Sociological Conceptual Tools Room

Definition of the Situation"

Articulated by W. I. Thomas...this is what has come to be called the "Thomas Theorem." It is one of the simpliest but yet most profound social psychological concepts yet. It is..."If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." The implications of this are far-reaching. It represents an immense power we have, individually and collectively. In essence, it really doesn't matter if something is "true" or not...if we define as such...and then live as if it were...then it "becomes true." Ask any black man...or woman...who has been defined to be a certain way by others and then treated as if it were true about them.

On p. 87 he says..."Institutions provide procedures through which human conduct is patterned, compelled to go, in grooves deemed desirable by society. And this trick is performed by making these grooves appear to the individual as the only possible ones." In other words, institutions (meeting the various needs of humans such as health, mating, education, meaning, food/shelter, etc.) relate to individuals as regulatory agencies which channel human actions and thinking. Further, when we are not made aware that institutions are patterns of behavior over time and constructed by previous humans, they take on a kind of inevitability which as Berger says, seem like our own "inner" voices...they provide a kind of "institutional imperative" which we more often than not blindly follow.

Thus, in the absence of this awareness institutions involve a large degree of deception...what is in fact voluntary and historical seems like it is necessary and given. Believing this is what Berger calls bad faith.

Berger goes on to explain that institutions (especially the ones we follow in bad faith) give us our scripts, answers, and solutions...they shield us from quandry. They devalue other options...even barring other options or alternatives from our consciousness. They provide formulas for living...thus creating an ignorance. For instance, the desire for love becomes the desire for marriage, the desire for meaning becomes the desire to believe, the desire for education becomes the desire for a good job, and so forth. In short, institutions channel us to behave according to type...making us role-players that our current societal arrangements need to maintain itself.

These three levels are...the Micro, the Meso, and the Macro. These names are, of course, very familiar to a variety of disciplines...especially economics. Likewise, of course, they mean and refer to particular realities in Sociology. Each, while on the one hand, are fairly separate. Each, on the other hand, blend into one another. I will provide the substance for each...the categories belonging to each.

However, before detailing each level, a few general and organizing observations need to made. First, although after what has been just said about a Levels approach, it just as surely needs to be said that "levels" really don't exist as a lived-experience. In other words, as individuals we don't live on these levels, we live life as a "whole"...all at once and at the same moment. We are, in effect, all the levels at the same time. We are micro beings, meso fellow-beings, and macro-creators all at the same time. We don't have micro parts, meso parts, and macro parts...we live life as a unity...starting with our biological existence in space and time. In other words, a Levels of Reality approach is an epistemological approach...that is, levels are "knowing devices" that help us tap into that differentiated reality mentioned above. AS such devices, they aren't "true"...but rather, are either more or less useful in understanding social life.

Second, although as Ritzer points out...and is evident in the work of sociologists, concentration on the phenomena of each level is possible...quite likely, in fact. Some people focus on varying aspects of each level. However, the problem...as Ritzer says...is when these preferred concentrations result in conclusions which don't take into account the phenomena of the other levels...when the levels are considered separate and distinct without recognition of their dialectical relations. A holistic study of society must ask the questions which link the levels one with another...elsewise, a partial view will result. Concentration on a preferred level is fine...but exclusion of the other levels from one's analysis and conclusions isn't so fine.

Third, this leads to the question of just where does the Macro level come from? It's the level that seems most apart from the lives of individual human beings...and its the one which seems most unchangeable. As Durkheim said, it seems external to, prior to, and coercive on individuals. He was certainly correct as it relates to each of us being born into a given existing society. However, Durkheim's observation was one-sided and really had to be given his time and the tone of academia then. He was carving out a niche or a turf for the new discipline of sociology and thus, couldn't allow the slightest entry of psychologistic determinism "in" if he was to establish the viability of the new disciplline. Yet, today, a Levels of Reality approach must inherently contain this reciprocal or dialectical relation between the levels. Thus, the concept of emergence is absolutely essential. So, as a FIRST PREMISE...analytically-speaking, the Macro must emerge from the Micro. Emergence, though, is not a deterministic phenomena or process. Rather, emergence is the result of what people DO...in creating and recreating society. If this first premise is not correct, then we're left with assuming that the Macro just "is"...or simply is "there" or is "eternal" or is "unchanging" or was "created" from the "outside. Another option, one which reductionist psychologists like, is that the Micro is all there is...just us "egos"...so to speak. I and others find these alternative explanations a bit wanting...emergence of the Macro from the Micro through the Meso (with continual and complicated feedback loops within) is the fait accompli of a Levels of Reality approach.

Now, what do each of these levels consist of? There are many portrayals of the different levels of analysis...the one I use is, I think, a very good one (but its not the only one...choose your own if you'd like). Mine goes like this:

MICRO

-----Individuals (attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, self, etc.)

-----Interactions (communications, taking each other into account)

-----Organizations (patterns of interaction, roles, institutions beginning)

MESO

-----Organizations (our daily lives)

-----Institutions (patterned solutions)

-----Community (upclose scenes of living)

MACRO

-----Community (our immediate locations)

-----Society (sharing our language, etc)

-----Culture (our shared total way of life)

-----Civilization (as defined by rulers)

-----Global (slow but sure-forming today)

Birds of a feather flock together

Opposites attract

Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Out of sight, out of mind

Look before you leap

He who hesitates is lost

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

To know her is to love her

Women are unpredictable

Isn't that just like a woman?

You can't teach an old dog new tricks

It's never to late to learn

Above all to thine own self be true

When in Rome, do as the Romans do

Variety is the spice of life

Never change horses in midstream

Two heads are better than one

If you want something done right, do it yourself

You can't tell a book by its cover

The clothes make the man

Many hands make light work

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Better safe than sorry

Nothing ventured, nothing gained

Haste makes waste

Strike while the iron is hot

Work for the night is coming

Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you may die

There's no place like home