Ken Menzies - Talcott Parsons and the Social Image of Man (RLE Social Theory)

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:
SOCIAL THEORY

Volume 85

TALCOTT PARSONS AND THE
SOCIAL IMAGE OF MAN

TALCOTT PARSONS AND THE SOCIAL IMAGE OF MAN

KEN MENZIES

First published in 1976

This edition first published in 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

1976 Ken Menzies

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-415-72731-0 (Set)
eISBN: 978-1-315-76997-4 (Set)
ISBN: 978-1-138-78258-7 (Volume 85)
eISBN: 978-1-315-76319-4 (Volume 85)

Publishers Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

Talcott Parsons and the social image of man

Ken Menzies

Routledge & Kegan Paul

London, Henley and Boston

Owing to production

delays this book was

published in 1977

First, I must thank the Canada Council which supported me for four years while doing research on Talcott Parsons (LSE, 19689; Essex, 196972). My largest intellectual debt is to Allan Bitz who has read and criticized in depth draft after draft. Derek Wilkinson and Jan Maher have provided major and helpful critiques of several chapters. Herminio Martins, now a Fellow of St Antonys, Oxford, was my PhD supervisor at Essex. I have had the benefit of his wide knowledge and perceptive suggestions then and since. John Rex, the editor of this series, was my external examiner for the PhD and his comments then have proved valuable. Other people have read drafts of various chapters, and Roy Enfield, Ernest Gellner, Martin Hollis and Ted Benton in particular gave helpful critiques. In the final stages of clarifying my ideas and getting me to say what I mean to say, Stan Barrett, Frans Schryer, Peter Sinclair and Marion Stiasny have been particularly helpful.

Acknowledgments are due to the following for permission to quote from the works shown: to Professor Max Black for a diagram from The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: a Critical Examination, 1961; to Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USA, for a quotation from Talcott Parsons, Some problems of general theory in sociology, in Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. John C. McKinney and Edward A. Tiryakian (c) 1970; to Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., for material from Talcott Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, copyright 1949 by The Free Press of Glencoe, Talcott Parsons, The Social System, copyright 1951 by Talcott Parsons, Talcott Parsons, Working Papers in the Theory of Action, copyright 1953 by The Free Press, a Corporation; to Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., and Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd for material from Talcott Parsons et al., Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, copyright 1955 by The Free Press, a Corporation, and Talcott Parsons and Neil Smelser, Economy and Society, copyright 1956.

This book is my attempt to give a reading to Parsons. The test of an adequate interpretation or reading is that when the reader has finished it, he can take any book or article of Parsons and fit it into the suggested structure of Parsonian thought. In order to do this, I must trace how his ideas developed and how problems that are unresolved at one stage reappear at another. It is also necessary to focus on the structure of his basic argument, not the substantive analyses he gives, for it is in terms of the former that an interpretation of the latter can be provided.

This is a book on theory, not substantive issues. Parsons concerns are wide ranging: the kinship structure of the United States to international politics ancient Greece to the future of the university system in the United States. As most of his discussions are based on widely accepted sources, what commands attention is the general conceptual framework in which he looks at the material. If Parsons were simply a prolific writer whose work contained some insights as well as some errors, then he would not have attracted the attention he has. His significance comes from his attempt to provide a general theory of social activity. It is on this level of general theory that I shall tackle him.

One of the problems in doing this is that Parsons has become a symbol. In particular for conflict sociologists and radical sociologists, he has become a symbol of the type of sociology they reject. By and large, they have arrived at the position they attribute to him by looking at his position on a number of substantive issues (e.g. social stratification and the existence of a consensus in society today). Their attack on him is based primarily on their rejection of the substantive positions he takes on these issues. They place their own gloss on these positions. That is to say, they attribute to him a set of views from which they would generate these positions on substantive issues. They have on the whole, assessed him from outside, rather than finding out why he takes the positions he does. They do not usually focus on those features of his theory he sees as central like the functional dimensions (FDs) and pattern variables (PVs). Moreover the consensus assumption is rejected without asking what role it plays in the theory. My approach to Parsons will be from a different vantage point. I am concerned with the internal coherence of his theoretical ideas. I will make arguments of the form: Given that Parsons wishes to maintain this position, can he also maintain this other position? If not, then what changes have to be made or can be made in his ideas?