<p>Though profoundly physical, land as a concept is notably abstract. In this commentary, I note how this abstractness comes from varied analytical characterizations. I reflect on three often-used ideal-typical constructions of land: capitalism, agrarianism, and ethics of care (or a “relational” approach). Through capitalism, land is a tool, controlled through ownership and used for profit. Through agrarianism, land is the means through which its stewards meet ideals of moral citizenship. Through ethics of care, land is defined by its own selfhood, a being carrying autonomous rights. For each approach, I discuss how the ideal type constructs a narrative about land, and especially land tenure changes confronted in agriculture. Ultimately, despite the distinct epistemological orientations to land constructing varied – and distinct – ideal typical land-narratives, I propose that land’s conceptual muddiness is the product of the practical entanglement of all three approaches.</p>