The relationship between the Napoleonic Code (Civil Code) and the Japanese patriarchy is a crucial topic for understanding the formation of modern Japanese law in the latter half of the 19th century. In short, the Japanese patriarchy and the ie (family) system, while partially influenced by the French Napoleonic Code, was primarily strengthened and institutionalized by the influence of traditional ie systems and German law. The following explains this historically, where possible.

Firstly, what is the Napoleonic Code? This French Civil Code, enacted by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1804, became one of the basic models of modern states and strongly influenced legal development in countries around the world. Its characteristics include the family as the basic unit of society, strong authority of the father (head of the family), and a legally subordinate position for the wife and children. In other words, while it was a modern law, it emphasized a patriarchal order within the family.

After the Meiji Restoration, Japan urgently needed to establish a Western-style state. Therefore, it attempted to create a civil code by referencing European laws. In its initial stages, Japanese Civil Law, and Japanese policymakers, also received guidance from French legal scholars. At this stage, the patriarchal view of the family was easily accepted by Japanese policymakers as a “modern institution.”

Certainly, the ie system was not simply an imitation of French law. Originally, Japan also had a tradition of emphasizing the ie as an economic and social unit, with koshu (the head of the household) leading all family and prioritizing the family's survival. There are cultural commonalities between them: a patriarchal view of the family, emphasis on hierarchical relationships within the family, and the view of the family as the foundation of the community. The Meiji government solidified this as a legal system, and with the Civil Code of 1898, created a strong patriarchal system based on the principle that koshu control the whole of the ie, managed ceremonial occasions for the coming of age, marriage, funeral and ancestral worship, divorce, property management, and inheritance, and the eldest son inherited the ie.

In this respect, it could be said that Japanese legislators found theoretical justification in the Napoleonic Code for the legitimacy of patriarchy even in modern states. Conversely, there are also differences. One is that France is an individual-centered society, while Japan is an ie (lineage-centered) society. From this perspective, the Napoleonic Code is merely “one reference,” and some argue that the ie system is more strongly influenced by Japanese tradition and the nationalistic ideas of German law. The koseki (family registration) law and its system certainly show strong German influence. In any case, the Meiji government's objectives were to stabilize the state, maintain social order, and cultivate loyalty. Therefore, the idea of ??superimposing hierarchical relationships, that is, the family obeys the koshu and the state obeys the emperor, was adopted. The Napoleonic Code was convenient as theoretical support for the idea that “patriarchy is legal even in modern times.”

While modernization is often perceived as Westernization, the dismantling of old systems, and the introduction of individualism, in reality, in many cases, tradition is reorganized and institutionalized in order to create a modern nation-state. Alternatively, tradition can be invented. While the patriarchal ie existed during the Edo period, there were significant differences between farmers and samurai. Regional differences were also considerable, and merchant inheritances were flexible and not necessarily based on blood relations. There were instances of women inheriting the family business, and divorce was more favorable to women. In short, the reality was quite diverse. However, during the Meiji era, as the nation advanced modernization, the ie system was positioned as the fundamental unit of the state, the rights of koshu were codified, and primogeniture was made the principle. Thus, the ie system was reconstructed by the state as a “unified tradition” that did not involve former hierarchical relationships. This is the true nature of the reconstruction.

So, why was reconstruction necessary? Modern states needed to efficiently manage household registration, conscription, taxation, and education. Therefore, the ie was institutionally fixed as a unit that was easier to manage than the individual. Western law (especially the patriarchal view of the family) provided theoretical support here. Even in Western Europe, the family is a unit of governance. There are many examples of institutions thought to have continued since ancient times that were actually reorganized and strengthened (reconstructed) by the modern state. The ie system is now widely understood not as “always strict,” but as “rigidified during the process of modern state formation.” This is not limited to Japan; it can also be seen in the family system after the French Revolution and the family views of the German Empire.

Let's delve a little deeper into this discussion. The establishment of patriarchy in modern Japan should not be explained simply as the introduction of Western law or the lingering effects of pre-modern customs, but rather as a phenomenon that should be understood as a result of the reorganization and institutionalization of “tradition” during the process of modern state formation. This perspective resonates deeply with the arguments raised by historian Eric Hobsbawm, known for his concept of “the creation of tradition.” That is, modernization was not merely the destruction of old institutions, but a process of reorganizing social customs to suit the governance of the state, and institutionalizing them as if they were ancient traditions. The patriarchal system was reconstructed as a unified system centered on the right of the koshu and primogeniture. In this sense, the ie system was not a preservation of “old traditions,” but rather an institutional framework created by the modern state to streamline social governance.

The phenomenon can also be understood from the perspective of historical materialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out that family structures are deeply intertwined with production relations, and in particular, in The Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State, they positioned the patriarchal family as a mechanism that guaranteed the stable inheritance of private property. The Meiji-era ie system also functioned to stabilize property management by fixing the ie as a single economic unit and clarifying the inheritance order. From this perspective, patriarchy can be understood not merely as a cultural legacy, but as something institutionalized as a social mechanism supporting modern ownership relations.

Additionally, connecting this to 20th-century theories, the ie system takes on meaning beyond that of a mere economic mechanism. Using Louis Althusser's concept of the state as an ideological apparatus, the ie functions as a place for reproducing state values ??and relationships of obedience. Obedience to the koshu within the ie becomes a circuit for learning obedience to state authority on a daily basis, and the ie becomes a mechanism for shaping the subject in a way that is compatible with the state. In this sense, the ie was not merely a system for managing inheritance and marriage, but also a social foundation for fostering loyalty to the state and a sense of order.

Similarly, from the perspective of Michel Foucault's concepts of governmentality and bio-power, the ie system can be understood as a technology for population management. Modern states needed to grasp and govern their population through koseki as a manageable intermediate structure. By controlling marriage, birth, and inheritance at the blood line level, the state could grasp and control the entire population through the ie, rather than directly managing individuals. Here, the ie system emerges not as a tradition, but as an institutional technology based on governing rationality.

Furthermore, referring to Giorgio Agamben's theory of sovereignty, the ie can also be understood as a miniature space representing the state's sovereign structure. Just as the state establishes order through law, koshu held strong control within the ie, exerting significant influence over marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Here, a dual structure emerges where individuals, considered equal under the law, are incorporated into a clear hierarchical relationship within the household. This structure resonates with Agamben's observation that sovereignty simultaneously constitutes both legal and non-legal realms.

esides, if we superimpose this onto Jacques Derrida's discussion of law, the Meiji-era ie system can be understood as a “decision to fix the interpretation of tradition.” The act of selecting a specific form from the originally diverse and fluid family practices and legally establishing it as “Japanese tradition” involves a certain kind of interpretive violence. In other words, tradition was not discovered; rather, it was defined into a single form by a state decision, and that definition was then fixed as an institution.

From this perspective, the Meiji-era ie system should not be explained simply as an influence of Western law or an extension of indigenous Japanese culture, but rather as a complex mechanism organized by the modern state to govern society, manage the population, form subjects, and stabilize property order. It was an institution supported by an economic structure, a place for reproducing ideology, a part of governance technology, and a microcosm of the sovereign order.

After World War II, Japan's civil code underwent a major revision, abolishing the koshu system, promoting gender equality, and shifting towards an ie structure based on the individual. At this point, both the Napoleonic patriarchal model and the traditional ie system were legally dismantled. Legally, primogeniture of assets has been abolished, and illegitimate children are now eligible to inherit. However, as many researchers acknowledge, patriarchy—the ie system—is being reproduced. For example, even in impoverished families living in public housing with three generations and having no private property to inherit, the concept of ie clings to them. They refer to their grandchildren as “the heirs to this ie.” This phenomenon demonstrates that the “concept of inheritance” is maintained even in spaces disconnected from private property. Ie is not merely an economic unit, but a system of meaning and symbolism. To put it another way, it becomes “habitus” (embodied structure) (Pierre Bourdieu). As a result, one's poverty is absorbed by patriarchy and the ie system, and it functions as a buffer. Inequality, along with the embodied structure, continues to be reproduced as “natural.” This is precisely a bridge to the reproduction and social solidification of class.

Once, ie was the point of commodity production. In modern capitalist production, the ie is separated from direct commodity production and becomes a space for the reproduction of labor power alone. To maintain this economic character, the ie takes on the character of a spatial arrangement of relationships, particularly for those, like above, who perceive their grandchildren as heirs. The illusion of an heir posits the position of the individual as the sovereign of the ie, allowing for the imagination of each family's story. Through this, memories of the ie are imprinted, and a sense of continuity in life begins to emerge. For people, the ie is no longer an economic apparatus, but rather, as a result, a device of meaning that affirms life itself. This device incorporates life into the role of a compliant bearer of the ie system. That grandfather is, in reality, a Burakumin, but even in his marginal existence, or perhaps precisely because of his marginal status, he is more easily positioned as a compliant bearer.

Also, in this sense, the strengthening of patriarchy was not a pre-modern illusion, but rather a product of modernization. Modernization was not merely the destruction of tradition, but a process in which tradition was reorganized, standardized, and solidified as an institution in response to the demands of nation-building. In this sense, tradition is an invention. The ie, invented and institutionalized during the Meiji era, was established by the state and capital out of necessity, through bureaucrats, to govern the people. However, unexpectedly, it has become a mechanism that provides a sense of stability and continuity to people living in modern times, who are the most oppressed by it. However, unexpectedly, it has become a mechanism that gives sense of stability and continuity to people who are supposed to be oppressed in modern times. Or perhaps, even deviants are not considered such a threat to the state or capital as long as they remain within the framework of the ie conception. The patriarchal ie system was one of the technologies used to govern the entire population of modern Japan.