Transcript The rise and fall of Talcott Parsons

The rise and fall of Talcott
Parsons
Sociology at mid-century
Unit II: 3 fundamental
methodological problems

1.
2.
3.

Sociological theory attempts to show how
particular causal influences fit together.
Functional theory (Parsons): argues that they fit
together into a normative system
Conflict theory (Mills) argues that they fit
together as a conflict of interests.
Theory construction theorists (Stinchcombe)
argue that theory must connect to data.
I have argued that feedbacks are the key to all
these problems.
Reasons for Parsons’ rise
1930-1950

Much of Chicago sociology was atheoretical.
 The European theorist (especially Durkheim,
Marx and Weber) were largely ignored.
 Chicago continued to dominate the association
when most Ph.D’s were trained elsewhere.
 Parsons trained a very large number of
important theorists (including several recent ASA
presidents, such as Smelser.)
Reasons for his fall 1960-1980
 His
theory was mainly an elaborate
conceptual scheme – a language.
 It was rooted in 1950’s sense that the
social structure was functional, and that
American values epitomized modern
progress.
 Above all, it did not sustain enough
interesting and important empirical
research.
The linkage of theory to data
 Theory
and empirical research have to
be closely tied to each other.
 Theorizing which is not connected to
fruitful empirical data analysis is often
dismissed as “grand theory.”
 Research which is not connected to
general theoretical ideas is often
dismissed as “abstracted empiricism.”
“Grand theory:” the criticisms
of Mills and Merton
Merton (one of Parsons’ students) and Mills
each made the charge that Parsonian theory
was grand theory in the sense of empty,
armchair shuffling of categories.
 Merton defended theories of the middle range.
 Mills defended the “sociological imagination.”
 Both were at Columbia, which became one
center of empirical analysis.

“Abstracted empiricism” or
“number-crunching:” the
rationale for theory
both of them – as well as the bulk of
practicing sociologists recognized that
the discipline fragments without general
theory.
 Different sociologists study different
topics using different methods.
 Parsons’ concern for system and for
norms resonated with many sociologists
 But
3 Elements of Parsonian
“Structural-functionalism”
1.
2.
3.
The Structure of Social Action (1937)
developed the notion of voluntarism.
The Social System (1951) developed the
ideas of social systems as self-maintaining
and normatively integrated.
Parsons books and articles of the 1950’s
developed the four-function paradigm of a
system.
#1 Voluntarism

Voluntarism is the thesis that all human action
is motivated by socialized values and
governed by social norms.
 It was directed against behaviorism,
positivism, Social Darwinism, and economic
rational action models (“utilitarianism”).
 Parsons constructed a conceptual argument
that social order is not possible without
common values.
 He argued that the most powerful empirical
work of Durkheim and Weber analyzed these
values.
Rehabilitation of Durkheim
 Durkheim’s
approach had been
dismissed as a theory of “group mind.”
 But the existence of institutionalized
norms is not just a sense of
“groupness.”
 For example, a physician is constrained
by law, by colleagues and by patient
expectations.
Translation and interpretation
of Weber
Parsons translated a number of Weber’s
works, and he developed the notion that
action has a value-component.
 Parsons exemplified this by the notion of the
importance of religion to the rise of
capitalism.
 Weber’s analysis of law, economics, politics
and science also illustrated institutionalized
normative systems.

Comparison of structuralfunctionalism with Chicago

Voluntarism formalized much existing
analysis of terms such as conformity, norms,
sanctions, interaction, role, value, or anomie,
 which had been used in an informal and
unsystematic way.
 (compare the passage from Parsons that
Mills “translates” on pp. 235-6 of One World).
 Is there a more useful consolidation of these
concepts? Is one needed?
#2 Modernization in
The Social System

The Social System was published just as about 100
new countries emerged in the 20th century.
 Parsons argued that the common expectations of the
members of the society were socialized and
institutionalized.
 The only other solution to “the problem of order” is
naked coercion.
 Institutions are organized around functional needs.
 Role structures make the behavior of one role partner
sanctions and rewards for others.
 Anomie or other failure of social functions to be
performed lead to further social controls.
Modern values

A central concern for Parsons was the
transformation that had occurred in Europe in
the previous centuries and that was seeping
the world after WWII.
 Parsons saw this process as requiring a
value system that had developed,
 Most characteristic of the United States,
 including separation of church and state,
human rights, free enterprise, and inclusive
citizenship – what Durkheim called “organic
solidarity.”
The Pattern Variables
 Specifically
he distinguished 5
dimensions of an evaluation:
Universalism ------------------ Particularism
Achievement --------------------- Ascription
Neutrality ------------------------- Affectivity
Specificity ------------------------ Diffuseness
Self ---------------------------------- Collectivity
The example of the
professions

In general, the movement is toward
universalism, achievement, neutrality,
specificity (specialization) and self
(individualism)
 But, for example, the orientation of the
professions were to collectivity.
 The professions are a control system.
 It is not that doctors are less self-interested
than businessmen; they are self-interested in
a different way.
The functional model of
stratification and inequality

The functional model was dominant in the midtwentieth century.
 It argued that inequality is functionally necessary to
motivate training and attract talent to important
positions,
 and that therefore all societies are stratified,
 and reduction of stratification would make everyone
worse off.
 Parsons welcomed most forms of class and gender
inequality, for different reasons, although he rejected
Jim Crow.
“Merely empirical” questions
 Parsons
could easily grant that there
were ideologies, interests, advantaged
groups, anomie, privileges, and value
conflicts,
 but he tended to dismiss them as
merely empirical questions, which
played not role in the theory.
#3 The Four-function Paradigm
 This
work was consolidated in the fourfunction Paradigm
 From 1950-1978, he argued that all
systems have to satisfy 4 essential
functions,
 which he represented as the “agile
boxes:”
AGIL
Adaptation
Goal Attainment
G
A
I Latency
L
Integration
Systems
Throughout the 1930’s and ’40’s there had
been a growth of systems theory
 Dealing with structures of interrelated parts
 in engineering, biology, computer science,
information theory, and administration.
 These stressed the homeostatic properties of
negative feedback,
 as in a thermostat.
+

Temperature
Furnace
-
Cut-off
Relation of Parsons’ systems
to systems theory

The various kinds of systems theory allow
one to simulate the behavior of a complex
structure.
 Parsons’ theory resonated with this theory.
 It made the maintaining of goal states
(functions; values) controlled by the value
commitments, instilled in the “latency”
subsystem, the core of social structure.
The rationale of AGIL
 Parsons
argued that social,
psychological and cultural structures are
functionally differentiated
 They need to deal with an external
environment,
 and they need to maintain their internal
integrity.
The idea of the 4 functions


Both with respect to the outside and
with respect to the inside, there is a
need both to accumulate further
resources, and to mobilize and use the
resources one has.
Accumulating and using up resources
with respect to the outside and the
inside generate 4 kinds of functions:
The four functions:
1.
Accumulating resources from the external
environment was called Adaptation: A
2.
Using resources with regard to the outside
was called Goal Attainment: G
Using resources to maintain internal
integrity was called Integration: I
Accumulating resources for maintaining
internal integrity was called Latency: L
3.
4.
The 4 functions in Society

He argued that the economy is oriented to
accumulating resources with respect to the
external (physical) environment. A
 The political system uses those resources
with respect to the outside: G.
 The legal system is oriented to maintaining
internal integration: I
 The latency system does the socialization
and instills the value commitments that allow
internal integration.
Latency
The stress in internal controls was Parsons’
distinctive contribution
 He argued that the family, education, and
churches were the main institutional
complexes creating value commitments.
 Much of his work concerned the relations
between them and the cultural system, the
personality system, and the legal system.

Social Evolution
Parsons’ analysis of social evolution
attempted to show the process by which
class divisions, the separation of the
economy from the state, and the separation
of church and state occur.
 These are all viewed as processes of
functional differentiation.
 And all of them, for Parsons, are enabled by
integrative normative control systems, that
operate like thermostats.

The Four-function Paradigm
 This
work was consolidated in the fourfunction Paradigm
 From 1950-1978, he argued that all
systems have to satisfy 4 essential
functions,
 which he represented as the “agile
boxes:”
AGIL
Adaptation
Goal Attainment
G
A
I Latency
L
Integration
Systems
Throughout the 1930’s and ’40’s there had
been a growth of systems theory
 Dealing with structures of interrelated parts
 in engineering, biology, computer science,
information theory, and administration.
 These stressed the homeostatic properties of
negative feedback,
 as in a thermostat.
+

Temperature
Furnace
-
Cut-off
Relation of Parsons’ systems
to systems theory
 The
various kinds of systems theory
allow one to simulate the behavior of a
complex structure.
 Parsons’ theory resonated with this
theory,
 but it had no direct connection with it,
 and never led to quantitative simulations
and predictions.
The rationale of AGIL
 Parsons
argued that social,
psychological and cultural structures are
functionally differentiated
 They need to deal with an external
environment,
 and they need to maintain their internal
integrity.
The idea of the 4 functions


Both with respect to the outside and
with respect to the inside, there is a
need both to accumulate further
resources, and to mobilize and use the
resources one has.
Accumulating and using up resources
with respect to the outside and the
inside generate 4 kinds of functions:
The four functions:
1.
Accumulating resources from the external
environment was called Adaptation: A
2.
Using resources with regard to the outside
was called Goal Attainment: G
Using resources to maintain internal
integrity was called Integration: I
Accumulating resources for maintaining
internal integrity was called Latency: L
3.
4.
The 4 functions in Society

He argued that the economy is oriented to
accumulating resources with respect to the
external (physical) environment. A
 The political system uses those resources
with respect to the outside: G.
 The legal system is oriented to maintaining
internal integration: I
 The latency system does the socialization
and instills the value commitments that allow
internal integration.
Latency
The stress in internal controls was Parsons’
distinctive contribution
 He argued that the family, education, and
churches were the main institutional
complexes creating value commitments.
 Much of his work concerned the relations
between them and the cultural system, the
personality system, and the legal system.

General media
Adaptation
Money
Economy
A
Families etc.
L
Value commitment
Latency
Goal Attainment
Power
G Political system
I
Law
.
Influence
Integration
Parsons review of Mills
 The
review of Mills’ Power Elite and
Mills’ discussion of Parsons give a clear
idea of the debates at mid-century.
 Parsons suggested that Mills has a
defective, zero-sum concept of power,
and that he wants to get rid of
differences in power altogether.
Mills analysis of power

In about 10 books, of which The Power Elite
was the most popular, Mills argued that old
wealth, the heads of the giant corporations
and the executive branch of government, and
constituted an elite.
 Career paths often took them from one to
another; common institutions unified them,
 and, Mills argued, they often had and
pursued interests that were different from and
antagonistic to those of the rest of the
populace.
 We shall examine such arguments next week.
Zero-sum and non-zero sum

The terms are taken from game theory in
which the outcomes for several persons are
dependent on their joint actions.
 Game theory distinguishes competitive, zerosum games in which there is scarcity, so that
if one person gets more, others get less.
 From non-zero-sum cooperative games in
which all players may get more, or all may get
less.
Examples of non-zero-sum
games

If two people are going through an
intersection, and they both have to decide
whether to stop or go right ahead, there are
minor differences depending who goes
through first, and minor inconveniences if
they both stop,
 But the main difference is whether both
players loose in a crash, or both win in
avoiding a crash.
 Whenever a “win” for one player is also a
“win” for other players, you have a non-zerosum game.
Examples of zero sum games
 Dividing
a pie, such that the more one
player gets, the less the other player
gets, is a zero-sum game.
 Military strategy or economic
competition is a zero-sum game.
Parsons’ definition of power

For Parsons, Mills had a questionable
concept of power as zero-sum.
 Parsons insisted that power is, by definition,
“a facility for the performance of functions in
and on behalf of the society as a system.”
 Parsons’ criticisms should be compared to
Mills discussions as described pp. 232 and
239 of One World.
Mills’ position

We shall see that for Mills, and other conflict
theorists, Parsons’ analysis was both
contemplative, conservative, and nonempirical.
 When we try to influence structures of race,
education, gender, or health, we find that
different people have different interests and
different resources for achieving those
interests.
 And, in general, those who benefit most from
present arrangements argue that they are
functional for everyone and that they should
The general contrast between
functional and conflict dynamics
 We
shall argue that in general, conflict
theorists have recognized and theorized
positive feedbacks, such as those that
occur in Monopoly,
 and functional theorists have
recognized and theorized negative
feedbacks such as those that operate in
a thermostat.