The subject is never a given, it is always the product of a history-binded constitutive - or subjectivation - process. The question here asked is whether the individual/collective division is pertinent with respect to the different forms of subjectivation. The collective is represented by two figures : the first one is the collection or sum of its parts ; the second is an integrative whole which is superior and qualitatively different from these parts. Neoliberal governance, it is argued, both totalizes and individualizes. It is the government of all by the government of ‘every one’. It therefore produces more than the sum of its elements - a collection organized by the implementation of multiple individualizing techniques of power. It is incidentally useless to oppose to such a form of subjectivation a valorisation of the individual or, on the opposite, a celebration of the whole as a superior mode of being. Avoiding the '˜collection or collective’ alternative is made possible by thinking the constitution of a collective of singularities through common action.