This century has given us many surprises; the worst is the contravention of social institutions and the rise of radical individualization. Overall, the human dignity is at loss. The notion of womanhood is defeated, even with roles reversal.
Religious assumptions supported by feudal pretensions built patriarchy clearly on two realm supposition of Two Sex Theory. Women were exclusive owners of the domesticity, while, men to be in charge of outside home. The internal external cohesion was set and balanced on the division of roles. Both the roles were presumed dignified, linked with the distinct identities. The children grooming and transfer of values would happen in the family, extensively. Its custodian was the mother or the senior most women in the family.
The child would imagine the world mostly through mother’s reflections about it. It is why our women were known as foundation stone (Brand Kaen). This was an established practice, where patriarchy was not questioned by women but happily accepted, as her protector. For, domesticity and children grooming were not only perceived mere roles, but attached with dignified identities. A girl acceptably would take marriage, as transfer of her cultural capital to the new family of which she becomes the member.
It would be complimenting rather than contradicting social capital. It was not erasing of her past, but handing over her dignity to her husband. Her title would be of her husband’s title. She would in the process get blended in her husband’s family traditions. Tacitly, it would mean her well being with dignity and security, both ensured. This organic relationship from home, neighborhood, school to the university was a continuation of this world view of patriarchy; domesticity and outside. The occupational roles, despite women’s education and employability were moderated with this world view.
The advent of this century brought outside to the bed rooms and inside to the unimagined sites. Digital world with virtual realities demystified the established aura of men-women image, established by religious-feudal clubbing. The morbid market capitalism took the commodity component and straight way stripped women from its imaginary idea of prettiness and paucity perception. It created a nervous and unsecured woman. The tradition gave in; men no longer could hold the dignity of women with assurance of family wellbeing, in the market consumerism and competitiveness.
It has produced three orientations of gendered relationships in the family. The first one, a rare type of families; in these families cultural and social capital between the two families, with a little understanding, gets blending organically; such marriages are happy marriages. Not only the children grow well in such families, but seniors also get dividends of their social and cultural capital. They also are looked after well. However, the numbers of these families are on decrease. Precisely, for most of the marriages are not now arranged marriages.
The second category marriages, which are predominant in numbers, are arranged marriages, but in these families the transfer of cultural and social capital does not get blended. It produces insecurity problem in either of the partners, which perpetually create ugly situations in their conversations. Even in their reconciliation, their un-blending cultural capital tacitly creates havoc to the social fabric of the family. The unsecured cohort takes revenge by hating his or her partner’s dear ones. Generally, in such families, husband-wife remain in caged victimized world view. They lose sense of appreciation for their mutual close ones and frequently find faults in others. The members of such families are either rebels or reel under depression.
This is the most prevalent scenario in our families. The third type; where marriages generally are love marriages that are based on mutual physical attractions and economics, such marriage has little to do with the families and they grow with their common interests of economics and mutual dependency. The social component in these families is either neglected or willfully ignored. Such families are mounting in number. The parents despite feeling neglected hardly have any choice, but to accept it, as emerging tendency. Such marriages often are prone to failure. They have to work hard for its sustenance.
Does it mean, if family is in disintegration, marriage as institution has failed substantially? It may have some substance, but there is no alternative to it in sight. Living together with any responsibility onwards children remain far from viable solution. Judgments do come from the middle class, but that class too is well spread and filled in many layers. Middle class is not a monolithic class; each layer has its own distinct subtleties. It is no longer a buffer zone of the society to pave way for a comprehensive formation of a civil society. Democracy in an evolving differentiated society that has made power elite worried all the time in a state of panic to retain power. It has become more coercive in the guard of welfare.
The informal institutions where human dignity in the family was taken care of are in shambles. Women and weak in the family remain vulnerable. The notion of handing over dignity is illusory. The state intervention has limitations and social reformation is not in sight. The notion of handing over dignity is deceptive. It creates problems if social and cultural capital of the two families does not fall in line.
What then is the remedy; the remedy is that marriage is a blessing. The parents too should have say in it, so that they could suggest how social and cultural capital is transferable and viable for mutual blending of the two families. The home has been and will be the cradle for social-cultural capital generation. Mother is the custodian of this repertoire. She should groom the children at their early stage with the holistic values of love, compassion and trusteeship.
Respect for each other is prerequisite for the mutual attraction and infusing the sense of parity. A happy family is not by economics alone. It needs social and cultural capital as well to sustain. Despite women are not at par with men at working paces, they are visible as working force in the fields and offices. They need to be in equal number in skilled work too, beyond domesticity; so that they come out from that notional delicate poetic eulogized image of rare market commodity and make men feel, with education and dignity, that ‘perennial sin’, was a conceived notion of patriarchy.
Prof. Ashok Kaul, retired Emeritus professor of Sociology at Banaras Hindu University.
