Is the Nuclear Family Universal

Is the nuclear family universal​?

  The functionalist sociologist Murdock stated that the family was a universal social grouping and as such could be found in all societies worldwide. He stated that no other society had succeeded in finding an “adequate substitute” for the nuclear family and that the nuclear family is the only “proper and useful” family type to have. This view has been subject to much criticism and controversy by sociologists who consider Murdock's view outdated.
Murdock outlined four functions of the nuclear family concerned with sex, reproduction, education and economics and while these can be regarded as prerequisites for the survival of the family, these functions can and are carried out in many other different family types in the past and in contemporary society.
Gittens suggests that it is the relationships within families that are universal not the nuclear family type itself while Barrett and McIntosch say that the nuclear family is not universal only the idea of it. Today and in the past lots of different family types would not be regarded as “families” under Murdock's defination. Historically the pre colonial Nayar people in southern India had a very different idea of family than that identified by Murdock. Nayar married women had children with multiple partners and   those children were reared together in an extended tribe by the entire female tribe and were provided for economically by uncles. This does not fit Murdock's definition of a family being a group living together who consist of two adults of two different genders and two children. Similarly the Oneida Community living in New York in the 1880's did not subscribe to his format since in their communal families only selected males and females reproduced while childcare was shared amongst the whole community. More recently in the communes of the USSR in the early 20th century the function of the family was subject to change by state control which resulted in the economic...