ABSTRACT
Theories about the inferior nature of Nonpersons are important in sustaining the Nonperson’s status and tend to be incorporated into formulas or cognitive conventions used to legitimate and to reinforce the exclusion of Nonpersons from the civil domain. The idea that Nonpersons exist in an “occupied territory” is apt; the occupying forces of Persons may ignore not only the humanity of the Nonpersons, but also their individuality. The distinction between Person and Nonperson leaves unanswered, and indeed, unaddressed, some important questions about dealing with legal disabilities that are de facto rather than de jure. Distinguishing between Persons and Nonpersons allows one to make use of both of the ascendant views of law in social science. The Nonperson’s position relative to the civil contract mirrors that of beasts or people living in territories occupied by foreign powers. Bringing specific social relations out of the communal domain and into the civil one has had a tremendous impact on social life.
