ABSTRACT
The notion of hybrid legalities corrects this distribution of agency. The account glimpsed above suggests that a legal text has material and formal aspects that should be distinguished to observe how the legal meaning shapes the textual occurrence, how the category informs the actor. Materialism rightly argues that legality is ' a matter of performativity and the production of spaces, that it is not separable from corporeality and relationality ,' but from this it concludes that law is boundless. This generality is not grafted onto the ownership theory from without; it is built into it from the start, if opaquely, and it shows that this theory has countless semblances, ancestors and contemporaries alike. One criticism of the approach outlined here may be that, for it, the law withdraws from justice, moral truth, the good, and still other pricey values, in favour of the much less costly value of brute strength.
