Some few observations on the use of the family/ and household definition applied in a study on the human mobility in Namibia By Bruno Venditto Being the focus of the research the impact of migration on the Namibian family structure, it is important to describe the family’s concept/definition I am going to use in this context. As, in fact indicated by Amoateng and Richter (2007) the terms family and household are in many cases, used as interchangeable, particularly in “societies where the nuclear family system predominates and the domestic group is co- terminous with the dwelling unit” (Amoateng and Richter 2007 p 12). Roger and White (1993) defined the family as a particular social group characterised by the institution of marriage; White specifically proposed that: “A family is an intergenerational social group organised and governed by social norms regarding descent and affinity reproduction and the nurturant socialisation of the young” (White 1991, p 7). In sociology a social institution is assimilated to a living organism, composed by different parts each working together for the existence of the organism; White’s definition of family is hence useful, since it associates the term family with a social institution with a concrete dimension and precise norms, (Amoateng and Richter 2007); however it is still somehow elusive since it does not consider the empirical evidence of the diversity of the domestic structure. It is furthermore also a ‘conservative’ definition, where, for example, a family is not only formed by a “legally married couple” and other form of relationship should not be considered as a deviation from the norm, (Berger and Berger 1983). Parson (1951) frames this vision of the family into the sociological theoretical framework of the structure- functionalism sociological theory, in which actors do not exist in isolation but interact with other social system. As society evolve, the family structure, which interacts with