| Article ID: | 54041 |
|---|
Parsons worked in the faculty of Harvard University from 1927 - 1973 . A central figure in Harvard's Department of Social Relations, 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:
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 (working extensively with Freed Bales), 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."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. Parsons' influence waned rapidly in the U.S. after 1970. His son Charles Parsons is a distinguished figure in philosophy of mathematics.
Perhaps the most noteworthy theoretical contributions from Parsons were the formulations of pattern variables , the AGIL Paradigm , and the Unit Act.
Parsons wrote President Dwight Eisenhower 's bon mot that freedom means the freedom to fail as well as to succeed.
Parsons had a seminal influence and early mentorship of Niklas Luhmann , pre-eminent German sociologist, originator of systems theory.
Parsons used the word "gloss" to describe how ones mind constructs reality. As Carlos Castaneda explained, "A gloss is a total system of perception and language.... But we had to be taught to put the world together in this way. A child reconnoiters the world with few preconceptions until he is taught to see things in a way that corresponds to the descriptions everybody agrees on. The world is an agreement." It is this sort of consensus reality that many disciplines, Zen for example, strive to overcome. Studies have shown that our brains "filter" the data coming from our senses. This "filtering" is largely unconsciously created and determined by biology, cultural constructs including language, personal experience, belief systems, etcetera. And different cultures create different glosses, all called reality. Failure to recognize 'glossing', then, may explain what happens when cultures collide.
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.