advancement in the prestige sphere. All these ties held spouses together. But at the same
time, in certain societies the bond between spouses weakened, and this weakening was often
associated with the pull of competing ties of a woman with her natal relatives in a patrilocal
system or of a man with his natal relatives in any of the several matrilineal arrangements. Thus
many African societies had rather high rates of separation and divorce. Nevertheless, during
certain phases of the life cycle, the marriage tie was necessary, and even at other times, it
continued to hold some force over people.

15
For reasons explained above, African marriage systems were usually polygynous, so we must
look at the structure of polygynous marriages as one of the fundamental building blocks of
African family structure almost everywhere. Because of the varying strength of the tie between
spouses in various family activities, as well as the pull of competing ties, the durability of
marriage and the rate of polygyny were variable in African family systems, and they will be
explored in more detail below.

4.2. Parent-Child Ties

Here we find a greater difference between B- and A-cluster family systems. We saw that in band
societies, parent-child ties were important at first when the children were totally dependent,
became less so as the children became capable of subsistence production in their own right, and
increased once again in old age, when the elders were dependent on their children for care and
support. Only in the few most northerly cases were they interdependent in the full vigor of
adulthood, and this interdependence had to do with the particular nature of subsistence pursuits
in those few societies. In Africa, certainly the parent-child ties were important in early
childhood, though they tended to fade rather quickly when the children became mobile, and
became particularly tenuous in adolescence and very young adulthood, especially for boys in
societies with age-graded military systems (Gluckman 1950:18). And in old age, Africans, like
practically everyone else in the world, had to depend on their children for support.

The interdependence of generations would thus not have varied much from the B-cluster to the
A-cluster if subsistence had been the only factor. But the fact that management and transmission
of offices and property, representation in the public sphere, and enabling prestige participation
were all important activities of the family in Africa meant that the generations were tied much
more closely to each other in the A-cluster than among the bands. In some parts of Africa, as
mentioned above, there was active subsistence cooperation between senior and junior adult
generations. But even where this was unnecessary, the control of the senior generation over
wealth, ritual, and jural processes, and the senior generation's need for the junior to provide labor
and followers, meant that there was a vital interdependence even in those phases of the life cycle
when the generations were perfectly capable of pursuing, and in fact did pursue, their purely
subsistence activities wholly independent of each other. In short, there were reasons to have

16
lineally extended families of one sort or another, at least for the performance of some activities,
everywhere in Africa.

4.3. Family Ties and Family Structure

Similar ties of interdependence in inheritance, representation, and enabling also bound together
relatives other than parents and children in African families. Exactly which relatives were so
bound-brother and brother, brother and sister, senior and junior matrilineally related malesvaried
from one system to another. But it was interdependence in such activities, and only occasionally
subsistence interdependence, that bound together not only lineally extended, but also laterally
extended African families. Finally, it is important to point out, following Goody (1972:4, 5), that
the group that was united for the performance of one family activity may not have been the same
as the group that was united for the performance of some other activities. In fact, this disparity of
groups organized for different activities was particularly characteristic of Africa. These groups,
depending on the particular system, were sometimes nested within each other-among the
LoDagaba, for example, the consnmption group of mother and children was embedded within
the production group of one or more males with their wives and children, which was in tum
embedded in the residential compound consisting of one or more production groups (J. Goody
1958). Or the differentiation of groups sometimes took the form of overlapping groups, as among
the matrilineal Mayombe, where the residential group consisted of husband, wife, and children,
living in a village together with the husband's matrilineal relatives, but the group for the division
of subsistence labor also included the man's sister, who gave him some of her garden produce,
and the woman's brother, to whom she contributed some of her own (Richards 1950). In general,
subsistence-oriented family groups tended to be smaller than those concerned with the public
sphere, because active participation in the public sphere was limited to jural majors, who tended
to be men of the older generation only, or some other restricted group.

17
UNIT 2: THEORETICAL MODELS OF KINSHIP
OR FAMILY

DEFINING KINSHIP

The central fabric of kinship is biology as stated earlier. It is because of biology that we find kinship
in all human societies. But kinship varies from society to society. In a matriarchal society, the
mother’s brother occupies a pivotal place; on the other hand, in a patriarchal society, the father’s
brother occupies the important place. Thus, the classification of kin is based on culture. Kinship has
now been developed into a fullfledged theory. John Lewis defines it in very simple and general
terms:

“Kinship is a social recognition and expression of genealogical relationships. It is not only actual but
may be based on supposed ties of blood.”

Lewis’ approach to kinship is genealogical or based on descent. Descent could be traced from mother
or father, or in some cases, both. Lewis also says that kinship relations could also be extended to
persons who are treated as being on par with blood or marital kin.

A. R. Brown, who is credited to have conducted fieldwork among three tribes of western Australia
(1913), has defined kinship as follows:

“Kinship is genealogical relationship recognized for social purposes and made the basis of the
customary relation of social relations.”

18
Brown’s thesis is that kinship lies at the root of genealogical relations but its social extensions
constitute the meaning of kinship. The importance of kinship, Brown further says, is reckoned on the
occasions of various customs observed during births, marriages, deaths and festivals.

Yet another definition of kinship is given by Charles Winick, who observes:

“Kinship system may include socially recognized relationship based on supposed as well as actual
geneologicalties.”

Quite like others, Winick also recognizes both biological or descent kin and socially accepted kin
within the kinship system. He stresses on the point that kinship is basically related to social approval.
This approval is observable on social and cultural occasions such as phases of life and festivals.

Levi-Strauss is said to be the master figure in developing the theory of kinship. In his classical study,
titled The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1969), he makes an important theoretical contribution.
He challenges the descent theory. He does not regard shared descent but rather the development of
alliances between two groups through the exchange of women, as the fundamental fact of kinship.
Levi-Strauss, in theoretical terms, is a structuralist. He holds the view that the mind organizes the
world in contrasting pairs and develops coherent systems of relationship from such a starting point. It
is through kinship that there is transmission of cultural values and knowledge between two
generations

1.1. Kinship and Social Anthropology

Blood is thicker than water” goes an old saying. When we are in distress, we look forward for help to
our relatives. Likewise, tribal society is also closely knit by kinship relations. Evans-Pritchard, while
working among the Nuers, a tribal group of Africa, found that relatives have an important place in
their life. He further says that a Nuer holds a person who is his relative as very close to him.
Therefore, if you want to get help from a Nuer, you have to identify yourself as one of their kinsmen.

Iravati Karve, who has conducted intensive fieldwork in different parts of India, says that caste is
nothing but an extension of kin. The importance of kinship can hardly be emphasized. In social
anthropology much of the literature revolves round the discussion on kinship. Some people think that

19
if kinship is taken out of social anthropology, there is nothing left to study. In fact, the study of
kinship has been a predominant tradition or culture of social anthropology. Kinship, it appears, is an
obsession with the social anthropologists. Eriksen writes about the central place of kinship of social
anthropology :

Generations of anthropologists have been flabbergasted at the intricate kinship systems existing in
many ‘primitive’ societies. Several famous examples of such complicated systems are to be found in
the Australian aboriginal population. These peoples traditionally hunters and gatherers have the
simplest technology in the world. They lack metals, domesticated animals and writing, and in most
cases they do not have even the rudiments of agriculture. Nevertheless, many of these nomadic
groups have kinship systems so complex that it may take an outsider years to comprehend them
fully ... The study of kinship has always been a core topic in anthropology. Towards the end of the
1940s kinship was so central, especially in British social anthropology, that people (and students)
spoke ironically of the subject as ‘kinshipology’. Many known anthropologists have reacted with
incomprehension at the great interest in kinship still prevalent in the profession.

According to Doshi and Jain (2001), why is kinship so important in social anthropology? Following
can be the answers:

1. It is through kinship that a person earns his livelihood. Traditional occupational knowledge is
given through this organization. It is kin who make all efforts for the welfare and of the person.

2. The career of the individual is planned and executed by kinsmen. It is very common to find in
India the Marwaris settled in different parts of country, are running their business through kinship
ties. If one member of a kin group goes to Mumbai, the migrant group would grow in big size in a
couple of years. The tribals are also drawn through kinship ties to different cities.

3. It is through kinship that matrimonial arrangements are made. It is common to find the bio-data of
the prospective groom and bride contain details about the affinal and agnate kin. This clearly shows
the importance of kinship in the settlement of marriage.

4. On the death of a person the mourning period is observed according to the degree of relationship
with the deceased. Birth, marriage and death are the three basic occasions when there is a serious and
careful reckoning of kin.

20
5. Kinship is related to all the other aspects of society such as economy, celebration of festivals,
worship and folkways.

6. The social organization of a society revolves round kinship. If we examine the organization of a
particular society we see that kinship is its integral part.

7. I.P. Desai, the noted sociologist, has empirically established that the institution of family is
nothing but a part of wider social relations. According to him, kinship has its origin in biology but its
legitimacy extends to relationship. In the west, on the other hand, some anthropologists such as
Schneider have argued that kinship is related to biology and blood ties. However, anthropological
research generally analyzes it as cultural classification of people. And, as aspects of group formation.

The importance of kinship is very great in social anthropology. It is the kin group which takes care of
one’s livelihood, career, marriage, protection and social identity. The importance becomes all the
more stronger among the tribals as they reside in unfriendly and inhospitable environment in the hills
and forests. We have enough empirical evidence to suggest that the survival of a tribal in poverty and
deprivation is almost impossible without the support of the kin group.

1.2. Dilemmas in application of Kinship and Anthropology

All human societies have kinship, that is they all impose some privileged cultural order over the
biological universals of sexual relations and continuous human reproduction through birth. In many
societies, kinship even appears to be the sole or main structuring factor, and it especially these
societies that have traditionally interested anthropologists the most.

It is important to realize at the outset, while the biologist studies kinship in the physical sense, for the
social anthropologist kinship is not biology, but particular social or cultural interpretations of the
biological universals. This further, brings us to the relationship between anthropology and science
generally, and to the status of anthropology as a science. Its scientific character is so because the
scientific world view forms a legitimate object of anthropological enquiry as regards its place in
those societies that acknowledge it. Although there are differences between the scientific world view
and the attitudes held by ordinary people but kinship (within anthropology) becomes more evidently
a matter of social definition, of belief. Anthropologically, ‘truth’ is not the truth but whatever people
in a particular society and for set of circumstances decide is the truth, ultimately, therefore, despite

21
occasional scientific interventions, paternity and kinship generally, remain matters of purely social
definition.

Such considerations need not lead to an absolute cultural relativism, but an overenthusiastic
universatism is equally to be resisted. The range of different world views is impressive, an important
consideration because otherwise societies would barely be distinguishable from one another at all,
whether for themselves or for the anthropologist. But this is principally true of the most explicit and
conscious level of data. Many aspects of social life are implicit, automatic and unconscious, felt
rather than expressed and there may be only a limited range of options open for expression. There is
only a restricted number of ways of tracing descent from earlier generations, for instance of residence
rules, or of viable marriage system. Such aspects occur widely enough to invite comparative effort to
establish cross-cultural correlations, but they are still not universal enough to rule out all cultural
variation. As far as kinship is concerned, we may find here : different ideas concerning parenthood,
the relations between the sexes or the nature of marriage relations; particular symbols used to denote
aspects of kinship; and different ways of rationalizing the existence of particular marriage or descent
systems. These all promote variety rather than uniformity among cultures, and at the level of greatest
detail, they are likely to be culturally specific.

There is also the vexed question of the concepts and terms the anthropologist uses in discussion of
kinship, and of the relationship between them. Anthropologists have not completely lacked
imagination in developing concepts and terms specific to their subject. Nonetheless they routinely
use western notions of kinship in describing indigenous representation of it, mainly to make them
more readily understandable to themselves and to their readers. However, Anthropologists
themselves are by no means in total agreement about how all these terms should be used, mainly
because of the variety of cultural conceptions of kinship the terms have to deal with. This use of
western notions of kinship in discussions of non-western ideas about it can never be more than a sort
of short-hand device enabling rough-andready assessment to be made. Certainly anthropology needs
some sort of terminology in which to discuss its ideas.

1.3. Kinship abbreviations and diagrams

22
The study of kinship involves the study of the relationships of any particular individual in the society,
whether male or female. In discussing kinship systems, that individual is conventionally designated
“ego”. Some- times in discussing ego’s relationships with just one other person, this other person is
designated “alter” or “referent”. Abbreviations are available for different sorts of relative. The details
are —

Each of the above abbreviations, whether single or in combination, can be seen as a symbol standing
for a particular kin type.

Diagrams are often used in discussing kinship. These frequently, but not invariably, use the
conventions of the genealogy. Male individuals are represented by triangles, female individuals by
circles; sometimes a rectangle or square is used to denote individuals regardless of their sex. Further
the relationships between individuals are shown by lines or other symbols. Connections by descent or
filiation are indicated by vertical lines, siblings are indicated by raised horizontal lines. Marriage is
indicated by lowered horizontal lines or by the equals sign. A loop is used to carry lines over one
another where they are not intended to be conceived as intersecting or joining.

Graphic representation of Kinship relation

23
1.4. Types of Kinship

A kin type is a designation that is assigned to each individual relationship, such as a mother, father,
mother’s brother, mother’s sister. Each relationship is described by a sequence of primary
components, which are strung together to indicate actual biological relationships:

24
The diagram which following shows how several basic relationship are designated by kin types:

25
26
Kinship Symbols

1.5. Kin terms

Kin types are culturally neutral. An anthropologist uses these types to begin a description and
analysis of any kinship system prior to a consideration of principles of classification within that
system. On the other hand, kin terms, the set of names that people actually use to designate and
address their relatives, are specific to each culture. The terms uncle, cousin, grandfather, peculiar to
English terminology, are not kin types but categories which include more than one relationship and
therefore more than one kin type.

Lineal kinship terminology: Parental generation kin terminology with four terms one for M, one for
F, one for FB and MB, and one for MZ and FZ.

Bifurcate merging kinship terminology: Kinship terminology in which M and MZ are called by the
same term, F and FB are called by the same term, and MB and FZ are called by different terms.

27
Bifurcate collateral kinship terminology: Kinship terminology employing separate terms for M, F,
MB, MZ, FB, and FZ

Generational kinship terminology: Kinship terminology with only two terms for the parental
generation, one designating M, MZ, and FZ and the other designating F, FB, and MB

Affinals: relatives by marriage, whether of lineals (e.g., son’s wife) or collaterals (e.g., sister’s
husband)

Ambilineal: principle of descent that does not automatically exclude children of either sons or
daughters

Bilateral kinship calculation: A system in which kinship ties are calculated equally through both
sexes:mother and father, sister and brother, daughter and son, and so on.

Corporate groups: groups that exist in perpetuity and manage a common estate, including descent
groups and modern corporations

Ego: Latin for ‘l’ In kinship charts, the point from which one views.

Kindred: A group of people closely related to one living individual through both parents

Lineal relative: Any of ego’s ancestor’s or descendants (e.g., parents grandparents, children,
grandchildren) or the direct line of descent that leads to and from ego.

Ambilocal: postmarital residence pattern in which the couple may reside with either the husband’s or
wife’s group

Neolocality: Postmarital residence pattern in which a couple establishes a new place of residence
rather than living with or near either set of parents

Unilocal: Either virilocal or uxorilocal postmarital residence; requires that a married couple reside
with the relatives of either the husband (vir) or the wife (uxor), depending on the society.

2. INCEST AND TABOO

28
There are rules which prohibit certain persons as sexual partners and as marriage partners. These are
the rules of incest. Incest refers to sexual congress as such; exogamy to marriage, a relationship
which cannot be created merely by sexual congress and includes in addition to sexual congress,
number of reciprocal rights and duties.

Lewis has described incest as:

Incest is the term applied to any such prohibited union. It is essential to an understanding of this
question to realize that prohibition extends to those cousins who are held to be within the family,
even though they may be several degree distant and biologically hardly related at all. For instance, it
is almost universally held that a man may not marry the daughter of his mother’s sister, who is
parallel cousin, but he may marry the daughter of his mother’s brother, who is a cross-cousin.

Thus incest prohibitions or incest taboos prohibit ego from sexual relations with particular relatives.
They appear to be present in some form universally, though their exact range varies considerably
from society to society. The prohibition on incest is because the partners are closely related. They
need not, however, be blood relations in some societies. However, the relationship within which
sexual congress is everywhere considered incestuous are those of parent to child and of brother to
sister.

At the outset, the parameters of the prohibition seem to be simple—no marriage among close
relations. But who are the close relations? On this point there are different observations among the
anthropologists:

(i) Tylor and Freud argue that in all societies sex relations with the close kin are prohibited and there
are some social advantage of the rule. The taboo helps expansion of the group through the inclusion
of new members and the forging of alliance a cross kin boundaries If there is no prohibition on the
sexual relations with close kin, the expansion of the family would stop because there will be in-
breeding.

(ii) Another explanation in this regard is that there is no prohibition on sexual relations with close
kin, it would lead to biological degeneration.

(iii) Levi Strauss who has propounded the theory of structuralism, says that there are forms of
relations in the mind of a man. The man divides the woman into two mutually exclusive categories:

29
wives and sisters. Thus the woman falling in the category of sister cannot be contracted for sexual
relations.

(iv) Westermarck argued that people who grew up together (thinking primarily of brothers and
sisters) were so used to one another that by the time they were adults the idea of sexual desire did not
occur to them.

In general, the theories about incest are of two kinds. One asks why it is regarded with such horror;
one asks why there is a rule against it in every known society. The first question is what philosophers
would call a pseudo-problem, incest is often held to be a sin, that is to call down supernatural
punishment without the need of any human agent to punish the offenders. Freud accounted for the
horror as a buildin-mechanism to repress a strongly felt desire (thinking primarily of sons and
mothers).

However, what is more interesting to the student of society is the second question: why sexual
congress between persons in certain genealogical relationships is always prohibited and often
regarded with horror. The explanation offered by Malinowski is the one generally accepted by
anthropologists. The family is the institution within which the cultural tradition of a society is handed
on to the new generation. This indispensable function could not be fulfilled unless the relations of
parents and children were relations reciprocally of authority and respect. Such relations could not be
maintained if sexual passions were given free play within the family circle. To Levi Strauss, the
prohibition of marriage within the family is the essential criterion of cultural life because it is the
beginning of that exchange–in this case the exchange of women between descent groups—which he
takes to be the basis of social structure.

We find that the reasons for incest prohibition have always been a controversial matter. Naturalistic
and psychological theories suffer from the wide variation in the range of prohibition that different
societies impose. Arguments that seek its cause in the familiarity engendered by the fact of sitting
being brought up and living together, or the subliminal recognition that in-breeding produces harmful
genetic effects, are again controversial. Further, the attitude to incest differ considerably in intensity.
Many societies view it as absurd rather than evil, others may regard adultery as more serious.
Perhaps the most fruitful thesis concerning the prohibition of incest has been that it is the product of
exchange relations between groups. According to this view, it is the exchange of women that draws
groups to form a society.

30
3. CONCEPT OF CLAN
Apart from family, there are various groups in societies which are more wider and complex in nature.
Some basic groups are lineage, clan, phratry and moiety. These groups are basically prevalent among
the tribal and primitive groups and varies from society to society. Although family and lineage
groups are based on known ancestary whereas clan, phratry and moiety are more assumptive based
groups and are imaginary in character.

In terms of complexity, Clan is an exogamous group which comes next to family. If the tribe or caste
is endogamous, the clan is exogamous. The institution of clan is found in all the primitive societies.
In British anthropology, sib is understood as clan whereas in American anthropology clan is defined
as sib. Clan or sib traces its origin through either parent to the total neglect of the other. If a tribe is
organized into mother clans, every child regardless of sex is considered a member of her mother’s
clan and takes the maternal clan name, if there is one. In the same manner, if the tribe is organized
into father clans, every child is a member of his father’s clan and takes the paternal clan name. In the
Indian context, the tribal groups follow both the patterns.

The importance of clan can hardly be exaggerated. It is often said that everybody in a tribal group is
related by agnatic or descent ties. Viewed from this perspective, the members of the clan are
members of a wider blood group, constituting a sort of brotherhood. Normally, clans are found in a
particular region and more often a single village consists of one or two clans only. It is because of
this that a village is an exogamous unit. Village exogamy goes with the clan exogamy. There are
several uses of clan in a primitive society. Anthropologists consider clan to be an organization
between family and descent. In the discussion ahead, we discuss the origin and meaning of clan and
its differentiation from family, lineage and totemism. All these concepts are closely related. They
constitute the comprehensive concept of kinship. Let us further see, what we mean by clan.

3.1. What is Clan?

Social anthropologists define clan as a unilinear group. Originally, the meaning of clan was taken
from the Latin word gens, the literal meaning of which is unilinear group. But in English the meaning
of gens has come to mean a patrilineal group. It is because of this that the American anthropologists
differentiate the terms clan and sib. They use clan for matrilineal groups and gens for patrilineal
groups. Thus, for them, the clan and gens together make a sib.

31
The meaning of clan runs into debate. American anthropologists prefer to use sib in place of clan in
social anthropology. Murdock, for instance, has suggested that clan should be used only for a descent
group whereas in the British tradition the meaning of clan is wider and includes both the matriarchal
and patriarchal clans. On the other hand, Morgan and others in their evolutionary theory use clan
only for the patriarchal descent group. Despite this controversy there is a consensus in social
anthropology that clan is an important kin group which determines the life order of the people. In
creates integration among the wider descent group.

It must be admitted that there is rich literature on clan in social anthropology. Kroeber has come out
with a classical work on clan known as Zuni Kin and Clan (1917). Firth has described the kin and
clan organization of the Tikopia tribal group of Africa in his book We, the Tikopia (1936). Similarly,
Fortes has studied the Ashanti tribe along with other African primitive groups. His book, The
Dynamics of Clanship amongst the Tallensi (1945) very elaborately describes the changing character
of clanship. Evans-Pritchard has also analyzed the kinship organization in his classical work, The
Nuer (1940). All these works assume importance in social anthropology because for the first time
primitive clan and kin have been taken for comprehensive analysis. These studies have also
conceptually examined the differences in kinship, descent, lineage, totemism and clan.

According to Thomas Hylland Eriksen, people of one clan belong to a common ancestory. This
ancestory could be either matriarchal or patriarchal. Thus, according to him, clan is a unilinear
descent group. However, the ancestors do not constitute any regular genealogy. His definition runs as
under :

“A clan encompasses people who assume shared descent from an ancestor/ ancestress without being
able to enumerate all of these links.”

Finally, the definition given by John Lewis:

“Membership in a clan depends on kinship through one parent. It is often exogamous. It provides
mutual security, government, marriage regulations, religion and ceremonies, property regulations and

32
social control. Some authorities require not only a rule of descent but also a definite place of
residence or locality and social integration.”

Thus, on the basis of above definitions, we can infer some common characteristics of clan as under :

1. Clan is a unit between family and descent.

2. It is unilateral, i.e., either from male or female side.

3. It is exogamous.

4. It provides rules for marriage, ceremonies, inheritance and social control.

5. It is found in some specific places.

6. It also has some authority over an area.

7. It is totemic.

8. It traces its descent from some common ancestor

3.2. Social Structure of Clan

The clan system has an elaborate social structure. In a single village, there are two or three clans.
Generally, the clans have their hierarchy in a tribe. R.H. Lowie has made an attempt to establish
different orders of clan among the African primitive groups. In western India, S.L. Dolin informs that
the Mairiya among the Bhils occupy a higher rank. It is followed by Damor. Similar ranking is also
found in Gond and Santhal tribes.

In the following figure we give the social structure of clan:

33
The function of phratry and dual organization is normally to regulate marriages. Empirically, these
days, the clan has limited functions. Its identity survives only in implementing the marriage rules.
The boundaries of phratries have also become loose. It appears that in the wake of modernization
which the tribals are experiencing the hierarchy and status of phratry is fast eroding. The rights of
reservation in terms of safety and security have weakened the dual division of clan. Reservations, is
basically concerned with the tribal group and not the clan. This makes phratry irrelevant.

3.3. Characteristics of Clan

Social anthropology contains descriptions of various tribal clans pertaining to Africa, Australia and
India. On the strength of the empirical data, we give below some of the important features of a clan:

1. Normally, a clan is an exogamous group. The members of a clan trace their origin to a common
ancestor who is normally not real but fictitious. The ancestor could be a tree, plant, animal, bird or an
inanimate object.

2. A clan is unilateral. It links itself either with the mother or father. It is never bilateral.

3. According to the theory of clan, it is assumed that all the clan members are brothers and sisters.
They cannot marry among themselves.

34
4. Clan is an independent autonomous unit. That is how it differs from family, lineage and totem.

5. Ordinarily, the members of a clan reside in a specific territory.

3.4. Clan, Family, Lineage and Totem

A clan is not a tribe. It is only a pattern of unilateral social relationship within the tribe. It is also not
a family, neither is it a lineage. As a matter of fact, clan is related to several concepts, the important
ones being family, lineage and totem. There are differences in all the three concepts. For a proper
understanding of clan we should bring out the differences in these concepts.

Family and Clan

A family is a group of persons wherein the husband and wife have legitimized sexual relations. It is
the objective of family to procreate. Thus, the family consists of affines and agnates. At the time of
marriage, the genealogy of father and mother is taken into consideration. Viewed from this
perspective the family is bilateral. In the patriarchal family, the clan is traced from the father,
grandfather, great grandfather and so on. In the matriarchal family, conversely, the clan of mother,
grandmother and so on are traced. Thus, the first difference of family and clan is that family is
bilateral whereas clan is unilateral.

A family may become extinct because of the lack of a son. Despite the extinction of family, the clan
of the family would continue. Therefore, a clan is the combination of a large number of families and
descent groups whereas a family consists only of the parents and their children.

If we trace the origin of family and clan, it could be said that there would have been the appearance
of family first and clan later on. It is because of this that the family which does not have a long
history might not have a clan system. For instance, among the Kadars, there is total absence of clan
system though they have family. On the other hand, the tribal groups which have long family history,
such as Kamar, Baiga and Bhil, there is a clan system. Thus, the institution of family is universal, and
a clan is not.

The members of a family reside under the same roof, take their meals from the same hearth and have
a common purse, whereas the members of a clan do not have this kind of sharing. The members of a
clan are scattered and claim their origin from a common ancestor. Their relationship with the

35
ancestor is largely social and cultural. The only binding force which holds them together is the
common ancestor

Thus, in any analysis of clan system, the descent system of family cannot be neglected. In a broader
way, it could be said that in the structure of clan, family is the smallest unit.

Lineage and Clan

The basic difference between a lineage and clan is that the former is actual and real while the latter is
fictitious. If we refer to the case of feudal rulers we find that each ruler had his genealogy which was
updated by bards. Similarly, the Hindus have their own genealogies which are maintained by the
priests. Genealogies thus constitute the record of the previous generations. However, it is difficult to
trace the ancestor who gave rise to a clan, therefore, the originator of a clan is lost in oblivion. John
Lewis defines lineage as below :

Lineage is a group resulting from descent reckoned either from the father’s or the mother’s line.
Whereas in a clan relationship it is assumed, in a lineage group it must be demonstrated, that is, the
actual relationship must be specific and known.

Totem and Clan

Social anthropologists have produced rich literature on totemism. Among the African tribes totems
are very widely found. Each clan organization bears the names of animals and plants. This mode of
designating a clan is often coupled with beliefs and practices revolving round the eponym.
Sometimes, the animal is held sacred and there is a strong sense of kinship with it on the part of the
clan. Elsewhere groups are not named after plants or animals but are nevertheless definitely
associated with them. Frequently, there is a belief in the descent of the clan from the eponym. All
these and similar usages are brought together under the head of totemism and the animal plant or
object in question is called a totem.

Totemism has a very wide distribution among the tribals. It is found in America, Australia,
Melanesia, Africa and India. “This extensive diffusion deeply impressed the scholars who first
investigated the relevant data, and following the theoretical bias of their times, they assumed without
further enquiry that all the phenomena labeled totemism represented identical psychological

36
processes and had originated independently in different areas through the psychic unity of mankind.”
It appears that totemism has developed from the practice of animal nicknames.

Totemism binds the people on the basis of some animal, plant and tree. The observance of the
totemic rules is not based on biological origin. It is social and cultural. In a precise way, totem is
different from clan but it forms a part of clam. In Indian social anthropology, some work has been
done in totemism. For instance, among the Kharias, there are about ten exogamous totemic clans.
Similarly, among the Kamars, there are a large number of exogamous clans. Each clan has its own
totems. Normally, totems are operative only the in the realm of marriage. Clan, on the other hand,
has comprehensive social and cultural functions. The Kamars have totems in the name of tiger,
serpent, goat, birds, etc.

3.5. Functions of Clan

The primitive peoples all over the world have lived in an unfriendly environment. Though the forests
provide them wild game, living within its cover sometimes proves to be very dangerous. The tribals
who have taken to agriculture are more often than not victims of floods and droughts. Deprived of
most of the facilities of security, they have to depend on their kinsmen and clansmen. We have
enough studies to infer that a tribal group can hardly survive without the functioning of clans. It is
normal to find a Gond saying : “While hurting the member of my clan, you have actually hurt me.”
The identification in the name of clan in a tribal group is very strong. Despite this, as mentioned
above, under the influence of modernization many of the functions of clan are getting weak or
eroded. We, however, give below some of the important functions of clan :

(i) Protection and Help: The insecure environment puts tribals always in constant need of help and
protection. The clan members provide them security and help at such times.

(ii) Political Hegemony: In African tribes, as among India ones, the clan has a political clout. There
are “big men” in a tribal group. These men play an important role to help the tribals integrate
themselves in the regional politics. Politics has been defined differently. According to one definition,
politics “can be defined as agency; as the establishment of authoritative decisions. Second, politics
may be seen as a system in which case the word refers to the circulation of power and authority in a
society.”

37
(iii) Wielding of Sanction: The clan has a right to levy a penalty for nonobservance of tribal
traditions. It can oblige the clan member to follow a certain course of action.

(iv) Exogamy: All the males and the females of a clan constitute, in a broad way, a common blood
group. They are constrained to observe the rules of exogamy. Deviance in the observation of
exogamy is penalized severely.

(v) Religion and Customs: Each clan has its deities, ancestors and totems. On occasions of birth,
marriage, death and scarcities, the clan deities are worshipped. It is firmly believed by all the
members of the clan that only by observing respect for the deities can a crisis be overcome.

38
UNIT 3: THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF FAMILY STUDIES

1. MEANING, CHARACTERISTIC AND FEATURES OF FAMILY

The meaning of family can be better understood through various definitions. Let us view the
definition given by various social scientists

Burgess and Locke – ‘Family is a group of persons united by household interacting and inter-
communicating with each other in their respective social roles of husband and wife, father and
mother, son and daughter, brother and sister, creating a common culture.’

MacIver – ‘Family is a group defined by sex-relationship sufficiently precise and enduring to provide
for the procreation and upbringing of children.’

G.P. Murdock – ‘The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic
cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, atleast two of whom maintain a
socially approved sexual relationship and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually co-
habiting adults.’

1.1. Characteristics

(i) Mating-relationship – Family is an outcome of union between male and female for mating.

(ii) System of nomenclature – Every family is known or recognized by a distinctive name.

(iii) Common residence – Family requires a home or household to live in. After marriage, the newly
wed couples have to live together in a specific home.

(iv) Economic Provision – Family provides for the satisfaction of the economic needs of its
members.

(v) Form of Marriage – Family is an outcome of specific form of marriage. It can be through
monogamy, polygamy, polyandry or group marriage.

39
1.2. Features of the Family
(i) Universality – According to Murdock, family is a universal institution. There is no human society
in which some form of the family is present.

(ii) Emotional basis – The family is grounded in emotions and sentiments. It is based on our impulse
of mating, procreation, material love and parental support. It is built upon sentiments of love,
affection, sympathy, cooperation and friendship.

(iii) Limited Size – As a primary group its size is necessarily limited. It seems to be the smallest
social unit.

(iv) Nuclear position in social structure – It is the nucleus of all other social organizations. The
whole social structure is built of family units. It influences various aspects of society.

(v) Responsibility of Members – The members of the family has certain responsibilities, duties and
obligations. The smooth running of family depends on how best the members discharge their
responsibilities in coordination with the other individuals of the family.

(vi) Social Regulation – The family is guarded both by social taboos and by legal regulations. The
attempt of members is to retain its strength.

2. FORMS OF FAMILY

Of all the social organizations, large or small, family is of the greatest sociological significance. It
occupies the central position in our social structure. It is the first and the most inmediate social
environment to which a child is exposed. From the composition and the principle of integration
underlying the family, it is obvious that it is a functional unit. It grows out of biological needs,
particularly those of the expectant mother and the infant child, who cannot support and live by
themselves.

According to Madan and Majumdar, there are two ways of looking at the family. It can be regarded
and studied as one of the universal and permanent institutions of mankind, i.e., as a functional unit.
There is yet another way of studying the family that of regarding it as a group, or a deliberately

40
formed association. Such an approach would study the form and the content of the family i.e. its
character and composition, as also its variations from time to time and place to place.

It has been pointed out that the family has a biological matrix; it is the expectant mother and the
infant who require familial protection most. However it is never the mother and the infants alone who
constitute a family; there are always the mother's mate and their children, who complete the initial
membership. This basic grouping of the mates and their children, has been called by various names
such as the nuclear, the immediate or the primary family. The implication of all these terms is that
the nucleus of all types of families consist of those individuals who are bound together by a
procreative urge and grouped with their children into a protective-cum productive association.

2.1. Forms of Family

It is difficult to enumerate the various forms of family because of the wider application of this
institution. However, the forms of family can be identified on the basis of certain criteria like the
size, descent, residence, marriage and others, which are universally known.

Let us understand the various forms of family on the basis of specific criteria:

(i) On the Basis of Kinship ties: On this basis, the family has been classified as Consanguineous
family and Conjugal family.

(a) Consanguineous family: If a nucleus of blood relatives is surrounded by a fringe of spouses, the
resultant grouping is called a consonguineous family. It consist of members related by birth and thus
it is more stable. Maturation of children or break up of the marriage bond does not destroy the
consanguineous family. Owing to marriage between close relatives being universally ruled out, the
consanguineous family can meet any demand of its members except that for sexual gratification; and
it is this fact that necessitates the fringes of spouses. Thus emphasis here is more on blood
relationship and not the marriage basis.

(b) There are two types of conjugal families - (a) Family of Orientation (b) Family of Procreation.

41
The type of family in which there is a nucleus of spouses and their offspring surrounded by a
fringe of relatives is called a conjugal family. The emphasis here is on the conjugal bond, and
therefore this type of family is not stable and it disintegrate with the death of the parents.

(ii) On the basis of Size: The size of the family can take the forms like —

(a) Nuclear family: It can be defined as “a small group composed of husband and wife and
immature children which constitutes a unit apart from the rest of the community.” Talcott
Parsons calls the nuclear family an isolated family. It is isolated because it does not form an
integral part of a wider system of Kinship relationships. Parsons argues that there is functional
relationship between the isolated nuclear family and the economic system in industrial society. In
particular, the isolated nuclear family is shaped to meet the requirements of the economic
system.

(b) Extended Family: If the primary nucleus is extended by the addition of other closely related
kin then it is called an extended family. Extended family are of various types. Firstly, there are
those which grow mainly round the nucleus and secondly there are those which are extended still
further, by extending the principle of kinship, like in the Hindu Joint Family. An extended family
may include a woman, her husband, their children and her married daughters, with her husband.

42
(c) Joint family: The joint family is a mode of combining smaller families into a larger family
units through the extension of three or more generations including at least grandparents, parents
and children. It is the family which consist of members related by blood.

According to Iravati Karve, the joint family may be defined as as a group of people who
generally live under one roof, who eat food cooked at one hearth, who hold property in common
and who participate in common family worship and are related to each other as some particular
type of kindred.

(iii) On the basis of Authority: The family can be of two types according to authority —

(a) Patriarchal family : The patriarchal family is father centered. Here, the father or the eldest
man is the head of the family and he exercise authority. He is the owner and administrator of the
family property.

Its typicality is evident in ancient Hebrew, Greeks, Romans and the Aryans of India. The Roman
patriarch had ‘‘the Patria Potestas.’’ (the power of the father) which gave the head of the family
an unlimited authority over all the other members.

(b) Matriarchal family: This is a mother centred family. Here the woman is the head of the
family and she exercise authority. She is the owner of the property and manager of the
household.

(iv) On the basis of Residence: Families are also identified on the basis of residence and they
are of two types —

(a) Matrilocal family: It is a family in which the married couple resides with the wife's family or
kin group. In such families, the husbands either visit their wives periodically or live permanently
with the matrilocal family. In India, there are some tribal groups which have matrilocal family.

(b) Patrilocal family: This is a kind of family wherein a woman after marriage comes and lives
with her husband. In this kind of family, the descent is also traced through the male line.

(v) On the basis of Descent : It again includes two categories —

43
(a) Patrilineal family : In this type of family, the authority rests with the oldest male of the
family. In this, the property inheritance and reckoning of descent takes place along the male line.

(b) Matrilineal family: In this family, the authority lies with the female head and the property
inheritance and reckoning of descent takes place along the female line.

(vi) On the basis of Marriage:- This type of family is based on the number of spouses the man
or woman has.

(a) Monogamons family: This type of family is the general pattern of family where the husband
and wife live together. Here one husband has one wife.

(b) Polygynous family: In this family, a man has more than one wife. Thus sometimes reflect the
inferority of women in the society. A man who has many wives has great prestige.

(c) Polyandrous family: In this type of family, a woman has several husband. This is due to
shortage of women. Generally in a family with three or four brothers, the brothers live together
and share their wives.

3. STRUCTURE OF THE FAMILY

Family is a reproductive or biological unit and is composed of a man and a woman and whatever
offspring they might have. Thus structure of family in specific sense consists of assemblage of
individuals in relationship having certain rights and obligations. It is the structure of the family which
give rise to the various forms of family.

Aileen Ross (1961) definition of family includes physical, social and psychological elements of
family life. According to her, family is a group of people usually related as some particular type of
kindred, who may live in one household, and whose unity resides in a patterning of rights and duties,
sentiments and authority. She, thus makes distinction between four sub-structures of family :–

44
(i) Ecological sub-structure, i.e., spatial arrangement of family members and their households, or
how relatives live geographically close to each other. In simple words, this refers to the size of the
household and type of the family;

(ii) Sub-structure of rights and duties, i.e., division of labour within the household;

(iii) Sub-structure of power and authority; i.e. control over the actions of others; and

(iv) Sub-structure of sentiments, i.e., relationship between different sets of members; for example
between parents and children, husband and wife, siblings and siblings etc. Chattopadhyay (1961) has
given three types of family : simple, compound and composite.

(i) Simple family – It consist of a man, his wife and unmarried children.

(ii) Compound family – Sometimes it happens that one partner dies after the birth of some children
and the other remarries. Thus we have two simple families. This type of family is a compound
family. In such family structure, there are two sets of children— one from the deceased partner and
other from the newly married living partners, but one parent is common in the two sets.

(iii) Composite Family – A joint family may be of various types. It may be either lineal i.e. the
extension is vertical or collateral i.e. where the extension is horizontal.

Burgess and Locke (1963) have classified families as institutional and companionship on the basis of
the behaviour of the individuals. In the institutional family, the behaviour of the members is
controlled by mores and public opinion, while in the companionship family, behaviour arises from
the mutual affection and consensus of its members.

Zimmerman (1947) has classified families as trustee, domestic and atomistic. The trustee family has
the right and power to make the family members confirm to its wishes as this family has no concept
of individual rights. The authority of the family head is not absolute but it is delegated to him in his
role as trustee for carrying out family responsibilities. The domestic family is the intermediary
between the trustee and atomistic families, having characteristic of both the families. It maintain a
balance between formalism and individualism. The atomistic family is one in which the conventional
mores lose their significance and each member has to make his own choice. The authority of the
family over its members is minimum.

45
4. FUNCTIONS OF THE FAMILY

The family as a social institution performs several functions. Various opinions have been expressed
regarding the functions of family. Kingsley Davis speaks of four main functions of the family :
(i) Reproduction, (ii) Maintenance, (iii) Placement, and (iv) Socialisation.

Ogburn and Nimkoff have mentioned six major functions of family : (i) Affectional, (ii) Economic,
(iii) Recreational, (iv) Protective, (v) Religious, and (vi) Educational. Reed has described four
functions of the family : (i) Race perpetuation, (ii) Socialisation, (iii) Regulation and satisfaction of
sex needs, and (iv) Economic functions.

4.1. Primary and Secondary or Essential and Non-essential Functions

MacIver classifies the functions of family into two types : Essential and Nonessential functions.
According to him, the essential functions include (i) the stable satisfaction of sex need, (ii)
production and rearing of children, and (iii) provision of a home. Under the non-essential functions
he includes, religious, educational, economic, health and recreation, and other functions.

4.2. The Primary Functions

Some of the functions of family are basic to its continued existence. They are referred to as essential
functions by MacIver. They may also be regarded as Primary functions of family. They are explained
below:

(i) Stable Satisfaction of Sex Need. Sex drive is powerful in human beings. Man is susceptible to
sexual stimulation throughout his life. The sex need is irresistible also. It motivates man to seek an
established basis of its satisfaction. Family regulates the sexual behaviour of man by its agent, the
marriage. Thus it provides for the satisfaction of the sex need for man. Even Manu, the Hindu Law-
giver and Vatsyaayana, the author of Kamasutra, have stated that sexual satisfaction is one of the
main aims of family life.

(ii) Reproduction or Procreation. Reproductive activity is carried on by all lower and higher animals.
But it is an activity that needs control or regulation. The result of sexual satisfaction is reproduction.

46
The process of reproduction is institutionalized in the family. Hence it assumes a regularity and a
stability that all societies recognize as desirable. Thus family introduces a legitimacy into the act of
reproduction. All societies surround this function with norms and support them with strong sanctions.
By fulfilling its reproductive function family has made it possible to have the propagation of species
and the perpetuation of the human race.

(iii) Production and Rearing of the Child. The family gives the individual his life and a chance to
survive. We owe our life to the family. The human infancy is a prolonged one. The child which is
helpless at the time of birth is given the needed protection of the family. Further, family is an
institution par excellence, for the production and rearing of children. No other institution can as
efficiently bring up the child as can the family. This can be referred to as the function of
‘maintenance’ also.

(iv) Provision of Home. Family provides the home for its members. The desire for home is strongly
felt in men and women. Children are born and brought up in homes only. Though, often children are
born in hospitals, clinics, maternity homes, etc., they are nursed and nourished in the homes only.
Even the parents who work outside are dependent on home for comfort, protection and peace. Home
remains still the ‘sweet’ home.

(v) Family–An Instrument of Culture Transmission and An Agent of Socialisation. The family serves
as an instrument of culture transmission. The family guarantees not only the biological continuity of
the human race but also the cultural continuity of the society of which it is a part. It transmits ideas
and ideologies, folkways and mores, customs and traditions, beliefs and values from one generation
to the next.

The family is an agent of socialisation also. Socialisation is its service to the individual. Socialisation
is the process whereby one internalizes the norms of one’s groups so that a distinct ‘self’ emerges
unique to the individual. The family indoctrinates the child with the values, the morals, beliefs and
ideals of the society. It prepares its children for participation in larger world and acquaints them with
a larger culture. It is a chief agency which prepares the new generation for life in community. It
emotionally conditions the child. It lays down the basic plan of the personality. Indeed, it shapes the
personality of the child. Family is a mechanism for disciplining the child in terms of cultural goals. In
short, it transforms the infant barbarian into the civilized adult.

47
(vi) Status Ascribing Function. The family also performs a pair of functions— (i) status ascription for
the individual, and (ii) societal identification for the individual. Statuses are of two kinds : Ascribed
and achieved. The family provides the ascribed statuses. Two of these, age and sex are biological
ascriptions. Others, however, are social ascriptions. It is the family that serves almost exclusively as
the conferring agency or institution.

(vii) Affectional Function. Man has his physical, as well as mental needs. He requires the fulfillment
of both of these needs. Family is an institution which provides the mental or the emotional
satisfaction and security to its individual members. It is the family which provides the most intimate
and the dearest relationship for all its members. The individual first experiences affection in his
parental family as parents and siblings offer him love, sympathy and affection. Lack of affection
actually damages an infant's ability to thrive. A person who has never been loved is seldom happy.

4.3. Secondary Functions of Family

In addition to the above described essential or primary functions the family performs some secondary
or non-essential functions in some way or the other. Of these, the following may be noted.

(i) Economic Functions. The family fulfils the economic needs of its members. This has been the
traditional function of family. Previously, the family was an economic unit. Goods were produced in
the family. Men used to work in family or in farms for the production of goods. Family members
used to work together for this purpose. It was to a great extent self-sufficient. A clear cut division of
labour between sexes, that is, between men and women, was evident. But today, the situation has
changed. The family members do not work together at home. They are engaged in different economic
activities outside the home. They are no longer held together by division of labour.

(ii) Educational Functions. The family provides the basis for the child’s formal learning. In spite of
great changes, the family still gives the child his basic training in the social attitudes and habits
important to adult participation on social life. The manner in which he learns how to get along with
his family will be carried over to his interactions with school authorities, religious leaders, the police
and other agents of social control.’’ When the child grows up, he learns to manage situations outside
the home and family. He extends his interests to other groups. With all this his intelligence, his

48
emotions, and his social habits develop until he weans himself from the original dependence on the
mother, father and other family members.

(iii) Religious Functions. The family is a centre for the religious training of the children. The
children learn from their parents various religious virtues. Previously, the homes were also centres of
religious quest. The family used to teach the children the religious values, moral precepts, way to
worshipping God, etc. Even today, it is in the family that the foundations are laid down for the moral
standards that are to guide the children throughout their life. The family meets the spiritual needs of
its members. It is through the family that the religious inheritance is passed on to the next generation.

(iv) The Recreational Functions. At one time, recreation was largely family based. It fostered a close
solidarity. Reading aloud, visiting relatives, family reunions, church socials, singing, dancing,
playing indoor games, etc., brought together the entire family. Elders would organise social gathering
among themselves in each other's homes. Children would organise their own recreations among
themselves or together with other children. Often parents and children would join together in the
same recreational activities. The effect of this on the cohesion of the family was considerable.

49
UNIT 4: THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL FAMILY
1. PRE-INDUSTRIAL MODES OF PRODUCTION

Prior to Industrialisation, as earlier mentioned in the introduction, early societies had produced food
and other things for themselves. Since this was before the industrial revolution, the question that
readily comes to mind is, what forms of technology existed then? We will briefly look at early pre-
industrial modes of production and see how they produced their food. Some of these pre-industrial
modes are as below:

1. Hunting and gathering

2. Simple horticulture

3. Intensive horticulture

4. Agrarian

5. Pastoralism

1.1. Hunting and gathering

In the hunting and gathering society, production of food was carried out mainly through hunting wild
animals and gathering wild plants as food. The technology used for production in this type of society
were mainly nets, bows and arrows, spears as well as traps for entrapping animals. This society was
purely subsistence in nature as they produced foods essentially for individual family’s consumption.

1.2. Simple horticultural society

50
Simple horticultural society families lived in small villages that were intensely forested. They
depended on agriculture for food and utilize a form of technology on their agricultural production,
which is called shifting cultivation or what Sanderson (1988:63) calls ‘’slash-and-burn’’, which
entails the burning of a section of the forest, and the debris from such burning is later used as
fertilizer on planted crops.

1.3. Intensive horticulture societies

Intensive horticulture societies, just like the previous societies also depended on agriculture for food
production and utilized the slash-and-burn technology to deliver productive activities.

Averagely, they produced more foods than the simple horticultural society. However, the basic
distinction is that intensive horticultural society deployed a better technology of land fallowing than
the simple horticultural societies. Strictly speaking, intensive horticultural society allowed land to
fallow for a shorter period of time say 5 to 10 years before engaging in cultivation compared to that
of simple horticultural societies which stayed between 20 to 30 years. Owing to this technique, and
the utilization of hoes and irrigation technology for cropping, they therefore produced more food than
the simple horticultural societies. By land fallowing we refer to a land or ground that has been left
unfarmed for a long period of time. It is basically a land which is left to repose and regenerate
(Raina, 2021). Fallowing is beneficial because according to Darcy (2021), “it improves moisture
holding capacity, and increases beneficial microorganisms in the soil. Studies have shown that a field
that has been allowed to lie fallow for just a year produces a higher crop yield when it is planted”.

1.4. Agrarian societies

Agrarian societies are the real agricultural societies. They were more advanced comparatively and
relied more on improved technologies for agricultural production. Agrarian societies had more
population; hence production began changing from this society. It is said that this type of societies
emerged as a result of increasing commercialisation of agricultural production in the Mediterranean
city-states of 1000-1500 C.E (Johnson, 2000; Thompson, 2010). They worked much harder. Clearing
lands, plowing, and sowing as well as harvesting through extensive labour techniques including
fertilizing with animal manure. In this society, fallow periods have reduced substantially or do not
even exists.

51
1.5. Pastoral societies or pastoralism

Pastoral societies or pastoralism were societies that depended on animal herding. They practiced
caring for roaming groups of livestock over a large area. Meaning they tended for animals or herds
all year round moving from one place to the other in search of pasture for these animals. In most
cases, pastoralist do not engage in farming, and relied on their food production through a system of
trade relations. They were mostly found in Africa and some parts of Asia. Pastoralism generated milk
from the herd of animals especially sheep and goats which were fundamental for cheese, meats are
secured from the animals, wools were made out of a Lamb and used for weaving and rope making.

2. EARLY FORMS OF INDUSTRY IN EUROPE

Early forms of industry were not capitalistic in nature, rather it was based on simple forms of
exchange. Early forms of industry simply denote the era before the emergence of the industrial
revolution, which in academic parlance is usually referred to as proto-industrialisation. Which means
the early phase of industrialisation in Europe and England where production was mainly done by
hands. When we say by hands, this means that there was no modern technology to aid or facilitate
economic activities or production. According to Ogilvie & German (1996), proto-industrialisation is
a concept coined by Franklin Mendel (1972), and is also the name given to the early expansion of
industries producing goods for non-local markets which took place in many parts of Europe between
16th and 19th centuries. Such industries grew out of the countryside and expanded without adopting
advanced technology. Apparently, prior to the industrial revolution the following forms of industry
had existed in Europe:

2.1. Family Workshop

Here, the home is actually the factory. Meaning that productive activities took place or were carried
out in family homes considered as workshop. A workshop in this case could either be a room or a
building that housed the tools and implements used for the manufacturing or repairing of goods.
Workshops of this nature at the time, were primarily the only places where simple manufacturing or
repairs took place prior to the advent of bigger and larger factories. According to Burress (1997),
home workshops naturally comprised a workbench, hand tools, power tools and other hardware.

52
2.2. Dispersed factory

Here, the dispersed factory was located all over the place, but the man that sells was also regarded as
a merchant. As the name sounds, this kind of industry was found almost everywhere. The goal of
multiple location was for ease of services. That is, to provide services and make it rather easy for
customers to get and receive support services. The idea behind this was strictly because at the time,
distance was a barrier, and such industries were quite scarce. By the time the merchant realized how
important the service was, restructuring became critical to attract more customers and more gains.

2.3. Concentrated manufacture

According to Girigiri (1999) the concentrated manufacture entailed an industry that is focused or
particularised. In this type of industry, division of labour had been introduced, and this marked the
difference with other early forms as it engendered effective production. Simply, the concentrated
manufacturing means that only one facility or industry produced and distributed products. Such
system of having a single facility meant that factories were not dispersed or scattered around. Rather,
a centralized workplace was carved out to ensure consistency in delivering quality products (Moy,
2020). The division of labour in this type of industry underscored increased production of goods and
services. Examples include fulling mills, where workers cleaned woolen cloth, as well as hammer
forges, glassworks, breweries, and early paper mills.

2.4. Putting-out system

This form of industry is similar to the first, here the merchant or trader as it were takes his finished
productive goods to the town and markets it. It is also known as the cottage system or industry. The
major difference from the first is that peasant families produced more goods than they needed to use
themselves, as such sold them to others. In some areas, this developed into a type of proto-
Industrialisation when entrepreneurs provided raw materials and paid peasants for their labor to turn
them into finished goods. A businessman might provide one peasant with wool to turn into yarn, then
provide the yarn to a different household to be woven into cloth. Karl Thompson (2017) is of the
view that many authors resign to call this early form of industry as the putting out system.

2.5. Factory system

53
The factory system was a new way of making products by the introduction of machines and division
of labour. The factory system used powered machinery or expensive equipment, division of labor,
unskilled workers, and a centralized workplace to mass-produce products. It was the factory system
that ushered in the industrial revolution. The emergence of this form of industry led to the
recruitment of many persons as well as children into the emerging labour market. As a result of
differentiated activities in the factory system, production began leaving households and artisan shops
to be located in plants and factories instead. Owing to this, the experience of workers transformed
immensely due also to the fact that the new factory system was well coordinated, with well-
organized factory settings compared to the putting-out system.

54
UNIT 5: INDUSTRIALISATION AND THE FAMILY

1. THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Scholars have argued strongly that the industrial revolution began in England in the middle of the
1700s (Sanderson, 1988; Ekpenyong, 1993; Schaefer, 2003). According to Sanderson (1988), the
industrial revolution dates back to the 1760 to 1830. The industrial revolution refers to a period when
there was a rise in technology that led to increase in industrial and productive activities in England
and flourished to other parts of Europe. In essence, the industrial revolution ushered in an industrial
society. According to Schaefer (2003:123), an industrial society is a society that depends on
mechanization to produce its goods and services. This kind of society as we earlier mentioned is
different from the previously mentioned societies in that specialization of tasks and manufacturing of
goods became increasingly common, as families - both men and women and children left home to
work in factories. A new form or mode of economic production was created by the industrial
revolution, and this is called industrial capitalism. This mode simply means the earning of profit
through the exploitation of workers or wage-earners. As people began to work intensely in factories,
Marx says, they were exploited in terms of their labour or efforts.

1.1. Causes of the industrial revolution

Many scholars, according to Foundations of Western Culture (2016), especially historians have
stated that the emergence of capitalism, as well as European imperialism were strong forces that
underscored the industrial revolution. Here, we will adumbrate the forces or factors that gave rise to
the industrial revolution.

1.2. Spinning Jenny

55
First and foremost, the invention of the spinning jenny, the water frame, the power loom and the
cotton gin as Sanderson (1988) opined, gave rise to the textile industry that enhanced the
manufacturing of cotton cloth which actually stimulated the factory system. The spinning jenny was
invented between 1764/65 by James Hargreaves and this equipment or machine as it were
revolutionised the process of cotton spinning, which facilitated cloth-making (Nardinelli, 2020).
With the boom in textile manufacturing, there was the need for increased number of people to work
in the factory, hence emergence of wage-earners or the working class.

1.3. The Steam Engine

Moreso, the invention of the steam engine by James Watt was also a force that spurred the industrial
revolution. With the revolution in the textile industry, the steam engine further enhanced this as the
steam engine was used to power the textile industries heavy machines. In the early days of the
industrial revolution the invention of the steam engine gave a boost to the textile manufacturing
space and unleashed it as a global demand, as it was a major source of export for the British
economy.

1.4. Coal

The discovery of coal was a potent force or enabler of the industrial revolution. Coal was eventually
the game changer, a power source. The utilisation of coal as a power source changed the way that we
looked at industry, from energy generation to manufacturing. Although prior to the industrial
revolution, coal had been used but perhaps in a different way. However, it was until the early 19th
century that coal became a source of power generation and facilitated manufacturing of goods and
services.

1.5. Iron Ore

Iron Ore was also critically instrumental for the industrial revolution. It facilitated machines to be
domiciled in factories and boosted the transportation system (Evans & Ryden, 2005). Whilst that is
the case, it is also stated that population was also a major force responsible for the industrial
revolution (Komlos, 1990; Wilde, 2020). England is said to have had a ready-to-go population at the

56
time. This is so in that there were more people from the rural areas or countryside that were willingly
ready to work for wages in the urbanized cities of early England.

Again, due to the increased population in England, the demand for textile products were increasingly
high. As such, the more the population, the more the consumption of textiles.

1.6. Revolution in Agriculture

Another force or cause of the industrial revolution is what we call revolution in agriculture. As
mentioned earlier, prior to this time agricultural production was practiced rudimentarily. As such it
had no superior force due to relative unadvanced implements. However, revolution in the agricultural
sector enabled higher food output from fewer farm workers, leading to surplus workers who could go
and work in factories. This revolution in agriculture was as a result of new farming techniques, new
techniques like crop rotation, improved breeding selective livestock breeding, and economies of scale
from bigger farms and better transportation system (O’Brian, 1977; Westrich, 2017).

2. CLASSICAL THEORIES OF INDUSTRIALISATION

(MERCANTILISM, ADAM SMITH, MAX WEBER)

The development of Industrialisation overtime has been explained differently by different scholars.
The basis of the arguments and the focus as it were is what we dive into. Let’s look at these
accordingly.

. CLASSICAL THEORIES OF INDUSTRIALISATION

(MERCANTILISM, ADAM SMITH, MAX WEBER)

2.1. Mercantilism

Mercantilism emerged as a result of the feudal mode coming to a closure. It was a move away from
the agricultural system to a different economic base. Basically, it emerged as a result of new
knowledge gained by man in the society, and this is what Mokyr (2003) calls “the Industrial
Enlightenment.”

57
In the early 16th century, the preoccupation of most countries especially European countries was how
to expand and energise their economies against that of any other country. The strategy then was to be
involved in sponsoring private businesses or private explorations. Now, the word mercantilism
emanates from the Latin word – mercāns, which ordinarily means buyer. In order words, mercantilist
were buyers who traveled far and wide exploring opportunities. The mercantilist believed that wealth
was somehow fixed, therefore it behooves a country or nation to locate such wealth and extract it.
Hayes (2021) maintains that mercantilism as a theory placed emphasis on the notion that nations
should sell their goods to other countries while buying nothing in return. In order words, increased
exportation of own goods as opposed to a “No” importation from other countries.

Therefore, mercantilism can be viewed as an economic system centered on the belief that a
government can make a nation practically prosperous by regulating trade and using tariffs and other
protective measures to achieve a balance of exports over imports. In a word, this entails the fact that
a country wants to sell more goods than they purchased from any other country. For instance,
England required export markets to grow its improving cotton textile industry, but it was confronted
by shortage of land to produce raw cotton (Nihar, 2020; Lahaye, 2008). England took advantage of
the transatlantic African slave trade and surplus plantations of the New World with its mercantilist
trade restrictions to accumulate huge capital that also helped England ease its limited land resource
pressure. With the discovery of America, Britain used the opportunity to raise the mercantilist system
to a degree of grandeur which was ordinarily never in sight. England’s protectionist measures in the
triangular Atlantic trade brought about a real boom to its cotton textile production and hence to its
industrialisation. The question is how did mercantilism encourage industrialisation? It encouraged
industrialisation through the creation of monopolistic trading companies. Examples of such
companies are, the East India Company and the French East India Company. As Sanderson (1988)
stated, these companies were granted trade monopolies to plunder territories and bring back the
profits home. By 1602, the Dutch Indian company emerged and had trade monopoly over the Far
East, thus leading to various conflicts between England and the Netherlands. This led England to
impose taxes on imported French and Dutch goods especially fabrics.

Generally, mercantilism was the early form in which capitalism operated in the early seventeenth
century Europe. It spurred industrialisation through monopolistic tendencies whereby companies
were given licenses to trade across region on the behest of the government, with a view to conquer
and dominate other countries in the trading space.

58
2.2. Classical theory of Adam Smith

Adam Smith’s famous work is known as the Wealth of the Nations, which was published same year
the American declaration of independence took place - 1776. Adam Smith was never in support of
mercantilism as an economic system that enabled the wealth of a nation. He rejected the primary
tenets of mercantilism (export as against import) and rather argued that the division of labour and the
market process allows for, and are the major forces or rationale behind economic growth or greater
industrialisation. He frowned at a system or economic system that restricted importation of goods and
services but encourages export. To him this was unnecessary and a source of conflict between
nations. However, at the time, this system dominated Western European economic thought and
policies from the sixteenth to the late eighteenth centuries. Mercantilism held that wealth was fixed
and finite, and that the only way to prosper was to reserve gold and tariff products from abroad
(Hayes, 2021; Hanley & Paganelli, 2014).

By nature, mercantilism was a discouragement to economic growth that would attract wealth for any
country under its web. No matter the fact that some countries as at the time of the mercantile era
profited, Smith is of the view that all countries could have profited better without rancour. To Smith,
where there is division of labor in an economy and a free market, would naturally underscore a web
of mutual interdependencies that promotes stability and prosperity through the market mechanism.
By free market, Adam Smith was referring to a system where government does not interfere with
restrictions. Meaning everyone can prosper where each concentrate on the production of his own
goods and services but opens the door to both import and export. That would enhance comparative
advantage. Finally, Adam Smith’s classical theory as an opposition to mercantilism encouraged
specialization and discouraged protectionism as mercantilism did. Rather opted for states to look
inwards and trade goods they had competitive advantage over whilst importing the otherwise. This
way wealth would come to nations, and industrial development would be swift. In the final analysis,
Adam Smith’s basic interest was to see governments jettison protectionism in the manner of
removing tariff and taxes and give way to free-market principles by keeping taxes low and allowing
free trade across borders. He pointed out that tariffs and other taxes only succeeded in making life

59
more expensive for the people while also stifling industry and trade abroad (Hayes, 2021). Thus, his
theory became the bane of economic growth and enhanced greater industrialisation.

2.3. Max Webber

As we have seen with Adam Smith, the concern about theorization is on how industrialisation comes
about. Going by what we have discussed above, obviously with division of labour and a free market
that entails competitive advantage countries gain economic advantages and experience industrial
development. Max Weber saw things differently, as such his theory is hinged on religion and a
rational system or government. What that means is that Weber believed that industrialisation was the
resultant effect of a growing influence of rational ideas which, in turn, led to the bureaucratization of
society.

That is, industrialisation is connected with the application of reasoned and logical thought to
problems of everyday life. The question that comes to mind as asked by Brown & Harrison (1978) is,
what then is rationality and what constitutes the process of rationalisation? Weber used the concept,
rationalisation, to form a bridge linking together a series of developments which he saw as leading to
industrial capitalism. With rationalization it means that social behaviour had changed, and reason
was critical. Man, no longer looked to explanations that were backward, rather how to power
progress with actions that were clear and profitable.

However, to really understand Weber’s thesis on rationality or rationalization, and his argument that
religious affiliation affected the willingness of people to engage in capitalist enterprises. We take a
quick step to his seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Here, in this work,
Weber emphasized that a kind of rationality that came into existence and provoked capitalism, or
industrialisation is ‘the protestant ethic’.

What is the protestant ethic? The protestant ethic was associated with the Calvinist branch of
Protestantism, they offered a doctrine that seemed somewhat away from the ordinary protestant
doctrine. Calvinism promoted a rather more individual approach to gaining salvation. The ethic
emphasized that hard work and worldly success were promising, and it was a direct channel to
salvation and a heavenly signal that one had been saved. Interestingly, this means that success in the
world of business through an individual’s efforts was the avenue to the eternal life. According to

60
Weber, this new religious thinking transformed people’s attitude towards the world into one
emphasising greater rational control and manipulation of it, and such changed however spurred
indutrialisation and economic growth. According to Sanderson (1988), as people worshiped God
with a mindset of worldly success, and the rational pursuit of profit, it underscored a new economic
system that engineered industrialisation. Although this according to Weber is not the only reason that
spurred industrialisation, yet it was fundamental.

3. RADICAL THEORIES OF INDUSTRIALISATION

Numerous scholars have been identified with radical ideas as to industrialisation or capitalist
development. Some of these are western scholars, and some are Asian or African scholars. In this
unit our focus is to have insight into the views and or theorisation of the underlisted trio.

3.1. Karl Marx

Capitalism was ushered into the productive process by the industrial revolution which marked a
transition from feudalism (Heller, 2011). As with other previous societies, the industrial revolution
which ushered in capitalism was largely viewed differently by Karl Marx. Although he reasoned that
the industrial revolution was an integral but critical phase in the development of man, yet he viewed
industrialisation as merely representing a further stage in the dehumanization of workers (David,
2016). The expectation that the industrial revolution would bring about development and prosperity
for mankind was rebuked by Marx. Marx argued that the Industrial Revolution had polarised the gap
between the owners of the means of production and the workers even more.

He saw the industrial revolution as not emerging to solve the historical problem of exploitation,
rather, that the industrial revolution had further differentiated social relations in the society. That the
relations of production in the new society had created a gap between the owners of the means of
production and the workers even more. Though the gulf was there between the feudal Lords and the
serf, Marx posited that the industrial revolution created the bourgeoisie, which used its wealth and
control over government to exploit the industrial working class. This exploitation was in the amount
they were paid compared to the duration they had to work and their productive capacity.

61
Writing in the communist manifesto, Marx, and Engels stress that whereas this exploitation was
ongoing the workers had no knowledge because they were unconscious of the exploitative social
relations of production (Schaefer, 2003). However, Marx and Engels posited that this would change,
when the proletariat (that is, working class), develops a class consciousness, they would rise up and
overthrow capitalism and enthrone the dictatorship of the proletariat that would usher in a classless
society, devoid of taskmasters or the class of the haves.

3.2. Friedrich List

Friedrich List’s contribution to the radical theory of industrialisation hinges on the infant industry
argument. The infant industry discourse was introduced by Hamilton & Carrey from the United
States (Shafaeddin, 2000). Infant industry or industries are seen as those emerging industries that are
not rooted because either they are just entering the market or because they are located in countries
that are emerging economically. His theory is geared towards protectionism for infant industries
other than expose such industries to free trade.

List stresses the significance of trade and imagines free trade as a definitive aim of every nation.
Here, protection of an infant industry is for the purpose of achieving development. List sees the
instrument of protectionism not in the negative or in a restrictive or imposition of tariff manner as
Adam Smith saw it. According to Friedrich List, an infant industry will have to grow, expand
massively, export wise before engaging in free trade (Szporluk, 1993).

He argued that infant industry protection is essential for countries at early stages of industrialisation,
especially where they are “outdistanced” by other countries in manufacturing etc. Whereas Adam
Smith had argued that against protectionism, that countries should engage in competitive advantage
and unleash the free trade prosperity, List believed that protection should serve a purpose and must
be for a specific period, in this case temporary, targeted and not excessive. In conclusion, List central
thesis is that protection should be confined to the manufacturing sector; agriculture should not be
protected, even though productivity growth in this sector is important for development.

3.3. Joseph Schumpeter

62
Industrialisation or economic development for Schumpeter is a dynamic and a discontinuous process.
He stated that society progresses through trade cycles, and innovations is fundamental in this process.
And those that drive innovations are the entrepreneurs. Therefore, entrepreneurs hold a critical place
in Schumpeterian theory of development (Ayesha, 2019). He believes in the role of technology in
leading up to industrialisation. This technology is obviously an aspect of the innovations he referred
to. So, the rate of innovations also determines the rate of change or economic advancement.

Following Schumpeter’s thesis, it is innovation that led to the industrial revolution that occurred in
Britain in the early 17th century, and the agent which brings about innovations, according to
Schumpeter is known as the entrepreneur. Schumpeter says, innovation follows a process, this
process is outlined below:

(1) Introduction of a new good,

(2) Introduction of a new method of production,

(3) The opening of a new market,

(4) The discovery of a new source of supply of raw materials or semi-manufactured goods, and

(5) Introduction of a new organisation in an industry.

In order to break the circular flow, the innovating entrepreneurs are financed by bank credit
expansion. Since investment in innovation is risky, these innovative entrepreneurs must by all means
reimburse their credit with interest (Thanawala, 1994). In the process that leads up to
industrialisation, risk is associated, and not everyone can survive risk except for businessmen of
exceptional ability and audacity. Such would birth innovations and introduce entreprises that would
exploit opportunities for profit. While that is the case, Schumpeter is of the view that these
entrepreneurs are not majorly interested in just profit at the interim but are generally motivated to
found a dynasty in the business world. Clearly then, in the Schumpeterian thesis, the significance of
the entrepreneur is key in determining rate of economic growth and where the entrepreneur is
nonexistent, industrialisation and growth rate is bound to be slow.

4. INDUSTRIALISATION AND URBANISATION

63
Industrialisation and urbanisation are naturally related. The two concepts obviously appear more like
Siamese twins. This is so in that the more industries you have in a locality, the more urbanised such a
locality. On the other hand, the more urbanized an area, the more industries you have within such an
area. Since the industrial revolution multiple factories or industries have found their way into rural
communities thus leading to location of schools and other associated businesses that provides one
service to the other. Such situation further leads to the demand for housing (Boyle, 2021). As more
businesses and industries emerge, so also do more houses, in-migration follows for wage earning.
Generally, on that note, urbanisation emerges, transforming once peaceful and naïve environment
into a boisterous populated area.

Urbanisation is a process whereby populations move from rural to urban areas, thus enabling cities
and towns to grow. It is a progressive process that takes couple of years owing to location of
industries or factories, schools, universities, modern markets, etc. According to Hussain & Imitiyaz
(2018), urbanisation is a process of becoming urban, the movement of people or processes to urban
areas, increase of urban areas, population, or processes. Urbanisation does not happen overnight,
rather as mentioned above it is a gradual process that becomes quite obvious with time. Since the
1900, according to (Langeweg et al. 2000) the world economy has grown by 3%, whereas 30% of the
terrestrial natural environment has disappeared and about 40% of the land areas have been
domesticated, leading to increased urbanisation.

For the most part, Africa and largely Asia have become the spotlight of urbanisation. Growing faster
than was ever imagined when compared to couple of years back. As the world population increases,
more people will live in the city. By projection, in 2050, 6.5 billion people (two third of world
population) will live in urban centres. Moreso, studies have shown that in the early 1990s only a third
of Africa’s population was urban (31%). It is however projected that by 2035, 49% of Africa’s
population will be urban (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, 2017). The challenge
with such statistics is that it presents Africa with significant demands for employment opportunities,
services, and infrastructure.

4.1. Challenges of urbanisation

When we talk about challenges of urbanisation, we are simply referring to the potential issues that
emanates because of urbanisation. In order words, the problems that are associated with urbanisation.

64
We have mentioned here that industrialisation transitions a rural society to an urban centre
completely different from what it originally was. However, such transition is not without a problem.
Here, we will adumbrate some of the associated problems and challenges oF urbanisation.

1. Insufficient housing

2. Poverty/Urban poor

3. Traffic and growing congestion

4. Poor air quality /Health risk

5. Unemployment /Crime

6. Prostitution

65