The anthropological perspective on marriage, family and households begin with the understanding of the heterogeneous and hierarchical nature of social systems within<\/em> communities, households, and families. This is important because researchers oftentimes present communities, households and families as a homogeneous group by ignoring the internal power structures that characterize social relations within<\/em> the social unit. Feminist scholars were among the first to interrogate the Myth of Community<\/strong> by unveiling how research studies that rely on \u2018household surveys\u2019 fail to account for the ways that each household member\u2019s experience is shaped differently according the social positioning of each household member (Stacey 1969; Guilt and Kaul-Shah 1998; Spring 1973).<\/p>\n In their book, The Myth of Community<\/em> (1998), Irene Guijt and Meera Kaul Shah examine the ways that rural women have been left out ofdevelopment programs and policy-making because policy-makers have approached \u2018communities\u2019 and \u2018households\u2019 as a uniform social unit comprised of individuals who think, act and experience the same way. Guilt and Kaul Shah argue that in fact, communities are highly heterogeneous and social hierarchies can be based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, education, lifestyle choices, sexual orientations, residence, occupation and livelihood, citizenship, etc. \u00a0Similarly, households and families are also characterized by power structures which can be shaped by gender relations, age-based authority systems, marriage patterns, kinship structures and even individual personalities. \u00a0In light of this, research studies and programs that fail to account for the social hierarchies that operate within a community, household and family will inevitably leave out members who are marginalized and powerless.<\/p>\n What is a household<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p>\n While the concept of a \u2018household\u2019 can be considered a standard residential unit in ethnographic research, the social composition within<\/em> a household not only varies widely cross-culturally, households and household relationships can be quite different within the same social group. Previous anthropological research has generally relied on euro-centric nuclear-family models to define households in various cultural contexts (Schneider 2000). Yet, contemporary anthropologists are now beginning to recognize that a household is a dynamic unit<\/em> because social organization within the household and household composition are constantly changing. Events such as marriage, birth, death, work migration, and death can dramatically alter household composition and social relations within a residential unit. In addition, some members may occupy more than one residential unit according to seasonal variations related to activities such as farming or employment. The dynamic nature of households can make it difficult, if not impossible, to rely on the \u2018household\u2019 as a unit of analysis in ethnographic research.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/FamilyLivingPicture.jpg\" "\\"FamilyLivingPicture\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n