Sieyès defined the nation vertically via its capability to form a State, not horizontally.

Evidence

We find a very different definition of the nation in Sieyes, or rather a double definition. On the one hand, a juridical state. Sieyes says that if a nation is to exist, it must have two things: a common law and a legislature. … So the nation is much less than what was required by the absolute monarchy’s definition. But in another sense, it 1s much more than what was required by the nobiliary reaction’s definition. According to that definition, and according to history as written by Boulainvilliers, all that was required for the nation to exist were men who were brought together by certain interests, and who had a certain number of things in common, such as customs, habits, and possibly a language. If there is to be a nation, there must, according to Sieyés, be explicit laws, and agencies to formulate them. The law-legislature couple is the formal precondition for the existence of a nation. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 233 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

If a nation is to survive, if its law is to be applied and if its legislature is to be recognized (not only abroad, or by other nations, but also within the nation itself), if its survival and prosperity are to be not only a formal precondition for its juridical existence, but also a historical precondition for its existence # history, then there must be something else, other preconditions. Sieyés now turns his attention to these other preconditions. They are in a sense the substantive preconditions for the existence of the nation, and Sieyés divides them into two groups. The first are what he calls “works,” or first, agriculture; second, handicrafts and industry; third, trade; and, fourth, the liberal arts. But in addition to these “works,” there must also be what he calls “functions”: the army, justice, the church, and the administration. … “Works” and “functions”; we would no doubt use the more accurate terms “functions” and “apparatuses” to describe these two sets of historical prerequisites for nationhood. The important point is, however, that it is at this level of functions and apparatuses that the nation’s historical conditions of existence are defined. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

By defining them at this level, and by introducing historical conditions as juridico-formal preconditions for nationhood, Sieyés is, | think (and this ts the first thing that has to be pointed out), reversing the direction of all previous analyses, no matter whether they adopted the monarchist thesis or took a Rousseauist line. Indeed, so long as the yurndical definition of the nation prevailed, what were the elements—agriculture, commerce, industry, et cetera— that Sieyés isolates as the substantive preconditions for the existence of the nation? They were not a precondition for the nation’s existence; on the contrary, they were effects of the nation’s existence. … It was only when the juridical constitution of the nation was an established fact that these functions could be deployed. Nor were apparatuses such as the army, justice, and the administration preconditions for the existence of the nation; they were, if not effects, at least its instruments and guarantors. It was only when the nation had been constituted that it could acquire things like an army or a system of justice. So you see, Sieyés inverts the analysis. His works and functions, or these functions and apparatuses, exist before the nation—if not in historical terms, at least in terms of conditions of existence. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Sieyès defined the nation by law and legislature rather than king or kinship — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 233; Sieyès grounded historical nationhood in works and functions, not law alone — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234; Sieyès inverted prior theory by making works precede the nation juridically — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234

Related

• Sieyès grounded historical nationhood in works and functions, not law alone (similarity 0.93)
• Sieyès inverted prior theory by making works precede the nation juridically (similarity 0.91)
• Sieyès defined the nation by law and legislature rather than king or kinship (similarity 0.90)
• Sieyés makes explicit law plus a legislature the formal precondition for nationhood. (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Sieyès defined the nation by law and legislature rather than king or kinship #corroborates (0.92) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 233
• Sieyès grounded historical nationhood in works and functions, not law alone #qualifies (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234
• Sieyès inverted prior theory by making works precede the nation juridically #expands (0.78) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 234