ABSTRACT
In the Introduction, we saw D.S.Smith claiming that Laslett more or less invented the theses he proceeded to demolish, and advocating that we pry into ‘underlying philosophical assumptions’, especially into what he calls the neoindividualist and the cultural assumptions in the study of households. In this chapter, I shall argue that the sets of axioms underlying debates on household composition do not set neoindividualism against culturalism, but ‘atomism’ against collectivism. I shall show that collectivistic sets of axioms (which Laslett allegedly invented to make his claims ‘revolutionary’, according to Smith) do pervade the whole literature, anthropological as well as historical, on areas characterized by complex household types. Ultimately, however, I shall converge with Smith by showing that collectivistic assumptions seem inevitably to lead to culturalism. From there, I shall conclude that only ‘atomistic’ assumptions can rescue household history.
