Yair & Soyer suggest re-reading Marx's oeuvre (ok, BRB) via Golemology. The Golem story (men want power/they use non-human instruments/which become autonomous and belligerent) fits both criticisms of Marxism (Voegelin?) and Marx's critique of capitalism. (The Golem tale is dialectical and ends with creator alienated from creation etc...) If you really want Marx paired up with a Golem I suggest Ackroyd.
Hannah Arendt (of banality of evil fame) comes into focus in Walsh's piece. Her criticisms of Marx are tracked (work-labour and work-action distinctions are called for - which may or may not be fair) and are sustained as criticisms of social theory in general: too 'productionist', too linked to technical instrumental thinking; where is the irreducible unfolding process??? (She and Heidegger had their moments.) Sovereignty receives a brief treatment. If you're on the fence about taking on The Human Condition this essay might decide matters.
A plea for Geddes - or rather for "a radically reflexive" look back on sociology - from Studholme. Geddes's work (big on environmental factors) fell by the wayside with the founding of institutional academic sociology in Britain. Political, institutional and personal factors are ranged to explain a marginalised Geddes, and the consequences are traced (a mixed bag possibly).
Eliaeson closes things up with a review of a new Myrdal collection. He's the Swedish economist called upon to issue a (supreme court influencing) report on race in 1940's America. Imagine the pundit-storm today...
