Thanks a lot again for your response.
I will be out of town this Tuesday. So, I do not have enough time to write
a mail.
In this mail, I write only about Latour.
What I understand in Latour(or at least what I am interested in Latour)
is not formulating and analysing the given "macro" or "large scale" itself.
Rather, it seems to me that he tried to show how "macro" becomes
visible or observable for whom through cascade of inscriptions.
For example, a modern thematic map is one of good examples.
Thematic maps describe industrial configuration, networks of
transportation of a nation based on various statistic data and
huge survey by army or other govermental institutions.
Just like other filing systems like records of students, examination
in school, a thematic map makes visible of "macro", that is "the nation"
or "people in the nation".
In a thematic map, something invisible is visible.
What kind of "macro" becomes visible through cascade of inscriptions?
For whom? That "whom" is visible?
Following Foucault, Latour tried to answer these questions more
concretely as all of you know.
The question how and for whom "macro" becomes visible is quite
different from the question how one should analyse "macro" or how
one should integrate "micro" with "macro".
I am not sure that was successful, however, Latour also tried to show how
making visible of macro is embedded in what kind of practices or
what kind of places. Further he pointed out the practice in the place
like centre of calculation is local while he criticizes great dichotomy.
The qeustion how panopticon like view is organzed for whom is
different from the question what kind (or level) of panopticon(s)
we should choose in order to look at the "macro" or "meso"
as the given reality.
Suchman, Goodwin and Goodwin's research on airport operation
room can be regarded as concrete research that tried to analyse
the situated practice and constitution of "centre of calculation" .
Actually, Suchman wrote the paper entitled "centre of coordination"
that directly came from the term "centre of calculation".
In this way, what I noticed in Latour cannot be reduced to
the dimension of micro-macro.
For Bourdieu, I should do quite different discussion although I am not
sure it is possible in this mailing list.
Anyway, it is impossible for me to categorize both of Latour
and Bourdieu in the same category such as "macro".
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo