In sociology terms what is macro?
Answers:
Macro literally means big. In sociology terms, you can think of it as the "big picture." Micro would be, for example, a biology class. The Macro counterpart could be the university as a whole. Also, a family can be considered micro, but the whole state is macro.
Just think of a big group of people who are linked together, socially speaking.
Macro-sociology approaches offer explanations for social phenomena in terms of the way in which social systems work as a whole. Micro-sociology gives explanations in terms of how people make things happen by interpreting their experience and acting on their interpretations.
Macro-sociology divides into consensus and conflict approaches. The former view society as similar to the human body, where everyone functions together to enable society to work well. Functionalists believe that society is run in the best interest for everyone. Conflict theories view society as a constant struggle between classes, caused by the individuals relationship to the economic system.
Functionalism is the main consensus perspective. As with functionalist analysis in general the view of education tends to focus on the positive contributions made by education to the maintenance of the social system. Functionalists see school as society in miniature where the individual develops a sense of commitment to the social group; a place to learn rules and co-operate with people other than kin or friends, school prepares the individual to learn how to conform in society.
Durkheim believed that the major function of education was the transmission of society's norms and values. He claimed that schools perform two central functions, relating to social cohesion and the division of labour. In order to exist society members must share common beliefs and values - these are only partially taught by the family. The school continues this process and broadens the forms of behaviour and shares beliefs of the children. In modern societies the division of labour holds society so that schools train people for the different jobs available. The differential rewards that adults receive are seen by both successful, and the less successful, as justified and fair, because both groups had equal opportunities.
Educational failure is thus seen either as part of the way in which people are placed in society according to their ability (some people have to fail) or as evidence that the system isn't working properly. Functionalist writers point out that schools act as sieves grading out higher ability children. The least able therefore fail.
A conflict view of the education system is that it is a site of ideological struggle. It enforces class differences by helping the middle-class to succeed while preventing working class children from fulfilling their true potential. According to Poulantzaz the school is just part of the Ideological State Apparatus concerned with the manipulation of values and beliefs.
Educational failure is thus seen as due to the fact that schools are a mainly middle-class institution. Different groups have fundamentally different ideas and interests and therefore education will benefit some more than others.
There are various conflict theories which give different views about educational failure. For example Marxist approaches argue that the education system imposes the dominant values of the ruling class on the population; grades children according to their class background; trains people for jobs in order to produce greater profit; makes failure inevitable for the majority of the population, as it is the point of the system - to achieve and legitimise this failure.
Bowles and Gintis believed "Equality is an Illusion" in education as it is in the whole of society. They suggest that the prime purpose of schooling is to produce a willing, subservient workforce which will continue to help make profits for the ruling class and not to challenge their dominance of society. Children of wealthy and powerful tend to obtain high qualifications and highly rewarding jobs irrespective of their abilities. It is this the education disguises with its "Myth of Meritocracy" (Harralambos). Those who are denied success blame themselves, and not the system which has condemned them to failure.
Studies by Hargreaves and Lacey on the effects of streaming on pupils show that the self-perceptions of the pupils were strongley influenced by the stream that they were placed in. Teachers were shown to have lower expectations of the lower-band pupils and responded differently to them. The lower-band pupils in turn felt denied status. They responded by being anti-school and expressed this in Hargreaves study by rejecting the middle-class values that underlie the activities of the school, and behaving in ways which demonstrate this rejection; in Lacey's study by seeking out of school subcultures which were available to them.
A particularly important idea of micro-sociology is that of labelling. Ethnomethodologists such as Hargreaves, however, warn that educational failure would not be the inevitable result of someone being labelled as unintelligent or naughty. He found that teachers were constantly changing their minds and pupils didn't always recognise that they were being labelled or believed in the label being placed on them.
Macro-sociology and micro-sociology are not necessarily inconsistent with each other. Sometimes the one can compliment the other, particularly interationism and conflict theory. For example Sharp and Green who combine structural factors such as class race, gender etc. with the activities and perceptions of teachers - the interactionist approach. After studying a progressive primary school they argue that pressures from both within the school and the wider society ensure that teachers tend to have higher expectations from middle-class pupils.
Macro research reveals the higher the social class the higher the levels of educational achievement, but this approach does not take into account such factors as gender, race, religion etc. Similarly, micro-sociology describes the mechanism of educational failure rather than explaining it. Therefore it is difficult to reach a reliable explanation without analysing from both perspectives.
Education is such a vast area; the question of why some pupils underachieve in school is complex and has many answers. It is therefore unfair to look at this area from just a micro or macro perspective. To really understand the reasons behind under-achievement and give accurate analysis, you need to consider all perspectives, and take into account factors such as gender, race and class.
reff:http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/.
its a cash and carry warehouse.
The larger scene, and the larger system .
macro is taking the society as a whole
In sociology macro is global development rate per century; that America ("the states") was 5 times more developed than Africa a century ago, today America is 20 time more developed than Africa. But Asia has, since the near recent moved fast, is close to sa-passing the Europe and if America is not watch full, she will be the third world of the next century!
Sociology is the study of functions and aspects of society, when we discuss sociology we discuss areas such as crime and deviance, educations, risk, families, whilst also looking at theories as a whole such as in classical sociology, it is only when we focus on this that we are look at the "macro" of society, of we were to focus on the "mirco" we may choose to look at a particular area of each of the macro topics or a theorist, such as Weber, Marx, Kuhn, Gideons etc. the micro also applies to looking at the way "we" interpret society as individuals. Think "Marco"=Whole idea "Marco" individual thoughts/aspects.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.