Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The proposition is advanced that many current measures of kinship strength may paradox-ically indicate inadequate or weakened kinship structures. That is so because they rely on measures that emphasize continuous proximity. This curious paradox is a consequence of inattention to the relationship between technology, services, and proximity. This article presents nonproximity indicators of kinship contact and service delivery that can measure strength of kinship bonds, and states the principles for assessing at what distances kin can deliver which services. The concept of the modified extended family structure, introduced in 1960, was based on three considerations: (a) that kin structures are a necessity in a modern industrial society; (b) that in order for it to live alongside the powerful formal organizational structures, the kin structure had to alter its form to permit differential mobility of kin members; and (c) that it was possible to do this because modern technology permitted the trans-mission of many crucial services over geographic and social distance (Litwak, 1960). This model of kin structure was contrasted with the traditional one, which stressed the need for kinship proximity or common households, the communality of oc-cupations, and the rejection of nonkin members, such as staff of formal organizations. These two models of kinship were, in turn, opposed by a series of writers who saw either the isolated marital unit as the optimal family unit (Burgess, Data for this study were gathered under grants from the
Litwak et al. (Sat,) studied this question.