Talcott Parsons – Action Systems Theory

In ‘The Structure of Social Action’ Parsons launched a most ambitious scheme to provide a
general theory of action. This is the first major work of Parsons published in 1937. Parsons’
analysis of action theory mainly based on strengths and weakness of prominent thinkers in
three main intellectual traditions: utilitarianism, positivism and idealism. In addition, Parsons
tried to make an effort to abstract from the theories of four European writers – Marshall, Pareto,
Durkheim and Weber’s work and to give a single theoretical scheme. In this work, Parsons
attempted to develop a “voluntaristic theory of social action” by way of a creative synthesis.
Parsons agreed with the utilitarian view of the individuals as purposive and goal-oriented
actors, and rejected what he conceived to be its atomistic and overly rational orientation and
its attendant in capacity to account for the emergence of a social order regulating the goal-
oriented activities of individual actors. Positivism was attacked for its reductionism and its
consequent inability to account for the voluntaristic, choice-making and goal-striving
tendencies of social actors. In Parsons’ view, a social theory is positivistic which holds the
view that human action can be adequately characterised without regard to the agent’s own
standpoint at this point he considered utilitarianism as one of the good examples of a positivistic
theory. Another important tradition related to theory of action is the German idealistic tradition.
This tradition was praised for its emphasis on the influence of cultural determinants such as
ideas or symbolic processes, while it was criticised for not giving satisfactory explanation for
the complex interrelations between social structures and the world of ideas.
The concept of action, according to Parsons, is derived from behaviour of human beings
as living organism. At this stage, Parsons was eager to differentiate action theory from
behaviourism. In this sense, behaviour implied mechanical response to stimuli, whereas, action
implied an active, creative mental process. The basic phenomenon in Parsons’ action theory is
what he called “the unit act”.
Parsons identified four elements of unit act, namely actor, end/motive, situation and
interrelationship between the three implying that an actor has normative orientation. These four
elements can be logically explained. Action assumes the existence of an actor who has an
objective and the action process is determined by the objective. The beginning of action could
occur in any situation characterized by two alternative conditions, that is, one on which the
actor has no control and the other over which the actor has control. One is called condition and
the other is called means. We could only relate these elements if we assume that an actor has
an alternative and he chooses among various means to achieve an end. Thus, we may say that
there is a normative element in the choice, which is the most important aspect of the concept
of Action according to Parsons. There are four implications of these concepts of the Unit Act.
These are: (i) an action is an event which occurs at a time, (ii) owing to the freedom of choice
of the actor, it is possible to think of right or wrong choices, (iii) the frame of reference is
subjective, and (iv) the smallest unit in the Theory of Action which could be analysed is the
Unit Act.
Action Frame of Reference
Three concepts discussed below constitute the Action frame of reference:
Actor
There is a probability of one or more actors. Actor is an individual or a group that is an
empirical system of action. The distinction between individual and group is made up on the
basis of whether the actor is a personality system or social system.
Situation
Parsons is of the view that the definition of situation is connected with the things of orientation
of actor. In the words of Devereux, Jr, ‘In defining his situation, the actor may take into account
certain objects in his immediate surroundings – whether physical, social, cultural, or symbolic
– while dismissing others as irrelevant.
Action
Parsons understands action as the process of actor-situation system which has motivational
significance for the actor and in the case of group it is significant for every member of the
group. In a nutshell, action could be understood as actor's orientation towards situation
implicating motivational significance for the actor. It is clear from the above discussion of the
Action frame of reference covering actor, situation, and actor's orientation towards situation,
that Parsons, despite blurring the issue of language and meanings, has given prominence to the
consciousness of actor in his Theory by including motivational orientation and evaluative
orientation of the actor. His 'actor' is conscious individual or group who has the freedom to
voluntarily choose between the alternative modes of action. It is now important for us to know
how Parsons explains and interprets the freedom of the actor in his general Theory in making
alternative choices to which Parsons calls ‘modes of orientation of action’.
Modes of Orientation of Action
Parsons identifies two features of orientation, namely aspect of choice and aspect of
expectation. These are essential elements of each orientation. There are also certain
characteristics of actor's orientation, which are as follows: (i) Different and related objects are
included in the orientation of an actor, (ii) actor has an objective as he desires to have certain
things, (iii) gratification and deprivation are two important dimensions of an action in the
orientation of an actor, and (iv) there is orientation to standards and acceptability which (a)
narrow the range of cognitions, sorting 'veridical' from 'non-veridical' object-orientation; (b)
narrow the range of objects wanted, sorting 'appropriate' from 'inappropriate' goal objects; and
(c) narrow the number of alternatives, sorting 'moral' from 'immoral' courses of action'. The
first three characteristics signify a particular kind of orientation, namely, motivational
orientation and the last characteristic is related to value orientation. It is worthwhile to discuss
these orientations.
Motivational Orientation
There are three modes of motivational orientation, namely, cognitive, cathectic, and evaluative.
Cognitive mode of orientation is that form in which actor understands the object in the light of
his needs. In the case of cathectic orientation, the actor is concerned with gratification. In other
words, awareness of the objects which fulfil the needs as well as the degree of gratification
determines the orientation of actor. Evaluative mode is related to how an actor evaluates the
degree of his gratification. With the help of evaluative mode of orientation it is possible to
connect the other two modes of orientation.
Value Orientation
In his general Theory of Action, value orientation occupies the most important place. In this
orientation, values and norms play the significant and decisive role in the Action orientation.
Whenever an actor chooses his objective, there is determining role of values in that choice.
Value orientation is further divided into three types, namely, cognitive,
cathectic/appreciative/aesthetic, and moral. Cognitive orientation could be understood as
different kinds of commitments and standards on the basis of which actors develops his
understanding. Appreciative orientation is related to standards of various aspects of
gratification. Moral orientation, for Parsons, is the integrative standard of examining the whole
system of action. Moral orientation is related to the integration of personality system with the
social system.
Types of Action
Three types of actions corresponding to the modes of orientation have been suggested by
Parsons et. al. These are: intellectual action, expressive action, and moral action. This typology
is remarkably different from Weber’s types of action. However, there is another derivative and
prominent type of action, namely, instrumental action, identified by them, which corresponds
to Weber’s notion of instrumental rational action. Intellectual action results from cognitive
interests, whereas expressive action is result of cathectic interests and the look for gratification.
An action having the primacy of morality is called moral action. To return to instrumental
action, it is a combination of many things, but its unique feature is that it is future oriented. It
is clear from the above that the construction of typology is not the primary purpose of the
general theorists here. The reason for this is the most crucial element in the Theory, that is,
different mode of orientations in the process of action in situations involving interaction
systems result into dilemmas in making choices.
Dilemmas of Orientation and the Pattern Variables
An actor faces paradox/dilemma in choosing between alternative modes of orientation, because
situation does not automatically provide the determinate meaning for him, but it is for him to
choose. Since action occurs within an Action system, it seems natural that he would be
confronted by dilemma in choosing between different modes of orientation. The nature of this
dilemma is dichotomous but occurs along multiple axes. This dichotomous structure of choice
is called pattern variables. Pattern variables could be classified into personality system, social
system and cultural system. Let us discuss these five kinds of pattern variables.
Affectivity versus Affective Neutrality
When an actor undertakes an action for immediate satisfaction without any regard for
evaluative orientation, it is called affectivity. On the other hand, if the fulfilment of needs
occurs with due consideration for evaluative orientation it is called affective neutrality.
Self-Orientation versus Collectivity Orientation
In every society, an actor has to encounter numerous situations wherein he has to choose
between his self-interest and the collectively given values.
Universalism versus Particularism
Also known as the dilemma between transcendence and immanence comes to exist when an
actor has to decide between ‘whether to treat objects in the situation in accordance with a
general norm covering all objects in that class or whether to treat them in accordance with their
standing in some particular relationship to him or his collectivity’.
Quality versus Performance
Earlier stated as ascription versus achievement, it closely followed Linton’s categories of
ascribed and achieved statuses. If the choices are based on colour of the skin, caste, religion,
or language, then it is based on quality. If a person is treated in terms of his attribute such as
teacher, professor, doctor, lawyer, manager, then it is based on performance.
Diffuseness versus Specificity
It is a dilemma based on the scope of the significance of the object. The relationship between
the husband and the wife is total and diffused, whereas the relationship between the shopkeeper
and the customer is specific.
Conclusion
Once the choices of an actor are reduced to dilemmas that are limited into five, the concept of
actor no more implicates freedom of choice. The significance of pattern variables is to
dichotomize two kinds not only to the Theory of Action, but also make of societies, namely
modern western and traditional oriental. In the process, Parsons has contributed not only to the
Theory of Action, but also has made profound contribution to the systematization of sociology.
He has created an alternative explanation to the problem of order independent of both Hobbes
and Marx. For Parsons social order is neither achieved through the Leviathan nor is it a
combination of the power of the ruling class in possessing the means of coercion as well as
controlling the means of mental production. Social order is seen in terms of the Action system
in which the standards of behaviour and their linkage with value orientations are necessitated
by the situation of moral conformity to norms.