In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

52 Chapter 3 The Power of Constraints and Exteriority [A person] is free, as I conceive the matter, but it is an organic freedom, which he works out in cooperation with others, not a freedom to do things independently of society. It is teamwork. He has freedom to function in his own way, like the quarterback, but in one way or another, he has to play the game as life brings him into it. —Charles Horton Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order (1902/1964, 49–50) A S A RULE, we should avoid playing havoc with the slogans of others. Yet, in this chapter, I mischievously invert the title of Randall Collins’s (1981) influential essay, “On the Microfoundations of Macrosociology.” My claim is that “the macrofoundations of microsociology” is equally invigorating. Although not the first to recognize the challenge of integrating levels of analysis, Collins has been particularly influential in arguing for the necessary linkage of “macro” and “micro” sociology, and he created a sociology of completeness that incorporates meso-level perspectives.1 The meso-level is my playground as well.2 Collins proclaims that an adequate macrosociology depends on microsociological presuppositions and assumptions.3 He is correct, but in emphasizing the effects of small groups on interaction, I reverse the argument to suggest that an adequate microsociology depends as much on a set of macrosociological presuppositions surrounding the interaction scene. I argue that two constructs, constraint and exteriority, both of which are fundamental to macrosociological theory, provide a basis for microsociology and together help extend the analysis of the group settings in which I have focused my observations, particularly although not exclusively my examination of the restaurant industry. Too often microsociologists have willfully ignored the macrosociological implications of their approach, situating themselves as a socialpsychological opposition. We are wiser when we can recast insights from macrosociology in terms of their influence on local contexts as action scenes. All microsociology has a macrosociology, just as Collins recognized the converse. These perspectives are not truly in opposition but depend on each other for a robust interpretation of social order. The macrosociological presuppositions inherent in microsociology arise from physical realities, social structure, institutional connections, organizational power, history, and tradition. Images of “macro” and “micro” sociology often reflect a schism that limits the opportunities for theory-building (Ritzer 1985, 88). In one sense, smaller units compose or are constitutive of larger units, just as efficient behavior in restaurant kitchens depends on individual workers with their own skill sets: teams of workers, servers, and cooks must collaborate to create and distribute products in a coordinated fashion; a restaurant could not function without these smaller units generating the organization . This model properly rejects a superorganicism (Kroeber 1917; Perinbanayagam 1986), a reading of Durkheimian social facts that lacks a credible social psychology (Alexander and Giesen 1987). Microsociologists have persuasively argued that collective or institutional action requires some form of social psychology to incorporate the behavior, meaning, and context. Recognizing that social facts depend on emergent practices (Gross 2009; Sawyer 2005) and coordinated action (Blumer 1969, 58), microsociologists view intervening variables as demystifying an airy suprahuman reality. A microinterpretation does not demonstrate causation; instead, it propounds metaphors of causation (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Nisbet 1976). Metaphors are heuristic and powerful tools but must not be confused with an empirical description of noumenal reality. A metaphor of causation can also flow from macro to micro. For instance, the rules set by National Weather Service bureaucratic procedures “cause” the production of forecasts in local offices. Meteorologists follow the organizationally mandated procedures that are provided in heavy binders produced by the main office outside Washington, including the times when forecasts are to be issued, their form, and the necessity of collaboration with other offices. Workers treat these rules as obdurate and they are rarely ignored because they are backed by sanctions, including formal reprimands and suspensions. These sanctions mean that the rules will be questioned infrequently. Instead of seeing causation only as a constitutive metaphor (a is a subset of b; therefore, a causes b), a metaphor of constraint has different assumptions (b has the authority to control the domain of which a is a part; thus, b causes what a can do). Causation between levels flows in both directions simultaneously, and each depends on translation. Despite the occasional deep chasm between macro and micro approaches, interpretations require both, a point that classic sociological The Power of Constraints and Exteriority...

Share