The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality

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 ass...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Law & society review 2016-03, Vol.50 (1), p.224-255
Main Author: Blomley, Nicholas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Borders
Boundaries
Capitalism
Fences
Gardens & gardening
Heterogeneity
Human relations
Industrial development
Intuition
Laypersons
Neighborhoods
Private property
Property
Property law
Property rights
Public gardens
Public property
Qualitative research
Relational sociology
Space
White people
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3
container_end_page 255
container_issue 1
container_start_page 224
container_title Law & society review
container_volume 50
creator Blomley, Nicholas
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/lasr.12182
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878783711</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44122505</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44122505</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWB8b98KAGxFH5-YxD3e11ioUFR8IbkImD5w6bcZkiu2_N3bUhQtzF-Hc850QDkJ7kJxAOKe18O4EMOR4DfWA0SRmeUHWUS9JMIkLDOkm2vJ-kgTNCOuh4eOrjs7tfKaEq7SPrInunG20a5dn0cBOm1ovqnZ5HN3rWrSVnYl6JcVMRQ9N2Kz0DtowovZ69_veRk-Xw8fBVTy-HV0P-uNYkoLi2AgqVQlGF4qZnEqtcimUxqWhSmKgLDUsM6kKRCkhVywplVEyo1RACVKSbXTYvds4-z7XvuXTyktd12Km7dxzyLMwJAMI6MEfdGLnLnw_UFnKcoozkgbqqKOks947bXjjqqlwSw4J_2qUfzXKV40GGDr4o6r18h-Sj_sP9z-Z_S4z8a11vxlKAWOWsODHnV_5Vi9-feHeeJqRjPHnmxG_GL1c3V28MF6QT6h6kns</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1765842736</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Politics Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Blomley, Nicholas</creator><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-9216</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-5893</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12182</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LWSRAA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amherst: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Borders ; Boundaries ; Capitalism ; Fences ; Gardens &amp; gardening ; Heterogeneity ; Human relations ; Industrial development ; Intuition ; Laypersons ; Neighborhoods ; Private property ; Property ; Property law ; Property rights ; Public gardens ; Public property ; Qualitative research ; Relational sociology ; Space ; White people</subject><ispartof>Law &amp; society review, 2016-03, Vol.50 (1), p.224-255</ispartof><rights>The Law and Society Association 2016</rights><rights>2016 Law and Society Association</rights><rights>Copyright Law and Society Association 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1765842736/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1765842736?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12845,12847,21376,21387,21394,21395,27344,27924,27925,33223,33224,33611,33612,33769,33770,33774,33985,33986,34530,34531,43733,43814,43948,44115,58238,58471,74221,74310,74468,74639</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><title>The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality</title><title>Law &amp; society review</title><addtitle>Law &amp; Society Rev</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Borders</subject><subject>Boundaries</subject><subject>Capitalism</subject><subject>Fences</subject><subject>Gardens &amp; gardening</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Human relations</subject><subject>Industrial development</subject><subject>Intuition</subject><subject>Laypersons</subject><subject>Neighborhoods</subject><subject>Private property</subject><subject>Property</subject><subject>Property law</subject><subject>Property rights</subject><subject>Public gardens</subject><subject>Public property</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Relational sociology</subject><subject>Space</subject><subject>White people</subject><issn>0023-9216</issn><issn>1540-5893</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>DPSOV</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><sourceid>M2L</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEUhYMoWB8b98KAGxFH5-YxD3e11ioUFR8IbkImD5w6bcZkiu2_N3bUhQtzF-Hc850QDkJ7kJxAOKe18O4EMOR4DfWA0SRmeUHWUS9JMIkLDOkm2vJ-kgTNCOuh4eOrjs7tfKaEq7SPrInunG20a5dn0cBOm1ovqnZ5HN3rWrSVnYl6JcVMRQ9N2Kz0DtowovZ69_veRk-Xw8fBVTy-HV0P-uNYkoLi2AgqVQlGF4qZnEqtcimUxqWhSmKgLDUsM6kKRCkhVywplVEyo1RACVKSbXTYvds4-z7XvuXTyktd12Km7dxzyLMwJAMI6MEfdGLnLnw_UFnKcoozkgbqqKOks947bXjjqqlwSw4J_2qUfzXKV40GGDr4o6r18h-Sj_sP9z-Z_S4z8a11vxlKAWOWsODHnV_5Vi9-feHeeJqRjPHnmxG_GL1c3V28MF6QT6h6kns</recordid><startdate>201603</startdate><enddate>201603</enddate><creator>Blomley, Nicholas</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201603</creationdate><title>The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality</title><author>Blomley, Nicholas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Borders</topic><topic>Boundaries</topic><topic>Capitalism</topic><topic>Fences</topic><topic>Gardens &amp; gardening</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Human relations</topic><topic>Industrial development</topic><topic>Intuition</topic><topic>Laypersons</topic><topic>Neighborhoods</topic><topic>Private property</topic><topic>Property</topic><topic>Property law</topic><topic>Property rights</topic><topic>Public gardens</topic><topic>Public property</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Relational sociology</topic><topic>Space</topic><topic>White people</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Blomley, Nicholas</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Law &amp; society review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Blomley, Nicholas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality</atitle><jtitle>Law &amp; society review</jtitle><addtitle>Law &amp; Society Rev</addtitle><date>2016-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>224</spage><epage>255</epage><pages>224-255</pages><issn>0023-9216</issn><eissn>1540-5893</eissn><coden>LWSRAA</coden><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.</abstract><cop>Amherst</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/lasr.12182</doi><tpages>32</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-9216
ispartof Law & society review, 2016-03, Vol.50 (1), p.224-255
issn 0023-9216
1540-5893
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1878783711
source Criminology Collection; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Cambridge Journals Online; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; Politics Collection; Sociology Collection; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Borders
Boundaries
Capitalism
Fences
Gardens & gardening
Heterogeneity
Human relations
Industrial development
Intuition
Laypersons
Neighborhoods
Private property
Property
Property law
Property rights
Public gardens
Public property
Qualitative research
Relational sociology
Space
White people
title The Boundaries of Property: Complexity, Relationality, and Spatiality
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T07%3A55%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Boundaries%20of%20Property:%20Complexity,%20Relationality,%20and%20Spatiality&rft.jtitle=Law%20&%20society%20review&rft.au=Blomley,%20Nicholas&rft.date=2016-03&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=224&rft.epage=255&rft.pages=224-255&rft.issn=0023-9216&rft.eissn=1540-5893&rft.coden=LWSRAA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/lasr.12182&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44122505%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3942-fa4cdb1fe9d5f84ced8cade2bf4dc21456f57f6d1febc18d50bdfdc744a1b1cc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1765842736&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=44122505&rfr_iscdi=true