SOC101: Introduction to Sociology

Abstract

The family is a basic unit of study in many medical and social science disciplines. Definitions of family have varied from country to country and also within the country. Because of this and our changing realities, there is a felt need to redefine the family and the common types of family structure to study the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. A redefinition of a "family" has been proposed, and various nuances of the definition are also discussed in detail. A classification scheme for the various types of families has also been put forward. A few exceptional case scenarios have been envisaged, and their classification as per the new scheme is discussed to clarify the scheme further. The proposed scheme should prove to be of use across various countries and cultures for broadly classifying the family structure. The unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure.

Keywords: Classification, definition, family, family structure, types of family

Introduction

The family as an integrated and functional unit of society has, for a considerable time, captured researchers' attention and imagination. While the family itself is a matter of study, equally important for research is its role as a factor influencing and affecting the development, behavior, and well-being of the individual. The family is a basic unit of study in many social science disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, economics, anthropology, social psychiatry, and social work. It is also a unit of study in the medical sciences, especially in understanding the epidemiology and the natural history of diseases. It also forms the basic unit for family medicine. Census definitions of family have varied from country to country and also from census to census within the country. The word household has often been used as a replacement for family. Using the definition "all people living in one household" may be erroneous, as on the one hand, it may include people who do not share kinship, and on the other hand, it may exclude those kin members who are temporarily away. This type of definition fails to identify units that function as families in an economic, social, or emotional sense but do not usually reside in the same household. Although the literature often focuses on family living arrangements, family membership includes obligations across and between generations, no matter where family members are living.

The UNESCO report stated that a family is a kinship unit and that even when its members do not share a common household, the unit may exist as a social reality. This definition may be too broad to identify a family unit for the purpose of assessment as a factor in variables such as health. Just to give an example, a family in a developing country has a son living in the USA, happily married there with a wife, and he sends some money to the other family members back home occasionally and visits the country once in many years. Should he still be counted as a member of the original family? Does this person (and his wife) share the same risks to their immediate health as the other family members back in the shared household? Would this individual and his dependents in the new surroundings have access to the same kind of health care options as the other family members living in the country of birth? And would the offspring of this person born in the foreign country experience the same sociocultural and environmental exposures as (s)he would have come into contact with growing up in the country of origin?

Trask observed that while in the past, locale mattered, today, social relationships are easily maintained over great distances. Global communications such as the internet, e-mail, and satellite linkups are facilitating these relationships over space and time. Still, keeping in mind the previous pertinent questions that are raised if we want to consider the "family" as a factor influencing and interacting with other variable characteristics (such as health, environment, social behavior, etc.), the scales are still tilted toward defining the family as people ordinarily sharing a common living area. The meaning of the term "family" also depends on whether it is being interpreted in a social, biological, cultural, or statistical sense. It is important to identify a family unit and the members constituting it to study their health, for example.

Need for Redefining

Desai (1994), as cited in Sonawat, defined the family as a unit of two or more persons united by marriage, blood, adoption, or consensual union, generally consulting a single household, interacting and communicating with each other. While the definition is mostly fine, interacting and communicating with each other may be difficult to elicit or determine. An existing textbook of the medical specialty of community medicine makes it more objective by defining the interdependence part as "individuals living together and eating from a common kitchen." It considers and defines three types of families: Nuclear, joint, and three-generation families. However, practical experience in the community has shown that these categories are not mutually exhaustive.

There are several new social dynamics and realities emerging with time. For example, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes and provides protection to females living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage with a male partner. Family research provides insight into society's structure and the changes in the types, composition, and growth of families. Families can be classified in several different dimensions, for example, by marriage type (monogamous, polygamous), by location (patrilocal, matrilocal, and avunculocal), authority (patriarchy, matriarchy), and by kin composition (nuclear, joint). In the present new classification, only the kin composition has been taken into account. Adjectives can be added to define the family as per marriage type or by locus of residence or authority.

In a social sense, people may see themselves as members of several families, as members of families with their parents and siblings, and as members of families that they have formed themselves. However, in the currently proposed classification for the purpose of family, the view is that an individual will usually belong to one family only in a given role.

Because of the multitude of definitions of "family" and the changing realities of the current times, there is a felt need for redefining the family and the common types for the purpose of studying the family as a factor in health and other variables of interest. The following definition of a "family" is hence proposed:

"People related by marriage, birth, consanguinity or legal adoption, who share a common kitchen and financial resources on a regular basis."

Nuances of the Definition

The family will comprise people ordinarily living in the same house unless work, study, imprisonment, confinement, foreign sojourn, or any other exigencies compel a member to temporarily live away from the shared house. Members who have been disowned legally will cease to be members of the family. Members living away from the physical premises of the shared house, who are not expected to return to living in the house in the future, will also cease to be considered members of this family, even though they may be sharing financial resources.

The common kitchen does not only mean sharing the physical infrastructure of a kitchen but also the sharing of common cooked meals in the kitchen. In such families where sets of members share the kitchen together but do not share financial resources, and those where sets of members share financial resources but do not share the kitchen together, the different sets of members should be counted as different families. Regarding common financial resources of the family, it is the sharing that is more important than contributing. An unmarried relative may be there who is not earning and thus not contributing economically to the family purse but will be counted toward the family if (s)he is sharing the family's financial resources.

The term "on a regular basis" in the definition is left open-ended deliberately. In some families, people may have had tiffs and stopped sharing food together for a period, which may be a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. After what period do we say they stop comprising a single family? A similar dilemma exists for a time period cutoff regarding sharing financial resources. A very important aspect of this decision would be future intent, that is, whether the constituents think the differences are irrevocable or they think the possibility of getting together is there, whatever may be the period of non sharing thus far. In case of any doubt, it is best left to a subjective assessment of the individual family unit at hand. The researcher may directly ask the constituents whether they still consider themselves belonging to a single common family. It has been noted earlier that family membership and obligations are subjective and can only be fully understood from the perspective of the family concerned.

A student who goes to reside in any other city for a few years of education and stays in a hostel, with guardians, or in a private accommodation does not cease to be a part of the original family for those years only because (s)he is not sharing the family's common kitchen. However, to be counted as a member of the original family, they must continue to share in or receive money or other things of monetary value from the financial resource pool of the family. One important caveat would be that the individual must have the intent of returning to the original family in the future unless compelled by needs of higher studies or a job.

Another case may be of a young adult member of the family who has gone abroad for work or who went abroad for higher education and ends up finding a vocation there. Such a person may visit back on rare occasions to his or her family of origin but reasonably expect to stay put in the new location for the foreseeable future. Such a member would not then be exposed to the risk factors or the protective social factors common to the other members sharing a residence. So this person should be counted as belonging to a separate new family, irrespective of whether (s)he has married and irrespective of sharing financial resources with the original family back home.

Biologically unrelated individuals living together in an institutional setting, for example, hostel, boarding school, working women's hostel, and so on, or living together in a single house, will be counted as belonging to their family of origin or as separate family units (single individual families) as the case may be depending on their future intent. They will not be combined or considered together to form new family units. A person imprisoned for a known period of time does not cease to be a member of the original family (unless legally disowned by the head of the family or by the next head of the family if (s)he happens to be the head). This is because the person is expected to return to the original family unit as soon as the period of confinement is over.

Classification Scheme for Family Structure

A new classification scheme for the various types of family structure is being proposed, keeping in mind the redefined "family." The various types of families under the proposed classification scheme are detailed in Table 1. The first step was to define the various types of families possible, which will cover the myriad variations possible in the current times. Then came the question of coming up with suitable terms to label the categories of family types, and it was thought of to come up with a uniform terminology scheme based on the classic terms.

The proposed classification of types of family:

Table 1

The word "nuclear" was picked upon, which represents a married couple as forming the "nucleus" of a family, as per existing classifications of family structure. Continuing with the word "nucleus," terms from the atomic world were explored to extend the analogies to the family structure types. For example, a proton would be an incomplete, solitary nucleus. Electrons would be something outside the nucleus; a married couple (nucleus) is not there. An atom would have a single nucleus only and possibly multiple electrons. Two nuclei cannot exist in an atom; it must be a molecule. So, the presence of two married couples makes a family "molecular." It may be clarified here that terms from physics were chosen here just for the nomenclature of the proposed family types. This was done as the word "nuclear" was already being used. The use of these terms borrowed from physics is expected to aid in easier appreciation and recall of the various family types.

The classic term "joint family" has been retained to define multiple couples' complex sharing of resources. However, the traditional "joint family" has also been redefined and has two different meanings depending on the number of generations present. Generally, across various cultures, obligations to siblings are usually weaker than to parents. This is why the proposed definition of joint family considers different couples, depending on the number of generations involved. Two married brothers (or two sisters) living with their respective families would qualify as a joint family.

It is difficult to categorize families according to any theoretical type or generalize across or within cultures. An endeavor has been made to redefine the family and the types of family to keep up with the changing times. However, as per practical experience, the community throws up scenarios that may test any theoretical model of classification. Keeping this in mind, an exercise was done to contemplate a few exceptional case scenarios and discuss their classification as per the new model in a bid to clarify the classification scheme further [Table 2].

Discussion of a few case scenarios and examples of classification as per the new scheme:

Table 2

Changing Family Dynamics in the Current Times

A paper on the structure of families in New Zealand over time has observed that the family is constantly changing and diversifying there. Same-sex couples have been included in the data but can be identified as subsets of couple-only and two-parent families. Certain types of families that are becoming more prevalent include one-parent families and couple-only families. As per the new classification, these types of families can be identified as II-Electron and III-Nuclear families, respectively. The situation of a family with a married couple only and no children can be termed as a "nuclear couple family." Still, it should be classified as a subtype of the nuclear family, not as a separate type. Similarly, the sole-parent family can be identified as a subtype of an electron family (type II).

Unlike a previous definition given by Desai, as cited in Sonawat, "relationship by consensual union" has not been taken as one of the criteria for defining the family in the basic definition proposed. As mentioned earlier, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 of India recognizes "domestic relationships in the nature of marriage," but the legal and social positions are still evolving. However, in view of the social realities, a classification for families based upon such nuclear relationships has been put forward with the use of the qualifier "quasi-" (type VII). Elliott and Gray have also discussed the gray zone caused by remarriage families (or "blended families" as they term it) in the classification of families. There may be differences in the emotional and financial support children receive between "natural" and "new" parents. Also, for many children, both their natural parents may play a very real part in their lives even if they do not live in the same household. These are emerging social realities in the Indian context, too. But, counting an individual (e.g., the separated "natural" father/mother) in more than one family may lead to factual mismatches and create confusion. It is also best to consider the remarriage family within the frame of the seven types of family set in the new classification, and to label them as a subtype "remarriage family" if required.

Importance of the Changing Family Dynamics for Health

Health has been shown to have multifactorial causation. The family surroundings affect the health of an individual in several ways. Members of a family can be expected to share the risk factors for their health that may arise from various social characteristics of their shared housing, neighborhood, community, society, and culture. They would also share the positive factors contributing to good health. All the members of a family living together who share the financial resources of the family unit would also share the risks of ill health and costs of health care as well as the protection offered by the availability of money with the family to tide over health-related issues.

Living in a family would also mean usually exposure to similar dietary behaviors and health-related lifestyles among the family members. Another important aspect shared would be the healthcare-seeking pattern and preference. The changing dynamics of family composition can have an important impact on the protective as well as risk factors influencing health. Thus, an updated definition and classification scheme for types of families serves an important purpose for the practitioners of various medical and social science disciplines in the current times.

Concluding Remarks

Changing societal arrangements will be a huge challenge for any model of classification of family structure. Additionally, minimizing group classification is challenging, so analyzing family structure as a factor in health and other outcomes in future studies does not become an inordinately complex exercise. This is a redefinition of "family" and a scheme of classifying the family structure to try to match the pace of change in current societies. While the objective was mainly to redefine, keeping the Indian cultural environment in mind, the sheer heterogeneity of the Indian population in terms of sociocultural milieu is immense. The proposed scheme should generally suffice for use in other countries and cultures to broadly classify the family structure. The intricacies and unique scenarios of particular cultures can be taken into account by defining region or culture-specific subtypes of the overall types of family structure defined in the present article.

Source: Rahul Sharma, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4649868/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License.