Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Collection-Of-Essays-In-Honour-Of-Tal

1. Draftextracts
ChrisHart,UniversityofChester.
Fulltextavailablefrom,
http://www.lulu.com/author/content_revise.php?fCID=817567
0
A Collection of Essays in Honour of
Talcott Parsons

2. OtherbooksbyChristopherHart
Englishness:Diversity,Differences&Identity
LiteratureReviewing:ReleasingtheSocialScienceImagination
DoingALiteratureSearch:AComprehensiveGuidefortheSocialSciences
DoingYourMastersDissertation
TheLegacyoftheChicagoSchoolofSociology
1984:AnalysisofTheMacIntoshAdvertisingCampaign
HeroinesandHeroes: Symbolism,Embodiment,NarrativesandIdentity

3. A Collection of Essays in Honour of
Talcott Parsons
Edited by CHRISTOPHER HART
MidrashPublications

4. Collection of Essays in Honour of
Talcott Parsons
©2009 Preface, Introduction and editorial arrangements
Dr Christopher Hart, University of Chester, England.
©2009 Professor Matteo Bortolini, University of Padua, Italy.
©2009 Dr Daniel Chernilo, Departamento de Ciencias Sociales
Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chille.
©2009 Professor Uta Gerhardt, Heidelberg, Germany.
©2009 Professor R.E. Hilbert, University of Oklahoma and Dr Charles
Wright, Oklahoma City University, USA.
©2009 Dr Jennifer Harris Kraly, Case Western Reserve University,
USA.
©2009 Professor Victor Lidz, Drexel University College of Medicine,
USA.
©2009 Professor David R. Schwandt, The George Washington
University, USA.
©2009 Professor Helmut Staubmann, Department of Sociology
University of Innsbruck, Austria.
©2009 Yuri Contreras Véjar, New School for Social Research, New
York, USA.
©2009 Professor A. Javier Treviño, Department of Sociology
Wheaton College, USA.
©2009 Dr Jan Balon, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
First published in 2009.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced.
Midrash Publications
100 Towers Road
Poynton, Cheshire
Email: midrash@mac.com c.hart@chester.ac.uk
Available on line from: http://www.lulu.com/
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 9781905984138

5. A Collection of Essays in Honour of
Talcott Parsons
Contents
edited by Christopher Hart
Preface i
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 Functionalism and the Theory of Action 19
Helmut Staubmann
Chapter 2 The Theory of Action After Parsons 30
Jan Balon
Chapter 3 Definition of the Situation as a Generalized 51
Symbolic Medium
Victor Lidz
Chapter 4 Parsonianism,’ General Frameworks, Evolution 81
An Exercise in Reflexivity
Matteo Bortolini
Chapter 5 Adaptive Structure and the Problem of Order 113
R. E Hilbert and Charles Wright
Chapter 6 Collective Learning as Social Change: Integrating 124
Complex Adaptive Systems and Structuration with
Parsons’s Theory of Action
David R. Schwandt

6. Chapter 7 The Autonomy of the Spirit of Society: 150
Talcott Parsons on Max Weber’s Conception of
Religion and Society
Yuri Contreras-Véjar
Chapter 8 The Place of Law in Talcott Parsons’s 167
American Societal Community
A. Javier Treviño
Chapter 9 Toward a Theory of Health Attainment: 195
A Causal Model of Parsons’ Sick Role
Jennifer Harris Kraly
Chapter 10 Talcott Parsons’ sociology of the nation-state 206
Daniel Chernilo
Chapter 11 Talcott Parsons’s Weberian Analysis of 232
National Socialism
Uta Gerhardt

7. Dedication
This modest volume is dedicated to C. Wright Mills

8. Preface
The chapters in this volume have their origins in the conference Talcott Parsons:
Who Now Reads Parsons? held between from the 16th to the 18th July, 2006 at the
University of Manchester1, England. The papers presented at the conference
were: Parsons and Transdisciplinarity, Professor Roland Robertson, University of
Aberdeen, Scotland; Talcott Parsons, The Project of General Theory and the Problem of
Fallibism, Dr Justin Cruckshank, University of Birmingham, England; Parsons
and Re-enchantment: Parsons, Bateson and Cybernetics, Professor Kiyomitsu YUI,
Kobe University, Japan; The Place of Law in Talcott Parsons’s American Societal
Community, Dr Javier Trevino, Visiting Research Fellow University of Sussex,
England / Wheaton College, Massachusetts, USA; Functionalism and the Theory of
Action, Professor Helmut Staubmann, University of Innsbruck, Austria; Theory of
Action After Parsons, Dr Jan Balon, Charles University in Prague, Czech
Republic; Definition of the Situation as Generalized Symbolic Medium, Professor
Victor Lidz, Drexel University, USA; The Parsons-Schutz Exchange: Contrasting
Interpretations, Dr Dave Francis, Manchester Metropolitan University, England;
Talcott Parsons and Ludwig Wittgenstein: Converging on as Theory of Social Action, Dr
Anthony C. King, University of Exeter, England; Toward a Theory of Health
Attainment: A Causal Model, Dr Jennifer Kraly, Case Western Reserve University,
USA; Chronic Illness and Chronic Health: Obsolescence and the Persistence of Parsons’ Sick
Role, Dr Mattias Varul, University of Exeter, England; Adaptive Structures and the
Problem of Order, Dr R.E. Hilbert, University of Oklahoma and Dr Charles
Wright, Oklahoma City University, USA; Mud Through Fog: Garfinkel on Parsons,
Professor Wes Sharrock, University of Manchester, England; and Parsons,
Pragmatism and the Prospects for Sociological Theory, Professor John Holmwood,
University of Birmingham, England. Not all of the papers presented have been
published here and nor were all the papers submitted for consideration
presented to the conference. Published in this volume is a selection of papers
which represent and span several nationalities, generations and subject
disciplines. In particular and in keeping with the general ethos of the
conference several younger social scientists have been included in this volume.
A biographical note on how this conference
came into being.
1 This conference was independent of the Department of Sociology, though I thank Professor Wes
Sharrock for his support.

9. As with many things a series of coincidences become fortuitous leading to
decisions which become something. This was the case for this conference. The
fortuitous event was a meeting in a coffee bar with Harold Garfinkel. I was
attending a conference in Manchester, England (2002) at which Harold was the
key speaker. By chance the day prior to the conference I was having coffee in a
local hotel lounge when I saw Harold doing like wise. I assumed he was staying
at the hotel and so I introduced myself. Harold invited me to join him. The
next 40 minutes of so were some of the most instructive I have ever received.
Harold inquired into my ‘work’. This I told him was not a sociologist as such
but was mainly a contract researcher (even though I held a senior academic
post at a British university teaching and researching information exchange). I
recounted to him a problem I was having with a sponsor. I had recently started
work as research director on a large Pan-European project mostly funded by
the German motor vehicle manufacturers2 (BMW, VW and Mercedes-Benz).
With the research design in place the combined research team from the
manufacturers asked me which theoretical framework did I intend to use to
make sense of what was found. Significantly the six members (two from each
manufacturer) when making initial introductions had all specified their
academic qualifications. All had doctorates in either anthropology, economics
or psychology. I told them I had no intension of using any one particular frame
of reference but would wait and see what the data suggested. As the data from
pilot studies was coming in I assumed I now needed some kind of recognizable
analytical theory with which to say something intelligible about it. The
research itself was multi-facetted. It involved survey research based on a series
of questionnaires, secondary data collection, case studies and a small number of
ethnographic studies. The topic was the economics generated by the culture of
historic vehicles. I described the nature of the research and the kinds of data
we already had thinking he will not really be interested in all of this. Harold,
however, asked if I was familiar with Talcott Parsons, and in particular his work
on values, culture and community. He then explained how he had taught a
course in the early 1950s on Parsons and had, at one point in the late 1950s
and early 1960s, intended to have a book he had written on Parsons published
called ‘Parsons Primer’. I admitted it had been 20 years and more since I had
read anything by Parsons. Over the next few days as is the way with
conferences we exchanged greetings but each time Harold said, without saying
much else, ‘Parsons’3.
2 The aims of this research are largely irrelevant to this volume. But in brief it aimed to identify the
continuing attraction and maintenance of diverse communities of interest in historic vehicles within
the European trading zone (12 countries, 8 languages and 5 currencies). The design included a small
number of participant observational studies of vehicle groups, a survey involving over 800,000
historic vehicle owners and a study of the organizational interactions with decision makers by
organizations established to protect the rights of historic vehicle owners.
3 Though I may be mistaken I did not see listed one paper at the conference that focused on the
intellectual and professional debt Garfinkel owed to Parsons.

10. As strange as some coincidences are another occurred. Preparations for the
full study involving respondents from twelve countries, using five languages
dominated time and efforts. The suggestion of looking to see if analytical
concepts developed by Parsons could be used remained, as it were, on the back-
burner. At the same time a colleague retired and asked if I would like to take
from his library whatever I would like. Among his files was a copy of ‘Parsons
Primer’. How and when he had acquired it he did not remember.
Nevertheless the ‘Primer’ became the stepping off point into everything we, as a
research team, could get our hands on written by Parsons. His work on
economics, money, values and knowledge all had a clear resonance with what
we were working on.
Up until mid-2005 no one on the research team had worked with or knew
any Parsonian scholars. We had the idea it would be beneficial to hold a
meeting of sorts like the one held in 1973 at Brown’s University4. On behalf of
the team I approached a number of people in UK departments of sociology
with the proposal to organize a conference to look at Parsons. The general
reaction was disappointing. Although I did not ask all departments of sociology
the several high ranking ones approached made it clear they had no interest.
Some were even hostile to the very idea of discussing Parsons. Not distracted
and inspired by the 2002 conference from which the book After Parsons (2005)
was published we decided to organise a conference and put out a general call
for interest. Professor Wes Sharrock (University of Manchester) and Dr Dave
Francis (Manchester Metropolitan University) were very supportive of the idea
and made several suggestions on who to contact about the conference. The
rest, as someone once said, is history. The response was excellent. Regrettably
we could not accommodate all those who wished to present a paper. This was
because we decided from the start this would be a conference that would not
have streams with quick 20 minute papers but be one where all presenting
would have nearly one hour and would present to all delegates. One of the
notable and striking features of this conference was the collegial community
that quickly developed among the participants. All papers were presented to all
delegates in the tranquil and beautiful environment of the Council Chamber of
the University of Manchester5. The conference was an exemplar of trans-
disciplinarity, a genuine sharing of different research subjects and approaches
to analysis from different scholarly traditions. The chapters in this modest
volume represent the diversity of Parsonian scholarship that is alive and active
around the world, not only may it continue but grow.
On a personal note as editor of this volume I would like to thank my
research team for listening to the idea in the first place. I would also like to
thank the University of Manchester conference team for all the support they
gave to our conference. Finally, my I say thank you to all contributors for their
4 A seminar with Talcott Parsons at Brown University: "My Life and Work", March 10, 1973. See,
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2006 and in the same journal, Giuseppe Sciortino’s,
‘Comment on Talcott Parsons at Brown University’.
5 The days of the conference coincided with one of the hottest weeks on record in the UK.

11. patience given the time it has taken to produce this book.
Chris Hart
University of Chester, 2009.

12. Introduction
Another book on Talcott Parsons? It may seem strange to some that there is
still an interest in the grand theorists of sociology. It may seem even stranger
that there are serious sociologists and professional researchers interested in the
work of Talcott Parsons. The view that this is a strange interest may reside in
the assumption that the world has changed and that the ideas, theories and
arguments of Parsons along with others such as Mead, Cooley, Simmel,
Durkheim, Weber, Tonnies, Marx, Mannheim, Merton, Veblen, Sorokin and
the many others whose names dominated the citations in the first 60 years of
the twentieth century should be given a place in today’s social theories. It could
be argued that contemporary social order is based on different kinds of
knowledge, divisions, social patterns, technologies, information flows, values,
beliefs and conflicts. All, of course, set in a global context of complex inter-
dependencies. It may follow that each generation of sociologists follow the
general trend and see the problems, events and issues around them as new, as
having none or little connection to problems, events and issues of their
grandparents and great-grandparents generation. Pitirim Sorokin called this
feature of sociology the ‘Christopher Columbus Complex’6; seeing something
that has existed for a long time as if for the first time, as if you were the one to
discover it. Social science is replete with articles claiming discovery: a new idea
has been developed or a new breakthrough made enticing us to dump existing
ideas and follow this new one. It is akin to going to Disneyland and believing
one has discovered America. The main causes of this complex are laziness and
an inflated ego, encouraging us to believe that as part of the contemporary
world we have a greater degree of insight and intellectual understanding of
society. The complex often makes it seem that methodological dragons once
slain have risen again to breath a more fierce fire than ever before. As a
consequence, the works of now dead, social theorists such as Sorokin go unread
or are only understood through derivative sources. Ideas by predecessors are
therefore glibly criticized for what is perceived to be their weak purchase on
current issues or problems of the discipline. As Anderson, et al (1985:70)7 point
out, 'victims of such a complex tend to overestimate our contemporary
achievements because they underestimate those of our predecessors, the tasks
they faced and perhaps failed at, largely because victims of the complex have
not tackled those tasks themselves' .
Part of this cycle is the individualistic career orientated citation culture that
is driving the idea that argumentation is the evolutionary engine of sociology.
The profession both academic and applied have their celebrities and their fans.
Counter fan groups and the occasional lone rider via for attention and voice.
6 Sorokin P.A. (1928) Contemporary Sociological Theories. New York: Harper.
7 R.J. Anderson, J.A. Hughes, and W.W. Sharrock. (1985) The Sociology Game:
An Introduction to Sociological Reasoning. London: Longman.

13. Inevitability some good ideas become buried under the detritus of word counts.
But interestingly Parsons introduced this very idea in 1937 when he asked,
“Who now reads Spencer?”
Although the hostility to Parsons has not gone away it has had the
consequence of, at best, marginalizing the ideas of Parsons, and worst, negating
his writings from at least two generations of sociology graduates. It is not, then,
that Parsons has been forgotten. Rather sociology graduates have not, in the
main, been exposed to his work and influence on contemporary social theory.
This is odd given the influence on contemporary sociology that Parsons has
exercised. As Trevino (2001)8 points out, scholars attempting to better
understand the theories of Jurgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann, as well as
Georg Simmel, Norbert Elias, Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel have turned
to Parsons.
There is, of course, the stalwarts. A trickle of publications throughout the
1980s kept the body of Parsonian ideas alive9 but the turn into the 21st Century
has seen an increase in interest; something akin to a fibrillation to sociological
amnesia. The interest in the work of Talcott Parsons has not disappeared; the
following stand as testimony to the continued and growing interest in his
work10. Helmut Staubmann and Victor Lidz (eds.), (2009), Gabriele Pollini and
8 A. Javier Treviño and contributor, Neil J. Smelser (2001)Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and
Legacy in Contemporary Sociology. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
9 See Treviño (2001) ibid for a list and discussion of Parsonian scholarship from the 1980s.
10 Helmut Staubmann and Victor Lidz (eds.), (2009) Talcott Parsons: Actor, Situation, and Normative
Pattern: An Essay in the Theory of Social Action. Wien: LIT. Hans-Peter Müller, (2004) Talcott Parsons.
Utb. Gabriele Pollini and Giuseppe Sciortino (eds.), (2001) Parsons' The Structure of Social Action and
Contemporary Debates. Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli. Manuel Herrera Gómez, (2005) La Cultura de la
Sociedad en Talcott Parsons. Universidad de Navarra. Kwang-ki Kim, (2002) Order and Agency: Talcott
Parsons, Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel. State University of New York Press, Thomas J. Fararo,
(2001) Social Action System: Foundation and Synthesis in Sociological Theory. Greenwood Publishers.
Javier Trevinõ (ed.), (2001) Talcott Parsons Today: His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Laurence S. Moss and Andrew Savchenko (eds.), (2006) Talcott
Parsons: Economic Sociologist of the 20th Century. London: Blackwell. Harald Wenzel, (1990) Die
Ordnung des Handelns: Talcott Parsons’ Theorie des Allgemeinen Handlungssystems. Frankfurt/M.
Suhrkamp. Helge Peukert. K. (1992) Parsons, Pareto, Habermas: Eine Studie zur Soziologischen
Theoriediskussion, Wissenschaftliche Schriften: Reihe 5: Beiträge zur Soziologie; 102. Idstein:
Schulz-Kirchner. Sigrid Brandt. (1993) Religiöses Handeln in Moderner Welt: Talcott Parsons’ Religions-
soziologie im Rahmen seiner allgemeinen Handlungs und Sytemtheorie. Frankfurt/M. Suhrkamp. Thomas
Schwinn. (1993) Jenseits von Subjektivismus und Objektivismus: Max Weber, Alfred Schütz und Talcott
Parsons, Sozialwissenschaftliche Schriften; 27. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Helmut Staubmann.
(1995) Die Kommunikation von Gefühlen: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der Ästhetik auf der Grundlage von Talcott
Parsons’ Allgemeiner Theorie des Handelns, Soziologische Schriften; 61. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot,
Elfi Thiemer. (1996) Solidarität begreifen: Karl Marx, Max Scheler, Aristoteles, Talcott Parsons: Vier Wege
zum Verständnis eines menschlichen Miteinander, Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 31:
Politikwissenschaft; 306. Frankfurt/M.: P. Lang. Bernard Barber und Uta Gerhardt, (1999) Hg.
Agenda for sociology: Classic sources and current uses of Talcott Parsons’s work. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Helmut Staubmann und Harald Wenzel, (2000) Hg. Talcott Parsons: Zur Aktualität eines
Theorieprogramms, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie: Sonderband; 6. Wiesbaden:
Westdeutscher Verl.
Michael Ebert, (2003) Talcott Parsons: Seine Theoretischen Instrumente in der Medizinsoziologischen Analyse
der Arzt-Patienten-Beziehung, Soziologische Studien. Aachen: Shaker. Renee Fox, Victor M. Lidz.

14. Giuseppe Sciortino (eds.), (2001), Manuel Herrera Gómez, (2005), Laurence S.
Moss and Andrew Savchenko (eds.), (2006), Hans-Peter Müller, (2004), Kwang-
ki Kim, (2002), Thomas J. Fararo, (2001), Javier Trevinõ (ed.), (2001), Laurence
S. Moss and Andrew Savchenko (eds.), (2006), Harald Wenzel, (1990), Helge
Peukert, (1992), Sigrid Brandt, (1993), Thomas Schwinn, (1993), Helmut
Staubmann, (1995), Elfi Thiemer, (1996), Bernard Barber and Uta Gerhardt,
(1999), Helmut Staubmann and Harald Wenzel, (2000), Michael Ebert, (2003),
Matteo Bortonili, (2007), Renee Fox, Victor M. Lidz, and Harold J. Bershady,
(2005), Two publications deserve special mention. The first is Helmut
Staubmann’s (2006) edited volume, Studies in the Theory of Action Volume 1. ( Lit
Verlag). This includes eight first rate chapters such as: “The Sociology of
Knowledge and the History of Ideas”, by Talcott Parsons, “Reformulating
Parsons’ Theory for Comparative Research Today”, by David Sciulli and
“Towards a Structural Theory of Social Pluralism Talcott Parsons, Ethnicity
and Ascriptive Inequalities”, by Giuseppe Sciortino. The second, which is
planned for publication is Harold Garfinkel’s Parsons Primer. This is a previously
unpublished manuscript of Garfinkel's course on Parsons, UCLA. (c1959). To
be edited by Jeff Coulter, Boston University.
Unraveling the theoretical developments and making the case for Parsons is
what most contemporary Parsonian scholars are engaged with. Parsons
described himself as an incurable theorist. And what is wrong about that?
Nothing except it is evidentially clear Parsons was a damn good theorist. Over
a period spanning more than half a century Talcott Parsons produced an
immense body of work. Many of his books are not trivial publications. The
Structure of Social Action (1937) is over 800 pages long and The Social System (1951)
over 570 pages. Both books attempt to develop complex and sophisticated
ideas and concepts for empirical investigation of social structures. Neither book
is an easy read nor are they reducible to glib summation.
Throughout his career Parsons was at the centre of his profession. Given
the substantial amount of work Parsons produced it would be fair to say it is not
without discrepancies and contradictions. Nor is it inclusive. No social theory
is. Parsons was quite aware of the role and limitations of any theory, especially
his own, “no theory is ever definitive but is always destined to be superseded by
a better theory; this does not usually mean the older theory was ‘wrong’, it
means it was limited” (Koch, 1959:703)11. It may be the dedication to making
his ideas available is, in part, responsible for the avalanche of criticism his work
attracted. Parsons is criticised for being a conservative thinker, being
ideologically motivated, being too American, for defending gender inequalities,
not being radical, accepting social differentiation, being a positivist with logico-
deductive tendencies. It is claimed he had no concern for social problems,
methodology, is unable to account for conflict and is ahistorical and has little to
and Harold J. Bershady, (eds.) (2005) After Parsons: A Theory of Action for the Twenty-First Century, New
York: Russell Sage Foundation. Matteo Bortonili “Analytic Sociology and Its Discontents”,
European Journal of Social Theory, 2007; 10:153-172.
11 Sigmund Koch, (ed.). (1959) Psychology: A Study of a Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.

15. give the empirical researcher. Also, it has often been said Parsons could not
write clearly. Many admirers of Parsons’ work may agree with this latter point.
But expressing abstract and complex ideas clearly and coherently is a very
difficult business; expressing clear reasoning in ways which have coherence are
problems common to social theorists and researchers. Parsons, it can be argued,
sometimes lacked the latter in his work and definitely not the former.12
Such a range and diversity of criticism would require a book length response.
What I would like to do here is attend, only briefly, to some of the main
criticisms that have become part of sociology’s urban myths. There is the claim
that Parsons’ work precludes the capacity to analyse historical patterns of social
order and historical problems associated with particular periods in history.
Allied to these criticisms is the assumption cross-cultural historical work is also
precluded by Parsons’ theory. These and other assumptions were mainly made
from the late 1950s into the 1960s. At the time of the often quoted criticism
many students of Parsons were demonstrating conclusively that all of these
assumptive criticisms of Parsonian theory were untenable. The following, for
example, all employed Parsonian theory in their research. Neil Smelser
undertook a study of the cotton industry in the United Kingdom late 18th
Century. His focus was on the collective behaviour of workers. More recently
with Haferkamp, Smelser employs a Parsonian evolutionary theory in a
thoroughgoing analysis of social change, modernity, capitalism and inequality13.
Marion Levy (1949)14 undertook a comparative study of families in China
experiencing societal changes and transitions in relationships. Parsons wrote
the foreword to this study. Clifford Geertz (1960)15 studied Javanese religion as
a social system of symbols. In his book, done from his dissertation, Geertz
employed a Weberian frame of reference largely acquired from Parsons, along
with the assumption that the cultural meaning of religion is historically
transmitted in patterns embodied in symbols. Charles A. Drekmeier, (1962)16
with his Kingship and Community in Early India won the Watumull Prize in 1964,
largely because of the cross-cultural relevance of his Parsonian analysis. Bert F.
12 For an excellent insight into Parsons view of sociology and theory see The Theory of Social Action.
The Correspondence of Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons, (1978). Edited by Richard Grathoff.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Also see Harold Garfinkel, ‘The Perception of the
Other: A Study in Social Order’. PhD Dissertation, Harvard University, 1952 (Talcott Parsons
was one of his supervisors) and Alfred Schütz und Talcott Parsons. Zur Theorie sozialen Handelns:
Ein Briefwechsel, hg. von Walter M. Sprondel. Frankfurt, (1977).
13 Hans Haferkamp and Neil J. Smelser, (eds.) (1992) Social Change and Modernity. Berkeley:
University of California Press. Full text available from:
http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6000078s/).
14 Marion J. Levy, (1949) The Family Revolution in Modern China. New York: Octagon Books. Full
text available from: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3969935.
15 Clifford Geertz, (1960) The Religion of Java. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Also see, (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
16 Charles A. Drekmeier, (1962) Kingship and Community in Early India Stanford: Stanford U.P.
1964 prizewinner. The Watumull Prize was established in 1944 with a grant from the Watumull
Foundation and first awarded in the following year.

16. Hoselitz in Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth (1960)17 and other publications
produced several studies on economic development and social change using a
Parsonian approach to economics and culture. Speaking about Shmuel
Eisenstadt’s The Political System of Empires (1963 [1993]) and Modernization, Protest,
and Change (1966)18 Bjorn Wittrock comments,
[his] work exhibits characteristics of the then dominant style of structural-
functional theorizing of which his Harvard colleague Talcott Parsons was
the pre-eminent representative, not least in terms of a meticulously detailed
taxonomy, but it also went beyond that tradition in the range of its historical
orientation. More importantly perhaps both in this work and in a number of
other studies of social transformations, Eisenstadt has focused on the
interplay between cultural and structural processes of change and on
inherent tensions and antinomies rather than on uniform processes of
development. (Wittrock, 2006)19
While Robert N. Bellah’s Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-Industrial Japan
(1957)20 developed the ideas from his Ph.D. dissertation done at Harvard in the
1950s. This was based on the Weberian thesis that the religious beliefs of the
Japanese, a mix of Zen, Buddhism, Shinto, and a bit of Confucianism, created
a Protestant like Work ethic in Japan. It was Parsons who translated Weber’s
‘Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ (The Structure of Social Action,
1937:500-533).
From the 1950s onwards there is ample evidence that Parsons’ theoretical
frame of reference was of practical use for empirical studies. These and more
recent ones show most criticisms, and certainly not the most infamous ones, are
neither valid or relevant. Most are untrue, unimportant and irrelevant. Those
criticisms that can be taken seriously, and there are some, tend, however, to be
focused; they take an aspect rather than a substantive piece of Parsons’
reasoning21. But looking back at the range of sociological concerns Parsons was
interested in, Leon H. Mayhew’s !(1983)22 book on Parsons reveals in its content
17 Bert F. Hoselitz, (1960) Sociological Aspects of Economic Growth. India: Feffer and Simons.
18 Shmuel, N. Eisenstadt, (1963 [1993]) The Political System of Empires. Orig. published by the Free
Press of Glencoe. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Also (1966) Modernization, Protest
and Change. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
19 Bjorn Wittrock, "Presentation of Shmuel N. Eisenstadt."
http://www.holbergprisen.no/HP_prisen/en_hp_2006_wittrock_eisenstadt.html (2006).
20 Robert N. Bellah, (1957) Tokugawa Religion: The Values of Pre-Industrial Japan. New York: Free
Press.
21 One of the exceptions in recent years is, John Holmwood, (ed) (2006) ‘Talcott Parsons in his
times and ours.’ Talcott Parsons. International Library of Essays in the History of Political
Thought. Aldershot: Ashgate and his ‘Economics, sociology and “the professional complex”’ in
American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2006, 65:127-60.! But for slightly older yet sound critical
position see, Max Black, (ed.). (1961) The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22 Leon H. Mayhew (ed) !(1983) Talcott Parsons on Institutions and Social Evolution Selected Writings.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

17. pages topics and issues many would regard as relevant for contemporary
sociology.
1. The Role of Theory in Social Research
2. The Place of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory
3. The Action Frame of Reference
4. Hobbes and the Problem of Order
5. Rationality and Utilitarianism
6. The Pattern Variables
II. Institutionalization
7. Integration and Institutionalization in the Social System
8. The Superego and the Theory of Social Systems
9. Illness and the Role of the Physician, with Rene Fox
10. The Hierarchy of Control
11. Specification
12. Jurisdiction
III. Institutionalized Exchange
13. Durkheim on Organic Solidarity
14. Double Interchanges in Economy and Society, with Neil
Smelser
15. On the Concept of Influence
IV. Change, Evolution, and Modern Society
16. Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change
17. The Mass Media and the Structure of American Society, with
Winston White
18. Archaic and Historic Societies
19. Evolutionary Universals in Society
20. American Values and American Society, with Gerald M. Platt
What we have here is a simple example that shows the breadth of substantive
topics that were of interest to Parsons. The works of Parsons have been
catalogued in over 26 different topic classifications23 including, Citizenship,
Race and Democracy, Power, Community, Family, incest and socialization,
Max Weber, Youth, Organization, Force and Co-ersion, Communism, Death,
Medical sociology, Belief and faith, Law and jurisprudence, Aging,
Polarization, Durkheim, Mass media, Mental illness and Health, Sociology of
knowledge, Social class, Demographics, Social change, Values and ideals.24
For undergraduates
23 Edward M. Adams (1974) The Works of Talcott Parsons. Mineo: University of Colorado.
24 From an intellectual biography of Parson see the thorough Talcott Parsons: an intellectual
biography, by Gerhardt, Uta (2002). Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press.

18. In most introductions to a volume of works it is customary to say a little in
terms of explication about the ideas of the theorist under discussion. As there
are numerous excellent introductions to the work and life of Parsons25 I will do
something a little different. I would like to provide a proposal on how Parsons’
project may be understood for those coming to it for the first time. This is
because in graduate departments of sociology across the UK there still exists,
with a couple of exceptions such as Birmingham University and the University
Aberdeen, an absence of Parsons writing on the curriculum26. It would appear
that the 1970s critical movement indulged itself far too much on criticism for
it’s own sake and is now suffering amnesia about the historical developments of
the heritage of sociology27. The kind of questions the newcomer, especially the
undergraduate, may be concerned with include, What is Parsons saying?, What
is the basis of his authority for what he is saying?, Why is he saying what he is
saying? What is his motivation for expending so much effort with such as
difficult and potentially risk prone enterprise?, What is the problem of order
and why does it matter? Just what kind of sociology did Parsons propose and
how can I use it?
To begin at the beginning or a beginning28. For the sake of argument let us
say that some time during the Enlightenment some people became aware that
they and others lived in a world based on the ability to make themselves
understood to one another. That this ability was exercised all of the time,
utterly routinely, without a great deal of effort or reflection. Some people
noticed that the people of their group, or nation and that of other groups and
nations although separated by distance and language were also making
themselves understandable to one another. This discovery was called culture.
It was an immensely important discovery. What was revealed for reflection
were a host of fascinating but highly difficult questions. For example, how do
people know how to behave in a given situation? How do they recognise and
assign a label to any emergent situation and flow of interactions? What kinds of
behaviours do they expect of a given situation both actual and potential? How
in the course of being in an interaction are expectations enforced, used, and
manipulated? For the persons in everyday life going about their business such
questions are largely irrelevant. This is because what something is, how people
behave and what they are expected to do are largely tacit; things that everyone
knows or ought to if they are a member of the group. Such tacit
knowledgibility only becomes questioned, for example, when further clarity of a
communication is required or when a non-bona fide member (say a stranger) of
25 The best and most reliable place to start is with The Structure of Social Action itself. Useful
secondary interpretations include, Peter Hamilton (1983), Talcott Parsons. Sussex: Ellis Horwood,
a simple but sound introduction; Gerhardt (2002) op cit, a solid intellectual biography, R. J.
Holton and Bryan S. Turner, (1986) Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society, London: Taylor &
Francis and Anthony King, (2004) The Structure of Social Theory, London: Routledge.
26 If there are more then I offer my apologies in advance.
27 The Journal of Classical Sociology stands as a fine stalwart for the heritage of ideas.
28 For this section I owe gratitude to Harold Garfinkel and his unpublished Parsons Primer.

19. the group asks for an explanation or direction to what is expected in a situation.
Even then the orderliness and routineness of life goes on regardless. All of this
does not exclude conflict, disagreements and misunderstandings. These are all
part of the tacit ability of persons to initiate, negotiate and resolve because they
are knowledgeable about what these things are. They can see such things
around them, they will probably have experienced them and they will know of
great events in the history of their nation that record conflict, conquest and
heroism. To think about and ask just how is culture possible means taking a
different attitude to culture than those living it as a routine, unquestioned and
tacit reality. It means taking a technical interest in culture as an object. It
entails classifying the parts of a culture, codifying different behaviours, making
comparisons, and devising new concepts and theories about how such a
complex phenomena is possible and how it can be described. The naming of
culture is therefore very important because it is the basis of sociology. How is
such a thing possible and how can it be described is what Parsons is about.
Providing a means, a set of related methodological assumptions, a framework,
and more to describe culture and explain how it exists is the essence of Parsons’
project.
At the centre of the Parsonian project is the core assumption, shared by the
everyday member of a culture, that there is an enduring sense of stability,
predictability and routines to social life. This means there is a structure of
uniformities that should, given an appropriate framework, be capable of being
described coherently. Providing a framework cannot be done without facing
and finding solutions to some serious methodological problems. And, of course,
whatever framework is proposed it cannot be the only framework, but one
among many possible solutions to analysing and accounting for the stability of
culture, the so called problem of order. Parsons work is therefore a two part
project. In The Structure of Social Action (1937) he first aimed to set out, from the
standpoint of sociology, the nature of the problem of order and then to show
the range of decisions that any sociologist would have to address in developing
a comprehensive theory for the description of social order. Through analysis
and discussion of Hobbes, Malthus, Marx, Darwin, Marshall, Pareto,
Durkheim, Sombert, and Weber, and others including the major European
traditions in social thought, such as positivism, evolutionism, utilitarianism,
empiricism, idealism, voluntarism, capitalism, Calvinism, and more, Parsons
defines the pre-theoretical problem for a sociology of culture and then proposes
an approach by which social order could be described using an action frame of
reference.
How does all of this relate to the researcher looking to undertake empirical
investigation and aiming to produce adequate (reliable, clear, coherent, sensible
and warrantable) descriptions of social reality? Parsons’ solution is a theory of
social action and structural analysis. At the heart of Parsons theory is the
concept of structure. In terms of furnishing the necessary concepts for
empirical investigation structure refers to typical properties and features
exhibited by a phenomena and observable by the investigator. By typical is

20. meant things a phenomenon can be expected to have that are repeated from
one to another instance of the phenomena. No matter what the flux and flow
and sometimes the context the phenomena will nevertheless exhibit typical
properties. The process of the phenomena can itself by conceived in typical
ways and thus analysed in terms of how it is structured to give rise to the
phenomenon. Hence structural analysis is about making reliable, clear,
coherent, sensible and warrantable descriptions of uniformities and repetitive
features of a culture.
Parsons structural analysis aimed to provide the frame of reference to
examine regular and uniform features or institutions of a culture. Parsons
undertook analysis of such regularities as religion, occupations, education,
marriage, social mobility, legal procedures, politics, knowledge, identity,
organizations, mass media, economics, health and illness, the professions,
community, youth and generation, social class, demographics, social change
and other institutions – many of which continue to be of enduring concern for
many other sociologists.
Parsons analysis is based on a theory of social action. As such it is a formal
theory for formal analysis. Consequently the detail of social existence from the
standpoint of the person in the street is subsumed and largely negated by
structural analysis of regularities and uniformities. The analysis is from the
sociologist’s point of view. The basic interrelated propositions of the action
frame of reference are as follows29,
1. Humans direct their actions towards their specific goals – a state of affairs
they intend to achieve,
2. Humans in perusing their goals have the capacity to make choices from
alternative means,
3. Choices (of means) and goals (ends) are relational in the sense they are
orientated by innate needs and orientations that have been acquired from
their culture (norms, values, beliefs, morals and so on) – standards or
prescriptions for the making of choices which inform the evaluation of
effort and resources.
4. The biological, environment and social context limits the goals and means
of a actor,
5. Interaction between actors involves complimentary expectations, a
reciprocal relationship, in which an actor expects another to understand
(have same cognitive abilities to understand) their goal,
6. Goals, means, orientations, standards and reciprocal expectations are
applicable to all levels of social existence, to individuals, groups,
organizations and the total society – they form social systems.
29 Adapted from various sources but in the main see, Max Black (1961) The Social Theories of Talcott
Parsons: A Critical Examination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, (pp.269-283) where Black
distils and comments on the main propositions to be found in Parsons and on pages 310-363
Parsons himself discusses his propositions and schemes and comments on Black’s formulations of
his work.

21. These sets of propositions set limits to the identification and description of the
uniform features constituting a phenomenon. They orient the sociologists’
interest and observations by furnishing a framework of categories and terms for
the description of structural features of a given phenomena. This includes the
much debated pattern variables. The pattern variables are part of the
framework for the analysis and understanding of possible courses of action,
orientations and situations in which and by which theoretically an actor is
limited. The variables are essentially a tool for analysis and description of
different levels of the social system.
These propositions and schemes of variables are not real except in the sense
of being part of a theory. There are no real, living people in the social system.
The social system is a theoretical reality. The purpose of making systematic
propositions is to solve a particularly vexing problem with social order. This
problem is about reconciling the ‘order from within’ as experienced by real
persons and the ‘order experienced as external’ to them. The order within is
made up of the fragmented, particular and vague ebb and flow of interactions.
The external order is perceived as outside and beyond the individual. The
latter is, of course, according Parsons, maintained by real persons in their
everyday dealings. The theoretical problem for the sociologists is how to
produce descriptions of the uniform and repetitive features of social order that
are reproducible and correspond to the primary structures of society. Parsons
solution, and an ingenious one at that, is to develop a theoretical social system
as a standpoint to study the properties of society. The social system is a theory
and as such delineates what kinds of actions can and cannot be subject to
analysis. The theory does not aim to describe actual actions but to say what
hypothetical actors can typically do within environments specified by the
boundaries of the devices of the theory.
In conclusion, Parsons genius was to develop a theory that allowed the
sociologist to undertake a structural analysis of a given regular feature of
society. He developed his theory with a range of devices such as the pattern
variables which, for a large part, gave sociology the means to conceive of social
reality as having properties which correspond to empirical features of society.
Parsons’ theoretical framework co-joins the internal and external realities of
social life. The theory allows for the analysis of personality, group,
organization, culture and social system. This, in part, is the power of Parsons’
theory; the scope of what it enables the researcher to analyse. From the
standpoint of the researcher interested in empirical work the judge of Parsons’
theory is whether of not the hypothetical actors can operate according to the
basic propositions and go about perusing goals by rationally choosing from
alternative means in ways that allow them to act cooperatively and in so doing
produce the stability of society, i.e. solve the problem of social order30. In so
30 In the return to grand theorizing noticeable from the early 1980s one question for each theory is
whether actors can actually ‘do’ anything?

22. doing our theoretical, or imagined, actors in their imagined environments
theoretically reproduce social order in and only so far as structural analysis
claims that they have done so.
About this collection of papers
In this collection of thirteen original papers we have represented a broad range
of Parsonian scholarship. In Chapter one, Functionalism and the Theory of Action,
Professor Helmut Staubmann, argues that the concept of function is generally
regarded as a core methodological device of Parsonian action theory. “It is …
entirely indispensable in sociology,” as Parsons noted in one of his late essays.
Instead of the label structural-functionalism he would prefer the more accurate
expression: “functional analysis.” Helmut argues it was both the intellectual
movement that criticized Parsons (frequently as an “arch-functionalist”) as well
as the one seeking a positive reevaluation of his legacy (“neo-functionalism”)
that took the centrality of the concept of function for granted. This, he claims,
is obvious common sense and is contrasted by the fact that there is little explicit
discussion and no systematic treatment of functional methodology. The
chapter aims to reconstruct the largely implicit assumptions of its indispensable
status for a theory of action. It will be argued that functional analysis is an
important tool to overcome a mechanistic understanding of the
interconnectedness of systems of action, their subsystems, and their respective
environments.
In a more critical vain, Chapter two, The Theory of Action After Parsons, by
Dr Jan Balon, focuses on the problems and contradictions of sociological
theories of action. Jan critically evaluates the development of the theory of
action after the Parsonian synthesis, drawing attention to the limitations of
articulating the concept of action systematically within a presuppositional
framework of analytical theory. After an exposition of Parsons’s general theory
of action and some interpretations and criticisms, Jan addresses the so-called
‘return of grand theory’, spearheaded in the early 1980s by authors such as
Alexander, Habermas, Giddens and Luhmann. The chapter analyses the
conceptual innovations introduced by their theories according to Parsons own
definition of theoretical work, which – as he said – consists in reconstruction
and transformation of categories in the moments of their failure. While it is
argued that sociological theory cannot do away with general concepts, it is
argued that these need not have the form of a synthetic theory of action of the
kind outlined by Parsons and the Post-Parsonians.
In Chapter three, Definition of the Situation as a Generalized Symbolic Medium,
student and colleague of Parsons, Professor Victor Lidz, takes as his starting
point the differences he has with Parsons over the placement of definition of the
situation as a medium within the general action system. Parsons, Victor shows,
had placed it as the medium of cultural systems, whereas Victor argues for
treating it as the medium of social systems. In the third and last time Victor
taught a graduate seminar on the generalized media with Parsons, they resolved

23. in favor of the social system, although perhaps still tentatively. Victor provides
a discussion of the reasoning involved. This is rooted in his view on this issue in
terms of what he calls the "processual problem of order". Following Garfinkel
(another student of Parsons), Victor argues that although Parsons had in his
early work resolved the problem of social order by emphasis on the importance
of normative structures, he nevertheless had not explained how the course of
interaction within specific settings was ordered because of the diversity of
normative elements that may be invoked and the problem of how they are
ordered and accepted as binding by each of the parties. Victor invokes W.I.
Thomas' discussion from The Delinquent Girl on the ways in which definitions of
the situation are created in what he called a preliminary phase of the action, a
phase in which the terms of the ensuing relationships come to be defined.
From this he extends the discussion by using the language-based - as partly
distinct from the money-based - model of the media. Victor shows where the
definition of the situation fits within the "family" of the media, how it operates
through transformation of information presented in terms of other media, and
how it is made binding (in greater or lesser degree) upon the actors taking part
in a situation by reference to underlying uses of money, power, influence,
and/or commitments. Victor therefore gives us an approach that enables us to
understand how and why actors accept common definitions of the situations in
which they interact in a manner that the more individualistic analyses of the
ethnomethodologists cannot explain.
Chapter four, ‘Parsonianism,’ General Frameworks, Evolution An Exercise in
Reflexivity, by Professor Matteo Bortolini, has as it’s starting point the question,
are there any ‘Parsonians’ today? Matteo asks if this expression has any
meaning in our current sociological landscape. His response is, as with
everything social, the existence of ‘the Parsonians’ depends on how we
characterize them. In a strict and immediate sense, Matteo says that a
Parsonian may be defined as an intellectual who, regardless of their personal
affiliation with Talcott Parsons, maintains a strong and positive evaluation of
the Parsons’ ideas. They may use concepts and categories derived from
Parsons’ oeuvre as tools for her own empirical and substantive work, or commit
themselves to a sympathetic reconstruction and/or aggrandizement of Parsons’
intellectual heritage from an historical and/or theoretical point of view. Thus,
Matteo would recruit among the ‘Parsonians’ people like Mark Gould, Victor
Lidz, Helmut Staubmann, Javier Treviño, Kyomitsu Yui, Richard Münch,
Gabriele Pollini, and Giuseppe Sciortino. Moreover, the definition Matteo
employs is a truly discriminating one, for it excludes many intellectuals who
have had a long and continued interest in the work of Talcott Parsons. Some of
them investigated his intellectual and academic career from an historical or
sociological point of view – e.g. Charles Camic, William Buxton, Lawrence
Nichols, David Rehorick, – while others recognized his importance but called
for a fundamental and definitive step beyond his framework or even a rejection
of its basic tenets – Harold Garfinkel, Jürgen Habermas, Jeffrey C. Alexander,
Nicos Mouzelis, Riccardo Prandini, Niccolò Addario, Davide La Valle, and

24. John Holmwood are all cases in point. Parsons’ students and associates who,
starting from a rejection of his theoretical views and/or his interpretation of
empirical phenomena, successfully found a voice of their own and fully
emancipated from their mentor, but retained a general and recognizable
Parsonian mood – Matteo cites people like Robert Bellah, Neil Smelser,
Clifford Geertz, Shmuel Eisenstadt, and even the late Niklas Luhmann – are a
class in themselves. Having assumed the status of “stars” on the “cutting edge”
of research, they have gently distanced themselves from their Parsonian root,
and their more or less frequent interventions in the ‘properly Parsonian’ field
have a decidedly episodic quality. Matteo argues that the right direction, an
idea that Parsons himself supported, is one that distinguishes between the
disciplined use of a plurality of analytical schemes and an ‘eclectic,’ and
ultimately futile, wandering from one sociological theory to another. Being a
Parsonian, then, he concludes will amount to much more than digging out
some very interesting, but also very old, books that rarely leave our colleagues’
bookshelves.
In an attempt to recover some of the basic tenets of Parsons’ approach to the
problem of social order, in Chapter five, Adaptive Structures and the Problem of
Order, Professor Richard. E. Hilbert and Dr Charles Wright, expose the
Parsonian solution to the “problem of order” and, in the process, correct some
of the impression left by his critics concerning the character of that solution.
Richard and Charles take issue with those critics who argue that for
functionalists generally and for Parsons in particular “Every functioning social
structure is based upon a consensus of values among its members.”
(Dahrendorf, 1957:161). Their interpretation of what Parsons is saying is that
order in human societies is not based upon consensus, if by that is meant “the
higher the level of agreement on values, the greater the level of order.” Richard
and Charles argue that, for Parsons, the institutionalization of a pattern of
values literally requires the development of alternative patterns which often
stand in opposition to the original pattern. These alternatives, called “adaptive
structures,” are thus essential elements in the Parsonian solution to the problem
of order. At the same time, because they are alternatives to the dominant
value-pattern, they may be seen as threats to the latter which cannot be
ignored. Richard and Charles agree with Parsons that an understanding of
these structures can provide clues as to the determinants underlying the
functional prerequisites, and should therefore be of considerable interest to the
social theorist.
Professor David R. Schwandt, in Chapter six, Collective Learning as Social
Change: Integrating Complex Adaptive Systems and Structuration with Parsons’s Theory of
Action, argues that in today’s complex society, it is imperative that we
understand the relationship between micro-macro interactions and the
collective’s capacity to create knowledge, learn, and change. David argues that
the basic concepts of Parsons’s theory of social action can be used as a
framework for relating agent interactions to the collective’s learning system. A
dynamic collective learning model is developed using the theories of strong

25. structuration and complex adaptive systems to address criticisms of Parsons’s
theory. Particular attention is paid to the development of the learning
subsystems and micro explanations of the agent’s voluntary nature and
reciprocating structural influences on meso processes of knowledge creation.
In Chapter seven, The Autonomy of the Spirit of Society: Talcott Parsons on Max
Weber’s Conception of Religion and Society, Dr Yuri Contreras-Véjar, argues that
Max Weber’s theories of religion and social change had a significant impact on
the sociological thought of Talcott Parsons and Robert Bellah. In clear
opposition to classical Marxism, Yuri claims Max Weber defended an
interpretation of religion as a social matrix of meaning that provides
significance and guidance to social actors who need to answer basic questions
about their existence, in contexts of uncertainty. Among those questions, Yuri
takes that the most important is concerned with the destiny of the self and the
precariousness of the human existence - death and immortality. Yuri discusses
how Weber thought that the urgency for solving these problems, in the history
of human societies, has placed religion as a principle of social identity and social
unrest. Weber deemed this search for answers to our existential questions
implies the zeal for consistency, for logical and consistent explanations, and,
with this, the eternal contradiction between our human desires and
expectations and the precariousness of the world. This tension between human
expectations and reality was, according to Yuri, at the center of Parsons’s
understanding of the interplay between religion and social change. In the first
half of his chapter Yuri analyses the way Talcott Parsons interpreted and
appropriated the Weberian conception of religion and social change. It has
been a common place practice, according to Yuri (since Parsons’s publication
of his work The Social System) to interpret Parsons’s sociology as a static and rigid
conception of social life. Yuri’s central argument is that not only has this
interpretation been based on an inaccurate interpretation of the ideas of
Parsons, but also that Parsons’s sociology permits the development of
intellectual endeavors in which culture, as an quasi-autonomous sphere in
Weber’s thought, is capable of shaping and changing societies. Yuri elects to
focus on the phenomenon of social change from the point of view of systemic
theory, and the “increasing degree of autonomy” of culture as a distinctive
realm from society. In the second half of his chapter Yuri examines the later
work of Parsons and the development and impact of structural-functionalism on
the work of Robert Bellah. In this part he focuses on the reciprocal influence
between Parsons and Bellah and the way their independent efforts affected and
reinforced a “common” program of social research.
Interest in the nature and properties of the legal system was among the
many interests of Parsons. In Chapter eight, The Place of Law in Talcott
Parsons’s American Societal Community, Professor A. Javier Trevino, examines how
from the early 1950s to just shortly before he died in 1979, Parsons elaborately
discussed the role of the legal system in five papers: “A Sociologist Looks at the
Legal Profession” (1952), “Jurisdiction” (1959), “The Law and Social Control”
(1962), “Law and Sociology: A Promising Courtship” (1968), “Law as an

26. Intellectual Stepchild” (1978), and two review articles: “James Hurst’s Law and
Social Process in U.S. History (1962), and “Roberto M. Unger’s Law in
Modern Society” (1977). What is more, in the 1950s Parsons began writing a
general book on American society in which would be included “a fairly
extensive treatment of the place of the legal system in American society,
including the part played in it by the legal profession.” That draft was not
completed. Then during the late 1960s he made another failed attempt to finish
the manuscript. His last attempt at producing the book on the American
societal community was written in two rounds, during 1972-75 and 1977-79.
This draft of the manuscript lay housed in the Harvard University Archives and
was finally published as the American Society: Toward a Theory of Societal Community,
edited by Giuseppe Sciortino. Javier argues that Parsons’s published writings
constitute a distinct Parsonian “sociology of law.” Javier builds on the work of
Guy Rocher (1989), one of the first to broadly delineate the contours of such a
Parsonian sociology of law, which, Rocher rightly contended, constitutes a
considered analysis of the “legal system,” the “legal profession,” and “legal
evolution.” Javier, following Rocher, discusses the first two of these analyses,
but, with the benefit of the recently published American Society, will extend their
conceptualisation. In addition, Parsons’s comments on the legal system in
American Society contribute, argues Javier, a significant, and heretofore unknown,
conceptual piece that rounds out - and now completes - his sociology of law.
This conceptual piece involves a detailed analysis of the place of law - and in
particular the law courts - within the American societal community.
The institution of medicine was another major concern for Parsons. In
Chapter nine, Toward A Theory of Health Attainment: A Model of Parsons’ Sick Role,
Dr Jennifer Harris Kraly, argues that Parsons’ sick role concept implies a
process through which an identified patient graduates from sickness to health.
To date, she shows that the literature lacks a model of the major elements of
Parsons’ theoretical concept, a model that could serve as an explanation of
health recovery. Jennifer argues that models of theoretical concepts contribute
to the literature by: (1) promoting the integration of existing research evidence
regarding relationships shown in the model, (2) providing a framework to
facilitate a developed critique of the theory as represented by the model, and (3)
encouraging the development of derivative theories. The primary objective of
Jennifer’s chapter is to present a model of Parsons’ sick role concept. A theory
derived from the model of Parsons’ sick role - i.e., a theory of health attainment
- is also presented. In sum, Jennifer claims that the relevance of Parsons’ sick
role concept rests on researchers’ ability to use it. Jennifer’s chapter seeks to
facilitate the use of Parsons’ concept by presenting it as a testable model for
researchers to use as they attempt to explain some of the most daunting health
and health behavior - related problems of the day.
In Chapter ten, Talcott Parsons’ Sociology of the Nation-State, Professor Daniel
Chernilo, starts with the position that Parsons’ understanding of political
phenomena was subjected to severe criticisms during his lifetime. Daniel
discusses how Parsons’ work was seen as carrying totalitarian ideological

27. implications (Dahrendorf), overemphasising the importance of intra-unit
processes (Poggi) and portraying a reductionist conception of the nation-state
(Giddens). Daniel shows that against such interpretations, more recent
scholarship has demonstrated that Parsons’ personal politics were strongly
against Fascism and in favour of New Deal policies. This chapter rejects the
early critique as fully misplaced and although it endorses the newer
interpretations it departs from them on methodological grounds as it
concentrates on Parsons’ sociological analysis of specific political phenomena
rather than on his personal political opinions. With a particular focus on his
conceptualisation of the nation-state, Daniel reconstructs what he calls Parsons’
sociology of politics on the basis of four of the political events to which he
devoted explicit attention: the rise and main features of Fascism in the 1940s,
the emergence of right-wing McCarthyism in the 1950s, the cause for civil
rights in the 1960s and finally Cold War politics. In reading these works
together, Daniel seeks to demonstrate that Parsons: (1) favoured a highly
pluralistic conception of integration within the societal community on the basis
of a universalistic comprehension of the rule of law; (2) consistently included
into his sociological analysis concrete political phenomena as well as external
trends and events; and (3) began to develop a kind of cosmopolitan layout
within which Cold War could peacefully unfold. The conclusion is that the key
to Parsons’ sociology of politics is that he regarded the liberal and democratic
nation-state as a modern and indeed desirable form of societal arrangement but
by no means as the natural or necessary representation of modernity.
C. Wright Mills did much to demolish the fine work of Parsons by making a
number of rhetorical claims, one among which was the claim Parsons was an
ideological driven conservative whose theory was incapable of accounting for
conflict and extreme political movements. In Chapter eleven, Talcott
Parsons’s Weberian Analysis of National Socialism, Professor Uta Gerhardt, provides
a thorough response and correction to Mills and other rhetorical critics of
Parsons. Uta takes C. Wright Mills’ charge that Parsons failed to understand
the social structure of National Socialism. Contrasting such Grand Theory that
supposedly rendered harmonious even an utterly conflict-ridden society such as
that of Nazi Germany, with the historical analysis of the Nazi regime in Franz
Neumann’s famous study entitled Behemoth, Mills said about The Social System:
“[O]ne Behemoth is worth, to social science, twenty Social Systems.” Mills’s
criticism, to be sure she argues, was matched in the 1950s by that of other
critics. For one, as early as 1950, Lewis Coser in a book review of the first
edition of Parsons’s collection Essays in Social Theory: Pure and Applied, castigated
Parsons for his alleged inability to focus on conflict rather than consensus in
contemporary societies. Alvin W. Gouldner in 1956, as Mills would recall,
observed that “any systematic ideas of how history itself occurs, of its mechanics
and processes, are unavailable to grand theory.” Last but by far not least, Ralf
Dahrendorf in a widely recognized essay written in 1957, Out of Utopia,
compared the idea of society in The Social System with the ominous utopia
pictured in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Uta points out that such

28. criticism is still believed to be justified by some sociologists to this day. Uta
traces the explanation of National Socialism that Parsons elaborated in the time
period between the mid-1930s and early 1950s. She shows, how Parsons
approached the topic as a target for social theory again and again over a time
period of some fifteen years, about half of them contemporaneous with the Nazi
regime that lasted from 1933 to 1945. In accordance with Parsons’s own
conviction that scientific social thought must have an analytical frame of
reference, Uta not merely recounts what he explained about Nazi society but
shows how a Weberian frame of reference was imperative for Parsons. The
chapter has three main parts. Part I outlines what a Weberian frame of
reference entails, with special reference to the conceptual program where
Weber’s and Parsons’s analyses focus on empirical societies. Part II discusses
Parsons’s views on National Socialism, reconstructing four key texts written in
the time period between 1937 and 1951. Part III traces the history side of this
endeavour before Uta asks the question, what in the four key texts made the
perspective Weberian? As an afterthought, Uta ventures what C. Wright Mills
might have learnt, had he studied Parsons’s work more seriously.