Part II | Outline

Category E | Perspectives

Topic 29 | Macro and micro

Some practical problems can be solved by focusing on specific micro issues even when there is strong disagreement on the bigger picture. Conversely, sometimes agreement can be forged on the macro level even if there are significant differences on particular issues. Both strategies can be used to find common ground, but which strategy is appropriate will depend on circumstances.

• Illustrative examples. Bifocals are an illustrative example of employing micro and macro lenses, as is the Native American legend of Coyote, who employs both a mouse eye (for near vision) and a bison eye (for distance vision).

Micro-level focus  

• In some controversies, consensus on philosophical “big picture” issues is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In such cases, it may be productive to “zoom in,” employing the mouse’s eye or near-seeing lenses, to focus on achievable micro solutions.

• Incompletely theorized agreements can be a productive micro-level strategy. To produce such agreements, [p]articipants in legal controversies . . . agree on the result and relatively narrow or low-level explanations for it. They need not agree on fundamental principle.”

  • Examples of incompletely theorized agreements, focused on micro-level consensus, include the following:

    • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Early UDHR drafting efforts focused on foundational concepts (i.e., human dignity) and rights without requiring agreement on their precise sources or rationales.
    • The Utah and Loudoun County Compromises focused on specific protections for LGBTQ nondiscrimination rights and religious exercise rights in practical, everyday settings without seeking agreement on large conceptual questions about the nature of human sexuality, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
  • Small steps. Sometimes solving one small practical problem lays a foundation to make it easier to address the next small practical problem.

Macro-level focus

• In other controversies, consensus on particulars may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. In those contexts, it may be productive to “zoom out,” employing the bison’s eye or distance lenses, to find macro-level agreement.

• Focus on overarching concepts. Meaningful agreement about overarching concepts such as human dignity, equality, and freedom may be possible even if people disagree about the specific origins, definitions, or applications of these concepts.

  • Examples of efforts focused on macro-level consensus include the following:

    • Human dignity initiatives of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies.
    • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Drafters’ agreement on the macro concept of dignity as the foundation of human rights (even as they disagreed about its precise definition or source) laid the foundation for agreement on the Declaration’s 30 articles.
    • Utah and Loudoun County Compromises. Both efforts zoomed out in the early stages of discussions to focus first on the human dignity of participants and relationship-building.

Using both lenses. In many contexts, an alternate or simultaneous use of both near and distant lenses—both a mouse eye and a bison eye—is optimal or even required.

• Examples of contexts where both lenses are used include the following:

  • Constitutional rhetoric. Constitutions typically involve both macro and micro approaches. Some important constitutional values are vague and undefined (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, non-establishment of religion, freedom of assembly), whereas other provisions are very specific (age requirements for office).
  • Constitutional politics and normal politics. Legal and political philosopher Bruce Ackerman has argued that constitutional politics should forge widespread agreement on basic framework principles, which pave the way for “normal politics” that may be divisive and more amenable to tradeoffs and compromise.
  • The Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere (2018) asserts that our duty in upholding human dignity involves focus and action on the macro level, such as preventing genocide. It also requires focus and action in finding relevant micro-level solutions that may be more “practical and feasible,” such as meeting the immediate needs of those affected on the ground.