Globalization and Transnationalization AnjaWeiß Abstract: Interest in globalization has gainedconsiderable momentum since the 1980s and has prompted fundamental debates in the field of sociology. Nonetheless,soci- ologyhas remained nationallyframed. Today, the notion that transborder phenomena and perspectivesare valid is widely accepted. German-speaking authors have un- dertaken collective effortstowards more precise theories of globalization and trans- nationalism: Migration scholars, for instance, have proposed middle-rangetheories of transnationalsocial space built on empirical research. The Luhmannian school of systems theory has translated acomprehensive theoretical program into research on the diffusion of globalstandards.Internationallyprevalent theoretical approaches, such as postcolonial studies, have inspired research on abroad variety of topics rangingfrom the global division of labor to the cultural aspects of globalization. And finally, as far as methodologyisconcerned, country comparisons and qualitative case studies are the most common but are being complementedbyinnovative approaches. Keywords: Transnationalization, globalization, theory of society,transnational social space, systems theory,field theory 1Introduction Sociologyasadiscipline was born duringatime of nationalism and nation-state formation. Classic sociological theories in the Global North have thus presupposed that modern states shape societies as nations, which in turn lends legitimacy to col- lective decision-making within anational framework. In this vein, an idealized version of the modernwelfarestate informs much sociological research, atendencythat has been criticized as bothEurocentric (Quijano, 2000) and methodologicallynationalist (Pries, 2008a). Some theories, such as Wallerstein’sworld-systems analysis and postcolonial studies, have always seen the social world as global and relational. They remained on the margins of the discipline until the 1980s, atime when globalization became a buzzwordinpublic discourse and when topics such as migration, cross-border pro- duction chains, and global ecological risk drew more general interest.The initial re- sponse was for publicintellectuals such as AnthonyGiddens, David Held, Saskia Sassen, Richard Sennett,Zygmunt Bauman, Martin Albrow,John Urry,and Manuel Castells to propose new takes on theories of society/-ies that centered on aloss of (spatial) structuration and variations or phases in modernization processesand that stressed the importance of networks,fluidity,and sociological imagination (Krossa, 2018). OpenAccess. ©2021 Anja Weiß, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110627275-011 150 Anja Weiß In Germany, Ulrich Beck moved from atheory of risk embedded in the national welfarestate to atheory of world risk society (Beck, 1999). As astaunch opponent of “methodological nationalism,” Beck introduced key proponents of the globalization literaturetoGerman audiences(Beck and Poferl, 2010;Beck et al., 2003). He argued that the globalization of risk is aside-effect of modernization thatwould reflect back on institutions such as the nation state (Beck et al., 2013;cf. Lessenich, 2016). Beck believed this to have consequences for sociologyand called for adistinctlysocio- logical cosmopolitan method (Beck, 2014). Despite these intense and fundamental debates,most sociological work (and administrative data sources) remained nationallyframed and most professional so- ciologists did not feel compelled to translate the public debate on globalization into sociological theory and research. Even in comparative sociology, national path de- pendencies have mostlybeen constructed as isolated cases. Although more complex comparative strategies do exist,such as embedded comparison (Tilly, 1984), they remain exceptions (Eigmüller,EUROPE, this volume). From today’svantage point,wecan see that changehas occurred nevertheless. The notion that cross-and transborder phenomena and perspectivesare both valid and necessary is widelyaccepted (Mahlert and Kron, forthcoming in 2020). Forex- ample,the biannualconferences of the German SociologicalAssociation werefocused on “transnationalsocial forms” in 2010 and on “complex dynamics of globaland local developments” in 2018;these invited severalthousand German-speaking sociologists to make at least some sort of connection between theirwork and atransnationalor global perspective.¹ Formerly marginalresearch fields such as migration studies have moved towards the coreofthe discipline, with textbooks (Faist et al., 2013 [Engl.]; 2014 [Germ.]; Nowicka, 2019) and original theoretical works contributing to and combining with recent theoretical developments such as Luhmannian systems theory,Bour- dieuian field theory,and relationalsociologyaswell as to new methodssuch as network analysis. Since debates on globalization and transnationalization are international debates with the well-known hegemonyofauthors situated in US and British academia,Ger- man-speakingscholars are rarely at the coreofthese research fields. Nevertheless, certain individuals have made significant contributions in English and German, and some schools of thought relate to the largerfield of German-languagesociologyina waythatgives English-languagedebatesadistinct twist. One important contribution of German-languagesociologyistheoretical en- deavors to add precision to the terms globalization and transnationalization. Ludger Pries (2008a: 119–167) differentiates between seven types of cross-border phenomena. Four of these constellations use absolutist “container” notions of space, namely,in- ternationalization, re-nationalization, supra-nationalization (e.g., the EU), and truly It is worth notingthat the buzzword globalization appears in manypublications that deal with en- tirely different subjects. Globalization and Transnationalization 151 global phenomena, such as climate change, which affectsregions all over the world. Pries uses relational concepts of space (Löw,SPACE. URBAN,RURAL,TERRITORIAL, this volume) to distinguish between three further socio-geographical constellations. Glocalization is the term that he suggests using if global phenomena achieveadis- tinctlylocal form and local forms universalize (cf. Robertson, 1992).Jazz, for example, originated in specific towns in the US,was later universalized, and then took on local qualities again in countries like Germany.The term diaspora-internationalization ad- dresses spatial relations that extend across borders with a(virtual) center,such as Chinese emigrant networks. Consequently, Pries calls for more precision in using the term transnationalization: “transnationalsocietal spaces can be understood as pluri- local frames of reference that structure everydaypractices, social positions, bio- graphical employment projects and human identities, and that span locales above, between and beyond the contexts of nationalcontainer societies” (Pries, 2005:180). Transnationalization thus connects locales in different states, whereas globalstudies focus on macrosocial and globallyexpansivephenomena. The other constellations in Pries’ heuristicallow for new combinations and clarify the ways in which the nation- state frame has been modified. Whereas migrationscholars such as Pries have built on empirical findingsin order to propose middle-rangetheories of transnationalsocial space, the Luhmannian school of systems theory has translated acomprehensive theoretical program into research on the diffusion of globalstandards (section 2).Complementarilytothis distinctlyGerman-languagescholarship, scholars situated in German-languageaca- demia have also contributed to the internationallyhegemonic research paradigms by combiningtheir interest in (intersectional) inequalities with studies of cultural hegemony. Thisresearch typicallycombines theoretical efforts with specific empirical interests, thereby contributingtoabroad variety of topics rangingfrom migration studies and the globaldivision of labor to the culturalaspects of globalization (sec- tion 3). In all of these schools the methodsare different (section 4). Country com- parisons and qualitative case studies are the most common but have been augmented by methodological innovation. 2Systems Theory on WorldSociety and the EmergenceofGlobalStandards When the German systems theorist Niklas Luhmann moved past Parsonian structural differentiation, he changed the foundation of his systems theory from action to communication. This movesolvedmanytheoretical problems and resulted in an elaborate and fascinating systems theory that has not been discussed much in the English-languagesociological literature.² Since communication technologies had Asmall fraction of Luhmann’sworkhas been translated (1995;2000;2012/2013), but the central 152 Anja Weiß gone global, the movetowards communication also compelled Luhmann to give his theory aglobalscope, even though he himself did not have much interest in global studies (Luhmann, 1975;2012/2013).³ The second and third generation of his school expandedinthis direction and published extensively on world society (Heintzetal., 2005). They also established an Institutefor World Society Studies in Bielefeld, Ger- many, thereby consolidatingnetworks that reach as far as Latin America (Birle et al., 2012). Compared to established globalization theories that tend to focus on politics, culture, or the political economy(Wallerstein), Luhmannian world-society theory considers multiple