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,
He believed that society is a social system and he argued that the central task of sociology is to analyse society as a system. This system has functionally interrelated variables. 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.