Takings as a Sociolegal Concept: An Interdisciplinary Examination of Involuntary Property Loss

Abstract

This review seeks to establish takings as a respected field of sociolegal inquiry. In the legal academy, the term takings has become synonymous with constitutional takings. When defined more broadly, however, a taking is when a person, entity, or state confiscates, destroys, or diminishes rights to property without the informed consent of rights holders. Adopting a more expansive conception of takings lays the groundwork for a robust interdisciplinary conversation about the diverse manifestations and impacts of involuntary property loss, where some of the most valuable contributions are made by people who do not consider themselves property scholars. This review starts the conversation by bringing together the empirical literature on takings published between 2000 and 2015 and scattered in the fields of law, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, geography, and anthropology. Most importantly, a robust understanding of property's multiple values is required to fully comprehend the magnitude of the loss associated with takings, and this creates a space in which scholars can rescue property's political, cultural, emotional, and social value from the sizeable shadow cast by the overly dominant focus on its economic value.

Legal empowerment of the poor through property rights reform: Tensions and trade-offs of land registration and titling in sub-Saharan Africa

“…27. See Atuahene (2016) on expanding the legal definition of 'takings' to cover these sorts of losses. 28.…”

'Community Dignity Takings': Dehumanization and Infantilization of Communities Resulting from the War on Drugs

“…33 As of May 2018, there were 48,229 collateral consequences catalogued in the NICCC. 34 The NICCC groups collateral consequence laws into fourteen categories: (1) business license and other property rights; (2) education; (3) employment; (4) family/domestic rights; (5) government benefits; (6) government contracting and program participation; (7) government loans and grants; (8) housing; (9) judicial rights; (10) motor vehicle licensure; (11) occupational and professional license and certification; (12) political and civic participation; (13) recreational license, including firearms; and (14) registration, notification, and residency restrictions. 35 The collateral consequences in each of these fourteen categories result in either the dehumanization of those with ex-offender status, infantilization of this group of individuals, or both.…”

“…12 In her seminal work on "dignity takings," Bernadette Atuahene noted that "individuals and communities are deprived of dignity when subject to dehumanization, infantilization, or community destruction;" 13 "community destruction" occurs when "community members are dehumanized or infantilized, involuntarily uprooted, and deprived of the social and emotional ties that define and sustain them." 14 Thus, I argue that the effects of collateral consequences on individual community members collectively amount to a "community dignity taking"-the direct result of "community destruction," as described by Atuahene. Part II of this Article discusses the genesis of the "dignity taking" analysis (including that of the "community dignity taking") and its development and expansion as a sociolegal concept. It also examines the intersection of criminalization and dignity takings on the individual.…”

Dignity Takings and Dignity Restoration: Creating a New Theoretical Framework for Understanding Involuntary Property Loss and the Remedies Required

“…The existing literature on involuntary property loss is scattered in various disciplinary journals. Although involuntary property loss has been a pervasive phenomenon, there are no prominent theoretical frameworks that scholars can use to have a coherent interdisciplinary conversation about this important topic (Atuahene 2016). The dignity takings framework provides a common vocabulary to describe and analyze takings that involve the loss of property and dignity.…”