Revision summary
Household is who lives and eats together; family is the wider kin corporation. Census roofs can hide joint property and marriage control. Common kitchens have declined in towns. Remittance, land, and ritual keep jointness alive. The joint family has transformed, not vanished.
Model answer
Introduction
Household and family are related, not identical. A household is the unit that lives and eats together. A family is the kinship group of descent, marriage, and obligation, which may stretch across several roofs. Joint families have changed form. They have not completely disintegrated.
Body
Household versus family
- I. P. Desai and later Indian family sociology treated the household as a residential and commensal group.
- Family includes natal and affinal ties, property claims, and ritual duties that survive migration.
- A migrant worker in a city room is a small household. His joint family may still decide marriage and land in the village.
- Census ‘household’ therefore understates jointness as a moral and economic system.
What ‘joint’ meant
- Coparcenary property, a common kitchen, and male-line authority were the classic north Indian ideal, tied to Leela Dube’s seed-and-earth ideology.
- A. M. Shah warned against treating the ideal as the statistical majority even in the past.
Have joint families disintegrated?
- Urban jobs, housing, and women’s education produce more nuclear households in towns.
- Functional jointness persists: remittances, elder care, wedding pools, and undivided land.
- Yogendra Singh’s modernisation of tradition fits this: roles differentiate, obligation remains.
- Andre Beteille’s disharmony appears when law gives daughters shares while brothers still farm the joint field.
Regional and class variation
- South Indian and some matrilineal histories never matched the north Indian coparcenary myth.
- Poor nuclear households may be joint in crisis; rich urban flats may be nuclear in kitchen and joint in property.
Verdict
- Disintegration of the common kitchen is widespread.
- Disintegration of the joint family as a kinship corporation is not complete.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD HH[Household co-residence] --> NU[More nuclear roofs] FAM[Family kinship property] --> JT[Functional jointness] MG[Migration law jobs] --> NU MG --> JT
Conclusion
Household is co-residence; family is kinship obligation. Joint families have nuclearised as living units more than they have died as property and honour systems. Speak of transformation, not complete disintegration.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Compare the north Indian kinship System with the South Indian kinship system
Next question in the 2017 paper (Q3). View answer →
-
Is a nuclear household a Western family?
Not necessarily. It may still obey joint marriage, dowry, and elder authority.
-
Did law kill the joint family?
Succession reform weakened exclusive male coparcenary. Practice often recentralises land with brothers.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q1(d) · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
Do you think that family bondings are being affected by the changing kinship patterns in India? Comment. -
2021 · Q3(c) · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the changing dimensions of family structure in urban India -
2020 · Q4(b) · Sociology GS 2 · 15 marks
Analyze household dimensions of family in India. -
2019 · Q4(a) · Sociology GS 2 · 20 marks
Define patriarchy. Does it have bearings on women's entitlement in Indian family system ? Explain -
2018 · Q3(c) · Sociology GS 2 · 15 marks
Illustrate the importance of 'Kanyadaan' and 'Kulavadhu' in changing institution of marriage and family. -
2017 · Q4(c) · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
Compare the pressing problems of a dalit poor family living in an urban slum with a similar type of family living in a rural setting -
2016 · Q3(a) · Sociology GS 2 · 20 marks
Bring out the significance of the difference between family and household. -
2016 · Q7(b) · Sociology GS 2 · 15 marks
Examine the impact of industrialization and urbanization on family structure.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2017 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
Write a critique of the structural and functional perspective used by M.N. Srinivas in the understanding of Indian society
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
Srinivas studied India as an observed village structure, not a book of sacred rules. Function explained how custom held groups together. Desai’s class reading and Beteille’s disharmony expose the harmony bias. The village monograph cannot stand for mill, city, and tribe. Keep the field tools; refuse the closed-system claim.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2017 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
Which is more significant, the principle of 'hierarchy' or the principal of difference; in inter caste relations in the present day ?
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
Hierarchy still ranks bodies through honour, endogamy, and atrocity. Difference organises caste as political identity and rights. Srinivas’s dominant caste already split ritual rank from local power. Beteille’s disharmony names equality as value beside ranked practice. Public life leans to difference; intimacy still leans to hierarchy.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2017 · Sociology GS 2 · 10 marks
What are the distinct features of islam as practised in India, and how have they changed over time ?
Perspectives on the study of Indian society
Indian Islam is regional, often shrine-centred, and internally ranked. Minority status after Partition made community a political fact. Reform and print pushed scriptural uniformity against custom. Caste-like divisions and dargah practice persist. Change is toward a firmer boundary, not toward one identical piety.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.