This article argues that corporate legal scholarship needs to focus primarily upon the indeterminacy of essentialist theories about the corporation. This will result in greater pluralism, since no essentialist legal theory would become heavily privileged over any other. When such a balance is created between theories, a robust debate can occur where no ideas are raised to the status of being “undiscussable preferences” and no essentialist theory is off the table before the debate begins. This would lead to fewer consensuses but more complexity than presently exists within corporate legal discourse, helping to immunize the law from the sort of oversimplifications that might offer ease of comprehension at the risk of positive error
