Home » Social Thinkers » Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons Talcott Parsons (1902-82) was for many years the best-known sociologist in the United States, and indeed one of the best-known in the world. He produced a general theoretical system for the analysis of society that came to be called structural functionalism. Parsons' analysis was largely developed within his major published works:

  • The Structure of Social Action (1937),
  • The Social System (1951),
  • Structure and Process in Modern Societies (1960),
  • Sociological Theory and Modern Society (1968),
  • Politics and Social Structure (1969).

    • Parsons was an advocate of "grand theory," an attempt to integrate all the social sciences into an overarching theoretical framework. His early work"The Structure of Social Action"reviewed the output of his great predecessors, especially Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto, and Émile Durkheim, and attempted to derive from them a single "action theory" based on the assumptions that human action is voluntary, intentional, and symbolic. Later, he became intrigued with, and involved in, an astonishing range of fields: from medical sociology (where he developed the concept of the sick role to psychoanalysis-personally undergoing full training as a lay analyst) to anthropology, to small group dynamics to race relations and then economics and education.

    Parsons is also well known for his idea that every group or society tends to fulfill four "functional imperatives".

    • adaptation to the physical and social environment;
    • goal attainment, which is the need to define primary goals and enlist individuals to strive to attain these goals;
    • integration, the coordination of the society or group as a cohesive whole;
    • latency, maintaining the motivation of individuals to perform their roles according to social expectations.

    Parsons contributed to the field of social evolutionism and neoevolutionism. He divided evolution into four subprocesses:

    1. division, which creates functional subsystems from the main system;
    2. adaptation, where those systems evolve into more efficient versions;
    3. inclusion of elements previously excluded from the given systems; and
    4. generalization of values, increasing the legitimization of the ever-more complex system.

    Furthermore, Parsons explored these subprocesses within three stages of evolution: 1) primitive, 2) archaic and 3) modern (where archaic societies have the knowledge of writing, while modern have the knowledge of law). Parsons viewed the Western civilisation as the pinnacle of modern societies, and out of all western cultures he declared the United States as the most dynamically developed. For this, he was attacked as an ethnocentrist.Parsons' late work focused on a new theoretical synthesis around four functions common (he claimed) to all systems of action-from the behavioral to the cultural, and a set of symbolic media that enable communication across them. His attempt to structure the world of action according to a mere four concepts was too much for many American sociologists, who were at that time retreating from the grand pretensions of the 1960s to a more empirical, grounded approach.

    Pattern variables

    Parsons asserted that there were two dimensions to societies: instrumental and expressive. By this he meant that there are qualitative differences between kinds of social interaction. Essentially, he observed that people can have personalized and formally detached relationships based on the roles that they play. The characteristics that were associated with each kind of interaction he called the pattern variables.Some examples of expressive societies would include families, churches, clubs, crowds, and smaller social settings. Examples of instrumental societies would include bureaucracies, aggregates, and markets.
    1. Affectivity Vs affective neutrality : When actor is oriented towards maximum satisfaction from a given choice.
    2. Particularism Vs.Universalism: Situations are judged according to uniform criteria (universalism) and not according to actor or individuals relation with the given subject(particularism).
    3. Quality Vs Performance : Defining people on the basis of biological difference and performance is judging people according to their performance and capacity.
    4. Self orientation Vs Collective Orientation when the actor acts out of personal interest it is self orientation.

    Index

    1. Overview of Talcott Parsons and His Functionalist Theory
    2. Conceptual Foundation: Social Action and the Social System
    3. The Four Modes of Organization
    4. Motivational and Value Orientations
    5. Pattern Variables and Dilemmas
    6. Functional Imperatives and Cybernetic Hierarchy
    7. Criticism and Legacy

    Overview of Talcott Parsons and His Functionalist Theory

    Talcott Parsons, a prominent American sociologist, is widely recognized for his development of the Functionalist Theory, often referred to as the “Grand Theory” of social systems. Born in 1902 and passing in 1979, Parsons sought to create a comprehensive sociological framework that could explain the structure and functioning of all types of societies, ranging from simple to highly complex ones. His theoretical approach emerged from an integration of various intellectual traditions, including German idealism, French positivism, and British utilitarianism. Unlike his predecessors who focused on specific aspects of social action, Parsons aimed to construct a universal theoretical framework that could encompass all empirical human actions, departing from the more rigid interpretations of German idealism. This ambitious endeavor positioned him as a key figure in mid-20th-century sociology, emphasizing the interconnectedness of social actions within a broader social system.

    Conceptual Foundation: Social Action and the Social System

    At the core of Parsons’ theory is the concept of social action, which he believed forms the building block of the social system. He argued that social action does not occur in isolation but is influenced by a constellation of factors that he categorized into four key conditions: (1) goal orientation (the motivational aspect), (2) situation (the social aspect), (3) norms and values (the value aspect), and (4) energy and effect/motivation (the biological aspect). For instance, an individual going to a temple to oer prayers exemplifies goal-oriented social action driven by cultural and personal motivations. Parsons posited that these actions, when interrelated and patterned into a structured form of institutionalized social interest, constitute a social system. This system, according to him, is a dynamic entity that maintains stability through the interdependence of its components, a perspective that underscores his functionalist approach.

    The Four Modes of Organization

    Parsons further elaborated his theory by identifying four interconnected modes of organization within the social system, often summarized using the acronym “ODPSC” (Organismic, Personality, Social, and Cultural Systems):

    1. Organismic (Biological) System: This mode represents the biological foundation of social reality, serving as the storehouse of energy. It determines the physical needs of individuals, motivating them to either comply with or defy their roles within society. For example, biological imperatives like hunger might drive an individual to seek food, influencing their social behavior.

    2. Personality System: This internal aspect of society reflects the characteristic patterns of behavior, influence, and reaction that individuals exhibit. It acts as a reservoir of motivation, shaping how individuals respond to social expectations and personal inclinations.

    3. Social System: This mode encompasses the structured interactions and relationships among individuals, governed by roles and expectations. The social system is the primary focus of Parsons’ analysis, where roles—conceptualized as the basic units of organization—are defined by implicit reciprocity and a range of motivational and value orientations.

    4. Cultural System: Repeatedly emphasized in the document, the cultural system provides the normative and symbolic framework that guides social actions. It includes values, beliefs, and traditions that help maintain coherence and stability within the social system.

    These four systems are interlinked, with roles serving as the pivotal element. The performance of roles involves a complex interplay of motivational orientations (psychological aspects) and value orientations (cultural and normative aspects), often generating strain or tension due to conflicting choices or preferences.

    Motivational and Value Orientations

    Parsons delineated the range of motivational orientations that influence social action, which include:

    • Cognitive Orientation: Enables actors to perceive their environment or objects in relation to their needs, treating them as mental constructs. For example, choosing to visit a vegetable shop rather than a bookstore reflects this orientation.
    • Cathetic Orientation: Involves emotional attitudes toward objects, such as a preference for certain vegetables based on personal liking
    • Evaluative Orientation: Facilitates the organization of efforts to achieve goals efficiently, such as assessing the price and nutritional value of vegetables.

    Complementing these are the value orientations:

    • Cognitive Value Orientation (VO): Involves the validity of judgments based on social norms and institutions.
    • Appreciative VO: Allows actors to evaluate their emotional responses to objects, assessing their validity or significance.
    • Moral VO: Reflects an actor’s commitment to values, aligning personal actions with societal moral standards.

    These orientations collectively shape the performance of roles, which Parsons considered the most vital element of the social system, as they bridge individual motivations with societal expectations.

    Pattern Variables and Dilemmas

    Parsons introduced the concept of “pattern variables” to describe the dilemmas individuals face in role performance, which dene the nature of role interactions and societal development. These dilemmas include:

    1. Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality: The tension between seeking immediate gratification (e.g., emotional satisfaction) and delaying it for moral or societal interests.

    2. Self-Orientation vs. Collective Orientation: The conflict between adhering to personal morality versus institutionalized societal norms.

    3. Particularism vs. Universalism: The choice between following personal or kinship-based considerations versus universal legal standards.

    4. Ascription vs. Achievement: The dilemma of relying on ascribed status (e.g., based on birth or ethnicity) versus achieved status (based on personal merit)

    5. Diffuseness vs. Specificity: The decision to engage in generalized versus specific role relationships, such as the broad care provided by a family versus the targeted treatment by a doctor.

    These dilemmas highlight the strain individuals experience, which depends on how role expectations are institutionalized within society. Parsons argued that resolving these tensions contributes to the stability and evolution of the social system

    Functional Imperatives and Cybernetic Hierarchy

    Parsons outlined four functional imperatives essential for the survival of the social system:

    • Adaptation: Involves adjusting to the environment, often managed by the economic system.
    • Goal Attainment: Entails setting goals, motivating members, and mobilizing energy, a function primarily handled by the political system (e.g., the failure of the Tribal Subplan due to lack of mobilization).
    • Integration: Maintains coherence and solidarity through culture and values, preventing societal breakdowns.
    • Latency or Pattern Maintenance: Organizes and sustains motivational energy through institutions like family and religion, managing internal tensions

    He also proposed a “cybernetic hierarchy of control,” illustrating the interrelations among the four systems through the ow of energy (from the organismic to the cultural system) and information control (from the cultural to the organismic system). Social change, according to Parsons, occurs when disruptions in this ow lead to disequilibrium, which is restored through socialization (transmitting values via institutions like family and education) and social control (enforced by police and administration).

    Criticism and Legacy

    Despite its comprehensiveness, Parsons’ theory has faced significant criticism. Critics argue that he heavily borrowed from German idealism (Marx and Weber), positive functionalism (Spencer and Durkheim), and British utilitarianism, synthesizing them into a framework with low empirical testability and practical utility. His concepts are often deemed too abstract and complex, with limited real-world applicability. Neo-functionalists like Robert Merton criticized its lack of focus on conflict, while Marxists highlighted its neglect of class conflict and inequality. C. Wright Mills, for instance, introduced the concept of the “power elite” to challenge Parsons, citing decisions like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of elite-driven actions overlooked by his theory.

    Nevertheless, Parsons’ framework remains valuable for understanding social systems and addressing issues like economic problems, mobilization failures (e.g., equal inheritance rights not being implemented), and integration challenges (e.g., failures in education and religion). His idea of society as a “moving equilibrium,” where change occurs without breakdown (e.g., the destabilization from the Green Revolution), offers a nuanced perspective on social dynamics. Despite its limitations, Parsons’ work continues to provide a foundational lens for analyzing the complexities of social structures and their evolution.

    Reference

    Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1951.

    Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils (eds.). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951.

    © 2025 sociologyguide