Talcott Parson’s Social System Concept
Talcott Parson’s social system is part of his broader action system, in which independent actors, such as human beings, socialize in an environment made up of cultural, personality, and behavioural. He distinguished the four constituents – cultural, behavioural, personality, and social – in terms of their functions. Therefore, an action system integrates, adapts, sets goals, and maintains specific values and norms. This paper explores the social system’s characteristics, the domains of the more extensive action system, how social systems apply in real-life, and the limitations of this system.
The Characteristics of a Social System
A (social) system is an analytically defined object domain, not a concrete, observable entity. To identify a social field, the sociologist needs to abstract relationships and social interactions from their environment. Parsons sees social systems as rooted in institutionalized norms and values that adhere to a broader cultural system. Members of a social system thus adhere to normative orders (not rational calculations) and are motivated to pursue mutually agreed goals in fear of sanctions that may result from other members of the society. Normative here implies that independent actors generally agree that some values are mutually acceptable, and a community should run in a certain way.
The size and duration of a social system vary. For instance, a simple interaction between two people qualifies as a social system. Equally qua are established civilizations such as the United States, China, etc. Ideally, any social interaction is a social system; these can vary from business corporations to families. The defining feature is that members follow some normative orders that shape their behaviors. In each social system, actors play different roles. For example, in a typical business entity, there are managers to lead and make decisions, employees to work, and supervisors to supervise work. Similarly, a typical family has parents and children, each playing a specific social role. The location of many businesses today goes beyond a country or a major city, exemplifying the fact that social systems are more than observable concrete entities.
Social systems consist of give-and-take expectations among independent actors. For instance, employees expect to earn salaries from their employers while managers expect their employees to behave in an acceptable way. To support these expectations, a social system has sanctions that compel actors to maintain predefined behaviors. For instance, many businesses have codes of conduct and ethics that guide their workforces on acceptable behavior. Each actor adheres to such codes because they fear the sanctions that accompany their breakage. To Parsons, actors’ behaviors are dependent on the individual actor’s expectations as well as others’ expectations. In other words, behaviors are mutual since one can sanction the other and can receive similar sanctions depending on behavior. However, conflict is expected in everyday expectations as different actors face different social strains and experiences.
Usually, social systems tend to change their formations in response to varying motivations and conflicts. For instance, a company might want to replace its CEO for ethical misconduct the same way society wishes to elect new leaders for corruption or other issues. However, legal procedures and political influences from the powerful classes limit the less powerful from implementing new social orders. For example, some governments opt to remain in power.
The functional prerequisites/Dimensions
According to Parsons, any system faces four primary problems. Parsons referred to these problems as functions, hence the four-function paradigm (Baxter, 2011). The following are the main dimensions provided by Parsons: –
- Adaptation – this dimension involves control over environmental conditions. Systems gain control by developing new resources or allocating the available resources more efficiently. The behavioral system offers an excellent example of adaptation. This system responds to personality goals; that is, individual aspirations. The individual, in turn, adapts their goals to societal norms, which are part of the broader cultural norms. As such, behavior is a function of many factors, which reveal the individual intentions but which adhere to the broader cultural preferences. It is vital noting that the choice of behaviors is not a matter of utility but a matter of mutual understanding that everyone should behave within acceptable limits.
- Goal attainment – this dimension involves the alternative actions undertaken by agents to achieve particular goals. The personality system offers an example of goals attainment; for instance, men and women pursue different careers that tend to agree with predefined gender roles. It is unusual, for example, for a man to take home chores and child care in fear of negative branding. When a woman undertakes these activities, almost everyone cannot question her because people think that women fit such work.
- Integration – system components or actors tend to adjust to mutually agreed-upon practices that show the system’s cultural values and norms. For instance, in many societies, children take their father’s name as their surname. In some civilizations, the eldest male son inherits the family business. The social system exemplifies integration as it assigns (not physically) roles to different groups that are part of the whole.
- Pattern Maintenance/latency – this dimension regards a long-term commitment to values that distinguish a society from others. Different actors have different action alternatives in furtherance of the society’s values. For instance, men perform different roles than women.
One could summarize the four functions/problems above into a larger action system, composed of the following main subsystems-
- Adaptation (function) – the behavioral (system)
- Goals – personality
- Integration – social
- Latency – cultural (Flecha et al., 2001)
It is also worth noting that the cultural subsystem transcends the other subsystems partly because culture is more enduring than the other systems. For example a book published by an author with a particular cultural orientation exists beyond the author’s life to represent the author’s culture long after their death. One can attach each of the four subsystems to interdependent institutions in modern society, explaining how society differentiates itself to serve particular purposes or functions. The following discussion shows how different functions fall under the different subsystems.
The labor and commodity markets provide society with a chance to sell its goods and services and human capital to other societies. Some countries depend on such markets for their sustenance and wealth. For instance, China uses its enormous commodity market to bargain for its position in global trade. The market represents Parson’s adaptive system as it deals with the allocation of resources and the creation of new resources. Over the recent past, China has dominated the global trade through its pricing and highly accommodative strategies, which resonate perfectly with Parson’s adaptive ideology. The ability to offer competitive prices is the defining feature of China’s global popularity
Politics aligns perfectly with goal alignment philosophy. Traditionally, people have used politics as a means to an end: to represent their opinions and even grievances. When one votes for a political official, he/she hopes that that official will voice their concerns. Although politicians are common targets of the media and other entities, they still make a significant part of modern society. Other characteristics of this subsystem that are visible throughout history include women’s lack of suffrage, unequal representation between men and women, and stereotypes against female leaders. Such conditions make politics a predominantly male domain, although women are increasingly seeking political leadership.
Social communities exemplify social integration in modern society. People join for various shared purposes; for instance, shared disease experiences, minority and other statuses, political and war refugees, disability, social classes, education, etc. Membership to these groups derives a sense of belonging and legitimacy – it is reasonable for one to accept the kind of leadership they perceive as own. Practical examples of integration communities include self-help groups for drug addicts and polio survivors, brain damage survivors, and minority clubs.
Religious institutions, schools, families, and other fiduciary organizations maintain the cultural values of the society. People tend to spend most of their times in these institutions, allowing them to drive enormous social changes. For instance, some children cement their bullying tendencies in school by meeting others with similar tendencies. On the other hand, families can either push or pull their children from or to gang activities through behavior. For instance, some scholars argue that adolescents adopt alcohol and drug abuse behaviors from their parents who drink in their children’s presence (Fuller, 2016). Work ethics and other values originate in a background where parents or guardians emphasize hard work.
The Limitations of Parson’s System Concept
One limitation of the systems concept is the difficulty of establishing system boundaries or ideally, the system. Only phenomena that are stable over time and maintain definite interactions constitute a system (Calhoun, 2007). However, such conditions are hard to maintain; for instance, phenomena tends to have interactions with other phenomena outside the said social system. In real-world situations with global interactions, it is challenging to claim social system boundaries because people are constantly engaging with others outside predefined locations.
The second limitation of the system concept is its analytical nature. Parsons describes systems as analytical and not concrete, implying that they are subject to constant change. That restricts the concept to mainly subjective phenomena such as social relationships.
Conclusion
Social systems are part of the greater action systems in which interdependent actors socialize in an environment in which they form a part of the larger culture. Due to conflicting personalities and limited resources, actors tend to sacrifice their desires for the greater societal good. The reasons for those sacrifices are not utilitarian but rather hegemonic; people do not merely want to increase happiness but enjoy a sense of mutual belonging.
References
Baxter, H. (2011). Habermas: the discourse theory of law and democracy. Stanford University Press.
Calhoun et al (eds), C. (2007). An Outline of the Social System [1961] Talcott Parsons [Ebook] (pp. 421-439). Blackwell Publishing.
Flecha, R., Gómez, J., & Puigvert, L. (2001). Chapter 1: Society as a System of Subsystems. Counterpoints, 250, 7-18.