SatyamAIR 218 · CSE 2016 · 476 wordsTheir whole copy
Opening · a definition
Talcott Parsons created a 'grand' theory in his study of 'Social System'. He defines a social system as an autonomous, orderly and stable social reality which interacts with the outer world in a pre-defined fashion. The various characteristics of his social system are:-
Body · points and prose
(a) Social system is a sum of functional sub-parts, all of which contribute to the maintenance of social order and stability.
(b) Social system in order to survive needs to fulfill 4 functional prerequisites - Adaptation (done by economic system), Goal-Attainment (done by political system), Integration (done by law and police), and Latency (done by cultural sub-system including religion).
(c) The cultural sub-system is the source of values and ideas (source of value consensus), the social sub-system exercises control (socialization and social control), whereas the so on.
(d) Whenever there is a change induced in society, it moves from one state of equilibrium (harmonious interactions among parts and to with the society of each part) to a new state of equilibrium. So, his equilibrium's concept is one which is dynamic.
Close
As is clear, Parsons had created a complex theory to analyze society. Merton says that Parsons had created this theory of Social System as a reaction against the grand 'conflict theory' of Marx. But Parsons ended up creating another grand theory with little practical significance.
As Merton explains how Parsonian idea of functional unity may be misplaced. There are chances that one sub-part may be 'functionally autonomous' from others. Besides, there could also be 'alternatives' to the so-called 'functionally indispensable' sub-parts like 'religion'. For example, USSR had no religion and still it worked. Besides, most importantly, some parts could be functional, dysfunctional or non-functional to the society or to other parts. For example, in multi-ethnic society, religion can also lead to communal riots. (Muzaffarnagar riots in Western U.P, 2013)
Next, the very idea of 'value consensus' in the social system is not without its strong critics.
First, value consensus may be an exaggeration. Second, as Mann points out, it is lack of value consensus which leads to social order sometimes. For example, in a highly unequal society like that of US where wealth remains concentrated in a few hands, it is lack of the consensus among the poor about the 'need for material success' that prevents them from rising up against the unequal social order.
Third, the content of value consensus is equally important. For example, consensus on 'treachery' and 'deceit' will only lead to instability.
Besides, some conflict theorists believe that even conflicts can be functional in the sense that they expose the underlying grievances and reduce the social tension. For example, in a democracy like India conflicts for language rights led to strengthening of democracy in the long run.
Lastly, it is also alleged that Parsonian idea of 'moving equilibrium' is veiled status quoist which is obsessed with stability and order.