liberal citizenship: ambiguities and inconsistencies29 dynamics unique to its modern realization in the twenty-first century; but as Isin explains, it would also continue to … mobilize and provoke an invented tradition: that we are somehow inheritors of an occidental tradition that is different from and superior to an oriental one. These images then invent not one, but two traditions (Isin 2002, 305). As such, while pointing to the historical and etymological roots of citizenship, the city-state and liberal-democratic social orders, my discussion will aim to refrain from (re)producing such orientalist and occidentalist images and characterizations. However, and without seeking to reinforce the invented tradition pointed to by Isin where contemporary Western societies are direct inheritors of a superior and unchanged occidental mode of thought, references to ancient societies in the West are useful for understanding the historical, social and political changes in the territorialization of citizenship. For instance, looking at how citizenship is arranged, British-Australian sociologist Bryan S. Turner refers to ancient Rome to remind us that the concept of citizenship was not always deemed as politically committed to a city-state framework. He writes that: The Cynics and the Epicureans tended to give greater importance to the idea of individual autonomy and moral development rather than to the more collective virtues of Aristotelian philosophy. It was the Stoics who reformulated a notion of civic obligation. …. Eventually the Stoical values of discipline, frugality and industry reflected the changing political reality of the Roman Empire, whose size, social differentiation and bureaucratic complexity no longer corresponded to the moral idea of the polis as an ethical association (Turner 1990, 202). From the above depiction we can observe that though it was the territorial expansion of the Roman Empire which began to blur the link between citizenship and the city-state, the transformation of citizenship today along with major trends of contemporary denationalization and deterritorialization of modern citizenship can be ascribed to numerous processes both inside and outside of the state. Indeed, contemporary citizenship is composed of multiple elements many of which can be associated with the state, but the increasing development of locations of citizenship outside of the state framework is due to two main sets of transformations. The first set refers to changes inside the nation-state such as “deregulation, economic privatization, …changes in the law of nationality entailing a shift from purely formal to effective nationality, and legislation allowing national courts to use international instruments” (Sassen 2002, 277–278). The second set of transformations refers to developments outside of the