Perspectives on kinship

1. Structure- functional approach to kinship

The functional method of anthropology – a method which consists of above all in the analysis of primitive institutions as they work at present, rather than in the reconstruction of a hypothetical past. Functionalists view the family unit as a construct that fulfills important functions and keeps society running smoothly. Functionalists identify a number of functions families typically perform: reproduction; socialization; care, protection, and emotional support; assignment of status; and regulation of sexual behavior through social norms. For functionalists, the family creates well-integrated members of society by instilling the social culture into children.Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, “primitive” societies, lacking strong centralized institutions, are based on an association of descent groups. These clans emerge from family units. Structural functionalism is a framework that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. In this way, society is like an organism and each aspect of society (institutions, social constructs, etc.) is like an organ that works together to keep the whole functioning smoothly. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole.

Functionalism addresses society in terms of the function of its constituent elements: norms, customs, traditions and institutions. Functionalists, in general, identify a number of functions families typically perform: reproduction; socialization; care, protection, and emotional support; assignment of status; and regulation of sexual behavior through the norm of legitimacy.

A.R Radcliffe-Brown turned to synchronic functionalist explanations of social phenomena, while accepting Malinowski ideas on the universality and importance of the nuclear family. According to Brown the kinship terms, kinship systems and the total social world were bound up in an integrated whole, each part of which had the function of maintaining the whole. The’ whole ‘ was the social structure or culture which had an adaptive function with respect to the total environment. He views kinship systems were generated from patterns found in the nuclear family so that affect and behaviour were extended to more distant kinsmen. He saw the function of resulting classificatory kinship system as the means by which a wide range of kinsmen were ordered into few manageable categories.

The units of social system for ARRB were “position” (statuses) within a structured arrangement. Malinowski however tried to view the units of comparison as institutions; organized groups with charters and goals, performing culture maintaining functions that satisfied certain basic human biosocial needs for the individual and his society. In his book African systems of kinship and marriage Radcliffe-Brown made a timid attempt at classification of kinship systems according to nature of their descent systems;

1.      Lineal systems   a. Unilineal        patrilineal and matrilineal

                             b. Bilienal  or Double Descent

    2.  Cognatic systems i.e Bilateral or without lineal descent groups.

Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, “primitive” societies that lack strong centralized institutions are based on an association of corporate-descent groups. Structural functionalism also took on the argument that the basic building block of society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies are held together by organic solidarity.

Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the "body" as a whole.[1] In the most basic terms, it simply emphasises "the effort to impute, as rigorously as possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive system."

Durkheim proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking strong centralised institutions, are based on an association of corporate-descent groups. Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's argument that the basic building block of society is the nuclear family, and that the clan is an outgrowth, not vice versa. Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be segmented, with equivalent parts held together by shared values, common symbols .Based on the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim argued that complicated societies are held together by organic solidarity. Emile Durkheim, in his Division of Labour in Society (1893) tried to understand how clan based societies operated in reality. For him, they would be together through mutual solidarity which he named mechanical solidarity. Clans however also created territorial segments. According to him this comes out from division of labour and the complex groups thus formed were united by function. This is what he termed as organic solidarity

The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies to endure over time. Societies are seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their various parts (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of working together, and are effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself but rather in terms of his status, his position in patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated with his status. The social structure, then, is the network of statuses connected by associated roles.

Fortes distinguished between the “private” or “domestic” domain of kinship and what he called the “politico-jural” domain. It was nevertheless true that Fortes in particular gave considerable explanatory weight to the emotional power of kinship. According to Fortes, what gave kinship its moral force was the “axiom of amity”—the idea that in the last analysis it is kin who can always be relied upon to help you out and who are the people you turn to when other help fails.

Merton criticised functional unity, saying that not all parts of a modern, complex society work for the functional unity of society. Some institutions and structures may have other functions, and some may even be generally dysfunctional, or be functional for some while being dysfunctional for others. This is because not all structures are functional for society as a whole. Some practices are only functional for a dominant individual or a group [Holmwood, 2005:91]. Here Merton introduces the concepts of power and coercion into functionalism and identifies the sites of tension which may lead to struggle or conflict. Merton states that by recognizing and examining the dysfunctional aspects of society we can explain the development and persistence of alternatives. Thus, as Holmwood states, “Merton explicitly made power and conflict central issues for research within a functionalist paradigm” Merton also noted that there may be functional alternatives to the institutions and structures currently fulfilling the functions of society. This means that the institutions that currently exist are not indispensable to society. Merton states that “just as the same item may have multiple functions, so may the same function be diversely fulfilled by alternative items” [cited in Holmwood, 2005:91]. This notion of functional alternatives is important because it reduces the tendency of functionalism to imply approval of the status quo.The last of Merton’s important contributions to functionalism was his distinction between manifest and latent functions. Manifest functions refer to the conscious intentions of actors; latent functions are the objective consequences of their actions, which are often unintended.

Structural functionalism and unilineal descent

 In their attempt to explain the social stability of African "primitive" stateless societies where they undertook their fieldwork, Evans-Pritchard (1940) and Meyer Fortes (1945) argued that the Tallensi and the Nuer were primarily organised around unilineal descent groups. Such groups are characterised by common purposes, such as administering property or defending against attacks; they form a permanent social structure that persists well beyond the lifespan of their members. In the case of the Tallensi and the Nuer, these corporate groups were based on kinship which in turn fitted into the larger structures of unilineal descent; consequently Evans-Pritchard's and Fortes' model is called "descent theory". Moreover, in this African context territorial divisions were aligned with lineages; descent theory therefore synthesised both blood and soil as two sides of one coin (cf. Kuper, 1988:195). Affinal ties with the parent through whom descent is not reckoned, however, are considered to be merely complementary or secondary (Fortes created the concept of "complementary filiation"), with the reckoning of kinship through descent being considered the primary organising force of social systems. Because of its strong emphasis on unilineal descent, this new kinship theory came to be called "descent theory". Before long, descent theory had found its critics. Many African tribal societies seemed to fit this neat model rather well, although Africanists, such as Richards, also argued that Fortes and Evans-Pritchard had deliberately  downplayed internal contradictions and overemphasised the stability of the local lineage systems and their significance for the organisation of society. However, in many Asian settings the problems were even more obvious. In Papua New Guinea, the local patrilineal descent groups were fragmented and contained large amounts of non-agnates. Status distinctions did not depend on descent, and genealogies were too short to account for social solidarity through identification with a common ancestor. In particular, the phenomenon of cognatic (or bilateral) kinship posed a serious problem to the proposition that descent groups are the primary element behind the social structures of "primitive" societies. 

Leach's (1966) critique came in the form of the classical Malinowskian argument, pointing out that "in Evans-Pritchard's studies of the Nuer and also in Fortes's studies of the Tallensi unilineal descent turns out to be largely an ideal concept to which the empirical facts are only adapted by means of fictions." (1966:8). People's self-interest, manoeuvring, manipulation and competition had been ignored. Moreover, descent theory neglected the significance of marriage and affinal ties, which were emphasised by Levi-Strauss' structural anthropology, at the expense of overemphasising the role of descent. To quote Leach: "The evident importance attached to matrilateral and affinal kinship connections is not so much explained as explained away."

Decent theory

Descent theory with its emphasis on the analysis of unilineal  descent groups , tends to view society as a set of separate but equal units bounded by the extent of their internal relationships and unified into society by mechanical-segmentary solidarity. Descent theory also known as lineage theory came to the fore in the 1940s with the publication of books like The Nuer (1940), African Political Systems (1940) etc. he central problem addressed by anthropologists of the early 20th century was directly related to the colonial enterprise and focused on understanding the mechanisms for maintaining political order in stateless societies. Given that such societies lacked centralized administrative and judicial institutions—the bureaucratic machinery of the state—how were rights, duties, status, and property transmitted from one generation to the next? Traditional societies accomplished this task by organizing around kinship relations rather than property. Prominent British social anthropologists of this period, such as Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Evans-Pritchard, and Fortes, generally advocated a functionalist approach to these questions. The major premises of functionalism were that every aspect of a culture, no matter how seemingly disparate (e.g., kinship terms, technology, food, mythology, artistic motifs), had a substantive purpose and that within a given culture these diverse structures worked together to maintain the group’s viability. For instance, these scholars saw the family as a universal social institution that functioned primarily to rear children. From their perspective this function was to a large degree self-evident and cross-culturally constant. The wider groupings recruited through kinship, which were the basis of political and economic organization, were much more culturally variable and hence of greater interest.

Fortes distinguished between the “private” or “domestic” domain of kinship and what he called the “politico-jural” domain. It was nevertheless true that Fortes in particular gave considerable explanatory weight to the emotional power of kinship. According to Fortes, what gave kinship its moral force was the “axiom of amity”—the idea that in the last analysis it is kin who can always be relied upon to help you out and who are the people you turn to when other help fails.

British social anthropologists explored the ways in which kinship provided a basis for forming the kinds of groups—discrete, bounded, and linked to a particular territory—that were seen as necessary for a stable political order. Their explanations of these mechanisms became known as the descent theory of kinship. Kinship is always “bilateral”; that is, it consists of relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s sides. Of course the relatives on both sides of any individual overlap with those of others, creating a web of interconnectedness rather than a discrete group. However, the recognition of one line of descent and the exclusion of the other provides the basis of a “unilineal” kinship system. In such systems descent defines bounded groups. The principle operates similarly whether the rule of descent is matrilineal (traced through the mother in the female line) or patrilineal (traced through the father in the male line).

Unilineal kinship systems were seen by British anthropologists of this period as providing a basis for the stable functioning of societies in the absence of state institutions. Generally, unilineal descent groups were exogamous. They also acted as corporations: their members held land in common, acted as a single unit with regard to substantive property, and behaved as one “person” in relation to other similarly constituted groups in legal and political matters such as warfare, feuds, and litigation. That is, the members of a lineage did not act as individuals in the politico-jural domain, instead conceiving themselves to a considerable extent as undifferentiated and continuous with each other. This corporateness was the basis of the stability and structure of a society formed out of unilineal descent groups.

Although descent theory dominated early to mid-20th-century British kinship studies, a number of problems soon emerged. It became apparent that the depiction of societies as neatly ordered by unilineal descent into clearly bounded, nested units of different scale was quite far from everyday political reality. Personal experiences of kinship could vary considerably from the normative models described by some anthropologists; Evans-Pritchard, for instance, demonstrated that individuals could not always unequivocally identify the lineage to which they belonged. Furthermore, as scholars from Britain, France, and the United States increasingly undertook fieldwork outside Africa—for example, in Polynesia, Southeast Asia, or New Guinea—it became clear that kinship was not always organized through unilineal descent. Despite Radcliffe-Brown’s assertions to the contrary, bilateral (sometimes called “cognatic”) kinship as well as bilateral descent groups (reckoned in both the mother’s and the father’s lines) were found to be statistically common, even though they did not provide the same kind of clearly demarcated groupings as unilineal versions of kinship.

A further issue of contention was the extent to which descent theory minimized the importance of marriage in the structuring of kinship. Both Evans-Pritchard and Fortes asserted the importance of various links between descent groups. Such links assured the wider integration of kinship groups over a particular territory and could include links formed through marital connections as well as the recognition of kinship ties in the line that was complementary to the principal line of descent (i.e., matrilateral ties in a patrilineal kinship system or patrilateral ones in a matrilineal system). In their opinion, however, the principle of descent remained paramount in assuring the stable functioning of societies without states. Many prominent British anthropologists of this era were soon locked in forceful debate with their colleagues elsewhere over the significance of descent relative to that of marriage.

2. Structural perspective 

Within the structuralist perspective we focus upon the underlying structures of human social structure by formulating models of structure. Levi Strauss argues that structure of model with several requirements to fulfill. 

1. The structure exhibits the characteristics of a system. It is made up of several elements none of which can undergo a change without effecting changes in all the other elements.

2. For any given model there should be a possibility or ordering a series of transformations resulting in a group of models of the same type.

3. The above properties make it possible to predict how the model will react if one or more of its elements are submitted to certain modifications.

4. The model should be constituted so as to make immediately intelligible all observed facts.

Alliance theory; Theory of General exchanges or reciprocity

While British social anthropologists were focused on the existence of social rules and the ways in which members of different societies acted within a given framework of ideas and categories, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss had a very different starting point. His work was motivated by the question of how arbitrary social categories (such as those within kinship, race, or class) had originated. He was also concerned with explaining their apparent compulsory quality, or presence within the “natural order,” in societies. In The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), Lévi-Strauss turned to kinship to try to answer these questions. His model became known as the alliance theory of kinship. He also held that affinal relations framed the most basic and irreducible unit of kinship—what he called the “atom of kinship.

Alliance theory is based on the incest taboo: according to it, only this universal prohibition of incest pushes human groups towards exogamy. Thus, inside a given society, certain categories of kin are forbidden to inter-marry. The incest taboo is thus a negative prescription; without it, nothing would push men to go searching for women outside their inner kinship circle, or vice versa. This theory echoes with Freud's Totem and Taboo (1913). But the incest taboo of alliance theory, in which one's daughter or sister is offered to someone outside a family circle, starts a circle of exchange of women: in return, the giver is entitled to a woman from the other's intimate kinship group. Thus the negative prescriptions of the prohibition have positive counterparts .The idea of the alliance theory is thus of a reciprocal or a generalized exchange which founds affinity. This global phenomenon takes the form of a "circulation of women" which links together the various social groups in one whole: society.Alliance theorists claimed that social structure is concerned with models that are statements of rules at a higher level than descent theory. These rules are not overt to the actors in the system , and the models are therefore analytical. 

According to Lévi-Strauss's alliance theory, there are two different structural "models" of marriage exchange. Either the women of ego's group are offered to another group "explicitly defined" by social institutions: these are the "elementary structures of kinship". Or the group of possible spouses for the women in ego's group is "indetermined and always open", to the exclusion, however, of certain kin-people (nuclear family, aunts, uncles...), as in the Western world. Lévi-Strauss call these latter "complex structures of kinship".

Levi-Strauss' model attempted to offer a single explanation for cross-cousin marriage, sister-exchange, dual organisation and rules of exogamy. Marriage rules over time create social structures, as marriages are primarily forged between groups and not just between the two individuals involved. When groups exchange women on a regular basis they marry together, with each marriage creating a debtor/creditor relationship which must be balanced through the "repayment" of wives, either directly or in the next generation. Levi-Strauss proposed that the initial motivation for the exchange of women was the incest taboo, which he deemed to be the beginning and essence of culture, as it was the first rule to check natural impulses; and secondarily the sexual division of labour. The former, by prescribing exogamy, creates a distinction between marriageable and tabooed women and thus necessitates a search for women outside one's own kin group ("marry out or die out"), which fosters exchange relationships with other groups; the latter creates a need for women to do "women's tasks". By necessitating wife-exchange arrangements, exogamy therefore promotes inter-group alliances and serves to form structures of social networks.

Levi-Strauss also discovered that a wide range of historically unrelated cultures had the rule that individuals should marry their cross-cousin, meaning children of siblings of the opposite sex - from a male perspective that is either the FZD (father's sister's daughter in kinship abbreviation) or the MBD (mother's brother's daughter in kinship abbreviation). Accordingly, he grouped all possible kinship systems into a scheme containing three basic kinship structures, constructed out of two types of exchange. He called the three kinship structures elementary, semi-complex and complex.

Elementary structures are based on positive marriage rules that specify whom a person must marry, while complex systems specify negative marriage rules (whom one must not marry), thus leaving a certain amount of room for choice based on preference. Elementary structures can operate based on two forms of exchange: restricted (or direct) exchange, a symmetric form of exchange between two groups (also called moieties) of wife-givers and wife-takers; in an initial restricted exchange FZ marries MB, with all children then being bilateral cross-cousins (the daughter is both MBD and FZD). Continued restricted exchange means that the two lineages marry together. Restricted exchange structures are generally quite uncommon.

The second form of exchange within elementary structures is called generalized exchange, meaning that a man can only marry either his MBD (matrilateral cross-cousin marriage) or his FZD (patrilateral cross-cousin marriage). This involves an asymmetric exchange between at least three groups. Matrilateral cross-cousin marriage arrangements where the marriage of the parents is repeated by successive generations are very common in parts of Asia (e.g. amongst the Kachin). Levi-Strauss considered generalised exchange to be superior to restricted exchange because it allows the integration of indefinite numbers of groups.

Generalised exchange is more integrative but contains an implicit hierarchy, for instance amongst the Kachin where wife-givers are superior to wife-takers. Consequently, the last wife-taking group in the chain is significantly inferior to the first wife-giving group to which it is supposed to give its wives. These status inequalities can destabilise the entire system or can at least lead to an accumulation of wives (and in the case of the Kachin also of bridewealth) at one end of the chain.

From a structural perspective, matrilateral cross-cousin marriage is superior to its patrilateral counterpart; the latter has less potential to produce social cohesion since its exchange cycles are shorter (the direction of wife exchange is reversed in each successive generation). Levi-Strauss' theory is supported by fact that patrilateral cross-cousin marriage is in fact the rarest of three types. However, matrilateral generalised exchange poses a risk, as group A depends on being given a woman from a group that it has not itself given a woman to, meaning that there is a less immediate obligation to reciprocate compared to a restricted exchange system. The risk created by such a delayed return is obviously lowest in restricted exchange systems.

Levi-Strauss proposed a third structure between elementary and complex structures, called the semi-complex structure, or the Crow-Omaha system. Semi-complex structures contain so many negative marriage rules that they effectively come close to prescribing marriage to certain parties, thus somewhat resembling elementary structures. These structures are found amongst societies such as the Crow and Omaha native Indians in North America.

In Levi-Strauss' order of things, the basic building block of kinship is not just the nuclear family, as in structural-functionalism, but the so-called kinship atom: the nuclear family together with the wife's brother. This "mother's brother" (from the perspective of the wife-seeking son) plays a crucial role in alliance theory, as he is the one who ultimately decides whom his daughter will marry. Moreover, it is not just the nuclear family as such but alliances between families that matter in regard to the creation of social structures, reflecting the typical structuralist argument that the position of an element in the structure is more significant than the element itself. Descent theory and alliance theory therefore look at two different sides of the same coin: the former emphasising bonds of consanguinity (kinship by blood), the latter stressing bonds of affinity (kinship by law or choice).

A common criticism of alliance theory was that it had a strong tendency to view kinship in normative terms, ignoring the variations of gender and of different social actors and omitting the experiential and emotional sides of kinship. Feminist anthropologists and others inveighed against Lévi-Strauss and other alliance theorists for their objectification of women. Other critiques addressed both theories’ androcentrism, their exclusive concern with “primitive” cultures, and their deficiencies in the analysis of residence and other aspects of kinship.

3. Marxist approach to Kinship

Marxist theory focuses upon the instrumental role that the nuclear family plays in ensuring the continuity of capitalism, which is saliently evidenced by inherent power disparities in the nuclear family’s structure. Marxist theory envisages capitalist society as a site of inequality and conflict. Accordingly, Marxism proposes that society fails to represent a system of interdependent institutions and alternatively envisages the economic system assuming paramount importance in society, with all other institutions (the family included) subservient to its operation and maintenance.

Marx asserts that the intrinsic inequalities of capitalist industrial society originate in class relation. He identifies the manifestation of a dual class based stratification system, whereby the class in which one resides, is determined by one’s relationship to the means of production. The ruling bourgeoisie (capitalist class) own the means of commodity production and in turn, employ the proletariat wage labourers whom are necessitated to sell their productive capacity (labour power), as a means to survive. The proletariat are provided with a wage which does not equate with the exchange value of the commodity they produce in the marketplace. Consequently, they are in essence subject to exploitation by the capitalist, who is in pursuit of profit maximization.

As an element of this theoretical premise, Marx and Engels propose that gendered role disparities reflect oppressive and exploitative relations which permeate family life. Here, a class based analysis is superimposed to delineate the operation of familial power differentials, upon two core levels: control of women’s sexuality and the gendered division of labour. Marx and Engels regard this nuclear family arrangement as a derivative of class based economic conditions: the emergence of private property. Consequently, it is perceived that the predominate aim of controlling women’s sexuality by way of monogamous marriage, entails the propagation of offspring of undisputed paternal lineage. As property is transmitted inter-generationally along male lines, the reproduction of legitimate heirs enables families to sustain their concentration of wealth, by reproducing the societal class stratification structure in each succeeding generations. The woman’s entrance into this legal monogamous marriage bond is viewed as analogous to the contract to which the proletariat enlists when surrendering their labour power to the capitalist. Thus the power asymmetries manifesting in marriage place the man in a position of supremacy and the woman in a position of exploitation, synonymous to the relationship between the capitalist and proletariat respectively. Not alone does this exercise of control over women’s sexuality enable the propagation of legitimate heirs (Engels 1986, p.106) but furthermore, ensures the reproduction of the next generation of workers, at a lower cost to capitalist forces. In essence, it is proposed that the first ‘class’ opposition corresponds with the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, expressed in the man’s exclusive supremacy over the woman’s sexuality.

The second form of familial power differentials operates in the gendered division of labour, which is again facilitative to the operation of capitalism. In forming a class based distinction between the operation of the division of labour in bourgeois and proletariat families, Marx and Engels, account for class biases inherent in functionalist theoretical framework. It is suggested that bourgeois families represent the single breadwinner arrangement; whereby, the husband-father secures paid employment in the workforce, with the wife-mother rendered responsible for family subsistence through the exercise of domestic tasks and childrearing. In proletariat families by contrast, it is customary for both men and women to enter paid employment, due to economic necessity .Yet, in the latter case women remain unprivileged in the workforce, in terms of lower pay and predominant exclusion from higher echelon positions, often the justification is that their wages are supplementary to that of the husband. Furthermore, the woman’s unpaid responsibility for domesticity is predominantly sustained, which is facilitative to capitalist interests, as it renders the state free from the responsibility of such provision and also relieves the capitalist from granting higher wages to workers for the purchase of household services.

In essence, women’s domestic labour is a vital contribution to the production of marketplace commodities, as it permits the capitalist to extract surplus value in the marketplace and can hence, be construed as unpaid labour “performed for the capitalist” Thus, whilst wage workers are exploited in a direct manner, women are exploited indirectly, as they remain unpaid for the value of their domestic labour which assists the yield of a surplus value in the first place.

However, it is imperative to note that Marx did not envisage the labour force as impervious to universal participation by women. Rather, he recognised all women as an available reserve army of labour, to be utilised as temporary additional workers, at times of economic prosperity or wartime. From a capitalist perspective, the available reserve army possesses a further monetary value, as it prevents potential worker’s wage inflation at times of economic expansion, whereby, increased costs of labour power would inevitably hinder the maximum accumulation of capital.

In instances where the ‘reserve army’ is no longer required, the naturalism ideology which defines women as domestic childrearing beings, can be reinvoked in order to justify and encourage their reinstatement to the domestic realm .Marx views the family as a key institution of socialisation and primarily concerns himself with the nature of the beliefs which are cultivated.  He contends that the beliefs disseminated within the family are representative of the interests of the ruling class bourgeoisie; sinisterly framed as representing the common interest of all society and its members. For instance, the transmission of meritocratic ideologies attributes ones success or failure to attain upward social mobility, to dispositional factors, as opposed to the inequitable material structure of society .Such ideologies are not in the proletariat’s interests, as they proliferate a shared social understanding, which consolidates power as a preserve of the dominant capitalist class and obscures the inequalities which permeate social life.

The preservation of the status quo consequently, inhibits the development of the class consciousness which Marx deems necessary to usurp the capitalist order and affix a classless, socialist utopia in its place. This pattern is also applicable at another level within the family through the ideological perpetuation of gender disparities in power, which enables men to maintain their position of domination in the nuclear family household. For instance, the ideological coercion of women to believe that the role of wife / mother represents their natural destiny ensures that the nuclear family is preserved as the “ideal” family form, despite its inequitable structure. This produces a magnitude of benefits for capitalism, as it encourages women to be unhesitant in submitting to the unpaid domesticity, which serves both commodity and social production for the capitalist project.

 

About the author:

Abhijay,  an  Anthropologist by training is a PhD scholar. and also a University level educator and freelance  developmental policy consultant.  He have cleared  examinations like UGC-JRF and ICMR JRF for research studies.