Micro-Macro Integration

One of the most important developments in recent sociological theory has been the move toward an integration of [Page 502]microlevels and macrolevels of analysis. This does not mean to imply that there was a hard and fast line between microlevel and macrolevel perspectives previously, it was indeed a continuum, but rather that the integration of the two has come to be a larger focus than either one of them individually. It was this primary focus on either micro or macro theories that was one of the major splits in sociology until the 1980s, when the integration first became a focal interest.

Ironically, the founding fathers of sociology (Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel) were concerned with linking the micro to the macro and vice versa in their theories. Marx was clearly interested in the ways in which the capitalist society affected individual workers and their lives. Durkheim was interested in how the collective conscience manifested itself in individual-level consciousness. Weber was pessimistic about the strengthening iron cage of society and its effects, especially the imposition of limitations on the individual. Finally, Simmel was concerned with the tragedy of culture, or the growing distance between macrolevel, or objective, culture, and microlevel, or subjective, culture. It was in the years following their deaths that the emphasis these founding four had placed on the micro-macro linkage slowly eroded and a strong distinction between micro and macro sociology emerged.

Macrolevel theories that took center stage during the last century included forms of neo-Marxian theory (Engels), structural functionalism (Parsons), network theory (White, Boorman, and Breiger), structuralism (Mayhew), and conflict theory (Dahrendorf). Microlevel theories that developed alongside these included exchange theory (Homans), ethnomethodology (Garfinkel), and symbolic interactionism (Mead, Blumer).

However, during the 1980s and 1990s, there was a notable turn in the work of sociology toward more integration. Two approaches were taken toward this goal. The first involved integrating existing microand macrolevel theories. The second was to develop new theories to deal with the linkage between microand macrolevels. There is clearly a marked difference of approach here, but both had the same goal of a new sociology that would, much like it had in the beginning, be concerned with the relationship between microand macrolevel phenomenon.

It would be helpful now to give a few examples of attempts at micro-macro integration. George Ritzer (1979, 1981) has developed an integrated sociological paradigm that is based on a fourfold table outlining what he sees as the four major levels of sociological analysis. The table involves a horizontal continuum from objective to subjective and a vertical continuum from macroscopic to microscopic. This creates four quadrants for social analysis: macro-objective (society, law, language, bureaucracy), macro-subjective (culture, norms, values), micro-objective (patterns of behavior, action, interaction), and micro-subjective (beliefs, perceptions, various facets of the social construction of reality). Although Ritzer argues that each of these levels is important in and of itself, the most important analysis lies in the dialectical relationship among and between the four levels.

Another prominent theorist, Jeffrey Alexander, has also created an attempt to integrate microand macrolevel sociology by offering what he believes is the “new ‘theoretical logic’ of sociology” (1982:xv). Alexander's multidimensional sociology, as he terms it, most directly refers to his view of levels of social analysis in multiple dimensions. Like Ritzer, Alexander creates a fourfold table, but with slightly different continua. The horizontal for him is a continuum representing the problem of action. Alexander envisions action ranging from an instrumental, or materialist, level to a normative, or idealist one. The vertical is a range depicting levels of order from a collective, externally created order to an individual, internally created one. The intersection of these continua create four distinct levels of social analysis: collective-instrumental (material structures), collective-normative (norms), individualinstrumental (rational action), and individual-normative (voluntary agency). These are not much different from those created in the paradigm by Ritzer, except in the emphasis Alexander gives to the collective-normative level. Alexander is critical of both levels involving the individual, as he says that they are unable to deal with any unique characteristics of collective phenomena. He is also critical of the collective-instrumental level because it eliminates much chance of individual freedom. Alexander believes that the collective-normative order, however, allows for both an understanding of social order and macrolevel phenomenon while still leaving room for individual autonomy and maneuverability.

...