The Macro and Meso Basis of the Micro Social Order
7.5 The Micro Level of Social Reality
In sum, then, (1) the number of distinctive cat- egoric units, (2) the degree to which they are dif- ferentially evaluated, and (3) the degree of their consolidation or intersection with locations in corporate units will have large effects on the situ- ational expectations on individuals in micro-level encounters—as I outline below. Moreover, the degree to which categoric-unit membership is correlated or uncorrelated with social class and with locations in the division of labor will have large effects on the level of integration in a soci- ety across micro, meso, and macro levels of real- ity (see Chap. 2 ).
7.5 The Micro Level of Social
positions in a broad range of corporate units in an equally diverse number of institutional domains, then the general salience of status beliefs and expectation states in all interactions among mem- bers of a population will decline, and if the loca- tion in a corporate unit is known, the normative expectations attached to places in the division of labor will become the dominant expectations at the micro level. If the corporate unit locations of participants in an encounter are not known, but the salience of categoric-unit membership has declined in general, then individuals will need to use tact to create new situational expectations to guide the fl ow of the interaction—often a very stressful process but the price to be paid for a reduction in stratifi cation at the macro level of social organization.
7.5.2 The Structural Properties of Micro Reality
The basic building blocks of social structures are status along with associated roles and expecta- tions. Thus, the nature of how status is organized at the level of the encounter has considerable effect on how expectations affect the actions and interactions of individuals. Some of these key organizational properties of status are reviewed below.
7.5.2.1 The Nature of Status
The most important dimension of status is whether it is tied to corporate units or categoric units ( diffuse status characteristics ). As noted earlier, when high and low moral evaluations of diffuse status characteristics are correlated on a consistent basis with, respectively, higher and lower positions in divisions of labor across resource-bestowing institutional domains, then the effects of diffuse and locational status are consolidated and hence more infl uential. The opposite is the case with intersection; increasing intersections of locational status with diffuse sta- tus characteristics decreases the infl uence of sta- tus beliefs, especially as intersections come from upwardly mobile of previously devalued mem- bers of categoric units into new, more resource-
giving positions in corporate units. Evaluation of diffuse status becomes more problematic (due to shifting status beliefs), with the result that people in encounters will generally use locational status, if relevant, as the default position and invoke expectations states for differentiated positions in the divisions of labor of corporate units rather than expectations derived from diffuse status characteristics. If neither locational or diffuse status are clear, then individuals will need to do considerable interpersonal work “on the ground”
to create or discover relevant expectation states for guiding their conduct.
7.5.2.2 The Nature of the Corporate Units
There have been just three basic types of corporate units invented by humans: groups, organizations, and communities. These units vary in the explicit- ness and formality of their respective divisions of labor, with organizations the most likely to evi- dence explicit vertical and horizontal divisions of labor. Thus, expectation states will be more explicit, clear, agreed upon, and authoritative in organizations than in either groups or communi- ties. Such is particularly likely to be the case if an organization has explicit goals, and the division of labor is set up to meet these goals. Of course, if a group is embedded in an organization, then the expectations guiding the division of labor will be very evident to all; but over time, groups tend to develop a more informal and relaxed set of expec- tations states, unless those in authority push them on subordinates, in which case subordinates may develop their own unique subculture and expecta- tion states (often dedicated to resistance against authority). In communities, if the encounter is part of one of the organizations that make up a com- munity (e.g., police, medical offi ces, schools, churches, etc.), then the expectations inhering in the division of labor of the organization in which an encounter is embedded will be operative. At other times, in less focused encounters in public, expectations will be ambiguous or will have to evolve if an encounter becomes focused, espe- cially so if the encounter is iterated over time.
7.5.2.3 Boundary Markers and Rituals The more bounded is a corporate unit in physical space, with explicit entrance and exit rules and rituals (such as entering a Catholic church or a lecture hall), the more explicit will be expecta- tion states (Luhmann 1982 ). And, the more con- scious will individuals be of their respective status locations which, in general, will dominate over diffuse status characteristics in establishing expectations states in encounters.
Situational Ecology
Unfocused encounters occur in an ecology that carries cultural meanings for partitions, props, use spaces, and other physical properties. These meanings will almost always carry rights and privileges associated with status. For example, in the segregated south in the United States, benches, drinking fountains, and partitions were all arrayed to mark the diffuse status characteris- tics of blacks and whites; and thus, it was not sur- prising that the mid-twentieth century civil rights movement began and often challenged the tradi- tional meanings of situational ecology (e.g., sit- ins at lunch counters and refusals to go to the back of a bus). But, more generally and less oppressively, situational ecology often carries more benign meanings. Sometimes these increase the salience of status but often they do just the opposite: they become places where status con- siderations are relaxed, as is the case when highly diverse persons sit on public park benches, or use playground equipment, or gather on the edge of a public fountain.
Nature of the Encounter Encounters are either focused or unfocused, although they can fl ow between these two poles. Focused encounters almost always force some judgment of relative status, if only to determine its relevance to the situational expectations that are in play.
Unfocused encounters are intended to avoid face engagement, but this does not mean that individ- uals do not assess diffuse and locational status of others as they monitor each others’ movements in space. There will almost always be expectations as to the appropriate demeanor in space; and so,
individuals will monitor to determine if such proper demeanor is being practiced (Goffman 1963 , 1971 ). If there is deviation from what is expected, the situation will be monitored more carefully to determine if this deviation poses a threat to the public order. Naturally, those wish- ing to assert their status, especially where higher- status others are not in a position to sanction deviations, can often be a means for chronically lower status persons to gain some sense of effi - cacy and esteem by forcing higher status people to give way or retreat. Societies with high levels of inequality and with low-levels of monitoring of public places by forces of social control will often see lower-status persons and groups using unfocused encounters as a means to gain some increase in status, or to release hostilities against higher status persons and families. And again, it should not be surprising that when larger-scale uprisings over inequality begin in a society, they often begin with violations of expectations about unfocused encounters in public places. But, most of the time, individuals and groups of individuals tend to abide by the expectations of places where encounters are to be unfocused.
Whether by intent or accident, encounters in places where unfocus is normatively expected, but suddenly become focused lead stereotypical apologies or, alternatively, greeting rituals to sig- nal a basic willingness to abide by expectations of a more focused encounter. Moreover, some situations that are normally unfocused can be become situationally focused among strangers in close proximity, such as standing in line outside an Apple store on launch day for a new product or just standing in line to enter a movie or sport activity. These local breaking of expectations for unfocus are almost always highly animated in very ritualized ways as individuals, without status cues about locations in organizations and without salience of categoric unit expectations, work to sustain a positive emotional fl ow and, thereby, avoid breaching the focus. Thus, most of the time when unfocus is breached by accident rather than by intent, individuals will work very hard to pre- vent a breach of the focused encounter in order to
avoid the confl ict that also accompanies breaches of focused encounters.
7.6 Motivational and Emotional