No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Legal and Cultural Construction of the Maori Corporate Person
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2023
Abstract
Our understandings of what corporations are—narratives of why they exist, who they serve, and their basic ontological status—matter for the way in which legal and ethical responsibilities become imputed to them. Interactions between the law of corporations and ordinary peoples’ thinking about themselves (as agents, as owners, and as responsible, or not, for an organization’s adherence to social mores) contribute to the way in which they imagine the corporation to be. Beyond the question of personhood, then, is the question of how the jurisprudence of the corporation is (en)cultured. To tease apart the multiple layers of this inquiry—to make the anthropologist’s move of rendering the familiar strange—it is useful to shift our attention to less typically encountered uses of the corporate form; here, a look at Indigenously owned corporations provides that new perspective. This slant view makes apparent new intersections between understandings of the reasons for corporate existence and the rights that the corporation might properly claim, suggesting the crucial role that these intersections might play in theorizing the corporation.
- Type
- Symposium on Legal Anthropology
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Bar Foundation
References
REFERENCES
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso
Google Scholar
Appel, Hanna. 2012. “Offshore Work: Oil, Modularity, and the How of Capitalism in Equatorial Guinea.” American Ethnology 39: 692–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avi-Yonah, Reuven. 2010. “Citizens United and the Corporate Form.” Wisconsin Law Review 2010: 999–1047.Google Scholar
Benjamin, Walter. 1969. “The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproduction.” In Illuminations, edited by Arendt, Hannah, translated by Zorn, Harry, 217–52. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M. 2013. “Corporate Personhood and the Corporate Persona.” University of Illinois Law Review 2013: 785–820.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M. 2014. “The Four Functions of Corporate Personhood.” In Handbook of Economic Organization: Integrating Economic and Organization Theory, edited by Grandori, Anna, 440–61. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret M., and Pollman, Elizabeth. 2015. “The Derivative Nature of Corporate Constitutional Rights.” William and Mary Law Review 56: 1673–1743.Google Scholar
Blair, Margaret, and Stout, Lynn, 1999. “A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law.” Virginia Law Review 85: 247–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutin, Susan 1998. “Review of a Moment’s Notice: Time Politics across Cultures.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 21: 123–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, Frank H., and Fischel, Daniel R.. 1989. “The Corporate Contract.” Columbia Law Review 89: 1416–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, Eugene F., and Jensen, Michael C.. 1983. “Separation of Ownership and Control.” Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisch, Jill E., and Davidoff Solomon, Steven. 2020. “Should Corporations Have a Purpose?” University of Pennsylvania Institute for Law and Economics Research Paper no. 20-22. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitz-Henry, Erin. 2018. “Challenging Corporate ‘Personhood’: Energy Companies and the ‘Rights’ of Non-Humans.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 41, no. S1: 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, John J. 1987. “The Jurisprudence of Corporate Personhood: The Misuse of a Legal Concept.” In Corporations and Society: Power and Responsibility, edited by Warren, J. Samuels and Arthur, S. Miller, 131–59. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Friedlander, Joel Edan. 1996. “Corporation and Kulturkampf: Time Culture as Illegal Fiction.” Connecticut Law Review 29: 31–115
Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1970. “A Friedman Doctrine: The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” New York Times Magazine, September.Google Scholar
Graver, David. 1999. “Personal Bodies: A Corporeal Theory of Corporate Personhood.” University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 6, no. 1: 235–50.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, Carol. 1996. A Moment’s Notice: Time Politics across Cultures. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, Carol. 2018. “Citizens United, Citizens Divided: Democracy and Economy in a Corporate Key.” American Ethnology 45: 546–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayden, Grant M., and Bodie, Matthew T., 2010. “Shareholder Democracy and the Curious Turn toward Board Primacy.” William and Mary Law Review 51: 2071–2121.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. 1985. “Santa Clara Revisited: The Development of Corporate Theory.” Virginia Law Review 88: 173–224.Google Scholar
Iwai, Katsuhito. 1999. “Persons, Things and Corporations: The Corporate Personality Controversy and Comparative Corporate Governance.” American Journal of Comparative Law 47: 583–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Frank. 2011. “Romney’s ‘Corporations Are People’ a Gift to Political Foes.” National Public Radio News, August 11. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/08/11/139551684/romneys-corporations-are-people-getting-lots-of-mileage.Google Scholar
Kahn, Paul W. 1997. “The Cultural Study of Law: Reconstructing Legal Scholarship (2000); Guyora Binder and Robert Weisberg, Cultural Criticism of Law.” Stanford Law Review 49: 1149–1221.Google Scholar
Kirsch, Stuart. 2014. “Imagining Corporate Personhood.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 37: 207–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, John. 1992. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity.” Systems Practice 5: 379–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, Thomas J., and Sunstein, Cass R.. 2008. “The New Legal Realism.” University of Chicago Law Review 75: 831–51.Google Scholar
Millon, David. 1990. “Theories of the Corporation.” Duke Law Journal 1990: 201–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesteruk, Jeffrey. 2009. “Corporate Theory and the Role of Narrative.” Michigan State Law Review 2009: 933–46.Google Scholar
Orts, Eric W. 2013. Business Persons: A Legal Theory of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollman, Elizabeth. 2011. “Reconceiving Corporate Personhood.” Utah Law Review 2011: 1629–75.Google Scholar
Ribstein, Larry E. 1995. “The Constitutional Conception of the Corporation.” Supreme Court Economic Review 4: 95–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Warren J. 1987. “The Idea of the Corporation as a Person: On the Normative Significance of Judicial Language.” In Corporations and Society: Power and Responsibility, edited by Warren, J. Samuels and Arthur, S. Miller, 113–29. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, Suzana. 2006. “Disabling Corporate Sovereignty in a Transnational Lawsuit.” PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review 29: 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Andrew A. 2012. “The Perpetual Corporation.” George Washington Law Review 80: 764–830.Google Scholar
Silbey, Susan S., and Sarat, Austin. 1987. “Critical Traditions in Law and Society Research.” Law & Society Review 21: 165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, Lynn A. 2015. “The Corporation as a Time Machine: Intergenerational Equity, Intergenerational Efficiency, and the Corporate Form.” Seattle University Law Review 38: 685–723.Google Scholar
Teubner, Gunther. 1988. “Enterprise Corporatism: New Industrial Policy and the ‘Essence’ of the Legal Person.” American Journal of Comparative Law 36: 130–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welker, Marina, Partridge, Damani J., and Hardin, Rebecca. 2011. “Corporate Lives: New Perspectives on the Social Life of the Corporate Form.” Current Anthropology 52, no. S3: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, James Boyd. 1985. “How Should We Talk About Corporations? The Languages of Economics and Citizenship.” Yale Law Journal 94: 1416–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar