This paper scrutinizes the paradox of the increasing objective yet diminishing subjective value of citizenship in Western states. The decreasing subjective value points to an inevitable lightening of citizenship, which persists despite states’ recent efforts to upgrade and re-nationalize citizenship by ceremony, civic integration tests, and more exclusive rights. I discuss some features of citizenship light, most notably instrumentalism and a dissociation of citizenship from nationhood. The recently court-empowered European Union citizenship serves as an illustration.

This essay deals with the findings of an ethnographic study carried out in two urban neighborhoods in Germany. Although the German residents felt bound by the norms of ethnic equality, they used negative classifications to stigmatize upwardly mobile members of the Turkish community. In doing so, they undermined these equality norms without explicitly calling them into question. This paradox can be explained by a latently active, primordial belief in kinship, which is ultimately rooted in a symbolic order of ethnic inequality.

Much work in present-day political economy still adheres to an economistic understanding of how markets operate - evident above all in the tendency to concentrate on the disciplinary and constraining effects of globalization. Using American power in financial affairs as an example, this essay proposes a shift of focus towards the constitution of actor capacities, which will permit more accurate conceptualizations of highly leveraged forms of agency. To this end, it turns to the philosophical foundations of the American pragmatist tradition, exploring the way in which it can inform a deeper understanding of the enabling qualities of institutions, the processes through which actor capacities emerge and the operation of power.

The authors contrast two political inquiries in light of Luhmann’s system theory of procedure. The article asks whether and to what extent these inquiries can be considered as procedural systems, meaning as distinct frames of action that generate specific meanings and relevancies. Starting from the micro-sociological analysis of interactions in the British “Hutton Inquiry” and the European Union’s “CIA Inquiry” the authors reconstruct the specific functionalities of each with regard to their different ways of engaging and enabling self-referential processes of communication, knowledge production, and decision-making. As a system, each merges these three processes into a consistent, relatively strong or weak procedure, but they do so to different degrees. Overall, the article encourages a sociological understanding of the procedural mechanism as well as an empirical qualification and variation of system-theoretical assertions.

In reaction to the criticisms to which analytical sociology has been subject with increasing frequency, the article attempts an overall assessment of this research program by addressing the following questions: where does contemporary analytical sociology come from? what are the differences between the “old” and “new” analytical sociology? what does analytical sociology really consist of? do the critics of analytical sociology have good reasons to be critical? Gross’s 2009 ASR article is deeply discussed in order to answer the last question.