The making of the political subject: subjects and territory in the formation of the state

Abstract

The article explores the historicity of political subjecthood, making the case that through a process of subjectification Bsubjects of the king^gradually became the political subjects of the state. This in turn contributed to reconstitute the state as an abstract notion that nevertheless was real through the allegiance owed to it by its subjects. Addressing the making of subjecthood in relation to state formation helps fill an important lacuna in the literature on state formation, namely the double oversight of subjecthood. Either studies of state formation have taken both territory and subjecthood-the two objects of state power-for granted, or, more recently, they have assumed that changes in subjecthood were a function of changes in territoriality. I propose to address this by inquiring into early modern subjecthood in its own right, through a historical exploration of the emergence of political subjecthood in English statutes during the Tudor period . Through gradual yet incremental changes in the relation between subject/ king and subject/state, the political subject's allegiance to the state changed and acquired a Btaken-for-grantedness^-maintained and reinforced through constant legal reiteration.Keywords State formation . Subjects . Subjectification . Territory . Territorialization . Early modern EnglandBBut there are no patients, Humphrey! … A brand new hospital with over five hundred administrators and no patients!^1Theor Soc (2016) 45:57-88 DOI 10.1007 From the television series Yes Minister (Season 1, Episode 2, BThe Compassionate Society^). The first time I approached the topic of state formation was as a graduate student at the New School for Social Research in 1998, where Gianfranco Poggi was teaching a class on the topic. The first thing he said to us then was that there were two ways of understanding politics and the state: reading Max Weber or watching Yes Minister. BCome and play with me,^proposed the little prince. … BI cannot play with you,^the fox said. BI am not tamed.^BAh! Please excuse me,^said the little prince. BWhat does that mean-'tame'?^BIt is an act too often neglected,^said the fox. It means to establish ties.^2Theories of state formation have paid little attention to individuals or people as subjects. In fact, states emerging from the long sixteenth century in command of both territory and subjects seem to acquire these in an unproblematic fashion. The focus of extant theories is largely on the emergence of a state apparatus, a bureaucracy, and a capacity to extract taxes and wage war, at the expense of explorations of the formation of the ties between state and subjects-the politicization of subjects, so to speak, or subjectification.To be sure, until recently this was the case with territory as well, until it was pointed out that the state formation literature was entrapped in its notions of territoriality-taking them for granted and not exploring their historical emergence. As a consequence, recent studies have historicized state and territory, resulting in historical...

Everyday sovereignty: International experts, brokers and local ownership in peacebuilding Liberia

“…The quotidian presence of sovereignty is the result of what Roxanne Lynn Doty (1996: 124; see also Devetak, 1995) calls ‘sovereignty effects’, that is, the ‘relatively successful production of such foundations’. Such production can be studied, as it generally has been (see Bartelson, 1995), via discourses — whether of political theorists, legal scholars or states themselves (see de Carvalho, 2016) — but it can also, and we argue should, be studied in its quotidian and dynamic production (see Solhjell, 2015). This, we hope, will allow us to follow Dunn (2001a, 2001b) and others in exploring how practices in Africa can be generative of experiences that can help us understand international politics (see Grovogui, 2001; Hagmann and Péclard, 2011; Migdal and Schlichte, 2005).…”

Imagined communities: from subjecthood to nationality in the British Atlantic

“…47 Emphasising institutional innovation in how resources were raised to prosecute war, 'the literature on state formation is conspicuously silent on the relationship between state and people-or between state and subjects-in the early modern period'. 48 This has impacted the modernist account of nationality by fostering confusion regarding that which went before, that is, the relations connecting people, state and territory in the 16th and 17th centuries. Indeed, these accounts have tended to read the early modern period through the prism of later changes.…”

Forum: Interlingual Relations: Approaches, Conflicts, and Lessons in the Translation Of Global Politics

“…And yet, we have at best a partial understanding of how this transition took place. While some have pointed to the centrality of processes like war, economic competition, and the structure of property (Spruyt 1994;Tilly 1994;Teschke 2003), an increasingly large body of literature focuses on the role of language and ideas in this transformation (Ruggie 1998;Branch 2014;de Carvalho 2016). Central within this thesis is the emergence of the concept of a sovereign state and the abandonment of alternative political imaginaries.…”