Cuba y su modelo de desarrollo turístico

At first glance, positioning theory seems to be a localised and dynamic blend of the two currents outlined above: role theory, or at least its sociological branch, providing the focus and Foucaultian views shaping its epistemology.

This local aspect cannot be found at the inception of either of the traditions, however: roles and statuses, in the role theoretician understanding, are, if not necessarily immutable, then at the very least long-term and subject to admission procedures (Thomas & Biddle, 1966). Thus, role theory may consider as its corpus local interactions (as do, for instance, Evans et al., 2006); although as pointed out earlier, vicarious reports are more likely to be used. Still, in role theory per se, the object of the study is rarely something that evolves as the interaction goes on.

As far as the work of Foucault is concerned, there tends to be a focus on larger narratives, tracing back the various restrictions to their first appearance across cultures, as well as their evolution across centuries.

Positioning theory is, generally, looking at interactions in situ. The examples given in van Langenhove & Harré’s seminal work on positioning theory (1999a) are always grounded in (local) dialogue, and while no explicit mention of the scale the theory is designed for; it seems to be an underlying assumption that local interactions are to be the focus of works employing positioning theory. This

assumption can be traced back to the stress on the dynamic, moving nature of positions (ibid.). It is therefore reasonable to ask: is positioning theory simply a local translation of role theory and/or Foucaultian endeavours? If so, then (a) it will be rather direct to translate descriptions of roles into positions and (b) the focus of our work should shift to how a local position is influenced and/or influences a global role.

However, there are two arguments against this simplification. Firstly, even though most studies carried out using positioning analysis focus on a localised interaction, there are exceptions to this. As an example, Brock et al. (2007) investigated teacher’s perceptions on homework without considering the localised dialogue with students. We carried out a similar wok (Schramm, 2009), without accessing homework as it was being done. In such cases, the corpus consists of vicarious reports –questionnaires, or news reports and supplementary data. Still, these are always concerned with the rights and duties held locally, e.g. when giving out homework; rather than with qualities held beyond this event. Positioning theory thus seems to still be concerned with local events taking place sometimes in larger-scale interactions: it is seeking out the particular and is always concerned with the context of the particular first, and only then looking for patterns in the particular.

Secondly, there are works derived from role theory which use, as their data, local interactions: dialogues or group work interaction. We have already cited a work concerned with local interactions (Evans et al., 2006) which is inscribed in role theory. Furthermore, the evolution of scale in works concerned with the self, and thus grounded in role theory, has been the object of scrutiny. Hermans &

Page 35

Hermans-Konopka (2010, p. 3) argue that the rejection of old cultural boundaries leads to the acknowledgement of the dual process of "globalization and localization" of self: globalisation because there are always more sources that appear to govern our behaviour, and localisation because the complex self that results from this means that only different parts of the self can be activated in different situations: they no longer can be lumped together into the faceless notion of societal demands, or culture. Scale of the phenomena observed, therefore, cannot be considered as the defining feature of positioning theory as a descendant of role theory.

It could be argued, given the existence of works derived from positioning theory focusing on global interactions, that scale is not even a defining feature of positioning theory. However, the prevalence of studies into local interactions seems to suggest that positioning theory is more suited to this kind of work. The answer to this can be found in van Langenhove and Harré’s description (1999a), which suggests that:

“the time/space grid is equally inadequate for locating and understanding social phenomena. As an alternative the persons/conversations referential grid is proposed (...) If social acts, including speech-acts, are taken as the ‘matter’ of social reality, a new grid can be constructed in which people are seen as locations for social acts.”

In this quote, two things are of note. Firstly, that positioning theory is predominantly an analytical framework rather than a set of ontological statements about the nature of discourse. The main purpose of it is to “locate and understand social phenomena”. Secondly, the importance of a ‘scale’ is acknowledged: there is a recognised need to frame the analytical process. However, that ‘scale’ stems from the social acts, which are the constituent parts of discourse; time and space are only as relevant to the analysis as they are to these social acts. In other words, the notion of ‘scale’ does not exist independently of the interaction; and descriptive such as ‘micro’, ‘macro’ or ‘mega’ can only describe individual projects, rather than limit their relevance. With that in mind, what we remarked on earlier now makes little surprise:

Works can be found across the spectrum of micro-/local to mega-/global scale interactions. Indeed, the social impact of social acts can be far-reaching, and as the researcher is not constrained in their choice of scale by positioning theory, they may focus on either scale (or, in rare cases, both!).

Despite this wide range of possibilities, works focusing on local, micro- or macro-scale interactions are prevalent. The abandon of the time/space grid means, among other things, that there is, a priori, no telling which events should be included in the corpus: the notions of start and end of an interaction become irrelevant. However, for practical reasons, interactions need to be delineated for analysis. As it is easier to do so at the local level, where there are observable (i.e. formal) starts and ends, it is only to be expected that analyses of local interactions prevail.

Page 37

This adoption of a persons/conversation reference grid has two main consequences: firstly, that the choice of a scale will be a matter of methodology and, primarily, access to data, rather than inherent to positioning theory. Secondly, that scale is an important concern, but one that is driven by the data.

Summary:

The scale of the interaction considered sets most of positioning theory apart from most of role theory and from the Foucaultian tradition: the former tends to focus on local interactions, whilst the latter tend are generally concerned with larger-scale interactions.

However, this is not a macro-mega vs. micro disparity, as works from all three bodies can be found at either of these levels.

The key difference lies in how the scale is considered: positioning theory considers, rather than a time-space “reference grid”, one that is based on persons and conversations. The scales used by positioning theory are therefore adaptable and driven by the data.