Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distributed Cognition, Distributed Being, and the Foundations of Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personhood in the Age of Biolegality

Part of the book series: Biolegalities ((BIOGA))

Abstract

Descriptive and normative liberal property theories are based on the assumption of a pre-social individual and its differentiation from a world of objects. This foundation is utterly dissolved in a posthuman attitude which appreciates the distributed nature of being and the entanglement of humanity in a physical world. Private property is, moreover, at the center of global ecocide and ongoing colonial practices. For these reasons, the question of the ethical justifications for property can no longer be ignored. Is property justifiable at all, and if so in what form, in an entangled world? What does the codependence and indeed interchangeability of subjects and objects mean for the future of property? My chapter does not directly consider these questions, but lays out some of the groundwork for a reconsideration of property by examining the abstract account of law and the profile of property that presently exist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Austin, J 1954, The province of jurisprudence determined, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adorno, T 1973, Negative dialectics, Continuum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anker, K 2017, ‘Law as … forest: eco-logic, stories and spirits in indigenous jurisprudence’, Law Text Culture, vol. 21, pp. 191–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K 2007, Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Duke University Press, Durham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, R & Graham, N 2016, ‘Property and place attachment: a legal geographical analysis of biodiversity law reform in New South Wales’, Geographical Research, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawaka, C et al. 2016, ‘Co-becoming Bawaka: towards a relational understanding of place/space’, Progress in Human Geography, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 455–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley, C & Bacchi, C 2007, ‘Envisaging a new politics for an ethical future: beyond trust, care and generosity—towards an ethic of “social flesh”’, Feminist Theory, vol. 8, pp. 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J 2010, Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things, Duke University Press, Durham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J 1931, Theory of legislation, K Paul, Trench, Trubner, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, W 1765, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol 1, Oxford Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomley, N 2013, ‘Performing property: making the world’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, vol. 26, pp. 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J 1990, Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L 1977, ‘Women and John Locke; or, who owns the apples in the Garden of Eden?’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 699–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M 1927, ‘Property and sovereignty’, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D 2014, Everyday utopias: the conceptual life of promising spaces, Duke University Press, Durham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M 1998, ‘The proper: discourses of purity’, Law and Critique, vol. 9, pp. 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M & Naffine, N 2001, Are persons property? legal debates about property and personality, Ashgate, Farnham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M 2017, Law unlimited: materialism, pluralism, and legal theory, Routledge, Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, D 2010, The spatial, the legal, and the pragmatics of world-making: nomospheric investigations, Routledge, Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewick, P & Silbey, S 1998, The common place of law, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frow, J 1995, ‘Elvis’ fame: the commodity form and the form of the person’, Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature, vol. 7, pp. 131–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagliano, M 2018, Thus spoke the plant: a remarkable journey of groundbreaking scientific discoveries and personal encounters with plants, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M 2008, ‘Social convention revisited’, Topoi, vol. 27, pp. 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S, Sapp, J & Tauber, A 2012, ‘A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals’, Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M 2008, ‘Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of Aboriginal worldviews’, Australian Humanities Review, vol. 45, pp. 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, N 2011, Lawscape: property, environment, law, Routledge, Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grear, Anna 2011, ‘The vulnerable living order: human rights and the environment in a critical and philosophical perspective’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 2, pp. 23–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grear, A 2015, ‘Deconstructing anthropos: a critical legal reflection on “anthropocentric” law and anthopocene “humanity”’, Law and Critique, vol. 26, pp. 225–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsueh, V 2006, ‘Cultivating and challenging the common: Lockean property, indigenous traditionalisms, and the problem of exclusion’, Contemporary Political Theory, vol. 5, pp. 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D 1969, A treatise of human nature, Penguin, Middlesex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibbetson, D & Lewis, A 1994, ‘The Roman law tradition’, in A Lewis & D Ibbetson (eds), The Roman law tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwaymullina, A & Kwaymullina, B 2010, ‘Learning to read the signs: law in an indigenous reality’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B 2005, Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiter, B 2011, ‘The demarcation problem in jurisprudence: a new case for scepticism’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 31, pp. 663–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D 1969, Convention: a philosophical study, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J 1988, Two treatises of government [1690], ed. P Laslett, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, G 1984, The man of reason: ‘male’ and ‘female’ in western philosophy, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucy, W & Mitchell, C 1996, ‘Replacing private property: the case for stewardship’, Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 55, pp. 566–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, CB 1964, The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L 2013, How things shape the mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malafouris, L 2015, ‘Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement’, Time and Mind, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, C 1980, The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientific revolution, Harper and Rowe, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C 1997, The racial contract, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N 1998, ‘The legal the legal structure of self-ownership: or the self-possessed man and the woman possessed’, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 25, pp. 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naffine, N 2009, Law’s meaning of life: philosophy, religion, darwin and the legal person, Hart Publishing, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedelsky, J 1990, ‘Law, boundaries, and the bounded self’, Representations, vol. 30, pp. 162–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, E 2019, Legal rights for rivers: competition, collaboration, and water governance, Routledge, Abingdon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascoe, B 2014, Dark Emu, 2nd edn, Magabala Books, Broome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A 2011, ‘“… the sound of a breaking string”: critical environmental law and ontological Vulnerability’, Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, vol. 2, pp. 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V 1993, Feminism and the mastery of nature, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V 2002, Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottage, A 2007, ‘The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 3, pp. 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolzenberg, N 2010, ‘Facts on the ground’, in E Penalver & G Alexander (eds), Property and community, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C 1972, ‘Should trees have standing?’ Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, pp. 450–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tully, J 1993, An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vial, T 2016, ‘Kant and Race’, in T Vial (ed.), Modern religion, modern race, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 20–53.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Margaret Davies

Authors
  1. Margaret Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Marc de Leeuw

  2. Sociology and Social Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Sonja van Wichelen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Davies, M. (2020). Distributed Cognition, Distributed Being, and the Foundations of Law. In: de Leeuw, M., van Wichelen, S. (eds) Personhood in the Age of Biolegality. Biolegalities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27848-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27847-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27848-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation