UNIT 4 FAMILY

Contents
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Concepts, Meaning and Definitions
4.3 Functions of a Family
4.4 Changing dimensions of Family
4.5 Summary
References
Suggested Reading
Sample Questions

Learning Objectives 
After reading this unit the students should be able to:
 define the different forms of family;
 outline the various functions of a family; and
 discuss changing aspects of family in the contemporary time.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
When a child is born, he/ she is born into a family which is known as the smallest
social unit. Family is the social unit which endows the child with social norms,
values, rules and regulations through the process of enculturation. This unit would
help the students understand the social institution of family, how it emerged, its
concepts, definitions and functions as a social unit. The focus would also be on
the changing dimensions that have taken place in the family structure.
A family is established through marriage which is known as the nuclear family;
the unit of one set of parents and children, is often embedded in larger groupings
like joint families, lineages, clans and domestic groups of various kinds. The relatives
connected through the father or the patriline are called as agnates and those
connected through the mother or matriline are called as uterine, a combination of
these or all relatives from side of both parents are called as cognates. The basic
family also presupposes a monogamous marriage while in actuality there can be
a polygamous marriage by virtue of which even the basic unit may be differently
constituted. Since the incest taboo makes the family discontinuous over generations,
every adult belongs to two families, one in which he/she is born and another that
is established through marriage; these are known respectively as the family of
orientation and the family of procreation. Let us now consider each of these
aspects in details.

4.2 CONCEPTS, MEANINGS AND DEFINITIONS

How has the concept of family emerged? Was family always a part of society?
These are certain questions which would be taken up in this section alongwith the
various definitions of family postulated by anthropologists. The word family has its
origin in the Latin word familia derived from famulus meaning servant. Familia 39
Kinship, Marriage and must have been used to refer to all the slaves and servants living under one roof,
Family
including the entire household that is the master, on the one hand, and the wife,
children and servants living under his control. Today when we use the term family
it covers all the various groups of relatives representing a household (all the
individuals living under one roof), gens (all those descended from a common
ancestor), agnatic (relatives on the father’s side) and cognatic (relatives on the
mother’s side, and then by extension all blood relatives).
The family though considered universal in nature found in all types and levels of
societies and cultures, yet it is difficult to trace the origin. In the early years of the
anthropological history the origin of family, how it emerged in society was much
discussed and debated. Followers of the evolutionary theory were of the opinion
that family as an institution has evolved just like the society. Lewis Henry Morgan
in his work Ancient Society (1877) stated that in the early societies the concept
of family was not prevalent. Such societies were nomads and promiscus where
free sex relations were prevalent thus, the role of the father was not important and
the mother-sib was the earliest form of grouping. He stated, ‘The principal institutions
of mankind originated in savagery, were developed in barbarism, and are maturing
in civilization. In like manner, the family has passed through successive forms, and
created great systems of consanguinity and affinity which have remained to the
present time. These systems, which record the relationships existing in the family
of the period, when each system respectively was formed, contain an instructive
record of the experience of mankind while the family was advancing from the
consanguine, through intermediate forms, to the monogamian’ (1877:18). Though
today, Morgan’s evolutinary scheme is not followed, his work is important as he
gave the first classification of five forms of family based on five different types of
marriage.
1) The Consanguine family was founded upon the intermarriage of brothers and
sisters in a group. Evidence still remains in the oldest of existing systems of
Consanguinity, the Malayan, tending to show that this, the first form of the
family, was anciently as universal as this system of consanguinity which it
created.
2) The Punaluan family its name is derived from the Hawaiian relationship of
Punalua. It was founded upon the intermarriage of several brothers to each
other’s wives in a group; and of several sisters to each other’s husbands in
a group. But the term brother, as here used, included the first, second, third,
and even more remote male cousins, all of whom were considered brothers
to each other, as we consider own brothers; and the term sister included the
first, second, third, and even more remote female cousins, all of whom were
sisters to each other, the same as own sisters. This form of the family
supervened upon the consanguine. It created the Turanian and Ganowanian
systems of consanguinity. Both this and the previous form belong to the
period of savagery.
3) The Syndyasmian or pairing of family founded upon the marriage of single
pairs, without giving the right of exclusive cohabitation to any person over the
other. The term Syndyasmian is derived from syndyazo, meaning to pair. It
was the germ of the Monogamian Family. Divorce or separation was at the
option of both husband and wife. This form of the family failed to create a
system of consanguinity.

40
4) The Patriarchal family comprising of marriage of one man to several wives, Family
each wife being secluded from every other. The term is here used in a
restricted sense to define the special family of the Hebrew pastoral tribes, the
chiefs and principal men of which practised polygamy. It exercised but little
influence upon human affairs for want of universality.
5) The Monogamian family was founded upon marriage between single pairs,
with the married couple having exclusive cohabitation with one another the
latter constituting the essential of the institution. It is pre-eminently the family
of civilized society, and was therefore essentially modern. This form of the
family also created an independent system of consanguinity (Morgan, 1877:
40-41).
Westermarck (1853-1936) who had done a detailed study of the institution of
marriage concluded that the family emerged due to male possessiveness and jealousy.
In his work The History of Human Marriage (1922) he asserted that with the
growing concept of property, males started the insititution of family to protect and
safeguard their property. This theory was a direct criticism of Morgan’s theory
wherein the origin of family was ascribed to the bonding of mother- sib.
Westermarck though an adherent follower of evolutionism went a bit too far while
postulating the origin of monogamy as he traced it to the mammals and the birds.
Activity

Before we move on to define a family let us start with a simple task. Please list down
the names of the persons you would like to include in your family. Now if you have
listed the names of your family members, I am sure there would be many variations to
the list. Some of you might have included the names of your parents and siblings only,
while others might have also added grandparents adopted brothers/sisters or cousins
who stay with you. Likewise, the definition of family has variations as there are different
types and forms of families. There has always been a universal problem in defining a
family, so herein we would discuss some of the definitions which has tried to encompass
the meaning of family in totality.

During the early 19th century evolutionary anthropologists had described family as
a group based on marriage, common residence, emotional bonds and stipulation
of doemstic services. While in the early 20th century R.H. Lowie defined family
as a group based on material relations, rights and duties of parenthood, common
habitation and reciprocal relations between parents and children. Ralph Linton
similarly defined family as a group that involves marriage, rights and duties of
parents and children. George Peter Murdock, (1949) examined 192 societies and
formulated a definition of family as ‘the family is a social group characterised by
common residence, economic co-operation, and reproduction. It includes both
sexes, atleast two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and
one or more children, own or adopted’. The chart presented below shows the
different types of families as constructed by George Peter Murdock.

41
Kinship, Marriage and
Family FAMILY

(Nuclear family) (Composite family)

(Polygamous family) (Extended family)

(Polygamous family) (Polyandrous family)

(Patrilocal (Matrilocal (Avunculocal (Bilocal (Fraternal

extended extended extended extended extended
family) family) family) family) family)

Adapted from Makhan Jha, An Introduction to Social Anthropology 1995 (reprint) pp 74.

Nuclear Family consists of a married couple (man and woman) with their children
own or adopted. In certain cases one or more additional persons may also reside
with them. This type of family is prevalent in alomost all societies. Compact in
nature this type is very popular in the present day world where there is a continuous
struggle for economic subsistence.
Composite family is composed of two or more nuclear families which can be
divided into polygamous family and the extended family. The polygamous
family includes three varients based on marriage polyandry, polygyny and
polyandrous (refer to Unit- 3 of the same block for details). An extended family
consists of two or more nuclear families affiliated through extension of the parent-
child relationship. Based on the post-marital residence, an extended family can be
of the following types.
 Patrilocal family is composed of two or more nuclear families residing at
the same house, it is an extension of the father son relationship. Such a family
comrpises of a man and his wife and their sons and the sons’ wives and
childrens.
 A matrilocal family is founded with two or more nuclear families affiliated
through an extension of mother daughter relationship. It consists of a family
comprising of a woman her daughters and the daughters’ husbands and children.
 The bilocal extended family is a combination of patrilocal extended family
and matrilocal extended family. The extended family consists of two or more
lineally related kinfolk of the same sex and their spouses and offspring
occupying a single household and under the authority of a household head.
 The Avunculocal extended family consists of two or more nuclear families
affiliated through an extension of maternal-uncle and sisters son relationship.
Such a family includes a nuclear family formed by a man his wife and daughters
42 and the nuclear family formed by his sister’s son and wife and children.
 The Faternal Joint Family is a family system, like a patrilineal extended family Family
wherein the family comrpises of a man and his wife and their sons and the
sons’ wives and childrens. We can say that in such a family three generations
of kins live together. At times, such a family can be traced upto ten or so
generations living in the same residence and sharing common hearth.
In the later half of the 20th century anthropologists tried to define family in terms
of certain criteria important from the society’s point of view. According to Edmund
Leach a group to be called a family should compromise either one or several of
the following criteria: marriage, legal paternity and maternity, monopoly of the
couple over each other’s sexuality, rights of the spouses to each others labour
services, rights of both the spouses over property to establish a joint fund of
property for the benefit of the children, and a socially significant relationship of
affinity between each spouse and the relatives of the other. Evans-Pritchard also
gave a classification of types of family based on his study of The Nuers (1940)
of Sudan. His classification is more suited for the patrilineal society.
 The simple legal family comrpising of a married couple and their children.
This type of family is commonly known as a natural family.
 The complex legal family or the polygamous family where a number of
separate families are linked by their relationship to a common father.
 The ghost family which consits of the ghost (pater), his wife, their children
and the kinsmen who became their genitor in virtue of his duty towards the
ghost. The ghost family is concieved when a young man dies who has not
married yet. So a young man from the dead man’s lineage marries a woman
on behalf of the dead man and generates a family for the dead man. The
children born out of such a marriage are known as the ghost’s children and
bear his name.
Variations in a Family System
From the above discussion we can describe the family as a domestic group in
which a couple (parents) and children own or adopted live together. Yet there are
societies where the same norms are not applicable. Meyer Fortes (1945) in his
study of Ashanti of Ghana has described a society where the husband and wife
after marriage continues to live with their respective family of orientation, a reason
why the people of Ashanti like to find spouses in their own village. Lucy Mair
(1997) discussing Fortes work reflects on the description of how an Ashanti
village at sunset is full of young children carrying steaming dishes on their heads
from mother to father- sometimes it also becomes an exchange between two
houses. Thus, in such a family system the husband is a visiting husband and his role
as a father is limited to procreation alone. The upbringing of his children lies with
the kins of the wife’s family whereas he is responsible for the upbringing of his
sister’s children. Likewise, among the Nayars of South India also, the same system
of visiting husband is seen as discussed in Unit-3 of the same block and herein
like the Ashanti of Ghana the responsibility of the child rests with the mother’s
lineage. The Khasis of Meghalaya and the Garos of Garo Hills of Meghalaya are
two matrilineal societies where, in the first society the husband comes to live with
the wife’s family, while in the latter the husband is a visiting husband. While among
the Hopi’s of Southwest Amercia a man after marriage moves on to live with his
wife’s family in which he has important economic responsibilities but few ritual
obligations. In Hopi society also like the other matrilineal societies the man is
43
Kinship, Marriage and responsible and retains authority and leadership for his sister’s son and is not
Family
responible for his own children.
On the other hand among the matrilineal Trobriand islanders a practice is prevalent
wherein a boy grows up in his father’s family and after marriage when he sets up
house he is expected to live in the village of his mother’s brother. Herein, this
system the domestic authority which lies with the father is fullfilled and also the
jural authority that is authority in matters of distribution of property etc. that lies
with the mother’s brother is also successfully fulfilled. The Trobrianders also practice
the marriage of mother’s brother’s daughter and as such when a boy sets up
house in his mother’s brother’s village the bride is not removed from the vicinity
of her kin. Likewise, among the Yao and Cewa of Malawi a man immediately
after marriage has to live in his wife’s home and later he can setup house at the
village of his own matrilineal kin. In such a case by the time his daughters are of
marriageable age he becomes the head of the family to which the daughters’
husbands come (Mair, 1977).
The ghost marriage as described by Evans- Pritchard in his study of the Nuers is
also a variation in the family system as it is not found in all societies. Then there
is also the practice of a woman usually a barren woman paying bridewealth and
establishing the right to count another woman’s children as her own. In such a case
the barren woman is usually a diviner who thus, attains wealth to pay for the bride
price. The woman-husband in this case can select a man to co-habitat with her
‘wife’ and produce children who would be than known as her own (Mair, 1997).
Such a practice is seen among the Nuers, Zulus and the Yoruba societies.
Family types based on Residence
Family types can be categorized based on the type of residence also. In North
American society it is customary for the newly wedded couple to take up residence
in a place of their own, apart from the relatives of either spouse. This is known
as neolocal residence (that is a new place). Thus, a new family basically known
as nuclear family is formed with only husband and wife and later on their children,
own or adopted. When the newly married couple takes up residence in the groom’s
father’s house in a partilocal family such a residence is known as patrilocal or
virilocal residence. On the other hand a matrilocal or uxorilocal residence is
created when the couple takes up residence in a matrilocal family i.e, with the
bride’s family. In some societies like the Ashanti of Ghana a couple after marriage
resides with the groom’s mother’s brother’s family or maternal uncles house known
as avunculocal residence. Again in some societies a married couple has the
choice of living with relatives of either spouse (the husband or the wife). A residence
thus formed is known as ambilocal or bilocal residence.
Reflection and Action

Analyse your family using the geneological method as discussed in Unit 1 of this Block.
Describe what kind of a residence and family pattern it has.

Is Marriage and Family Universal?

In the earlier block also we have discussed marriage in length and we have come
to the conclusion that marriage leads to a family. But there is an example from the
Na society of China wherein there is no word for the term ‘marriage’ in their
language (Blumerfield 2004, Geertz 2001, Harrell 2002). The institution in which
the men and women are joined in sexual and reproductive partnerships is called
44 sese. In this system a man spends the night in a lover’s house and goes away in
the morning. The sese relationship does not hold any notion of fidelity, permanence, Family
paternal responsibility for children born or any form of economic obligations (Shih,
2001). A child born is the responsibility of the mother and her sisters and brothers.
A Na household comprises of mother and her sons and daughters, sisters and their
children and the brothers.
Household and Family
Many a times there is confusion between the term family and household. So let’s
first try to understand the term household and what it comprises of. Household has
been defined by Haviland (2003) as the basic residential unit where economic
production, consumption, inheritance, child rearing and shelter are organised and
implemented. The members of a household at times share a common hearth. Let’s
take the example of the Mundurucu of the Amazon who organise themselves
around a household. They have a unique system by which all men and boys above
13 years of age live together whereas all the women and children below 13 years
of age live together (Haviland, 2003). Herein, we see that household is an extention
of family, a family can be a household but a household need not be a family. To
make this statement clear let’s take another example from the present day situation.
We see a lot of students moving out of their native place and settling in some other
city or going abroad for higher education. These students usually on a shoe string
budget like to share accomodation with fellow stduents. Thus, two to three students
take up residence and start sharing space and eating together. This makes them
share a hearth but they are not necessarily members of the same family but belong
to different families.

4.3 FUNCTIONS OF A FAMILY

The family as a social group is universal in nature and its existence is seen at all
levels of cultures. Thus, the family having a status in society also has certain
responsibilities and functions. The basic functions of a family are outlined below:
 Satisfaction of biological need
The family as an institution regularises the satisfatcion of biological needs. It
serves for the institutionalisation of mating a primodial need among all humans.
Family helps in channeling of sexual outlets by defining the norms with whom
one can mate and who are out of bound in the terms of incest taboo. Family
thus helps in establishing a legal father for a woman’s children and a legal
mother for a man’s children.
 Reproduction and Inbibing Social Values
A child as we have learnt is born into a family. As soon as a child is born
into a family he is entitled to certain social position, system of beliefs, language,
parents and kins as per the family sytem that he is born into. This family
nutures the child and imbibe in him the ways of the society through the
process of enculturation preparing him to accept statuses of adulthood.
 Economic
A family as a social group is responsible for satisfying the basic needs of its
members like food, clothes and shelter. In order to achieve this objective all
the members of a family cooperate and divide the work among themselves
and make contribution towards the upkeeping of the family. Emile Durkheim
in his book Division of labour has brought forth this fact and laid emphasis
on economic satisfaction of the need of a family. It thus, serves as the 45
Kinship, Marriage and organisation of a complementary division of labour between spouses which at
Family
the same time allocates to each member of the family certain rights in the
labour of the other and in such goods or property as they may acquire
through their individual or joint efforts.
 Educational
A family provides for the linkage of each spouse and the offspring within the
wider network of kinsmen. It establishes relationships of descent and affinity.
Sociological fatherhood is determined to place the responsibility for the child
on a specific adult. There must be jural fatherhood to regularise transference
of statuses from one generation to the next. A cooperative division of labour
makes for greater efficiency and skill in the work that need to be done. Each
sex can perform many skills equally well, but each sex is likely to develop
those skills it uses more often. The basic functions of the family may be
performed with varying degrees of effectiveness from culture to culture. The
way the details of the functions are carried out can produce remarkably
different individual personalities of children and adult (Madan & Majumdar
1990, Jha 1995 et.al).

4.4 CHANGING DIMENSION OF FAMILY

Till now we have been focusing on the traditional norms and what comprises a
family. We have been concerned with the classical terminology in which a family
has been described and concieved but with the changing times the composition,
meaning and definition of family have also under gone changes. The high divorce
rate and remarriage in the present era leads to a tangled nuclear family leading to
the creation of complex kinship relations also. Presently the blended family is
coming up which comprises of networks which include previously divorced spouses
and their new marriage partners and sometimes children from the previous marriages,
as well as multiple sets of grandparents and other similar relations also. Then,
again there is the surrogate motherhood as discussed in Unit 1 of the same block
which also leads to a different type of family besides adoption. Divorces at times
also lead to families with a single parent either the children staying with mother or
at times with father. In the present day scenario single parenthood and a single
parent household is fast overtaking the nuclear family due to the rise in divorces.
Society being dynamic, we see a lot of changes and such changes have occurred
in the family system and the conception of the family itself. As we have learnt in
the last section of the Unit 1 about lesbian and gay kinship, these new patterns
have also arisen in the family structure – lesbian and gay family. In a lesbian and
gay family the partners usually adopt kids of either sex. There has been a lot of
debate in the recent past on whether or not a same sex couple should be allowed
to parent children, whether artificially implanted or adopted. This debate has gone
on for so long mainly because many religious groups believe that children can only
be properly parented by a father and mother combination. As most of the religions
do not sanction the union of same sex couples and also believe that the child will
suffer if parented by the same sex (Nanda & Warms, 2011). While the upcoming
feminist movement and many welfare agencies have strongly vouched for the
competency of two people as adults regardless of gender to be allowed to adopt
a child and care for the same. This fact is based on the idea that heterosexual
couples often have problems raising children, too. Research has found no major
differences in parenting or child development between families headed by two
46 mothers and other fatherless families. In 2008, Judge Cindy S. Lederman overturned
a Florida state law that prevented homosexual couples from adopting children, Family
stating no “moral or scientific reason for banning gays and lesbians from adopting”,
despite the state’s arguments otherwise (CNN US website accessed on 31 st
March, 2011). While, on the other hand Arkansas has recently banned all unwed
couples from adopting; a law aimed specifically at homosexual couples.
Lesbian and gay couples apart there has also been a trend of two people sharing
a live-in-relationship and begetting children without confirming to the age old
tradition of marriage. In case of live-in-relationship the partners stay as a family
on their personal consensus without undergoing the rituals of marriage which
pronounce a man and a woman as husband and wife. As in the case of family,
cases of domestic violence and rape have also come up in these live-in-relationships.
Presently, in India such cases of doemstic household violence and rape in a live-
in-relationship have been sanctioned by law to be addressed by the family court.
Reflection

Indian Law: Domestic Violence Act 2005

‘Different court judgments have discussed on different disputes pertaining to live-in

relationships. Live-in relationships are now considered at par with marriage under a new
Indian law pertaining to domestic violence. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005 are now extended to those who are in live-in relationships as well. The amendments
intend to protect the victims of domestic abuse in live-in relationships. Section 2 (g) of
the aforementioned Act provides that a relationship between two individuals who live
together or have lived together in the past is considered as a domestic relationship. A
woman who is in a live-in relationship can seek legal relief against her partner in case
of abuse and harassment. Further, the new law also protects Indian women who are
trapped in fraudulent or invalid marriages.

http://www.lawisgreek.com/court-judgments-live-relationships-and-related-disputes,
accessed on 14th March, 2011.

Live-in-relationships has been legalised in many countries and thus, falls under the
purview of anthropological study of family. Students need to understand and
evaluate the live-in-relationship pattern, how the emotional bonding takes place
between parents and children, and the working of the kinship relations without a
formal sanction (marriage).

4.5 SUMMARY
From the above discussion on family we can summarize that family has been a
way of bringing togther two people who stay with each other to continue the
functions as administered by society. The question of when and how family as a
social structure came into being is still debatable. Family like other institutions has
also gone through many changes and we see a lot of variations in the family system
in the traditional societies. But in the present era most of the traditional societies
with polygamous and polyandrous family systems are turning into nuclear families.
Likewise, a few changes have also come up in the developed societies. The
blended families, live-in-relationships, gay and lesbian families are new entities in
the developing world and though initially there were lots of resistences yet it has
become an accepted norm in the present day scenario.

47
Kinship, Marriage and References
Family
Blumerfield, Tami. 2004. Walking Marriages. Anthropology Newsletter. 45 (5).
CNN US Websit e ht t p://art icles.cnn.co m/2008-11-25/us/
florida.gay.adoption_1_martin-gill-homosexual-adoption-florida-ban?_s=PM:US
David, Levinson & Martin Malone. 1980. Toward Explaining Human Culture.
New Haven, Conn: HRAF Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. Trans. Lewis A.
Coser Reprint in 1997. New York: Free Press.
Ernest, L. Schusky. 1965. Manual for Kinship Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood
and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
_____________ 1956. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ferraro, Gary and Susan Andreatta. 2010. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied
Perspective (eight edition). USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin.
Geertz, Clifford. 2001. ‘The Visit: Review of Cai Hua,’ ‘A Society without Fathers
or Husbands: The Na of China’. New York Review of Books. 18th October: 48
(16).
Harrell, Steven. 2002. Book Review of a Society without Fathers or Husbands:
The Na of China by Cai Hua, trans. Asti Hustvedt, American Anthropologists
104 (3): 982-983.
Haviland, W.A. 2003. Anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jha, Makhan. 1945. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. New Delhi: Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Julius, Gould & William L. Kolb. eds. 1964. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences.
New York: The Free Press.
Mair, Lucy. 1997. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Morgan, Lewis H. 1877. Ancient Society. London: Macmillan & Company. Reprint
(1944) Indian Edition. Bharati Library.
Murdock, George Peter. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L.Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Nelson, Graburn. ed. 1971. Readings in Kinship and Social Structure. New
York: Harper and Row.
Parkin, Robert and Linda Stone. ed. 2004. Kinship and Family: A
Anthropological Reader. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Roger, Keesing. 1975. Kin Groups and Social Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart
48 and Winston.
Shih, Chaun-Kang. 2001. ‘Genesis of Marriage among the Moso and Empire Family
Building in Late Imperial China. The Journal of Asian Studies 60(2): 381-412.
Westermarck, Edward. 1922. The History of Human Marriage. The Allerton
Book Company.
Suggested Readings
Mair, Lucy. 1997. An Introduction to Social Anthropology. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Nanda, Serena and Richard L.Warms. 2011. Cultural Anthropology. 10th Edition.
United Kingdom: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Parkin, Robert and Linda Stone. ed. 2004. Kinship and Family: A
Anthropological Reader. USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Sample Questions
1) Define family.
2) Delineate the categorization of family as given by Morgan.
3) State in brief the different types of family as listed by Murdock.
4) Critically discuss the matrilineal and the patrilineal type of families.
6) Discuss the changing dimensions in family in the contemporary society.

49