Social System and Pattern Variables by Talcott Parsons

Definition of a Social System

Before diving into the complexities of Parsons’ theory, it’s essential to understand what a social system is. Mitchell (1979: 203) defined a social system as ‘consisting of a plurality of actors interacting directly or indirectly with each other in a bounded situation.’ This means that various relationship sets, such as families, political parties, and kinship groups, can all be classified as social systems. They are oriented towards a common or interrelated focus, making them sociologically relevant.

Talcott Parsons and the Early Approaches

Parsons’ ideas on social systems, especially his theory of action or action approach, didn’t come out of the blue. He rooted his thinking in the contributions of his predecessors, notably Pareto, Durkheim, and Max Weber. In his book, The Structure of Social Action (1937), Parsons emphasized the underlying unity in these thinkers’ contributions. He believed that elements of a general theory of social systems existed within their works, with Max Weber having a more clearly formulated action theory.

Diverse Viewpoints: Utilitarianism, Positivism, and Idealism

To fully comprehend Parsons’ perspective, it’s crucial to understand the various schools of thought that influenced him:

Utilitarianism

This philosophy, associated with Jeremy Bentham, believes that pleasure is superior to pain. It emphasizes maximizing utility, or the greatest happiness for the majority. Classic economists like Adam Smith and Ricardo were proponents of this viewpoint. For utilitarians, social systems emerge from rational decisions made by individuals. However, this approach tends to overlook the role of values in shaping social systems.

Positivism

Originating from Auguste Comte, positivism holds that human action can be understood without considering the actor’s viewpoint. Positivists believe in the utmost importance of verifiable statements. They assume actors have complete knowledge of their situations, leaving no room for errors or variations.

Idealism

Rooted in the belief that the mind plays a vital role in shaping our perception of the world, idealism has various forms. Notably, philosophers like George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant have significantly influenced this school of thought. Idealists emphasize the realization of the social spirit and ideas, often overlooking the practical impediments.

Parsons critiqued these approaches for their exclusivity, advocating for a more inclusive perspective.

The Action Approach of Talcott Parsons

Contrary to the one-sided perspectives of utilitarianism, idealism, and positivism, Parsons proposed the ‘action approach’ to study social systems. He believed that both the idealist and utilitarian views were one-sided and assumed specific apriori characteristics in human impulses.

Utilitarians, for instance, focus primarily on an individual’s rational choice, often neglecting the collective aspect of decision-making. Idealists, on the other hand, emphasize values but tend to overlook the pressures exerted on these values by empirical reality. Positivists, believing in complete knowledge of the situation, discount the importance of values, errors, and variations in social action.

Parsons’ action approach aims to rectify these oversights by offering a more holistic understanding of social systems.

Understanding Parsons’ Action Approach to Social Systems

In the realm of sociology, various scholars have contributed to the development of theories and frameworks to comprehend the complex nature of social systems. One such prominent figure is Talcott Parsons, whose approach to the social system is integrative and comprehensive. Parsons emphasizes the significance of motivational factors and values in shaping social systems, and he formulates his approach through his theory of social action. This theory plays a central role in understanding the dynamics of social systems.

The Concept of Action

According to Parsons, action does not occur in isolation but rather exists within constellations that constitute systems. To define action, four essential conditions must be met:

1. Orientation Toward Goals: Action is oriented toward the attainment of specific ends, goals, or anticipated affairs. Individuals engage in action to achieve desired outcomes.
2. Situation: Action takes place within a given situation. The context in which action occurs is crucial and influences how individuals behave.
3. Norms and Values: Action is regulated by the norms and values of society. Social norms guide what is considered acceptable or desirable behavior.
4. Investment of Energy or Effort: Action involves an investment of energy, motivation, or effort. Individuals exert themselves physically, mentally, or emotionally when they engage in action.

Let’s illustrate this concept with an example: Imagine a lady driving her car to a temple to offer prayers. Her goal is to perform the religious ritual, and her situation consists of the road she is driving on and the car she is using. Social norms dictate that offering prayers is desirable. Furthermore, she applies her learned driving skills, which involve mental and physical effort. In this context, her behavior can be defined as action.

Motivational and Value Orientation

Parsons delves further into the concept of action by distinguishing between two key components of orientation: motivational and value orientation.

1. Motivational Orientation: This orientation considers action in the context of needs, external circumstances, and plans. It involves the motivations that drive individuals to act, whether due to personal desires or external influences.
2. Value Orientation: Value orientation, on the other hand, is rooted in considerations of societal values, aesthetics, morality, and cognitive processes. It involves the alignment of action with cultural and societal norms and values.

These two orientations are intertwined and collectively shape an individual’s behavior within a social system. The interplay between motivational and value orientations is fundamental in understanding how actions are performed and evaluated in society.

Systems of Action

Parsons emphasizes that action does not occur in isolation but within constellations of action, which, in turn, constitute larger systems. He identifies three modes of organization within a social system: the personality system, the cultural system, and the social system.

1. Personality System: The personality system encompasses aspects of an individual’s personality that affect their social functioning. It highlights how an individual’s traits and characteristics influence their interactions within a social context.
2. Cultural System: The cultural system consists of the beliefs, concrete systems of values, and symbolic means of communication within a society. It reflects the shared cultural norms and values that shape the behavior of individuals.
3. Social System: The social system refers to the forms and modes of interaction between individuals and the organization of these interactions. It encompasses the roles, relationships, and structures that define social life.

For example, a social system could manifest as the authority structure within an organization or the division of labor within a family. These systems of action are interconnected and collectively contribute to the functioning of a society.

Characteristics of a Social System

Parsons outlines several characteristics of a social system:

1. Interaction: A social system involves interactions between two or more actors, with the interaction process being the focal point of analysis. Interactions are the building blocks of social systems.
2. Situation: Interaction occurs within a specific situation that includes other actors or alters. These alters play roles in shaping the goals and means of action for the actors involved.
3. Collective Goal Orientation: In a social system, there is a collective goal orientation or common values shared among its members. This consensus encompasses normative and cognitive aspects, including expectations and intellectual beliefs.

Understanding these characteristics helps in grasping how social systems operate and how individuals within them navigate their roles and interactions.

The Basic Unit of Organization: Role

The concept of a role serves as the fundamental unit of organization within a social system, bridging the gap between individual actors and the larger social context.

1. Role-Expectation: At the core of a role is the concept of role-expectation. This implies a reciprocal relationship between the actor and their alter (the other person involved in the interaction). Role-expectations are governed by various motivational and value orientations.

Roles play a crucial role in defining how individuals function within a social system and interact with others.

Motivational and Value Orientations in Roles

Within the framework of roles, Parsons identifies three motivational orientations and three value orientations that collectively shape an individual’s behavior:

Motivational Orientations:

• Cognitive Orientation: This orientation involves how individuals perceive their environment and objects in relation to their needs. It pertains to the mental aspects of observation and understanding.
• Cathectic Orientation: The cathectic orientation encompasses the emotional attitudes of individuals toward the objects or situations they encounter.
• Evaluative Orientation: Evaluative orientation drives individuals to organize their efforts efficiently in the pursuit of their objectives, aiming for maximum satisfaction.

Value Orientations:

• Cognitive Orientation: This orientation relates to the validity of judgment, emphasizing the importance of making informed and rational decisions.
• Appreciative Orientation: Appreciative orientation allows individuals to assess the appropriateness and consistency of their emotional responses to objects or situations.
• Moral Orientation: Moral orientation reflects an individual’s commitment to certain values and ethical principles in their actions.

The interplay between these motivational and value orientations influences how individuals perform their roles and engage with the social system. Motives guide action, while values provide the cultural context and ethical framework within which actions are evaluated.

Institutionalization of Roles in a Social System

Roles within a social system are not arbitrary but are institutionalized, meaning that they are integrated into the culture and societal norms. This institutionalization involves the integration of role expectations, values, and motivational orientations within the broader cultural context of a society.

Society establishes common standards for role expectations, and individuals are expected to conform to these standards in their roles. To ensure compliance, societies employ sanctions, which can be either rewards or punishments. These sanctions reinforce the adherence to societal norms and values associated with specific roles.

The institutionalization of roles is a crucial mechanism for maintaining order and consistency within a social system. It ensures that individuals understand their roles, the expectations associated with them, and the consequences of their actions within those roles.

Collectivity as a Social System

Parsons introduces the concept of collectivity as a distinct form of a social system. A collectivity is defined by the boundaries that determine its membership, specifying who is included and who is excluded from its social identity. These boundaries can be based on various criteria, such as kinship, qualifications, skills, or faith.

Collectivities have unique characteristics that set them apart:

• Solidarity: Collectivities are characterized by the solidarity among their members. This solidarity arises from the institutionalization of shared values and beliefs. Members of a collectivity share common values, practices, and goals.
• Sub-Collectivities: Collectivities may have internal subdivisions known as sub-collectivities. These sub-groups can overlap in membership and have their own distinct roles and values.
• Boundary Variability: The boundaries of a collectivity are not fixed but can vary depending on the situation. Different situations may define the collectivity’s membership differently.

Collectivity differs from mere social aggregates or categories. It goes beyond common attributes like age or gender, as it is characterized by the shared values and beliefs that bind its members together. This sense of belonging and shared purpose distinguishes collectivities from other social formations.

Society as a Total Social System

Parsons defines society as a total social system, self-subsistent and self-maintaining. In this view, society functions independently and does not rely on any other social system for its existence. However, it’s important to note that the distinction between a social system and society is relative and analytical. Society can be seen as the largest and most complex form of a social system, encompassing multiple interconnected systems of action.

Understanding Parsons’ Pattern Variables in Social Systems

In the realm of social systems, the role of individuals is a fundamental component that influences the dynamics of society. Talcott Parsons, a renowned sociologist, introduced the concept of pattern variables to elucidate the variable properties of action systems. These variables aid in understanding the dilemmas and choices individuals face in their roles within society.

Affective Neutrality vs. Affectivity

One of the most significant pattern variables is the dichotomy between affective neutrality and affectivity. This pertains to the emotional involvement one should exhibit in a given situation. For instance, the mother-child relationship is predominantly affective, requiring emotional connection. Conversely, a doctor-patient relationship exemplifies affective neutrality, where emotional detachment is crucial for unbiased medical care.

Self-Orientation vs. Collectivity Orientation

The pattern variable of self-orientation versus collectivity orientation addresses the moral dilemma between personal gratification and the well-being of a larger community. This reflects the innate conflict between individual desires and collective responsibilities, a theme prevalent throughout human history, from primitive societies to modern civilizations.

Universalism vs. Particularism

The universalism versus particularism variable highlights the tension between objective, universal standards and personal, emotional judgments. Adherence to legal norms represents universalism, while allowing personal relationships to influence decisions signifies particularism. This dilemma is increasingly relevant in societies where bureaucracy and formal organizations play a significant role.

Ascription vs. Achievement

The ascription versus achievement variable delves into the basis upon which individuals are evaluated, whether it be inherent qualities or personal accomplishments. The caste system in India serves as an example of ascriptive evaluation, where social status is predetermined by birth rather than merit or ability.

Specificity vs. Diffuseness

Finally, the specificity versus diffuseness variable explores the scope of social interactions. Specific interactions, such as those between doctors and patients or buyers and sellers, are confined to precise contexts. Conversely, diffuse interactions, such as friendships or kinship relationships, encompass multiple aspects and are more flexible in nature.

Role Expectations and Social Systems

Parsons’ pattern variables not only clarify the nature of role interactions but also indicate the prevailing tendencies within a social system. For instance, a family system is likely characterized by affectivity, collectivity orientation, particularism, ascription, and diffuseness. In contrast, professional associations tend to exhibit affective neutrality, self-orientation, universalism, achievement, and specificity.

Understanding Talcott Parsons’ Functional Prerequisites in Social Systems

Talcott Parsons, a prominent figure in sociology, introduced the concept of functional prerequisites, which are essential for the survival and maintenance of any social system. According to Parsons, social systems, much like biological systems, need to adapt and maintain equilibrium to thrive. He identified four such functional prerequisites: adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and latency.

1. Adaptation: The Lifeline of Social Systems

Adaptation is the process through which a social system acquires resources from its external environment and distributes them internally. This functional prerequisite is primarily instrumental in nature, focusing on the acquisition and incorporation of means to achieve desired ends. For instance, the economic system is a clear example of adaptation, as it involves the utilization, production, and distribution of resources in society. It is primarily oriented toward factors external to the system and is instrumental in character.

2. Goal Attainment: The Direction of Social Systems

Goal attainment is concerned with setting objectives, motivating members to achieve these goals, and mobilizing resources and energies towards their achievement. This process has a consummatory character, emphasizing the achievement of desired ends. It involves external interaction and is deeply rooted in the ideological and organizational setup of the social system. Political processes and the organization of power and authority structures are quintessential examples of institutions where goal attainment is paramount.

3. Integration: The Glue of Social Systems

Integration is the functional prerequisite responsible for maintaining coherence, solidarity, and coordination within the system. This function is primarily performed by culture and values, ensuring continuity and safeguarding the system from breakdown or disruption. Integration is internal to the system and has a consummatory character. It is the cultural system, with its associated institutions and practices, that plays a pivotal role in integrating the social system.

4. Latency: The Undercurrent of Social Systems

Latency refers to the storage, organization, and maintenance of the motivational energy of elements within the social system. Its main functions are pattern maintenance and tension management. The process of socialization, which internalizes symbols, values, tastes, and habits specific to the social system in the personality of its members, performs this function. Unlike integration, which focuses on the coherence between different systems in society, latency is concerned with managing tensions internally within institutions. This functional prerequisite also bears an instrumental character.

Types of Social Systems According to Parsons

Talcott Parsons, a renowned sociologist, significantly advanced our understanding of social systems through his comprehensive analysis of societal structures. His seminal work, “The Social System” (1951), categorizes the structures of social systems into four primary types: the economic system, the family system, the political system, and the personality system. These systems are not just theoretical constructs but can be empirically observed and verified within societies.

Distinction Between Social System and Social Structure

Before delving into the types of social systems, it is crucial to understand Parsons’ differentiation between a social system and social structure. A social system is manifested through the principles governing roles and elements of social interaction. In contrast, social structure refers to the specific configuration of these roles in a given interaction situation. For instance, while the family is a social system, its social structure is evident in the empirical clustering of kinship roles.

Parsons identifies four types of structures of social systems based on value orientations, which are:

1. The Universalistic-Achievement Pattern

2. The Universalistic-Ascription Pattern

3. The Particularistic-Achievement Pattern

4. The Particularistic-Ascription Pattern

Each type presents a unique clustering of social structures, embodying distinct societal values and orientations.

1. The Universalistic-Achievement Pattern

This structure is prevalent in modern industrial societies where values such as equality, democracy, freedom of enterprise, rational management, and openness in social interactions are dominant. It encourages achievement based on legal-rational methods among society members. An example of this type of social structure, according to Parsons, is the American society.

2. The Universalistic-Ascription Pattern

This configuration is characterized by the encouragement of values of legal rationality in role performance. However, authority distribution is not based on equality or democracy. Modern principles of science and technology are employed, but distribution occurs on ascriptive principles, such as ideological association, party, or cult. Nazi Germany serves as an example, where rational organization coexisted with discriminatory ascriptive practices.

3. The Particularistic-Achievement Pattern

Classical Chinese society epitomizes this type of social structure. Dominated by values of ‘familism,’ it emphasizes strong kinship ties and ancestor worship, leading to overall female subordination. Despite the emphasis on particularistic principles like birth and kinship, the society also valued achievement and a “code of propriety” equivalent to legal rationality. Confucianism, with its blend of universalism and ascription, was a guiding ethic in this society.

4. The Particularistic-Ascription Pattern

Societies with such structures prioritize values associated with kinship, birth, and other ascriptive features. Individual effort and achievement are not emphasized. Work is seen as a necessary evil, and morality is merely a condition for minimum stability. Such societies are traditionalistic, with a strong vested interest in maintaining stability. The “Spanish Americans” in the USA are considered an example of this type of social structure by Parsons. However, one could also argue that traditional Indian caste society exhibited particularistic-ascriptive features.