Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T16:26:49.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Nicholas Blomley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What does the property boundary mean to laypersons? How do everyday geographies of property work? Merrill and Smith offer an influential set of hypotheses concerning the boundary's role in communicating simple messages of exclusion in the everyday world. The first goal of this article is to assess these claims. Drawing from qualitative data on gardening from Vancouver, I suggest that the messages of the boundary may also be complex, intersubjective, and ambiguous. The supposedly robust moral intuitions that inform people's interactions with boundaries are not always exclusionary.

Drawing from the sharp distinction between the heterogeneity of the empirical record and the studied simplicity of Merrill and Smith's account, my second goal is to make some broader claims regarding property and the boundary. Rather than seeking universality, simplicity, and singularity, I suggest the necessity and value of working with complexity. A relational view of property and space (or “spatiality”), I suggest, offers us a better perspective in which to begin to think about the complex work of the everyday property boundary.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 224 - 255
Copyright
© 2016 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The empirical research used in this article was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council. A version was presented at the University of Cambridge in 2014. I am also grateful for the advice and comments of Joe Singer, Doug Allen, and Greg Alexander, and the LSR referees.

References

Alexander, Gregory (2012) “Governance Property,” 160 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 1853–87.Google Scholar
Alexander, Gregory (2015) “Five Easy Pieces: Recurrent Themes in American Property Law” (unpublished paper forthcoming U Hawaii L Rev, copy with author).Google Scholar
Alexander, Gregory, & Peñalver, Eduardo (2012) An Introduction to Property Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Douglas (1991) “What Are Transaction Costs?,” 14 Research in Law and Economics 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amin, Ash (2004) “Regions Unbound: Towards a New Politics of Place,” 86 Geografiska Annaler B 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babie, Paul (2013) “The Spatial: a Forgotten Dimension of Property,” 50 San Diego L R 323–382.Google Scholar
Baron, Jane B. (2010) “The Contested Commitments of Property,” 61 Hastings Law J. 917–68Google Scholar
Barzel, Yoram (1997) Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Debbie (2014) Private Property and Public Power: Eminent Domain in Philadelphia. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2004) “Un-Real Estate: Proprietary Space and Public Gardening,” 36 Antipode 614–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2005a) “The Borrowed View: Privacy, Propriety, and the Entanglements of Property,” 30 Law and Social Inquiry 617–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2005b) “Flowers in the Bathtub: Boundary Crossings at the Public-Private Divide,” 36 Geoforum 281–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2008) “Simplification is Complicated: Property, Nature, and the Rivers of Law,” 40 Environment and Planning A 1825–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2011) “Cuts, Flows, and the Geographies of Property,” 7 Law, Culture and the Humanities 203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2013) “Performing Property, Making the World,” 27 Canadian J. of Law and Jurisprudence 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2014a) “Learning from Larry: Pragmatism and the Habits of Legal Space,” in Braverman, I., Blomley, N., Delaney, D., & Kedar, A., eds., The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. 77–94.Google Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2014b) “Property, Law, and Space,” 3 Property Law Rev. 229–35.Google Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2014c) “Disentangling Law: The Practice of Bracketing,” 10 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blomley, Nicholas (2015) “The Territory of Property,” Progress in Human Geography (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Braverman, Irus, et al., eds. (2014). The Expanding Spaces of Law: A Timely Legal Geography. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Brighenti, Andrea Mubi (2006) “On Territory as Relationship and Law as Territory,” 21 Canadian J. of Law and Society 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighenti, Andrea Mubi (2010) “On Territorology: Towards a General Science of Territory,” 27 Theory, Culture and Society 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. (2001) “Thing Theory,” 28 Critical Inquiry 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buston, K. (1997) “NUD*IST in Action: Its Use and Its Usefulness in a Study of Chronic Illness in Young People,” 2 Sociological Research Online. Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/6.html (accessed 30 November 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Chris (2009) “Critical Legal Studies and the Politics of Space,” 18 Social and Legal Studies 313–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callon, M. (1998) “An Essay on Framing and Overflowing: Economic Externalities Revisited by Sociology,” in Callon, M., ed., The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell. 244–69.Google Scholar
Crang, M., 1997. “Analyzing Qualitative Materials,” in Flowerdew, R. & Martin, D., eds., Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Doskow, Emily, & Guillen, Lina (2014) Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries and Noise. Berkeley: NOLO Press.Google Scholar
Engel, David M. (1995) “Law in the Domains of Everyday Life: The Construction of Community and Difference,” in Sarat, Austin, & Kearns, Thomas R., eds., Law in Everyday Life. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Univ. Press. 123–70.Google Scholar
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S.S. (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, D., & McWilliam, A. (2013) “Bright-Line Fever: Simple Legal Rules and Complex Property Customs Among the Fataluku of East Timor,” 47 Law & Society Rev. 311–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2008) “Diverse Economies: Performative Practices for ‘Other Worlds’,” 32 Progress in Human Geography 613–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, Michael R., & Rose-Redwood, Reuben, eds. (2014) Performativity, Politics, and the Production of Social Space. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, I. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. (1972) Social Justice and the City. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hitchings, R. (2003) “People, Plants and Performance: On Actor Network Theory and the Material Pleasures of the Private Garden,” 4 Social & Cultural Geography 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Larissa (2008) “Exclusion and Exclusivity in Property Law,” 58 Univ. Toronto Law J. 275–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Sarah (2010) “Subversive Property: Reshaping Malleable Spaces of Belonging,” 19 Social & Legal Studies 423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelman, Mark (1987) A Guide to Critical Legal Studies. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1999) “After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology,” in Law, J., & Hassard, J., eds., Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell. 1–14.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linklater, Andro (2013) Owning the Earth: the Transforming History of Land Ownership. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W. (1998) “Property and the Right to Exclude,” 77 Nebraska Law Rev. 730–54.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., & Smith, Henry E. (2000) “Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerus Clausus Principle,” 110 Yale Law J. 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., & Smith, Henry E. (2001) “What Happened to Property in Law and Economics?” 111 The Yale Law J. 357–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., & Smith, Henry E. (2007) “The Morality of Property,” 48 William and Mary Law Rev. 1849–95.Google Scholar
Merriman, Peter, et al. (2012) “Space and Spatiality in Theory,” 2 Dialogues in Human Geography 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally (1990) Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness Among Working-Class Americans. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally (1993) “Mending Walls and Building Fences: Constructing the Private Neighborhood,” 33 J. of Legal Pluralism 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Timothy (1991) Colonizing Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, Annemarie (1999) “Ontological Politics: A Word and Some Questions,” in Law, J., & Hassard, J., eds., Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell. 74–89.Google Scholar
Mol, Annemarie, & Law, John (2002) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Mount, Ferdinand (2014) “That Disturbing Devil,” London Review of Books 8 May 11–14.Google Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer (1990) “Law, Boundaries and the Bounded Self,” 30 Representations 162–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perin, Constance (1988) Belonging in America: Reading Between the Lines. Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Brendan (2004) “Fourth Amendment Yard Work: Curtilage's Mow-Line Rule,” 56 Stanford Law Rev. 943–80.Google Scholar
Pottage, Alain (2004) “Introduction: The Fabrication of Persons and Things,” in Pottage, Alain, & Mundy, Martha, eds., Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and Things. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Carol (1994) Property as Persuasion: Essays in the History, Theory and Rhetoric of Ownership. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sack, R.D. (1986) Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, & Thomas R, Kearns eds. (1994) Law in Everyday Life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Seed, Patricia (1995) Ceremonies of Possession in Europe's Conquest of the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip (2003) “‘Law in Context’ Revisited,” 30 J. of Law and Society 177–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Joseph (2009) “Democratic Estates: Property Law in a Free and Democratic Society,” 94 Cornell Law Rev. 1009–62.Google Scholar
Singer, Joseph (2014) “Property as the Law of Democracy,” 63 Duke Law J. 1287–335.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. (2003) “The Language of Property: Form, Context, and Audience,” 55 Stanford Law Rev. 1105–91.Google Scholar
Smith, Henry E. (2012) “Property as the Law of Things,” 125 Harvard Law Rev. 1691–726.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn (2004) “Losing (Out On) Intellectual Resources,” in Pottage, Alain, & Mundy, Martha, eds., Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social: Making Persons and Things. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. 201–33.Google Scholar
Valentine, G. (1997) “Tell Me About…: Using Interviews as a Research Methodology,” in Flowerdew, R., & Martin, D., eds., Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Viljanenen, Mika (2009) “Law and Ontological Politics,” 6 NoFo 5–18.Google Scholar
Weadick, Shaun (2014) Entangled Plants and Property: A Landscape of Domestic Gardens and Alleys. MSc Thesis. Concordia University, Montreal.Google Scholar