The Telcott Parsons Perspective on Sociology as a Profession - Research Paper Example

Talcott Parsons Introduction: The Telcott Parsons perspective on Sociology as a profession. The sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) holds an important position in the development of modern Sociology as we know it. His major work The Social System (1951) set down for the first time a complete and unified theory of society which inspired both acclaim and intense criticism in the years immediately following its publication. Parsons himself was very conscious of the relative novelty of his undertaking, and this prompted him to spend a lot of effort on defining terms and working out the boundaries between Sociology and other disciplines. Unfortunately this makes some of his early writing, including his classic The Social System, rather laboured and difficult to read. Two major themes in his work are the notions of agency and structure. Thus he used deceptively simple everyday words like action, system, and role with specific technical definitions to build up a theory of how human behaviors relate to each other and to society as a whole. Although Parsons was very much a theoretical sociologist in his writings, he was also a committed career sociologist, involved in departmental leadership, forming study groups, setting up and attending conferences, and becoming a leading member of the American Sociology Association. This career pattern shows that he lived out his own theories regarding the primary importance of volition and values behind human action, and the way that the system, in this case the sociology professional scene, is constantly modified by the human beings in that system. His individual culture, volition and personality contributed greatly to the discipline he helped to create and this makes him an interesting choice of study even for twenty first century sociologists. In a way, the job he wanted did not exist, and so he created it himself, thus setting up a whole new professional avenue for future scholars. Parsons’ view of Sociology. Although starting out with a preference for natural sciences, Parsons developed an increasing interest in the complex forces and structures underlying human action. Prior to the 1940s there were numerous “social sciences” in American universities, and these were seen as a group of subjects including humanities, public administration and subsets of the natural sciences like anthropology and psychology. There was no single framework which Parsons felt matched his own professional interests and he was not satisfied with the endless academic debates about which subjects should be included in the “social sciences” umbrella term, where the overlaps and boundaries between them should be. Parsons set himself the task of setting out the parameters which would come to redefine the relatively new academic discipline of Sociology. One of the early debates around the nature of Sociology which preoccupied Parsons was the difference between purely biological phenomena, which could be studied using the empirical methods of the natural sciences, and other social phenomena, which were much harder to pin down and make into the object of experimental examination. The study of human beings spans both physical and non-physical domains, leaving huge areas open to accusation of being “non-scientific”, or “irrational”. This debate, and the at times heated differences of opinion within the social sciences, served to bring the whole discipline area into disrepute. Parsons possessed two important qualities which he brought to bear on these issues: he had a tendency to think literally, rationally and in clear categories, in the way that a natural scientist would be trained, but he also had a deep understanding of the non-rational but nonetheless valid human ability to respond to the symbolic and cultural dimensions of experience. Not everything could be explained in rational terms, and this point was made by Parsons most eloquently in his studies on the sociology of medicine. Many empirical studies in the field of medicine threw up issues of culture and role which could affect the outcome as much as, or sometimes even more than, purely chemical or biological factors. This gap between the natural sciences and real life was the area which Parsons identified as the domain of sociology. In the words of a later critic, the early Parsons masterpiece The Structure of Society not only “played a key role, perhaps the key role, in establishing the base line vocabulary for modern sociology” (Alexander, 1998, p. 94) but also in defining these terms, also it helped to create the entities themselves. His brilliant analysis of the “sick role” showing how the doctor and the patient both contribute to a larger system presents a functionalist approach which changes the whole face of sociology and opens up the way for later developments such as systems theory. By allowing us to see the system is as an entity which functions according to some imperatives of its own which the human beings within the system may or may not be aware of, Parsons sheds light on some of the less tangible aspects of human experience such as unspoken rules of conduct and taken-for-granted aspects of culture. Historical Issues Parsons was conscious of the importance of his own personal background in providing a basis for all of his belief systems. From his American Protestant home origins he derived an interest in the values that a person or a group holds. For Parsons, sociology could never be studied in a vacuum and so he made a point of exploring in great detail both his own Protestant, middle class values, and those of the societies that he knew well. He was fortunate in being able to examine both American and German university spheres before and during the Second World War, when the horrors of Nazism and modern warfare were of pressing concern to sociologists. Questions such as why people act in particular ways, and how societies are complicit or not in atrocities on a massive scale, were pressing issues for sociology in those days. Parsons was pre-disposed to view these issues from the point of view of the individual exercising his or her free will while engaging with the world. Human values helped a person decide which position to take in these terrifying dilemmas. For Parsons, sociology allows us to break down the components of the efficient machinery of Hitler’s regime (or of McCarthy’s republican extremism, for that matter) and tease out the interplay between culture, personality, volition etc in this whole system. This understanding then makes it possible for future generations to avoid a repetition of the worst excesses of this particular examples. Economic Issues. In the post war period, in Parsons’ terms, the speedy economic growth of America, and the emphasis on material success and the advance of knowledge were expressions of a widely held and largely protestant and logical-positivist world view. People were driven by their desire to make things better in the world, and not just by their own personal need for material wealth. The principle of active participation embodied in the American entrepreneur culture allowed the systems of American society to evolve and prosper, while ideals such as freedom of speech and cultural diversity assured the system’s built-in ability to improve and correct its own faults. The Parsons view predicts success for this model above determinist models like Marxist economies, and it appears that, for now at least, he has been proved correct. In this domain Sociology is able to advise on ways to ease in positive changes and smooth out disruptive elements. Political Issues. In the immediate post war period Parsons encountered a huge amount of resistance to his ideas from scholars who saw his position as being both too narrowly American, and too much focussed on human action. In particular Parsons was somewhat harshly represented as the proponent of a pro-Capitalist and rather conservative, middle class position. Sociologists who held a more radical Marxist and determinist point of view saw the structures of society as being more important than the individual’s actions. From this perspective, individuals are constrained by the structures of society and the outcome of any individual human action is necessarily limited. Revolutionary models portray the system as having an ability to right itself in convulsive rather than gradual phases, based on concepts of opposition and conflict between classes. In the latter half of his career Parsons took on board these criticisms and reviewed the structural side of sociology, concentrating not on political activism against the establishment, but rather on the key pro-establishment professions such as medicine, which codify and organise individual human actions for the good of society as a whole. This is just as much a political activity as protest movements, but it is based on constructive and co-operative action rather than conflict. In looking at this Parsons examined the roles of the medical professionals, the roles of the sick people whom they treated, and the whole system of medical care in modern Western Society with its written and unwritten codes. Parsons developed a way of looking at all the trappings of professional status as a way of defending both individual action and of collective unifying structures without detracting from the effectiveness of a capitalist model. It is important to remember that in this line of thinking Parsons was defending himself from Marxist critics, and not glorifying Capitalist thinking. These were very contentious issues in the 1950s and 1960s, which saw the rise and fall of McCarthyism and the polarization of Communist and Capitalist world views in the Cold War. It is a tribute to Parsons’ ability that he was able to pursue rigorous theoretical study of these topics against such extremist background pressures and produce work of lasting value in the process. Institutional Reform We have seen that evolutionary change from inside the system, however informal or formal that system may be, is one of the central tenets in a Parsonian view of the world. Two sub-systems within the larger system of the sociology profession are now critiqued with suggestions for their improvement: The American Sociological Association and the Sociology Department at Harvard University. Both of these organisations were of central importance in Parsons’ own career. Example A: Harvard University Sociology Department Parsons saw the huge growth in universities in post war America as one of the most important achievements of this society (Parsons, 1985, p. 331). In particular he noted that investment in education contributes greatly towards a more egalitarian and decentralized society, where the benefits are shared out more equally among the different classes and power groups. He realized, of course, that could only be imperfectly achieved, and that differences of class, wealth and power still affect access to universities, and especially to elite ones, but this does not detract from the progress that society has made towards ideals such as egalitarianism and integration of different groups in the universities. Looking at the University of Harvard Sociology Department’s website, it is clear that the ivory tower image is still important in marketing terms at least. Parsons is mentioned on the home page with the somewhat ambiguous phrase “whether the grand theory of Talcott Parsons….” (See Works Cited for web address). The advice given to potential applicants to the graduate school takes the trendy form of a FAQ tab on the website, and no doubt it reflects fairly accurately the type of questions that prospective graduate students usually ask. What is striking about the answers, however, is the authoritarian tone which seems perversely to delight in not answering these entirely reasonable questions, and giving the impression that they are a) irrelevant and b) a nuisance which the department does not expect to have to deal with. The GRE test is an essential component of the admissions process, and it is pointed out that other factors are considered also, which is fair enough. The department goes on to say, however, that not only will they not reveal what the average score is, so that the student can have some idea of the expected standard, but that the department does not even keep a record of the student scores! This is no doubt an effort to pre-empt rejected student appeals, but it is also an indication that the institution sees itself above the need to document and explain its access arrangements to the customers. For most aspiring sociologists who have a first degree and are looking to Harvard as a potential second degree provider, the gates seem to be locked quite firmly against them: “May I make a visit prior to being admitted?... we strongly discourage prospective students from visiting prior to admission to the program” (Appendix I below). It appears that the relationship of the student in this system is to receive what the system dictates, without the development of any personal elements, such as exploration and familiarization with the environment before making a long term commitment to study there. It is a one sided and dictatorial relationship, setting a formal pattern for future engagement within the system. Ways to improve this system to the benefit of prospective career sociologists would include the following measures : Rewrite of the website to make the tone more welcoming, and less patronizing Enhanced collection of equal opportunities monitoring information, including demographic and GRE scores of successful and unsuccessful applicants Indicative GRE averages to be included in the FAQ section for information purposes Example B: The American Sociological Association This professional body is one of many similar agencies set up to promote particular academic subject areas as disciplines for study, as professional networking aids. It also claims in its overarching mission statement on the home page to have the broadest possible impact for sociology now and in the future. According to the home page of its website (See appendix 2 below) some 80% of its membership are academics teaching in universities across the US. By far the largest part of the Website’s role appears to be in the promotion of the various journals that it manages and policing the multiple level membership deals that are offered. This could broadly be interpreted as advancing sociology as a scientific discipline, but it hardly achieves the end of serving the public good outside the narrow confines of academia. The impression given is that sociology leads mainly to an academic career, although logic dictates that by far the majority of sociology students must surely be destined for careers outside the university circle. For students of sociology, and professionals at different stages in their careers there are job and career opportunity pages and there is a discussion forum with a number of topics. This has few entries, however, and most of the threads are more than a year old, and started by ASA representatives, suggesting it is a one sided information giving tool, and not in any real sense a forum for multiple contributions. The look and tone of the website reflects also the image of the Association as a whole: rather staid, old fashioned, and procedure bound. It has a reputation as a place for the older members of the sociology scene, and this is born out by the monotone press releases. One article on intelligence and evolutionary novel preferences, for example, presents some quite interesting content in a small font plain grey text on a grey page without pictures, sub-headings, or any concessions to a media-savvy younger readership. Suggestions for improving the ASA would include: Major change of image to take it out of the bookish and staid academic sphere More emphasis on the non academic world of business, government, and administration A rethinking of the mission statement to use more inclusive language and remove the descending hierarchy implications of “university faculty members, researchers, practitioners and students”. Advertising and content adjustment to increase the percentage of practitioner members New awards and events for practitioner members. Conclusion The major insight that is gained from looking at Parsonian views of sociology and two of the major institutions at the disposal of individuals who may want to make a career out of sociology is the perception that times have moved on since Parsons first wrote his seminal work “The Social System” in 1951. The discipline which once was new and cutting edge, is in danger of becoming outdated, stuffy, and seemingly irrelevant outside the narrow confines of elite university departments. Opportunities for new sociologists to emerge are there, but there appears to be a demand for them to adapt to the existing establishment rather than a wish for them to bring something new and exciting to the discipline. The recommendations which appear necessary are therefore mostly to do with the packaging and outward presentation of the discipline as an attractive and welcoming career option for future generations. Works Cited. Alexander, Jeffrey. C. Neofunctionalism and After. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 1998. Print. American Sociological Association (ASA) Website: http://www.asanet.org/ . Web. Holton, Robert J. and Turner, Bryan S. (eds). Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Print. Lidz, Victor. “The American Value System: A commentary on Talcott Parsons’s Perspective and Understanding” in Roland Robertson and Dryden S. Turner (eds), Talcott Parsons: Theorist of Modernity, pp. 22-32. Print. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951. Revised edition with a preface by Bryan S. Turner, New York: Routledge, 1991. Print. Parsons, Talcott (edited by Leon H. Mayhew). Talcott Parsons on Institutions and Social Evolution: Selected Writings.. Chicago: Chiago University Press, 1985. Print. University of Harvard, Department of Sociology Website: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/index.html Web. Appendix One Extract from the University of Harvard Department of Sociology Website (Frequently asked questions on Graduate admissions). Does the Sociology Department have a Masters Program? No. The graduate program admits only students seeking the Ph.D. What are considered acceptable GRE scores for admission to the program? The GRE is only one component of the application. Your undergraduate scholastic record, letters of recommendation, writing sample, curriculum vita, and particularly the personal statement—why you want to study sociology—are all equally important and jointly evaluated by the admissions committee. What is the average GRE score for students previously admitted to the program? The Department does not keep statistics on GRE scores for students who have been admitted into the program.  May I make a special visit prior to being admitted? We strongly discourage prospective students from visiting prior to admission to the program. Faculty receive many more requests for meetings from prospective students than they can accommodate, and these meetings have no effect whatsoever on the admission process. In general, applicants should wait until after admission to visit campus. The special day set aside for getting acquainted with the program is designed to aid those accepted in making an informed decision about their graduate studies. What exams do I have to take to apply? All applicants are required to take the GRE General Test. Applicants whose native language is other than English and who do not hold a degree from an institution at which English is the language of instruction must submit TOEFL scores.  Appendix Two: Extracts From the ASA Website Two ASA statements about itself Statement one: Mission (Front Page summary) Serving Sociologists in Their Work Advancing Sociology as a Science and Profession Promoting the Contributions and Use of Sociology to Society Statement two: Mission (full statement on left hand tab) The American Sociological Association (ASA), founded in 1905, is a non-profit membership association dedicated to advancing sociology as a scientific discipline and profession serving the public good. With over 14,000 members, ASA encompasses sociologists who are faculty members at colleges and universities, researchers, practitioners, and students. About 20 percent of the members work in government, business, or non-profit organizations. As the national organization for sociologists, the American Sociological Association, through its Executive Office, is well positioned to provide a unique set of services to its members and to promote the vitality, visibility, and diversity of the discipline. Working at the national and international levels, the Association aims to articulate policy and implement programs likely to have the broadest possible impact for sociology now and in the future. Read More