State formation and social change in early modern England: A problem stated and approaches suggested∗

Politics, Society and Communication in the Constitution of Modern Society: Early Modern England

“…Bu durum dayanışmacı eğilimlerin yerel niteliği güçlü topluluklarda fazla olmasından kaynaklanır. Braddick (1991: 2), devletin sadece kurumsal bir fenomen olmadığını, fakat aynı zamanda insanlar arasındaki eşgüdüm ve normatif konsensüs tarafından meydana getirildiğini düşünür. Aynı zamanda devlet, insanlar arasındaki eşgüdümün ve normatif konsensüsün sürdürülmesinin garantörüdür.…”

Public Worship and Political Participation in Elizabethan England

“…101 However, as Michael Braddick has shown for the seventeenth century, and Keith Wrightson, Steve Hindle, Krista Kesselring, and others for the sixteenth century, the early modern state was "a form of organized social power" that was "deeply embedded in the social fabric" and had to appeal to non-elites. 102 Both petitionary and thanksgiving services commanded widespread popular support. Bell ringing, extra sermons, and secular celebrations for thanksgivings have already been noted.…”

Institutional Identities and the Shifting Scales of State Governance in the United Kingdom

“…For instance, whereas the increasing centralizing tendencies of the French state during this period were based upon paid representatives of the central state being quartered in the various regions of the country (Spruyt, 1994: 77-108), the process of the 'nationalization' of power experienced in England and Wales was principally based on a notion of cooperation between the officers of the central state and the lesser gentry in the localities (Bloch, 1967: 371;Corrigan and Sayer, 1985: 16;Hill, 1969: 95). 5 In this context, Braddick (1991; see also 1994) has forcefully argued that the intensification of the territorialization of power that occurred in early modern England and Wales was as much a testament to the changing identities of these members of the local gentry in the various localities as it was to the creation of any new centralizing bureaucracies. 6 Braddick (1991: 2) grounds his thesis on the notion that 'the state is not a purely institutional (sic) phenomenon … [it] creates and is created by a degree of normative consensus and organizational co-ordination'.…”

“…I contextualize the processes occurring within the contemporary British state by exploring some of the crucial changes which happened during another important period of state restructuring in the United Kingdom, namely the early modern period. In this context, Braddick (1991) has forcefully argued that the centralization of state power which occurred during this earlier period was successful precisely because it also involved a change in informal institutions, as the identities and loyalties of the key bureaucratic officers in the localities gradually became more aligned with the English state. Using some brief vignettes from the contemporary UK state, I suggest that the loyalties and institutional identities of the key officers of state within the new regional bodies -politicians and civil servants, for instance -also need to change if these new organizations are to become truly effective means of governance.…”