Author's Personal Copy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Author's personal copy Macrosociology-Microsociology Gianluca Manzo, GEMASS–CNRS and University Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, France Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This article is a revision of the previous edition article by M. Cherkaoui, volume 13, pp. 9117–9122, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd. Abstract The history of sociology shows that the distinction between macro- and microsociology is at the same time fundamental and fundamentally ambiguous. This article presents a selective overview of the solutions to the micro/macro issue that have appeared in sociology from the classics to today’s developments in philosophy of social sciences and sociology. The article aims to highlight the main sources of disagreement and division among sociologists interested in the micro/macro issue, and in the end stresses the importance of mechanism-based theorizing and formal methods to advance it. Introduction overcome provided sociology renounces the vertical, multilayer metaphor contained in the notions of micro and macro, and When the history of sociological theorizing has to be system- puts all its energy into the detailed description of the mecha- atized, the distinction between micro- and macrosociology is nisms that constantly transform small-scale heterogeneity into fundamental (see, for instance, Collins, 1988; Cherkaoui, large-scale, time-resistant mixtures of homogenization and 2005: Chapter 5). But what are micro- and macrosociology? differentiation, whatever level the entities under study may be According to Randall Collins (1981: 984), “microsociology is assigned on the low(micro) and high(macro) continuum. the detailed analysis of what people do, say, and think in the actual flow of momentary experience. Macrosociology is the analysis of large-scale and long-term social processes, often Micro/Macro Balance treated as self-subsistent entities such as ‘state,’‘organization,’ ‘class,’‘economy,’‘culture,’ and ‘society.’” While this broad Although “the effort of classic sociology in no sense could be characterization of micro- and macrosociology is largely seen as having resolved the micro-macro polarization” undisputed (see for instance, Calhoun et al., 2012: 27), it seems (Alexander and Giesen, 1987: 19), the closest readers have problematic to provide a more precise definition. In fact, as recognized that classical sociologists were balanced micro/ noted by Münch and Smelser (1987: 356), “(.) the terms macro thinkers (Ritzer, 2008: 500). To see this quality, Boudon ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ have been assigned a number of diverse (1995) argued, one needs to inspect the complex interplay of meanings in the sociological literature and these meanings are programatic statements, methodological reflection, and not always consistent with one another.” Along similar lines, empirical-oriented analysis in classical work. Wippler and Lindenberg (1987: 153) admitted that “there is no Durkheim is a paradigmatic example. In the first chapter of agreement on the micro/macro distinction, except that ‘micro’ The Rules of Sociological Methods, he defended the view that always refers to smaller units than those implied by macro. social structures have a reality in themselves, are external to (.) the various meanings attached to this distinction have individuals, and constrain their actions. By analogically generated micro/macro problems that stand in the way of building on biological and chemical phenomena like the an adequate solution of the master problem.” Thus, the ‘hardness of bronze’ or the ‘liquidity of water,’ Durkheim (1895 distinction between macro- and microsociology is at once [1982]: 39) argued that the collective level arises from the fundamental and fundamentally ambiguous (as an additional individual one, yet the former is sui generis, meaning qualita- proof, see Table 1 in Krause, 2013: 142). tively different, from the later: “(.) the whole does not equal In this short article, I first review solutions to the micro/ the sum of its parts; it is something different, whose properties macro issue that appeared in sociology from the classics to the differ from those displayed by the parts from which it is 1980s. Without any claim to exhaustiveness, I select typical, in formed” (Durkheim, 1895[1982]: 128). That is why, according the sense of recurrent, solutions to suggest that (1) sociologists to some commentators (see Sawyer, 2005: Chapter 6), Dur- have often opted for a substantive understanding of the notions kheim should be regarded as the first ‘emergentist’ in sociology micro/macro, thus equating a given level of analysis with a given (on modern debates on the concept of emergence, see Bedau, set of entities or phenomena; (2) sociologists have recurrently 2003). However, as stressed, among others by Bearman attempted to give one level explanatory priority over another; (1991), Collins (2004:32–40), and Cherkaoui (2005: (3) in order to justify their ‘priority’ claims, sociologists have Chapter 2, 2008: Chapters 1 and 3), this view did not restrain often mixed ontological and explanatory arguments (for an Durkheim from formulating detailed explanations in terms of early statement along similar lines, see Wiley, 1988). In my networks, interactions, and actions of complex high-level opinion, these are the main sources from which the disagree- outcomes like patterns of suicides or long-term dynamics of ments on the micro/macro issue arise. Then, by discussing system differentiation. in-progress epistemological, theoretical, and methodological Weber provides a specular case. In the foundational essay developments, I suggest that such disagreements can be Some Categories of Interpretive Sociology (1913[1981]: 158), he 414 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 14 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.32086-4 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, 2015, 414–421 Author's personal copy Macrosociology-Microsociology 415 defined individuals as the ‘atoms’ of sociology and advised that and his project to deduce every supraindividual structure from sociology should start with individuals’ actions and motiva- more elementary forms of exchanges among self-oriented actors tions and show how high-level structures and trends ultimately within small groups. On the interpretive side, although different derive from them. However, similarly to Durkheim, Weber’s when carefully inspected, ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967), analyses of specific social phenomena yield a more complex symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969), and Goffman’s(1982) picture. For instance, Weber’s study of the origin of capitalism frame analysis share the assumption that supraindividual as it is articulated in the General Economic History (1927[1981]) structures are transient and contingent, depending on the way shows a complex explanatory model, which relates several actors interpret and negotiate the meanings of actions and levels of analysis and focuses on formulating specific hypoth- situations when they interact -Schutz’s (1937[1967]) social eses on mechanisms bridging these levels. Contrary to phenomenology being a power source of inspiration for these Coleman’s (1987: 154–157, 1990: Chapter 1) criticism of approaches. Weber’s analysis, which rests on commenting The Protestant Let us finally consider the interesting case of shifting from Ethics and The Spirit of Capitalism, even the micro-to-macro step micro- to macroextremism within the work of the same author. of Weber’s explanation contained detailed analyses of rela- Peter Blau is perhaps the most refined example of this trajectory tional and institutional factors that transformed individuals’ in that he moved from a refined variant of social exchange beliefs into stable macrostructures – a point nicely illustrated theory (see Blau, 1964) to an equally sophisticated version of by Cherkaoui (2005: Chapter 3). macroextremism focused on how population heterogeneity Other classics pursued in practice this balance between suffices to predict the patterns of social interactions (see Blau, micro- and macrosociology. Elster (1985, 2009), Cherkaoui 1977, and, for a summary, Blau, 1987, 2001). (2005: Chapter 1), and Edling and Hedström (2009) have shown that, similar to Durkheim and Weber, Marx and Toc- queville were also attentive to the interplay between actions, Micro-Macro Linkage interactions, organizations, and structures, and formulated specific hypotheses on detailed mechanisms relating several Compared to this overemphasis on the micro- or the macro- levels of analysis. level between the 1930s and the 1970s, sociological theorizing began to develop a more balanced perspective – closer to the spirit of classical empirically oriented analyses (see first Micro/Macro Extremisms section) – in the 1980s. In the introductory essay to The Micro-Macro Link, Alexander and Giesen (1987: 31) suggested The classical micro/macro balance was lost for a large part of that “(.) in the present decade a quite different phase of twentieth-century sociology. As stressed by Ritzer (2008: 500), theoretical debate has emerged, one marked by the serious much modern sociological theory has been characterized by ongoing effort within every theoretical tradition and from “micro and macro extremists – that is, the preeminence of both sides of the great divide to link micro- and macro- theorists and theories that accord overwhelming power and perspectives (.) we are convinced that the scope and significance to either the micro or the macro level.” To intensity of this search for