Advertisement

The proper: Discourses of purity

  • 62 Accesses

  • 15 Citations

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. 2

    Hohfeld, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning”, Yale Law Journal 23 (1913), 16–59; Yale Law Journal 26 (1917), 710–770. Some of the themes which I canvass here have also been considered by P. Parker in Literary Fat Ladies: Rhetoric, Gender, Property (London: Methuen, 1987), in particular Chapter 8, “The (Self-)Identity of the Literary Text: Property, Proper Place, and Proper Name in Wuthering Heights”.

  2. 3

    Some recent works on the “disaggregation” of property entailed by Hohfeld’s famous analysis include J. Schroeder, “Chix Nix Bundle-O-Stix: A Feminist Critique of the Disaggregation of Property”, Michigan Law Review 93 (1994), 239–319; J.E. Penner, The Idea of Property in Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 23–25; B. Edgeworth, “Post-Property: A Postmodern Conception of Private Property”, University of New South Wales Law Journal 11 (1988), 87–116; T. Grey, “The Disintegration of Property”, Nomos 22 (1980), 69–85.

  3. 4

    M. Davies, Delimiting the Law: ‘Postmodernism’ and the Politics of Law (London: Pluto Press, 1996), ch.1: “The Limits of Law”.

  4. 5

    P. Fitzpatrick, The Mythology of Modern Law (London: Routledge, 1992).

  5. 6

    J. Derrida, “Des Tours de Babel”, in Difference in Translation, ed. J. Graham (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 165–207; The Ear of the Other. Otobiography, Transference, Translation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), 100–104.

  6. 7

    J. Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1974), 26.

  7. 8

    Some of this terrain is covered in a most interesting article by L. Secomb, “IVF: Reproducing the ‘Proper [Family] of Man’”, Australian Feminist Law Journal 4 (1994), 19–38.

  8. 9

    L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), §111.

  9. 10

    See also the discussion of the etymology of “property” in C. Donohue, “The Future of the Concept of Property Predicted from Its Past”, Nomos 22 (1980), 28–68, 30.

  10. 11

    M. Oakeshott, On History and Other Essays (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 163.

  11. 12

    J. Derrida, “Des Tours de Babel”, supra n.6, explained elegantly and in some detail by Geoffrey Bennington in “Derridabase”, in G. Bennington and J. Derrida, Jacques Derrida, trld. G. Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 174–179.

  12. 16

    M. Foucault, The Order of Things (London: Tavistock, 1970), 36.

  13. 19

    For an interesting neurological account see I. Rosenfeld, The Strange, Familiar, and Forgotten (New York: Vintage, 1992), Chapter V,: “Multiple Personalities: What’s in a Name?”

  14. 21

    S. Namjoshi, Building Babel (Melbourne: Spinifex, 1996).

  15. 28

    A. Koestler, Bricks to Babel: Selected Writings With Comments by the Author (London: Hutchinson, 1980); see also C. Birch, On Purpose (Kingston, New South Wales: NSW University Press, 1990), ch.6, for a commentary on Koestler’s use of the Babel story.

  16. 31

    J. Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1954), Lecture V.

  17. 32

    J. Raz, Practical Reason and Norms (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990, 2nd ed.).

  18. 33

    J. Butler, “Against Proper Objects”, Differences 6 (1994), 1–26, at 6; see also J. Lattas, “Feminism as a Proper Name”, Australian Feminist Studies 9 (1989), 85–96; Lattas considers the political significance of the name “feminism”.

  19. 35

    See, for example, J. Derrida, “My Chances/Mes Chances: A Rendezvous with Some Epicurean Stereophonies” in Taking Chances: Derrida, Psychoanalysis, and Literature, ed. J.H. Smith and W. Kerrigan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), 15–16; The Ear o f the Other, supra n.6; “Des Tours de Babel”, supra n.6; G. Bennington and J. Derrida, Jacques Derrida (Paris: Seuil, 1991), 100–110.

  20. 36

    F. de Saussure, Course In General Linguistics (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), 66.

  21. 40

    J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ed. J.H. Burns and H.L.A. Hart (London: The Athlone Press, 1970), ch. XVI, s.26, n.1.

  22. 42

    M. Radin, Reinterpreting Property (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1993); idem, Contested Commodities (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996).

  23. 43

    “Hohfeld insisted that the res does not exist, in the same way as the Lacanian subject needs to insist that ‘Woman does not exist’”, J. Schroeder, “Virgin Territory: Margaret Radin’s Imagery of Personal Property as the Inviolate Feminine Body”, Minnesota Law Review 79 (1994), 55–171, at 63; see also Schroeder supra n.3; and “The Vestal and the Fasces: Property and the Feminine in Law and Psychoanalysis”, Cardozo Law Review 16 (1995), 805–924.

  24. 49

    F. Cohen, “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach”, Columbia Law Review 35 (1935), 809. See also K. Vandevelde, “The New Property of the Nineteenth Century: The Development of the Modern Concept of Property”, Buffalo Law Review 29 (1980), 325–367.

  25. 50

    For a discussion of this dimension of intellectual property see P. Drahos, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1997).

  26. 51

    Ibid., at 134.

  27. 54

    J. Nedelsky, “Law, Boundaries, and the Bounded Self”, in Law and the Order of Culture, ed. R. Post (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 162–189.

  28. 55

    J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), ch.V. See also L. Clarke, “Women and John Locke; or, Who Owns the Apples in the Garden of Eden”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1977), 699–724. The literature on self- and body-ownership is too vast to cite in detail here, but see: C. Farsides, “Body Ownership”, in Law, Health, and Medical Regulation, ed. S. McVeigh and S. Wheeler (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1992), 35–51; A. Ryan, “Self-Ownership, Autonomy, and Property Rights”, Social Philosophy and Policy 11 (1994), 241–258; J.W. Harris, “Who Owns My Body?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16 (1996), 55–84; J. Christman, “Self-Ownership, Equality, and the Structure of Property Rights”, Political Theory 19 (1991), 28–46; G.A. Cohen, “Self-Ownership, World-Ownership, and Equality”, in Justice and Equality Here and Now, ed. F. Lucash (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 108–135.

  29. 56

    G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), “Abstract Right”.

  30. 57

    J.T. McCarthy, “The Human Persona as Commercial Property: the Right of Publicity”, Australian Intellectual Property Journal 7 (1996), 20.

  31. 58

    K. Grenville, Dark Places (Sydney: Pan Macmillan, 1994), 275. See also K. Grenville, Lilian’s Story (Sydney: George Allen and Unwin, 1985).

  32. 63

    “The title is generally chosen by the author or by an editorial representative whose property it is. The title names and guarantees the identity, the unity and boundaries of the original work which it heads. It is self-evident that the power and import of a title have an essential rapport to something like the law.” J. Derrida, “Devant la loi”, in Kafka and the Contemporary Critical Performance, ed, A. Voloff (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), 128–149

  33. 64

    M. Cohen, “Property and Sovereignty”, Cornell Law Quarterly 13 (1927), 8. Vandevelde, supra n.49, at 325, writes: “Property and its counterpart, sovereignty, have been understood as generic terms for, respectively, the collection of freedoms held by the individual, and the collection of powers held by the state.”

  34. 65

    Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1778), 2.

  35. 67

    Rose, “Property as Wealth, Property as Propriety”, Nomos 33 (1991), 223–247, 232–241.

  36. 68

    Ibid., at 232.

  37. 71

    But see generally J. Derrida, Positions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); J. Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 92–96.

  38. 72

    In legal theory, the classic is A. Harris’s critique of C. MacKinnon, “Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory”, Stanford Law Review 42 (1990), 581–616. For a thoughtful analysis of the uses and limitations of essentialist thought, see A. Young, “Of the Essential in Criticism: Some Intersections in Writing, Political Protest and Law”, Law and Critique 1 (1990), 201–218.

  39. 73

    M. Lugones, “Purity, Impurity, and Separation”, Signs 19 (1994), 458–479.

  40. 74

    J. Derrida, Writing and Difference (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978), 183

  41. 75

    For an anthropological treatment of this theme (which does not accord with my own view, at least in its evaluation of the significance of impurity in modern Western culture), see M. Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966).

  42. 79

    See M. Davies, Delimiting the Law: Postmodernism and the Politics of Law (London: Pluto Press, 1996). I am influenced here by Maria Lugones’ article “Purity, Impurity, and Separation”, supra n.73.

  43. 80

    R. Dworkin, Law’s Empire (London: Fontana, 1986).

  44. 81

    See J. Derrida, “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority’”, Cardozo Law Review 11 (1990), 919.

  45. 86

    J. Derrida, “Limited Inc. abc …”, Glyph 2 (1977), 162, at 190.

  46. 93

    There is now a very large literature on queer theory. A few recent works include A. Jagose, Queer Theory (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1996); S. O’Driscoll, “Outlaw Readings: Beyond Queer Theory”, Signs 22 (1996), 30–51; C. Dale, “A Debate Between Queer and Feminism”, Critical in Queeries 1 (1997), 145–157; S.D. Walters, “From Here to Queer: Radical Feminism, Postmodernism, and the Lesbian Menace (Or, Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Fag?)”, Signs 21 (1996), 830–869.

  47. 94

    C. Stychin, “Queer Nations: Nationalism, Sexuality and the Discourse of Rights in Quebec”, Feminist Legal Studies 5 (1997), 3–34.

  48. 95

    M. Frye, “To Be and Be Seen: The Politics of Reality”, in The Politics of Reality (Freedom, California: Crossing Press, 1983), 155.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Margaret Davies.

Additional information

I would like to thank Kate Leeson, David Lewis, and Ngaire Naffine for their insightful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davies, M. The proper: Discourses of purity. Law Critique 9, 147–173 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03379991

Download citation