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...
