Parsons (Parsons) Talcott( The American sociologist)
Comments for Parsons (Parsons) Talcott
Biography Parsons (Parsons) Talcott
(1902-1979) - Amer. sociologist, one of the creators of the theory. Sociology and Social Anthropology 20 in. Educated at Amherst College, London School of Economics, University of Heidelberg, who in 1926 defended his thesis. the development of the concept of 'capitalism' in it. Sociology (y M. Weber in. Sombart). From 1927 he taught sociology and economical. theory at Harvard University, those which created the original school of the theory. Sociology (Harvard Sociology. School). In 1949 elected President of Amer. Sociology. Association.
P. sought to establish the fundamental theoretical and logical. system describing the mechanisms of human interaction with the surrounding reality in all its diversity. The key to this system was the construction of a theory of action (behavior in the social environment), to-Rui P. develop and improve throughout life. At the early stage nature of the work P. determined by the desire to find det. compromise between 'sociology' Durkheim, rigidly deterministic humane. behavior of the influence of external social environment, and 'interpretive' theory of social action M. Weber, describing a human. behavior through the appropriate 'ideal types' - cognitive models. Hence, the impact on the early work of P. has also Italy. As sociologist. Pareto (offer similar to the Weberian model of division of humane. Action on the motivation of 'logic' - rational conscious and nonlogical - affective) and English. And economist. Marshall.
In an effort to overcome as Sociology. idealism in explaining social action entirely subjective motives and rigid utilitarian positivist behaviorism, P. offers his definition of humane. (social) actions as a self-organizing dynamic system. Basic Fixes. components of this system are the 'leader' (individual or group, the action takes place) and 'situation' (the set of external factors that determine the environment in a swarm, the action takes place). The difference of social action from biol. and Physical P. sees in it 'voluntarism' (orientation leader for his own understanding of the situation), as well as in the presence of symbolic. (language, culture) and normative (universally valid norms, values, rules), regulatory mechanisms of. Motivation is determined by the presence of activist striving to meet the ODA. requirements (lack of something), . as well as its ability to cognitive (definition and classification of elements of the environment), . katekticheskoy (identifying relevant to meet the needs of its elements of the environment) and evaluation (comparing these elements with his ideas about ways to meet the needs) orientation in the situation,
. With the ability to assess the consequences of his actions (ie. temporal changes to the ROE-operation will bring to the situation) figure able to set goals and implement its. However, to assess the situation and the action itself is influenced by the specificity. external determinants: the presence of each of the members of ODA. of the behavior of other participants ( 'mutual expectations'), formed values (generally significant 'external symbols' - the standard of assessment of validity). Tourist Office. in humane. act as the system becomes possible to highlight four interrelated subsystems: the organismic (biol. component of the action), personality (the needs and orientation of the figure in the situation), social (complex 'mutual expectations' and social norms) and cultural (values and symbolic. implementation of action). Accordingly, it becomes possible to breed in the study of man as a holistic being my analysis of four. fields: the body (informative and the energy. opportunities arising biol. human characteristics), personality (individual mentally. characteristics, needs, emotions, will), social entity (a set of social roles, functions, povedench. expectations), cultural substance (values, preferences, views, formed the cultural experience).
For my analysis. descriptions of social action P. also formulates a set of dihotomich. characteristics, . placement on the axes to-ryh (scaling) describes the action itself and its motivations: 'universal - Particular' - focus on standard rules of conduct or unique characteristics of the situation; 'achievements - a predefined' - focus on social (status, . profession) or biologically inherent (sex, . age) characteristics of a person in cooperation, 'affective - neutral' - focus on getting immediate satisfaction of needs or waived in the name of more important objectives, 'Specificity - diffuse' - focus on general or specific characteristics of the situation, 'the individual - a collective' - Orientation on their own or collective goals and interests,
These dihotomich. features are implemented in each of the sub-steps: at the organismic (subjective) level - as a possible alternative behaviors; on a personal level - as a solo installation, at the social - as a 'mutual expectations', the cultural - as the values of (normative standards),
Formulated P. theory of receiving further interpretation in general systems theory. In the works of 50-ies. P. with E. Shils defines four broad challenges to the decision-ryh necessary for the existence of any system: adapting the system to the external environment, achieving ODA. purposes; integration (elimination of conflict and the reduction of tension between the elements of the system), reproduction (maintenance of the existing system of relations and mechanisms of regulation). In accordance with this P. the subsystem acts as the functional elements for the solution of these problems: the body provides for adaptation to the environment and the maintenance of the energy. balance; personality, . based on the needs, . provides guidance in the situation and creates goals, social subsystem through 'mutual expectations' integrates the process tseledostizheniya; cultural subsystem provides value criteria and models for communication and maintaining relationships in the system,
. Obviously, the last two elements of this system are outputs of a broader, supra-individual system - social and cultural, but in subsequent studies P. detailed consideration received only social system. Looking for a cut-in-t interaction of the individual and at the same time, the regulator of joint tseledostizheniya, P. gives the interpretation of the Society as a functional system. In the social system solution to the problem of adaptation to the environment provided by households. subsystem economical. organizations, joint tseledostizhenie supplied and controlled by polit, . subsystem, integration through law and other legal forms (customs, . patterns, . value); reproduction provided socially significant forms of knowledge - religion,
. beliefs, morality, science, as well as institutions of socialization (family, primary groups, obrazovat. Institutions). Culture in the works of P. interpreted in a rather narrow sense - as part of a social system that provides the structuring and the existence of forms of value - and is considered a purely funktsionalistskom vein.
Analyzing the channels of interaction between elements of the system, P. viewed them mainly as an emotion. and symbolic. The system of means of interchange between the subsystems were fun - the exchange between the organism and personality, emotions - in an exchange between the individual and the culture, . culture and social subsystem; language, . desire, . interests - for exchange between participants of,
. Within the same social system, means of exchange are largely symbolic. nature (it is' symbolic. mediators') - to the number of intermediaries n. classed language, money, power, values.
In later studies (60-th - beginning. Systems Analysis of a universal category humane. behavior, and on the islands as a comprehensive environment for the implementation of the diahronich. consideration of social development. Analyzing the development of a human. communica-in, P. stood on the positions of evolutionism and examines the social history as consecutively. process of improving the adaptive abilities of the Society, which is realized primarily through the increasing complexity of functional differentiation in the social system (the spread of social institutions and groups specializing in the implementation of ODA. functions). Evolution is carried out by consecutively. emergence and spread of 'evolutionary universals' - innovations with mean adaptive advantage of possessing and providing them on-woo possibility of further postulate. Development. With this t.zr. P. divided on the islands on the 'primitive', 'intermediate' and 'modern'. The change in 'primitive' (not knowing differentiation) on-in 'intermediate' (in the to-ryh functional subsystems identified, but very closely with one another) P. linked with the advent of writing and social stratification. The emergence of 'sovr. " on-in associated with the deployment of a market economy, democracy 'selective' type of state. bureaucracy, universalistic legal system. The appearance of these universals marked consecutively. Branch of economy from politics, religion and law, science and religion, separation of inde. subsystem obrazovat. institutions.
Recent Work II. were devoted to the analysis of forms and channels of interaction and exchange of actions with the natural environment, as well as persistent cultural formations (transcendence).
Proposed P. theory of action remains one of the most developed in anthropology, she had a mean effect on the formation sovr. social anthropology and retains its validity, continuing to be improved and supplemented. Sistemnofunktsionalistskaya concept of the Society, . despite criticism from the 'left' sociologists and representatives of the radical sociology of excessive generalization and conservatism, . was nevertheless exist, . stimulus for the development of structural-functional method in sociology,
. P. had a significant impact on neoevolyutsionizm as methodological. direction makrodinamich. Studies of the Society and Culture