Keeping in touch with the wider clan via family groups on the mobile phone is the closest modern approximation of the traditional Indian joint family system that many, if not most, older generations grew up in. Joys and sorrows, achievements and anxieties, hopes and disappointments, queries and advice, humour and concern are all communicated and discussed on it daily. Without, of course, the boundaries and dynamics of a large ancestral home.
But the phrase 'joint family' evokes strangely divergent reactions today, inevitably depending on the age and experience of people. I grew up hearing stories from my mother about large homes brimming with family members of all ages and spanning lateral lines. There was no difference between siblings and cousins nor between parents and uncles and aunts. Life was not luxurious but nor was it lonely. It seemed an idyllic situation to me, growing up alone.
Yet India's joint family withered as an institution not only because of the exigencies of modern life creating 'nuclear' families but because of the litany of criticism that disincentivised staying together. Lack of privacy, shared spaces, finances and responsibility were cited as big issues. Divergent ideas of lifestyle, parenting and opinion were also cast as problems. And the 'stress and tension' of in-house arguments, adjustments, comparisons and competition.
However, these are the very things that made joint families not only microcosms of the big world outside but also taught children invaluable life skills. They grew up meeting and learning to deal with all sorts of people-old, young, mad, bad or sad, extroverts, recluses, bookworms, jocks, snitches, sycophants, peacemakers, bullies, wimps, whiners, sinners, altruists, cheaters, sharks, muggles, good eggs and rotten ones. They got a foretaste of the outside world at home.
They learnt to deal with differences of opinion, which also meant understanding when to compromise, when to shut up, when to remonstrate and when to just let it be. Unless they hailed from significantly well-off families, they also learnt to share and forego, realised resources were limited and distribution could be unfair. They faced frustration and disappointment, developed social skills and figured out everything will not come to them on a platter. All at home too.
These crucial abilities cannot be taught at even the best schools; they can only be imbibed by osmosis. And in the process, many of the mistakes so necessary for forming a strong base to take on life's challenges were made within the relative safety of the joint family microcosm. Public defeats or loss of face were not a terrifying possibility. Most precious of all, being under one roof fostered cross-generational bonds that sustained them through grief and bereavement.
Joint families were certainly not without drawbacks back then as rigid traditions often became friction points. Privacy was not considered necessary either for individuals or couples, and certainly not children. The impracticality of such large familial groups in today's urban situations are also glaringly evident, what with lack of adequate space-both physical and personal-longer work hours and changed gender roles as women are no longer primarily homemakers.
Maybe phone fam-jams are indeed the best way to recreate the best aspects of joint families and yet respect the mores of our times. Personal spaces are protected even as they offer a safe space to consult, confab, confide and comfort. Most of all, they offer a way to preserve the family bonds that are becoming more fragile with every generation. My maternal, paternal and marital families are all there for me, just a click away. What could be more comforting in today's world?
But the phrase 'joint family' evokes strangely divergent reactions today, inevitably depending on the age and experience of people. I grew up hearing stories from my mother about large homes brimming with family members of all ages and spanning lateral lines. There was no difference between siblings and cousins nor between parents and uncles and aunts. Life was not luxurious but nor was it lonely. It seemed an idyllic situation to me, growing up alone.
Yet India's joint family withered as an institution not only because of the exigencies of modern life creating 'nuclear' families but because of the litany of criticism that disincentivised staying together. Lack of privacy, shared spaces, finances and responsibility were cited as big issues. Divergent ideas of lifestyle, parenting and opinion were also cast as problems. And the 'stress and tension' of in-house arguments, adjustments, comparisons and competition.
However, these are the very things that made joint families not only microcosms of the big world outside but also taught children invaluable life skills. They grew up meeting and learning to deal with all sorts of people-old, young, mad, bad or sad, extroverts, recluses, bookworms, jocks, snitches, sycophants, peacemakers, bullies, wimps, whiners, sinners, altruists, cheaters, sharks, muggles, good eggs and rotten ones. They got a foretaste of the outside world at home.
They learnt to deal with differences of opinion, which also meant understanding when to compromise, when to shut up, when to remonstrate and when to just let it be. Unless they hailed from significantly well-off families, they also learnt to share and forego, realised resources were limited and distribution could be unfair. They faced frustration and disappointment, developed social skills and figured out everything will not come to them on a platter. All at home too.
These crucial abilities cannot be taught at even the best schools; they can only be imbibed by osmosis. And in the process, many of the mistakes so necessary for forming a strong base to take on life's challenges were made within the relative safety of the joint family microcosm. Public defeats or loss of face were not a terrifying possibility. Most precious of all, being under one roof fostered cross-generational bonds that sustained them through grief and bereavement.
Joint families were certainly not without drawbacks back then as rigid traditions often became friction points. Privacy was not considered necessary either for individuals or couples, and certainly not children. The impracticality of such large familial groups in today's urban situations are also glaringly evident, what with lack of adequate space-both physical and personal-longer work hours and changed gender roles as women are no longer primarily homemakers.
Maybe phone fam-jams are indeed the best way to recreate the best aspects of joint families and yet respect the mores of our times. Personal spaces are protected even as they offer a safe space to consult, confab, confide and comfort. Most of all, they offer a way to preserve the family bonds that are becoming more fragile with every generation. My maternal, paternal and marital families are all there for me, just a click away. What could be more comforting in today's world?
You may also like
Trump says he is 'not frustrated' with Netanyahu over war in Gaza
Bikash Bhavan protest: Police says teachers turned agitation into "hostage-like situation"
'To easy lol': 10 inmates including murder convicts use blankets to escape through hole in New Orleans jail - watch video
BJP transferring officers who obstructed AAP Govt's work out of Delhi to shield from jail: Saurabh Bharadwaj
Exactly how much its cost to charge an EV as Brits stung with soaring petrol costs
