Territorialization from below? Belongings and state building, Leipzig 1485-1806

民族国家被认为是现代人的经典秩序范式：国家和民族在概念上被想象为属于一起；(隐含的)假设是公民身份和领土原则变得一致。然而，目前的研究和社会政治辩论都表明，这种国家领土归属概念达到了极限：跨国和超国家实体以及非领土组织的财产取代了领土归属概念，或改变了它们。因此，民族国家范式不再具有广泛的合法性。这就回避了一个问题：在民族国家之后会发生什么。与此同时，人们对民族国家之前的时代越来越感兴趣，也就是对它在前现代时代的形成及其替代和变种感兴趣。这就是拟议的项目所在之处。它受到当前解体过程的启发和启发，侧重于范式的形成，或者更准确地说，是关于早期现代归属和属地化之间的联系。以1485年至1806年莱比锡市为例，目标是绘制多个联系在一起的财产的相互联系和共存，它们的各种空间范围和它们的历史性。在第一步，它将被问到哪些空间是由早期现代莱比锡的各种关键利益相关者(主权、城市、教会和学术)创造和定义的。第二步涉及要求在规范确定和这些规范在城镇居民日常生活中的锚定之间的传播带。在地图、城市风貌和其他象征性表现以及市议会和仪式记录的基础上，将审查如何以及哪些不同的空间被可视化，以及哪些做法和仪式被用于制作心理地图，即将当局的空间安排固定在城市居民的脑海中。在第三步中，重点转向在这些城市空间内活动和互动的人类。主人公在空间上的审讯记录和恳求提供了大量信息，说明他们如何解释自己的空间，以及当局的规范在这一过程中的相关性程度。由于这些空间归属的配置在早期现代的过程中发生了变化，该项目反复讨论这一问题，以便从历史的角度阐明属地化、国家建设和归属感之间的高度相关联系。与此同时，该项目将自下而上的属地化方面引入了国家建设的经典叙事中，这一方面直到现在才被考虑。

The nation state is deemed to be modernitys classic paradigm of order: state and nation are conceptually imagined as belonging together; the (implicit) assumption is that citizenship and the principle of territoriality came to be congruent. However, current research and sociopolitical debates both demonstrate that this national territorial conception of belonging reaches its limit: transnational and supranational entities as well as nonterritorially organized belongings replace territorial concepts of belonging or transform them. Therefore, the nation state paradigm can no longer claim extensive validity. This begs the question what might come after the nation state. At the same time, there is a growing interest in the era before the nation state that is, in its formation during the premodern age and its alternatives and variants. This is where the proposed project fits in. Inspired and informed by current processes of dissolution, it focuses on the paradigms formation, or to be more precise, on the connection between belonging and territorialization in the early modern era. Based on the example of the city of Leipzig over the period from 1485 to 1806, the goal is to map the interconnectedness and coexistence of multi tied belongings, their various spatial rang and their historicity. In a first step it will be asked which spaces were created and defined by the various key stakeholders (sovereign, urban, ecclesiastical, and academic) in early modern Leipzig. The second step involves asking for the transmission belts between this normative determination and the anchoring of these specifications in the townspeoples everyday life. On the basis of maps, cityscapes, and other symbolic representations, as well as city council and ceremonial records, it will be examined how and which differing spaces were visualized as well as which practices and rituals were used for the production of a mental map, that is for anchoring the authorities spatial arrangements in the minds of the urban dwellers. In a third step, the focus shifts towards the humans that move and interact within these urban spaces. Interrogation records and supplications in which the protagonists locate themselves spatially provide ample information of how they construed their own spaces and to what extent the authorities specifications were relevant in this process. As these configurations of spatial belongings change over the course of the early modern era, the project addresses this issue repeatedly in order to shed light on the highly relevant connection between territorialization, state building and belonging from a historical perspective. At the same time, the project introduces the facet of territorialization from below, which has hardly been considered until now, to the classic narrative of state building.