1932

Abstract

A significant body of social science research is now working with the concept of refeudalization—as well as related terms such as neo-feudalism and neo-medievalism—to analyze a variety of contemporary developments. The social science scholars who use these terms challenge an oversimplified modernization model that regards power relations such as serfdom, vassalage, suzerainty, and fiefdom as merely historical relics. The refeudalization process has significant legal dimensions, which this review outlines to draw out the central implications of the concept of refeudalization for an adequate understanding of current developments in law, society, and politics. Topics covered include the changing relationship between public and private law; the privatization of public authority and responsibilities; the territorial unbundling of sovereignty and the tendency toward multiple, overlapping authorities and jurisdictions; the contractualization of groups and political units as well as individuals; and the changing relationship between sovereignty and political representation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-075848
2023-10-05
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-075848.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-075848&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson J. 1996. The shifting stage of politics: New medieval and postmodern territorialities?. Environ. Plan. 14:2133–53
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson P. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State London: New Left Books
  3. Anderson P. 2021. Ever closer union?. London Review of Books Jan. 7. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n01/perry-anderson/ever-closer-union
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ankersmit F. 2002. Political Representation Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  5. Ankersmit F. 2011. What if our representative democracies are elective aristocracies?. Redescriptions 15:121–44
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ankersmit F. 2014. Sovereignty and political representation. Redescriptions 17:110–43
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ankersmit F 2016. Vom Mittelalter zur Demokratie und wieder zurück. Politische Repräsentation und das Symbolische P Diehl, F Steilen 107–33. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Springer VS
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ankersmit F 2019. Synecdochical and metaphorical political representation: then and now. Creating Political Presence D Castiglione, J Pollak 231–53. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ankersmit F, Moskalewicz M. 2007. Sublime experience and politics: interview with Professor Frank Ankersmit. Rethink. Hist. 11:2251–74
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker GS. 1968. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J. Polit. Econ. 76:2169–217
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bickerton C. 2012. European Integration: From Nation-States to Member States Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  12. Bloch M. 2014 (1940). Feudal Society London: Routledge
  13. Bodin J. 1992 (1576). On Sovereignty: Four Chapters from The Six Books of the Commonwealth, ed. JH Franklin Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  14. Braudel F. 1983 (1979). Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, Vol. II The Wheels of Commerce London: Book Club Assoc.
  15. Brenner R 1990. Feudalism. Marxian Economics J Eatwell, M Milgate, P Newman 170–85. London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brenner R. 2021. From capitalism to feudalism?. Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJ-Bz4U4As
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brenner R. 2022. From capitalism to feudalism? Decline, predation, + transformation of US politics. Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMDF3Hk9B1o
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Breuer M. 2002. The Act on Hungarians Living in Neighbouring Countries challenging Hungary's obligations under public international law and European community law. Z. Eur. Stud. 5:2255–97
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brown EAR. 1974. The tyranny of a construct: feudalism and historians of medieval Europe. Am. Hist. Rev. 79:41063–88
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bull H. 2002 (1977). The Anarchical Society Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. , 3rd ed..
  21. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:31–44
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooter R, Ulen T. 2011. Law and Economics Boston: Addison-Wesley. , 6th ed..
  23. Corrigan P. 1977. Feudal relics or capitalist monuments? Notes on the sociology of unfree labour. Sociology 11:3435–63
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Deets S. 2008. The Hungarian Status Law and the specter of neo-medievalism in Europe. Ethnopolitics 7:2–3192–215
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Drahos P. 1995. Information feudalism in the information society. Inf. Soc. 11:3209–21
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Drahos P, Braithwaite J. 2002. Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? London: Routledge
  27. Eller KH. 2021. Transnational contract law. See Zumbansen 2021 513–30
  28. Foucault M. 2000 (1979). Governmentality. The Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 3 Power JD Faubion 201–22. New York: New
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Foucault M. 2008 (2004). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 New York: Picador
  30. Friedman M. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  31. Friedrichs J. 2001. The meaning of new medievalism. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 7:4475–502
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gamble A. 2014. Regional blocs, world order and the new medievalism. European Union and New Regionalism M Telò, TM Shaw 25–42. London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ganshof FL. 1952 (1947). Feudalism London: Longmans, Green & Co.
  34. Habermas J. 1989 (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere Cambridge, UK: Polity
  35. Halliday TC, Shaffer G. 2015. Transnational legal orders. Transnational Legal Orders TC Halliday, G Shaffer 3–72. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Harrington J. 1992 (1656). The Commonwealth of Oceana and a System of Politics transl. J.G.A. Pocock Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  37. Hayek FA. 1960. The Constitution of Liberty Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  38. Higley J. 2010. Epilogue: democratic elitism and western political thought. Democratic Elitism: New Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives H Best, J Higley 215–30. Leiden, Neth.: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hirst P, Thompson G. 1995. Globalization and the future of the nation state. Econ. Soc. 24:3408–42
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hobbes T. 1962 (1651). Leviathan London: Collins/Fontana
  41. Kantorowicz EH. 2016 (1957). The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  42. Keane J. 2020. The New Despotism Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  43. Kickert W. 1995. Steering at a distance: a new paradigm of public governance. Int. J. Nucl. Gov. Econ. Ecol. 8:1135–57
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kotkin J. 2020. The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class New York: Encounter
  45. Krygier M. 2016. The rule of law: pasts, presents, and two possible futures. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 12:199–229
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lacey N. 2019. Populism and the rule of law. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 15:79–96
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Legendre P. 1997. Remarques sur la re-féodalisation de la France. Études en l'honneur de Georges Dupuis: Droit public G Vedel 201–11. Paris: LGDJ
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lenaerts K. 1990. Constitutionalism and the many faces of federalism. Am. J. Comp. Law 38:2205–64
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lenaerts K. 2019. The autonomy of European Union law. Post Aisdue 1:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lewis E. 2013 (1954). Medieval Political Ideas, Vol. I London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Maine H. 1917 (1861). Ancient Law JH Morgan London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.
  52. Menéndez AJ. 2022. Numerical rules or political government, that is the (European) question. Comp. Eur. Politics 20:6631–53
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Miller P, Rose N. 1990. Governing economic life. Econ. Soc. 19:11–31
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Moore JW 2016. Anthropocene or Capitalocene? Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism Oakland: PM Press
  55. Morozov E. 2022. Critique of techno-feudal reason. New Left Rev. 133/34:89–126
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Neckel S. 2010. Refeudalisierung der Ökonomie: Zum Strukturwandel kapitalistischer Wirtschaft Cologne, Ger.: Max Planck Inst. Study Soc.
  57. Neckel S. 2013. “Refeudalisierung”—Systematik und Aktualitat eines Begriffs der Habermas'schen Gesellschaftsanalyse. Leviathan 41:139–56
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Neckel S. 2016. Die Refeudalisierung des modernen Kapitalismus. In Kapitalismus und Ungleichheit H Bude, P Staab 157–74. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Neckel S. 2019. The refeudalization of modern capitalism. J. Sociol. 56:3472–86
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Osiander A. 2001. Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth. Int. Organ. 55:2251–87
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Piketty T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  62. Plant A. 1934. The economic theory concerning patents for inventions. Econ. New Ser. 1:130–51
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Posner RA. 1973. Economic Analysis of Law Boston: Little Brown
  64. Power M. 1997. The Audit Society Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  65. Reynolds S. 1994. Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  66. Rose N. 1999. Powers of Freedom Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  67. Rousseau J-J. 1994 (1762). Discourse on Political Economy and The Social Contract, transl. C Betts New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Ruggie JG. 1993. Territoriality and beyond: problematizing modernity in international relations. Int. Sugar Res. Symp. 47:1139–74
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Scheppele KL. 2013. The rule of law and the Frankenstate: why governance checklists do not work. Governance 26:4559–62
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sell SK. 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  71. Shaffer G, Halliday TC. 2021. With, within, and beyond the state: the promise and limits of transnational legal ordering. See Zumbansen 2021 987–1006
  72. Shore C. 2008. Audit culture and illiberal governance universities and the politics of accountability. Anthropol. Theory 8:3279–98
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Southern RW. 1953. The Making of the Middle Ages London: Hutchinson
  74. Stahl RM, Rosamond B 2022. Non-majoritarian institutions: two strands of liberalism in European economic governance. Comp. Eur. Politics 20:6709–30
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Stehr N. 1994. Knowledge Societies London: Sage
  76. Stehr N. 2022. Knowledge Capitalism London: Routledge
  77. Strange S. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  78. Streeck W. 2014. Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism London: Verso
  79. Streeck W. 2016. How Will Capitalism End? London: Verso
  80. Supiot A. 2007. Homo Juridicus: On the Anthropological Function of the Law, transl. S Brown London: Verso
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Supiot A. 2013. The public–private relation in the context of today's refeudalization. Int. J. Const. Law 11:1129–45
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Supiot A. 2017. Governance by Numbers: The Making of a Legal Model of Allegiance London: Hart
  83. Supiot A. 2018. Reflexions sur le Deperissment de L'État. Lex Soc. 8:1365–81
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Tanner J 2015. Refeudalisierung, Neofeudalismus, Geldaristokratie. Die Wiederkehr des Vergangenen als Farce?. Polis undKosmopolis G Biaggini, O Diggelmann, C Kaufmann 733–48. Zürich, Switz.: Dike Verlag/Nomos Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Tushnet M, Bugaric B. 2022. Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  86. van de Kieft C. 1974. De feodale maatschappij der middeleeuwen. Bijdr. Meded. Hist. Genoot. 89:2193–211
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Varoufakis Y. 2021. Techno-feudalism is taking over. Project Syndicate June 28. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/techno-feudalism-replacing-market-capitalism-by-yanis-varoufakis-2021-06
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wallerstein I, Collins R, Mann M, Derluguian G, Calhoun C, eds. 2013. Does Capitalism Have a Future? Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  89. Weber M. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism London: George Allen & Unwin
  90. Wickham C. 2000. Le forme del feudalesimo. Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull'alto Medioevo15–46. Spoleto:
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Wickham C. 2021. How did the feudal economy work? The economic logic of medieval societies. Past Present 251:13–40
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Wolfers A. 1962. Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
  93. Zumbansen P 2021. The Oxford Handbook of Transnational Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-075848
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error