Chapter VIII—
The Decline of the Ie Ideal

The Concept of Ie

Until the end of World War II, the Japanese government saw that all its citizens, through school and mass media, learned in great detail about "the family system." As a whole the government was amazingly successful. Not only did everyone learn about the ideal family, but many attempted to model their family on this ideal. Even today, Mamachi residents, like other Japanese, remember clearly the main outlines of what they were taught about the ideal family and the model of the ie^[1] still has an important impact on family behavior. At the heart of the system was the ie , the single unbroken family line, including both living and dead, and the concept of filial piety. The basic goal of ie members was to care properly for departed ancestors and to preserve the continuity and prosperity of their ie . Selling land, for example, was considered a grave misfortune, both because it was a disgrace to the ancestors and because it might seriously affect the family's fortune for generations to come. Family members sacrificed personal pleasures and wants for the ie , not only to gain respect or rewards in this life, but to attain immortality, for the idea of after life was contingent on the continuation of the ie .^[2]

[1] The same word, ie , is also used to mean simply home or a family, but in this chapter it is used only in its meaning as a family line.

For a brief but authoritative account of the ie , see Kizaemon Ariga, "The Family in Japan," Marriage and Family Living , 1954, 16:362–368. The term dozoku is used to denote a locality kin group comprising main and branch families sharing the same work. The main and branch families were sometimes linked not by blood but by fictitious kin ties. Cf. Michio Nagai, "Dozoku^[*] : A Preliminary Study of the Japanese 'Extended Family' Group and Its Social and Economic Functions," Report No. 7, Project 483, Ohio State University (mimeographed).

[2] Cf. Nobushige Hozumi, Ancestor Worship and Japanese Law , Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1912.

Small children belonged to their parents' ie . When the children of a family attained maturity, one son, usually the first, was given the honor and the responsibility for preserving the ie . The other children had to find another ie or, if given permission, they could start a new branch to the main ie into which they were born. When a daughter married, her name was crossed off her ie 's register and entered into the register of her husband's family. The ie gave daughters sizeable dowries and assisted younger sons in starting out in life, but the bulk of the family land and treasures was given to the son who had the responsibility for looking after the family line.^[3] In theory, the family head did not own the property, but was merely the trustee^[4] in the present generation who looked after the property of the ie , past, present, and future. If the head of the household died, normally his son would inherit the headship. If no son were available, a younger brother of the deceased might become head if he had not yet gone to another ie , or a wife might take over the headship until an heir was selected.

When a bride entered a new family, she was expected to learn her new family's customs (kafuu ) and by hard work, automatic obedience, and enthusiastic submission to prove that she was sufficiently loyal to deserve family membership. If she failed, she was returned to her original home.^[5] An adopted son-in-law had to go through the same process.

The bride was not simply a bride of her husband but of his ie , and his ie referred to her as uchi no yome (our bride). In many ways she was regarded as an adopted daughter, and she referred to her parents-in-law as mother and father.^[6] She was chosen not by

[3] It may be suggested incidentally that this practice played a crucial role in capital formation which was necessary for modernization. Many characteristics of modern developments (thrift, hard work, and even economic rationality) were often intimately associated with the attempt to develop and preserve the ie . Hozumi, op. cit. , notes that formerly rules existed against the ie giving too much away since this might interfere with family continuity.

[4] Cf. the works of Carle Zimmerman.

[5] Returning a bride was very common, especially in certain areas of northern Honshu, and it was this practice which made such a high divorce rate in the Meiji Period. The rate was even higher than statistics indicate because many brides were returned in the first months after the marriage before it was officially registered.

[6] In Tokugawa census registers, a young wife is often listed as daughter without being distinguished from a true daughter of the household. For this information I am indebted to Robert J. Smith.

her husband but by his ie , on the basis of her willingness and ability to work hard and transfer her loyalty to her new family, and of her having the health, vigor, and wisdom necessary to produce and rear a desirable heir. Similarly, an adopted son was selected on the basis of his ability to continue the family line. Often it was more important for him to have skills necessary to operate the family farm or business enterprise than the attributes necessary for a good husband.

The son or adopted son who became the family head theoretically had absolute legal authority over the other family members. Just as children were to obey their parents, so the wife was to obey her husband, and when her son became family head, she was to obey him. Younger brothers were to obey the elder brother. The Japanese government held the family head responsible for the behavior of family members, and he was expected to use his authority to ensure that all members behaved properly.

Just as his authority was the greatest, so was his responsibility greatest. In addition to supervising the family enterprise, he had the onus of deciding on marriage and work arrangements for his children or younger siblings. He was responsible for the health and welfare of ie members, living and dead. He provided for his parents in their retirement. If his sisters or daughters were divorced and sent back because they were not acceptable to the new ie or if sons or brothers lost their jobs, he provided temporary food and housing and assisted them in finding a new opening. As preserver of the ie , he supervised the care of family shrines and graveyards and made certain that each summer, at the O-bon festival, lanterns were lighted so that the spirits of departed ancestors could find their way from the grave to the ancestral home.

A prosperous family might boast of a family genealogy and a family graveyard dating back several hundred years, although some families candidly admit doubt about the authenticity of some of the early part of the record. Yet the living members of an ie were usually limited to a stem family of father, mother, unmarried children, a married son, his wife, and their children. In a certain stage of the life cycle, if the grandparents died before the eldest son married, the household might consist only of parents and children. If a family were prosperous and wanted to expand, then a second

son would be allowed to form a branch family (bunke ) which would remain within the ie , but be subordinated to the original family (honke ). In a farm family, the second son might be given a small plot of land, or, in a business family, he might be given a small part of the business or a branch office to provide support for his family. One of his children would be selected as his heir and would become head of the branch line. Theoretically, a main family could have many branches, and branches could have branches. Officially, there was a clear hierarchy of power, the branch family being subordinated to the main family. In fact, except for communities in which the main and branch families had close contact, these relationships had little significance beyond two or three generations. Usually the branch family which migrated to the city obtained virtual autonomy over its own sphere. Sometimes a second son who set up a family of his own did not even go through the formal procedures of setting up a branch family. This son officially retained membership in his original ie , but once he had a wife and children, he was granted virtual autonomy.

The Branch

The concept of ie continues to provide an important model for family behavior, but it is no longer imperative to sacrifice one's self for the ie , and some families without children are even willing to go without an heir. The desire to continue the ie is particularly weak in branch families, and in Mamachi, as in other urban areas, the overwhelming majority of families are branch families.^[7] Because the main family (except for new main families formed by second sons who became independent) has a much longer tradition, it is natural that more effort will be put into its preservation than into the attempt to preserve the branch. The second son who migrates to the city has no responsibility to his ie . When he moves, he brings with him virtually no family treasures, he has no family graveyard or ancestral tablets and no family business to look after. Not only

[7] My survey data indicate that of 63 salary-man families, 86 percent were branch families; of 81 small shopkeeping families, 75 percent were branch families; of 172 farm families, 54 percent were branch families. Unfortunately, the designation of branch family does not indicate how many generations ago the branch split off from the main family. One may suspect that in many farm families this happened many generations ago.

does he himself have no ie responsibility, but when he dies, his heir has a very shallow lineage heritage since it began only a generation before.

Even if the son in the city does not leave an heir or if his heir leaves no heir, it is not considered a tragedy. The main family from which the branch split off will not only continue to look after the ancestors and the prosperity of the ie , but they will look after the tablets and graves of the abortive branch family. Most branch families would like to have an heir, but it is difficult to get a satisfactory heir if parents do not give birth to a male child. Some families with only daughters still adopt sons-in-law, but a family can find a more desirable husband for their daughter if they do not require him to become an adopted son-in-law. Most Mamachi branch families consider a good son-in-law more important than the continuation of their branch line. Similarly, Mamachi salary-man families with no children have no family enterprise to offer an attractive young man in return for becoming their adopted son, so many branch families, rather than accept a successor who might lower the quality of their branch line, prefer to be buried at the place of their ancestors with the knowledge that their graves will be cared for by the main family.

In some businesses and crafts, an economic bond joins the branch family to the main family. If a drug business expands, for example, a second son might be given financial support in setting up a branch shop, and the heirs of the branch family would continue to operate a branch shop of the larger shop directed by the main family. In such situations, the economic bond between the main family and the branch family would bring them close together, extending far beyond the business ties. No such economic interest binds the rural family attached to the land and the salary man in the city, nor is there any economic bond between an employee of a large corporation and his son, who is likely to be working in a different corporation or government office. In times of great need, the main and branch families may help each other and, if amiable, they may visit each other occasionally, but typically the tie between the main family in the country and the branch family in the city is little more than a sentimental attachment.

Main and branch families may disagree about how much to help

each other, but the feelings of independence of each other have now become so strong that they rarely ask each other for aid, even in need. A more critical problem confronts the branch family if the head of the main family dies leaving no heir.^[8] Family fortunes can be dissipated quickly in such instances, and the branch family is expected to see that family property is protected and the main family line continued. Sometimes a second son who is not yet firmly established in the city is called back to take over the family line after the death of his elder brother. However, we have heard of no cases in recent years where a man already established in the city has returned to take over the family line in the country. Life in the city is considered more attractive, and the urban wife and children are reluctant to go back to the rural areas under any circumstances. In two families in which an older brother died leaving small children in the country, the younger brother remained in Mamachi but assisted his brother's children until one could take over the duties of the heir. In one instance, a man got permission from his company to take his full vacation time during the busiest rice-harvesting seasons to return to his rural home and help with physical labor as well as finances. In effect, he temporarily shared the family headship with his deceased brother's wife until the children were in their mid-teens and old enough to carry out the farm work themselves. But in fulfilling this responsibility to his ie he created serious strains for his own wife and children who were reluctant for him to spend so much time, energy, and money looking after the ie in the country with which they did not feel identified. The husband felt caught between the pressures from the ie on the one hand and his wife and children on the other and unsuccessfully tried to resolve the conflict by remaining faithful to both.

In another case, in which the main family in the country owned no land and the heir to the family died, the branch family in Mamachi became the main family with all its responsibilities, but the location of the main family was shifted from the country to Mamachi. It was possible to remove the family heirlooms, tablets, and other property, and to preserve some of the family traditions in

[8] This problem, although not so common now, was an acute issue in families where a son died during World War II and was in general more common in the previous era when the death rate was higher.

the city, although not to the satisfaction of all the relatives. Arrangements were made so that the family grave plot in the country could remain there and be cared for. In this event, the branch family was forced to assume the responsibility of the main family, and the concept of ie could not be dismissed so lightly.

Many people in Mamachi not only find little positive value in the ie , but they object to concern with ancestors and family lines. They regard the family system, especially the arbitrary rule of the family head, the domination of the branch family by the main family, and the emphasis on family tradition as remnants from the feudalistic past which should be done away with as quickly as possible. But part of the desire to forget tradition comes especially from families of humble origin who now enjoy higher positions. A rich family with a long history still draws respect, but families which have entered the middle class only in the last generation are usually anxious to overlook their humble backgrounds. They seem to acknowledge the importance of the family line as a basis for respect, for they not uncommonly exaggerate the length of time their family has lived in the city or the status of their ancestors, and are eager to tell of a rich or famous relative of theirs. Not only do humble families have shorter family genealogies and fewer family treasures to preserve, but their family tree gives them little to point to with pride. It is not surprising that many of them show so little interest in ancestors.

The Decline of the Ie Authority and Welfare

In many respects, the ie has been like a corporation. Traditionally, it had a set of offices under the direction of a head, a definite membership with set relationships to each other, and regular rules of procedure. Some of the larger or more prominent families actually had written rules, which the ie followed to the letter of the law. One of the responsibilities of the head of the main family of the ie was to provide for the welfare of all its members. As long as the major wealth of the ie was held by the main family and could be allocated or at least controlled by the head, the system worked well. Quarrels or a shortage of funds may have existed, but the family head clearly had the power and responsibility to see that family mem-

bers gave assistance to needy members. As the power of the ie has become weaker, however, the head of the main family finds it difficult to control the allocation of funds to needy members. The power of the main family has been especially weakened by the urban branch families' becoming richer than the main family. As it became harder for the family head in the rural areas to request assistance from the richer branch family in the city, it also became more difficult for the branch family to obtain help from the main family in time of need. The bitter feelings between relatives who sought or gave aid immediately after World War II is adequate testimony to the collapse of the ie welfare system.^[9] Some, of course, still help needy relatives, but this is no longer common and is usually limited to close relatives. Furthermore, whether help is given no longer depends so much on whether a relative is an ie member but on whether he is liked and judged needy and worthy.^[10] The decision is controlled by sentiment, not duty to the ie .

Under the old system the family may have been dominated by an autocratic head but there was clarity and integrity to the system. The main family inherited the major share of family property and accepted the responsibility of providing for needy members. The eldest son, the trustee of family property, naturally cared for the elderly parents. According to the postwar revisions of the Civil Code, responsibility is to be shared by all children. Precisely how the responsibility should be shared is sufficiently debatable to cause considerable ill-will between siblings. Many still feel the first son should bear most of the burden.^[11] Even if inheritance is divided

[9] See the polls in Yoshiharu Scott Matsumoto, Contemporary Japan: The Individual and His Group , Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1960.

[10] Even before World War II, the old ie system was under severe attack by those who supported the democratic principles of family equality. The sections in the postwar Constitution dealing with family law represented a clear-cut victory for those who believed in equality of inheritance. The new law accelerated the dispersal of family wealth; among salary men, where no attempts are made to get around multiple inheritance, it has marked an end to the ie 's ability to control family money and provide for the assistance of needy members. Cf. Kurt Steiner, "The Revision of the Civil Code of Japan: Provisions Affecting the Family," Far Eastern Quarterly , 1950, 9:169–184.

[11] In a study conducted in modern Tokyo apartments as many as 20 percent feel that the eldest son should have the main responsibility in caring for the support of needy family members, and 40 percent still feel the eldest son should inherit the majority of the property. In a nearby farming area, where the idea of ie is still much stronger, 74 percent felt the eldest son should have the major responsi-bility, and 84 percent felt the eldest son should receive the majority of the inheritance. Takashi Koyama, Gendai Kazoku no Kenkyuu (An Investigation of the Contemporary Family), Tokyo: Koobundoo, 1960.

equally, the responsibility for caring for parents cannot be divided equally. In a family of three children, for example, it is not easy for retired parents to spend four months living with each child. It is expected that financial help from the children will be based partly on their ability to pay, but there is no standard formula for deciding how much ability each child has. Furthermore, regardless of a married daughter's desire to help out, her husband may refuse to help support her parents. Even if the children can come to an agreement about the care of elderly parents, those providing the assistance feel it as a burden which the other siblings might have lightened.^[12] And even if the children provide plentifully, the parents often feel that they are imposing on the younger couple; and the spouse who is not the child of the elderly persons is likely to make them especially uncomfortable. The prevalence of this problem was made clear to us because one of the most common questions we were asked about family life in America concerned the provision made for older people. The pattern of single inheritance and care for elders was a stable system; the pattern of elderly parents having enough means to support themselves might be a stable system but the area between, where parents require support from various children, appears to lead to inevitable difficulties.

Parents in their forties face a difficult decision about what to do in their old age. Although they recognize the problems of living with children in their old age and want to avoid difficulties, many are afraid that if they live alone they will be lonely and unable to make ends meet. Some bravely assert that they will live alone trying to convince themselves that such a life may not be lonely. Others admit they would be pleased if their children asked them to live together. Despite the problems in the new system of multiple inheritance and weakened ie , no one expects the power of the household head to be revived. Furthermore, the problem of supporting aged parents is mitigated by the father's membership in a large organiza-

[12] One Japanese movie which we saw centered on the theme of siblings deciding how to care for their aged widow mother. The most touching scene was when the mother overheard the children arguing that not one but the other should be responsible for her care.

tion. Because the company will provide a pension or at least a large lump sum on retirement, the elderly couple need not be such a financial burden on their children. Having parents live with the younger couple is considered as more natural and less of an imposition than in the United States, and now that the ie has declined, increasingly large numbers of parents are able to depart from the traditional ie pattern and live with a daughter where there is sufficient positive feeling between the women at home to avoid the conflicts commonly found between mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.

As the capacity of the family head to control welfare activities has declined, and as the branch family has grown in wealth, security, and prestige, the main family's sanctions have lost their force. No longer is the threat of expulsion from formal ie membership so frightening. The family head is especially weak in Mamachi salary families because of the combination of loss of ie consciousness in the branch family and the feeling of independence which comes from the economic security offered by the husband's firm.

The power of a household head above his power as a husband and father now are so insignificant that the transfer of position of household head is virtually meaningless.^[13] In the local community an elderly father will simply continue to be listed as head of household if he lives with a son. Similarly, the distinction between the heir and other sons has been lessened, not only in matters of inheritance, but with respect to the position of children within the family. In the past, the elder son, as heir apparent, was treated with considerable respect by other members of his family, even before he assumed the position. Not only did parents give preferential treatment to the child who would become the heir, but grandparents openly preferred uchi mago (children of their heir) to soto mago (children of their other children). While the oldest child still may exert considerable authority over younger siblings, especially in a large family, authority today is derived more from relative age

[13] Formerly, in rural areas, at a certain time the household head stepped down and passed on the position of family head to his son. From this day on the father was officially retired and the responsibility was officially in the hands of the son. In some cases the elderly couple moved on the day of retirement to a small separate dwelling on the same land or to a separate room, passing on their own home to their son. See John Embree, Suye Mura , Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1939.

than from the prospect of becoming the heir. An older sister ordinarily has more authority than a younger first-born son.

Formerly the ie had considerable power in arranging marriages and jobs for the young. Since marriage was viewed as a change of ie for a girl or an adopted son-in-law, it was considered appropriate that the decision be made both by the ie receiving the member and the ie giving up the member. This attitude has not entirely disappeared, and wedding negotiations, arrangements, gift exchanges, and even the formal ceremonies still distinguish between the ageru hoo (the family which is "giving up" a person) and the morau hoo (the family which is "receiving" a person).

The investigations and negotiations leading to marriage, generally were carried out by a go-between (sometimes one for each side), who performed his services at the request of the ie . The view and temperament of the young man and young lady were considered, but it was expected that their wishes should be subordinated to the ie . This was not without some reason, for in the case of the first son, the young bride, after all, was coming to live with her husband's family, and might spend more time with her mother-in-law than with her husband. Even in the marriage of a second son, over which the family exercised less supervision, the family had to bear the responsibility for marital difficulties. Hence, the parents felt that their children (who until the time of marriage had virtually no opportunity for meeting with members of the opposite sex) required their help in selecting a spouse.

The young people of Mamachi now regard such marriage arrangements as remnants of antiquated feudalistic society whereby the ie imposes its will on the young people who must sacrifice themselves for the good of the ie . While the Mamachi young people no longer are expected to conform to the wishes of their ie as such, their parents still retain influence in deciding whom the children should marry. The residents of Mamachi differentiate between two kinds of marriage: the miai (arranged marriage) and the renai (love marriage). In the miai, typically the parents, and sometimes relatives and family friends, have more influence, and in renai the young people themselves have more say.^[14] While only about half of the

[14] Regarding these two forms of marriage, see Ezra F. Vogel, "The Go-Between in a Developing Society," Human Organization, 1961, 20:112–120. The distinction betweenthese two types of marriage will be explored more fully in a forthcoming work by Professor Robert Blood.

recent marriages are officially arranged, in the overwhelming majority parents take an active role, checking on details of the other family. Some families will engage friends or private detectives to investigate the other family. Families frequently argue about the degree of independence that young people should have in selecting a spouse, but the range of freedom subject to dispute is relatively narrow if one considers the overwhelming power of the family in the Japan of an earlier era or the much broader freedom given most young people in the United States.

Yet, compared to the previous age, siblings and friends increasingly are replacing parents as sources of introductions, and coeducational schools and places of work provide limited opportunities which did not exist a few decades ago for respectable middle-class children to meet on their own. Nevertheless, there are few acceptable ways for young people to meet without some kind of introduction. Too much freedom is still suspect. A girl who has had dates with more than two or three men before marriage is still considered a bit free and worldly, and some will wonder whether she will make a good wife. What is emerging to some extent is a combination of miai and renai —a combination considered desirable by most parents. Under this combination, an appropriate person whom the family already has investigated thoroughly and found acceptable is introduced to the young person. The young people are permitted a few meetings (preferably not too many) to fall in love and make a decision. Under such arrangements they feel they have the best of two worlds: responsible arrangements and romantic love. If a child were given freedom to make his own decision, few discussions with his parents would be necessary, but in Mamachi where the decision is typically shared between the child and his parents, the selection of a spouse may dominate family discussions for years. Certainly both parents and the older children will be included, and sometimes knowledgeable or thoughtful friends. These discussions (or arguments) turn on such questions as what kind of person is desirable, who can help locate a promising candidate, what are the relative assets and weak points of various candidates, how can they get a desirable candidate to agree, what kind of arrangements can

be worked out for the marriage and living arrangements afterward. Particularly if the child is a daughter, these items are discussed, rediscussed, investigated, and reinvestigated. A family tries to arrive at a consensus on each minor step along the way. Indeed, they must arrive at a consensus if arrangements are to proceed smoothly. These discussions give the parents, and especially the mother, a purpose and function which they do not enjoy in many Western countries.

Considering how vehemently some adolescents insist on the freedom to find their own spouses, a surprisingly large number later acquiesce to arrangements or suggestions made by their parents. Many young people, especially the overprotected, the bashful, the cautious, those with high standards, those with a proud family history, the undesirable urenokori (leftovers) who did not find a spouse on their own, find the miai their best opportunity to get married and accept this pattern even if opposed to it ideologically. The willingness of children to let parents take an active part in the decision is undoubtedly related also to the close mother-child relationship and the fact that mothers have sacrificed so much for the children.^[15] Furthermore, because children have had little opportunity to meet contemporaries of the opposite sex, they have little confidence in their own ability to make a proper decision. The modern parent of Mamachi does not object in principle to a child's selecting his own spouse; nor does a parent insist that the child follow his parents' choice out of duty to them and their ie, but by questioning the wisdom of the child's choice or questioning what the child would do if something went wrong, they can instill sufficient doubt so that he is willing to accede to the parents' advice.

A daughter is especially responsive to her parents' feelings because she would have to turn to them for help in case of marital difficulty. A generation ago divorce was not simply a separation of man and wife, but the husband's ie returning her to her parents' ie . It was necessary for the divorced woman to have the support of her

[15] Evidence for this, based on projective test material given to Japanese, is presented in George De Vos, "The Relation of Guilt to Achievement and Arranged Marriage among the Japanese," Psychiatry, 1960, 23:287–301. Judging from De Vos's work, even in rural Japan the willingness to follow the mother's wishes has less to do with the concept of duty to ie than with the emotional bond between mother and child.

ie if she were to have a source of livelihood and a reasonable chance of finding another spouse. Even today, because a widow or a divorcee has few chances for earning a living or finding a new spouse, the wife generally is reluctant to get a divorce. The rate of divorce among residents of Mamachi is still very low.^[16] Even today a wife with marital difficulty, in effect, puts her case before her family and secures their approval before she decides to divorce, no matter how serious the trouble.

The Mamachi family has less direct control over occupational choice than over marital choice. Indeed, it has little reason to interfere with the son's occupational choice as long as it fits with the family's standard of respectability. Farmers and members of lower socio-economic groups placing a son in a small business concern still have considerable responsibility for making the necessary personal contacts. In the salary-man family, because hiring is largely determined by examinations or introductions, the child requires parental support only for preparing him for admission to a good academic institution. Once admitted, even if the boy does need financial help from his parents, his career plans are essentially outside the scope of his parents' planning. An academic degree and school contacts give a boy security so that he will not have to call on his parents for assistance in finding a new job if something should go wrong in his present place of work. Thus, even the first son in the salaried family has gained considerable freedom from his parents' domination without the necessity of rebelling against his parents, a situation in striking contrast to the first sons of farmers, owners of small businesses, and independent professionals.

Symbolic Remnants

Despite the massive inroads into the authority and economic significance of the ie in salaried families, there still is a strong attachment to this concept. Even branch families have a strong desire to continue the family line and an overwhelming hope that the family have at least one son to continue the family name. In fact, most families say they would like two sons and one daughter, so that if

[16] Though I do not have adequate survey data, my impression is that it would be somewhat lower than the national average, which is about 10 percent.

something should happen to one son they would still have one to continue the family line. The feeling remains that an ie has a tradition and that the person becoming a member of the ie should learn the family's customs and share the feeling of belonging to a long line of ancestors.

As much as they would like to adopt a son or son-in-law, few are willing to accept the problems this raises.^[17] But there is a common compromise solution in Mamachi to the problem of having no heir: a family finding someone who accepts no other family responsibility than that of taking on the family name and looking after the family ancestral plots and plaques. If a family has only a daughter, at the time of her marriage they may work out an arrangement with her husband whereby she would enter her husband's ie and take on his name and family line, providing that one male child of theirs be given her maiden name to continue the ie into which she was born. According to another arrangement, if a man has no children to continue his name, he may ask a second son of one of his brothers or other near relatives to take on his family name. In some main families with no children, a child of relatives may still be adopted, but increasingly among salaried families agreements are reached whereby someone will continue the family name without being required to change residence.

Even the branch families often have a feeling of attachment to their ancestral home, although separated from it by generations. Many modern salary men, when asked where their home (kuni ) is, will answer not their birthplace or their father's birthplace but the rural village where their grandfather or even great-grandfather was born. They may not expect to visit there, although if necessary they usually will be willing to help look after the family graves and ancestral tablets, but they retain a feeling of sentimental attachment which helps define their place in the world for now and ages yet to come.

[17] This conforms to Professor Koyama's findings that only 21.8 percent of the dwellers of an urban apartment project (largely salary men) would be willing to adopt a son-in-law if they had only daughters, while as many as 90.1 percent of farmers living in a community within commuting distance of Tokyo would adopt a son-in-law. If a family had no children, 35.6 percent of the city apartment dwellers think it necessary to provide for an heir, but 89.4 percent of the farmers think so. Koyama, op. cit .

The Decline of Family Principles

The ie was not simply a companionship family as in the West. It was a set of rules about how members were to behave and how the organization was to operate regardless of the sentiment or the convenience of the family members. One person had to be chosen as family head and all other members were to relate to each other depending on their position within the ie . It was a set of principles that governed the relationship of family members to each other.

Family relationships are now less governed by principles than by sentiment, power, and convenience. If the branch family has more wealth and power than a main family, it no longer is obliged to subordinate itself to the main family simply because it is the branch. A young man looking for a job or a marital partner may listen to his parents because of their authority, because he is fond of them, or because he respects their judgment. He is no longer obliged to follow his father's or his elder brother's wishes simply because of an obligation to obey the head of the ie . A person seeking financial assistance may go to his relatives for help, but he does not necessarily go to the family head, nor is the family head necessarily responsible for looking after the welfare of all members of the ie . He goes to relatives for assistance, not because of their position in the ie but because he feels close to them or because they are in a position to offer assistance.^[18] If one visits the main family, it is not because it is part of a required formality. If the oldest son has the major responsibility of looking after the parents, it is likely to be because he has the kind of job and housing situation that make him most able to bear this burden.

The power of ie principles has given way under the impact of new ideology: of forming branch families with a shallow sense of tradition and the growth of large firms providing security and welfare services. The weakening of ie principles has not led to chaos, because a new familial order has arisen based on sentiment and a sharp division of labor and authority. It is to the nature of this new order that we turn in the next chapters.

[18] Evidence from historical materials indicates that Japanese kinship terminology does not distinguish between relatives of one's father and one's mother. Cf. Robert Smith in Robert J. Smith and Richard K. Beardsley, eds., Japanese Culture, New York: The Viking Fund, 1962. With the decline of jural relationships between ie members, there appears to be no clear predominance of relationships with one side of the family as opposed to the other.