931145

research-article2020
CSI0010.1177/0011392120931145Current SociologyAmelina

Article CS

Current Sociology

Theorizing large-scale
1­–20
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
societal relations through sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0011392120931145
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392120931145
the conceptual lens of cross- journals.sagepub.com/home/csi

border assemblages

Anna Amelina
University of Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany

Abstract
The concept of assemblage has recently become fashionable in studies of cross-border,
global and transnational relations. In addressing the most important elements of this
approach, the article provides an analytical vocabulary for analysing the processes
of societalization in the context of global and transnational realms. After critically
reflecting on the classical sociological approaches to society and social differentiation,
the article argues that, because of its poststructuralist basis, the concept of
assemblage is the appropriate conceptual tool for studying societal macro-relations of
power and inequality while avoiding the modernist heritage of classical social theory.
Furthermore, by synthesizing poststructuralist thinking, intersectional theory and
multiscalar approaches to space, the article suggests that the assemblage theory can
be used to better understand the current forms of cross-border social inequalities in
the multiple and partly overlapping contexts of postcolonialism, postsocialism and the
EU political project. In a nutshell, it is not a plea to adopt the assemblage approach as
a new ‘grand theory’ but rather as a flexible conceptual tool that allows an inductive
theory-building.

Keywords
Assemblage(s), cross-border inequalities, cross-border studies, postcolonialisms/
postsocialisms, social theory

Corresponding author:
Anna Amelina, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute for Philosophy and
Social Sciences, Erich-Weinert Str. 1, Cottbus, Brandenburg 03046, Germany.
Email: anna.amelina@b-tu.de
2 Current Sociology 00(0)

Introduction: Starting a dialogue between theories of

society and cross-border studies
In the increasingly interconnected, globalized world, theories of society and theories of
modernity (Giddens, 1990; Luhmann, 2012; Meyer et al., 1997) seem to be losing their
ability to reflect ‘general’ societal trends. Particularly the cross-border studies, such as
those on global (Burawoy et al., 2000) and transnational relations (Faist, 2000; Levitt
and Glick Schiller, 2004) including postcolonial (Chakrabarty, 1992; Go, 2013; Guha,
2002) and decolonial (Mignolo, 2011) approaches, have criticized the modernist heritage
of the classical sociological vocabulary for its inability to approach cross-border entan-
glements, its intrinsically Eurocentric notions, and its functioning as hegemonic forms of
sociological knowledge (Boatcă, 2016; Connell, 2007; Patel, 2018). At the same time,
theorists of society cast doubt on the theoretical concepts to global, transnational and
postcolonial relations, arguing that these approaches must still develop their full explana-
tory potential (Holzer et al., 2014; Weiss, 2017). Not only have they been accused of
lacking the vocabulary to conceptualize societal processes on the macro-level, but they
have also been criticized for the inconsistent and contradictory use of terms and defini-
tions and for emphasizing cross-border relations over national variables.
This article introduces the concept of cross-border assemblages (Amelina, 2017) to
offer a sociological toolkit for responding to the challenges of both theories of society
and theories of cross-border relations. Assemblage theory goes back to the poststructur-
alist writings of Gille Deleuze and Félix Guattari (1987), who viewed ‘assemblages’ as
processual yet structure-like social configurations that temporarily bring together vari-
ous social layers and several quite dissimilar elements. As the notion of assemblage
increasingly appeared in the different fields of social and cultural sciences (Puar, 2007;
Rabinow, 2003) – despite its reception in social theory (DeLanda, 2002) and studies of
global relations (Collier and Ong, 2004; Sassen, 2006) – it became particularly evident
in studies in science and technology (Latour, 2005; Müller, 2015).
This article seeks to theorize cross-border assemblages while considering both the
complexities of large-scale societal relations and the entanglements of cross-border prac-
tices. First, the article suggests using the notion of cross-border assemblages to approach
societal macro-entities such as postcolonialism(s), postsocialism(s) and EU-Europe that
include dissimilar and heterogeneous elements. This proposal aims to overcome specifi-
cally modernist conceptions of societal differentiation such as those exemplified by the
(Bourdiesian) theories of social space and social fields, which often reconstruct societies
as container-like (and/or internally differentiated) entities (i.e. Bourdieu, 1985, 1996).
Second, the proposed view emphasizes processes over structures: the concepts of entan-
gled and/or shared histories (Conrad and Randeria, 2002; Randeria, 2002) became essen-
tial for conceptualizing the processuality as well as the entangled histories of inequalities
and oppressions in a cross-border realm. The third conceptual element is the analysis of
cross-border assemblages as multiscalar configurations. The focus on spatial multiscalar
constellations such as global–local and national–transnational became essential in order
to avoid thinking of societies as container-like, territorially bounded entities. The mutual
shaping of multiple spatial scales is studied as articulated within specific assemblages
such as the postcolonial or postsocialist configurations or the societal context of
Amelina 3

EU-Europe. Finally, the concluding comments outline the methodological consequences

of assemblage thinking. Despite approaching cross-border assemblages as societal enti-
ties located on the macro-scale of analysis, the inductive heuristics in empirical research
call for equal attention to be paid to the meso- and micro-level processes. Such inductive
heuristics are compatible with diverse epistemologies and multiple positionalities in
studies of cross-border societal relations (Haraway, 1988).
However, before introducing the core elements of the sociological interpretation of
assemblage theory in detail, I will briefly outline the modernist heritage of early theories
of globalization and world society and then offer some insights into the use of assem-
blage thinking in studies of cross-border relations.

The modernist heritage in theories of globalization and

world society
Why do many studies of global, transnational and postcolonial/decolonial relations con-
test the classical heritage of theories of society? One reason for this critical reflection lies
in the modernist roots of many of the early theories of global societal relations. Anthony
Giddens’ (1990) analysis of globalization as a ‘consequence of modernity’ is one of such
prominent approaches: ‘“Modernity” refers to modes of social life or organisation which
emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently
became more or less worldwide in their influence’ (Giddens, 1990: 1). In a similar way,
neo-institutional sociology has replicated the Eurocentric lens in its analysis of global
social relations (i.e. Meyer et al., 1997). John Meyer (1987) has prominently argued that
the dominant institutional ‘world culture’ of rationality does globally reproduce Western
cultural patterns by providing meaning and legitimacy to social action. In particular,
three forms of Western institutional culture have received global validity – the cultural
models of nation-states, of organizations and of individuals – which have been trans-
ferred to different world regions via processes of global cultural diffusion, contributing
to cultural isomorphism.
The transmission of the analysis of ‘Western’ societies to the analysis of ‘non-West-
ern’ and cross-border settings is also evident in Niklas Luhmann’s theory of world soci-
ety (1982, 2012). Utilizing the Durkheimian notion of societal differentiation, Luhmann
imagines world society as differentiated into various (functional) subsystems/domains
(politics, economy, science, religion, art, care, family, etc.), each of which is reproduced
by building on its own internal logic. According to Luhmannian differentiation theory,
spatial boundaries matter only for the political system, which is internally organized into
nation-states, while other subsystems might have different forms of international differ-
entiation (such as segmented or centre–periphery differentiation) (see the article by Anja
Weiß, in this issue).
The Eurocentrism, and the modernist origins, of the differentiation theory was
probably one reason why some scholars of cross-border relations were hesitant in
transferring Pierre Bourdieu’s theories of society to the analysis of global and trans-
national relations, the main components of which are the concept of social space
(1984, 1985) and the theory of social fields (1991, 1996). Though several attempts
have been made (Faist, 2000; Pries, 2008) to build on the concept of social space to
4 Current Sociology 00(0)

analyse, in particular, the transnational relations that emerge in the process of migra-
tion and that generate ties between migrant-sending and migrant-receiving countries,
Bourdieu’s special interest in stratification of social positions within the social/soci-
etal space has not been adopted in these readings. In a similar vein, Pierre Bourdieu’s
ideas of society as differentiated into multiple social/societal fields (though some
interesting attempts have been made to use them, especially in analysing transna-
tional social relations [Levitt and Glick Schiller, 2004]) have remained limited
because of several analytical problems in modernist differentiation theory, such as
the overemphasis on structures over processes, the underestimation of processuality
of fields, and the underthematization of cross-border asymmetries in power and
knowledge (Hilgers and Mangez, 2015). Such conceptual caveats have prevented an
extended application of Bourdieusian social space or social field theories to the anal-
ysis of cross-border societal relations and the respective dynamics of power and
inequality.
These brief, and by definition incomplete, insights indicate multiple problems in a
deductive application of Western sociological theory to non-European contexts and
cross-border (global, transnational, supranational) societal settings. The first chal-
lenge is the transmission of European concepts of societal structuration and differen-
tiation to the analysis of cross-border societal relations, which implies a continuation
of the modernist heritage of sociological thought and its Eurocentric notions. Use of
the differentiation theory (in the way indicated) inevitably implies an overemphasis
on structures over processes and agency. It suggests that ‘stasis’ is the conventional
condition/state of the societal relations (Venn, 2006). The second problem with the
approaches cited is their ignorance of the entangled forms of oppressions and ine-
qualities (Boatcă, 2016). Though Western institutional patterns or forms of differen-
tiation are considered dominant, the inequality-related consequences of their
hegemony are somewhat underproblematized (Patel, 2018). A third challenge facing
the early theories of globalization, world polity and world society approaches is the
analytical confusion of large-scale societal processes and (socio-)spatial processes.
Though spatial relations are elements of societal orders, societal orders cannot be
reduced to spatial relations alone. Instead, scholars would benefit from a conceptual
vocabulary that clearly differentiates between large-scale societal entities (approached
here as ‘assemblages’) and processes of cross-border spatialization (i.e. ‘globaliza-
tion’, ‘transnationalization’, etc.) (Amelina, 2017). A fourth problem with the above-
mentioned approaches is their hegemonic/top-down view of cross-border societal
relations, which derives from the (male, white, middle-class, Global North–centred)
positionalities of the respective authors in the ‘global’ academic arena (Connell,
2007). Not only have the cited scholars postulated the (partial) transfer of Western
forms of societal relations to non-Western and cross-border contexts in the course of
‘globalization’, they have also implied that the analysis requires ‘Western’/classical
sociological vocabulary, which prevents the consideration of non-Western sociologi-
cal voices and the indicative ways of thinking when analysing cross-border societal
relations. But why is the assemblage theory a fruitful tool for addressing these chal-
lenges when one is studying cross-border societal relations?
Amelina 5

The theory of assemblage perspective in social and

cultural sciences: Heterogeneity and processuality as core
elements
In response to the question posed above, I will now present a brief genealogy of the
assemblage theory (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987), its use in the interdisciplinary studies
of globalization (Collier and Ong, 2004; Sassen, 2006) and urbanization (Farías and
Bender, 2010), and its benefits for the conceptualization of large-scale societal relations
as ‘cross-border assemblages’. Over the past three decades the assemblage theory has
received attention in various disciplinary fields of social and cultural sciences, including
social theory, science and technology studies, social-anthropological research and gen-
der studies (e.g. DeLanda, 2002; Latour, 2005; Puar, 2007; Rabinow, 2003). Originally,
the concept of assemblage was prominently coined by the poststructuralist thinkers Gille
Deleuze and Félix Guattari in their seminal work A Thousand Plateaus (1987). Their
philosophical construct of the assemblage aims:

.  .  . to mediate the two classic varieties of modernist thought: the playful and critically aesthetic
(of the ‘art and architecture’ tradition of modernism) and formal and technical (of math, set
theory, topology). The one indulges and even celebrates the intractably unpredictable and
contingent in rapidly changing contemporary life; the other hopes for the understanding of the
structural principles of order (or disorder) within the play of events and processes. (Marcus and
Saka, 2006: 103–104)

The first argument for adopting assemblage thinking for studying cross-border relations
is its emphasis on the heterogeneity of elements that constitute an assemblage. In Deleuze
and Guattari’s reading, the basic understanding of an ‘assemblage’ implies a continu-
ously changing, temporary nexus of a variety of dissimilar elements, which form a rela-
tional nexus (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987). Thus, the logic of an assemblage is ‘the
rejection of unity in favor of multiplicity’ (Nail, 2017: 22). Assemblages are therefore
configurations defined ‘solely by their external relations of composition, mixture, and
aggregation’ (Nail, 2017: 24). Consequently, if we adopt this reading, we can argue that
large-scale societal relations that span the territorial borders of political communities
(postcolonialisms, postsocialisms and EU-Europe being some examples) can be grasped
according to the notion of ‘cross-border assemblages’. The latter can be seen as societal
configurations consisting of heterogeneous but relationally linked elements – discursive
utterances, institutions, configurations of social practice, patterns of inequality, bodies,
technologies, material artefacts, etc. – that are temporarily coupled to each other.
The second useful aspect in theorizing about large-scale societal relations in the cross-
border realm is the assemblage-theoretic emphasis on processuality. The logic of an
assemblage as a ‘fragmentary whole’ goes hand in hand with the analytical ‘rejection of
essence in favor of events’ (Nail, 2017: 22). This privileged treatment of ‘events’ as ele-
ments constituting an assemblage signifies the privileged treatment of processuality
(Nail, 2017: 24). This way of thinking invites us to consider the temporary nature and the
entangled histories of cross-border, large-scale societal relations. In other words,
6 Current Sociology 00(0)

cross-border assemblages can be analysed as both ‘structure-like’ entities and processes

of constant social change.
At the same time, global and urban studies have adopted and frequently used assem-
blage theory (Collier and Ong, 2004; Latour, 2005; Sassen, 2006). Despite divergences
and inconsistencies in its interpretation, they all share two significant aspects that are
fruitful in analyses of cross-border relations: the explicit theorization of spatiality. One
of the most prominent examples of the study of cross-border spatiality in this theoretical
realm to be mentioned here are the writings of sociologist Saskia Sassen (2006). Sassen
utilizes assemblage thinking as a conceptual tool to denote hybridity, which accompanies
global reconfigurations of power relations vis-a-vis various spatial settings. Although
she claims to use ‘the concept assemblage in its most descriptive sense’, in the sense of
‘the dictionary term’ (Sassen, 2006: 18), she builds on this heuristic to approach the
‘epochal transformation’ in configurations between ‘territory’, ‘authority’ and ‘rights’ –
from the national to the global configurations of assemblages. Accordingly, the global
(digital) age is characterized by the ‘multisited, transboundary networks and formations’,
with nation-states being part of globalization, since current states are ‘oriented towards
global agendas and systems’ (Sassen, 2006: 18). This way of thinking benefits the analy-
sis of cross-border societal relations, since it avoids the essentialist view on cross-border
spatiality as a conceptual given.
Another important aspect we can identify among the assemblage-affine studies of
global relations is the open, flexible and ‘opportunistic’ nature of assemblage vocabu-
lary, since it has been used in research at various levels of analysis – macro, meso and
micro. Whereas Saskia Sassen heuristically utilizes the assemblage theory to develop a
large-scale analysis of globalization processes, the concept of ‘global assemblages’ put
forth by Stephen Collier and Aihwa Ong (2004) proposes a ‘middle-range’ theorizing of
cross-border processes. Collier and Ong’s global-assemblage approach introduces the
category of ‘globality’, which serves as an analytical tool to mediate between the micro-
level and the macro-level of analysis: ‘As a composite concept, the term “global assem-
blage” suggests inherent tensions: global implies broadly encompassing, seamless, and
mobile; assemblage implies heterogeneous, contingent, unstable, partial, and situated’
(2004: 12, emphasis in original).
The last studies I will mention are the urban studies that focus mainly on the micro-
level of analysis (Farías and Bender, 2010). Many of these have been inspired by Bruno
Latour’s actor–network theory (2005) and its adaptations (Müller, 2015), which centre
on ‘social associations’ between multiple human and non-human actors. In his writings,
Latour uses mainly processual expressions such as ‘the assembled’, ‘assembling’, or
‘reassembling’ (Latour, 2005: 1) to highlight that the ‘social’ is ‘not a homogeneous
thing’, but a ‘trial of associations between heterogeneous elements’ of human and non-
human kind that are always temporarily stabilized (Latour, 2005: 1).1 Inspired by this
reading, proponents of ‘urban assemblages’ (Farías and Bender, 2010) draw attention to
the various urban configurations of artefacts, technologies and spatial mobility, while
criticizing researchers who analyse urban spaces as closed and coherent entities (Farías
and Bender, 2010). Accordingly, urban spaces are co-constituted by ‘human and non-
human aspects of cities – from nature to sociotechnical networks, to hybrid collectivities,
physical artefacts and historical legacies’ (Farías and Bender, 2010: i).
Amelina 7

To conclude, the diffusion of the assemblage vocabulary across different research

fields – and, more importantly, different levels of analysis – can be interpreted with refer-
ence to the opportunistic and open nature of assemblage theory, which (as the concluding
section will indicate below) is highly beneficial for the analysis of cross-border relations
because of its affinity to the inductive way of thinking.

Cross-border assemblages link dissimilar elements to each

other
How do we avoid the modernist heritage of the early globalization theories and theories
of world polity/society that rests in the imagination of society as a coherent and consist-
ent unit (with homologous subunits) and in the overemphasis on coherent structures and
causal relations in the processes of societal organization? Addressing this question, I
suggest that we approach large-scale societal configurations (such as postcolonialisms,
postsocialisms and EU-Europe, among many others) as cross-border assemblages – flex-
ible and temporary societal macro-settings that contextualize cross-border relations.
Being incoherent and inconsistent, these settings link dissimilar elements – discursive
utterances, institutions, sets of social practice, patterns of inequality, bodies, technolo-
gies, material artefacts, etc. – to a relational (though inconsistent) societal realm.
This emphasis on the relationality that conjuncts cross-border heterogeneous elements is,
in my view, a great advantage for theorizing large-scale processes of societalization, since it
allows us to reconceptualize the classical ways of approaching ‘society’ and ‘societal pro-
cesses’ beyond the container-like concepts of society as a consistent unit, which either con-
sists of vertically structured, hierarchically organized social (class) positions (e.g.
Bourdieusian perspectives on social space) or is differentiated into more or less autonomous
institutional domains (e.g. Bourdieusian perspectives on social fields). Loosely referring to
Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘social space’ and ‘social fields’ in place of the many socio-
logical theories on both types of societal structuration, this article suggests differentiating
between (1) the domain-spanning assemblages, to reinterpret social space-like approaches,
and (2) domain-specific assemblages, to rethink the social field-like theories that focus on
differentiation in institutional domains. While ‘domains’ have conventionally been defined
in a Durkheimian sense as separate institutional macro-configurations characterized by spe-
cific institutional logics, the proposed interpretation of the term attempts to avoid the notion
of coherence and a homologous structuration/organization of ‘domains’. In other words,
Bourdieusian (and similar) approaches (1984, 1985, 1987) to large-scale societal processes
tend to highlight ‘causal determination within the logic of causal stability and linear causal-
ity’ (Venn, 2006: 107), while the assemblage perspective makes it possible to consider het-
erogeneity, temporality and change more explicitly.

Postcolonialisms, postsocialisms and EU-Europe as cross-border

assemblages spanning institutional domains
Re-reading Bourdieu’s notion of social space in a Deleuzian manner, I suggest replac-
ing the former (and similar approaches) with the concept of domain-spanning
8 Current Sociology 00(0)

cross-border assemblage, with postcolonialisms, postsocialisms and EU-Europe as

some of its variants. This concept refers to temporary, relationally organized societal
configurations, the elements of which may appear in various institutional domains
(i.e. economy, politics, law, arts, science, care, etc.) and/or may span less institution-
alized societal settings of informal social relations (Table 1). Such domain-spanning
assemblages include (among many other elements) narratives, institutional settings,
complexes of social practice, technologies, mobilities, bodies and cross-border/mul-
tiscalar entanglements, but possibly also domain-spanning patterns of inequality
related to axes of gender, race, class and other categories (Amelina, 2017). Moreover,
various types of domain-spanning assemblages can intersect. For example, approach-
ing postcolonial relations as domain-spanning assemblage(s), we can pay closer
attention to inconsistencies between its heterogeneous elements, since the postcolo-
nial nexus includes racial and gender ideologies, continuously reproducing the rela-
tionship between domination and subordination, and complex multidimensional
hierarchies that span borders and regions (Go, 2013). The dominant symbolic horizon
of postcolonialism(s) is the imagination of the (past) supremacy of the colonizers, on
the one hand, and the trauma of conquest of those colonized, on the other (Chakrabarty,
1992).
In a similar vein, multiple postsocialist relations can be grasped according to the
notion of the domain-spanning assemblage(s). Postsocialism(s)’ symbolic horizon com-
bines memories of socialist and simultaneously imperial projects of equality (Morozov,
2015). While socialist notions of equality go back to Marxist thinkers whose ideas were
translated across the globe into real-life habits (for details, see Arnason, 2005), the impe-
rial project has both the Eurocentric origins of the socialist project’s universalist claims
and the imperial reproduction by the Soviet (and now the Chinese) empire (Arnason,
2005). The dissimilar elements that domain-spanning assemblage(s) link together include
not only socialist ideologies of (gender) equality, but also a variety of authoritarian forms
of governance – daily routines some of which might be quite similar in Cuba, Belorussia
and North Korea – as well as hidden forms of resistance.
To add one more example, I do argue that the notion of a domain-spanning assem-
blage is also instructive for analysing societal relations of current EU-Europe. The sym-
bolic horizon of the EU (as a domain-spanning assemblage) rests on tensions between
the modernist discourse of equality (Rumford, 2008) and the neoliberal rhetoric of pros-
perity (Beck, 2006). This tension generates a continuous struggle over European mem-
bership that produces multiple (racialized, gendered and classed) inclusions and
exclusions to be found in different institutional domains (Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013).
The dissimilar elements related to the EU project are not only the discursive utterances
mentioned, but also concrete institutional structures (i.e. polities and policies of open
coordination), multiscalar forms of political governance, the technologies of surveillance
and digital consumption, and (among many other things) bodies of the included and
excluded (Mezzadra and Neilson, 2013).2
This outlook questions the conventional Bourdieusian theories of social space, since
they imply the notion of coherent structures and clear-cut casual determinants of societal
relations. In particular, this allows us to more explicitly consider heterogeneity, tempo-
rality and change.
Amelina 9

Table 1.  Application of assemblage theory to large-scale societal relations.

Societal context Domain-spanning assemblages: Domain-specific assemblages:

EU-Europe, postcolonial contexts,
postsocialist contexts
(reinterpretation of ‘social space’
in Bourdieu’s theory)
Potential units Temporary societal macro-
of analysis configurations having elements
across various domains:
•• Narratives
•• Institutional settings
•• Complexes of social practices
•• Technologies – mobilities –
bodies
•• Cross-border and multiscalar
entanglements
•• Patterns of inequality in terms
of gender, race, class and other
categories
Economy, politics, science, care,
arts, etc.
(reinterpretation of ‘social fields’ in
Bourdieu’s theory)
Non-homologous organization with
such elements (among others) as:
•• Domain-specific premises
•• Narratives
•• Institutional settings
•• Complexes of social practices
•• Technologies – mobilities –
bodies
•• Cross-border and multiscalar
entanglements
•• Patterns of inequality in terms
of gender, race, class and other
categories

Source: Own research.

Why to approach domains as cross-border assemblages?

The subsequent reconceptualization of the field-like/domain-centred approaches suggests
that ‘social fields’ (i.e. economy, politics, law, arts, science, care, etc.) can be rethought as
domain-specific assemblages. These temporarily stabilized, relational macro-settings
may include (among many other elements) domain-specific premises, domain-specific
narratives, institutional settings, complexes of social practices, technologies, mobilities,
bodies and cross-border and multiscalar entanglements, as well as patterns of inequality
in terms of gender, race, class and other categories (see Table 1). To give an example, capi-
talist assemblage(s) are not only the nexus of markets, knowledge systems and logic of
capital accumulation, but also multiple sets of technologies and bodies linked to gendered,
racialized and class-related hierarchies. While some domain-assemblages may be more
formalized/institutionalized than others and may include an explicitly articulated, specific
logic (i.e. ‘rules of the game’, in Bourdieusian language), such a logic should not be seen
as an essential, indispensable feature of all domains.
Of particular importance in the analysis of domain-specific assemblages is the analy-
sis of cross-border inequality formation.3 The emphasis on the heterogeneity of the ele-
ments of an assemblage makes it possible to consider the interplay of multiple dissimilar
forms of inequality. Here we can think of hierarchies as constituting both (a) hierarchies
in domain-related resources that result from domain-specific premises (i.e. capital accu-
mulation in the capitalist assemblage, scientific reputation in the assemblage of science,
or emotional proximity in the assemblage of care)4 and (b) hierarchies that emerge
through the intersection of multiple ‘axes of difference’ (in terms of ‘gender’,
‘ethnicity’/’race’, ‘class’, ‘space’ and many other categories). In other words, in many
10 Current Sociology 00(0)

(but not all) cases, inequalities within domain-assemblages might be articulated as an

unequal distribution of domain-specific resources; nevertheless, one can also view these
domain-specific inequalities as being co-generated by gendered, ethnicized/racialized,
class-related, and possibly other forms of hierarchical boundary-making (for details, see
Amelina, 2017). Let me illustrate this point by returning to the example of the capitalist
assemblage: the unequal social positions within this domain are formed by the unequal
distribution of economic resources within and across state borders, by decision-making
in the institutional settings of economy, by access to specific positions in the labour mar-
kets, and so on (e.g. Sklair, 2001), but at the same time they are related to the multiple
markers of inequality in terms of gendered and racialized inclusions and exclusions
(Becker-Schmidt, 2007). The formation of the latter can be seen, for instance, in the capi-
talist privileging of specific (male) forms of cross-border spatial mobility (the highly
skilled male worker) and the accumulation of labour market disadvantages for mobile
migrant women (Anthias et al., 2013).
This outlook allows us to rethink classical notions of the domain-centred approaches
to societal structuration and differentiation as following the only dominant ‘European’
pattern. While the social fields are viewed as more or less coherent subunits of society or
of social space, assemblages are configurations with no homologous nature (Nail, 2017),
even though some of them might include something that (Western) sociologists would
call ‘field-specific’ logics. The assemblage theory, however, allows us to pay more atten-
tion to the cross-border conjunction of dissimilar elements, such as those articulated in
patterns of complex multidimensional hierarchies within and across domains.

Cross-border assemblages: Entangled histories and cross-

border inequalities
One of the key advantages of the assemblage theory is its emphasis on temporality and
processuality, which allows us to consider both entangled histories of cross-border assem-
blages (postcolonialisms, postsocialisms, etc.) and cross-border forms of oppression and
inequality. On the one hand, Deleuze and Guattari saw ‘assemblages’ as ‘structure-like
formation(s), a describable product of the emergent social conditions’ (Marcus and Saka,
2006: 102). On the other hand, ‘assemblages’ are constantly in the process of continuous
change, producing ‘enduring puzzles about “process” and “relationship”’ (2006: 102).
This notion of the duality of structure and process is an instructive attempt to ‘[think of]
structure as well as multiplicity and indeterminacy within the same theoretical frame-
work’ (Venn, 2006: 107). From this angle, the theory of cross-border assemblages pro-
posed here can be conceptualized as non-static, changeable configurations, which implies
an analytical emphasis on the processes of formation and change within the cross-assem-
blages. The emphasis on processuality has two significant implications for the theoriza-
tion of cross-border assemblages. First, it invites us to think about a proper conceptualization
of social change across borders – with the concept of the entangled histories being most
helpful here – and second, to consider an analytical framework within which to grasp
complex (intersectional) patterns of cross-border inequalities (in terms of gender, ethnic-
ity/race, class, space, caste, etc.) that are linked to these processes.
Amelina 11

The concept of the entangled history (e.g. Randeria, 2002) allows us to analyse his-
torical processes as being of ‘networked quality’ through which a series of specific events
bring together various (distant) actors, narratives and institutions, with slavery (Gilroy,
1993) and the Cold War (Arnason, 2005) being prominent examples. Accordingly, schol-
ars are invited to reconstruct historical processes of entanglement from heterogeneous
social elements that occurred at different points in time across borders of political entities
(Epple, 2010). The heuristics of the entangled history can be applied to studies of both
postcolonial relations (Chakrabarty, 1992; Guha, 2002) and postsocialist relations (Chari
and Verdery, 2009; Stenning and Hörschelmann, 2008) and can also be used to recon-
struct the cross-border history of EU-Europe (Rumford, 2008) that emerged from the
interplay of complex, contradictory and entangled components. At the same time, entan-
gled histories can be studied as shared histories in the sense that different social interpre-
tations and memories might be attributed to the same series of events (i.e. colonization)
by different social actors. To wrap up, by studying entangled histories, we can study ‘the
conjunction processes of diverse and dissimilar elements to an assemblage’ (Amelina,
2017: 78).
What analytical framework will allow us to approach complex patterns of cross-bor-
der inequalities as linked to these processes of entanglement? Context-sensitive intersec-
tional theory is a helpful tool here: in the main, it suggests analysing the interplay of
various types of social inequalities/oppressions (in terms of gender, ethnicity/race, class,
sexuality, health/disability, life-course/age, space and caste, and possibly some others)
(Amelina and Lutz, 2019; Hancock, 2007; Walby, 2009). ‘Interlocking systems of
oppression’ (Collins, 2000) and ‘multiple jeopardy’ (King, 1988) are the prominent heu-
ristics for grasping the mutual shaping of ‘axes of inequality’. Although the origins of
intersectional theory can be found in black feminism (hooks, 1991), and various versions
of intersectional theorizing exist (for an overview, see Hancock, 2007; McCall, 2005),
the reading preferred here centres more explicitly on processes of social classification
and categorization (Amelina, 2017).
The main strength of combining the entangled-histories approach and intersectional
theory is their interest in the emergence of hierarchical patterns within the context of
cross-border entanglements. In this reading, many cross-border inequalities can be seen
as spanning across institutional domains. Paradigmatic examples can be found in the
research on contradictory social mobility (Goldring, 1998; Parreñas, 2001), which is
experienced by mobile individuals, especially skilled migrants who belong to the middle
class in the Global South or Global East but (simultaneously) confront the devaluation of
their social position in the migration-receiving countries of the Global North. The term
contradictory social mobility indicates the inconsistency in and multilocality of the
social positions of mobile individuals in the cross-border realm who situate themselves
simultaneously in the social stratification orders of multiple countries/contexts.
Moreover, such an analysis of cross-border inequalities is not limited to analyses of
transnational/cross-border linkages with regard to the class position of (mobile) indi-
viduals. Floya Anthias (2012) has used the concept of translocational positioning to
show that in the cross-border realm (generated by transnational migration and other
forms of entanglements), many (mobile) individuals are confronted with multiple posi-
tioning in terms of gender, ethnicity/race and class vis-a-vis the social stratification
12 Current Sociology 00(0)

orders of the sending and receiving countries. Such transnational or cross-border hierar-
chies should be studied by paying particular attention to how (multiscalar) cross-border
settings (such as those of sending and receiving countries and/or localities and/or between
the global and the local spatial scales) co-produce specific stratification orders, the
meaning of which sometimes loses clarity and fixity. Such patterns of cross-border ine-
qualities can be studied in relation to both domain-spanning assemblages of postcoloni-
alisms and postsocialisms, but also in respect to EU-Europe.
As the outcomes of entangled histories, cross-border inequalities can also be stud-
ied in respect to domain-specific assemblages (of economy, politics, science and many
others; cf. Amelina, 2017: 78). To study such entangled hierarchies within the domains
through the assemblage-theory lens implies that closer attention be paid to the con-
junction of the domain-specific premises of hierarchization (i.e. scientific authority
within science, capital accumulation within capitalist economy, collective decision-
making within politics, etc) and ‘axes of inequality’ (i.e. gender, ethnicity/race, class,
etc.) to trace the interplay of various/dissimilar logics in the processes of cross-border
hierarchization. An example of these heterogeneous forms of inequalities was men-
tioned above in the discussion of capitalist assemblages. The latter are formed not only
by the unequal distribution of economic resources within this domain (Sklair, 2001),
but also by gendered and racialized inclusions and exclusions (Becker-Schmidt, 2007).
However, the assemblage-theory perspective does not presuppose/predefine the struc-
tures of different domains as being of a homologous nature. Therefore, in the recon-
struction of complex and contradicting hierarchies in domains, one should use a most
careful analytical conceptualization.
To conclude, the process-oriented element of assemblage theory invites us, in my
reading, to be sensitive to the processes of emergence of cross-border entanglements (as
histories of assemblages), the hegemonic forms of knowledge, and the complex/contra-
dictory forms and processes of inequality related to them. It not only hints at the forma-
tion of dominant forms of knowledge, but also is interested in determining how these
forms generate and create inequalities across the (continuously changing) borders of
political communities.

Cross-border assemblages as multiscalar configurations:

Significations of spatial matter
Early theories of globalization and world society/polity tend to undertheorize spatial
relations. Equating spatial (i.e. globalization) with specific forms of society (e.g.
global society, world society) has contributed to the privileged treatment of spatial
semantics in analyses of macro-scale societal relations and the naturalization of spatial
relations. To avoid the analytical confusion of large-scale societal relations with spatial
relations, I would like to plea (in line with Saskia Sassen’s research) for more explicit
theorization of cross-border spatial relations. Therefore, this section conceptualizes
cross-border assemblages as being organized on multiple socio-spatial scales (global,
transnational, national and local/urban), paying specific attention to processes of sig-
nification of multiscalar spatial relations (that may vary across assemblages). I will
now expand on this in three steps.
Amelina 13

First, the proposed conceptualization of cross-border assemblages as multiscalar con-

figurations goes back to the non-essentialist understanding of spatiality. One of the most
prominent theories to address the social generation of cross-border spatiality is the socio-
geographic scale approach (Brenner, 1998, 2004), which conceives of space in a socio-
constructivist manner as a socially generated, multidimensional configuration (with
‘global’, ‘local’, ‘transnational’5 and ‘national’ elements), produced by the interplay of
social practices and material artefacts. Being a historic-specific and changeable multilay-
ered entity, space can be seen as generated by multiple (relationally interwoven) socio-
spatial scales, which are ‘socially constructed rather than ontologically pregiven’
(Brenner, 1998, 2004; Marston et al., 2005).
In the second step, however, studying multiscalar spatiality within assemblages of
postcolonialisms, postsocialisms or EU-Europe, one should more specifically consider
the processes of the significations around the ‘global’, ‘local’, ‘national’ and ‘transna-
tional’ in order to avoid analysing the spatial scales as ‘conceptual givens’ (Amelina,
2017: 64). This outlook is essential if we aim to consider the performative power of
spatial narratives and semantics: spatial scales, such as, for instance, global or national,
can be signified differently both in different points in time (i.e. the colonial or postcolo-
nial periods) and in various societal settings (i.e. postcolonialisms and postsocialisms).
Consequently, in line with both the spatial and the discursive ‘turn’ in the social sciences,
this article calls for spatial scales to be approached as co-generated by processes of social
categorization and narration.6 According to this reading, socio-spatial scales are co-con-
stituted by a web of meaning and meaningful forms (including categorical distinctions
and systems of classifications) that are inscribed in social practice and not solely as the
nexus between the social practice and the material. This way of thinking highlights not
only the relationality and mutual shaping of spatial classifications with respect to ‘global’
vs ‘local’, ‘national’ vs ‘transnational’, or the other way around, but also the performativ-
ity of spatial narratives (which varies in specific periods of entangled histories).
The most important implication of the analytical emphasis on spatial significations,
and this is the third step in my way of argument, is that cross-border spatiality (in particu-
lar that associated with the global, transnational and supranational categories) can be
analysed as assemblage-specific. To give an example related to domain-spanning assem-
blages: EU authorities highlight the importance of the ‘global migration challenge’
affecting ‘national societies’ (European Commission, 2015), while the nexus between
‘global’ and ‘national’ is signified differently in the postsocialist settings of Putin’s
Russia, where the notion of the ‘global’ is equated with ‘Western’, while the notion of
‘local’ refers to the seemingly ‘non-Westernized’ ways of life. In other words, the inter-
play between spatial narratives around global/local and national/transnational may vary
according to the dominant significations and symbolic horizons of the respective
assemblages.
A similar way of thinking can also be applied to analyses of multiple spatial scales
(global, local, national, transnational) within specific domains (i.e. economy, politics,
science, art, care, etc.): global–local, national–transnational, or other forms of mutual
shaping of spatial scales might be linked to domain-specific premises. For example, the
nexus between the ‘transnational’ and the ‘national’ is signified in science according to
the premises of this assemblage (i.e. with current emphasis on the weight of one’s
14 Current Sociology 00(0)

‘transnational’ scientific reputation; cf. Ackers, 2008), whereas the interplay between the
‘transnational’ and the ‘national’ is narrated with reference to the ‘emotional proximity’
within the cross-border domain of care (cf. Amelina, 2017; Parreñas, 2001), which
includes, among many other actors, elderly persons in the countries of the Global North
and migrant domestic care workers from the countries of the Global South/Global East
and their distant family members in the sending countries.
Summing up, the core argument here is that the term ‘assemblages’ is reserved for
large-scale societal relations (while also considering meso- and micro-levels of analy-
sis), while spatiality is conceptualized by the multiscalar relations, with the global, the
local, the national and the transnational (and potentially some other spatial scales) con-
stituting complex spatial configurations within (domain-spanning and domain-specific)
assemblages. Most notably, the meaning of spatial significations attributed to various
scales often varies according to the respective societal assemblages.

Instead of a conclusion: Methodological consequences for

researching cross-border assemblages
As an ‘antidote to the dominance of classic traditions of European social theory’ (Marcus
and Saka, 2006: 104), the proposed sociological reading of assemblage theory requires
methodological sensitivity in three areas: inductive application in empirical studies, epis-
temological openness, and reflection of researchers’ positionality.
The conceptualization of the assemblage theory proposed here has affinity to induc-
tive forms of research (i.e. Strauss and Corbin, 1997). In studying complex and partly
contradictory process–structures between and within assemblages (in terms of heteroge-
neous configurations, patterns of inequality and scales), we should be careful about pre-
defining elements and relational configurations between them, but should reconstruct
them from the empirical research. Though the ideal stance of ‘theorization from below’
(Strauss and Corbin, 1997) is nearly impossible, assemblage thinking promises the most
benefits in studies that encounter concrete (temporarily stabilized) elements of cross-
border assemblages in field work. Methodological openness should not be misunder-
stood as an anything-goes position, but rather is a plea for research that is aware of the
risks while applying theory to the empirical. It is a plea for the use of the empirical for
the continuous (re)theorization of cross-border relations in line with other eminent
research strategies such as global and multisited ethnography (Burawoy et al., 2000;
Marcus, 1995). An inductive approach to analysis goes hand in hand with the special
attention researchers must pay to meso-processes (networks, organizations, movements)
and micro-processes (i.e. everyday interactions, subjectifications), even though, the pro-
posed reading of the assemblage theory analyses cross-border assemblages as large-scale
societal configurations. Thus, it is no coincidence that the assemblage heuristics have
been frequently used by globalization scholars for fine-grained analysis of the meso- and
micro-processes of the social (Collier and Ong, 2004; Puar, 2007).
Another methodological implication is that the proposed reading is compatible with
multiple social scientific epistemologies. In other words, despite the poststructuralist ori-
gins (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987), the proposed conceptualization, if used heuristically,
can be related to critical realism (relevant to the decolonial approaches, for example
Amelina 15

Mignolo, 2011), to Marxist approaches (relevant to current digital capitalism, for example
Betancourt, 2015), or to new materialism concepts (of particular importance for science
and technology studies, [Lemke, 2015]). The reading of assemblage at stake highlights the
heterogeneity of societal elements, complex patterns of inequality and the relevance of
multiple spatial scales; thus, it is careful with the normative articulation of the primacy of
specific dominant societal principles: a relative openness of the concept is a great basis for
its conversation with different epistemologies, which can be instructive for further
research on cross-border relations in multiple disciplinary traditions.
Finally, in applying the proposed conceptual elements, we should be sensitive to
questions of researchers positionality (Haraway, 1988). It is common knowledge in
many fields of social scientific research that research outcomes are influenced by
researchers’ positionality, both theoretical and biographical. However, the early theo-
ries of globalization and of world society/polity hesitated to reflect the positionality of
the scholars involved, probably because it would disclose the correspondence between
these theories’ hegemonic stance and their authors’ Global North-oriented, male,
white, middle-class position. The writings of black feminism scholars (King, 1988) are
instructive for reflections on positionality: they suggest that principally those scholars
who are in disadvantaged societal position(s) can be most sensitive when analysing
subordination and discrimination. Correspondingly, it can be argued that mainly those
scholars of cross-border relations would be probably more reflexive to power asym-
metries and inequalities, whose positionality is linked to experiences of multiple
oppressions that span national realms.
All in all, the theory proposed – heterogeneity and processuality of the elements of
cross-border assemblages, complex ‘entangled’ patterns of inequality and multiple scales
– seeks to question the classical heritage of early theories of globalization and world
society/polity. The particular appeal of this proposal lies in thinking of society as an
incoherent but relational nexus and in combining the analysis of large-scale societal
processes ‘from above’ with that ‘from below’. Thus, the assemblage theory ‘functions
best as an avocation of emergence and heterogeneity amid the data of inquiry, in relation
to other concepts and constructs’ (Marcus and Saka, 2006: 106).

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Anna Amelina https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6824-2992

Notes
1. This emphasis on heterogeneity and processuality is close to the assemblage thinking of
Deleuze and Guattari (1987), despite some conceptual differences (Müller, 2015).
2. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide exhaustive examples of all macro-entities
that have existed up to a specific point in time. Instead, the article illuminates those macro-
relations most visible in the current debates concerning large-scale societal formations across
the globe.
16 Current Sociology 00(0)

3. Unequal social relations are understood as an unequal distribution of societally valued

resources that can take a form of hierarchy but also other forms, such as patterns of inclusion
in access to/exclusion from valued resources (Walby, 2009).
4. A Bourdieusian reading would presuppose that the field-specific rules of the game are of
essential importance here.
5. Though theorists of scale mainly work with the notions of global, national and local/urban
scales, my reading adds the concept of the transnational scale, which is inspired by Marston
et al. (2005) and the transnational studies in migration (Amelina, 2017).
6. While the spatial turn proposes to view space (including scales) as socially generated (cf.
Soja, 1989), the cultural (or, discursive) turn (cf. Foucault, 1969) indicates that the social is
generated by processes of signification.

References
Ackers HL (2008) Internationalisation, mobility and metrics: A new form of indirect discrimina-
tion? Minerva 46(4): 410–435.
Amelina A (2017) Transnationalizing Inequalities in Europe: Sociocultural Boundaries,
Assemblages, Regimes of Intersection. Abingdon: Routledge.
Amelina A and Lutz H (2019) Gender and Migration: Transnational and Intersectional Prospects.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Anthias F (2012) Transnational mobilities, migration research and intersectionality. Nordic
Journal of Migration Research 2(2): 102–110.
Anthias F, Kontos M and Morokvasic-Müller M (eds) (2013) Paradoxes of Integration: Female
Migrants in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.
Arnason JP (2005) The Future That Failed: Origins and Destinies of the Soviet Model. London:
Routledge.
Beck U (2006) European cosmopolitanism, cosmopolitan Europe. In: Robins K (ed.) The Challenge
of Transcultural Diversities: Transversal Study on the Theme of Cultural Policy and Cultural
Diversity: Final Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, pp. 157–167.
Becker-Schmidt R (2007) ‘Class’, ‘gender’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘race’: Logiken der Differenzsetzung,
Verschränkungen von Ungleichheiten und gesellschaftliche Strukturierung. In: Klinger
C, Knapp G-A and Sauer B (eds) Achsen der Ungleichheit: Zum Verhältnis von Klasse,
Geschlecht und Ethnizität. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, pp. 56–83.
Betancourt M (2015) The Critique of Digital Capitalism: An Analysis of the Political Economy of
Digital Culture and Technology. New York: Punctum Books.
Boatcă M (2016) Global Inequalities Beyond Occidentalism. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu P (1985) The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society 14(6): 723–744.
Bourdieu P (1987) What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups.
Berkeley Journal of Sociology 32: 1–17.
Bourdieu P (1991) The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum 6(1): 3–26.
Bourdieu P (1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Brenner N (1998) Between fixity and motion: Accumulation, territorial organization and the his-
torical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 16(4):
459–481.
Brenner N (2004) New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Amelina 17

Burawoy M, Blum JA, George S et al. (2000) Global Ethnography: Forces, Connections, and
Imaginations in a Postmodern World. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Chakrabarty D (1992) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chari S and Verdery K (2009) Thinking between the posts: Postcolonialism, postsocialism, and
ethnography after the Cold War. Comparative Studies in Society and History 51(1): 6–34.
Collier S and Ong A (2004) Global assemblages, anthropological problems. In: Ong A and Collier
S (eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 3–21.
Collins PH (2000) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of
Empowerment. Abingdon: Routledge.
Connell R (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
London: Polity.
Conrad S and Randeria S (2002) Geteilte Geschichten–Europa in einer postkolonialen Welt. In:
Conrad S and Randeria S (eds) Jenseits des Eurozentrismus. Frankfurt am Main: Campus,
pp. 9–49.
DeLanda M (2002) Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy. London: Continuum.
Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Epple A (2012) The global, the transnational and the subaltern: The limits of history beyond the
national paradigm. In: Amelina A, Nergiz DD, Faist T and Glick Schiller N (eds) Beyond
Methodological Nationalism: Research Methodologies for Cross-Border Studies. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 155–175.
European Commission (2015) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:
A European Agenda on Migration (COM(2015) 240 final). Brussels: European Commission.
Faist T (2000) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social
Spaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farías I and Bender T (eds) (2010) Urban Assemblages: How Actor–Network Theory Changes
Urban Studies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Foucault M (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Giddens A (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gilroy P (1993) The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. New York: Verso.
Go J (2013). For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society 42(1): 25–55.
Goldring L (1998) The power of status in transnational social fields. In: Smith MP and Guarnizo
LE (eds) Transnationalism from Below. London: Transaction.
Guha R (2002) History at the Limit of World-History. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hancock AM (2007) When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectional-
ity as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.
Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of
partial perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.
Hilgers M and Mangez E (2015) Afterword: Theory of fields in the postcolonial age. In: Hilgers
M and Mangez É (eds) Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Fields: Concepts and Applications.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–36.
Holzer B, Kastner F and Werron T (eds) (2014) From Globalization to World Society: Neo-
Institutional and Systems-Theoretical Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.
hooks b (1981) Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism. Boston: South End Press.
18 Current Sociology 00(0)

King DK (1988) Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a Black feminist ideol-
ogy. Signs 14(1): 42–72.
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network-Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lemke T (2015) New materialisms: Foucault and the ‘government of things’. Theory, Culture &
Society 32(4): 3–25.
Levitt P and Glick Schiller N (2004) Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field
perspective on society. International Migration Review 38(3): 1002–1039.
Luhmann N (1982) The world society as a social system. International Journal of General Systems
8(3): 131–138.
Luhmann N (2012) Theory of Society. Stanford. CA: Stanford University Press.
McCall L (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Journal of Women in Culture and Society
3(3): 1771–1800.
Marcus GE (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnogra-
phy. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.
Marcus GE and Saka E (2006) Assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society 23(2/3): 101–106.
Marston SA, Jones JP and Woodward K (2005) Human geography without scale. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers 30(4): 416–432.
Meyer JW (1987) Ontology and rationalization in the Western cultural account. In: Thomas GM,
Meyer JW, Ramirez FO and Boli J (eds) Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society,
and the Individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 12–38.
Meyer JW, Boli J, Thomas GM and Ramirez FO (1997) World society and the nation-state.
American Journal of Sociology 103(1): 144–181.
Mezzadra S and Neilson B (2013) Border as Method, or the Multiplication of Labor Opens in a
New Window. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mignolo W (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Morozov V (2015) Russia’s Postcolonial Identity: A Subaltern Empire in a Eurocentric World.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Müller M (2015) Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and
space. Geography Compass 9(1): 27–41.
Nail T (2017) What is an assemblage? SubStance 46(1): 21–37.
Parreñas R (2001) Servants of Globalization: Women, Migration and Domestic Work. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Patel S (2018) Sociology through the ‘South’ prism. In: Fiddian-Qasmiyeh E and Daley P (eds)
Routledge Handbook of South–South Relations. London: Routledge, pp. 31–47.
Pries L (2008) Transnational societal spaces: Which units of analysis, reference, and measure-
ment? In: Pries L (ed.) Rethinking Transnationalism: The Meso-Link of Organisations.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–20.
Puar J (2007) Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Rabinow P (2003) Anthropos Today: Reflections on Modern Equipment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Randeria S (2002) Entangled histories of uneven modernities: Civil society, caste solidarities and
legal pluralism in post-colonial India. In: Elkana Y, Krastev I, Macamo E and Randeria S
(eds) Unraveling Ties: From Social Cohesion to New Practices of Connectedness. Frankfurt
am Main: Campus, pp. 284–311.
Rumford C (2008) Cosmopolitan Spaces: Europe, Globalization, Theory. Abingdon: Routledge.
Amelina 19

Sassen S (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sklair L (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Soja EW (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory.
London: Verso.
Stenning A and Hörschelmann K (2008) History, geography and difference in the post-socialist
world, or Do we still need post-socialism? Antipode 40(2): 312–335.
Strauss A and Corbin JM (1997) Grounded Theory in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Venn C (2006) A note on assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society 23(2/3): 107–108.
Walby S (2009) Globalization and Inequalities: Complexity and Contested Modernities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weiss A (2017) Sociological theories of global inequalities. Sociology 51(6): 1318–1324.

Author biography
Anna Amelina is a Professor for Intercultural Studies at the University of Cottbus-Senftenberg. Her
research areas in the field of sociology are transnational studies, migration and citizenship studies,
gender and intersectionality, cross-border social inequalities and European studies. Her recent
publications include: Boundaries of European Social Citizenship (with E Carmel, A Runfors and
E Scheibelhofer; Routledge, 2020); Gender and Migration: Transnational and Intersectional
Prospects (with H Lutz; Routledge, 2019); and Transnationalizing Inequalities in Europe:
Sociocultural Boundaries, Assemblages and Regimes of Intersection (Routledge, 2017). She is
currently the lead of a research centre on ‘Migration, Conflict and Social Change’ (MIKOWA)
(www.b-tu.de/mikowa).

Résumé
Le concept d’assemblage est aujourd’hui en vogue dans les études sur les relations
transfrontalières, mondiales et transnationales. En abordant les éléments les plus
importants de cette approche, cet article fournit un vocabulaire analytique pour analyser
les processus de sociétalisation dans les domaines mondiaux et transnationaux. Après
une réflexion critique sur les approches sociologiques classiques de la société et de la
différenciation sociale, nous expliquons qu’en raison de son fondement poststructuraliste,
le concept d’assemblage est l’outil conceptuel approprié pour étudier les macro-
relations sociétales de pouvoir et d’inégalité en évitant l’héritage moderne de la théorie
sociale classique. Par ailleurs, en synthétisant la pensée poststructuraliste, la théorie de
l’intersectionnalité et les approches multiscalaires de l’espace, nous proposons dans cet
article d’utiliser la théorie de l’assemblage pour mieux comprendre les formes actuelles
des inégalités sociales transfrontalières dans les contextes multiples et partiellement
superposés du postcolonialisme, du postsocialisme et du projet politique européen.
Il ne s’agit donc pas d’un plaidoyer pour adopter l’approche de l’assemblage comme
une nouvelle « grande théorie », mais plutôt d’une invitation à l’utiliser comme un outil
conceptuel flexible permettant une élaboration inductive de la théorie.

Mots-clés
Assemblage(s), études transfrontalières, inégalités transfrontalières, postcolonialismes/
postsocialismes, théorie sociale
20 Current Sociology 00(0)

Resumen
El concepto de ensamblaje se ha puesto de moda recientemente en los estudios
sobre relaciones transfronterizas, globales y transnacionales. Al abordar los elementos
más importantes de este enfoque, el artículo proporciona un vocabulario analítico
para analizar los procesos de societalización en el contexto de los ámbitos global y
transnacional. Después de reflexionar críticamente sobre los enfoques sociológicos
clásicos de la sociedad y la diferenciación social, el artículo argumenta que, debido a
su base postestructuralista, el concepto de ensamblaje es la herramienta conceptual
adecuada para estudiar las macro-relaciones sociales de poder y desigualdad, evitando
la herencia moderna de la teoría social clásica. Además, al sintetizar el pensamiento
postestructuralista, la teoría de la interseccionalidad y los enfoques multiescalares
del espacio, el artículo sugiere que la teoría del ensamblaje puede utilizarse para
comprender mejor las formas actuales de las desigualdades sociales transfronterizas
en los contextos múltiples y parcialmente superpuestos del post-colonialismo, el post-
socialismo y el proyecto político europeo. En definitiva, no se trata de una petición
para adoptar el enfoque de ensamblaje como una nueva ‘gran teoría’, sino más bien
como una herramienta conceptual flexible que permite una construcción inductiva de
la teoría.

Palabras clave
Desigualdades transfronterizas, ensamblaje(s), estudios transfronterizos, post-
colonialismos/post-socialismos, teoría social