Microsociology and macrosociology are built by many components and also interlink with each other. This essay will be explaining what makes up the dimensions of a macrosociological approach using the Bourdieu (2007), Kallaway (1986), Woods (1976) and Carrim (2009) articles. Thereafter I will be using the dimensions of both the macrosociological and microsociological to explain the ways in which you experienced your own schooling as a learner in the school. “Macrosociology, which concerns itself with large scale social systems, like the political system or the economic order” Giddens, 2001, p.83). Macrosociology basically focuses on the bigger picture of the social system, because it looks at and affects broader institutions like political and economical. Giddens (2001) states that macrosociology’s processes of change are a long term, like the development of industrialism. This is because macrosociology deals with society not individuals, so that is why it takes long to develop some of the institutions. Structuralist approach is a perspective that sees society as comprised of many institutions which act as mechanisms to solve society’s problems and contribute in uniquely connected ways to the survival and development of the whole society and thus maintain order (Blackledge and Hunt, 1985). These Social institutions perform certain functions in society and in doing so they help satisfy society’s needs. Other institutions are political institution, economic and religion structures Structural functionalism deals with the need for culture and socialization if order is to be kept in the society (Blackledge and Hunt, 1985). For society to function we need commonalities or essential similarities’. The values and norms created through the culture of the society create standards, rules and regulations which define action as acceptable or not in the society (Blackledge and hunt, 1985). The institution of education enhances the society’s values and norms through the curriculum in the schooling system. Structural functionalism is grounded in macrosociology because it deals with the use of institutions of macrosociology in solving the society’s problems. These macro institutions like the education system are for example used in structural functionalism to solve the problem of educating the children of the society and instilling the culture and the norms of the society (Blackledge and Hunt, 1985). In contrast there is microsociology. Giddens (2001) states that microsociology is a study of everyday behavior in situations of face-to-face interactions. Basically microsociology deals with how individuals interact through one-on-one interaction. “In macrosociology, analysis occurs at level of individuals or small group of individuals. To interpret and Symbolic interactionism rests in the analysis of the three premises Blumer (1969). The first premise is that human beings act toward things on the basis of the things have for them, second premise is that the meaning of such thing is derived from and the third premise is that these meanings are handled and modified through an interpretative process use by the person in dealing with the things he encounters. This means that Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn give meaning to the world through our interactions with others (Blumer, 1969). The symbolic interaction perspective is based on how humans develop a complex set of symbols to give meaning to the world. As such symbolic interaction sees meanings as social products, as creations that are formed in and through the defining activities of people as they interact (Blumer, 1969). In order to understand human behavior we need to understand these symbols. Symbolic interaction sees a human society as people who engage in living. This living is the process in which the humans in a society are constantly developing ways of doing things from the situations that they encounter in their daily lives (Blumer, 1969). “A symbol is a ‘stimulus that has a learned meaning and value for people, and man’s response to a symbol is in terms of its meaning and value rather than terms of physical stimulation of his sense organs” (Rose, 1962, as cited in Woods, 1983, p.1). in other words people see symbols as a phenomena that gives a meaning and a value rather than what they actually see with their eyes. Woods (1983) states that language, gestures and objects. Bourdieu, P (2007) states that there are different forms of capital, cultural capital is one of the capital forms which has three forms. Bourdieu, P (2007), states that the embodied state is in the form of long lasting dispositions of the body and the mind. The embodied capital is the external wealth which is converted into an integral part of the person, into habitus cannot be transmitted instantaneously. The use or exploitations of cultural capital presents particular problems that hold for the economic or political capital, whether this are private patrons or