Parsons view On Social Stratification -

Parsons view On Social Stratification

Functionalist theories of stratification must be viewed and judged in the perspective of functionalist theories of society. When the functionalists attempt to explain the system of social stratification, they prepare a framework of larger theories which seek to explain the operation of society as a whole. They assume that functional pre-requisites must be met for the survival of society And, therefore, it is necessary to see how far social stratification meets these needs functional pre-requisites. It is assumed that parts of the integrated whole and it is necessary to examine the ways in society form an which the social stratification system is integrated with other parts of the society. Order and stability is essential for the operation of the social systems, and such order and stability ion of social stratification is viewed the functionalists as contributing to the are maintained by system of stratification. Fun maintenance and well-being of society.

Talcott Parsons believes that order, stability and co-operation in society are based on value consensus. Existence of values determine how individuals will be evaluated, and, therefore, placed in the form of rank order. In Parsons words, “Stratification, in its valuation aspect, then, is the ranking of units in a social system in accordance with the common value system.” Those, who successfully perform in terms of social values will be ranked highly and rewarded accordingly. They will be accorded high prestige as they exemplify and personify position vary from one end value systems. Parsons argues that American society values individual achievement and efficiency and “puts primary emphasis on productive activity in the economy.”

Parsons contends that stratification is an inevitable part of human societies. Value consensus is an essential component of such human societies, and stratification results from ranking of individuals in terms of common values. Parsons further argues that stratification systems are just right and proper, since they are conflict between the haves and the have-nots, the highly rewarded and those who receive less reward, is kept in check by the common value system which justifies the unequal distribution of rewards.

Functionalists see social groups in society inter-dependence. In complex industrial societies different groups specialize in particular activities. One group not being self-sufficient and unable to meet the needs of others exchange goods and services with other groups. This reciprocal relationship between social groups extends to the strata in a stratification system. Highly specialized division of labour in societies inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and prestige. He refers, “Organization on an ever-increasing scale is a fundamental feature of such a system. Such organization naturally involves centralization and differentiation of leadership and authority; so that those who take responsibility for co-ordinating the actions of many others must have a different status in important respects from those who are essentially in the role of carrying out specifications laid down by others.” Thus those with the power to organize and co-ordinate the activities of others will have a higher social status.

Parsons argues that inequalities of power are based on shared values. Power being the legitimate authority, is necessary for pursuing collective goals deriving from central values of society. Power is used for serving the interests of society.

Social stratification, according to Parsons, is both inevitable and fictional for society. It is inevitable because it derives from shared values, a part of social systems. It is functional because it integrates various groups in societies. Without social inequality, it is difficult for the members to co-operate with each other and work together. Inequalities of power and prestige are beneficial to members who serve for further collective goals based on share values.

Parsons have been strongly criticized on all these points. Other sociologists have seen stratification as a divisive rather than integrative force. By Such arrangement some gain at the expense of others. The other sociologists questioned that stratification system derive ultimately from shared values.

Parsons Evolutionary Model

Parsons has interested in utilising the action scheme and social change to analyse “social evolution” in different stages of historical period from simple to complex forms of society. Parsons’ idea on social change fully analysed in his work Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. In evolutionary approach, he tries to make possible linkages between biological and societal evolution. Some of evolutionary concepts such as variation, selection, adaptation, differentiation and integration are central to his evolutionary theory and socio-cultural evolution, like organic evolution, is conceived of as a movement from the simple to the complex forms of society. He argues that social evolution takes place due to changes in adaptation pattern. As Haralambos puts it, “the history of human society from the simple hunting and gathering band to the complex nation-state represents an increase in the “general adaptive capacity” of society”.

The “intellectual roots” of Parsons’ evolutionary model goes on to discuss Comte’s model of society: theological, metaphysical and scientific or positivist, Spencer’s evolution theory of progress from simple to complex forms of society, Durkheim’s model of mechanical and organic solidarity, Toennies’ model of gemeinschaft and gesells chaft and Marxian model of evolution of society from tribal society to communist utopia. Parsons’s evolutionary model, thus, marks a revival of interest in the evolutionary development of human society.

Parsons proposes different elements involved in the process of evolution on the basis of Spencer’s and Durkheim’s understanding of societal development. These are:

Increasing differentiation of system units into patterns of functional interdependence;
Establishment of new principles and mechanisms of integration in differentiating systems; and
Increasing survival capacity of differentiated systems in relation to the environment.

From the perspective of action theory, evolution therefore involves:

(a) increasing differentiation of the personality, social, cultural, and organism systems from one another.

(b) increasing differentiation within each of these four action subsystem;

(d) the upgrading of the survival capacity of each action subsystem, as well as of the overall action system, to its environment.

In the discussion and elaboration of basic model of evolution, Parsons identifies a number of evolutionary ‘universals’. He defines evolutionary ‘universal’ as sufficiently important to further evolution that, rather than emerging only once, it is likely to be “hit upon” by various systems operating under different conditions.”102 Parsons described “six major evolutionary universals: social stratification, cultural legitimating, bureaucratic organisation, money economy and market, generalised universalistic norms, and democratic associations. This evolutionary sequence starts from and is made possible by greater differentiation; and as societies develop and acquire these structure they become still further differentiated.”

Parsons’ evolutionary model incorporates both structures and processes. The structures (patterned and stable relationships) are mainly the six evolutionary universals, while processes (evolutionary changes taking place in the system) are differentiation, adaptive upgrading, inclusion, and value generalisation.

In evolutionary approach, Parsons maintained that four processes of social change refers to the increasing complexity of social organisation. The second evolutionary process, adaptive upgrading, whereby social institutions become more the idea of control or dominance of the environment. The third “any organisational

development are inevitable. The first, differentiation, specialised in their purposes. It involves process identified by Parsons is the inclusion. 0n Society must recognise that groups which have been previously excluded by virtue of such factors as gender, race, and social class background, capable of contributing to the functioning of the system.

finally, Parsons contends that societies experience value Halation, the development of new values that tolerate and MultiMate a greater range of activities. In this context, Wallace points out, “higher levels of differentiation, adaptive upgrading, and inclusion cannot coexist with a parochial value system that is shared by only a portion of the members of the social system “All four Rans dentition by Larsson stress consensus, that is, societal agreement on the nature of social organisation and values.

Figure: Parsons’ Evolutionary Model Applied to Processes in the United States

Adaptive upgrading

Inclusion

Differentiation

Process

Example A change from medicine man to physician nurse pharmacist, and so forth. The division of labour among physicians into obstetricians, intermits, surgeons, and so forth A change from Protestantism to civil religion.

The above figure shows an processes (the direction of all evolutionary processes is from differentiation to adaptive upgrading to inclusion to value generalisation) has occurred in American Society. A change from medicine man” to physician, nurse, pharmacist and so forth is an illustration of differentiation in the field of medical science; the division of labour among physician into obstetrician, intermits, surgeon, and so forth illustrates adaptive upgrading in the field of health; a change in medical school enrolments from discriminating on the basis of sex, and race to opening their doors to Women and Blacks illustrates inclusion; and finally, a shift from a predominantly Protestant value system to American civil religion in the religious example of how each of these example of value generalisation.

Parsons then outlines the pattern of evolution in different historical stages through the primitive, the intermediate, and the modern. “The intermediate differs from the primitive by the criterion of literacy; the modern, from the intermediate by the criterion of law. Each of the three stages has subdivisions or sublevels.” Is Parsons distinguished primitive (aboriginal Australia) from ‘advanced’ primitive societies (African Kingdom). The intermediate stage is divided into the archaic and the advance, or historic, intermediate societies. The Indian subcontinent, China, South cast Asia, the New World Societies of the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas, ancient Egypt, and the Mesopotamian empires of the example of archaic societies. On the other hand, China and India (at different periods), the Islamic and the Roman Empire the examples of advanced intermediate societies.

The third stage in the process of evolution of societies, according to Parsons, is that of the modern social system. These types of societies evolved from the base of western Christendom or the intermediate stage of evolution (which could also be called the pre-industrial stage of societies) through the development of a number of social institutions. In fact, due to greater adaptive capacity, western societies have succeeded in this process while others have failed. The United States are said to be “the new lead society” the “leader of the modern system”.

Parsons’ analysis of evolution of societies can be seen diagrammatically as follows:

Evolution of Societies

Primitive Societies Intermediate Societies Modern Societies

Primitive Advanced Archaic Advanced New Lead

Societies Primitive Societies Societies Society

(Aboriginal) societies (India, China, (China, India (USA)

Australia (African Southeast Islamic and

Kingdom) Asia, New Roman Empire)

World Societies)

In connection to evolutionary approach of Parsons, Bierstadt made some observation. First, Parsons’s theoretical apparatus overwhelms his evolutionary account of the transitions from primitive via intermediate to modern societies. A second observation concerns the evolutionary theory itself. Despite of his awareness about socio-cultural evolution is not linear, he insists upon this point.’!

Parsons, as a matter of fact, was Durkheim’s analysis of societal progress from undifferentiated struckares of primitive societies (characterised by mechanical solidarity) to structural differentiation in modern societies (characterised by organic solidarity) throughout of his work. Both Durkheim and Parsons are very much interested to deal with the adjustment in the system rather than conflict, and this tendency leads them to establish evolutionary model of society. However, nco-Parsonianism, neo-Marxism and neo-Functionalism have criticised Parsonian theoretical orientation and try to establish new theoretical perspectives so that Parsons’s analysis would be given a new.

Parsons’ view on Social Structures

Parsons has focussed his attention to the value-orientation side of the problems of classification a type of social structure. Each of a series of value orientation pattern seems to have a dominant value-pattern of a society. He intends to inquire what principal additional adaptive structures are found in the other sectors of the society, and the ranges in which they fall in order to meet the imperatives of compatibility. In the perspective of pattern variable scheme in the theory of social action four fundamental value-orienta tion type of social values are to be considered. Two pattern variables of ascription-achievement and universalism-particularism are to be defined respectively. Parsons views that any such approach serves to accent lines of fundamental structural differentiation which are in some sense of “evolutionary” significance.

Parsons has stated four principal types of social structure-

(I) Universalistic-achievement Pattern,

(2) Universalistic-ascription Pattern,

(3) Particularistic-achievement Pattern, and

(4) Particularistic-ascription Pattern.

Such division of social structure is based on four social values-

(1) universalistic social values,

(2) particularistic social values,

(3 )achieved social values, and

(4) ascribed social values.

Universalistic values are those values which are widespread in all societies and are applicable to all the members of the societies. Particularistic social values are those social values which are based on particular social relations. In connection with the above, four principal types of social structure are briefly described below:

The Universalistic-Achievement Pattern:

This is the combination of value-patterns displaying the most drastic anti-thesis the values of social structure built predominantly about the relationally accretive solidarities of kinship, community, ethnicity. and class. Universalism considers two major types of application. Firstly. it favours status determination like allocation of facilities and rewards. personnel and role-determination based on generalized rules relating to classificatory qualities and performance. Secondly, on the cultural level it favours a cognitive interest.

Combination with achievement values places the accent on the valuation of goal achievement and of instrumental actions leading towards goal achievement. The choice of goals must have accord with the universalistic values. The choice of collectively is valued for achievement of intrinsically valued goals, the basis of individualistic trend in value system.

Achievement element has an impact on goal selection and by such selection there is a sort of pressure to achievement. Such achievement-orientation being a fundamental value pattern is endemic and an actual aspect in action system and is not instrumental to other values, implies that the choice of goals should embody this value; the choice of goals and not merely attainment of goals derived from other value considerations is regarded as expressive of actor’s achievement values. This eliminates traditionalism as a criterion of goal selection.

Parsons further opines that pluralism of goals with unity in direction is more congenial to the universalism-achievement complex and integration with inherently dynamic cultural patterns.

Valuation of pluralistic and/or individual stick system of goal-achievement through instrumental actions prevalent in a value-orientation pattern leads to valuation of activities segregated from relational solidarities, and such a social system rests in a differentiated instrumental complex. Achievement interests and cognitive, combined together, will mean a dynamic developing system.

The place occupied by the effective-expressive orientations constitute a major adaptive problem in the social structure. In the value-orientation terms tendency for society is to be individualistic rather than collectivistic. It seems to be associated with the connection between universalism, achievement and specificity. Segregation from the fusions involving diffuseness of generalized status ascriptions or effective attachments seems to be essential to the mobility of personnel facilities, allocation of rewards by achievements.

Talking something about directions of variation of the universalistic achievement type, it is possible for the achievement goals to be non-empirical which give rise to direct empirical implications taken as the immediate goals the effect is displacement of the whole emphasis away from occupational achievement complex profoundly altering the societal character. Activities oriented to primary achievements must not be rational-instrumental but should assume a symbolic-ritual character. This possibility has been realized in Catholic Christianity propagating the concept of realization of non-empirical goals throwing main emphasis away from secular instrumental compels and putting a premium on its stabilization through traditionalism/or authoritarianism. For instance Latin American countries with their Catholic background inspire of their religious transcendentalism have leaned in a “hedonistic” direction.

The Universalistic-Ascription Pattern:

The universalistic element has the same order of consequences here as in the above case. The emphasis becomes classificatory. and the secondary achievement orientation indicates that an ideal state of affairs to which action is oriented may not exist. Achievements are instrumentally valued. Universalistic quality of the definition of ideal state indicates a strong tendency to dualism, to drawing a sharp distinction between conformity with and deviation from the ideal.

Such dualism appears in two distinct ways. Firstly, there is dualism of attitude towards particular persons, collectivises, etc. Secondly, there is dualism of Locus of application of the value pattern. On the one hand, the existing institutional structure may embody the ideal values, and on the other an ideal pattern may be set against the existing pattern-an ideal state set against the corrupt present. Dualistic tendency is paradoxical since same type of value pattern may be involved in extreme conservatism and extreme radicalism.

Universalistic element implies the same emphasis on the sphere of occupation and organization and its independence of kinship or narrowly defined community. First, the strong emphasis phases on status rather than on differentiation of roles where achievements are of importance and universalistic criteria apply to them works out to a status-hierarchy. classificatory qualities becomes an unspecific achievements. Inevitable, elaborate on

Secondly, absence of valuation of the particularization of achievements renders a strong tendency towards collectivism. An ideal state is one as enjoyed by the society as collectively, or to be achieved by it. It is easy to make transition from ideal state achieved to the ascription of the ideal qualities to the collectively

Thirdly, there is a tendency towards authoritarianism, the clear concept of which is ideal for all and makes it natural for those with roles enjoining collective responsibility to see that everyone lives upto the ideal and making the contribution to collective achievement.

The difference between achievement- universalism and ascription universalism is that the former is individualistic and the latter is collectivistic. And such types are very much relevant in fuller analysis of the factors underlying the application of these terms.

The Particularistic Achievement Pattern:

This type, a combination of achievement values and particulars, implies familiar implications of achievement-orientation. Here, the valuation of social objects is the main focus.

The shift from universalism to particularise precludes the primary criteria of valued achievements to be found in universalistic terms, i.., efficiency conformity with a generalized ideal. Parsons asserts, that “They must, on the contrary, be focussed on certain points of reference within the relational system itself, or inherent in the situation in which it is placed. It may be presumed that, as defining role-expectations, these are in the first instance the relational bases for the categorization of objects, namely, biological relatedness, territorial and temporal location. There are, then, certain “secondary” points of reference in the structure of social relationships themselves, notably membership in solitary collectivises as such and relations of superiority- inferiority.”

The element of achievement combined with these particularistic emphasis precludes the orientation towards them to be predominantly passive. Emphasis the product of human achievement, the maintenance of which is possible by continuous effort.

Instrumental orientations must be kept under control because their individualistic trends could readily destroy central collective solidarities. It channels achievements in collective directions. Strong inhibition on instrumentalism has the consequence that a certain primary of symbolic actions develops a “code of

propriety”, more ritual than instrumental.

Thus, the particularistic achievement type of society has a collectivism in common: particularise inhibits the individualistic implications of achievement- orientation. This type tends to be traditionalistic as its particularise precedes the placing of primary achievement goals beyond the given relational system.

The Particularistic-Ascriptive Pattern:

Combination of particularisim with ascription is the definition of a dominant social value-orientation pattern. Despite certain similarities in this type there are certain important differences. Because of its particularism it share the tendency for the organization of the social structure crystallizing about he relational reference points. Because of the accretive emphasis these are pas sively “adapted to” an in a preference for minimum differentiation beyond what was essentially given in the human situation.

Such societies tend to be individualistic. Individualism is primarily concerned with expressive interests. Susceptibility to “dictatorships” is not uncommon in such society.

Conclusion

Talcott Parsons was born in 1902 because of his serious expressions of the sociological concepts, has acquired a very important place among the contemporary sociologists. He is considered to be the most outstanding American Sociologist who has left a lasting mark on the orgies, methods, perspectives, approaches, and concepts of sociology. He has published, in addition to his many thematic books, six or seven volume of essays in which he deals a wide range of topics, from Christianity to psychoanalysis. Parsons considered sociology as a scientific discipline. He established a general and universal approach to theory in sociology. His conceptual schemes are more abstract and relatively free from the limitations of space and time.

Parsons has adopted functional approach to sociology. He deals his functional approach in terms of functional prerequisite such as adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency. In addition, Parsons gives more understanding of social action. He formulated pattern variables for theoretical analysis on the basis of logical method of classification of concepts. He considers a general and universally applicable theory possible in sociology which can be applied to any society at any period of time. This involves in the understanding and analysis of the theory of social system. However, in the analysis of social change, he specially discusses about the evolutionary universals which take place in various evolutionary stages of history.

Parsons discovers general theory of action with vast ranging of systems from the study of personality systems to the examination of social systems and the explanation of cultural systems. This, indeed, covers the total gamut of social reality. In the analysis of social change, Parsons makes a distinction between changes in systems and changes of systems. Parsons, in fact, is not free from criticisms. The first of these criticisms is that Parsons’ system is essentially static. The actor never acts, never moves, never approaches seeks. Lewis Fewer says, “Action in the Personal system has ardency to be translated into action”.” Parsons works more to represent static rather than dynamics, systems in equilibrium rather than system in conflict. Bl.ack and others have also noticed the conspicuous absence of causal propositions pattern variables, his system-problem, and all of his quadrilateral figures and tables are classifications only and have nothing, to do with causal inquiry.” Another criticism is that he pays no attention to strain, conflict, and change. Parsons is concerned with order and stability only. In his sense, Parsons seems to be insensitive to the social and political issues of the society. Tom Bottom ore raises a number of issues on Personal analysis including criticism. Bottom ore makes criticism on that his theory is limited to the construction of conceptual schemes and does not take care of empirical generalisation. Secondly, Parsons has not thought it necessary to include in his conception of theory and discussion of the logic or methodology of sociological inquiry. Despite his different criticism,

Parsons had always been considered leading figure in sociology in general and in American sociology in particular. However, Parsons provides field of sociological concepts, theories and methods. Later, Personal functionalism was criticised by sociology, i.e., neo-functionalism, in the decades of 1980s by noted contemporary sociologist Jeffrey Alexander. Alexander recognised Parsons views on functionalism but also tried to make some corrections to maintain the utility of functional approach