Theory of social Action
The Structure of Social Action Parsons launched a most ambitious scheme to provide a “general theory of action”. This is the first major work of Parsons published in 1937. A general theory of action would provide a general framework of analysis which would include all the main social science discipline, such as psychology, economics and government, with sociology. Parsons’ analysis of action theory mainly based on prominent thinkers in three main intellectual traditions:
utilitarianism,
positivism, and
idealism.
Parsons believed that how conceptual orientations of these three tradition could be synthesised to form a more strengths and weaknesses of adequate conceptual base for subsequent Sociological theorising. In addition, Parsons tried to make an effort to abstract from the theories of four European writers-Marshall, Pareto, Durkheim, and Weber’s work and to give a single the poetical scheme. In this work, Parsons attempted to develop a “voluntaristic theory of social action” by way of a creative synthesis of Durkheim, Weber, and Parkton (The work of the British economic Marshall was also considered in detail but later was somehow largely dropped from consideration).
Parsons agreed with the utilitarian view of individuals age purposive and goal-oriented actors, and rejected what he conceived to be its atomistic and overly rational orientation and its attendant incapacity to account for the emergence of a social order regulating the goal-oriented activities of individual actors. Positivism was attacked for its reductionism-its propensity to explain individual behaviour in terms of physiological, psychochemical, genetic, geographical influences-and its consequent inability to account for the voluntaristic, choice-making, and goal-striving tendencies of social actors. In Parsons’ view, a social theory is positivistic which holds the view that human action can be adequately characterised without regard to the agent’s own standpoint. He considered utilitarianism as one of the good examples of a positivistic theory. In this context, Parsons stated:
The utilitarian branch of positivistic though has, by virtue of the structure of its theoretical system, been focused upon a given range of definite empirical insights and related theoretical problems. The central fact-a fact beyond all question-is that in certain aspectsand to certain degrees, under certain conditions, human action is rational. That is, men or adapt themselves to the conditions in which placed and adapt means to their ends in such a way as to they approach the most efficient manner of achieving these ends. And the relations of these means and conditions to the achievement of their ends are ‘known’ to be intrinsically verifiable by the methods of empirical science.
By ‘rational’ in this passage he appears to mean making the right rather than the wrong choice of means in order to attain an end. In this case, the opposite of rational would be irrational. For him, rational choice is essential to the voluntaristic theory of action in terms of making right and wrong choice. In this case the opposite of rational choice would be determined choice, or determinism. Another important tradition related to theory of action is the German idealistic tradition. This tradition was emphasis on the influence of cultural determinants such as ideas symbolic processes, while it was criticised for not giving satisfactory explanations for the complex interrelations between social structures and the world of ideas. “It is a fact that they manifest the subjective feelings, ides, motives, associated with their actions by means of linguistic symbols as well as in other ways. Thus, the utilitarian approach does have the notion of individual actor in the system but only endowed qualities.
The idealist approach beings act only to fulfil a grand mental design. The idealist talk of values and miss out the pressures exerted on values by empirical reality. Finally, the positivists emphasise complete knowledge of the situation and overtook the role of values, or of error or of as an abstraction with certain assumes that human variation. The concept of action, according to Parsons, is derived from behaviour of human beings Parsons was eager to differentiate action theory from behaviourism. In this sense, behaviour implied mechanical response to stimuli, whereas, action implied states that, “A theory which, like behaviourism, insists on treating human beings in terms which exclude his subjective aspect, is not theory of action.” The basic phenomenon in Parsons’s action theory is what he called the unit act. Parsons idenfied four general analytic components of the unitact.
Parsons identified four general analytic components of the unit act.A unit act implies
(a) an agent, an ‘actor’;
(b) an end
(c) a situation, which is turn contains two elements: means over which the actor has control, and conditions, over which he does not; and a normative orientation. Hence, an actor is able to exert
(d) anormative orientation .Hence,an actor is able to exert a degree of voluntaristic (free will) control over events.
When all these four factors of unit act are present, a behaviour becomes action. Therefore, action must be understood from the actor’s point of view because his or her knowledge of both means and choice of ends is essential.
The action theory has implications The first implication is that an act is alwaysa process in time and as well as complications. space. The category of time is basic; the category of space disappears.o T1he concept end always implies a future references, to a state which is either not yet in existence, and which would not come into existence if something were not done about it by the actor or, if already existent, would not remain unchanged. Second. in any action there exists the possibility of error; the actor may choose inappropriate combination with the concept of a normative orientation of action. The third implication is that an act is subjective. In the words of Parsons:
The frame of reference of the scheme is subjective in a particular sense. That is, it deals with phenomena, with things and events as they appear from the point of view of the actor whose action is being analysed and considered. Of course the phenomena of the “external world” play a major part in the influencing of action. But in so far as they can be utilised by this particular theoretical scheme, they must be reducible to terms which are subjective in this particular sense. This fact is of cardinal importance in understanding some of the peculiarities of the theoretical structure under consideration here.
Again he says: “While the social scientist is not concerned with the studying the content of his own mind, he is very much concerned with that of the minds of the persons whose action he studies.” “But Parsons never tries to explain howa social scientist can enter the minds of other person. Here, Bicrstedt makes comment as follows:
The human penchant for post factum rationalisation of the ends and means of action should give ample warning of the practical impossibility of the explaining a given unit act in terms of the means which the actor says he has employed for the attainment of ends he says he had in ‘mind’. What the actor says about his action is no better and is almost always less reliable than what the observer could have learned simply by watching the action.
Parsons in his analysis of the frame of reference and the notion of subjectivity, he made a distinction and a relationship between objectroe and subjective. By the word objective in this context, he means, “from the point of view of the scientific observer of action” and by subjective “from the point of view of the actor”. Parsons argues:
A still further consequences follows from t A categories of the thewy of actin Vadoy Paychologist stidies a human faing t o asnVAK distinguishable beparate unid in the world Te ut d nde which we are considering as fhe actor nt the ne or ‘self’ The principal importane of this iw tht e dy ‘ego the actor forms, for him, just as much part of the situatn d e as does the “external environment” Among he conditions to why his action is subject the most important of the means at his disposal are thorr relating to his own bely, while emng the’pee body and, of course, his ‘mind’, The analytical dioincton his own between actor and situation quite definitely cannet fe identded wit the distinction in the biological sciencus betwen organiem nd environment,
The fourth implication of the schema of action is the situation of action. Under the situation of action, Parsons analyses the physical and biological sciences. In this sense, he discussed about the units of physical and biological sciences such as atoms of iron, a small amount of carbon, etc. and their constituent electrons, protons and neutrons and so on and outlined the problems in the theory of action. As Parsons puts it,
…atoms, electrons or cells are not to be regarded as units for purposes of the theory of action. Unit analysis of any phenomenon beyond the point where it constitutes an integral means or condition of section leads over into terms of another theoretical scheme. For the purposes of the theory of action the smallest conceivable concrete unit is the unit act.
And hence the unit act and its elements-end, means, conditions and guiding norms, are relevant to the theory of action rather than the units of physical and biological sciences.
Further, a general theory of action, according to Parsons, may be employed ‘analytical’. On the concrete level, actual act and by its ‘element are meant the concrete entities that make it up.” In fact, the concrete end is anticipated as the total future state of affairs. The function of this concrete use of the action schema is primarily descriptive “A concrete actor is conceived as acting, in the pursuit of concrete ends, in a given concrete situation.” On the other hand, analytical level of the action schema is related to the actual capability to use and control by the actor in the pursuit of his end. “An end, then, in the analytical sense must be defined as the difference between the Alicia ted future state of affairs and that which it could have been PTdicted would ensue from the initial situation without the agency of the bettor having intervened.”
Lastly, a social system is a system wherein a plurality of individual actors, for the attainment of gratification, are engaged among themselves in the processes of social interactions within a system of cultural symbols bearing common meanings. To quote Parsons, “A social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the “optimization of gratification”, and whose relation to their situations including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.” It is thus, evident that a social system is only one part of the entire action system. The social system together with the personality system of the individual actors, and the cultural system completes the structure of a concrete system of social action. These three aspects of action system must be viewed as “an independent focus of organization.” They are inter-dependent and inter-penetrating. “Each is indispensable to the other two in the sense that without personalities and culture there would be no social system and so on around the roster of logical possibilities.
The Social System
‘Social System’ is one of the most important concepts of Parsons’ sociological thought. This theory of social system has been developed in Parsons famous work “The Social System (1952)”: According to Talcott Parsons, reduced to the simple possible terms, a social system consists in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect. Actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the “optimization of gratification’ and whose relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.”
According to Parsons, a social system emerges when “a plurality of individual actors interact with each other in a social situation (which has at least physical or environmental aspect) under a system of culturally structured and shared symbols motivated by a tendency of optimum gratification of there desires and wants. Thus, according to Parsons, a social system involves
(i) plurality of individual actors,
(ii) interactions between these actors, an aim or purpose of such
interactions, i.e.., a tendency of optimum
(iii) gratification of their desires and wants, or environ-mental
(iv) a social situation (which has at least a physical aspect) for these interactions to happen, and (v) a cultural relevance of the social relationships emerged as a result of such interactions. integrated pat- From this it follows that, in reality, a social system is an tern of social relationships emerging out of interactions in a social situation, defined and regulated by a particular cultural system for the fulfilment of human desires or wants. In the words of Parsons himself: “The social system is essentially a network of interactive relationships.” Parsons’ abovementioned five elements involved in a social system can be reduced to three by grouping together a few of them-(i) the individual actor, (ii) the interactive system, and (iii) a system of cultural patterning. According to Parsons, these are the functional prerequisites of social system. These three elements are inter-related and inter-dependent. In the absence of anyone of them, the concept of social system will be incomplete. This is. Says Parsons, because of two facts: First, a social system cannot be so structured as to be radically incompatible with the conditions of functioning of its component individual actors as Secondly, in turn the social system depends on the requisite minimum of “support” from each of the personality system and cultural system. A social system cannot emerge unless it has a sufficient proportion of its component actors adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role system prescribed by cultural system, positively in the fulfilment of expectations and negatively in abstention from too much disruptive, ie.. deviant behaviour. That is, he must do positive functions to contribute to the matinee nance of social system and avoid disruptive or deviant behaviour. All sociological theories of Talcott Parsons are somehow based upon his conception of social action. The overt form of social action is expressed as role or function. The role or function presents itself in various ways.
When the role is performed by an individual, then it comes under the category of personality system. On the other hand, when the role is being performed in the context of some cultural background, then it comes under the category of cultural system. And if a role is being performed in certain social context or background, then it is covered by the category of social system.
Meaning of System
Parsons has discussed the personality, the cultural and the social systems. In order to explain the meaning of the term system Parsons points out that each individual and society have certain nature or habit. It is generally believed that each individual should act according to his nature. we expect a certain kind of behaviour from an individual having a particular befit or nature. There is a norm or standard of behaviour in respect to each individual. Generally, the behaviour of a person conforms to this norm. If an individual acts against the expected behaviour and contrary to the norm of his behaviour, he is considered to be suffering from the disorder of his personality system. For example, if a celibate person indulges in lascivious and risqué acts, he is considered to be imbalanced because a celibate is out expected to indulge in sex. This fact applies not only to individuals bit is equally applicable to society and culture. From every society or culture a certain standard of behaviour is expected. If the behaviour is contrary to the norm or standard, anarchy ensues. Thus a system implies conformity standard of behaviour expected of an individual, society or culture.
Personality System
The personality system is concerned with the social actions of on individual. The social actions of an individual can be looked upon from two points of view, The first point of view is self regarding, that is he views his actions according to the nature of his own self. The second point of view evaluation of the actions of the individual from the viewpoint of others. The other persons have a definite idea about the nature of an individual and they expect from hima particular type of behaviour; they judge with reference to the norms of behaviour they have in mind albout him. Under these conditions an individual is prepared to make some sacrifices and also fulfl his desires. If the behaviour of an individual is in accordance with his own nature and the expectations of others, he is considered to have a vell-organised personality. If, on the other hand, the behaviour of anindividual is in conflict with his own basic nature or the expectation of others, he is considered to have a disorganized personality. A concrete illustration of this fact can he given. Let us suppose that there is a man who considers himself an altruist and is preparcd to help anyone who is in distress and other persons accept hin as a scuial worker and a sacrificer. Now, if there is flood in the area in which he lives, he is supposed to do everything to help others. If he actually behaves in this manner he has a well-organized personality; but, if on the other hand, he does nothing to help others or disorganized personality. According to Talcott Parsons each society expects a certain standard of behaviour from its members. Those individuals who conform to these standards in their behaviour are said to have well organized personalities and those who fail to live upto the standards of behaviour expected of them by society most of the societies individuals are therefore, those persons who are dishonest or lie habitually to have disorganized personalities.
Cultural System
When the individual system rises to the level of culture, it is known as cultural system. The individual and society gather cultural facts. The cultural system is represented by certain signs or symptoms. When any actionist done with reference to these cultural signs and symptoms, Parsons Geniuses it in the category of cultural system. For example, if certain social ceremonies are effect. Where the ceremonies or social formalities remain unchanged for a long time, there the cultural system is said to be well organized. On the contrary, if the culture of society does not affect the lives of the individuals, the cultural system is then ill-organized. Thus it is clear that a cultural is well organised as long as it actively influences the lives of the individuals.
Social System
A society is made up of individuals. A number of different types of fadividuals live in society. They may have a common culture or may belong ndifferent sels of culture. According to Parsons, if all individuals in a society belong to same culture, they form a social system. The various cultural signs or symptoms have the same meaning for all the members of that society. For example, in Hindu Society all individuals illuminate their homes by earthen lamps, candles etc., on a illumination is related to the story of Ram’s victorious return to Ayodhya then we can say that a social system obtains in the society. Besides commonness of culture it is necessary for a social system that the social actions of various members of a society should be well-coordinatod and should not so conflict as to destroy the social harmony. In advanced society certain institutions do the work of systematization of these social actions.
According to Parsons, a social system emerges when a plurality of individual actors interact with each ouher in a social situation (which has idea or environmental aspect) under a system of culhoraly struc physical and shared symbols motivated by a tendency of optinum graificarion of he desires and wants.
Thus, according to Parsons, a social system involves
(1) plurality of individual actors
(2) interactions between these actors,
(3) an aim or purpose of such interactions, ie a tendemcy of optimum gratification of their desires and wants
(4) a social situation (which has a least a physical or environ-mental aspect) for these interactions to happen, and (5) a cultural relevance of the social relationships emerged as a result of such interactions.
From this it follows that, in reality, a social system is an integrated pattern of social relationships emerging out of interactions in a social situation defined and regulated by a particular cultural system for the fulfilment of human desires or wants. In the words of Parsons himself: The social system is essentially a network of interactive relationships.
Parsons’ abovementioned five elements involved in a social system can be reduced to three by grouping together a few of them-0 the individual actor, (ii) the interactive system, and (ii) a system of cultural patterning. According to Parsons, these are the functional prerequisites of social system. These three elements are inter-related and inter-dependent. In the absence of anyone of them, the concept of social system will be incomplete. This is. Says Parsons, because of two facts :
First, a social system cannot be so structured as to be radically incompatible with the conditions of functioning of its component as individual actors
Secondly, in turn the social system depends on the requisite minimum of “support” from each of the personality system and cultural system. A social system cannot emerge unless it has a sufficient proportion of its component actors adequately motivated to act in accordance with the requirements of its role system prescribed by cultural system. Positively in the fulfilment of expectations rid negatively in abstention from too much disruptive. ie. Deviant behaviour. That is, he must do positive functions to contribute to the maintenance of social system and avoid disruptive or deviant behaviour.
in addition so four functional requirements, we find two more dichotomies, viz., external- internal and instrumental-consumatory dichotomy. The instrumental refers to activity which represents the means to a goal, while consumatory involves end in itself On the other, external-internal dichotomy depends on whether the action is oriented toward external or internal situation of a social system. For detail analysis, we begin the discussion with four functional requirement and its relation to various types of social institutions.
1 Adaptation
It involves the problem of securing from the eminonment sufficient facilities and then distributing these facilities throughout the system. moaibilise nooses to get things done. It must extract the necessary facilities for collective action from its environment. For instance, theme is the nered to extraci resources such as food, shelter, elc., from the physical environment. In the economic system, the primnary Sctions are resource utilisafion, production, and distribution in the society that people need to live their lives and carry out their social responsibilities. Adaptation, in fact, is oriented to factors extemal to the system and it has an instrumental character.
2 Goal-attainment
It refers to the problem of establishing priorities among system goals and mobilising system resources for their attainment. The function of goal-attainment is to maximise the capacity of the society to attain collective goals. The organisation of the power and authority, ie, institutions of government (Polity) has primary role to play in the achievement of collective goals. Goal-attainment has consummator is character and involves internal interaction achieving some desired end, ie, Any society, therefore, must be able to Adaptation and goal-attainments, therefore, refer to the first e of survival, the need for social units to relate to the hunt from which they draw facilities and into which they inject ‘outputs of that achievements.
-
Integration
It denotes the problem of coordinating and maintaining viable interrelationships among system units relation there are possibilities if strain and conflict, be ways of repeating relations amongst parts and preventing difficulties getting out of land In the social system this function is mainly performed by culture anl values Therefore, the community and cultural institutions, Much as organised religion, education and mass communication, serve the function of integration In this process, the mechanism of “social control” is also used The police and courts play promitent roles here 1His fuctional pretequisite is internal to the sysfem and has a consummator character.
-
Pattern Maintenance and Tension Manageinent (Latency )
Latency involves two problems: pattern maintenance and tension management. “Pattern maintenance pertains to the problem of how to insure that actors in the social system display the ‘appropriate characteristics (motives, needs, role playing skills, and so forth). Tension management concerns the problem of dealing with the internal tensions and strains of actors in the social system. Latency, in fact, tries to maintain the structural patterns of the institutionalised culture of the system, especially its basic values. The problems of latency process of socialisation of the members. Within family, children brought up in the culture and ways of the society (thereby providing pattern maintenance); and the relations of affection, companionship, joint participation members provide comfort, consolation and relief (thereby dealing with tension management). The functional prerequisite of latency bears an instrumental character within the system. Parsons’s analysis of “Functional Prerequisites” can be presented diagrammatically as follows:
Functional Prerequisites of a Social System
Instrumental Consummatory External
Adaptation
Goal Attainment
Economic system-resource Political system-state
Utilization, Production, major subsystem political Distribution etc. parties, bureaucracies
Major subsystem factory
System, banking system
Internal Latency Integration
Family, socialization Cultural and community
Major subsystem nuclear system-religion, Media
Family, marriage major subsystem-school,
Churches, ideology
In many societies, however, we do not find specialised social agencies such as courts , businesses, parliaments and so on. These type of societies are mainly characterised by kinship system and regulated by economic activity, political business, the socialization and of the young , religious ritiuals, control and punishment of offender. In this sense , the four functional requirements must be satisfied in such a society, but they are not met by specialised means.