Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In this essay, I will explain the role played by norms and values within Parsons’ theory of the cultural system, universalism, and polity subsystem. Furthermore, I will use Scott’s ‘Talcott Parsons: Where it All Began’, Ellis’ ‘The Hobbesian Problem of Order: A Critical Appraisal of the Normative Solution’, Parsons’ ‘Pattern Variables Revisited: A Response to Robin Dubin’, Robertson’s ‘Talcott Parsons: Theorist of Modernity’, Craib’s ‘Modern Social Theory from Parsons to Habermas’ and Jacobs’ ‘Aspect of the Political Sociology of Talcott Parsons’ in support of this essay. Furthermore, I will explain why Parsons’ theory of the cultural system, universalism, and polity subsystem remain satisfactory as they highlight how norms and values are shaped through culture, systematic structures as well and universalistic values in which they secure social order within modern Western society.
Firstly, Parsons’ theory of the cultural system remains satisfactory because he highlights that the role of the cultural system is to exchange information and ideas that inform social actors of the cultural norms and values of modern Western society, helping to secure social order. According to Parsons (1997, p.36), ‘this means and ends of action are never simply ‘given’ or environmentally determined, they are always chosen by the actors in relation to cultural norms and values’. Furthermore, Parsons identifies the cultural system as one of the four action systems. Supplementarily, Parsons’ agenda was to identify the cultural system is in the state of a ‘moving equilibrium’, whereby he promotes social order. As his writings were at the time of post-World War II and the beginning of the Cold War, he had a bias to promote social order rather than social change, maintaining the Western bureaucratic agenda of the time. Therefore, his concept of the ‘moving equilibrium’ highlights how social order is maintained through transitions. For instance, the transition of cultural norms and values based on family structures in which the most desired family type in agricultural society was the extended family as opposed to the nuclear family in industrial society. Whereas Durkheim was not interested in the ‘problems of origin or transition’ as argued by Parsons but ‘the emergence of new types of interaction patterns and solidarity feelings’ (Ellis, 1971, p.694). Concerning the previous example of the family, Durkheim implies that ‘solidarity feelings’ help sustain important meanings based on hierarchies in which social actors come to a value consensus. However, one limitation for both Parsons and Durkheim includes their lack of focus on cultural norms and values and social solidarity within oriental societies or developing countries per se. Overall, Parsons’ theory remains satisfactory in that the role of cultural norms and values in the cultural system sustains social order.
Secondly, Parsons’ theory of universalism is adequate because it highlights how systematic norms and values are maintained through institutionalization which helps to sustain social order within modern occidental societies. According to Parsons (1960, p.468), within ‘universalistic modalities, the basis of an object’s meaning lies in its universalistically defined properties’. Furthermore, Parsons identifies universalism as one of the five pattern variables which are the types of values underlining the instrumental role of social institutions. Additionally, Parsons’ agenda was to highlight how universalism was used as a criterion of diagnosis for social order within the institutions of modern America. Therefore, the performance of social actors is largely influenced by universalistic values and systems within social institutions that adhere to social order. Besides this, Parsons’ agenda was to promote the modern value-pattern ‘instrumental activism’ which is a persistent theme’ in his work and a variation on Weber’s treatment of world mastery (Robertson, 1991, p.181). Furthermore, Weber emphasizes that one of the main characteristics of modern society is rationalization which he pinpoints in his theory of rational-instrumental social action. For instance, such institutions that emphasize instrumental-rational social action are education and the workplace in which actors are encouraged to achieve a goal due to an output of effort. Moreover, education is highly valued in modern Western societies, this may differ in developing societies which may place a huge emphasis on the family for example. Additionally, Weber would critique Parsons’ work on universalism as he is more concerned with social actions which are actions of individuals directed towards each other, rather than universalistic values benefitting wider society. Further, Norms and values are not only universal and institutionalized, but they are rationalized by social actors. However, one limitation of Parsons and Weber’s work is that they have not focused on the subjectivity of instrumental activism and differentiation of universalistic values within oriental societies as opposed to modern occidental societies. Overall, Parsons’ theory of universalism is adequate as it outlines that universalistic values benefit wider society as well as individuals, sustaining social order.
Thirdly, Parsons’ theory of the polity subsystem is sufficient because it outlines how norms and values are shaped in which they influence social actors’ goals as well as their means, of maintaining social order. According to Craib (1992, pp.40-41), ‘most important of all, the environment includes generally accepted norms and values and other ideas which influence our choice of goals and means’. Parsons establishes polity as one of the subsystems that is developed from goal attainment which is one of the four functional prerequisites within his AGIL social system. As Craib emphasized the notion of ‘other ideas’, can include polity which focuses on the mobilization of resources as well as goal attainment. Further, the American political system is a two-party system, which requires the ‘centralization of power, and mobilization of support from different sources’ (Jacobs, 1969, p.60). In other words, such methods like voting allow social actors to mobilize their resources, especially within modern Western democracies allowing social order to be maintained. Concerning this, Parsons would critique Hobbes’s ‘utilitarian-coercive solution’ (Ellis, 1971, p.693) to securing social order. Hobbes critiques that the threat of coercion alters the rational calculations that individuals make in which he fails to recognize the opportunity to mobilize resources and attain goals, especially within Western democracies. Furthermore, Hobbes identifies the normative order that is emphasized by Parsons, Hobbes failed to recognize that norms and values are rationalized between individuals as well as the state due to polity which also consists of the formation of political identity. Although both Parsons and Hobbes have acknowledged the importance of sovereign power, they have not recognized the role that systematic norms and values play in maintaining the rules of the criminal justice system. Besides, Parsons’ normative order that is expressed within his theory of polity remains sufficient because it highlights how goals maintain norms and values.
It is undeniable that Parsons’ theory of the cultural system, universalism, and the polity subsystem have highlighted the roles played by norms and values which are defined on a systematic, cultural, and universalistic basis. Parsons’ theories, as outlined previously, are highly satisfactory and are extremely applicable to modern Western societies and the dynamic Western culture per se. Additionally, his theories give an insight into how there are multiple functional prerequisites and factors in which the normative order can be achieved that also help in securing social order, not just a single factor for instance Hobbes’ utilitarian-coercive solution which dismisses the normative order and how social actors’ can mobilize resources through polity in which they are not solely constrained through coercion of the state. As Parsons’ theories are aligned with modern Western ideology, he was able to highlight this within his analysis of the cultural system that is responsible for exchanging information and securing cultural norms and values. Moreover, Parsons highlights that universalistic values play a key role in shaping norms and values that influence institutionalization. These universalistic values emphasize instrumental activism which individuals are encouraged to achieve their goals and means; this secures social order as social actors are encouraged to conform to society through value consensus. Therefore, I believe that instrumental activism is a practice by social actors that is encouraged in social institutions, as previously outlined for instance the education system and the workplace. However, one limitation of this essay is that it has not acknowledged social change in depth, in an attempt to critique Parsons’ homeostatic view of social institutions in support of his normative solution. Although Parsons is not able to examine or empirically test his theories within present modern society, his theories which emphasize the normative order, are important at large as they outline how social order is maintained throughout modern Western society.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.