This article champions a new legal recognition model that emphasises the transformative potential of people’s use of family law. After discussing the flaws of prevailing recognition models, it insists on family formations being unique assemblages that cannot be captured by generalised technical categories. It makes the claim that, rather than one-size-fits-all model for relationship recognition that relies upon dyadic, sexual and domestic relationships, people ought to be able to identify different modules of relationship upon which to base legal recognition or particular legal consequences. It terms this model ‘cont(r)actualisation’, as the law should adopt a new orientation to how people form their normative networks. In the context of relationship recognition, this means that fixed bundles of pregiven labels should not drive recognition; rather, different modules or nodes law users themselves define when performing family ought to define family for law, at least for different legal purposes.
AuchmutyR (2004) Same-sex marriage revived: Feminist critique and legal strategy. Feminism & Psychology14(1): 101–126.
2.
BarkerN (2006) Sex and the civil partnership act: The future of (Non) conjugality?Feminist Legal Studies14: 241–259.
3.
BerlantLWarnerM (2000) Sex in public. In: BerlantL (ed) Intimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 311–330.
4.
BernsteinM (1997) Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay movement. American Journal of Sociology103(3): 531–565.
5.
BottomleyAWongS (2006) Shared households: A new paradigm for thinking about the reform of domestic property relations. In: DiduckAO’DonovanK (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 39–58.
6.
BourdieuP (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society14(6): 723–744.
7.
BourdieuP (1987) The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal38: 814–853.
8.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity.
9.
BourdieuP (1993) À propos de la famille comme catégorie réalisée. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales100: 32–36.
10.
BourdieuP (1998) Practical Reason. On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
11.
BrownA (2019) What Is the Family of the Law? The Influence of the Nuclear Family. Oxford: Hart.
12.
BuchananI (2015) Assemblage theory and its discontents. Deleuze Studies9(3): 382–392.
13.
ButlerJ (2002) Is kinship always already heterosexual? Differences13: 14–44.
14.
ButlerJ (2012) Rethinking sexual difference and kinship in Juliet Mitchell’s Psychoanalysis and Feminism. Differences23(2): 1–19.
15.
CachoLM (2012) Social Death. New York: NYU Press.
16.
ChambersD (2012) A Sociology of Family Life. Change and Diversity in Intimate Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
17.
CooperD (1998) Governing Out of Order: Space, Law, and the Politics of Belonging. London: Rivers Oram.
CowanS (2015) Sex/gender equality: Taking a break from the legal to transform the social. In: CowanDWincottD (eds) Exploring the ‘Legal’ in Socio-Legal Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115–134.
20.
CroceM (2018a) Desiring what the law desires: A semiotic view on the normalization of homosexual sexuality. Law, Culture and the Humanities14(3): 402–419.
21.
CroceM (2018b) The Politics of Juridification. Abingdon: Routledge.
22.
DeleuzeG (2001) Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life. New York: Zone Books.
23.
DiduckA (2008a) Family law and family responsibility. In: BridgemanJKeatingHLindC (eds) Responsibility, Law and the Family. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 251–268.
24.
DiduckA (2008b) Introduction. In: DiduckA (ed) Marriage and Cohabitation: Regulating Intimacy, Affection and Care. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. xiii–xxvi.
25.
DiduckAO’DonovanK (2006) Feminism and families: Plus Ça Change? In: DiduckAO’DonovanK (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 1–20.
26.
EekelaarJ (2005) Personal obligations. In: MacleanM (ed) Family Law and Family Values. Oñati International Series in Law and Society. Oxford: Hart, pp. 9–26.
27.
EichnerM (2007) Principles of the law of relationships among adults. Family Law Quarterly41(3): 433–453.
28.
FinemanMA (1995) The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tragedies. New York: Routledge.
29.
FrankeK (2012) Dating the state. The moral hazards of winning gay rights. Columbia Human Rights Law Review44(1): 1–46.
30.
FuszaraMKurczewskiJ (2005) Family values, friendship values: Opposition or continuity? In: MacleanM (ed) Family Law and Family Values. Oñati International Series in Law and Society. Oxford: Hart, pp. 45–58.
31.
GalanterM (1981) Justice in many rooms: Courts, private ordering, and indigenous law. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law13(19): 1–47.
32.
GalanterM (1983) The radiating effects of courts. In: BoyumKDMatherL (eds) Empirical Theories about Courts. New York: Longman, pp. 117–142.
33.
GlennonL (2005) Displacing the ‘conjugal family’ in legal policy – A progressive move?Child and Family Law Quarterly17(2): 141–163.
34.
GraycarRMillbankJ (2007) From functional family to spinster sisters: Australia’s distinctive path to relationship recognition. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy24: 121–164.
35.
GriffithsJ (1986) What is legal pluralism?Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law24: 1–55.
36.
GriffithsK (2017) From “form” to function and back again: a comparative analysis of form-based and function-based recognition of adult relationships in law. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
37.
HackingI (1995) The looping effects of human kinds. In: SperberDPremackDPremackA (eds) Causal Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 351–383.
38.
HackingI (2007) Kinds of people: Moving targets. Proceedings of the British Academy151: 285–318.
39.
HerringJ (2013) Caring and the Law. Oxford: Hart.
40.
JamiesonL (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press.
41.
JoshiY (2014) The trouble with inclusion. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law21(2): 207–265.
42.
KlesseC (2016) Marriage, law and polyamory. Rebutting Mononormativity with sexual orientation discourse?Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online] 6(6): 1348–1376.
43.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
LatourB (2013) An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
LawJ (2009) Actor network theory and material semiotics. In: TurnerBS (ed) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
47.
LindC (2010) Power and the taking of responsibility: Shifting the legal family from marriage to friendship. In: LindCKeatingHBridgemanJ (eds) Taking Responsibility, Law and the Changing Family. London: Routledge, pp. 69–88.
48.
LindCKeatingHBridgemanJ (2010) Taking family responsibility or having it imposed? In: LindCKeatingHBridgemanJ (eds) Taking Responsibility, Law and the Changing Family. London: Routledge, pp. 1–25.
49.
Lyssens-DanneboomV (2015) Social significance and legal protection of private relationships. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Antwerp, Antwerp.
50.
MacdonaldRASandomierskiD (2006) Against nomopolies. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly57(4): 610–633.
51.
MacleanM (2005) Introduction. In: MacleanM (ed) Family Law and Family Values. Oñati International Series in Law and Society. Oxford: Hart, pp. 1–6.
52.
MarinM (2014) Care, oppression and marriage. Hypatia29(2): 337–354.
53.
MengueP (2009) From first sparks to local clashes which politics today? In: BoundasCV (ed) Gilles Deleuze the Intensive Reduction. London: Continuum.
54.
MoranLJ (2005) What’s home got to do with It? Kinship, space, and the case of family, spouse and civil partnership in the UK. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism17(1): 267–295.
55.
MorganD (2011) Rethinking Family Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
56.
MuntSR (2013) Queer sociality. In: FeenanD (ed) Exploring the ‘Socio’ of Socio-Legal Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 228–250.
57.
O’DonovanK (1997) Fem-legal and socio-legal: An incompatible relationship? In: ThomasPA (ed) Socio-Legal Studies. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 123–144.
58.
PahlRSpencerL (2004) Personal communities: Not simply families of ‘fate’ or ‘choice’. Current Sociology52 (2): 199–221.
59.
PlummerK (2003) Intimate Citizenship. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
60.
PolikoffND (2008) Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. Boston: Beacon Press.
61.
RheinsteinMGlendonMA (1980) Interspousal relations. In: ChlorosARheinsteinMGlendonMA (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Volume IV, Chapter 4.
62.
RosenburyLA (2007) Friends with benefits. Michigan Law Review106: 189–242.
63.
RoseneilS (2013) Beyond citizenship? Feminism and the transformation of belonging. In: RoseneilS (ed) Beyond Citizenship. Feminism and the Transformation of Belonging. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–20.
64.
RoseneilSBudgeonS (2004) Cultures of intimacy and care beyond ‘the family’: Personal life and social change in the early 21st century. Current Sociology52(2): 135–159.
65.
RoseneilSCrowhurstIHellesundT, et al. (2012) Remaking intimate citizenship in multicultural Europe: Experiences outside the conventional family. In: HalsaaBRoseneilSSümerS (eds) Remaking Citizenship in Multicultural Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 41–69.
66.
RuskolaT (2005) Gay rights versus queer theory. Social Text23 (3–4): 235–249.
67.
SchneiderCE (1992) The channelling function in family law. Hofstra Law Review20: 495–532.
68.
SchneiderDM (1980) American Kinship. A Cultural Account, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
69.
ScottESScottRE (2015) From contract to status: Collaboration and the evolution of novel family relationships. Columbia Law Review115: 293–374.
70.
ShearingCWoodJ (2003) Nodal governance, democracy, and the new ‘Denizens’. Journal of Law and Society30(3): 400–419.
71.
SmartC (2007) Personal Life. New Directions on Sociological Thinking. Cambridge: Polity Press.
72.
SpartiD (2001) Making up people: On some looping effects of the human kind – institutional reflexivity or social control?European Journal of Social Theory4(3): 331–239.
73.
StoilovaMRoseneilSCrowhurstI, et al. (2014) Living apart relationships in contemporary Europe: Accounts of togetherness and apartness. Sociology48: 1075–1091.
74.
StrasserS (2012) Rethinking citizenship in multicultural Europe. In: HalsaaBRoseneilSSümerS (eds) Remaking Citizenship in Multicultural Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–40.
75.
StrathernM (2016) Before and After Gender: Sexual Mythologies of Everyday Life. Chicago: HAU Books.
76.
StychinC (2005) Couplings: Civil partnership in the United Kingdom. New York City Law Review8: 543–572.
77.
StychinC (2006) Family friendly? Rights, responsibilities and relationship recognition. In: DiduckAO’DonovanK (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Family Law. Oxon: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 21–38.
78.
SwennenF (2019) Motherhoods and the law. In: WillekensHScheiweKRicharzTSchumannE (eds) Motherhood and the Law. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen, pp. 101–118.
79.
SwennenF (2020) Un-coupling family law: The legal recognition and protection of adult unions outside of conjugal coupledom. Feminist Legal Studies28: 39–60.
80.
SwennenFCroceM (2016) The symbolic power of legal kinship terminology: An analysis of ‘co-motherhood’ and ‘duo-motherhood’ in Belgium and the Netherlands. Social and Legal Studies25: 181–203.
81.
SwennenFCroceM (2017) Family (law) assemblages: New modes of being (legal). Journal of Law and Society44: 532–558.
ThomasY (1995) Fictio legis. L’empire de la fiction romaine et ses limites médiévales. Droits, Revue Française de Théorie Juridique21: 17–63.
84.
ThomasY (2004) Res Religiosae: On the categories of religion and commerce in roman law. In: PottageAMundyM (eds) Law, Anthropology, and the Constitution of the Social. Making Persons and Things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 40–72.
85.
ThorntonM (1995) Embodying the citizen. In: ThorntonM (ed) Public and Private: Feminist Legal Debates. Oxford: OUP, pp. 198–220.
VanLearCAKoernerAAllenDM (2006) Relationship typologies. In: VangelistiALPerlmanD (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships [Online]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88.
VendittiV (2019) The Law and Politics of Inclusion. Abingdon: Routledge.
89.
VerschraegenB (2004) Divorce. In: ChlorosARheinsteinMGlendonMA (eds) International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Volume IV, Chapter 5.
90.
WarnerM (1999) The Trouble with Normal. Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
91.
WarnerM (2002) Public and private. In: WarnerM (ed) Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books, pp. 21–64.
92.
WeeksJHeaphyBDonovanC (2001) Same Sex Intimacies; Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments. London: Routledge.
93.
WidmerED (2014) Partnerships, family, and personal configurations. In: TreasJScottJRichardsM (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families. Oxford: Wiley, pp. 237–254.
WongJ (2002) What’s in a name? An examination of social identities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour32(4): 451–463.
96.
YanagisakoSJCollierJF (1987) Toward a unified analysys of gender and kinship. In: CollierJFYanagisakoSJ (eds) Gender and Kinship: Essays Towards a Unified Analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 14–50.
97.
Burden v. the United Kingdom [2008] ECHR 357 (Grand Chamber).
