Download Parsons' Theory of Social Systems: A Comprehensive Analysis and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
FUNCTIONALISM
TALCOTT PARSONS
Concept of Social System A social system has been defined by Mitchell (1979: 203) as 'consisting of a plurality of al actors interacting directly or indirectly with each other in a bounded situation. There may be physical or territorial boundaries but the main point of reference sociologically is that here individuals are oriented, in a wide sense, to a common focus or interrelated foci'. According to this definition such diverse sets of relationships as families, political parties, kinship groups and even whole societies can be regarded as social systems. Parsons' ideas on social systems and his theory of action or action approach are rooted in the thinking of his predecessors. In his monumental book The Structure of Social Action (1937) Parsons has reviewed the contributions of many social scientists, but gave special emphasis to Pareto, Durkheim, and Max Weber. In this work Parsons attempts to highlight the underlying unity in the contributions of most of these thinkers. By sorting out these unities. Parsons felt that his quest for a general theory of social system would be forwarded. In his opinion a notion of a theory of action was hidden or was present by implication in the works that he reviewed. In the case of Max Weber, however he found action theory clearly formulated. Let us now examine the early approaches to the study of the concept of social system. The Utilitarian, the Positivist, and the Idealist Points of View Utilitarianism is a school of thought, which believes in the fact that pleasure is better than pain. It is a philosophical outlook and is generally associated with the name of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). According to this outlook utility is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The proper goal of all human beings should be maximisation of utility. Bentham believed that good motives are good as far as they lead to harmony of interests of an individual with those of others. Thus, utilitarianism is a moral theory which has certain social implications. It holds that nothing is desired for its own sake pleasure that it provides. Since pleasure is the guiding force of this philosophy, the moral rules also are believed to be those which encourage behaviour, which can increase pleasure and reduce pain. Bentham applied this philosophy to the study of economics, administration, and law. The classical economists such as Adam Smith, Ricardo and few others subscribed to this view. Early English Sociology too, was influenced by this philosophy. One of the sociologists most influenced by this philosophy was Herbert Spencer. The term ‘positivism’ was first used by Auguste Comte (1798-1897). This term also has been used for the distinct doctrines of school of philosophers known as ‘logical positivists’. They believed in the central idea that the meaning of a statement lay in the method of its verification. Any statement, which could not be verified, therefore, becomes meaningless. Idealism is the school of thought, which believes that the mind plays a key role in the constitution of the world as it is experienced. In the history we can discern different forms and applications of idealism. Its most radical form has been rejected because it is equivalent to solipsism. Solipsism is the view that all reality is nothing but the activity of one’s own mind and that in reality nothing exists but one’s own self However, idealists usually recognise the existence of the external or natural world fully. They do not claim that it can be reduced to the mere process of thinking. They believe that the mind is active and capable of producing and sustaining modes of being that would not have existed otherwise, such as law, religion, art and mathematics. The eighteenth-century Irish philosopher George Berkeley is identified closely
with this philosophy. He believed that all aspects of everything of which we are conscious are actually reducible to the ideas present in the mind. For example, the idea of a chair or a cow already exists in our minds, therefore, we recognise the chair or the cow when we find it. Thus, the observer does not conjure the external objects (chair or cow) into existence. In fact, Berkeley held that the true ideas of the external objects are caused in the human mind directly by God. The eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant further refined idealism through his critical inquiry into the limits of possible knowledge. Kant believed that there is no way of knowing things in themselves, they can be known to us only in the way that they appear to us in experience. He held that the fundamental principles of all science are essentially grounded in the constitution of the mind rather than being derived from the external world. In Parson’s view a social theory is positivistic which holds the view that human action can adequately characterised without regard to the agent’s own standpoint. He considered utilitarianism as one of the good example of a positivistic theory Parsons divides earlier contributions into three broad schools of thought, viz., the utilitarian, the positivist, and the idealist. The utilitarians see social action in a highly individualist fashion. They emphasise utilitarian rational calculation but at the level of the individual. For this reason, they are unable to accommodate the fact that social life is collectively cohesive and not a random effect. The positivists on the other hand believe that social actors have complete knowledge of their social situation. This leaves no room for error on the part of actors or variation among actors. The idealist posit that social action is the realisation of the social spirit and the ideas such as, of a nation or a people, and consequently pay scant attention to real everyday impediments on the ground that obstruct the free realisation of ideas. The study of social systems and social reality were one-sided. The utilitarian approach treated social systems as products of rational impulses of human beings (individuals) to integrate their needs and urges as orderly systems. These systems are based on compatibility of interests through contractual mutuality. An example of contractual mutuality is the system of polity (government and state) which represents organised system of power. The market system, which is based on contractual relationships of economic interests, is yet another such example of an orderly system. But the orderly systems as analysed by utilitarian social scientists, according to Parsons, neglect the role of values. Similarly, in the idealist treatment of social system, democracy is seen simply as the fulfilment of the spirit of a nation. Idealism places too much emphasis on values and ideas and not enough on social practice. Weber too, in a way, belonged to this tradition for he argued that capitalism was aided in its early stages by the Protestant ethic. The difference between Weber and the outright idealists is that Weber never said that the Protestant ethic caused capitalism. But it must he admitted that Weber elaborated at length certain values such as those of ‘rational asceticism’ or ‘inner worldly asceticism’ but neglected the role of needs or search for utilities. According to Talcott Parsons both the idealist and the utilitarian notions of the social system assume certain characteristics in human impulses in an apriori manner. By apriori we mean that which is already given or assumed. One such characteristic is rationality in the regulation of needs in the utilitarian approach to the social system, and commitment to ultimate values and ideals in the idealist approach. The utilitarian approach does have the notion of individual actor in the system but only as an abstraction with certain endowed qualities (a prioristic in character). The idealist approach does the same, only prioristically assumed characteristics are different. The idealists assume that human beings act only to fulfil a grand mental design. The positivists go to the other extreme and insist that true human action is born out of full information of the situation. There is thus a finality and inflexibility in their scheme for there
in this context, refers to the forms and modes of interaction between individuals and its organisation. Mitchell gives the example of a social system as the authority structure of an organisation or the division of labour in a family. A social system, according to Parsons, has the following characteristics. i) It involves an interaction between two or more actors, and the interaction process is its main focus. ii) Interaction takes place in a situation, which implies other actors or alters. These alters are objects of emotion and value judgement and through them goals and means of action are achieved. iii) There exists in a social system collective goal orientation or common values and a consensus on expectations in normative and cognitive (intellectual) senses. To understand the concept of social system better, let us now examine the basic unit of organisation of the social system. Organisation of Social System The social system has a mode of organisation of action, which is called role. It is the basic conceptual unit of the social system and it incorporates the individual actor’s total system of action. It is also a point of intersection between the system of action of an individual actor and the social system. The primary element of role, according to Parsons is role-expectation. It implies reciprocity between the actor and his/her alter (the other persons), and is governed by a range of motivational and value orientations. As mentioned earlier, the motivational orientation refers to a situation in which action takes place taking into account needs or motives, external appearances and plans of the individual actors. Value orientation refers to the values, aesthetics, morality, etc. aspects of action. The organisation of unit acts into social systems therefore involves the motives and values, which link it to the personality system in the first case and to the cultural system in the second. The Motivational Orientation The range of motivational orientations are three. These are the cognitive, the cathectic and the evaluative orientations. i) The cognitive orientation makes actors see their environment or object in relation to their need dispositions as a mental object. They, i.e. the actors, attempt to understand the objectivity of the subject matter of observation. ii) The cathectic orientation involves emotional attitude of actors towards their object. iii) The evaluative orientation leads the actors to organise their effort in realisation of their object with optimum efficiency. The Value Orientation The range of value orientations also comprises three parts. These are the cognitive, the appreciative and the moral. i) The cognitive orientation is one, which relates to the issue of validity of judgement. ii) The appreciative orientation is that which makes it possible for actors to judge their emotional response to object, its appropriateness or consistency. iii) The moral orientation is one, which refers to value commitment of an actor towards his or her objects.
Thus, the motivational orientation involves only the motives or psychological aspects of the individual while the value orientation involves the cultural system. Both, the psychological and the cultural aspects of individual behaviour are, however, interlinked, and interdependent. The motivational orientations and value orientations are two levels of orientations, according to Parsons, that define the behavioural and cultural aspects of role and role expectations. The role expectations in a social system serve as patterns of evaluation. Every actor who performs a role has a dual capacity, because role implies interaction with other person or persons. It divides role into two kinds according to Parsons. The first is the orientation role where actor as ego (self) interacts with alter (the other person) as his or her object. The second is the object role where actor is the object of alter’s orientation. In a social system roles are institutionalised. Institutionalisation means that expectations from a specific role, its values and motivational orientations are integrated within the culture of a society. Society sets common standards for role expectations from its members, and when an actor imbibes these standards common to society in the orientations and performance of his/ her roles, the roles are said to have been institutionalised. In order that roles are performed in society in accordance with the standards prescribed by society or in line with the pattern of institutionalisation, each society imposes sanctions. These sanctions are rewards or punishments, as the case may be, if the role is performed in conformity to the standards or values of society or when it is violative of these values. Collectivity as a Social System Related to the concept of role is Parsons’ notion of collectivity as a social system. Collectivity can be identified only through the boundary of a social system that determines which members are included and which others are excluded from the membership of the collectivity. All collectivities have membership boundaries (such as, among others, those based on kinship, qualifications or skills or faith). By boundary we mean the limits to which a social system functions as a distinct identity. A kinship system, as an example of a social system has its members and their roles and statuses determined by the cultural pattern found in that society. The boundary of a collectivity varies from situation to situation. The collectivity is not merely a social aggregate of members such as a category. A category is defined through common attributes such as age, sex or education, etc. Collectivity is also not a plurality of individuals who are commonly interdependent with one another ecologically, that is, in a physical situation, such as in a market. Collectivity differs from the above two types of social aggregates because its plurality is characterised by solidarity of its members; as in a kinship group or in an association. This solidarity emerges from the institutionalisation of shared values such as, the value of cooperation among certain kins or sharing the beliefs and practices of a religion. Collectivities may have internal subdivisions as sub-collectivities where membership might overlap. Collectivities and sub-collectivities are forms of social system. Society, according to Parsons is a total social system which is self-subsistent or which maintains itself without being dependent on any other social system. The distinction between the social system and society is however relative and analytical. So far you have learnt about the conceptual unit of the social system called roles, the institutionalisation of roles, and collectivity as a social system. Pattern Variables
Parsons has rightly pointed out, institutionalisation of such values is always fragile. This is because the response to the situation by the actor is always in the form of a dilemma. Universalism versus Particularism Universalism versus particularism is a pattern variable which defines the role situation where the actor’s dilemma is between the cognitive versus the cathective (or emotional standards) evaluation. A very good example of roles adhering to universalistic standards of human behaviour are role performances which go strictly by legal norms and legal sanctions. It one abides by the rule of law irrespective of personal, kinship or friendship considerations, then that would be an example of the universalistic mode of role performance. If one violates legal norms only because the person involved is kin or a friend, then particularistic considerations would be said to be operating. Parsons says that in societies where the role of the bureaucracy of formal organisations and modern institutions have become widespread there the dilemmas of Universalism and particularism have become a matter of choice in everyday life. Ascription versus Achievement The actor’s dilemma in the ascription versus achievement pattern variable is based on whether or not the actor defines the objects of his or her role either in terms of quality or performance. In India a very good example of this pattern variable is the role performance governed by the caste system. In the caste system, the statuses of persons are determined not on the basis of their personal achievement or personal skills or knowledge but on the basis of their birth. Ascription is based on assigning certain quality to a person either by birth, or age, or sex or kinship or race. Achievement is based on personal acquisition of skills and levels of performance in society. Specificity versus Diffuseness The specificity versus diffuseness pattern variable concerns the scope of the object of role performance. Scope, in this case, is to be understood in terms of the nature of social interaction. Some social interactions, such as between doctors and patients or between buyers and sellers of goods in the market, have a very specific scope. The nature of these interactions is defined in terms of a very precise context of interaction. A doctor does not have to understand the social, financial or political background of his or her patients in order to treat them and to give them a prescription. Doctor’s task is very specific. So is the case of sellers of commodities in the market, who do not have to know the general details of the life of their customers. Such roles are specific in terms of the standards of response between actors. On the contrary, some role relationships are very general and encompassing in nature. Such roles involve several aspects of the object of interaction. Some examples of such role relationships are friendship, conjugal relationship between husband and wife, relationships between kin of various degrees. All these relationships are such where the actor does not interact with another in a relationship in a specific context as such, but in a diffused manner such as in case of two close friends. The scope of interaction is flexible, open and encompassing in nature. The pattern variables, according to Parsons, not only define the nature of role interaction and role expectations in social system but provide in addition, the overall direction in which most members of a social system choose their roles. It also gives us an idea about the nature of the social system. For instance, take the family as a social system: the role expectations within the family amongst its members can be said to be affective, largely collectivity oriented, particularistic, ascriptive and diffuse.
On the contrary, take the example of your membership in a medical association or bar association, or student association, here role expectations and standards of role performance would largely be oriented towards pattern variables of affective neutrality, self-orientation (due to competition), universalism, achievement and specificity. But these are extreme examples. In real life the dilemma of choices in terms of pattern variables are much more precarious and fuller of strain than we find in the examples we have mentioned. Functional Prerequisites Parsons thinks all systems such as the family, the economy or the polity have a boundary which they maintain in order to subsist. This self-maintenance of systems is possible because human actors as social beings are socialised in society and their motivational and value orientations accordingly are patterned. In order to maintain itself, social systems have to perform some indispensable adjustment between its internal organisation and outer environment. These adjustments are like the adjustment that the human body has to make with the outside environment through breathing, blood circulation and through the maintenance of a steady temperature within itself. Social systems, Parsons argues, also have a self-adjustive and self- maintaining quality. These adjustment processes which maintain the social system internally and through its boundary conditions are called functions. Functions are processes of system’s self-maintenance. There are certain functions without which a social system cannot subsist. These are called ‘functional prerequisites’ by Talcott Parsons. There are four such functional prerequisites. i) adaptation ii) goal attainment iii) integration iv) latency The scope of functioning of these functional prerequisites is further defined in terms of whether they deal with processes external or internal to the system. They are also defined in terms of the nature of interaction as such, whether it is consummatory or whether it is instrumental. Consummatory is where the emphasis is on achieving some desired end and instrumental is where the emphasis is on the acquisition and incorporation of means to achieve ends. Adaptation Adaptation as a functional prerequisite implies generation and acquisition of resources from outside the system, its external environment and to affect its distribution in the system. External environment in this case means land, water, etc. As an example, we can mention the economic system, which involves resource utilisation, production and distribution in the society. Adaptation is oriented to factors external to the system and it has an instrumental character. Goal-Attainment Goal-Attainment is that functional prerequisite which involves, firstly, the determination of goals, secondly, the motivating of members of the system to attain these goals, and thirdly, the mobilising of the members and of their energies for the achievement of these goals. Its processes are consummatory in character although it does involve external interaction. The organisation of the power and authority structure in a social system is an example of an institution where goal attainment is the primary thrust. The political processes are its examples. It needs to be remembered that goal attainment is related to the ideological and organisational set up of the social system. Integration
It is a type of structure of social system in whose roles those value orientations are dominant which encourage achievement based on legal rational methods among members of a society. It exemplifies modern industrial societies where the governing values are those of equality, democracy, freedom of enterprise, rational management and openness in social interactions. Divisions of society based on caste, ethnicity or other particularistic values do not go well with this social system. The nearest example of this type of structure of a social system, in Parsons’ opinion, would be the American society. The Universalistic-Ascription Pattern It is yet another type of configuration of roles which makes a kind of social system in which values of legal rationality are encouraged in performance of roles but the distribution of authority is not on the basis of equality or democracy. Modern principles of science and technology are employed in work and occupation, in industry and communication but the distribution of these takes place on ascriptive principles, such as membership to a particular ideological association, or party, or cult. Parsons believes that Nazi Germany is an example of one such society. German social structure during the Nazi regime manifested a peculiar combination of rational methods of organisation of roles in industries, management and productive institutions but discriminated between those who, according to them symbolised ideal qualities of German people such as white Nordic races, and those that did not, namely the Jews. There could be other examples drawn from other periods of social history as well. The Particularistic-Achievement Pattern This type of social structure, according to Parsons, is best seen in the classical Chinese society. This society was dominated by values of ‘familism’. By ‘familism’ we mean the notion of continuity with ancestors (ancestor worship), strong ties of kinship, but where the female line of descent was undermined in favour of the male. This led to an overall female subordination in that society. It was based on a configuration of roles in which occupation, authority, management, etc. were organised not on universalistic principles but on particularistic ones. Of all the particularistic principles in operation in traditional or classical Chinese society birth and kinship were emphasised the most. But at the same time, the society also emphasised achievement and a “code of propriety” in the conduct of roles which was equivalent to legal rationality (universalistic principle). All these features were contained in Confucianism which was the official ethic in classical China. The dominance of universalism along with the ascription principle can be seen in the recruitment of civil servants in China. Entrance into these services was based on competitive examinations, which only those candidates who conformed to the official ethic could take. The Particularistic-Ascription Pattern It refers to such types of social structures in which the roles are organised in terms of values, which are associated with kinship, birth and other ascriptive features. In social structures of this kind, achievement through individual effort is not encouraged. Work, in this type “is considered as a necessary evil just as morality is a necessary condition of minimum stability”, says Talcott Parsons. Overwhelming emphasis, in this kind of society, is placed on expressive or artistic orientations. Society is traditionalistic as there is no incentive to disturb tradition and a strong vested interest exists in favour of stability. In Parsons’ view the “Spanish Americans”
in the USA exemplify this type of social structure. But you could also debate whether traditional Indian caste society had features, which were particularistic-ascriptive, or not. Parsons Functionalism In Parsons’ view the stability of a social system is maintained not only through the rules and regulations that society imposed upon its members or through other measures of social control that state enforces upon its citizens but in a more enduring manner, by the internalisation of socially approved values, expected behaviour patterns and codes of social existence. This internalisation takes place in society through the process of socialisation of its members. Child learns from his/her environment in the family and neighbourhood both the expected and prohibited norms and values with respect to different social institutions and social roles. Later on as the person grows older, the school, the college and work-place make the person learn and imbibe other sets of social values and expected behaviour patterns. Recall from the past exercise Parsons’ concept of, the functional prerequisites of a social system. These functional prerequisites are adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency, which are all necessary responses, in Parsons’ view for the existence and survival of any social system. The institutions and processes, which serve to maintain the existence of the system, are functional for the system by Talcott Parsons. Functionalism represents the viewpoint that all social systems invariably possess the tendency to evolve and integrate such processes and institutions as elements (parts) of the system, which help in its own self-maintenance. Social systems are basically oriented to evolving such units as components of their form, be it in the shape of processes (such as, in Parsons’ understanding, adaptation, goal-attainment, integration and latency) or as social institutions, such as government, economy, schools, courts, etc. all of which serve to maintain the system as if on purpose. The term teleology refers to this purposiveness of institutions. Teleology is thus an essential characteristic of functionalism. It is based on an analogy with the organic system, for instance the human body. In the human body, processes such as respiration, blood circulation, maintenance of a constant temperature, etc., are intended to maintain the health of the body. As such these processes are Ideological or purposive in nature. Simply stated, teleology is any explanation, which is in terms of the final cause or purpose. For example, it would be teleological to argue that fruits and seeds exist so that animal and birds can eat them in order to live; or that the function of the long tail of monkeys is to help them jump easily from tree to tree. The vital functions of the human body have the purpose of maintaining the survival of the body, and if any foreign infection threatens the body, its internal system reacts to save it from such invasions and continues to do so until the threat has been neutralised. There is a self-regulatory role that such processes play in human body. It is called homeostasis. Functionalism implies that social systems bear resemblance to organic systems such as the human body. The processes and institutions in social systems and the human body possess self- regulatory mechanisms that keep them stable and save it from external threats. A stability of this sort is called homeostasis. But unlike the human body however, which has a universality for all species of human kind, the social systems are historical products. Parsons acknowledges the enormous variations in the forms and styles of social systems. This is ensured by the plasticity of human infant, which unlike other animal species does not grow up with a limited general trait of behaviour. The child learns different languages, conforms to different sets of cultural values and behaviour patterns of the group of society in which he/she is born. The child
within, need for changes in technology or the mere pressure of external factors on the system, such as changes in climate, ecology or pestilence, etc., force social systems to shed pre-existing vested interests and give way to accepting new modes of thinking; to new ideas, technology, patterns of work, division of labour, and so on. These contribute to disturbances in the older mode of equilibrium and to its replacement by a new equilibrium in the social system. Between these two points of time a long drawn process of adaptation takes place in social systems by which new ideas, new ways of doing things are made acceptable to people. Parsons calls this process, the process of institutionalisation. New roles, new types of organisations, new “cultural configurations” such as the development of science or of religious ideas, impinge, or put strain, upon existent modes of equilibrium in the social system. The impingement of the new upon the old elements of the social organisation generates strains and conflicts with established vested interests. Parsons does not place the responsibility for causing social strain on any one factor; there is no ‘prime mover’ as such in the making of social change. The fact of social strain, however, represents a point of social development at which the older balance of interaction systems, institutions and structures of the system (roles, statuses, occupations etc.) is destabilised and the tendency towards a new equilibrium begins. Factors Causing Strain Towards Change Parsons mentioned several factors, which contribute towards the building up of strain in social systems, which bring about the need to establish a new equilibrium. Some of these factors are i) Changes in the demographic character of population through migration, racial intermixture (intermarriages), as well as changes in the mortality and fertility rates of the population. All of these factors affect the nature of social configuration. ii) Changes in the physical environment, such as exhaustion of physical resources (soil, water, weather conditions etc.) may also contribute to strain and change in the social system. iii) Changes in population resulting from increased productivity of food and availability of resources for members within a social system. iv) Changes in technology and application of scientific knowledge for the advancement of society, and finally v) Development of new “cultural configuration” such as new religious ideas, or the integration of religious values with science and technology might also trigger changes in the social system. Parsons held the view that these factors are not exhaustive but merely illustrative in order to indicate that they do not act individually but in a state of “interdependent plurality”. Or, in other words many factors and some may have escaped mention above, act interdependently, to bring about changes within the social system. Cultural factors bring about changes within the social system through a continuous process of “ rationalisation ” and “ traditionalisation ” of values and beliefs. Parsons used the concept of “rationalisation” to mean, as it did for Weber, a process of progressive growth of rational, individualistic and innovative attitudes towards work, personal commitments and social institutions in general. It also includes an increase in legal and formal methods of allocation of responsibilities in place of custom or tradition or personal whims of people in authority such as the king, the priest or the potentate. But while the rationalisation process works there is also a tendency in social systems to render its values stable, and thus institutionalise them over a period of time. This gives birth to the rise of vested interests. These vested interests emphasise preservation of these values irrespective of changing situations. When this happens the rational
values tend to become traditionalised. Cultural values in society or in social systems continually undergo these processes of rationalisation and traditionalisation and again further rationalisation leading to traditionalisation, and so on in a cyclical process. Parsons illustrated the processes of social change within the social system by drawing examples from the family system. The family undergoes changes inherently through the life cycle of the persons who are its members. The processes of birth, maturation, adulthood, old age and death are internal to the family system, each giving rise to social consequences which call for change and new adjustment in family roles, occupation, authority, status, as well as values and beliefs of its members. The mechanism by which the child is socialised is crucial to this process of continuity and change in the family. It engrains values of the system in the personality of the child, but as the child grows older other values are imbibed from the larger systems of society. The new roles and expectations in adult life may not always harmonise with those of the child, and family system has thus an inbuilt process of both stability and change. Besides several criticisms of functionalism, its teleological nature is its logical criticism. As you know, teleology is the explanation for the existence of a process or institution or any object or idea in terms of the purpose it fulfils. Thus, according to this explanation the effect is treated as the cause. This is the principal objection to the functionalist theory. For example, according to this theory, religion exists in societies in order to uphold the moral order of societies. Here the effect of religion has been used to explain the cause, i.e, the moral order. Why is the teleological nature of functionalism its logical criticism? It is a logical criticism because how can an effect which comes later explain the cause which precedes the effect. It defies the laws of logic. It is like saying that A factor produces B, therefore, the occurrence of B must explain A. However, sociologists belonging to the functionalist school of thought, such as Durkheim were aware of these flaws in functionalism and made attempts to overcome them.
