tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post2351753666844329990..comments2024-03-13T04:57:22.459-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: "Scale" in history: micro, meso, macroDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-26522199336759166222010-07-16T07:46:36.420-04:002010-07-16T07:46:36.420-04:00There are other "resolutions" of the mac...There are other "resolutions" of the macro-/micro-level issues. Including those which go from one scale to the other, as researchers see fit. For instance, an ethnographer working on the "small-scale" may call up "large-scale" analysis when working on causal links. And it's possible for macrosociooogy to "get down to" microsociology to account for particular significance. Both are common enough that examples may not be needed.<br />A variation on these approaches could be called, for lack of a better word, "dialectic." At the core of this approach is the back and forth between levels, scopes, scales. But there's also the notion that one informs and questions the other. No <em>parti pris</em>, here. No matter which approach is used first, it implies its reverse. Again, quite common, but not always explicit. And it may be difficult to distinguish from the old-school comparativist's approach cherry-picking examples in disparate cultural context (thinking of Rouget's <em>Music and Trance</em>, here).<br /> Somewhat different from the "dialectic" and possibly difficult to explain is the slightly more PoMo "glocal" and its declension in the "think global, act local" mode. While it has more to do with open-minded forms of activism than with straight research, it does connect with the way some people work. This way of thinking can help in addressing the complexity of cultural and social issues, making linear-causal thinking unsatisfying.<br />Yet another way to resolve the micro-/macro-analysis issue is to integrate a large array of micro-level analyses through a whole field. Sure, each ethnographer works particularistically. But ethnographers as a group cover a lot of ground. Plus, they've been trained in a more "general" field, such as folkloristics, economics, sociology, or anthropology. In each of these fields, universals and generalities are discussed. in these fields, there's frequently an “embedded” form of comparativism in that each phenomenon is assessed through both very broad notions of what it means to be human (even cultural anthropologists have archæology in their background) and the experience of difference, leading to intersubjectivity and dialogue,<br />Meso-level is cool too. But, as you say, it's a variant of macro. And it rapidly gets entangled into issues of national boundaries. Which is where Fredrik Barth's work becomes especially interesting, with or without reference to "Ben" Anderson's work.Alex Enkerlihttp://blog.informalethnographer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-6881130886711462552010-07-16T07:44:58.275-04:002010-07-16T07:44:58.275-04:00There are other "resolutions" of the mac...There are other "resolutions" of the macro-/micro-level issues. Including those which go from one scale to the other, as researchers see fit. For instance, an ethnographer working on the "small-scale" may call up "large-scale" analysis when working on causal links. And it's possible for macrosociooogy to "get down to" microsociology to account for particular significance. Both are common enough that examples may not be needed.<br />A variation on these approaches could be called, for lack of a better word, "dialectic." At the core of this approach is the back and forth between levels, scopes, scales. But there's also the notion that one informs and questions the other. No <em>parti pris</em>, here. No matter which approach is used first, it implies its reverse. Again, quite common, but not always explicit. And it may be difficult to distinguish from the old-school comparativist's approach cherry-picking examples in disparate cultural context (thinking of Rouget's <em>Music and Trance</em>, here).<br /> Somewhat different from the "dialectic" and possibly difficult to explain is the slightly more PoMo "glocal" and its declension in the "think global, act local" mode. While it has more to do with open-minded forms of activism than with straight research, it does connect with the way some people work. This way of thinking can help in addressing the complexity of cultural and social issues, making linear-causal thinking unsatisfying.<br />Yet another way to resolve the micro-/macro-analysis issue is to integrate a large array of micro-level analyses through a whole field. Sure, each ethnographer works particularistically. But ethnographers as a group cover a lot of ground. Plus, they've been trained in a more "general" field, such as folkloristics, economics, sociology, or anthropology. In each of these fields, universals and generalities are discussed. in these fields, there's frequently an “embedded” form of comparativism in that each phenomenon is assessed through both very broad notions of what it means to be human (even cultural anthropologists have archæology in their background) and the experience of difference, leading to intersubjectivity and dialogue,<br />Meso-level is cool too. But, as you say, it's a variant of macro. And it rapidly gets entangled into issues of national boundaries. Which is where Fredrik Barth's work becomes especially interesting, with or without reference to "Ben" Anderson's work.Alex Enkerlihttp://blog.informalethnographer.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-14120655004909682902009-07-28T11:14:48.765-04:002009-07-28T11:14:48.765-04:00Jon, thanks for your very helpful comment. Lots of...Jon, thanks for your very helpful comment. Lots of interesting issues to dig into. DanDan Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-3459585526227661572009-07-28T08:36:04.902-04:002009-07-28T08:36:04.902-04:00Thanks for this wonderful post.
In the premodern ...Thanks for this wonderful post.<br /><br />In the premodern era in mainland Southeast Asia it is definitely regional history that is important. Things are just too interconnected and at least for the early Ming dynasty this has to include China on the northern borderlands. <br /><br />Writing regional history you also get more out of the often rather limited historical chronicles of premodern agrarian states also.Jon Fernquesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14974424595128404537noreply@blogger.com