Distributed Cognition, Distributed Being, and the Foundations of Law

  • Margaret DaviesEmail author
Part of the Biolegalities book series (BIOGA)


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.


  1. Austin, J 1954, The province of jurisprudence determined, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
  2. Adorno, T 1973, Negative dialectics, Continuum, New York. Google Scholar
  3. Anker, K 2017, ‘Law as … forest: eco-logic, stories and spirits in indigenous jurisprudence’, Law Text Culture, vol. 21, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K 2007, Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, J 2010, Vibrant matter: a political ecology of things, Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  9. Bentham, J 1931, Theory of legislation, K Paul, Trench, Trubner, London.Google Scholar
  10. Blackstone, W 1765, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol 1, Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blomley, N 2013, ‘Performing property: making the world’, Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, vol. 26, pp. 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler, J 1990, Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, M 1927, ‘Property and sovereignty’, Cornell Law Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 8–30.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, D 2014, Everyday utopias: the conceptual life of promising spaces, Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  16. Davies, M 1998, ‘The proper: discourses of purity’, Law and Critique, vol. 9, pp. 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies, M & Naffine, N 2001, Are persons property? legal debates about property and personality, Ashgate, Farnham.Google Scholar
  18. Davies, M 2017, Law unlimited: materialism, pluralism, and legal theory, Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  19. Delaney, D 2010, The spatial, the legal, and the pragmatics of world-making: nomospheric investigations, Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  20. Ewick, P & Silbey, S 1998, The common place of law, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Gilbert, M 2008, ‘Social convention revisited’, Topoi, vol. 27, pp. 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham, M 2008, ‘Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of Aboriginal worldviews’, Australian Humanities Review, vol. 45, pp. 181–194.Google Scholar
  26. Graham, N 2011, Lawscape: property, environment, law, Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grear, A 2015, ‘Deconstructing anthropos: a critical legal reflection on “anthropocentric” law and anthopocene “humanity”’, Law and Critique, vol. 26, pp. 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hume, D 1969, A treatise of human nature, Penguin, Middlesex.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latour, B 2005, Reassembling the social: an introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  34. Leiter, B 2011, ‘The demarcation problem in jurisprudence: a new case for scepticism’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 31, pp. 663–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, D 1969, Convention: a philosophical study, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. Locke, J 1988, Two treatises of government [1690], ed. P Laslett, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lloyd, G 1984, The man of reason: ‘male’ and ‘female’ in western philosophy, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  38. Lucy, W & Mitchell, C 1996, ‘Replacing private property: the case for stewardship’, Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 55, pp. 566–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacPherson, CB 1964, The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Malafouris, L 2013, How things shape the mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  41. Malafouris, L 2015, ‘Metaplasticity and the primacy of material engagement’, Time and Mind, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Merchant, C 1980, The death of nature: women, ecology, and the scientific revolution, Harper and Rowe, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Mills, C 1997, The racial contract, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Naffine, N 2009, Law’s meaning of life: philosophy, religion, darwin and the legal person, Hart Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  46. Nedelsky, J 1990, ‘Law, boundaries, and the bounded self’, Representations, vol. 30, pp. 162–189.Google Scholar
  47. O’Donnell, E 2019, Legal rights for rivers: competition, collaboration, and water governance, Routledge, Abingdon.Google Scholar
  48. Pascoe, B 2014, Dark Emu, 2nd edn, Magabala Books, Broome.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plumwood, V 1993, Feminism and the mastery of nature, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  51. Plumwood, V 2002, Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  52. Pottage, A 2007, ‘The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 3, pp. 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stolzenberg, N 2010, ‘Facts on the ground’, in E Penalver & G Alexander (eds), Property and community, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  54. Stone, C 1972, ‘Should trees have standing?’ Southern California Law Review, vol. 45, pp. 450–501.Google Scholar
  55. Tully, J 1993, An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  56. Vial, T 2016, ‘Kant and Race’, in T Vial (ed.), Modern religion, modern race, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 20–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations