"Reply to "The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction

A number of points in Mouzelis's comment are typical misinterpretations of my work. The main issues that I will address are 1) the relationship between interaction order and the micro-macro distinction, 2) the relationship between interaction order and size/space/ location, 3) the consequences of the author's misunderstanding of (1) for the argument that order comes from what I have called above and below, and 4) the consequences of misunderstanding the sui generis and the local nature of interaction order for the author's comment that my argument takes an unsatisfactory position on indeterminacy/ openness. These issues are central to my argument; therefore misinterpretation of these points has the effect of making my argument look inconsistent or worse. I have addressed parts of these issues in previous comments, but I feel that greater clarity is achieved with each successive exchange. At stake, I believe, is an understanding of the significance of several major strains in American sociology over the past 40 years. Without clarification of these points their contribution will not be appreciated. Point 1: Mouzelis bases much of his argument on the claim that my paper argues that all interaction is This claim requires an explanation because not only have I said no such thing, but in fact I have argued 1) that interaction order and interaction are not the same thing and 2) that interaction order is present in all sorts of social encounters. The best explanation I can come up with is that Mouzelis assumes I must be using the micro-macro distinction because I use the word interaction, and for him that word implies micro. I have not said that interaction is micro, nor have I used the micro-macro distinction in this paper, although one gets the impression from reading this comment that I have based my argument on it. In footnote 3 Mouzelis cites an alleged reference of mine to the micro-macro distinction. Because this is his only specific reference to my use of the terms, and because he refers to it repeatedly as evidence that I base my argument on the micro-macro distinction, it would seem to be a key reference. I do not find that reference in the paper, although I probably wrote it and am prepared to defend it. The point is that it does not seem to appear in the paper in question. Even if it did so, it is such a bald-faced misinterpretation that it would not require comment except that it seems to be made frequently. The words micro and/or macro appear several places in the paper. On pages 138 and 145 I mention the macro-micro debate. On page 146 I mention micro sociology in a footnote, and refer to Goffman as a micro sociologist. On page 146 I also cite Alexander's position on micro-macro issues. None of these references suggests in any way that I consider micro and interaction order phenomena to be the same. In fact, none constitutes a use of the distinction at all. All are references to the way in which the distinction has been used. Because Mouzelis seems to be basing much of his criticism of my work on the reference that does not appear in the paper, it requires an explanation. I did not say, as Mouzelis suggests, that one could not study macro/institutional levels of order and find

Economics · Epistemology · Macro · Order (exchange · Sociology · Computer Science · Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice · Economic Theory and Institutions · Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence · Philosophy · Psychology

• Goffman and Interactional Citizenship

  Open Access•Paul Colomy, J David Brown•Sociological Perspectives•1996

  Add to list

• Towards an embodied understanding of the structure/agency relationship

  Open Access•Chris Shilling•British Journal of Sociology•1999

  Add to list