Micro-Macro Links : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology : Blackwell Reference Online

Page 1

Bibliographic Details
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology
Edited by: George Ritzer
eISBN : 9781405124331
Print publication date: 2007
Update: 2007-02-15 Revision History

Micro-Macro Links
J ONATHAN T URNER

AND

B ARRY M ARKOVSKY

Subject

Sociology Sociological and Social Theory

DOI :

10.1111/ b.9781405124331 .2007.x

Sections
Micro-Macro Links
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Macrosociology addresses large-scale phenomena such as institutional systems, whereas microsociology deals with smaller-scale phenomena such as
interpersonal behavior. Over the years, the theoretical agendas of macrosociology and microsociology have developed almost independently of one another. For
some time, the issue of how to link these disparate levels of analysis or how to close what is often termed the micro-macro gap has been debated within
theoretical sociology.
Empirically, it is relatively easy to link micro and macro levels. For example , a researcher may observe that individual political opinions and voting behavior are
affected by social class membership, thus indicating an empirical linkage between micro variables (opinions and voting behavior) and a macro variable (social class)
. In most attempts to develop theories that link micro to macro (or macro to micro), however, conceptual gaps appear in the exposition. These gaps typically
involve an inability to specify conceptually the processes by which micro- and macro-level forces influence each other. For example, Max Weber's (1958 [1905])
famous analysis of how the psychological motivations of Protestants at the level of meaning led to the inception of capitalism is vague on the exact processes
by which individual-level motivations generate societal -level outcomes. Similarly , it is often implicit in macro theories that large-scale processes and phenomena
have direct effects on individual behaviors, but again, the conceptual linkage between macro- and micro-level processes is typically not specified.
To speak of a micro-macro gap may imply that there is a chasm that must be traversed, but that is not necessarily true. It is true that, for some purposes ,
linking micro and macro levels may generate insights that otherwise could not have been achieved. For other purposes , however, linking to other levels may
provide no explanatory benefits whatsoever. In the social realm, as in any other realm of empirical investigation , some micro and macro phenomena are naturally
interrelated, others are not. Still , mature sciences do make systematic efforts to link conceptualizations of micro and macro processes, although the sciences vary
considerably in just how well their cross-level theoretical connections are made. Even physics , certainly the most advanced science theoretically, has yet to
complete its task of fully unifying theories of the micro and macro domains of the physical universe. Therefore , it should not be surprising that the younger social
sciences have not achieved this goal. We can gain an appreciation for the problems in achieving theoretical integration by reviewing the various strategies that
sociologists have employed to connect different levels of the social universe.

STRATEGIES FOR MICRO-MACRO LINKAGE

One of the most extreme approaches to linking micro and macro levels is simply to proclaim that the micro-level takes precedence, and that intermediate
(meso) and macro structures ultimately are built from or emerge out of behavioral and interpersonal processes ( Schelling 1978). For example, Herbert Blumer
(1969) asserted that society is no more than symbolic interaction. Randall Collins (1981, 2004) has argued that macro reality ultimately consists of chains of
interaction rituals among individuals. In making such assertions, there is a presumption, rarely developed theoretically, that individual-level behaviors somehow
aggregate over time and space in ways that generate meso- and macro-level structures . Even rational choice approaches that tend to employ rigorous theoretical
models become vague when trying to explain how macrostructures, in all their complexity , emerge from individuals who are seeking to maximize their payoffs and
minimize their costs ( e.g ., Coleman 1990). However, within the rational choice genre , some game-theoretic models and computer simulations do successfully
demonstrate mechanisms through which certain kinds of individual decisions produce certain macro-level outcomes ( see Carley 2001 for a review of simulation
approaches to theorizing). Even here, however, the computer programs generating the outcomes do not necessarily incorporate sociological assumptions
concerning the processes involved.
At the other extreme are macro theorists who assert that individual behaviors and interactions are inconsequential for the study of society (Blau 1977), or that
they are so highly constrained by macrostructural forces that micro phenomena can be understood only through macro-level theories. For example, a feminist
theory of social power might contend that all male -female interactions at the micro household level are affected by the macro-level distribution of political and
economic power ( e.g ., Chafetz 1990). Each of the extreme positions , or what we might call chauvinisms , embodies a kernel of truth: structure and culture are not
possible without being energized by human behavior and interaction, and behavior or interaction that is free of any influence by the larger social context is
virtually inconceivable. Still, neither approach offers a strong case for how the linkages between the micro and macro levels are to be conceptualized.

http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/subscriber/uid=428/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433119_...

18.02.2011 18:50:48

Micro-Macro Links : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology : Blackwell Reference Online

Page 2

Between the above positions is a range of alternatives. One strategy is to build a conceptual staircase from the micro to macro. Here , a conceptualization of
individual action is first delineated, and then successively more structure is added. For example , Talcott Parsons (1937, 1951) began with unit acts and moved
stepwise up to a social system and, eventually , to an overall action system (Parsons et al. 1953) and on to a general conception of the universe (Parsons 1978).
But in moving up the conceptual staircase, large gaps appear in Parsons's argument. For example , Parsons argued that actions become institutionalized into
social systems, but he never specified exactly how this occurs . In essence, Parsons jumped a number of steps at just the points where micro and macro levels
should have been connected. An alternative approach is to move down the staircase. For instance, in Anthony Giddens' s (1984) structuration theory, structure
provides rules and resources guided by structural principles leading to properties of institutions directed by modalities that, in turn, structure social
systems of interaction driven by unconscious motives and by discursive consciousness. Much like Parsons' s ascent of the staircase, Giddens's descent appears
to jump several steps, without specifying the processes through which macro and micro levels connect.
Another approach simply bypasses the micro-macro link by examining relational forms rather than the properties of actors. For example , Georg Simmel' s (1950)
call for a formal sociology has been heeded in network theories that attempt to explain the dynamics of resource flows based on the shapes of networks ,
regardless of whether these are networks composed of micro-level units like individuals in interaction, or collective actors such as nation-states (e .g., Emerson
1962; Willer 1981). By positing that there are isomorphisms between micro and macro processes, the theoretical gap presumably disappears because the same
theoretical principles and models are used to explain the form of social relations at different levels of social reality. Although this approach provides an elegant
macro-to-micro linkage, it fails to address an important issue : sometimes the nature of the unit does make a difference in the nature of social processes that
ensue. There are, no doubt , isomorphic processes that cut across all types of social units, but it is also the case that some processes are unique to a particular
level of reality. Thus, Simmel' s formal sociology offers one way to bypass the problem of micro-macro linkage, but it does not obviate the problem of connecting
theoretically diverse social forces operating at different levels of social reality. Moreover , even if person-to-person behaviors reveal properties similar to relations
among collective units, the problem of how the collective units are generated by interpersonal behaviors, and vice versa, is not resolved. Rather, the problem is
simply bypassed .
Another strategy for linking micro and macro is what we might call deductive reductionism. George C. Homans (1974) was perhaps the most prominent advocate
of the view that the laws of sociology pertaining to social structure can be deduced from the laws of psychology. Thus, the linkages between the micro and macro
are to be found in the calculus of deductive logic whereby laws about macro- and meso-level phenomena are derived from those about micro-level phenomena.
Like formal sociology, this solution to the problem would be elegant, but Homans never completed the job.
Still another strategy for linking the micro and macro levels of reality can be found in recent lines of argument about embeddedness (Granovetter 1985). By this
view, structures are conceptualized as residing inside of more inclusive structures and their associated cultures. The approach recognizes that, despite the
constraints imposed by their broader contexts, micro processes have a life of their own and need to be addressed through concepts and principles appropriate to
their level just as the macro level requires conceptualization in its own terms. Most arguments about embedding tend to be empirical, however, and merely
describe how a given behavior or microstructure is constrained by what transpires in the macrostructure and the particular culture that contain it. As such ,
descriptions of embedded social processes do not provide general theoretical insights into micro-macro relationships.
One final strategy for dealing with micro-macro connections is to focus attention on phenomena at one level, and to attach an all else being equal or ceteris
paribus clause to theoretical assertions. Presumably , one may then safely ignore the impact of other levels. The approach does not deny potential cross-level
effects, but rather treats them as constants, at least provisionally. This approach can be a useful short-run strategy because it allows the theorist to focus on a
particular set of processes without introducing complexities that may confound them. The strategy breaks down, however, when as is most often the case
there is no theoretical follow-up that relaxes the ceteris paribus constraint. Indeed, if this approach is not fully implemented in unpacking what has been
bracketed out by the ceteris paribus , it becomes yet another end-run around theoretically connecting the micro and macro.
The failure of each of the above strategies to resolve the micro-macro linkage problem does not mean that these strategies are unviable . On the contrary, they all
have generated useful theoretical insights. As noted earlier, the macro-micro problem is inherent in all sciences, not just sociology. It may be that sociologists
worry about the issue more than other scientists, but the problem is not unique to the study of social reality.
Before leaving this review of various strategies for closing the micro-macro gap, we should note that this question is often conflated with another debate in
sociology the issue of agency vs . structure (see Ritzer 1990 for a review). Those who argue on the agency side generally are anti -science and want humans to
have free will, while those on the structure side are interested in generating theoretical principles about generic patterns of action and interaction, or structure. As
a result , those who push for agency often emphasize microsocial processes in which individuals are seen as creative actors, whereas those who argue for the
power of structure are often more macro in focus and see structure as highly constraining on individual actions. Still , collectively organized units can reveal agency
(as when a society goes to war) and encounters almost always reveal structure. Thus , the agency-structure debate is a different kind of controversy in sociology
than the micro-macro questions that concern us here.

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
If current theoretical strategies do not fully resolve the problem of integrating conceptually the micro and macro, we can reasonably ask: is there an approach that
might better address the problem? One way to get a better purchase on the theoretical problem of linking the micro, meso, and macro levels of reality is to begin
with a controversial assertion: social reality actually unfolds at these three levels ( Turner 2002, 2003). That is, while the micro, meso, and macro distinctions are
analytical distinctions, they may be more than mere conceptual conveniences: they may denote just how social reality is organized. The following approach
suggests a more comprehensive metatheoretical account of the kinds of cross-level connections we have discussed thus far.
Assume that social reality exists at three levels: face-to-face encounters at the micro level , embedded within corporate or categoric units at the meso level ,
embedded within institutional systems at the macro level. Corporate units include organizations and communities, as well as larger social groups that extend
beyond a micro-level encounter. Categoric units include social categories , such as social class, ethnicity, gender, and age, that are differentially evaluated and
that arouse differential responses from people . Often social categories become a basis for corporate unit organization, as when an ethnic minority organizes to
pursue its interests. Conversely , positions within corporate units can become broader social categories, such as mother, father, student , worker, and the like.
Corporate and categoric units almost always are lodged within macro-level institutional systems, such as economy, polity , law, kinship, religion, sport, medicine,
and education.
Cultural systems direct action at each level . Looking from the bottom up, social reality is ultimately constructed from encounters of face-to-face interaction that
become elaborated into corporate and categoric units that, in turn, generate institutional systems from which societies and inter-society systems are built. A
macro chauvinist would proclaim that encounters are so embedded in macro and meso units that what transpires at the interpersonal, face-to-face level can only
be understood by the culture and structure of meso and macro units, whereas a micro chauvinist would argue just the opposite and proclaim that institutional
systems are, at their core, strung-together encounters that are organized across time and in space. They would both be right , but this conclusion does not get us
past a good shouting match. We need, instead, a way to conceptualize how these levels of reality are interconnected.
One way to conceptualize the process of embedding is to visualize the three levels micro, meso, and macro as driven by sets of forces or processes uniquely
associated with each level (Turner 2002, 2003; Turner & Boyns 2001). If this assertion is correct, then theories should be about the forces that drive the
formation and reformation of structural units of each level. Theories are not about the units of each level , but about the forces that drive their organization and

http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/subscriber/uid=428/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433119_...

18.02.2011 18:50:48

Micro-Macro Links : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology : Blackwell Reference Online

Page 3

culture. Once this conceptual step is taken, the argument about which level is primary disappears. Instead , each level manifests its own set of forces driving the
formation and operation of its own sociocultural units.
The next question is how the levels are connected to each other, and here is where embedding enters as one conceptual solution to the micro-macro problem.
The values or loadings of forces at one level are very much determined by the values of the forces operating at the next higher level and the sociocultural units in
which the more micro units are embedded. For example, if an encounter is embedded within a formal organization and a couple of categoric units say gender
and ethnicity the dynamics of the encounter will be greatly constrained by this particular pattern of embedding . To take another example , if a corporate unit,
such as the nuclear family and the categoric units that also flow from this unit (e .g., mother, father, children), are embedded within a larger kinship system, then
the culture of the kinship system will load the values of the variable for the corporate unit ( nuclear family ) and categoric units that become salient (mother, father,
child). Notice that there is no effort to reduce one unit to another but, instead , the goal is to see how the loadings of the forces driving the formation of units at
one level are related to the forces and units of the next higher. For example, an encounter (micro level) in a workplace (meso) may be embedded in an economy
that is part of a world economic system (macro); and because of this embedding, the values for the forces driving the encounter will be directly influenced by the
structure and culture of the workplace (and by categoric units , if any are salient). Because the workplace is part of an organization that is embedded in an
economy which is also part of system of economies, the culture and structure of the ever-more macro systems also influence the loadings for the forces driving
the encounter .
With this relatively simple conceptual edifice, it becomes possible to develop principles about the dynamics of the forces operating at each level and, at the same
time, to incorporate the effect of the units at the next higher level in loading the values of the variables expressed in the principle. For example , if an encounter is
embedded in an organization with an authority structure and a culture supporting this structure, and if those high in authority are of one gender or
disproportionately so while those in low-authority positions are of another gender, the dynamics of the encounter say , status, roles , expectation states,
emotions, frames , exchanges, and other processes driving the formation of encounters will all be loaded by this pattern of embeddedness. Moreover , it becomes
possible to develop abstract principles about these loadings that are more than empirical summaries . For instance, we might assume that, if there is a high
correlation between rank and categoric unit membership at the meso level , then encounters will reveal particular patterns of expectations states, rituals, framing,
emotional arousal , and other forces operating at the micro level. Such an approach bridges the gap by seeking patterns at one level as they are conditioned by
laws operating at higher levels .
One could argue that this solution to micro-macro linkage biases inquiry toward the macro chauvinist side of the debate. After all, it takes many more events at a
given level to influence higher levels . For example, what transpires in one encounter is not likely to affect the division of labor of a corporate unit, whereas
virtually every encounter will be influenced by each individual' s position in a corporate unit and membership in a categoric unit . Or, the behavior of one
organization in an economy rarely impacts institutional systems to a significant degree. Thus , the fact of embedding biases theories toward a top-down
perspective. It is true, no doubt , that an economy is, in some ultimate sense, built from micro-level encounters. However, the dynamics of these encounters are
not likely to change the dynamics of the economy as much as the embedding of the encounter in the economy, via corporate and categoric units, will influence
what transpires in the encounter. Hence, most bridging laws developed from this perspective will be of a top-down character. We should not forget that
sometimes what occurs in encounters in corporate units or in categoric units does influence the values of the variables in laws about macro-level structures and
cultures. It is possible to make bridging statements that are bottom up, such as when one has a special interest in the initial emergence of macrostructures.
Thus, whether the principles one develops from this perspective appear to favor micro-to-macro or macro-to-micro bridges will likely depend on the interests of
the theorists utilizing the approach, e. g., whether they focus on the emergence of social structures or on the impacts of extant structures .
Note that these efforts to link levels of reality revolve around seeing how one level loads the values of variables in propositions governing the operating of another
level. The debate is not about which level is primary but about whether or not the propositions can explain the operation of forces at any given level . As bridging
propositions are developed , forces at one level will be increasingly linked to forces operating at another level . Thus, so long as the goal of theory is to develop
laws that explain the operation of dynamics at one level of social reality and, then, to supplement these laws with bridging propositions across levels , the micromacro problem becomes solvable in theoretical rather than philosophical terms.

CRITERIA FOR MULTILEVEL THEORIES

A multilevel theory has one or more bridges across levels of analysis. These may include micro-to-macro bridges , macro-to-micro bridges , or both. To aid in the
production of multilevel theories whether via the approach just described or some alternative orientation we need to specify some provisional criteria that
should promote explicit and concise micro-macro linkages, apply to any substantive units of sociological interest , and establish points of contact for linkages to
theories that may address phenomena at even more macro or more micro levels ( Markovsky 1997). Arguably, the greatest impediments to building micro-macro
linkages are ambiguities in the language used to express theories and in the logic used to derive their conclusions and predictions . These issues are not mere
formalities: first, ambiguity in the terms referring to micro units or macro units will transfer to any cross-level linkages involving those terms, leaving different
readers with varying impressions of the author's intended meanings. Second, logical gaps rob theoretical conclusions of their force by disconnecting them from
the very justifications offered to support them.

Theory Units
Among the terms that do not have a consistent meaning in sociology is theory. Because it would be futile to discuss multilevel theory without a clear picture of
what a theory is, it will help to provide an explicit definition. First, however, we will define a useful building block called a theory unit . A theory unit includes
logical operators, a minimal set of terms , a theoretical statement , and a scope statement. Logical operators are used in the construction of theoretical statements
and might include words such as: If , then , therefore or mathematical symbols . Their precise meanings are provided by a system outside of the theory unit,
such as symbolic logic or algebra. The terms of a theory are the words used to carry meanings from theorist to readers . To accomplish this, meanings must be
shared and so it is important that theorists define any terms that may not be understood the same way by all readers. To enhance communication, the theory unit
should use as few terms as possible . Also, if the theory is to generalize beyond specific cases, the terms should be defined abstractly so that they can subsume
specific cases without being limited by them . The theoretical statement within the theory unit uses logical operators to express an assumed relationship between
theoretical terms, such as : If an official has high status, then the official will have high power. (Presumably, official, status, and power would be defined
clearly for readers.) Finally, scope statements express conditions under which the theorist claims the theoretical statement applies, e. g.: The statement applies
in primitive economies, or The statement applies in face-to-face groups.

Theories
Although a useful building block, theory units have limited value on their own. With only one theoretical statement to work with, it is not possible to use some
statements to justify others, or to use multiple statements to generate new conclusions. Theories provide these services. A theory contains two or more theory
units that are linked by their logical operators and terms such that they create logical arguments chains of reasoning whose conclusions are logically derived
from prior statements . To be more precise, two or more theory units can form a theory only if (i) the set of terms of each theory unit overlaps with the terms of
at least one other theory unit; ( ii) their scope statements overlap ; and (iii) the theoretical statement of each theory unit connects logically to at least one other. If
(i) does not hold, then the theory units are talking about different things. If (ii) is not satisfied , then the theory units apply to different domains of phenomena. To
illustrate (iii), the earlier statement If an official has high status, then the official will have high power could be combined with the statement If an official has
high power, then the official will have high autonomy because the then part of the first statement overlaps with the If part of the second. In this manner ,

http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/subscriber/uid=428/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433119_...

18.02.2011 18:50:48

Micro-Macro Links : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology : Blackwell Reference Online

Page 4

a new statement appearing in neither theory unit may be derived : If an official has high status, then the official will have high autonomy. Although this is only a
simple example , it manifests an important quality of well-formed theories: their capacity to capitalize on prior knowledge to generate new insights.

Multilevel Theories
Having thus defined theories, it is a relatively simple matter to provide criteria for multilevel theories. The micro-macro link requires two further conditions:

containment and bridging . Conditions for containment ensure that the theory incorporates two or more distinct levels, defined in such a way that one is completely
contained within the other. Examples could be members within groups, or organizations contained by industries. Bridging conditions are designed so that a
statement that refers to terms existing at one level is explicitly connected to terms referring to another level .
Two rather different kinds of bridges may be built. First, there may be a theoretical statement , If x then y , in which the level of x differs from that of y . For
example, If each member of a group feels powerless , then the group will revolt. Note that while a group revolt contains multiple group members , it cannot exist
at the level of the individual person. It would be defined as a collective phenomenon , the same way that a beach cannot exist at the level of the grain of sand.
The second type of bridge is definitional: the macro unit of one of the theory's statements ( e.g ., the x in If x ) is defined in terms of a micro unit that is the
subject of another theoretical statement , or vice versa. For example, A group exists if and only if a set of interacting individuals define themselves as a distinct
unit. Here , the relationship between individuals and group is established by definition. Thus , in this example, if there is a theoretical statement that asserts
something about groups (macro), then by definition it also implies something about individuals (micro) because the former is explicitly defined in terms of the
latter.
Multilevel theories abound in other scientific disciplines. In physics one may trace a chain of micro-to-macro theoretical linkages that span from the smallest
micro particles at the subatomic level to the macro structure of the cosmos, via a host of meso-level structures and processes. At each level, macro
properties such as energy fields, states of matter, or nuclear forces also exert influences in macro-to-micro directions. Although sociology does not yet approach
the breadth and precision of physics, nevertheless it has some exemplary multilevel theories, one of which is examined below.
Network exchange theory (NET ) provides a good illustration of a multilevel sociological theory (Willer 1999). It was developed to explain and predict the role that
social structures play in producing power differences that result in resource differentials among members . The theory operates on three levels : the behavior of
individual actors whose exchanges of resources are guided by rules applying to their social ties or relations, which in turn apply within larger, relatively fixed
networks of potential exchange relationships. The scope conditions of the theory specify constraints on actors' negotiation strategies and their responses to being
included or excluded in exchanges, along with rules for how resources are infused into relations and distributed to actors. Definitions are provided for key terms
such as actor, network, power, and others used in its theoretical statements or axioms.
The theory has expanded over the years to accommodate a broadening range of phenomena and to generate more exact predictions, but the four basic axioms in
the core part of the theory will serve to illustrate its capabilities. The axioms are abstract and general , and so they apply to networks of any size and shape, and to
any kind of actors and resources . These theoretical statements allow the derivation of predictions for the quantities of resources that will end up at each network
position after negotiations and exchanges play out. NET 's Axiom 1 is a mathematical model for translating each position's location within a network structure into
a numerical index of its potential power. The second axiom uses the power indices to determine which actors will seek exchange with each other by assuming
that no actor will seek exchange with another actor in a higher-power position if there is an available exchange partner in an equal- or lower-power position. The
third axiom indicates that no exchange occurs between two actors unless they seek exchange from each other, and the fourth axiom asserts that profits from
exchange will correspond to differences in power indices: more power results in more profit.
Not only is it possible to derive individual profits from information on the exchange network structure (a macro-to-micro link) but the theory also has been used
successfully to predict ( i) structural changes based on exchange -seeking assumptions (micro to macro) , and how changing exchange rules causes changes in (ii )
profits ( meso to micro) and (iii) network structure (meso to macro).

CONCLUSION
The issue of how to link micro, meso, and macro levels of reality theoretically is not easily resolved in sociology and, for that matter, any other science. We have
reviewed the various approaches and proposed substantive and logical pathways to dealing with the problem of closing the conceptual gap between levels. The
most important conclusion, we feel, is to recognize that social reality operates at different levels and that chauvinistic proclamations about one level being more
primary simply do not resolve the problem of conceptual linkages . Another key conclusion is that levels of reality are embedded in each other and, hence, have
effects on the operation of processes at other levels. Embedding does not mean that one level is reduced to another but, instead, that processes operating at one
level are influenced by those at another level . This fact suggests that theories seeking to bridge across levels need to develop concepts, propositions, and models
that capture the key dynamics of each level and, then, to develop bridging propositions connecting the concepts across levels .
There are many ways to formulate such bridging propositions. Network exchange theory proposes viewing the macro level as an exchange network that, through
the workings of meso-level relations, influences and is influenced by the actions of individuals located at various places in the network. Other theories reveal this
same potential. For example, the large theoretical literature on social movements presents ample opportunities to explore how the emotions and actions of
individuals lead to the formation of meso-level organizational units that push for change in macro-level institutional structures and culture. Conversely , these
approaches can develop bridging propositions on how macro- and meso-level conditions, such as a stratification system embedded in the institutionalization of
power and production, generate micro-level responses of individuals that can explain, under conditions specified by bridging propositions, how micro encounters
coalesce into change-oriented social movements. The key point is that many theories illustrate what we advocate moving across levels with a variety of
bridging propositions but most often they are ad hoc in character. Needed is more attention to the criteria, enumerated earlier, for developing multilevel theory.
The key is to locate the level of reality to which most of the concepts and propositions of a particular theory pertain. Then, the next step should be to determine
how the values for these concepts are loaded by other processes at other levels of reality. Finally, bridging propositions can be developed that denote generic
relationships among concepts denoting properties of different levels of reality. If sociological theorists consistently followed these three guidelines , the crosslevel linkages would be more consistently made and, over time, broader theoretical (as opposed to specific empirical ) insights into the generic forms of linkage
across levels of reality would become ever more evident.
SEE ALSO: Exchange Network Theory; Mathematical Sociology; Mesostructure; Microsociology; Structuration Theory ; Theory; Theory Construction
Alexander, J., Munch , R ., & Smelser, N . J. (Eds.) (1986) The Micro -Macro Link. University of California Press, Berkeley .
Blau, P . (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity. Wiley, New York.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionsim. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ .
Carley, K. M. (2001) Computational Approaches to Sociological Theorizing. In: Turner, J. H . (Ed.), Handbook of Sociological Theory. Kluwer/Plenum , New York, pp.
6984.
Chafetz, J . S . (1990) Gender Equity: An Integrated Theory of Stability and Change . Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/subscriber/uid=428/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433119_...

18.02.2011 18:50:48

Micro-Macro Links : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology : Blackwell Reference Online

Page 5

Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Collins, R . (1975) Conflict Sociology. Academic Press, New York.
Collins, R . (1981) The Microfoundations of Macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology (86) : 984 1014.
Collins, R . (2004) Interaction Ritual. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Emerson, R . (1962) Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review (17) : 3141.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society . University of California Press, Berkeley .
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology (90) : 481 510 .
Homans, G. C. ( 1974) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, 2 nd edn. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.
Huber, J. (Ed. ) (1991) Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Markovsky, B. (1997) Building and Testing Micro-Macro Theories . In: Szmatka , J. , Skvoretz, J., & Berger, J. (Eds .), Status, Network, and Structure: Theory
Development in Group Processes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 13 28.
Mayhew, B. (1981a ) Structuralism vs. Individualism, Part I . Social Forces ( 59) : 335 75.
Mayhew, B. (1981b ) Structuralism vs . Individualism, Part II . Social Forces ( 59) : 627 48.
Parsons, T . (1937) The Structure of Social Acton. McGraw-Hill , New York.
Parsons, T . (1951) The Social System . Free Press, New York.
Parsons, T . (1978) Action Theory and the Human Condition . Free Press, New York.
Parsons, T ., Bales, F. R., & Shils , E . ( 1953) Working Papers in the Theory of Action. Free Press, New York.
Ritzer, G . (1990) Micro-Macro Linkage in Sociological Theory. In: Ritzer, G. (Ed.), Frontiers of Sociological Theory . Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 1 30.
Schelling, T. (1978) Micromotives and Macrobehaviors. New York: Norton .
Simmel, G. (1950) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Trans . K . Wolf. Free Press, New York.
Turner, J . H. (1983) Theoretical Strategies of Linking Micro and Macro Processes: An Evaluation of Seven Approaches. Western Sociological Review (14) : 4 16.
Turner, J . H. (2002) Face to Face: Toward a Sociological Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Turner, J . H. (2003) Human Institutions : A Theory of Societal Evolution . Roman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Turner, J . H. & Boyns , D. E. (2001) The Return of Grand Theory. In: Turner, J. H. (Ed. ), Handbook of Sociological Theory . Kluwer/Plenum , New York, pp. 353 78.
Weber, M. ( 1958 [1905]) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . Trans . T. Parsons. Charles Scribner, New York.
Willer, D. (1981) The Basic Concepts of the Elementary Theory. In: Willer, D. & Anderson, B. , Networks, Exchange, and Coercion . Elsevier, New York.
Willer, D. (1999) Network Exchange Theory. Greenwood, New York.

Cite this article

Turner, Jonathan and Barry Markovsky. "Micro -Macro Links." Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George ( ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell
Reference Online. 18 February 2011 <http: // www.blackwellreference .com/ subscriber/ tocnode?id=g9781405124331 _chunk_ g978140512433119 _ss 1-97>

Copyright

Blackwell Publishing and its licensors hold the copyright in all material held in Blackwell Reference Online . No material may be resold or published elsewhere without Blackwell Publishing' s written consent, save as
authorised by a licence with Blackwell Publishing or to the extent required by the applicable law.

http://www.blackwellreference.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/subscriber/uid=428/tocnode?id=g9781405124331_chunk_g978140512433119_...

18.02.2011 18:50:48