The
definition of the problem and his/her approach according to Talcott Parsons
For Parsons, it is an undoubted fact that the science
of economics examines an important aspect of social life, without, however,
reducing it to a science that concerns the entire spectrum of human activities,
situations or objects found within a society. The aim, therefore, of the
analysis he attempts in the collective volume “Economy and Society” is to
dismantle the belief that economists should not become carriers of sufficient
knowledge concerning non-economic issues and, furthermore, to indicate the
necessity of economic sciences to lean towards the other social sciences -both
theoretically and empirically- at least to the extent that the latter lean
towards the former. In other words, the point on which Talcott wishes to
intervene Parsons is the problematic - as he himself identifies it -
relationship between current sociological theory [4] and some central concepts
of economics. Starting his analysis, the theorist in question initially
observes that the science of economics has always used non-economic terms in
its general bibliography. Characteristics such as 'physical', 'social',
'psychological' or 'political' are frequently used in the language of
economists, when the latter want to refer to the non-economic aspects of life.
At this point, Parsons identifies the first conceptual weakness, which has to
do with the fact that these words are used by economics mainly as labels that
simply indicate some of the limits of economic analyses. Although the lack of
precision in the definition of such words is justified since such clarification
is not included in the main responsibilities of the economist, according to
Parsons, there is nevertheless a huge epistemological need to bridge this gap.
This need in turn gives rise, according to him, to the search for whether and
to what extent there is any theoretical approach with the help of which we will
be able to differentiate, classify and analyze the factors of the economy that
are generally called non-economic, always taking into account, as Parsons
emphasizes, the fact that the relationship between the economic and the
non-economic is not the same in every case. The various aspects with which
non-economic factors have been treated so far [5] by the various schools of
economic science force Parsons to question what are the positions of these
factors in a society and the economy of that society and whether the
sociologist can analyze them from his own perspective, helping both the
economic and the social sciences to place their work on a somewhat more complete
path.
In order to be able to give a certain answer to this
complex question, Parsons draws his methodological tools from the General
Theory of Social Systems or otherwise the General Theory of Action [6].
Specifically, he states that both the economy and society are two areas -
territories , where a possible research to find their boundaries and an attempt
at a more precise placement both between these two, as well as with other areas
- territories, will bring enormous profit to the scholar who will deal with
them and to science in general. According to Parsons, only systemic theory can
answer a question such as that of detecting the boundaries between the economic
and the non- economic, as while he recognizes that systemic theory has not yet
reached that level of desired development so as to be possessed of theoretical
elegance or some empirical validation, nevertheless, the available tools with
which it can arm the social scientist, he adds, are sufficient for the present
purpose. Because, Parsons emphasizes, the classics of traditional economics,
such as Adam Smith, failed to adequately explain a large proportion of the
concrete events of economic life - and especially the extent to which
non-economic factors influence these events, economic theory initially seemed
to have to give way to a complete social theory in which the term 'economic
aspect' would lose its theoretical specificity. Then came the sociological
analysis of Pareto, according to which economic theory should be supplemented
by one or more distinct abstract theoretical schemes which would examine the
other important variables beyond the purely economic ones. Finally, we have the
proposal introduced by Parsons on the subject, which also characterizes itself
as distinctly different from the above.
Parsons's suggestion, therefore, could be at a first
level rendered as follows: economic theory is the theory of the characteristic
processes of the economy, which economy, however, is a separate subsystem of
the system of society. Therefore, the economic aspect of the theory of social
systems is a special case of the general theory of the social system. Assuming
that the above is true, we must clarify the position that this special case
occupies in relation to the other special cases of the general theory of the
social system, in order to emerge an economic theory with the self-awareness
that the economy constitutes at the same time a separate system and a dependent
part of a wider integrated circuit - society, as well as the other subsystems
of the latter. Now we can well understand why, according to Parsons, the
peculiarity of economic theory does not lie in its use of separate variables,
but in the parameters by which it distinguishes as economic or non-economic the
variable it draws from the general theory of social systems. In short, what
Parsons proposes is to see what society and the economy are as separate
systems, as well as what their functions are, and then how they are connected
to each other under the axiomatic belief that the latter is a subsystem of the
former. To serve the above purpose, Parsons proceeds to present some condensed
definitions of a systemic nature, the explanation of which is a prerequisite
for an analysis such as the one he undertakes. Thus, he states that a social
system is the system produced by the process of any interaction that can be
carried out within the social-cultural level, between two or more actors. The
actor is either a person - that is, an individual - or consists of a
collectivity of which a plurality of persons are members. Both constitute what
Parsons refers to as the constituent units of a system. The person or the
collectivity participates in a given system of interaction, not usually with
the entire set of his/her motivations or interests, but only with that part of
himself/herself that is related to the specific field of interaction.
Sociologically, this particular area is called a role. Typical examples of
roles, Parsons says, are those of the spouse, the businessman or the voter.
What must be emphasized is that an individual can occupy a responsible position
of all these roles at the same time. A society, now, in a theoretically
restrictive sense is an instance of the social system, in which the subsystems
include all the important roles of the persons and collectivities that compose
its population. In the broader sense, a society is the complex network of
correlation of all the differentiated subsystems that constitute it. In
addition, social interaction in Talcott's systemic theory Parsons defines it as
the process that affects both the relationship of one constituent unit to
another, as well as the state of the system itself, with the result that the
behaviour or states of the members within a social system change. Finally,
during this stage - of interaction - every act that is performed simultaneously
involves an aspect of performance and an aspect of sanction. Performance lies
in the relationship of the act to the general goal of the social system and
whether and to what extent it contributes to the maintenance of this goal,
while sanction is analyzed from the point of view of the effect it may have on
the state of the actor towards whom it is oriented.
At this point, Parsons constructs the first imaginary
bridge between the general theory of social systems and the economic sciences,
which is divided for methodological reasons into three central points. First,
it is suggested by Parsons, as a sufficiently obvious proposition, that the
distinction that economists define between supply and demand is simply a special
case of the distinction between yield and penalty as defined in the general
theory of social interaction. Following the reasoning of economic theory which
places the supply and demand curves in a scheme indicating the course of the
functional relationship between quantity and price, Parsons Points out that the
same logic applies to the relationship between yield and penalty in all social
interaction. The conceptual structure and the proportion of slopes that the
schematized curves take are the same. Their only difference lies in the
terms-names used to characterize the variables common to the two methodologies.
Beyond the level of concepts, however, Parsons also proceeds to a deeper
correlation. He strives to highlight that the general theory of social systems
and economics as a science contain a strong underlying identification at the
level of classification of objects. Specifically, he states that the action
that takes place within a social system consists of physical, social and
cultural objects or otherwise general information. The first objects, the
physical ones, do not interact mutually with the actor, in contrast to the
social ones whose content consists of this very reciprocity. Finally, cultural
objects constitute a kind of generalization of the concept of physical and
social objects. The economic classification of objects into goods, services and
analysis techniques constitutes, if nothing else, for Parsons a special case of
the three objects of action of the general systemic theory, as they were
classified above. To be clearer, he points out that a good in the economic
sense is a physical object that is required because it is considered
satisfactory for some need. In contrast, services concern the mutual
interaction of market participants and exist because of this reciprocity,
while, finally, the techniques of analysis of economic phenomena require the
combination of goods and services, which indicates the parallel that Parsons
draws here with cultural objects, and especially with the valuable use of their
information [7].
The third point of parallelism with which Parsons
closes the first section on the correlation of economic and social sciences,
deals with the core of actions. In short, he tries to identify this
“something”, as he characteristically says, that motivates human activity to
coexist mutually both on an economic and a social level. Although the issue in
question is characterized by a particular complexity, what, according to
Parsons, we can unconditionally claim is that there is a mutual advantage in
both economic and broader social transactions. In other words, the actors -
whether as individuals or as collectivities - recognize in the -exchange
nature- coexistence with others, a mutual benefit. The second epistemological
unit with which Talcott Parsons aspires to inductively relate the field of
economics to that of sociology, it concerns an analysis of both their separate
objects - namely the economy and society respectively - under strictly systemic
terms. In this conclusive attempt to parallel the two spaces, the main
representative of the sociology of systems is essentially confronted with the
confirmation of his own theory, as the detection of the relationship and the
limits between economy and society is displaced by a renewed search for the
connection between the functions of the systems that bear the name society and
economy. Driven both by his own systemic view of society and by the fact that
most of the classical economists explicitly include the concept of system in
their discourses, Parsons now confidently perceives the economy as a system.
However, with the aim of interpreting his words as completely as possible,
Parsons Poses above all two central questions, the answers to which concentrate
the value and evaluation of the degree of substantiation of his case. First,
what are the most important characteristics of a social system, with the help
of which we will also determine the characteristics of an economy, and second,
under what criteria (e.g. functional) does the economy, as a subsystem of
society, differentiate itself from the other subsystems .
Starting his answer to the first of the two above
questions, Parsons emphasizes that according to the general systems theory,
every social system is characterized by an institutionalized value system and
its process as a system is subject to four independent functional imperatives –
processes that must ‘ meet adequately’ if the equilibrium of a system is to be
maintained. These processes are: A) the process of maintaining plans and
managing tensions , which consists in stabilizing the existing value system
against situations that may change it, such as cultural pressures or
interpersonal tensions between systemic units. B) The process of satisfaction
or goal achievement, which concerns the conquest of the individual sets of
goals found within the system that Parsons calls society. Each set of goals -
whether it exists or tends to be created - constitutes a relationship between
the specific value system and the occasional objects of the social system in
general. C) The process of controlling the environment and adapting to it the
sets of goals that are achieved or not achieved by the actors. Here, Parsons,
having the belief that relationships and situations are by definition
problematic, considers that the process of controlling a situation by the actor
before carrying out his action is beneficial for the functionality of a system.
If the goal or set of goals in a system is clear, then the adaptability of
situations occurs naturally. However, if there is a multiplicity of goals and
sub-goals, then both the environments and the driving units are examined:
individuals, collectivities or roles. And D) the process of maintaining
solidarity in the relationships between the systemic units for the benefit of
effective functioning, a process by which a social system is completed. Every
system, therefore, has, according to Parsons, the property of being able to be
analyzed under the aforementioned fundamental categorizations of its functions.
Therefore, within the methodological frameworks that have just been defined, he
examines the systems of the economy and society and the relationships that
connect them. Specifically, Parsons wishes to see two separate systems. On the
one hand, the economy - and therefore to ask about its orientation, imperatives
and integration, and on the other hand, society, which has the economy as its
subsystem- and therefore to ask the same questions again with the aim of a
fruitful systemic dialogue.
The most important part of such a study and such a
laborious dialogue can possibly be identified - among others- in certain points
such as those that we will immediately quote, thus completing our own recording
of the issues raised by Parsons on the problem of the relationship between
economy and society. The universal proposition with which Parsons introduces
his innovation states that the economy is only a functional subsystem of
society. In particular, an economy is that subsystem of a social system that
concerns the third systemic process in order, which is why it is described as
an adaptive function by him. As an adaptive function of society, the economy is
divided into negative and positive: negative is when it is subordinated to
controlling the coverage of imperative needs and positive is when it concerns
the management of the wealth of a social system. Through and through this way
of approaching the economy, Parsons is now able to restore his initial concern
and confront it with greater scientific confidence. By announcing his new
methodology, he is undoubtedly in the pleasant position of reconsidering the
use of economic and non-economic concepts through the new prism offered to him
by the systemic dialogue that he developed. Three very indicative examples of
this new re-examination could be the following positions:
-Production as an internal part of the subsystem of
society called the economy depends on the general system of values within which
the respective social reality is produced and reproduced. Therefore, the goal
of the economy is not simply the production of income for the utility of a set
of individuals, but the maximization of production in relation to the entire
complex of institutionalized values and functions of a society and its
subsystems. Here it becomes clear what Parsons means when he says that the
economy is not defined in relation to the individual, but in relation to
society.
-Words like wealth, utility, economic evaluation or
income emerge as states or properties of social systems and their units and
thus do not apply to the individual personality arbitrarily, that is, outside
of a systemic perspective. Specifically, utility is redefined as the economic
value of natural, social and cultural objects according to the importance that
these objects have as facilities for solving problems of adaptability in the
wider social system. The total of this value for a given social system, at a
given moment is defined as wealth. By income now we mean the percentage of the
production or reception of these values for a period of time and finally the
economic Evaluation is now defined as a mechanism by which individuals or
collectivities assess the importance of objects and specific resources under
the generalized terms of the broader social value system.
-The transition of the good from production to
consumption constitutes the systemic boundary process between the economy and
the other aspects of society. When the process of production is completed, the
economy for Parsons 'it has done its job' and the product is now made available
to the other subsystems of the society system.
In conclusion, we are now able to conclude by claiming
that for Talcott Parsons the economy constitutes the subsystem of the
relationships that the units that interact in the social system in general
enter into, since he demonstrated in systemic terms that within the limits of
the traditional economic model of "supply" and "demand" the
interaction and social values are those that determine the prices, quantities and
methods of production. In addition, we have seen that both individuals and
collectivities participate in economic activities, which may at the same time
not be of an economic nature. For example, even a collectivity of economic
self-determination such as the enterprise - the analyst in question emphasizes
characteristically - includes political parameters in its actions. In this way,
Parsons highlights that while all the actions of social units may have - among
others - also an economic nature, however, no aspect of social life can be
defined as purely economic. A conclusive ending with an admittedly subversive
tone for the era, the country, and the conditions under which he wrote and
developed his thought.