macro 'n' micro

[Holly Ogren]

I'd like to respond to David Samuel's question (Hi back, David!) about
classifying certain approaches as "macro" or "micro."

I've been having the exact discussion he suggests with one of my advisors
(Joel Sherzer), and feel that the distinctions between "macro" and "micro"
I made earlier need to be clarified. Because I'm still thinking about this
distinction myself, I can't guarantee that my comments will be coherent or
consistent, but I have tried to put them in some sort of order.  I think
David is right in suggesting that this is an area which many other members
of the list may find to be of interest, and I personally would appreciate
discussion on this point

My use of the terms "macro" and "micro" (and others I know who make such
distinctions) has to do with the delineation of context as well as the part
which a particular approach plays in my research.  For example, I take an
ethnography of communication approach, but conversation analysis (CA)
informs my transcription and, therefore, my analysis.  In terms of context,
the ethnography of communication considers linguistic practices in relation
to broader social ones, and so the entire array of social practices are the
context for ethnography of communication research.   The salient social
practices have traditionally (i.e. as Hymes and Gumperz originally
conceived of the ethnography of speaking) been limited to a particular
speech community, but this does not necessarily have to be the case.  The
changing notion of "speech community" itself - from a stable and static one
to one which takes into consideration the shifting nature of membership,  -
suggests that even this traditional delineation of context is actually much
broader than was first conceived, i.e., that any ethnography of
communication analysis of a particular speech community is automatically
linked to broader social discourses.

For example, my research will focus on women's use of gender-marked
language in Japan. However, the very notion of gender-marked, and
particularly "women's/men's language" is tied to language ideologies within
Japan.  That is, "women's language" marks not just femininity, but a
particular kind of woman: educated, urban, and (to one degree or another)
elite.  It is ideological in the sense that "women's language" has come to
stand in as the default mode of speech for the actual variety of linguistic
practices which women use.  Any analysis of gender-marked language use in
particular interactions I might do, therefore, will have to be understood
within the broader context of the value assigned to "women's language" and
speakers who use it.

Context for CA analysts, on the other hand, is focused on JUST the
interaction at hand, and they concentrate their analysese on features which
become salient IN particular interactions.  They do not consider, for
example, the social background of speakers (age, ethnicity,social
relationships between speakers, etc.) or how particular interactions are a
part of the broder communicative practices for a particular community. CA
involves close analysis of conversational interaction in an effort to
understanding how such interactions are organized.  This kind of analysis
is often referred to as "micoranalysis."  The context for CA analysis,
therefore, is much more narrowly defined than it is for the ethnography of
communication.  This is one sense in which CA might be considered "micro."


In addition, in my own research (and I am not alone in this kind of
research design) I use CA as a particular analytical tool WITHIN an
ethnography of communication approach, and I thus see it as working on a
different level from the overarching perspective of my project.  In this
sense, too, CA might be considered "micro."

It may be that the terms "macro" and "micro" are not the best terms for
distinguishing between these various levels of focus, or it may be that my
desire to distinguish is itself not a fruitful project.  At this point I am
inclined to maintain some sort of distinction, but not to deny connections
across various levels.  That is, I think there can be work which focuses on
particular interactions (as in CA), but for me this work is much more
interesting if it is then tied to broader social practices.  That is why I
do not label myself as a CA analyst, but rather as someone who uses CA.

I also share with David a concern that language not be singled out as THE
expressive modality.  I would not deny the contribution of other forms of
expression (art, music, dance, etc.).  It just happens that language is
where my own interests lie, and also that the methods for investigation
intersections between linguistic/communicative and social practices are
fairly well developed.  This may also be the case for other kinds of
expressive modality (e.g. ethnomusicology), but I cannot personally speak
to this.

Sorry to be rather long-winded, but I hope my comments have provided some
clarification rather than adding more confusion.  I look forward to hearing
from others on the list.

Holly

 >Holly Ogren's introduction (hi Holly!) has raised for me a question that
>might be of more general interest, namely: with all the different
>approaches taken by people on this list, what counts as "micro" and "macro"
>from various perspectives?
>
>I can't help think, for instance, that Greg Urban, certainly, and Joel
>Sherzer, possibly, would be surprised to see discourse analysis opposed as
>a "macro" theory to the "micro" of CA. Although I can see how that might
>work, if one takes seriously Urban's linking of "macro-parallelism" and
>"sociability" (and I suppose therefore "culture").
>
>When I think of macro, though, I gravitate to names like Gramsci, Marx,
>Croce, Saussure, Peirce, Hayden White, EP Thompson, Foucault.  That is,
>"macro" to me means something along the lines of "metacultural" or
>"metadiscursive" or "ideology" in the sense of things that rise to the
>level of consciousness as "categories" - and thus trigger theories of how
>the categories came to be (for they could have come to be because they're
>real), or how they came to be naturalized/hypostatized/essentialized or
>whatever-ized.  And the "micro" then puts the empirical test to that.
>
>This also grows out of my conviction that we will never win any wider
>arguments within the various disciplines so long as we fetishize "language"
>or "talk" as somehow uniquely independent from other expressive modalities
>(art, music, dance, gesture, etc.), which tends to make me suspicious of
>CA. Again, this is an area where I see Sherzer and Urban making an
>important contribution on the "micro" side: in the capacity for us to
>understand questions of expression/style/communication in a cross-modal
>way.  Now, to the extent that this implicates a notion of "culture" as
>being built on the parallelistic or iconic circulation of "tropes" or
>"elments of style" (to use the old Strunk & White phrase), I can see how it
>might be thought of as "macro."
>
>But I'd be interested to know more, and if anyone else has other ideas.
>
>Best,
>
>
>
>David W. Samuels, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor
>Department of Anthropology
>212 Machmer Hall
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01003
>
>VOX: (413) 545-2702
>FAX: (413) 545-9494
>email: samuels at anthro.umass.edu
>http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~samuels/