[3] Using this term, Mizubayashi and others reenvision the Tokugawa state not as a single, unified, bureaucratic entity, but as a feudal conglomeration of domains (藩, han) loosely tied together by their fealty to the shogunate, and by other obligations and systems imposed by the shogunate.
In other words, he refocuses attention away from the shogunate, to the individual domains; building upon Mizubayashi's work, a considerable number of scholars have since published articles and books analyzing the history of individual han and reconsidering the extent to which they might be regarded as separate small countries, more loosely connected to the shogunate than was previously thought.
[3] Mizubayashi also argued that the decentralized nature of the Tokugawa state was due not primarily to a weak shogunate, but to the strength of the domains (han).
In particular, he pointed to the strength of the ie system, under which daimyō (feudal lords) were dedicated to protecting the honor, integrity, and wealth or power of their clan.
Not strictly a matter of family or household honor and integrity, ie or clans were often continued by an adopted heir without diminishing its legitimacy.