Parsons concluded

Parsons’ later conception of system

The four-function paradigm

The generalized media

Contrast with Mills: Is power “zero-sum?

The mis-match between theory and researchThe kinds of processes and structures

that Parsons theorized usually involved reciprocal, systemic interactions.

They are hard to operationalize with the kinds of methods dominant in sociology

Parsons’ Development

Over nearly 50 years, Parsons’ theories underwent a cumulative development

We have seen that his work 1935-1951 stressed:1. Norms as the foundation of social action.

2. Interaction maintaining norms against anomie.

3. Modern values

4. Especially universalism and achievement orientations in the United States

The Four-function ParadigmThis work was consolidated in the four-

function ParadigmFrom 1950-1978, he argued that all

systems have to satisfy 4 essential functions,

which he represented as the “agile boxes:”

AGIL

Adaptation

A

Goal Attainment

G

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 theoryThe 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 AGILParsons 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: A2. Using resources with regard to the outside

was called Goal Attainment: G3. Using resources to maintain internal integrity

was called Integration: I4. Accumulating resources for maintaining

internal integrity was called Latency: L

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.

Power and the general social media

Parsons had been criticized for failing to deal with power and money.

In 1956 he coauthored (with Neil Smelser, president of the ASA in 1998) Economy and Society, which became the basis of his work for the last 20 years of his life.

This made the analogy between money, which is a kind of general commodity, and power, influence and value commitments, which he argued were also general media anchored in the other three sub systems of the society

General media

Adaptation

Money

Economy A

Goal Attainment

Power

G Political system

Families etc. L Value commitment Latency

I Law . Influence

Integration

Parsons review of MillsThe 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, zero-sum 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-zero-sum game.

Examples of zero sum gamesDividing 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 non-empirical.

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 not be changed.

The mis-match between theory and research in conflict theory.However, there is also a mis-match

between theory and research in conflict theory.

To demonstrate a concentration of power or a high level of inequality is relatively easy.

To analyze the dynamic of that inequality is harder.

The general contrast between functional and conflict dynamicsWe 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.

General contrast Functional theory Norms Negative feedback E.g.

Conflict theory Class and inequality Positive feedback E.g.

Violation of American Creed

Racial inequality

Racial inequality

Racism+ +

+-