In this paper we discuss relations between kinship, law, and property enactment. A recent revision of The Norwegian Act Relating to Concession in the Acquisition of Real Property is designed to influence the relation between subjects (property owners) and objects (properties) through ceasing the obligation of residency and cultivation on certain properties, which in turn is intended to increase sales prices of the respective properties. Drawing upon empirical research conducted in four Norwegian local authority districts, we argue that responsibility for past, present, and future generations of family or kin is highly important in property enactment. Although relations between subjects and objects are powerful and inform policy actions, relations between social subjects might be just as influential and powerful. When enacting properties, people may live in more complicated worlds than is often assumed. We assert that further research in legal geography and the emerging field of ‘geographies of relatedness’ might profit from seeing kinship and property as coconstituted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlomleyN, 1994Law, Space and the Geographies of Power (Guilford Press, New York)
2.
BlomleyN, 1998, “Landscapes of property”Law and Society Review32567–612
3.
BlomleyN, 2002, “Mud for the land”Public Culture14557–582
4.
BlomleyN, 2004a, “Un-real estate: proprietary space and public gardening”Antipode36614–641
5.
BlomleyN, 2004bUnsettling the City: Urban Land and the Politics of Property (Routledge, New York)
6.
BlomleyN, 2007, “Making space for law”, in The Sage Handbook of Political Geography Eds CoxKLowMRobinsonJ (Sage, London) pp 155–168
7.
BrownK M, 2007, “Understanding the materialities and moralities of property: reworking collective claims to land”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series32507–522
8.
DaugstadG, 1999, “Det norske gardsbruket—i et skjæringspunkt mellom materielle og immaterielle verdiar” [The Norwegian farm—between material and immaterial values]Norsk Antropologisk Tidsskrift10216–226
9.
DaugstadG, 2001, “Slektskap og jord på gårdsbruk i ei vestnorsk bygd” [Kinship and land on farms in a village in western Norway], in Blod—tykkere enn vann? Betydninger av slektskap i Norge [Blood—thicker than water? Meanings of kinship in Norway] Eds HowellSMelhuusM (Fagbokforlaget, Bergen) pp 143–165
10.
De HaanH, 1994In the Shadow of the Tree: Kinship, Property and Inheritance among Farm Families (Het Spinhuis, Amsterdam)
11.
DelaneyD, 2003, “Law as a thing of this world”, in Law and Geography Eds HolderJHarrisonC (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 67–83
12.
DeVaultM LMcCoyL, 2006, “Institutional ethnography: using interviews to investigate ruling relations”, in Institutional Ethnography as Practice Ed. SmithD E (Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD) pp 15–44
13.
EdensorT, 2006, “Performing rurality”, in Handbook of Rural Studies Eds ClokePMarsdenTMooneyP H (Sage, London) pp 484–495
14.
FinchJMasonJ, 2000Passing On: Kinship and Inheritance in England (Routledge, London)
15.
ForbordM, 2006, “En gjennomgang av Odelsloven, Konsesjonsloven og Jordloven og endringer i nyere tid” [A review of the Allodial Act, the Concession Act and the Land Act, and their recent amendments], Centre for Rural Research, Trondheim
16.
GjerdåkerB, 2001, “Til odel og eige. Odels og åsetesrettane gjennom eit millenium, med vekt på dei siste 250 åra” [To have and to hold. Allodial rights throughout a millennium, with a particular focus on the last 250 years], Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oslo
17.
GullestadM, 1997, “From ‘being of use’ to finding oneself: dilemmas of value transmission between the generations in Norway”, in Family and Kinship in Europe Eds GullestadMSegalenM (Pinter, London) pp 202–218
18.
HolderJHarrisonC, 2003, “Connecting law and geography”, in Law and Geography Eds HolderJHarrisonC (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 3–16
19.
KennedyL, 1991, “Farm succession in modern Ireland: elements of a theory of inheritance”The Economic History Review44477–499
20.
McHenryH, 1998, “Wild flowers in the wrong field are weeds! Examining farmers' constructions of conservation”Environment and Planning A301039–1053
21.
MælandH, 2005, “Mange vil ha, men få vil selje” [Many people want them, but few want to sell], Telemarksforskning, Bø
22.
NashC, 2005, “Geographies of relatedness”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series30449–462
23.
Odelstingsproposisjon nr 79, 2002–2003, om lov om konsesjon ved erverv av fast eiendom [White Paper no. 79, 2002–2003, about the Norwegian Act relating to concession in the acquisition of real property], Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Oslo
24.
RileyM, 2008, “Experts in their fields: farmer–expert knowledges and environmentally friendly farming practices”Environment and Planning A401277–1293
25.
SettenG, 2004, “The habitus, the rule and the moral landscape”Cultural Geographies11389–415
26.
SmithD E, 2005Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People (AltaMira, Lanham, MD)
StrathernM, 1992After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
29.
Synovate, 2005, “Norwegian monitor value study”, Synovate MMI Norway AS, Oslo
30.
TsouvalisJSeymourSWatkinsC, 2000, “Exploring knowledge cultures: precision farming, yield mapping, and the expert—farmer interface”Environment and Planning A32909–924
31.
WhatmoreS, 2003, “De/re-territorializing possession: the shifting spaces of property rights”, in Law and Geography Eds HolderJHarrisonC (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 211–223
32.
WiderbergK, 1986, “Alt undersøka lagars verkningar—i hvems perspektiv. En lov i søkelyset ‘revisited’” [Researching the effects of legal measures—in who's perspective. A legal measure ‘revisited’], in Samfunn, Rett, Rettferdighet. Festskrift til Torstein Eckhoffs 70–årsdag [Society, law, justice. Festschrift to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Torstein Eckhoff] Ed. BratholmA (Tano, Oslo) pp 744–751
