5th February, 2023.

*Submitted originally as a school assignment

Book review: Todd, Emmanuel. 2019. Lineages of modernity: a

history of humanity from the Stone Age to Homo Americanus,

Translated by Andrew Brown, Cambridge and Medford: Polity.

Hideki YOSHIKAWA

Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University

Todd's masterpiece, Lineages of modernity: a history of humanity from the Stone Age to Homo
Americanus, begins by distinguishing between the concepts of human evolution and progress. He
then points out that the two are perverse situations, and argues that this has caused anxiety and
perplexity in the West. The West's problem is its inability to understand its own situation. Left-
leaning progressive elites continue to be preoccupied with the rise of populist regimes and
immigration issues. This, Todd states, arises because they equate evolution with progress. According
to him, the West (more specifically, Western Europe and the Anglo-Saxon states) is the most
backward region when it comes to the evolutionary theory of family forms. The nuclear family is
dominant in this region, which hates authoritarianism and has a high status of women. On the other
hand, immigrants from central Eurasia, whose numbers have increased today due to globalisation,
have a different family structure and a different set of values. These regions, where the stem and
communal family is dominant, have become more authoritarian in the process of evolution of family
forms, lowering the status of women, for example. The liberal westerners who have been forced to
become neighbours with them have felt anxiety because of cultural frictions. I am impressed by his
ability to write about social reality in a brutal way. His portrayal of the elitism and contradictions
oozing from Western leftist progressives, and the rigidity of a 'lagging society' that is slow to change
despite their influence, from an ethos born of the smallest unit of society, the family, is worthy of
praise.

His point of view is very good, but it must still be incomplete to try to explain all of human history
on earth from family forms. For example, university education, which has been cited as a factor in

1
widening inequality since the 1960s in the US and other countries, has rarely been shown to be
related to family structure. It is also possible to point out the mistake of taking Chinese history for
granted as a consistent history of the same ethnic group. China is more a history of constant nomadic
dynastic power struggles than a history of the Han people. What is also crucially missing is the
history of nomadic migration in the steppe areas, which was mentioned earlier. The Hittites, who
invaded civilisations in various regions and then stormed off to destroy them, the existence of
powerful and vast empires such as Alexander the Great and the Yuan Dynasty, and the East-West
trade centred on Samarkand, exerted a constant influence from East to West and North to South. The
history of nomadic peoples should not be ignored when writing about the history of family structures
spreading out from the centre of Eurasia.

Extension of Todd's research is suggested as follows. It should be applied to family business

research. Family businesses continue to have a considerable impact in the economy today, and many
companies continue to take the form of family businesses even after becoming large companies. On
the other hand, family business research tends to see families as homogeneous: family businesses are
often analysed for reasons of trust, asset building and defence, and the long-term perspective of
management. However, given the existence of different family values in different regions, family
business regional categorisation would also be possible.

For example, nuclear families are unsuitable for family businesses because the tradition of inheriting
all assets to the eldest child and the tradition of inter-generational inheritance does not exist in
nuclear families in the first place. Where such a family structure is dominant, where there is no sense
of responsibility or loyalty to the idea of inheritance from parents, the ownership structure of
companies is likely to be more egalitarian participatory, i.e. controlled by shares, rather than by
origins. This may be why the principle of shareholder capitalism is so strong in Anglo-Saxon
countries. On the other hand, in stem families, the eldest child carries on the traditions from the
parents. It is taught from childhood that it is the eldest son who inherits the family business, and to
some extent this is taken for granted by employees and society. In this type of society, where the
principle of unequal ownership and authoritarianism go hand in hand, business inheritance is carried
out in an unequal and authoritarian manner. This may be why, for example, in Germany, Japan and
South Korea, even large companies are often family businesses. In communal families, the principle
of equality and authoritarianism go hand in hand, so family businesses tend to look like family-
linked businesses. This should not be interpreted as family business occurring in terms of inheritance
of one company, but as a loose association of companies linked by family ties. This is the reason
why there is a culture in Middle Eastern societies to extend financial support to distant relatives.
Using the typology of family structures would help the study of family business better.