Micro and Macro Level Processes

In general, the micro/macro level distinction refers to the scope of the phenomena under study. Macro-level processes approach the investigation of social life as it exists in social systems, institutional structures within society, and the relationships among the various structures within society. Such concerns represent those of the classical period of sociology and its founding fathers such as Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Micro-level processes approach the investigation of social life as it exists in interpersonal and interactional processes. Thus, it is the individual in social context that is of central importance. This article begins with a brief overview of the recent history of the micro/macro distinction followed by an description of several theoretical perspectives from each division, including those with a macro-level orientation such as Marx's theory of stratification, Parsons's structural functionalism, and Dahrendorf's conflict theory, and those with a micro-level orientation such as Homans's exchange theory, Mead and Blumer's symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological sociology/ethnomethodology.

Keywords Conflict Theory; Ethnomethodology; Exchange Theory; Marxism; Macro-level; Micro-level; Phenomenological Sociology; Structural Functionalism; Symbolic Interactionism

Micro & Macro Level Processes

Overview

There are two broad theoretical divisions within sociology: micro and macro. These two contrasting theoretical perspectives-often referred to as micro-sociology and macro-sociology-use different concepts drawing from micro-level or macro-level processes to explain social life.

In general, the micro/macro distinction refers to the scope of the phenomena under study. According to Wippler and Lindenberg (1987), there are no clear cut-off points in this distinction. However, an example constituting a micro-level process would be if the scope were focused on interaction among individuals; if the scope were focused on the value system of a society, this would constitute a macro-level process.

Micro-sociology analyzes the underlying social processes responsible for relations between persons. Micro-level processes thus focus on social interaction and communication; important concepts are symbols, obligations, exchange, and reciprocity. Macro-sociology, on the other hand, analyzes the structure of different positions in a population and their constraints on social relations. Macro-level processes thus focus on the influence of the social environment on people's relations, and important concepts are differentiation, institutions, and inequality (Blau, 1987).

Brief History of the Micro/Macro Distinction in Sociological Theory

Until the 1960s, theories oriented to macro-level processes (or macro-theories) dominated the American sociology landscape, specifically, structural functionalism and the equally macro-oriented conflict theory (Ritzer, 1985). Talcott Parsons is credited with playing a central role in helping structural functionalism obtain its dominant position in American sociological theory.

With respect to theories oriented to micro-level processes (or micro-theories) prior to the 1960s, symbolic interactionism is worth mentioning during the time that macro-theories strongly dominated sociological theory. According to Ritzer (1985), the late 1960s and 1970s were a time during which micro-theories gained popularity in American sociological theory, most notably with the developments of exchange theory and the work of George Homans and Peter Blau.

Homans was working on a theoretical alternative to Parson's structural functionalism that addressed its limitations and macro-orientation. His work applied principles from psychology (specifically behaviorism) to issues of sociological importance. According to Blau (1964), Homans was attempting to develop a behavioristic and scientific micro-theoretical alternative to macro-theoretical orientations. During this time, Blau was also developing his own theory, a type of exchange theory that extended its original micro-oriented principles to macro-level processes (Ritzer, 1985), and thus was an integrative effort to also appeal to supporters of macro-theories.

There were also notable developments in phenomenology and ethnomethodology during the rise in popularity of micro-theories, including the work of individual theorists like Albert Schutz. However, these developments came up against hostility from conventional macro-oriented theorists. According to Ritzer (1985), this hostility centered on the emphasis of phenomenology and ethnomethodology with "trivial micro-sociological issues and for losing sight of the importance of social structures and social institutions. Their apparent focus on creative consciousness led to the view that theorists with such an orientation were not, indeed could not be, scientific" (p. 90).

Applications

Macro-level Processes

Macro-level processes in sociological theory approach the investigation of social life as it exists in social systems, institutional structures within society, and the relationships among the various structures within society. From this macro-theoretical perspective, it is the structures within society that set the stage or serves as the context for individual behavior.

The theoretical concerns of macro-level processes represent those of the classical period of sociology. The founding fathers of sociology-Marx, Durkheim and Weber-attended to such macro-oriented analyses. The following section will briefly review three major theoretical perspectives that focus on macro-level processes: Marx's theory of stratification, Parsons's structural functionalism, and Dahrendorf's conflict theory.

Marxism

German philosopher Karl Marx's writings of the nineteenth century, including The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, are perhaps the most influential attempts to understand the origins and development of stratification in capitalist societies. It is these writings and others published by Marx and his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels that form the foundation of thought and belief known as Marxism.

Marx's theory of stratification is based on the assumption that the foundations of human society are based on the way in which society has developed its relationship to the means of production. According to Marx, the means of production refers to the productive resources in society; for example, things that are necessary to supply the society's economic needs such as types of technology used to produce basic necessities. The central feature of stratification, according to Marx, is the subordination among classes that evolves ultimately from the means of production (Smelser, 1988). In other words, an individual's relationship to society's economic system depends on how they relate to the sources of power in that system. Thus, for Marx, those people who hold the same position with regard to the productive process share a class. The unequal distribution of society's productive resources creates a system of stratification. People situated at these various rankings in the vertical order receive unequal shares of the society's wealth and possess differential degrees of power over others. Essentially, then, societies are composed of two classes: the owners of the means of production, or bourgeoisie, and the workers, or proletariat. According to Marx, the division between these two classes would inevitably grow until a dynamic class struggle forced revolutionary societal change.

Marx views capitalism as a political tool for this ranking of human groups for the purpose of distributing wealth and power within the economic system rather than as a system for producing goods and services to fill human needs. It is the social institutions in societies such as the economy, government, and education that operate to assure the position of various human groups (Freedman, 2005).

Structural Functionalism

Talcott Parsons is regarded as the theorist who brought the structural functionalism approach to its most developed form. His publication of The Structure of Social Action in 1937 was pivotal in American sociological theory, in that it solidified the strength of structural functional theory in the decades to come. It was this piece of Parsons's work and others that concentrated on the structures of society and their relationship to each other with an emphasis on how order is maintained among the various elements of society.

Parsons' theoretical writings outlined a comprehensive model of a systemic analysis of society that focused on identifying functions for the existence of a society and the systems that are necessary to perform the functions. Parsons's model identified four basic functions he called "functional prerequisites" (by the acronym AGIL) that he believed were necessary for all systems:

• (A) Adaptation - a system must cope with the situational needs facing it;

• (G) Goal - a system must achieve its primary goal;

• (I) Integration - a system must control the interrelationship of the other three functional perquisites; and

• (L) Latency - a system must provide, maintain, and renew both motivational and cultural patterns.

Each one of these functions is performed by a system within society, including the Behavioral system, which performs the function of Adaptation; the Personality system, which performs the function of Goal-attainment; the Social system, which performs the function of Integration through norms; and the Cultural system, which shows how cultural values establish patterns in the Social and Personality systems ("Society as a system," 2001).

Structural functionalism came under its strongest criticisms in the 1960s and 1970s; paradoxically, at about the same time it was gaining dominance in American sociological theory. According to Ritzer (1983), it was criticized for being politically conservative, unable to explain social change, and incapable of analyzing social conflict. As a result, there was an effort to address these criticisms by integrating its focus on structure with that of social conflict. This effort led to the development of conflict theory.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory, like structural functional theory, is oriented toward the study of social structure and institutions. In contrast to structural functional theory, conflict theorists view every society as subject to processes of change. Where functional theorists emphasize the orderliness of society, conflict theorists see conflict at every point in the social system with many societal elements contributing to change. Any order that does exist, according to conflict theorists, is the result of coercion of some members by those holding positions at the top. Thus, conflict theorists emphasize the role of power in maintaining order in society. The work of Ralf Dahrendorf in the late 1950s is recognized with the development of conflict theory. Dahrendorf's work concentrated on larger social structures. A central premise of his writings is the idea that various positions within society have different amounts of authority. This authority exists in positions not within individuals. Dahrendorf was interested in the structure of these positions and the conflict among them. Conflict groups, or those that engage in group conflict emerge, and engage in actions that lead to changes in social structure. Dahrendorf was opposed to those theorists who focused on micro-level processes.

Micro-level Processes

Micro-level processes in sociological theory approach the investigation of social life as it exists in interpersonal and interactional processes. From this micro-theoretical perspective, it is the individual in social context that is of central importance. Thus, microsociology is concerned with the interactions, exchanges and choices of people as affected by the social context in which they occur.

Exchange Theory

In the 1950s sociologist George Homans introduced exchange theory. Homans was dissatisfied with the structural focus of Parsons's theory and the collective tradition in classical sociology. He wanted to focus on people and their behavior. It was his development of a sociological form of behaviorism in Skinnerian terms that is considered an important theoretical development in micro-sociology (Alexander & Giesen, 1987). His 1958 article entitled, 'Social Behavior of Exchange" and subsequent publication, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, presented his view that at sociology's core is the study of individual behavior and interaction. In his writings, Homans argued that people will continue to do what they have found to be rewarding in the past, and will cease doing what has proved costly in the past. For Homans, the focus of sociology should be these patterns of reinforcement, not social structures and institutions (Ritzer, 1983). Exchange theory also concerns itself with interaction between people involving an exchange of rewards and costs. The basic idea is that interactions are more likely to continue where there is an exchange of rewards, and are less likely to continue when interactions prove costly.

Symbolic Interactionism

The development of symbolic interaction theory is mostly tied to Herbert Blumer in the post-World War I context of the University of Chicago's Department of Sociology (Stryker, 2002). Early influences from the late 19th-century and early 20th-century include the classic works of William James, John Dewey, and most notably, George Herbert Mead (Stryker & Vryan, 2003). Indeed, symbolic interaction theory is strongly inspired by Mead's insights, which are based on the premise that people creatively shape reality through social interaction. This approach to micro-level processes emphasizes the importance of symbols and interpersonal interaction. Stryker and Vryan (2003) summarize this emphasis:

Persons act using symbols developed in their interaction, and they act through the communication of these symbols. Society is a term summarizing such interaction; subparts of society designate the settings in which interaction takes place. Society and its subparts are continuously created and recreated as persons act toward one another (p. 4).

Mead believed that the capacity in humans to use symbols implies that they have minds and the ability to think. Symbols refer to arbitrary signs of objects that stand in place of those objects. Hand gestures, as well as written or spoken words, are examples of symbols. The meaning assigned to symbols, according to Mead, is determined by the social context in which it occurs. Human beings can think about themselves, observe their own behavior, and take the perspective of others (i.e., role taking) and in so doing come to have a self that is therefore, developed through a social process and emerges from interaction. Through such symbolic interaction human beings play an active role in creating and recreating their social reality. For Mead, it is essential to understand the role of self to understand human behavior (Stryker, 2002).

Since Mead, it is Blumer who has had the greatest influence on symbolic interactionism. Blumer took a stronger stand in contrasting symbolic interactionism to conventional sociology. Whereas conventional sociology views social behavior as a product of values, norms, expectations, etc., Blumer's symbolic interactionism views society, not as organization or structure, but as the sum of actions of human beings occurring through the social process of interaction (Stryker, 2002).

Phenomenological Sociology & Ethnomethodology

The mid-1960s was considered a critical time in the development of and interest in phenomenological sociology, and it's during this time that it made its mark on American sociological theory. This period began with the English translation and publication of Alfred Schutz's The Phenomenology of the Social World. In his work, Schutz discusses actors' consciousness or, the way people construct social reality and its relationship to individual thought and action.

Ethnomethodology is considered indistinguishable from phenomenology (often referred to as its American version). Developed by Harold Garfinkel (who was a student of Schutz and Parsons), ethnomethodology explores the thoughts and resulting actions of the "actor." It gained national attention with Garfinkel's 1967 publication Studies in Ethnomethodology. Sociologists in this tradition focus on the individual level in their discovery and analysis of everyday life. According to Linstead (2006), "Ethnomethodology has since affected every area of sociology where the study of ordinary people interacting has been recognized as important" (p. 400).

Ethnomethodology is generally considered as micro-sociology within the micro-macro debate (Alexander & Giesen, 1987). Linstead (2006), however, proposes that Garfinkel's key principles illustrate that the micro-level study of interaction can contribute to the explanation of large-scale and fundamental macro-sociological issues. Yet, it has also been argued that ethnomethodology cannot truly participate in the micro-macro debate, because it "transcends" the debate by transcending its terms. According to Hilbert (1990), "Ethnomethodology is indifferent to structure at any level…instead it is concerned with concrete empirical social practices wherein both macro- and microstructure and their interrelations are produced, reproduced, used, and managed" (p. 805).

Conclusion

From a sociological approach, macro-level processes analyze social life as it exists in social systems, institutional structures within society, and the relationships among the various structures within society. Examples of theoretical perspectives that focus on macro-level processes include Marx's theory of stratification, Parsons's structural functionalism, and Dahrendorf's conflict theory. Micro-level processes analyze social life as it exists in interpersonal and interactional processes. From this micro-theoretical perspective, it is the individual in social context that is of central importance. Examples of theoretical perspectives that focus on micro-level processes include Homans's exchange theory, Mead and Blumer's symbolic interactionism, and phenomenological sociology/ethnomethodology.

From a historical perspective theories oriented to macro-level processes dominated American sociology until the 1960s, specifically structural functionalism associated with the work of Parsons, and the equally macro-oriented conflict theory (Ritzer, 1985). Symbolic interactionism associated with the work of Mead and Blumer was a prominent micro-level theory during this time, but it was not until the late 1960s and 1970s that micro-level theories gained popularity in American sociological theory. The more recent advances are associated with the works of Homans and Blau, and those of Schutz and Garfinkel in the areas of phenomenology and ethnomethodology, respectively.

An increasing number of sociologists have come to realize the importance of integrating micro- and macro-level processes into a convergent paradigm, including Ritzer's Integration Model, which attempts to combine micro- and macro-level theories to provide a comprehensive understanding of human social behavior. Parsons' work illustrates an early formulation toward a micro-macro-link. Though his works of the 1950s and 1960s moved in the direction of structural functional theory, he made a shift over the years, but not without criticism that his writings were "muddled" and "confused" with respect to his theoretical orientation (Ritzer, 1981). As one example, Parsons "sociologized" Freud's psychoanalytic theory of the personality and used these insights to "psychologize" macro-level processes. In doing so he showed how the affective, cognitive, and moral development of the personality depends on the existence of group structure (Alexander & Giesen, 1987).

Terms & Concepts

Conflict Theory: A theoretical approach that assumes that social behavior is best understood in terms of conflict or tension between groups. It focuses on the idea that there exists an unequal distribution of advantage in society, which is characterized by conflict.

Ethnomethodology: An approach associated with the work of Harold Garfinkel that is used to study the methods people use to make sense of their everyday lives and social interactions.

Exchange Theory: A theoretical approach associated with the work of George Homans that focuses on analyzing patterns of reinforcement as explanations for individual behavior and interaction between people involving an exchange of rewards and costs.

Marxism: The body of knowledge and theory associated with the writings of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles.

Macro-level: A level of sociological analysis that focuses on large-scale groups, institutions or social systems, and social structures.

Micro-level: A level of sociological analysis that focuses on individual thought and action, face-to-face interactions, and small-scale interaction between groups.

Phenomenological Sociology: A sociological perspective associated with Albert Schutz that focuses on consciousness and meaning, not structural social phenomena.

Structural Functionalism: A theoretical perspective, associated with Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons that views society as a stable, orderly system. It claims that societal institutions must be understood in terms of the function each performs in society.

Symbolic Interactionism: A theoretical approach inspired by George Herbert Mead's insights and developed by Herbert Blumer, which focuses on the role of symbols and language in human interaction.

Bibliography

Alexander, J. C., & Giesen, B. (1987). From reduction to linkage: The long view of the micro-macro debate. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. MÜnch & N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 1-42). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Blau, P. M. (1977). A macrosociological theory of social structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 83 , 26-54. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15392235&site=ehost-live

Blau, P.M. (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. MÜnch & N.J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 71-85). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Blau, P.M. (2001). Macrostructural theory. In, J.H. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory. (pp. 343-352). Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18732494&site=ehost-live

Callero, P.L. (2003). The sociology of the self. Annual Review of Sociology, 29 , 115-133. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10878539&site=ehost-live

Freedman, R. (1990). The Marxist system: Economic, political, and social perspectives. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.

Helle, H.J., & Eisenstadt, S.N. (Eds.). (1985). Macro sociological theory: Perspectives on sociological theory: Vol. 1. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Helle, H.J., & Eisenstadt, S.N. (Eds.). (1985). Micro sociological theory: Perspectives on sociological theory: Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hilbert, R.A. (1990). Ethnomethodology and micro-macro order. American Sociological Review, 55 , 794-808. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9101282443&site=ehost-live

Linstead, S. (2006). Ethnomethodology and sociology: An introduction. The Sociological Review, 54 , 399-404. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=21784974&site=ehost-live

Society as a system of subsystems. (2001). In, Contemporary sociological theory. (pp. 7-18). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved May 16, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19365007&site=ehost-live

Psathas, G. (2004). Alfred Schutz's influence on American sociologists and sociology. Human Studies, 27 , 1-35. Retrieved May 15, 2007 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11980147&site=ehost-live

Ritzer, G. (1981). Toward an integrated sociological paradigm. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ritzer, G. (1981). Toward an integrated sociological paradigm. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ritzer, G. (1985). The rise of micro-sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 3 , 88-98.

Sharrock, W. (1989). Ethnomethodology. The British Journal of Sociology, 40 , 657-677. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6790735&site=ehost-live

Smelser, N.J. (1988). Social structure. In N.J. Smelser (Ed.), Handbook of sociology (pp. 103-129). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Stryker, S. (2002). Traditional symbolic interactionism, role theory, and structural symbolic interactionism (pp. 211-231). Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18732480&site=ehost-live

Stryker, S., & Vryan, K.D. (2003). The symbolic interactionist frame (pp. 3-28). Springer Science & Business Media B.V./Books. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=18968267&site=ehost-live

Wagner, H.R. (1969). Phenomenology and contemporary sociological theory. Sociological Focus, 2 (3), 73-86. Retrieved May 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14653051&site=ehost-live

Wippler, R., & Lindenberg, S. (1987). Collective phenomena and rational choice. In J.C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. MÜnch & N.J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 135-152). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Suggested Reading

Goldspink, C., & Robert, K. (2004). Bridging the micro-macro divide: A new basis for social sciences. Human Relations, 57 , 597-618. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=13756875&site=ehost-live

Knorr-Cetina, K., & Cicourel, A.V. (Eds.) (1981). Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies. Boston: Routledge.

Lenski, G. (1988). Rethinking macrosociology theory. American Sociological Review, 53

, 163-171. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14789906&site=ehost-live

Mead, G.H. (1962). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Parsons, T. (1963). Social structure and personality. New York: Free Press.