F1 Social theory and Talcott Parsons

SAVE OFFLINE

Social Theory and Talcott Parsons in the 1980s Author(s): David Sciulli and Dean Gerstein Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 11 (1985), pp. 369-387 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083299 Accessed: 07-04-2015 16:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1985. 11.369-87 ? 1985 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved Copyright

SOCIAL THEORY AND TALCOTT PARSONS IN THE 1980s David Sciulli SchoolofGovernment andPublicAdministration, AmericanUniversity, Washington, DC 20016

Dean Gerstein onBasicResearchintheBehavioralandSocial Sciences,NationalResearch Committee DC 20418 Council,Washington,

Abstract In recentyearsa revivalhas occurredin analyticaland empiricalstudiesrelated to thesocial theoryofTalcottParsons. The neweranalyticalworkaddressesthe whole of Parsons' effortin the contextof general questions thatbear on all social theory.Especially importantworks by Bershady, Habermas, Munch, and Alexanderestablisha new baseline forfutureanalyticalassessmentsof the theory.Much of theempiricalworkfocuses on specificationand assessmentof theoreticalpropositions,particularlyconcerningthe more normativecomponentsof social systems, and on "general action complexes" that synthesize social, cultural,personality,and behavioral aspects of major phenomena in modernsocieties.

INTRODUCTION For a numberof years,themarkof sophisticationon thesubjectofactiontheory has been to ask: "Who now reads Parsons?" (Bryant1983). The old structurefunctionalschema with its cargo of concepts finallydisappeared over the horizon,it seems, its sails filledby thecriticalblasts of manytheoristssuch as Gouldner(1970) and Giddens (1968, 1976). Booklistsandjournals harborvital discussion of hermeneutics,networks,rationalexpectations,and structuralism, whiletheabandonedtheoryof actionglides unreadtowarditswreckagein the rocky straitsbetween Introductionto Theory and The Historyof Social Thought. 369 0360-0572/85/0815-0369$02.00 This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

370

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

Inthisidyll,theappearance ofa Parsonian revivalinthe1980smustrankas a major surpriseto manyin the discipline,catchingunawareeven one as at soundingtheoretical accomplished tidesas Mullins(1983). The year1980 was a significant turning point.ShortlyafterParsons'deathin 1979, new criticalreadings ofParsonsbegantoappearwithincreasing prominence, ledby Munch(1981b, 1982a) and Alexander(1982a, b, 1983a,b). The distinctive markofthisnewcommentary anddebateis anattempt toaccountforandderive fromParsons'entirefifty-year theoretical insights thanto focus projectrather narrowly on singleworksor isolateddimensions of Parsonianthought. The declineof structure-functionalism was to a substantial degreeselfinflicted. As initiated byParsonsandassociatesinTowarda GeneralTheoryof Action(Parsons& Shils 1951) and The Social System(Parsons1951), structure-functionalism degradedmuchtoo readilyfromthesuppleframework of analyticalconceptsin The Structure ofSocial Action(Parsons1937) intoan "idealtype"approachthatParsonshimselfhad attackedandlaid thebasisfor inthatearlierwork.Thisdefectmanifested transcending itselfinhardening of thecategories:a tendency to convertsoundtheoretical intoelaborate insights typologiesand to treatongoingempiricalresearchmostlyas a questionof to the"correct"categories. properly assigningeventsor structures In largepartbecauseParsonsstrovetowardlogicalcompleteness, hismajor worksof the early 1950s were long on formaldistinctions and shorton researchfindings.Parsonswas unable to let these conceptual interesting ofconcentration schemesrest,so thattheimmenseeffort andstudydemanded by the 1951 volumeswas repaidby Parsonsrevisingtheirmostcomplex conceptualmachinery followingnew theoretical "breakthroughs", e.g. Parsons' (1960) responseto Dubin's (1960) analysisof the pattern-variable scheme.The potentialforaccumulation, and claritytendedto parsimony, vanishin theseformalcomplexities; and withit vanishedthepossibility that mostreadersof The Social System(such as Mills 1959) mightever again to readanything Parsonswrote. venture willingly The movementtowarda moresophisticated analyticaltheorybegan in overthenext Economyand Society(Parsons& Smelser1956) andcontinued ofa century.'Butmanyoftheempirical researchers quarter (e.g. Levy 1952, Apter1965, Almond& Powell 1966)-and theirreaders-who took the ingoodfaithcouldcredibly inTheSocial System claimthat categories literally Parsonshad misledthemwithmanyimpliedpropositions aboutempirical social lifethatturnedout to be unsupportable. Havingbuilthis workintoa

ofTheSocial System 'Parsonsrevisedorreversed ina variety keyformulations oflatertexts;for explicitexamples,see Parsons1961,pp. 331-2; 1969a,p. 395n;1969b,p. 486n; 1971,pp. 383-5; fromTheSocial System 1978b,p. 367n.Moresubtleorlessexplicitly acknowledged departures are pervasive(see, e.g., Parsons1967, pp. 15, 28; 1970, pp. 844ff). This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

371

on thedisciplineduringthe1940s,Parsonsin TheSocial influence dominant goods.By thetimehe recovered Systemsimplydidnotdelivertheanticipated momentum theintellectual fromtheexcessesofthemiddleperiodandregained broadsideshad landedagainstThe of theearlierphase, enoughdevastating thatvirtually thewholesociologicalaudiencehadlostanyfurther SocialSystem interest in actiontheory. In spiteof thedefectsof the early1950s, actiontheoryoverall-across whichbecomesclear Parsons'50 yearsofpublications-hasa majorstrength whenParsons'overallprojectis comparedwithothermajorprojectsintheoryon an analyticallevel. The appealofParsonsin building:comprehensiveness byAlexander byMunch1982banddocumented Germany today(exemplified 1984b) is largelydue to his rigorouspursuitof a logicallycompleteand integrated systemof conceptsthatcan mediate,accumulate,and transmit of the social and behavioral knowledgefromeverybranchand sub-branch and naturalsciences. sciencesas well as closelyalliedhumanities frombiologytotheology-wasinfacttoo Thescopeofhisproject-ranging himoranyotherindividual topermit evenin50 years, theorist, comprehensive it called for.But theframework was to personallyinventeverycomponent workin specialized suggestive enoughforhimto recognizewhentheoretical outsidethelanguageofactiontheory, completely fields,evenbythoseworking totheoutlinesofParsons'thinking. On this wasmovingincloseapproximation forexample,theworkofFreud,Keynes,Schumpebasisheopenlyembraced, ter,AlfredEmerson,JamesOlds, ErnstMayr,JeanPiaget,Lon Fuller,GunParsons1970; for therStent(as outlinedin his autobiographical reflection, withParsons,see Smelser1981,Platt someaccountsofpersonalcollaboration 1981, and Gerstein198la). the1950s,1960s,and1970s,Parsonswasrepeatedly calleduponto Through his old work-in thefaceof critihis work-inevitably defendand interpret of dealingwithParsons'work thatthissituation cism.Therewererumblings based piecemealcouldnotbe expectedtolastbutmustgivewaytoassessments on all ofParsons'texts.2WithParsons'deathinMunichin 1979,theopportuby Mitchell(1967), Gouldner(1970), Bershady(1973), 2See, forexample,thetreatments (1977), and (1976), Loubseretal (1976), Menzies(1977), Bourricaud Rocher(1975), Adriaansens Alexander(1978). stillawaitsanalysis(V. material In additiontothepublishedtexts,a largebodyofunpublished corpusmaybe expectedtoappearover someofthisunpublished communication); M. Lidz,private in 1940-41entitled "Actor,situation, (a) a longessaywritten thenextseveralyears,particularly in Parsons whichis intermediate betweenthetheoretical formulations pattern," and normative analysisof social scienceas a (1937) and Parsons(1951); (b) a longempiricaland theoretical of theNationalScience theformation by Parsonsin 1947to influence nationalresource,written Foundation(Klausner& Lidz, 1985); (c) the key chapterson Americanvalues froma book AmericanSociety;and(d) withWinstonWhitebetween1958to 1962,entitled written manuscript Parsons'lastbook,in nearlyfinaldraft(800 ms pp) at his death,called TheAmericanSocietal Community. This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

372

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

in termsofitstextsalone,andindependently nitytoevaluateactiontheory of thedirectinfluence movedfrompossibility of its principalarchitect, to necessity.

THE TURNING POINT: ACTION THEORY IN THE 1980s Two eventsbestsymbolizetherecentrevivalof interest in Parsons'theories: TheAmerican JournalofSociology'stranslation andpublication of Munch's "TalcottParsonsandtheTheoryofAction,"(198ib, 1982a;thesearechapters oneandtwoofMunch1982b);andthepublication ofAlexander'sfour-volume Theoretical Logic in Sociology(1982a, 1982b,1983a, 1983b).In retrospect, however, threeimportant contributions helpedto preparethegroundforthese on Parsonsat the 1980 events:(a) Habermas's(1981a) criticalcommentary meeting oftheGermanSociologicalAssociation,flankedbyhisdiscussionof ParsonsinthesecondvolumeofTheTheoryofCommunicative Action(HaberinLegitimation mas198lb), hiscomparison ofWeber,Parsons,andLuhmann of Parsonsand Arendt;(b) AlexanCrisis(1973) andhis (1977) comparison in theAmerican voluntarism der's 1978 essay on formaland substantive SociologicalReview;andespecially(c) Bershady's(1973) masterful criticism, a clearadvancebeyondthepreceding25 yearsof debateon Parsons'work. withthe Bershady,Munch,and Alexanderexpresssharpdissatisfaction In fact,theyfindlittleofworthinthecritiques qualityofearliercommentaries. citedinsociologicaljournals,monographs, ofParsonsstillmostfrequently and to accountfor especiallytextbooks.All four-Habermasincluded-attempt theircritiquetoa particular Parsons'socialtheory thanlimiting overall,rather phaseora particular setofconcepts.Each ofthefourcommentators, whatever hisopinionon theultimate meritsofParsons'socialtheory, raisespenetrating of socialtheory as questionsthatgo beyondParsonsto addresstheenterprise such. Alternative theories,such as thoseofferedby Habermas,Luhmann, Gouldner,and Giddens,mustface the same issues and questions,and the breadth ofthisnewdebateis preciselywhatis elevatingthestatusofParsons' workin the 1980s. in Parsonstherefore a waterThe contemporary revivedinterest represents his workfromthe fromthedebatessurrounding shed,differing substantially theearlier,piecemealdebatesforma 1950sto themid-1970s.Nevertheless, unfamiliar withAlexanconsiderable andweexpectthatsociologists literature, to addressParsons'work andHabermas,orunwilling der,Munch,Bershady, outof convein methodical fashion,will fallback on theseolderarguments nience:conflictvs consensustheory(Lockwood 1956, Dahrendorf1959, of theclassics (Cohen, Hazelrigg& Pope 1975, Giddens1968); distortion or statusquo ideologicalbias (Hacker 1961, Giddens1976); conservative orcollectivized as anoversocialized Gouldner 1970);functionalism conception ofman(Wrong1961,Homans1964); functionalism's unacceptable teleology of Piccone1968 andWright (e.g. Black 1961;butsee thecounterarguments This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

373

1983);orthereductionist sociologyofknowledge focusing on Parsons'family background, positionat Harvardduringthe Depression,and Americanor WASPethnocentrism (e.g. Gouldner1970).Thisliterature definestheconventionalwisdomofthedisciplineandhas unfortunately beenrepeatedendlessly in sociologysurveytexts. Against thisreceivedwisdom,theMunchtranslation waseventful becauseit ofthewaning illustrated to Americansociologists thatregardless dramatically influence ofParsonsintheUS (andtheconventional American attacksarewell knowninGermany), actiontheory, whensubjectedto close reading,is being foundto sufferfromfewermanifestself-contradictions or unsupportable thando Parsons'classicalorcontemporary alternatives. Forallthe assumptions legitimate questionsthatcan be raisedaboutParsons'works-and we see no reasonwhytheseshouldbe dismissedor ignored-Parsons'socialtheory has thepossibility of standing attracted becauseitoffers commentary up betterin thanMarx's,Weber's,or Durkheim'ssocial thefaceofrigorous questioning thefirst ofthe orthealternatives offered theories, byneo-Marxism, generation like Giddensand Collins. Frankfurt school,or contemporaries becausetheyrecastfundamental Alexander'sfourvolumesweresignificant ofsocialtheory construction thatParsonshadposedandthenturned questions Initialcriticalreviewsof thosesamequestionsto Parsons'worksthemselves. Alexanderhave notstoppedto considerthatanyworkin social theoryis as fortheavenuesoftheory construction thatitclosesoff,orprevents important frombeingunreflectively pursued,as forthe new avenuesit immediately foreclosesboththe casual adoptionof establishes.Alexandersuccessfully thatParsons'future ideal-type approaches andthepossibility critics,exegetes, return or earlierwaysof or followers can legitimately to theearlierliterature toempirical research.Anycommentator Parsons'theories bringing attempting withAlexander's to returncannotescape dealingfirstand systematically Theoretical Logic (1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b). In ourview, Alexander's succumbsultimately toidealisticdeterthatParsons'socialtheory conclusion, weconsiderTheoretical is somewhat over-stated. minism, Nevertheless, Logic totheenterprise ofsocial inSociologythemostchallenging singlecontribution theory by an AmericanauthorsinceParsons'The Structure ofSocial Action (1937) and Merton'sSocial Theoryand Structure (1957). Theframeworks forreadingParsonsthathavebeenproposedbyAlexander, fromeach other,as will Munch,Habermas,and Bershadydiffermarkedly ofParsons'workas a becomeclearbelow.Thissuggeststhattheinterpretation wholehas onlybegunto be established.It also suggestsa majorreasonwhy indetailedempirical fruitful usesofParsons'socialtheory research havetodate The disciplineofAmerican beengreatly delayed.Thisneedstobe putbluntly: the projectof the most sociologyis only todaybeginningto understand methodical and comprehensive Americantheorist.The pointedcritiquesof ParsonsmadebyBershady(1973) andHabermas(1973, 1977, 198la) moved This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

374

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

thedebatebeyonditsearlierlimitsby explicating specificstandardsagainst whichany social theorymustbe evaluatedand applyingthesestandards to I Parsons. Bershady (1973) persistently raisedthechargeagainstParsonsofovergenerof conceptsmaywell overarchall indiality:Parsons'analyticalframework vidual societiesand therefore escape theempiricalrelativism of ideal-type approachesto social theory,butParsons'framework "cannotreproducethe featuresof any singlesociety."Given thisproblemof separationbetween movedtoa morefundamental theory andempirical specificity, Bershady issue: shouldwe, orcan we, evaluatethemeritsofParsons'social By whatstandard relativetocompeting theory conceptsandcategories? Bershadyinsistedthatit to criticizeParsons'social theoryforbeing"inherently is meaningless cona narrowvisionof humancreativity or freedom. servative"or incorporating was to distinguish humansocialaction BershadynotesthatParsons'intention behavioras such,just as Chomsky's(1965) syntactics fromnonhuman was to distinguish sentenceconstruction. Each theorist intended grammatical proframework thatallowsandrequireshuman videsa fundamental intersubjective and observerswiththepossibility of creativity, providingbothparticipants incommonwhathumancreativity recognizing andunderstanding is. Bershady theKantianapproachofbasingtheir sees ParsonsandChomskyas employing This is why theorieson the irreducible componentsof social interaction. is "anepistemology ofintersubjectivBershady saysthatParsons'socialtheory of causality.Bershady'sthesisis thatwe can ity"and notan epistemology therefore only criticizeParsons' social theoryby showingeitherthathis is not generalizableand comprehensive analyticalframework (but, rather, failsto present oftimeandplace, and/or methodisuccumbsto therelativism ofanypossiblesocialaction),or that callyall possibleanalytical components cannotovercomeits over-generality so as to Parsons'analyticalframework ornormative research inform empirical debate,i.e. "thatParsons'rulesaretoo historical andpossiblefuture social meageror faultyto comprehend diversity worlds,adequatelyspecified." to illustrate thisproblemofovergeneralto Parsons'functionalism Turning ity,BershadysaysthatParsons'AGIL schema,thefourfunctional subsystems andlatentpattern can ofadaptation, goal-attainment, integration, maintenance, onlyinformempiricalresearchif all foursets of symbolicmediaof social andvaluecommitments) "are interchange (in order:money,power,influence, understood." perfectly However,themediaof influenceand value commit"areconceptually unclearatthemacroscopic mentsinparticular range,andthis fitbetweensystemproblems andinstituvaguenessis notmerelyan imperfect of themediaare ambiguous,the tions."For Bershady,Parsons'definitions ofthefunctional oftheboundaries definitions arenotsharpenough subsystems fromdysfunctions, and theinterchanges functions to preciselydifferentiate This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

375

aretoovaguetoaccountinanyspecificempirical betweensubsystems instance fortheproposition thatI andL are"higher" thanA andG rather thanviceversa. Bershady'scritiquestillposesthemostfundamental andimportant challenge totherevitalization ofParsons'socialtheory. Bershadyviewsthechallengeas unanswered byParsons,thoughnot,inprinciple, unanswerable bythoseusing framework. Parsons'theoretical to Bershady,Habermas(198lb) in essence Althoughnotreferring directly ofthechargeofovergenerality. bringsouttheimplications UnlikeBershady, is an inherent however,he insiststhatovergenerality andirremediable characso thatitcannotinform ofParsons'theory, eitherempirical teristic researchor how it is employedor reworked.Habermasargues social practice,no matter is basedon"isolatedindividuals," thatParsons'earlyconceptofvoluntarism so ofthepurecontingency thatsocialorderforParsonsis a matter of individual of social values and norms. withinsome largerframework decisionmaking construction evolvedintothe1960s According toHabermas,as Parsons'theory individual-based was smothered and 1970s,thisautonomous contingency by functional notonlyovercome "systemstheory":extra-individual imperatives individuals butundermine theintegrity theresistance ofrecalcitrant ofanyand all resistant culturalpatterns.Habermasrefersto Menzies (1977) and uses between"systemintegration" Lockwood's(1956) earlydistinction and"social his readingof Parsonsas a systemstheorist. integration" to document Havingread Parsonsin thisway, Habermasraises threeveryspecific, interrelated challengesto anyanalystof advancedsocieties,butespeciallyto "Parsons'students."NeitherMunchnor Alexandernor any otherParsons has directlyrespondedto Habermas'threechallenges.In our commentator orotherwise, Parsonian thepotential view,anytheorist, seekingtodemonstrate of a theoretical framework mustrespond. empiricalrichnessand specificity of culturalintegrity reasonedprotection First,thechallengeof grounding a againstthecorrosiveeffectsof moneyand power:Habermasasks whether withintherealmof social valuesand theorycan identify anybarriers strictly ofsocial normsthatcan resistchangesinducedbytheinstrumental adaptation late capitalism.Habermas'thesisis thatParsons' systemsthatcharacterizes lackstheconceptstoexplainwhyanydistinctive theoretical framework cultural of patterns mightbe resilientin theface of functional systemicimperatives rationalized" modernization. "capitalistically criticism ofmodernity: Habermassays Second,thechallengeofa grounded that"Parsonscannotdiscernthecostsor pathologiesof modernization" (e.g. andthusintellectual urbandecay,theoverbureaucratization of impoverishment highereducation)as could Marx, Weber,and Durkheim.For Habermas, misdirected functional systemic can complexity (ormisdirected differentiation) attheLebenswelt itspathological effects orlife-world be detected onlythrough

This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

376

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

and everydaymeaningsand experiencesof actors. level, the interpersonal andfunctional changewith systemic BecauseHabermasseesParsonsanalyzing in the rationalization the same categorieshe uses to analyzeinstrumental Habermassays thatParsonshas no conceptualbasis for actors'life-worlds, criticizing modemsocial change.For HabermasthisexplainswhyParsons' rather thana senseofpathosaboutmodem workconveysa senseofharmony social life. Third,thechallengeof a groundedbasis forreasoned,practicalreforms: Rainer thatsomeofParsons'students-particularly Habermasacknowledges in Parsons'workby Baum (1976b)-attemptto respondto thedifficulties ofmodernization as theunderdevelopment ofthe manifest pathologies treating and valuethatis, influence "higher"symbolicmediaof social interchange, Thisunderdevelopment leadstothe"misuse"ofthelower-level commitments. in decisionmaking. However, media of moneyand powerby participants of symbolicmediaofinterchange can only thatthetheory Habermascounters suchpathologies, if"onecanassigndirect tolocateorreform be usedcritically, to well-defined equilibria."He adds: "Whoeverstarts normative significance of a theory on thisroadshouldnothesitateto takeup thetaskofconstructing or valuerealization thatcan be normatively understood valueimplementation oftheparticipants." (Habermas1981a). It is theparticifromtheperspective orrealizevaluesbyactinginconcert, and pants,afterall, whomustimplement mustaccountforhowtheycancometoa commonrecognition thesocialtheory of theproblemand thenagreeon, initiate,and maintain and understanding thatthenormative ofsuch implications reform. Habermasis "highlydoubtful an endeavorcould be compatiblewiththe characterof Parsons' theory" (Habermas:1981a:195). in thepracticalendsor empirical Munch(1981b, 1982a) is less interested or rigorof Parsons'philosophical uses of actiontheorythanin theintegrity a taskpresented bytheGermandebatein sociology;he therefore foundations, does Bershady'sor Habermas'schallenges.Munch, like Habermas,was andagainlikeHabermas,cametoa readingofParsons trained as a philosopher, or systemstheory. a readingof Luhmann's(1976, 1981) structural through all ofParsons'worksas a deep Munch'sthesisis that"a Kantiancore"informs of his structure, regardlessof Parsons'own surface-or self-understanding socialtheory. becomingskewedinto Thus,Munchdoesnotsee Parsons'theory seesitas recapitulating thelogicalform a one-sidedsystems theory but,rather, andsubstantive ofKant'sCritiqueofPureReasonandKant'sepistemological experience. theory/practical objective/subjective, dualisms,e.g. fact/value, ofthesocialsystemare andtheory ForMunch,Parsons'generalactiontheory andmethod,to Kant'scriticalphilosophy," and "exactlyparallel,in structure "TheStructure ofSocial Actionmustbe readas thesociologicalequivalentof Kant's moralphilosophy." This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

377

accordingto Munch,by the Parsons'Kantiandualismis bestillustrated, of normsat the societallevel and betweeninstitutionalization relationship level.ForMunch,eachprocessfor ofnormsatthepersonality internalization calculation ofexternal coercionvsindividual thedichotomy Parsonstranscends the"interpenetration" oftheconditional andthenormaitrepresents ofutility; theKantiandualismsand transcending tive.Munchsees Parsonsemploying of interpenetration" the byposingand answering "thetheorem themthrough constitute question:"Giventhatsocialorderexists,whatconditions following whichsocialactionnecessarily takesplace"?Munchsays within theframework of thatParsons'answeris thattheremustbe "a limiton [actors']arbitrariness considerations" (emphasisin original). solelybysubjective actiondetermined or choicescanonlybe limited either bymoralstandards ForKant,subjective (in Kantianterms,categoricalvs hypothetical by calculationof self-interest of principles).Only the firstkindof principle"can producea consistency can for social order." What Parsons account actions therefore, and, choiceof ruleinKant'ssense,whichmust calls a norm,Munchtellsus, is a categorical of thanmerelybeingbasedon expectations be heldvalidforall actorsrather questionfor or loss. Thus,Munchsays,"theparamount profit (hypothetical) [any]sociologicaltheoryis how is thiscategoricalobligationpossible?"For which"replacesthe old doctrineof Munch,the key is "interpenetration" ofeach sideofthedualismbytheother The interpenetration differentiation." inthedualism"so thatunity[socialorder] side"elevatesthetension"inherent can be maintained." ofrational calculation andsubjectively Thisemphasisontheinterpenetration providesMunchwiththebasisto acceptablemorallimitson self-interestedness Parsons'project:First,notonlyParsonsbut regarding makeseveralassertions ofinterpenetration tothetheorem to cameeventually all theclassicsociologists overcomedualism,but"nowhereelse in sociologyhas thisbasic idea been ofParsons."Second,Parsons'Kantian as lucidlyas inthewritings elaborated withcommonlaw adjudicaapproachhas morein commonmethodologically butholds out thepossibility of reversalsor tion,whichappliesprecedents ofdeduction method" challengesbylocallevelaction,thanwith"thescientific free as theirreducible andcausality.Third,Parsons(1937) definedvoluntarism or framework (goal-rational will or freedomof theindividualin a two-term actionvs categorical-normative instrumental obligation),but beginningin schema(cultural, social,personality 1951this"wasreplaced"bythethree-term and"theanalysisexplicitsystem) addingthebehavioral subsequently systems, to explainbothsocial actionand ly revolvesaroundtheirinterpenetration" ofintersocialorder.Finally,becauseMunchemphasizestheinterpenetration he contendsthattheintegrative or societal nalizationand institutionalization, inParsons'laterwritings wasreally"thehighest levelof community subsystem rather than abovethelatentpattern-maintenance subsystem standing control", This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

378

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

below it, as Parsonsmaintained.For Munch,the latterprovidestoo little controlover the optionsof calculating,self-interested actors,whereasthe integrative subsystem is thelocus of obligations thatare both"self-evident" andinstitutionalized) and"imposed"(bythesameprocesses). (i.e. internalized These subjectively accepteddutiescontrolactors'optionsand thusestablish and maintainsocial order. of Parsonsis thelongestand mostdetailedyetto Alexander'streatment introduction appear.Followinga generalized to"theoretical logic"(Alexander 1982a), he discussesfourmajor social theorists-Marxand Durkheimin volumetwo(Alexander1982b),Weberin volumethree(Alexander1983a), andParsonsin volumefour(1983b)-withinan overallexploration ofconflain socialtheory.Conflation(or conflationary error)andmultidimensionality errorinvolvesthecollapseofessentialanalytical distinctions between tionary thelevelsofgeneralpresuppositions, theoretical levels,particularly ideologiand methodological cal orientations, empiricalpropositions, assumptions. meanstheconsistently wellbalanced Multidimensionality treatment, mainlyat factors insociallife. thegeneralpresuppositional level,ofidealandempirical thestrands ofmultidimensionality Foreachauthor,Alexanderfirst presents works.Thenhe locateswhereandwhyeachtheorist intherelevant succumbed or overrelying on one or to a specifictypeof conflationary error,reifying and as a resulttiltedthebalanceof his anotherlevel of theoryconstruction, towardeitheridealormaterial factors.In short,Alexander theory irretrievably offersthe followingstandardagainstwhichany theorist'sworksmay be evaluated:The workmustescape conflationand mustmaintaina multiinregardtothetwo dimensional approachtothestudyofsociety,particularly "decisivequestions"at thepresuppositional level: how are social actionand fortheultisocial orderpossible?AlexanderadoptsParsons'earlycriterion socialtheory:ecumenicism, matesuccessof analyticalor methodical or sucof conceptsthatcan rendersocial science cess in providinga framework understandable knowledgecumulative by makingresearchfindings mutually and of research levels acrossdisciplines, interests, analysis. In thefirsthalfof volumefour,AlexanderarguesthatParsons'analytical modeland social changetheorymarkeda clear advance AGIL interchange inthedevelopment ofmultidimensional beyondthethreeclassicalsociologists not Parsons did to socialnorms socialtheory. give"epistemological priority" did not in this sense cultural or ideal and values, overemphasize factors,but with their material factors and ratherexposed utilitarian interrelationships ofcostandbenefit.Nevertheless, thesecondhalfofAlexander's calculations volumefourbuilds the case that"Parsonsoverlayshis multidimensional andhighlydamagingformofsociologicalidealanalysiswitha reductionistic ism" (Alexander1983b,p. 152). In Alexander'sview, Parsons'theory,like thoseof Marx, Weber,and from"centralequivocationsin thetheory Durkheim,suffers fundamentally This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

379

was ultimately itself."As a result,Parsons,like his predecessors, unableto "resistanypresuppositional bias, to maintain an objective,multidimensional orientation .. ." (Alexander1983b,p. 151). Parsonsincreasingly attempted to generateactiontheorystrictly by deductionfromfirstprinciples,thereby histheory reifying andturning itintoan aridformalism. EventhoughParsons' ofconceptsis epistemologically framework analytical sophisticated, anticipatingtheworkofThomasKuhnandcontemporary postpositivist philosophy of to empiricist science,Alexandersees Parsonsas havinga commitment principles regardingthe statusof "facts",a commitment he neverconsistently "He believesthathis analytic reconciledwithhis analyticalsophistication. discoveriesare, in fact,concrete"(Alexander1983b,p. 153). Thus Parsons abouttherelationship couldneverovercomehis"ambivalence betweentheory held"a positivist andfact"(p. 153). Parsonsultimately faithintheconjunction of theoryand fact,"nota Kantianview thatfactsare inherently formedand givenpattern bycategories.Parsons'"neopositivist formalism" can be found 'in everypieceofhislaterwork,ineverybook,everyessay,everydiscussion to engagein morespecificempiricalargumentation" thatutilizesinterchange (p. 162). Bythe1960s,"eachoftheinterchange model'skeyterms[.. . is .. .] presented as ifitwerederivedfromsomeinherent logicofsystems rather than fromParsons'sefforts to modelhis analyticsynthesis of instrumental and normative order"(p. 171). theproblemsof action Alexander'ssecondchargeis thatParsonsconflates toAlexander, Parsonstreatsrationalactionas inherently andorder.According thatis, based on actors'narrowcalculationof materialselfindividualistic, interest.Therefore,collectiveorderis necessarilythe productof "supraexternal force"thatis normative rather thaninstrumental. individual "Parsons definesnormative orderas thepreferable-ifnottheonly-referrepeatedly encepointforcollectivist theorizing" (Alexander1983b,p. 218). Thepossibilcalculationis eliminated itythatcollectiveordermaybe basedon instrumental as a collectiveor an empiricalpossibility."Collectiveinstrumental order becomesa residualcategory:it is no longeramongthe centralaxiomsof Parsons'theoretical logic" (Alexander1983b,p. 214).

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN ACTION THEORY for Bershadyand Habermasconcurthatthe majortargetsof opportunity inactiontheory researchandtheoretical arethe"higher empirical specification andvalue-commitments, andtheirbases inthe order"socialmedia,influence, and fiduciarysubsystems.Probablythe mostexciting societalcommunity havefocusedprecisely on theseareas.Alongrecentefforts byactiontheorists andanalytical theeffort toestablish sidethisprocessofempirical specification, of Parsons' projectcan be expectedto a broadlyacceptedunderstanding This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

380

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

continuebecause the readingsof Parsonsofferedby Alexander,Munch, in fundamental respects. Habermas,and Bershadydiffer as recently Luhmann(1976, 1981) has playeda majorrolein theseefforts, including outlined byAlexander(1984b). Each oftheGermansocialtheorists, Habermasand Munch(and one mayadd RainerBaum), who readsParsons theeyesor undertheinfluence of thetheoriesof Luhmann, does so through uncertainwhohasemphasizedtheproblemofactionintermsofcontingency, structures, ratherthanfunctions, as ty,risk,and complexity.He identifies beingprimaryin accountingfororderin social systems.The generalized or ways of managingthe media,in his view, are specializedmechanisms of complexity and contingency. Luhmannalso reexpansionand reduction andcommitment mediaofinfluence withrather differently placestheParsonian conceivedmediaof love and trust,openinghereas elsewhererichveinsof discussionthathavestimulated manyactiontheorists (e.g. Loubser theoretical 1976, Baum 1976a, 1976b,Munch1981a, 1982b). nowreflects theneedto Researchbeingundertaken bymanyactiontheorists of thesocietal themostimportant analyticalcomponents specifyempirically withothersocialstructures. andfiduciary community systemas theseinteract in theWestor societies(whether Alexander(1980) theorizesthatmultiethnic qualitiesand theThirdWorld)revolvearounda "coregroup"bearingascriptive commoninternalized substantive aninsuperbeliefs,andthatthiscorepresents assimilated "outside"groups,whocannotfeel ablebarrier eventosuccessfully withtheirplace in societyas thecoregroupdoes. as comfortable subjectively outa studyof thesymbolicand affective Alexander(1984a) is also carrying crisis.Munch(privatecommunication) oftheWatergate hasjust implications beliefsystemsof four completeda two-volumestudyon the substantive advancedWesternsocieties:Germany, France,BritainandtheUnitedStates. Lidz (1979a, 1985) has begunpublishingworksfroma studyof cultural and socio-political secularization changein theUnitedStatesin thetwentieth century. Colomy(1985) analyzestheunevenratesatwhichmass-basedpolitifromolderpatterns ofdeference andclass cal partiesdeveloped(differentiated) has Americanstates.Gould (privatecommunication) relationsin antebellum methodsthathe earlier(Gould 1976) adaptedfrom appliedmacroanalytic Keynesiantheoryto the Englishrevolution.Wallace (1985) exploresthe differences betweenParsons'andLuhman'sapproachto religionandpatternof maintenance, focusingon Parsons'greateropennessto the implications religiouspluralism. Baum(1976b, 1981),Baum& Lechner(1981), andLechner(1985) grapple ofmodernity: withthemostradicalandpathological vehicleofthediscontents GermanNationalSocialism.Theirapproachis to fascism,and particularly studiesoftheNazi periodwitha strong on detailedhistorical undertake theory mechanisms" mediatedespeciallybyelites;their the"loss of societalsteering This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

381

aim is to elaboratea generaltheoryof fascistmovementsthatwill have andexplanatory andbe abletoaddressnormative predictive utility questionsof in theaftermath a sortthatarehighlypertinent of NationalSocialismandthe and influence Holocaustin modemGermany(Baum 1978). Moralauthority and legal normsmay based on varioussolidarities, culturalvalue-patterns, forexternal restrain themodemstatefromitsenormous potential andinternal barbarism.But historically observableconditionsthatfosterfundamentalist to revitalizea dedifferentiated "core" value-pattern and a national attempts of statepower and bureaucratic ethnicidentity clearlypermitalignments thatoverridecommitments to moraldecency. efficiency Another lineofworkhereinvolvesvalueimplementation in science.LoubAGIL conceptsto studythehistory ofAmerican ser(1976) usedevolutionary social sciencesand the alternations betweenemphasison external(general societal)andinternal (scientific-cognitive) value-commitments-a dimensional variation sometimes reifiedin theidealtypesofvalue-relevance vs "valuefunctional freedom."Mayhew(1976) locatesthisdimensionas an enduring a broadersetofsuchtensions thatareinherent inthemethodolotensionwithin tensionsare"inherent in the gyof social sciencepreciselybecausecongruent for natureof social life itself."Lidz (1981) providesa cogentframework andsubstantive themethodological oftheapproaches identifying significance to theproblemof value-relevance takenby Parsons,Weber,Simmel,and Dilthey. One of the presentauthors,Sciulli (1984, 1985, 1986), proposesthat accounted forbothactionandorderinmodern Parsonsincreasingly societiesby to proceduralnorms,collegialformsof organization, and symbolic turning whichorientcollectiveactionin thefaceof thegreat mediaof interchange, of actors'beliefsandmotivations. and pluralism Parsons,in short,purposely thatareinternalized substanconsistently separated"normative motivations," thatat leastin partinvolvewhat tivebeliefs,from"normative orientations," Parsonscalled proceduralinstitutions. Sciulli (1985, 1986) sees Parsons' of Lon Fuller's(1964, 1969) principles of "procedural (1978a) appropriation Parsons'socialtheory. tounderstanding On thebasisofthis legality"as central thatmustbe present inmodern procedural turn,Sciullispecifiestheinstitutions socioeconomic a societyifarbitrary politicaland/or poweris to be restrained, Sciulli(1985) thereby complexhe calls "societalconstitutionalism." poses a thatHabermascannotpossibly challengeto Habermas'sstudents, contending communication topoliticalpractice,abovethe bringhisownprocedural theory level of serialinterpersonal relations,unlesshe linkshis theoryto societal or an equivalent. constitutionalism A secondbroadlineofParsonianactiontheory is atthegeneralactionlevel, whichtreatsthesocial systemon an analyticalparwithpersonality, culture, and behavioralsystems.The accusationsthattheindividualin actiontheory This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

382

SCIULLI& GERSTEIN

and a "culturaldope"derivedin largepartfrom tendsto be "oversocialized" processesfrombiologicalonesand inseparating cognitive Parsons'difficulties foundation for individualcognitive therebyin creatinga firmtheoretical organautonomy (Warner1978). Parsons'originalconceptofthe"behavioral ism"(Parsons& Shils 1951)was theleastwellboundedordefinedofthefour generalactionsystems,coveringan extensiverangeofbiologicalorganizing theheritage ofgeneticendowprocesses.The organicpartoftheconnection, withthe symboliccharacterof integrated ment,could not be effectively roomfor andleftinsufficient socialsystems, andcultural systems, personality, thought or a conceptof individualschemesand/or processesof independent between accommodation Theproblemoffinding a nonreductionist rationality. toactiontheory butis a verybroad societyandbiologyis bynomeansrestricted issue.

Thisproblem assaultbyLidz & Lidz (1976), leadingto cameunderforceful a complete thatParsonsaccepted(1978b). Insteadofa behaviorreformulation a fullydeveloped"behavioral whosecontent system" al organism, theypresent cognitivevein.The butin a fundamentally is as symbolicas thepersonality, "behavioralsystem"operatesmuchin themoldof Piaget'sconrechristened to and operations, commitment thoughwithout ceptsof cognitivestructures intelligence states.Behavioralprocessesgenerate Piaget'srigiddevelopmental andpersonalaction,whilestructures of forsocial,cultural, as a broadresource and formal-categorical knowledgeexpectational, perceptual, interpretive, action. theAGIL of thebehavioralsystem-constitute intelligent A secondinnovation in generalactiontheorywas to developrelatively middle-range theoriesof generalaction"complexes"in empiricalcase analybythe"cognitive complex"developedin theanalysisofthe sis, as suggested a American university byParsons& Platt(1973). Lidz (1979b) has suggested "moralmatrix"in the analysisof law. An examplethathas had extended is the"addiction thatinvolvesall complex",a construct empirical investigation andbuildsespeciallyon theDurkheimian aspects fourgeneralactionsystems, Walker& Lidz (Gouldetal 1974,Lidz & Walker1978,1980, ofactiontheory. of andexplanation description Walker& Lidz 1983)developa comprehensive inwhichtheideologyandpoliticsofthe"drugabusecrisis"atthe themanner actionofclinical themicrodynamic national, state,andlocal levels,including ofa fundamental conflict andstreet working through life,aroseas a systematic vs expressive activism ofmoralschemas:instrumental passivism,inthesharpestformulation. Thisproblemhas also beenaddressedby one of thepresent authors:Attewell& Gerstein(1979) analyzethe effectsof ideologicaland andimplementation ofmethadone maintenance ontheformation moralconflict becongruence policies;Parsons& Gerstein(1977) explorethetheoretical tweenaddictionto heroinand addictionto power;and Gersteinspecifiesthe of theheroincomplex majorsocial (1976) and cultural(1981b) components This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

383

and integrates thesewithina broaderDurkheimian reinterpretation of the generalactionscheme(1983, 1986). A finalgeneralactionreformulation thathascomeaboutintherecentperiod is toemphasizethecentrality oflanguageandlinguistic processesformeaningofsocial fulaction.Lidz (1976) outlinedtheideathattheelementary structure totheelementary ofsyntax,and actionwas fundamentally structure congruent was continuouswiththe thatthe compositionof complexsocial structure sentences.Edelson(1976) problemof composingand decodingmeaningful ofthe"linguistic andTurner(1976) carriedoutthemostelaborateexpressions drift"in actiontheory.Edelson applieda notionderivedfromgenerativetothepersonality transformational linguistics system, relying especiallyon the and surfacestructure in the notionthattherelationsbetweendeep structure betweenwishesanddreamsin analysisofspeechcanbe appliedtotherelation psychoanalysis.Turnerdeveloped a case thatfamilialunits express in ofintergenerational thedeepstructure socialization kinship.Hayes(1981) has forinsufficient boththeseefforts criticized rigorin usinglinguistic concepts, ofthesemiotics ofspecializedmedia thoughhe callsforcontinued exploration thatseemsincreasingly to thenatureof languages,a perspective appropriate analyticalactionsystems.

CONCLUSION The book on TalcottParsonshas been reopenedin the 1980s, and it is not possibleto predictwherethismaylead. The majorcharacteristic of thenew to thefullrangeof Parsons'publishedworksin workis itsexplicitattention contrast to thepiecemealanalysesthatcharacterized earliercriticism.Bershady,Habermas,Munch,and Alexanderprovidean interpretive openingto ofParsons'socialtheory-butonlyan opening. explorethelongertermmerits has beenovergeneral, BershadyandHabermasconcurthatParsons'theory andtheyelaboratespecificproblemsthatmustbe facedin anyeffort to bring theory-whether Parsonian,neo-Marxian,or any otherkind-to bear on Parsons' empirical problems.HabermasandBershady disagreeaboutwhether toexaminetherestraints is inherently insufficient andpossibilities framework of modemsocieties.In our view, analysesframedentirely withinParsons' to each of Habermas'sthree theorycan be addressedwithgreatspecificity questions-questionswhichstrikeus as fair,judicious,and centralin imporParsonsnorhisstudents-nor tance.We concede,withHabermas,thatneither of any theoretical tradition-haveas yetgivensatisfactory thestudents responsesto thesequestions. anddevelopment ofBershady'sinsights Munch'selaboration intotheneoof Parsons'theoryis an important Kantianfoundations contribution. But a thelensofLuhmannand cautionmustbe observedinreadingParsonsthrough This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

384

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

of socialphilosophy. continental, especiallyGerman,traditions As important is forParsons,his workhas also absorbedand been as theGermantradition shapedthroughout bytraditional Anglo-American concerns withpragmatic and on arbitrary procedural restraints power.Theseconcernsarenoteasilygrasped withina strictly Kantian-or, forthatmatter, Hegelian-interpretation. Alexanderhas made a thorough, long overdue,assessmentof Parsons' of analyticstrength, distinctive combination methodological complexity, and ofmaterialist Atthesametime,we arenotpersuadedthat rejection reduction. Alexander'scase forthe presenceof strongly neopositivistic and idealistic strandsis substantiated by Parsons'work.Alexander'slogic is strongly prothatParsonsconflated withconcrete pelledby assertions analyticdistinctions We thinkthatParsons'conceptsmust,as a rule,be read as observations. analyticexceptwhenhe explicitlysaid otherwise.Alexanderdepartsoften are themainbase on whichhis case for fromthisrule,and thesedepartures andpresuppositional Parsons'methodological idealismareconneopositivism structed. oftheinterpretive The significance analysisofParsons'workis twofold.In inGermany, therigorandbreadth ofParsons'analytiEurope,andparticularly andconsequently itsvalueforconsidering cal framework, theexistential and are sufficient to sustaininterestin philosophicalproblemsof modernity, forthefuture Butthemajorindicator Parsonian theory. acceptanceofParsons' ofempirical inAmerican work theory sociologywillbe thequalityandquantity a reopeningin this empirical inspiredby it. The citationshere represent direction followinga periodof quiescence-butonlyan opening. Cited Literature Adriaansens,H. P. M. 1976. Transl. 1980. TalcottParsonsand theConceptualDilemma. London:Routledge,1980 J.C. 1978. Formalandsubstantive Alexander, Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:177-98 voluntarism. ethnic Alexander,J.C. 1980. Core solidarity, A multiandsocialdifferentiation: outgroup, dimensionalmodelof inclusionin modern societies. In National and EthnicMoveed. J.Dofny,A. Akiwowo,pp. 5-28. ments, BeverlyHills: Sage J.C. 1981.Themassnewsmediain Alexander, systemic,historical,and comparativeperspective.InMass MediaandSocial Change, ed. E. Katz and T. Szecsko, pp. 17-52. BeverlyHills: Sage Alexander,J. C. 1982a. TheoreticalLogic in Sociology,Volume1, Positivism,Presuppositions, And Current Controversies. Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. 234 pp. Logic in Alexander,J. C. 1982b.Theoretical Of Sociology,Volume2, The Antinomies Classical Thought:Marx and Durkheim. Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. 564 pp.

Alexander,J. C. 1983a. TheoreticalLogic in Sociology,Volume3, TheClassicalAttempt At Theoretical Synthesis:Max Weber. Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. 240 pp. Alexander,J. C. 1983b. TheoreticalLogic in Sociology,Volume4, The ModernReconstruction of Classical Thought:Talcott Parsons. Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. 544 PP. Alexander,J. C. 1984a. Watergateand the crisisofcivilsociety.InSociologicalTheory 1984, ed. R. Collins, pp. 290-314. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass J.C. 1984b.TheParsonsrevivalin Alexander, Germany.In SociologicalTheory1984, ed. R. Collins, pp. 394-412. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Almond,G. A., Powell,G. B. 1966. ComparativePolitics:A Developmental Approach. Boston:Little,Brown Apter,D. E. 1965. ThePoliticsofModernization.Chicago:Univ. of Chicago.481 pp. Attewell,P., Gerstein,D. 1979. Government policyandlocal practice:thecase ofmetho-

This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY

385

logical Theory1983, ed. R. Collins, pp. done maintenance.Am. Sociol. Rev. 44: 234-258. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass 311-327 oftheaddiction D. R. 1986.A theory Baum, R. C. 1976a. Communicationand Gerstein, complex. In Micro and Macro Levels in media.See Loubseretal 1976,pp. 533-556 ed. J.C. Alexander, H. SociologicalTheory, Baum,R. C. 1976b.On societalmediadynamHaferkamp,R. Muinch,N. J. Smelser. ics. See Loubseret al 1976, pp. 579-608 Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. Press.In press Baum, R. C. 1978. The Holocaust-anomic far Giddens,A. 1968. "Power"in therecentwritHobbesian"stateof nature".Zeitschrift ings of TalcottParsons.Sociology2:257Soziologie7:303-26 272 Baum, R. C. 1981. The Holocaust and the German Elite: Genocide and National Giddens,A. 1976. Classicalsocialtheoryand the originsof modernsociology.Am. J. Suicide in Germany,1871-1945. Totowa, 374 pp. Sociol. 81:703-729 NJ:Rowman& Littlefield. Baum, R. C., Lechner,F. J. 1981. National Gould, C. C., Walker,A. L., Crane,L. E., Notesfrom Socialism:Towardsan actional-theoretical Lidz, C. W. 1974. Connections: theheroinworld.New Haven: Yale Univ. Sociol. Inq. 51:281-308 interpretation. Press.236 pp. Bershady,H. J. 1973. Ideologyand Social Gould, M. 1976. Systemanalysis,macrosoKnowledge.New York:Wiley mediaofsocial ciology,andthegeneralized F. 1977. (tr.1981) TheSociology Bourricaud, action.See Loubseretal. 1976,pp. 470-506 ofTalcottParsons. Chicago:Univ. of ChiGouldner,A. W. 1970. The ComingCrisisof cago. 326 pp. Western Sociology.New York:Basic Black, M. 1961. Some questionsaboutParCrisis.BosIn TheSocial TheoriesofTal- Habermas,J. 1973. Legitimation sons'theories. ton:Beacon cottParsons, ed. M. Black, pp. 268-88. Habermas,J. 1977. Hannah Arendt'scomCarbondale:SouthernIll. Univ. Press munications conceptof power. Soc. Res. Bryant,C. G. A. 1983. Reviewarticle:Who 44:3-24 nowreadsParsons?Sociol. Rev. 31:337-49 Chomsky,N. 1965. Aspectsof theTheoryof Habermas,J.1981a. TalcottParsons:Problems of theoryconstruction. Sociol. Inq. 51(3/ Syntax.Cambridge:M.I.T. Press 4): 173-96 Cohen J., HazelriggL. D., Pope W. 1975. De-ParsonizingWeber:A critiqueof Par- Habermas,J. 198lb. Theoriedes KommunikativenHandelns.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp of Weber's sociology. sons' interpretation Hacker,A. 1961. Sociologyand ideology.In Am.Sociol. Rev. 40:229-41 ToTheSocial TheoriesofTalcottParsons,ed. Colomy,P. 1985. Unevendifferentiation: M. Black,pp. 289-310. Carbondale:Southwards comparativetheory.In NeoFuncernIll. Univ. tionalism,ed. J. Alexander.BeverlyHills: and creativity: Hayes, A. C. 1981. Structure Sage. In press modTheuseoftransformational-generative R. 1959.Class and Class Conflict Dahrendorf, els in action theory.Sociol. Inq. 51(3/ in IndustrialSociety Stanford:Stanford 4):219-39 Univ. Press.336 pp. menbackin.Am. Dubin,R. 1960. Parsons'actors:Continuities Homans,G. 1964. Bringing Sociol. Rev. 29:808-18 on social theory.Am.Sociol. Rev. 25:457Klausner,S., Lidz, V. W. 1985. Social Sci66 ence: A Basic National Resource. PhiEdelson,M. 1976. Towarda studyof interladelphia:Univ. Penn.Press.In press See Loubseret in psychoanalysis. pretation anditsdiscontents: Lechner,1985. Modernity al 1976, pp. 151-181 Revitalization syndromes in actionFuller,L. L. 1964. TheMoralityofLaw. New In NeoFunctionaltheoretical perspectives. Haven:Yale Univ. Press ism,ed. J. Alexander.BeverlyHills: Sage oftheLaw. New Fuller,L. L. 1969.Anatomy Levy, M. 1952. The Structureof Society. York:Praeger Princeton Univ. Press D. R. 1975. A noteon thecontinuity Princeton: Gerstein, of Parsonianaction theory.Sociol. Inq. Lidz, C. W., Lidz, V. M. 1976. Piaget's psychologyof intelligenceand the theory 45(4):11-15 of action.See Loubseret al 1976,pp. 195of heroin D. R. 1976. The structure Gerstein, 239 communities(in relation to methodone Am. J. Drug AlcoholAbuse Lidz, C. W., Walker,A. L. 1978.Therapeutic maintenance). control ofheroin:Dedifferentiating legaland 3:571-87 ofTalcontrols.Social SystemAndLepsychiatric D. R. 1981a. A reminiscence Gerstein, pp. 2941970toApril1979. gal Process,ed. H. M. Johnson, cottParsons,September 321. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Sociol. Inq. 51:166-70 Gerstein,D. R. 1981b. Culturalactionand Lidz, C. W., Walker,A. L. 1980. Heroin, Deviance, and Morality. Beverly Hills: heroinaddiction.Sociol. Inq. 51:355-70 Sage. 269 pp. Gerstein,D. R. 1983. Durkheim'sparadigm: to part II: a social theory.In Socio- Lidz, V. M. 1976. Introduction Reconstructing This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

386

SCIULLI & GERSTEIN

Generalactionanalysis.See Loubseret al 1976, pp. 124-150 ethicallife, Lidz,V. M. 1979a.Secularization, and religionin modemsocieties.In ReligiousChangeand Continuity-Sociological pp. 191ed. H. M. Johnson, Perspectives, 217. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Lidz, V. M. 1979b. The law as index,phenomenon,and element-conceptualsteps towarda generalsociologyof law. Sociol. Inq. 49(1):5-26 ofvalue-relevance Lidz, V. 1981.Conceptions and the theoryof action. Sociol. Inq. 51:371-408 Lidz, V. M. 1985. Televisionand themoral Televiorderina secularage. InInterpreting sion,ed. W. D. Rowland,Jr.,B. Watkins. BeverlyHills: Sage Deletedin proof. Lockwood,D. 1956. Some remarkson The Social System.Br. J. Sociol. 7:134-46 A., Lidz, Loubser,J.J.,Baum,R. C., Effrat, inGeneralTheory V. M. 1976.Explorations in Social Science: Volumes1 and 2. New York:Free. 909 pp. Loubser,J. J. 1976. The values problemin perspective. socialscienceindevelopmental See Loubseret al 1976, pp. 75-89 N. 1976.Generalizedmediaandthe Luhmann, See Loubseret al problemof contingency. 1976:507-32 of Luhmann,N. 1981. The Differentiation Society.New York:ColumbiaUniv. Press dilemmas Mayhew,L. 1976. Methodological insocialscience.See Loubseretal 1976,pp. 59-74 Menzies, K. 1977. TalcottParsons and the Social Image of Man. London:Routledge. 197 pp. Merton,R. K. 1957.Social Theoryand Social Structure.Revised and enlargededition. New York:FreePress Mills,C. W. 1959. In TheSociologicalImagination.London/NewYork: OxfordUniv. Press Mitchell,W. C. 1967. SociologicalAnalysis and Politics:The Theoriesof TalcottParsons.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall. 222 pp. Mullins, N. C. 1983. Theoriesand theory groups revisited.In Sociological Theory 1983. ed. R. Collins,pp. 319-38. San Francisco: JosseyBass Munch,R. 1981a. Socializationandpersonalfromthepointof view of itydevelopment action theory,the legacy of Emile Durkheim.Sociol. Inq. 51(3/4):331-54 Munch, R. 1981b. TalcottParsonsand the oftheKantofaction.I. Thestructure theory ian core.Am.J. Sociol. 86:709-39 Munch, R. 1982a. TalcottParsonsand the of the theoryof action.II. The continuity Am.J. Sociol. 87:771-826 development.

Munch,R. 1982b.TheoriedesHandelns-Zur Rekonstruktion der Beitrage, von Talcott undMax Weber. Parsons,EmileDurkheim, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.693 pp. Parsons,T. 1937. TheStructure ofSocial Action:A Studyin Social TheorywithSpecial Referenceto a Groupof RecentEuropean Writers.New York:MacMillan,817 pp. Parsons,T. 1951.TheSocial System.Glencoe, Ill.: FreePress Parsons,T. 1960.Pattern variablesrevisited: A responseto RobertDubin.Am.Social. Rev. 25:466-84 Parsons,T. 1961. The pointof view of the author.In The Social Theoriesof Talcott Parsons: A CriticalExamination,ed. M. Black, pp. 311-363. Carbondale:Southern Ill. Univ. Press Parsons,T. 1967. Durkheim'scontribution to ofintegration ofsocialsystems.In thetheory Sociological Theoryand ModernSociety, pp. 3-34. New York:FreePress. Parsons,T. 1969a. On theconceptof political power.In Politicsand Social Structure, pp. 352-404. New York:FreePress Parsons,T. 1969b. Polityand society:Some In Politicsand Sogeneralconsiderations. cial Structure, pp.473-522. NewYork:Free Press Parsons,T. 1970. On buildingsocial systems theory:A personalhistory.Daedalus 99: 826-81 InInstitutions Parsons,T. 1971. Commentary. and Social Exchange: The Sociologies of TalcottParsonsand GeorgeC. Homans,ed. H. Turk, R. L. Simpson. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Parsons,T. 1978a. Law as an intellectual stepchild.In Social Systemand Legal Process, ed. H. M. Johnson, pp. 11-58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Parsons,T. 1978b.A paradigmof thehuman condition.In ActionTheoryand theHuman Condition,ed. T. Parsons. pp. 352-433. New York:Free D. R. 1977.Two case of Parsons,T., Gerstein, socialdeviance:Addictionto heroin,addiction to power. In Deviance and Social Change,ed. E. Sagarin,pp. 19-57. Beverly Hills: Sage Parsons,T., Platt,P. 1973.TheAmericanUniversity. Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press Parsons,T., Shils, E. A. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for theSocial Sciences. Cambridge:HarvardUniv. Press.506 pp. Parsons,T., Smelser,N. J. 1956. Economy and Society.New York:Free. 322 pp. Piccone, P. 1968. Functionalism, teleology, and objectivity, Monist52:408-23 Platt,G. M. 1981. The AmericanUniversity: withTalcottParsons.Sociol. Collaboration Inq. 51:155-65

This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIAL THEORY Rocher,G. 1975. TalcottParsonsand AmericanSociology.New York:Harper& Row Sciulli,D. 1984.Parsons'analytical critique of Marxism'sconceptof alienation.Am. J. Sociol. 90:514-40 Sciulli,D. 1985.Thepractical groundwork for criticaltheory:BringingHabermasto Parsons (and vice versa). In NeoFunctionalism, ed. J. C. Alexander.BeverlyHills: Sage. In press Sciulli,D. 1986. PoliticalDifferentiation and Collegiality. In Differentiation Theory: Problemsand Prospects,ed. J. C. Alexander,P. Colomy.Berkeley:U. of Calif. In press Smelser,N. J. 1959. Social Change in the IndustrialRevolution.Chicago: Univ. of ChicagoPress Smelser,N. J. 1981. On collaborating with TalcottParsons:Some intellectual and personalnotes.Sociol. Inq. 51:143-54

387

Turner,T. S. 1976. Family structure and socialization.See Loubseret al 1976, pp. 415-46 Walker,C. W., Lidz,A. L. 1983.Commonalities in troublesome habitualbehaviors:A cultural approach.In Commonalities inSubstanceAbuseand HabitualBehavior,ed. P. K. Levison,D. R. Gerstein, D. R. Maloff., pp. 29-44. Lexington:Heath Wallace,R. A. 1985. Religion,privatization, and maladaptation. Sociol. Anal. In press Warner,R. S. 1978. Towarda redefinition of actiontheory: Payingthecognitiveelement itsdue. Am.J. Sociol. 83(6):1317-49 Wright,E. 0. 1983. Is marxismreallyfuncclassreductionist, tionalist, andteleological. Am.J. Sociol. 89:452-59 Wrong,D. 1961. The oversocializedconception of man in modernsociology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 26:183-93

This content downloaded from 200.24.27.185 on Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:43:38 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions