Talcott Parsons’ writing, “An Outline of the Social System,” is very in depth and multifaceted on the idea social system. The social system, at least in my opinion, appears to be a very detailed and complex concept. It begins to get complex when breaking down the different parts to the social system, including looking at the steps of the functional imperatives that make up the social system.
The first concept Parson discusses are open systems. He states how these are interchanging with the environing systems. Included within these open systems are other systems such as cultural, personality, behavioral, and physical environment systems. With that said though, there are also boundaries that come with it to keep some sort of order. This quote made what was just said make more sense for me on how a system is even established. Parsons writes, “When a set of interdependent phenomena shows sufficiently definite patterning and stability over time, then we can say that is has ‘structure’ and that it is fruitful to treat is as a ‘system’.” I feel as though this statement is referring to creating your own person system by allowing new external factors to influence your routine. Once you do something on a continuous basis, and allow other systems into your schedule, it can them be considered part of your open system.
As I mentioned previously, as system also has to have boundaries to keep order. A good example given by Parsons is the example of the American Constitution. Parsons explains how the Constitution has been stable for more than a century and a half. During this time though, American society has changed and new legal processes and legislation have been established. Despite all of the change, many of the basic rights and religious ideas have remained the same. This is due to certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. This kind of give and take can also be called, mediation. The original document still stands, but it gave up some things in order to make improvements and be current with society. Parsons continues to go on explaining the different parts that make up the rules and the entire makeup of an open system. I had a lot of trouble understanding each of these concepts and how they all fit together. When Parsons talked about social systems, he implied that a social hierarchy was in place. From my understanding Parsons’ is saying that those of a higher economic standing are a part of the “control” part of the social system. However, he does go on to say that our own personality structure and our patterning is based upon internalization of systems of social objects and the patterns of our institutionalized culture. Parsons’ section on “Categories on Social Structure” made more sense to me than the idea of open systems.
It is easier to understand the relations of social systems, culture, and the problem associated with values and norms within the social system. It was interesting that Parsons compared people as having their own systems. These systems have a lot of influence on the interactions between two individuals in an interdependent system. I enjoyed Parsons’ shows an illustration of the essentials of interaction by giving the example of playing chess. He explains that each person has some motivation and drive to win. Each player has particular strategies, but the player also knows that they cannot plan these strategies too far in advance because the game is not stable. The other player may make an unanticipated move, ruining the future plans of their opponent. Just like in interaction, a person cannot always predict what is next in their interaction with another. In order to have a stable system, things must then be generalized. In order for an interaction to be stable, both participants must have an idea of the same general outcome. Parsons’ used a statement that defines what a person’s role is in the social system. He states, “For most purposes, therefore, it is not the individual, or the person as such, this is a unit of social systems, but rather his role-participation at the boundary directly affecting his personality.” I feel that what Parsons’ is saying about social systems is that everyone is a part of them as long as they are having some sort of social interaction. People behaviors and processes may vary, but it is the stable outcome of interaction that makes social systems complete.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The funny thing about Talcott Parsons writing is it seemed quite different from Marx, Webber, etc. Talcott’s writing about “outline of the Social System” seemed easier to read than the previous theorist yet it was still very complicated. I agree with you that the social system written by Parsons was very complex, but it was also interesting. Parsons really broke the social system down, it was like he was systematically breaking down a math equation but in terms of sociology. The open systems argument was pretty easy to understand and it really set the pace for the rest of the chapter as far as breaking things down go. Parsons started with the environing system and broke it down into parts such as cultural, personality systems, behavioral and others through the organism and physical environment. He applied that logic to social systems and made a bunch of subsystems from it. I also read the “When a set of interdependent phenomena shows sufficiently definite patterning and stability over time, then we can say that is has ‘structure’ and that it is fruitful to treat is as a ‘system” statement by Parson a couple times. It’s a very interesting theory but it has no boundaries. That same structure could deconstruct from factors outside of it that people have no control over. For example families living in New Orleans might have had structure, but when the hurricane hit their whole lives changed, and they had no control over that. I also found the American Constitution argument interesting, it was a good example because it was something fairly familiar for US citizens. The American Constitution remained stable but American society has changed, so in turn the constitution must change with society in order to make it work. There have been legal changes, legislative changes, and so on. Think about it Black’s and women didn’t used to have the right to vote, but as our society became more liberal and understanding, we added amendment to the constitution to allow such things. This chapter is interesting yet confusing. Parsons breaks down social systems into categories that I couldn’t even begin to try and explain in my own words. I did like the fact that Parsons writes in a more modern language which makes it a bit easier to read. I think the main point of this chapter is that everyone is a part of social systems and they are constantly changing due to our very own actions.
Post a Comment