UNIVERSITY OF MAURITIUS

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
&
MECHANICAL AND PRODUCTION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

The Family according to University of Mauritius

Students

By

1. CHAN WING CHONG Chris Dylan Chan Kwet Yoong 1317383

BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering
2. GHOORA Kaushaveer 1311777
BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering (Minor: Energy Systems)
3. LALLBEEHARRY Monish 1312852
BEng (Hons) Civil Engineering
4. KALLYCHURN Kushal Hoocoomduth 1310030
BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering (Minor: Industrial Systems)

Submitted as part requirement for the module

Engineers in Society (ENGG 4101)

Level 4

Submitted on 04th November 2016

Submitted to Ms. GOKULSING Deepa

 Acknowledgement

First and foremost, we have to thank our lecturer, Ms. Deepa Gokulsing, for her assistance
for the completion of this project. We should also thank the students of BEng (Hons) Civil
Engineering Level 4, BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering (Minor: Energy Systems) Level
4 and BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering (Minor: Industrial Systems) Level 4 for their
constant support and help for the duration of this assignment. Their involvement has been
paramount for the completion of this paper.

A special note of gratitude is also addressed to all the participants of the survey for sparing
their precious time. Without their assistance and dedicated involvement, this assignment
would have never been accomplished.

ii
 Abstract
This report studies the perception of the concept of family according to University of
Mauritius students. In order to gather the opinions of the students, a survey was devised and
disseminated (through social media and other internet-based sources) to students of the
different faculties around the campus (unfortunately, no feedback was obtained from the
Faculty of Ocean Studies). The survey was predominantly aimed at understanding the aspects
of the family life as per the students of the university. The results obtained were then
analysed and a correlation was established between the existing theoretical perspectives and
the outcome of the survey.

iii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Functionalist Perspective on the Family ..................................................................... 1

2.2. Marxist Perspective of the Family .............................................................................. 3

2.3. Feminist Perspective on the Family ............................................................................ 4

3. Objectives of Study ............................................................................................................ 5

4. Methodology....................................................................................................................... 5

4.1. Choosing the most appropriate form of data collection .............................................. 5

4.2. Target Population ........................................................................................................ 7

4.3. Sampling...................................................................................................................... 7

4.3.1. Stratified sampling ............................................................................................... 7

4.3.2. Mode of survey .................................................................................................... 8

4.3.3. Online Survey Form ............................................................................................. 8

5. Analysis of Data Collected ................................................................................................. 8

5.1. Section 1: Personal Description .................................................................................. 8

5.2. Section 2: Family Arrangement ................................................................................ 11

5.3. Section 3: Family Composition and Structure .......................................................... 14

5.4. Section 4: Home Environment .................................................................................. 18

5.5. Section 5: Personal Evaluation .................................................................................. 24

6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 31

6.1. Linking Findings of study to Theoretical Perspectives. ............................................ 31

6.1.1. Functionalist Perspective ................................................................................... 31

6.1.2. Marxist Perspective ............................................................................................ 32

6.1.3. Marxist and Feminist Perspective ...................................................................... 32

6.2. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 33

7. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 33

iv
8. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 34

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................................... 35

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................................... 50

List of Figures
Figure 1: Gender. ....................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Population age group. ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 3: Faculty of study. ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Residential location. ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5: Type of family. ......................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Type of residence. .................................................................................................... 11
Figure 7: Number of family members living under the same roof. ......................................... 12
Figure 8: Household decision maker. ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Wage earners in the family. ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Total income of the family. .................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Ethnicities of parents. ............................................................................................. 14
Figure 12: Adoption. ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 13: Religious beliefs. .................................................................................................... 15
Figure 14: Divorce. .................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 15: Reconstituted family............................................................................................... 16
Figure 16: Level of education of father/male guardian. .......................................................... 17
Figure 17: Level of education of mother/female guardian. ..................................................... 18
Figure 18: Home environment. ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 19: Household chores participation. ............................................................................. 19
Figure 20: Time spent with family members. .......................................................................... 19
Figure 21: Internet connection. ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 22: Computer literacy. .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 23: Family leisure activities.......................................................................................... 21
Figure 24: Frequency of family leisure activities. ................................................................... 21
Figure 25: Family dinners. ....................................................................................................... 22
Figure 26: Frequency of family dinners................................................................................... 22

v
Figure 27: TV sessions............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 28: Programmes family members share. ...................................................................... 23
Figure 29: Encouragement for studies. .................................................................................... 24
Figure 30: Possession of a personal computer. ........................................................................ 24
Figure 31: Time spent on personal computer. ......................................................................... 25
Figure 32: Social networking sites. .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 33: Different social networking sites. ........................................................................... 25
Figure 34: Time spent on social networking sites. .................................................................. 26
Figure 35: Possession of a gaming console/gaming PC. ......................................................... 26
Figure 36: Time spent on gaming. ........................................................................................... 27
Figure 37: Time spent with different people............................................................................ 28
Figure 38: Sharing grievance. .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 39: Factors contributing to collapse of modern family. ............................................... 30
Figure 40: Other factors affecting the Mauritian family. ......................................................... 31

List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison between survey, focus group and interview. ........................................... 6
Table 2: Stratified sampling. ...................................................................................................... 7

Note

Please note that in the text UoM refers to the University of Mauritius.

vi
 1. Introduction
Despite the changing lifestyles and ever-increasing personal mobility that characterize
modern society, the family remains the central element of contemporary life. Families offer
companionship, security, and a measure of protection against an often uncaring world. But
family structure, like society at large, has undergone significant changes in the years since
World War II. While the nuclear family -- with Dad, Mom, and offspring happily coexisting
beneath one roof-remains the ideal, variations in family structure are plentiful -- and often
successful. Whatever the family situation, it will have tremendous influence upon their
offspring’s happiness, development, and future. In this report, all of the many variations of
the family structure and its inherent dynamics will be discussed.

2. Literature Review
There is an abundance of literature in sociology on the family, out of which the three main
theoretical perspectives namely:

 Functionalist Perspective
 Marxist Perspective, and
 Feminist Perspective
will be discussed in this literature review.

2.1. Functionalist Perspective on the Family

Generally speaking, the functionalist perspective has laid emphasis on the functions of the
family in society and for its members. In other words, it visualises the family as an institution
that helps in maintaining order and stability in society, and the significance of the family for
its individual members. Two famous functionalists who have written about the family are
George. P. Murdock and Talcott Parsons.

As mentioned previously, George Murdock has carried out a study involving 250 families.
From his analysis, he has argued that the family executes four elementary functions for its
individual members and society at large. He has referred to these as the ‘sexual',
‘reproductive', ‘economic' and ‘educational' functions.

The ‘sexual' function refers to the regulation of sexual activity. Husbands and wives have
sexual access to each other, and in all societies, there are norms concerning sexual activity
outside marriage. Therefore, Murdock has argued that the family caters to the sexual needs of

1
its adult members and also limits sexual access of other members of the society thereby
maintaining stability.

The ‘reproductive' function relates to bearing and raising children. The family provides the
society with new members and take the responsibility for looking after them.

The family is also an ‘economic' unit, with a division of labour along gender lines. Murdock
considers this division of labour as beneficial for the spouses and as consolidating the bond
between them, as they are perceived as doing different but complementary work.

The ‘educational' function that Murdock refers to, can also be termed ‘socialisation'. The
family has the responsibility of spreading a society's way of life, norms and values to the
younger members. This function is an essential one as, without culture, the society would not
survive, and a large deviation from the norm would destabilise the society.

Talcott Parsons has also written about the functions of the family. He has identified two
functions that he views as being ‘basic and irreducible'. These functions are:

1. The primary socialisation of children, and

2. The stabilisation of adult personalities in the society.

Primary socialisation occurs in early childhood and the family contributes significantly at this
stage. Later on, other institutions like the school or the peer group, exercise much influence
on the individual and this is what is referred to as secondary socialisation. During the course
of primary socialisation, two important tasks must be undertaken by the family. Firstly, the
family must transmit the culture of the society to the children. The child must not only be
able to learn about the norms and values of the society he or she lives in, but should also be
able to absorb these norms and values, making them a part of himself or herself. Thus, it
helps in achieving the second task, which is shaping the personality of the individual.

Parsons also argues that the family has the function of ‘stabilising the personality' of its adult
members. By this, he means that family life provides adults with the emotional security that
they need. The role of parents also provides them with opportunities for expressing their
childish whims through their children.

The functionalists have tried to identify the roles performed by the family and the way in
which it helps to maintain order and stability in society. However, it should be noted that the

2
functionalists have been largely criticised. It is argued that they have not provided any
alternatives to the family, that is, they have not considered the other institutions that can also
perform the functions that are being fulfilled by the family. Another one of the main
criticisms aimed at them denounces the too optimistic picture of the family that they present.
Critics argue that the type of family they depict is not an accurate description of reality. The
‘Critical Views' considered later provides a description of the family that opposes that of the
functionalists.

2.2. Marxist Perspective of the Family

Friedrich Engels, a nineteenth-century scholar and famous Marxist, had tried to trace the
origin of the family and to link its evolution to the changes in the mode of production and the
emergence of private property and capitalism. His work, "The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State", was first published in 1884. Engels believed that during the early
stages of human evolution, property was collectively owned and that the family as such did
not exist. The community itself formed the family and there was no limitation to sexual
access. However, with the emergence of private ownership of property and the idea of having
heirs who were to inherit the property, the question of paternity grew in importance and the
rules of monogamous marriage were created to control women's sexuality and assure the
legitimacy of heirs.

Engels' representation and interpretation of history has been contested, yet it is of worth to
note that the analysis that the Marxists have made of the family is one that is closely linked to
the impact of industrialisation and capitalism.

Eli Zaretsky (1976) had also adopted a Marxist approach to family life. He argued that with
industrialisation, the home and the workplace have become distinct spheres. The family and
the home constitute the ‘private sphere' and are perceived as being separate from the
economy. The family is thus also expected to act as a haven where the worker can find solace
after a harassing day. However, Zaretsky argued that it is not always possible for the family
to sustain the pressure and cushion all the shocks and frustration of the workplace.

Zaretsky had also commented on the link between capitalism and the family. He argued that
the family served the interest of capitalism in various ways, namely, through the unpaid
(domestic work) of women, by the reproduction of labour force and by being an important
unit of consumption.

3
Basically the Marxists suggested that males are the dominant of the whole family and
women, on the opposite side, would be powerless for any decisions to be made within the
family but only to obey. Females would have more domestic work at home and would be
responsible for the upbringing of their children whilst males are working, communicating and
socializing more outside.

2.3. Feminist Perspective on the Family

The feminists' contribution to the study of families is of considerable importance. They have
had a greater influence on the analysis of the family than any other theoretical approach.

In general, the feminists have sought to analyse the impact of family life on women. Despite
the numerous differences in their approach and main concern, different feminists tend to
agree that women occupy a subordinate position in the family and are exploited in various
ways. The Marxist feminists consider capitalism as the main exploiter. This exploitation is
seen in terms of the unpaid work they carry out at home. Like the Marxist, they believe that
the family also serves capitalism by reproducing the future labour force, but they also assert
that it is not the family as such that suffers more, but the women. It is women that bear the
children and assume the main responsibility for their care. Women are also exploited in that
they are expected to provide outlets for all the frustration and anger that their husband
experience at work and therefore prevent them from rebelling against their employers.

Radical feminists agree with other feminists about the disadvantage that women suffer in
families. Yet, they do not consider capitalism as the main source of exploitation. Their focus
is on men and the patriarchal nature of the society. Christine Delphy and Diana Leonard
(1992) argued that the inequalities between partners in the home are a result of the fact that
most of the heads of households are men. This implies that men have more decision-making
power, consume more of whatever the family has, retain control over finances (even when
they are unemployed and it is the women who earn the money) and benefit from women's
domestic work and emotional support. Women, on the other hand, are expected to carry out
free domestic work, even when they are in paid employment, cater to the needs of their
husband (emotional, sexual, physical) and spend their time in raising the children at whatever
cost to their own paid work or other activities and projects.

This is the way in which feminism in general has perceived the position of women in the
family. However, there exists yet another branch of feminism that is worth noting. It is what

4
is termed ‘difference feminism'. Difference feminists, such as Linda Nicholson (1997) and
Cheshire Calhoun (1997), have criticised the other types of feminists for neglecting to take
into consideration the fact that women in different types of households experience family life
differently. They argue that it is not possible to say that all women are exploited in the same
way in all types of families. Difference feminists assert that many factors shape the
experience that women have of family life. Such factors are social class, race, sexual
orientation (homosexual or heterosexual couples) and family structure (nuclear family,
extended family, single-parent families and so on). This adds a new dimension to the study of
family as it links family experiences to other influences in society, demonstrating that the
family is not an isolated unit but rather an integral part of the social system.

3. Objectives of Study
The main objective was to conduct a small study among students at the University of
Mauritius

 to analyse the family structures in the Mauritian Society

 to explain changes in the family structures, and

 to examine problems and challenges facing Mauritian families,

and also to link the theoretical perspectives on family to the findings and analysis of the
study.

4. Methodology
4.1. Choosing the most appropriate form of data collection
The main methods for collecting information about a particular subject are

1. Survey
2. Focus Group
3. Interview

The methods of data collection were compared and the most suitable one was selected to be
utilised in the study. The comparison process is shown in table.

After due consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the above mentioned methods
of data collection, surveys are chosen as the data gathering tool for the study because:

5
  Statistical inference can be made to a large population unlike focus groups and
interviews.

 Data gathering is more convenient than that of focus groups and interviews, e.g.
online forms.

 Provides better anonymity and confidentiality than focus groups and interviews.

Focus groups were mainly not chosen due to the difficulty to gather a specific range of people
in a room to participate in a discussion and to control and manage them. Interviews were not
selected, as the response of an individual does not necessarily reflect views of the general
population.

Table 1: Comparison between survey, focus group and interview.

Advantages Disadvantages
Convenient data gathering (e.g. online Possible inappropriateness of
forms). questions.
Survey Anonymous and Confidential. Not ideal for controversial issues.

Good statistical significance of results. Inflexible design.

Detailed information about personal Disagreements and irrelevant

and group feelings, perceptions and discussions which distract from the
opinions. main focus.

Saves time compared to individual Hard to control, manage and tricky to

Focus interviews. analyse.
Group
Broader range of information. Difficult to encourage a range of
people to participate.
Offers opportunity to seek
clarification. Participants may find a focus group
situation intimidating or off-putting.

Detailed information about personal Very time-consuming: setting up,

feelings, perceptions and opinions and interviewing, transcribing, analysing,
respondents’ own words are recorded. feedback, reporting.

Interview Allow more detailed questions to be Different interviewers may understand

asked and a higher response rate can be and transcribe interviews in different
expected. ways.

Ambiguities can be clarified and

incomplete answers followed up.

6
 4.2. Target Population
The target population is the student pool from the University of Mauritius. The survey
mechanism operated by simply getting feedback from the students about their thoughts on the
aspects of Mauritian families mentioned earlier.

If the survey population were small and easy to contact, it would be preferable to survey the
whole population to have the most accurate results, however, given the University of
Mauritius has a student population of about 12,000 students comprising full-time and part-
time students, it was not possible to accomplish such a hectic task. Instead a sampling process
was used to select and survey only a subset of the target population of interest.

4.3. Sampling
4.3.1. Stratified sampling
With stratified sampling, the student population was divided into faculties, then, within each
faculty, a probability sample (stratum) was selected.

Table 2: Stratified sampling.

Considering a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5 %, the sample size for a
population of 10,000 UoM students is 370. According to the table above table, for a
population of 10,000 people, 370 persons must be surveyed, resulting in 74 students per
faculty. However due to time constraints and reluctance of students to sacrifice their precious
time and participate in the survey, the figure of 74 per faculty could not be reached. On the
other hand, out of the 59 persons surveyed, the creators of the survey managed to get at least
10% from each faculty.

7
 4.3.2. Mode of survey
The mode of a survey is the combination of choices made about contacting sample members,
administering questions, and recording responses.

The survey population for the current study was the student population at the University of
Mauritius and its size is about 10,000. Since the selection process for sampling techniques
indicated that stratified sampling should be used, with a sample size of 370, creating and
printing survey forms and reaching out for UoM students would have taken a huge amount of
time. Thus, it was decided to create and online form and asking UoM students to fill in.

4.3.3. Online Survey Form

The online survey form can be found in the Appendix 1. The survey garnered a total of 59
responses, which is a very small sample compared to the size of the University of Mauritius
student body. This low sample size can be explained by the fact that students were reluctant
to disclose their family background and answer sensitive personal questions.

5. Analysis of Data Collected

The data collected was summarised by means of visual methods like pie and bar charts. A
total of 59 responses were obtained and processed. A summary of responses can be found in
Appendix 2.

5.1. Section 1: Personal Description

Question 1.1 – Gender

Figure 1: Gender.
Out of the 59 persons who filled the online survey form, 50.8% were male and 47.5% were
female, as shown in figure above. This statistic shows that almost equal proportions of male

8
and female participants voiced out their opinion in the survey, and this strengthens the
reliability of the data collected by being unbiased towards any of the two genders.

Question 1.2 – Age Group

Secondly, of the 59 persons who participated, 55.9% were aged 22-23, 30.5% were aged 20-
21, and 13.6% were aged 18-19. This data is illustrated in figure below.

Figure 2: Population age group.

The high percentage of participants of the 22-23 age group can be explained by the fact that
since the students who conducted this survey were in their final year at the university; thus
aged 22-23, most of their classmates and friends, who are also aged 22-23, filled the online
survey without reluctance.

Only 13.5% of students of 18-19 of age participated in the survey probably as they do not
personally know the surveyors and do not regard them as close friends, thus did not spare
time to participate.

Question 1.3 - Faculty of Study

The distribution of students from the six faculties who participated in the survey is illustrated
in the figure below.

9
 Figure 3: Faculty of study.
One of the objectives of this survey was to obtain the feedback on family structures from
University of Mauritius students representing each faculty. The goal was to obtain at least
20% from each faculty, however due to reluctance of students from other faculties to
participate, apart from engineering, the target could not be met. The high percentage of
engineering students participating is due to the fact that some of them are classmates, friends,
or juniors to the surveyors.

Question 1.4 – Where do you live?

The highest proportion of students participating in the survey was from rural regions, with
52.5% indicated in the figure below.

Figure 4: Residential location.

This data highlights the fact that in Mauritius, there are more people living in rural than urban
areas.

10
 5.2. Section 2: Family Arrangement
Question 2.1 – According to you, which type of family do you live in?

A huge percentage (69.5%) of the students surveyed come from nuclear families. This
highlights the fact suggested by literature, which stipulates that, due to women
empowerment, urbanisation, and industrialisation, more and more people are living in nuclear
families.

Figure 5: Type of family.

Question 2.2 – What kind of residence do you possess?

Neo-local residences represent the largest share (52.5%) of the respondents’ residences.
Again, this highlights the fact that there is a shift towards nuclear families in the Mauritian
society. However, it is important to note that patrilocal residence still represents a substantial
share (42.4%) as a type of residence possessed by the respondents.

Figure 6: Type of residence.

11
Question 2.3 – Number of family members living under same roof?

Out of the 59 respondents, a sum of 42 responses stated having not more than 5 family
members under the same roof while only 2 respondents stated having 11 and 12 family
members under the same roof. This again indicates a dominance of nuclear families in the
current society.

Number of family members living under same roof. (59 responses)

12 1
11 1
10 0
9 0
8 0
7 3
6 8
5 16
4 13
3 13

Figure 7: Number of family members living under the same roof.

Question 2.4 – Who is the main decision maker in your family?

The decision making process in the Mauritian family remains dominated by the father with
respect to the mother as shown in the figure below. It is important to note the high level
(40.7%) of participation of women in the decision making process within the household.

Figure 8: Household decision maker.

12
Question 2.5 – Who are the wage earners in your family?

The ‘economic’ function of the family, as described by Murdock, is distributed among the
spouses in the Mauritian society. There is a superior share of men being wage earners in the
family, but there survey indicates a good share of women remains wage earners in the
Mauritian family. This is consistent with the fact that emancipation of women in the society
is in its full flow.

Figure 9: Wage earners in the family.

Question 2.6 – What is the total income of your family?

The income of the families within the society can be represented as follows in the pie chart.

Figure 10: Total income of the family.

13
Question 2.7(a) – Is any member(s) of your family currently separated from your family?
[E.g. studying abroad, working on cruise ships, etc.]

13.6% of respondents stated having siblings working or studying abroad.

5.3. Section 3: Family Composition and Structure

Question 3.1 – Are your parents of different ethnicities (e.g. Father Hindu, Mother
Muslim)?

Most of the respondents (96.6%) stated having parents of the same ethnic values as shown in
the figure below. This shows that inter-cultural marriage in the Mauritian society is not
common. Marriage, as an institution, in Mauritius is driven by the cultural backgrounds of the
individuals.

Figure 11: Ethnicities of parents.

Question 3.2 – Are you, or any of your siblings adopted?

The survey showed that adoption in Mauritius is not a popular concept. 98.3% of respondents
stated that they do not have an adopted sibling or family member.

14
 Figure 12: Adoption.

Question 3.3 – Are you of different ethnicity to your parents (e.g. you are Hindu, parents
are Muslim)?

The response to this question has been similar to that of Question 3.1 whereby most
respondents (98.3%) have stated that they are of same ethnic values as that of their parents.

Question 3.4 – Do you have different religious beliefs from your parents?

8.5% respondents have stated being atheist (no affiliation to any religious belief) for this
particular question. This represents a small share but raises questions about the transmission
of cultures from the parents to the children within the Mauritian family (most respondents are
of the age group 22). This may be due to lack of communication within parents and children.

Figure 13: Religious beliefs.

15
Question 3.5(a) – Are your parents divorced? If yes, please specify with whom you live.

Only a small share (3.4%) has responded positively to the question as shown in the figure
below, and 100% of them have stated living with their mother after divorce of their parents.
Divorce in Mauritius has been on the rise over the past few years, it is interesting to note that
the percentage of divorce remains low for this survey. This can be attributed to the fact that
most divorce cases are being noticed within newly wedded couples while for this survey the
duration of marriage bonds between parents are at least 18 years old (considering the age
group of respondents and low level of adoption).

Figure 14: Divorce.

Question 3.6(a) – Is your family reconstituted (e.g. Step-parents)?

The response to this particular question is as shown in the figure below. Adoption and family
reconstitution are not popular concepts in the Mauritian society.

Figure 15: Reconstituted family.

16
Question 3.7 – What is the highest level of education that your father/male guardian has
completed?

The figure below represents the response to the question. It is noted that only 20.7% of
parents have a Bachelor’s degree or higher level education. In the remaining 79.3%, 34.5%
possess a HSC with the rest possessing a lower level degree. It can be noted that the level of
education is not of the highest standard between the male guardian despite them having the
upper hand in decision making and wage earning process within the family.

Figure 16: Level of education of father/male guardian.

Question 3.8 – What is the highest level of education that your mother/female guardian
has completed?

The same distribution can be noted between the female guardians. However there is a
decrease in both the Bachelor’s degree (20.7% to 15.3%) and the HSC level of education
(34.5% to 27.3%) while there is an increase in the SC level of education (19% to 33.9%) as
compared with the male guardian. This can be attributed to the reluctance of people to send
their female children to higher level educations in the past.

17
 Figure 17: Level of education of mother/female guardian.

5.4. Section 4: Home Environment

Question 4.1 – How would describe your home environment?

It is important to note that the majority of the respondents have described their home
environment (81%) as pleasant.

Figure 18: Home environment.

Question 4.2 – How many members of your family participate in the household chores?

Based on the answers, it can be assessed that the participation in household chores within the
family is distributed. 30.5 % stated that 3 members help in the household chores and 13.6%

18
stated that 2 members of the family do help. There is a shift in the belief that only the female
guardian should handle the household chores and other family members are helping.

Figure 19: Household chores participation.

Question 4.3 – How do you spend time with your family members?

Most of the time spent by the respondents with their parents is attributed to when they watch
TV (81.4%) and having dinner (83.1%). The following figure represents the responses.

Figure 20: Time spent with family members.

Question 4.4 – Do you have internet connection at home?

The analysis for Question 4.4 and 4.5 has been done jointly at the end of Question 4.5.

19
 Figure 21: Internet connection.

Question 4.5 – How many people are computer literate in your family?

Figure 22: Computer literacy.

It is important that 98.3% of respondents have stated having a computer at home while only
39% have all of their family members know how to use the computer efficiently.

20
Question 4.6(a) – Does your family organise leisure activities (e.g. dinner parties, seaside
trips etc.)?

Figure 23: Family leisure activities.

Question 4.6(b) – If yes, how often.

Figure 24: Frequency of family leisure activities.

Leisure activities between family members are important to distract the mind from daily work
stress and boost the relationship and sharing between parents and children. According to the
survey, in the Mauritian society, 69.5% of respondents are part of leisure activities within
family members. The frequency of these activities are limited to a couple of times per year
(56.1%) and a small share (9.8%) stating on a weekly basis.

21
Question 4.7(a) – Does your family have dinner together?

Figure 25: Family dinners.

Question 4.7(b) – If yes, how often?

Figure 26: Frequency of family dinners.

22% of respondents do not have dinner with their family. This is consistent with the shift to
nuclear families whereby there is a decrease in the amount of family members, and also due
to impact of technology on children, e.g. instead of having dinner at the family table, they eat
in front of a laptop while watching a movie.

22
Question 4.8(a) – Does your family watch TV together?

Figure 27: TV sessions.

Question 4.8(b) – If yes, please specify which programmes and how often.

Figure 28: Programmes family members share.

81.4% of respondents spend time watching TV together with 53% of them watching the news
on a daily basis together. This helps in parents communicating with children in the family
about the actualities and other topics.

23
Question 4.9 – Do your family members encourage you to pursue your studies?

A huge part of the surveyed persons (96.6%) responded that their family members encourage
them to pursue their study. This shows that education within the family is highly regarded
within the Mauritian family.

Figure 29: Encouragement for studies.

5.5. Section 5: Personal Evaluation

Question 5.1 – Do you own a personal computer?

The analysis for Question 5.1 to Question 5.5 has been done at the end of Question 5.5.

Figure 30: Possession of a personal computer.

Question 5.2 – How much time do you spend on your computer daily?

24
 Figure 31: Time spent on personal computer.

Question 5.3(a) – Are you a user of social networking site?

Figure 32: Social networking sites.

Question 5.3(b) – If yes, which sites do you often use?

Figure 33: Different social networking sites.

25
Question 5.4 – How much time do you spend on social networking sites daily?

Figure 34: Time spent on social networking sites.

Question 5.5(a) – Do you own a gaming console/gaming PC?

Figure 35: Possession of a gaming console/gaming PC.

26
Question 5.5(b) – If yes, how often do you spend gaming daily?

Figure 36: Time spent on gaming.

The questions 5.1 to 5.5 were asked so as have an overview of the usage of technology of the
respondents and how they stand with time spent with family. It was found that most of the
respondents (98.3%) owned a personal computer with 81.4% of them spending at least 3
hours on their personal computers per day.

Social networking sites were also used by 98.3% of the respondents with Facebook and
Instagram being the most popular choices. Most of these sites are used to maintain contact
with friends and relatives. Also 65.5% stated that they spend at least 2 hours on these social
networking sites every day.

Gaming consoles were on the other hand not as popular as social networking sites with only
40.7% possessing the console. The majority (73.1%) stated spending less than 1 hour on
gaming. However it is to be noted that the rest 26.9% do spend at least 1 hour on gaming with
a small share also spending more than 6 hours.

All the above points relate to the fact that the amount of time young people spend on
technology is relatively high. The face to face communication process is decreasing and this
tends to affect the relationship between parents and children both in a positive and negative
way.

27
Question 5.6 - How much time do you spend with the following people?

Figure 37: Time spent with different people.

The response to this Question is consistent to the latter statement whereby most time spent
with parents are 1 to 6 hours (67.8%). The time spent with friends is same as that with
parents. This can be attributed to the fact that university life allows more interaction between
the peer groups and decrease interaction with parents.

28
Question 5.7 – To whom do you relate your grievances most often?

According to the survey, the respondents are more open to their mother with 35.7% relating
their grievances to them as compared to only 23.2% relating to their friends. As a matter of
concern, it is important to note that only about 40% of respondents relate their grievances to
their parents. This may be due to a lack of communication between children and parents
within the family as stated earlier.

Figure 38: Sharing grievance.

Question 5.8 – According to you, how do the following factors contribute to the collapse of
the modern family?

Summarising the above statistic, it can be deduced that about 30 out of 59 respondents
believe that the following factors

 Divorce
 Lack of parental control
 Lack of discipline imparted to children
 Financial adversities in the household
 Lack of communication between parents and children
 Negative influence of the media on children
 Peer Pressure, and
 Drugs
indeed contribute to the collapse of the modern Mauritian Family.

29
It is worth noting that a substantial share of respondents (about 25) do not perceive lack of
religious beliefs to be a contributing cause to collapse of Mauritian families.

Figure 39: Factors contributing to collapse of modern family.

30
Question 5.9 – Please specify other factor(s) affecting the Mauritian family.

The responses to this question are as shown below as given by the candidates.

Figure 40: Other factors affecting the Mauritian family.

6. Discussion
6.1. Linking Findings of study to Theoretical Perspectives.
6.1.1. Functionalist Perspective
Here the results of our study will be compared to that of George Murdock carried out on 250
families. As mentioned previously, he argued that the family executes four elementary
functions for its individual members and society at large; the ‘sexual', ‘reproductive',
‘economic' and ‘educational' functions.

Our study showed that out of the 59 respondents, only 9 were an only child, meaning that 50
respondents had more than one offspring. This result is in line with two of Murdock’s claim;
firstly, reproduction is one of the four elementary functions of the family and secondly, the
sexual function, whereby husbands and wives have sexual access to each other.

Since all respondents answered the question on their family’s total income, it can be deduced
that the family members strive to earn money to provide for them. This depicts the economic
function of the family. In addition to that, our study revealed that 55.9 % (33out of 59) of
mothers are a wage earner which is a relatively large proportion as compared to 20 years ago

31
where women were staying at home to look after their children and to do the household
chores. Labour is therefore divided along gender lines, which is beneficial to the spouses
according to Murdock.

Of the 59 responses, 96.6 % say that their family members encourage them to pursue their
studies implying that education is also one main function of the family as stated by Murdock.
Furthermore, only 6.9 % and 1.7 % of respondents claimed that their father and mother
respectively had no formal schooling. Many participants also specified that they had siblings
who are studying abroad. These results highlight the importance of education as a family
function.

The views of Talcott Parsons on the primary socialisation of children, could not be verified
using the results of this study, because this survey targeted university students, who are
young adults, and not in early childhood. However, his second claim about the stabilisation of
adult personalities in the society was verified and found to hold some veracity with the help
of the findings of this study which show that 69.5% of families organise leisure activities a
couple of times a year. This allows the family members to temporarily escape from daily
work stress and to strengthen the relationship with their children.

6.1.2. Marxist Perspective

The view of Eli Zaretsky (famous Marxist) on the link between capitalism and the family has
been verified and found to be true to some extent. He argued that the family served the
interest of capitalism in various ways, namely, through the unpaid (domestic work) of
women, by the reproduction of labour force and by being an important unit of consumption.
This claim is confirmed by result of the survey which indicates that 44.1% of mothers are not
wage earners in their families, and thus are a source of unpaid labour to their families. Also,
84.7% of families have more than 1 offspring, highlighting the view of Zaretsky that women
serve the interest of capitalism by reproduction of the labour force.

6.1.3. Marxist and Feminist Perspective

The study conducted also revealed that males still dominate females as the leader of the
household with 76.3 % (45 out of 59) respondents stating that their father is the main decision
maker and only 40.7 % (24 out of 59) stating that their mother is the main decision taker in
their family. Although 40.7 % is quite a large fraction, there is still no equality in that regard
and thus the Mauritian society still has some similarity with the Marxist and feminist
perspective. Moreover, only 37.3 % of the respondents claimed that all the members of their

32
family participate in the household chores. While our survey does not reveal specifically
which of men or women do not participate in the household tasks, it is believed that it is
mostly men who do not participate.

The results also corroborate with the claim of radical feminists Christine Delphy and Diana
Leonard who stated that it is mostly men who are the heads of households.

6.2. Recommendations
1. For the survey conducted, calculation of sample size earlier had shown that 74
respondents were needed per faculty. Success in obtaining that number of respondents
will increase the reliability of the data collection.

2. Out of the 74 respondents, it would be more unbiased, if there were roughly equal
proportions of males and females.

3. More in-depth survey questions inquiring about the respondent’s view on factors
affecting change in family structures in Mauritius would have given an insight of the
respondent’s way of thinking on the subject matter.

7. Conclusion
This study, although not very thorough, aimed at defining and understanding the family as
per the University of Mauritius students’ perspective. In general, most of the responses
obtained corroborated with the existing theoretical perspectives of our society. Moreover,
even if the study is not statistically established, it projects a fair and somewhat generally
accurate trend about the Mauritian family. With the advent of new technology it can be seen
that more and more families are moving towards nuclear residential patterns, and
communication (especially for youngsters) is gearing more and more towards social media.
Although, the latter keeps people more connected, it has started to alienate family members
and create communication gaps. As indicated by questions 5.8 and 5.9, UoM students believe
that families face social problems through various sources, however, with a high inclination
towards the fact lack of communication between parents and children being at the crux of the
matter. Ultimately, we can conclude that the modern Mauritian family has evolved
considerably through the last few decades and we are at a critical point where we need to
prioritise the family as an institution, else society, at large, will suffer.

33
 8. Bibliography
HowStuffWorks. (2016). Understanding Family Structures and Dynamics. [Online]
Available at: http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/understanding-famil
y-structures-and-dynamics-ga.htm [Accessed 1 Nov. 2016].

Vcampus.uom.ac.mu. (2016). 5.4 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family. [Online] Available

at: http://vcampus.uom.ac.mu/soci1101/54theoretical_perspectives_on_the_family.html
[Accessed 1 Nov. 2016].

CheckMarket. (2016). How to determine population and survey sample size? [Online]
Available at: https://www.checkmarket.com/blog/how-to-estimate-your-population-and-surve
y-sample-size/ [Accessed 1 Nov. 2016].

34
Appendices
Appendix 1
Below is the online survey circulated to all participants.

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
How many members of the family participate in the household
chores?

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Appendix 2

50