Socio-Economics Revisited

Parsons' Marshall Lectures were an important and still are a relevant contribution to the critique of the utilitarian, rationalist, radically individualist paradigm which still dominates scholarship, especially economics, today. Parsons advised economists to stop ignoring the broader societal context of which the economy is only a sub -system; economic actors are not impersonal, fully independent individuals but should be viewed as people with internalized moral and social values, values which cannot be accounted for as mere external, environmental constraints. Parsons, however, paid little attention to the role of power in the market. Socio-economics incorporates issues addressed in the Marshall Lectures, treats the leverage of interventionist power (large corporations and labor unions) as significant, and seeks to grow as a coherent alternative to the neoclassical paradigm.     

Parsons' Economic Sociology: A Failure of Will*

In the Marshall Lectures and in Economy and Society Parsons endeavored to demonstrate that economic theory was a special case in the general theory of social systems. He then attempted to show that the parameters of macroeconomic theory could be analyzed as variables within a general social systems theory. But Parsons’economic sociology failed to redeem its promise. He did not succeed in using macro-economic theory as the basis for the formulation of a propositional macrosociology; nor did he sociologically reconstruct the logic of utilitarian, neoclassical economic theory.     

Talcott Parsons'Marshall Lectures: Contemporay, But Flawed

The occasion of the publication of Parsons'Marshall Lectures is used to demonstrate Parsons'prescience and the contemporary relevance of his ideas. It is argued that these lectures are similar in intent to the recent work of Amitai Etzioni and his objective of creating the field of socio-economics. The two works are compared and their relative strengths and weaknesses discussed. Parsons is shown to be well ahead of his time, not only in his effort to integrate social and economic concerns, but in the broader integrative intent of his overall theory. While Parsons was not able to begin to engineer a rapprochement with economics, such an intellectual integration may be more possible today because economics appears to be in greater crisis and sociology seems to have more to offer to disaffected economists.     

Parsons's Emergent Durkheims

Parsons's training as an economist, his graduate stay at Heidelberg, and his participation in the Henderson seminar at Harvard provide major clues to his familiarity with Marshall, Pareto, and Weber—three of the four figures whose convergence forms the major theoretical achievement in The Structure of Social Action . But what led him to Durkheim, since Parsons did not study or reside in France, yet read Durkheim in the original, remains an enigma. Without resolving the enigma, this paper argues that Parsons had a great deal in common with Durkheim, and, equally important, that in his mature and late periods he found in his 'revisits' of the later writings of Durkheim both inspiration and affinity. I argue that Parsons well deserves recognition as a major authority on Durkheim, and that both combined offer an alternative to the contemporary version of utilitarianism.     

Talcott Parsons and the Integration of Economic and Sociological Theory

Parsons'theory of economy and society has reemerged as an important reference point in the development of social theory. This paper focuses on Parsons'contribution to a possible theoretical rapproachment between economic and social theory. The issue addressed is the indifference of economists to the project for theoretical reunification announced in the Marshall Lectures. The author argues that Parsons'understanding of economic theory was seriously incomplete, while his assumption of a shared commitment between the two disciplines to develop a general synthetic theory was highly dubious. At the same time, Parsons'attempt at rapproachment remains relevant in a contemporary situation where many social scientists propose an economistic annexation of sociology by rational choice theory.     

The Marshall Lectures and Social-Scientific Practice

The paper seeks to demonstrate the inherently practical intent of the Marshall Lectures. It argues that Parsons' views on the relationship between sociology and economics were presupposed by his broader vision of how the social sciences could contribute to the successful functioning of the social order. This conception of a new division of labor in the social sciences arose from Parsons' concern with the shortcomings of both utilitarian economics and Marxism. Evidence from Parsons' writings of the 1930s and 1940s is provided in support of these claims.     

Talcott Parsons and Japan in the 1970s

In striking contrast to the conflict surrounding his earlier studies of Japanese society and culture, an amicable climate of mutual respect developed between Parsons and Japanese scholars in the 1970s. During this time, Parsons made two visits to Japan, where he was hailed as a great theorist whose views were taken most seriously by Japanese sociologists. The data indicate that, shortly before his sudden death in the spring of 1979, Parsons had begun to reformulate his ideas about modernization as a result of his increasing knowledge of Japanese society.     

Frank Findings: Frank Parsons and the Parson Family

The historical portrait of Frank Parsons in terms of his early years and family life has endured considerable speculation based on limited information. At the 100th anniversary of his death, new information has emerged to refute some of the widely held claims about Parsons and his family life. It is time to move beyond the confines of secondary sources to primary sources of information about Parsons. The legacy of Parsons deserves a more thorough and accurate examination.     

Exegetical Explorations: Parsons’ Convergence Concept

This is a contribution to the ongoing efforts to interpret the significant contribution to American sociology of Talcott Parsons (1902–1979). The author corrects an implication of his previous article in this journal by drawing attention to the profound impact of evolutionary cosmology upon Parsons’ theoretical presuppositions. This ensured an inner and continuing complexity in his theory of the “social system” from what we can identify as its earliest conceptual beginnings when Parsons was an under-graduate student at Amherst College.     

The Functionalist Perspective on Social Inequality: Some Neglected Theoretical and Conceptual Roots*

This paper outlines the origins of the functionalist perspective as it was used by American social scientists to explain social inequality during the first four decades of the twentieth century. The author then argues against the assumption that the basis for development of the perspective is found in the work of Parsons and his students who applied Parsons’general framework to studies of social inequality in complex industrial society. Instead, it is suggested that the research of social anthropologists, such as Robert and Helen Lynd and W. Lioyd Warner, was equally important to the development of the functionalist perspective. The author further argues that early twentieth-century British social anthropology, with its strong ties to Durkheimian functionalism, greatly influenced the direction of studies on social inequality. The paper concludes with a discussion of the intellectual ancestries between these theoretical pioneers and Parsonians and offers an explanation why Parsons’work dominated sociology during a critical period of the discipline's development.     

Exegetical explorations: Parsons’ problematic aim

The aim of this article is to encourage ongoing and close exegetical study of sociology’s theoretical texts. Attention is drawn to two instances where Talcott Parsons’ theory project seems to be at odds with itself. Both are related to his “first major synthesis” The Structure of Social Action (1937). The first concerns Parsons’ opening discussion of Crane Brinton’s question “Who now reads Spencer?” Parsons’ discussion of Spencer is examined and then compared and contrasted with what he later wrote in the “Introduction” to the 1961 reprint of Spencer’s The Study of Sociology. The second concerns Parsons’ problematic view of his contribution to social theory’s “secondary literature” and how this relates to his claims about “convergence.” The article notes that Parsons was trying to identify what he believed to be a new norm for social theory. Sociological theory, he believed, would from henceforth have to be formulated in terms of this newly emerging normative frame of reference.     

Fractured weber: A critique of parsons' interpetation

The authors argue that Parsons, through commitment to his “convergence thesis” and to his structural-functionalism coupled with his biological evolutionism, misrepresents Weber. Parsons arbitrarily applies to the Weberian tradition his own criteria biased against history. His general theoretical focus inclines toward the tradition of the functionalist Durkheim and that of the evolutionist Spencer. The authors contend that the later metamorphosis of Parsons' general theory of action into a theory of social systems has resulted in an abstract conception of social reality that is incongrous with Weber's view. The source of the Parsonian bias is further traced in his psychologization of Weber. Finally, it is asserted that Parsons represents a case of a-historicism incompatible with the Weberian tradition, with the consequence that the important contributions of Weber's historical sociology for the understanding of social change in the modern world are lost.     

Talcott parsons and the “far east” at Harvard, 1941–48: Comparative institutions and national policy

This article traces the involvement of Talcott Parsons in research and teaching about Asian nations, especially China and Japan, in the period of World War II. The data indicate that, in contrast to his Eurocentric image, Parsons worked to develop a global perspective in studies on comparative institutions. This approach, inspired by the sociology of Max Weber, also addressed the practical needs of policy makers in connection with the war effort. Within Parsons’s intellectual biography, it stands between the “voluntaristic” framework of his early treatise, The Structure of Social Action (1937) and the later non-historical formalism of The Social System (1951) for which he is perhaps most famous. An understanding of this relatively unknown phase of Parsons’s work is therefore indispensable for an adequate appreciation of his career as a whole.     

No one above suspicion: Talcott parsons under surveillance

This article presents details, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, of an extensive investigation carried out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into the background and activities of Talcott Parsons. In 1952, following allegations that Parsons was the leader of a Communist Party cell at Harvard University, J. Edgar Hoover authorized a security-type investigation of Parsons; it continued for two years and was conducted throughout the United States and in at least seven European nations. Parsons was eventually cleared of all accusations, but FBI scrutiny of his activities continued on an intermittent basis for at least another thirteen years. Possible influences on Parsons’ scholarship and implications for the sociology of knowledge are also discussed.     

Marshall, Mannheim and contested citizenship

In this paper we address tensions in Marshall's account of the successive emergence of civil, political and social rights in citizenship. These tensions were Marshall's implicit and typically modern assumption of human nature, his privileging of the analytical rationality that follows from it, and the disjunction between the fixity of that rationality and the 'evolution' of his central metaphor. When he returned to it by emphasizing strains between democratic, welfare and capitalist moments that were co-present in the 'hyphenated society' rather than successive, he did so in a pessimistic tone at odds with the progressive modernism of his first schema. Although Marshall noted that conflicting principles in citizenship arose 'from the very roots of our social order', he did not elaborate the point in this first tripartite model. We argue that by adopting a single and typically modern form of rationality Marshall foreclosed on the contradictions that he held to be characteristic of academic disputes over citizenship. Since Mannheim had focused on the effects of such contradictions, his work allows a fruitful revisiting of Marshall's themes. To blend the two models we read Marshall through Karl Mannheim's early studies of political knowledge. Here Mannheim had anticipated the shift from stages to co-presence, and had prefigured a resolution of Marshall's sense of impasse. In his account of liberal, socialist and conservative thought-styles--the ways of seeing and knowing that are characteristic of particular ways of life--he saw political change as a dynamic interactive effect of individually calculating, dialectically collective and culturally symbolic forms of rationality.     

Exegetical Explorations: Parsons’ Theoretical Faith and Hope in Structural Functional Analysis

This article discusses Talcott Parsons scientific world-view and how his theory gave expression to his more-than-merely theoretical reliance upon insights he gleaned from Whitehead and Weber. He developed “social systems theory” not only with a structural-functional and evolutionary understanding of social action but also saw science, in these terms as well. The article seeks to trace his theory’s reliance upon the system concept which gave his work a persistent focus throughout his scholarly career.     

Frank Parsons's Enablers: Pauline Agassiz Shaw,Meyer Bloomfield,and Ralph Albertson

Frank Parsons was not the 1st American to recognize or address the need for vocational guidance. Why he, rather than his predecessors, is credited with initiating the field can be attributed to the largely overlooked contributions of 3 other persons: Pauline Agassiz Shaw, Meyer Bloomfield, and Ralph Albertson. The author calls attention to the contributions of these 3 remarkable individuals, and several others who supported them, in enabling and perpetuating Parsons's work.     

Prophetic versus priestly sociology: The salient case study of Arthur K. Davis

Arthur K. Davis was President of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association in 1975–1976 and in 1995 received the association’s Outstanding Contribution award. In Canada, he was particularly known for his article on “Canadian Society and History as Hinterland Versus Metropolis,” originally published in Ossenberg’s anthology of 1971. This article was frequently cited from 1972–1994 and was reprinted a number of times. Davis was also known for his articles on Thorstein Veblen, which continue to receive citation. Davis’ career merits careful study for at least two reasons. The first is that he was a Ph.D. product of the early Harvard sociology graduate program, which has received much less attention than it deserves from sociological historians (unlike the Chicago School). As such, Davis studied under of Talcott Parsons, Pitirim Sorokin, and Robert K. Merton. The second reason is that Davis’ career clearly illustrates the usefulness of Robert W. Friedrichs’ distinction between the priestly and prophetic roles that sociologists may fulfill. Davis’ career started under the influence of a priestly orientation (as symbolized by his doctoral supervisor Talcott Parsons) and then gravitated to a prophetic stance as influenced by Pitirim Sorokin, Paul M. Sweezy, and, more distantly, by Marx and Veblen. Since this transition took place just when the Cold War was falling, his career reveals some of the pitfalls that await the prophetic sociologist in times that favor security and conservatism rather than activism and change.