I always have had the questions, Naoki asked, but I was afraid to ask them:
>1. Micro-(meso)-macro dichotomy is really produtive?
>
>2. Is macro given?
>
I like Naoki's examples and want to add that, in my view, the
macro-micro-meso (and whatever) formalism has been useful to initiated a
discussion of contextualism in developmental psychology. However, now, its
limitations become more and more evident. These categories depend on
research focus (what is meso in one research, micro in another). But even,
more, as Naoki seems to suggest even within one research meaning may change
and so the formalism. I think if you embraced contextualism you may not
need the macro-micro-meso (and whatever) formalism, however, it may be
useful to make point to traditionalists that contextualism is important.
I think this topic can be a nice illustration of dialogic nature of
conceptual constructions.
What do you think?
Eugene