The 21st Century family - Quo Vadis?

The joint family, once a necessity, was hailed a success. Today, with equations within the home being defined by mutual respect, what ultimately matters is the individual's choice, says VIJAYNAGASWAMI.

The unhesitating reply of many urban indians, when asked to define the most unique identifer of "indian culture", is "the joint family". I am never really sure whether they actually believe this or whether they assume this to be the politically correct response. If indeed they believed it, their attitudes towards their families should be far more venerating than psychotherapeutic experience, contemporary literature, performing arts, and media reports would have us believe. I believe it to be an unconsidered reponse motivated more by a sub-conscious sense of guilt, for the joint family in metropolitan india has been a visible casualty in the course of the process of national development. Our leaders continue to exhort us to return to "indian cultural values" and resurrect the joint family. But is this possible? Or, hold your breath, is it even necessary?

The joint family was a historical necessity. Centuries ago, when environmental uncertainty was very high, when people were beginning to expand their geographical horizons, the village- community progressively became too large or too nebulous an entity to provide emotional support to the individual. The community could only respond to larger social needs not to individual ones. The latter, who had a strong need to belong to a group of familiar and supportive people, looked to the joint family to fill this emerging void. And the joint family responded admirably to the situation. It served the role of parent, protector and nurturer, and by harnessing collective wisdom, created an enabling environment to permit the growth and development of its constituents.

To perpetuate itself, it had to evolve a strict code of conduct, clearly delimited individual roles, a prescribed power structure and unstinting subordination to the nominated paterfamilias (or, in some instances, the materfamilias) for it to be able to perform its function. But, as post-Independence urban Indians started appreciating their need for individual identity, the restrictions placed by the joint family were not easily manageable, and therefore the extended family made its appearance. This seemed to, temporarily at least, satisfy the individual's need, and guilt was kept at bay. Unfortunately, extended families, unable to shake off the hangover of their origins from the rigid joint family, began to function like downsized joint familias. The dynamics were similar. The benevolent or tyrannical paterfamilies, the power structures, the subordination to the head of the family, all continued. But this time, as strong undertones in an apparently democratic ambience.

But, as India moves into the 21st century, economic realities, practical considerations and the demands made by the process of alienation, all inevitable aspects of the process of maturation of a culture, have already started gnawing at the institution of the extended family. More and more people are becoming dependent on their nuclear families to provide them whatever support they require. And frankly, this is not a bad thing. For the individual actively in pursuit of the enhancement of his individual identity, the joint family with its rigid structures or the extended family with its uncomfortable undertones become more like albatrosses than the facilitating agents they were designed to be. As anyone who lives in an extended family will bear me out, living with undertones can be extraordinarily depressing. The coveted position of Head of the Family is not clearly delineated, and active jockeying for this role takes place, with the incumbent often finding it extremely difficult to relinquish the reins even when economically dependent on the heir-apparent for survival. This often results in messy and sometimes machiavellian power struggles resolved only by the passing on of the former.

As a result of all this, equations within the family are not defined by mutual respect, as successful relationships should be, but more by some subliminal filial bonds that are expected to magically hold the unit together. They do not, because they cannot. Does this mean that I foresee large numbers of broken families and elders abandoned by callous children in the 21st century? Far from it. What I actually see is more functional families with their members engaged in more respectful relationships than has been the case in the past. The focus will shift from the individual having a relationship with the "family" as an entity to having more conscious relationships with the constituents of the family. And the family will emerge as a more substantial unit of social support than the hollowed out institution it appears to be today.

It is the search for mutual respect that places a burden on the perpetuity of the family as a functional unit. But it is this same search for mutual respect that is finally going to ensure that the family survives as an unit, even if in a redefined form. For relationships to become mutually respecting, the fundamental requirement is for the individuals within them to be objective about each other. No longer can the parent-child relationship function in a parent-child mode. By this, I mean that the adult offspring should be able to relate to the parent as one adult would to another. Equally critical is for the parent to engage in a similar process. The child needs to cut the umbilical cord completely and the parent needs to "emotionally let go" of the child and facilitate this process. Likewise siblings too, need to start relating to each other as adults and not with the same patterns that they have been used to since childhood.

But for this to happen, three basic hurdles need to be overcome. The first of these is the fear on the part of both parent and offspring, that if the cord is cut, whatever relationship exists may be permanently damaged. Or put another way, "we have no idea how else we can relate to each other." While this fear is entirely understandable, it is without real basis. I have seen far too many families successfully making the effort, to believe otherwise. I have seen stentorian septuagenarians "letting go" of their children, as well as "dutiful children" cutting their cords effectively. To facilitate this process, a successful, communicating and supportive marriage is vital, at both ends of the spectrum - that of the child as well as the parent. Even as we sever our umblical cords, we will realise that our dependency needs have not been eliminated. And by transferring these on our spouse, we also serve the developing marriage's requirement of increased emotional investment. As an added bonus, the parent's marriage will also be enriched by this. In the event that one has only one surviving parent, the latter will start distributing dependency needs along a variety of relationships - spiritual, emotional and social, an essential requirement for the process of graceful aging. Similar, though less intense dynamics operate in sibling relationships as well. And the process of "adultisation" of family relationships can be managed without either waiting for or precipitating a crisis, if we approach the task with the object of preserving family relationships than terminating them, and engage in purposeful dialogue with members of our families.

The next hurdle that needs to be overcome is the natural resistance to change that bedevils the human race. But this too is not overwhelmingly difficult to cross, if we have already started the process of working on our relationships. And the final hurdle is the fear that once skeletons start popping out of the cupboard, there is no conceivable way of reversing the process. True. But as most families that have taken the plunge will gladly tell you, the skeletons need never again be salted away. For they are like "bogeymen", only feared but never seen. And they disintegrate when confronted. And what's more, they are biodegradable too!

The redefined family, that builds itself on a satisfying present than on just a shared past, has the potential to construct an optimistic future. But the process of redefinition needs to be undertaken actively and consciously. It will not happen miraculously. There is, of course, one other way of dealing with the family: Keep chugging along and hope that something will happen to change things dramatically, or that with advancing age everyone settles down to mutually accepting and acceptable patterns of behaviour. This is the path chosen by many families, not yet ready to face their demons. Does it work? I have no evidence that it does. But the choice is yours. You will have to exercise whichever seems more appropriate to your circumstances. Hopefully, you will choose wisely.

The writer is a psychiatrist and marital therapist based in Chennai.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : The people's prince
Next     : The real homemakers