Talcott Parsons and Marx Weber are two social theorists whose contribution in sociology is undeniable. However, their views are very different although Parsons is a student of Weber. When Parsons first arrived in Heildelberg, Weber’s influence still had a strong grip on the community here despite the latter having died several years earlier (Calhoun et al 82). Weber’s social theories further resonated with Parsons because they had a spiritual and cultural orientation to them.
Weber‘s social theories suggest that human beings level of understanding is curtailed by the difficulties in understanding why social events occur in a specific manner. Weber’s approach is more accommodating in its scope because it suggests that understanding is either observational or explanatory (Calhoun et al 220). Parsons’ theories on the other hand were based on a behaviorist approach, meaning that human beings can deduce social meanings through observation (Calhoun et al 98).
Key methodological issues introduced by Parsons and Weber
Parsons’ contributions to social theories and social actions include his analysis of social institutions, outlining systemic theory into sociology, description of the voluntaristic theory of action and analysis of anti-Semitism, fascism and aggression as the main problems facing the society (Calhoun et al 82). Parsons’ action theory explains how structures in the society fit together. The identified systems in this theory include: social systems, cultural systems, personality systems and behavioral-organism system.
Weber’s theories address individual actions based in a social environment, and people’s interaction with the environment. The main difference between the two is that while Weber takes symbolic-interactions perspectives in his theories, Parsons’ approach addresses the same from a functionalistic perspective.
Voluntaristic Theory of Action
Parsons regarded the development of social theory as having developed from three traditions namely: society, man’s nature and human behavior (Calhoun et al 110). Before he set out to put up his own theory about the society, Parsons took time to study work done by other socialist and concluded that “none of them has ever captured the entire truth about social behavior” (Calhoun et al 110).
As such, he took it upon himself to develop a theory that would reconcile and integrate the truths captured by other social theorists. He considered past works by Max Weber, Pareto, Durkheim and Marshall (Calhoun et al 82).
Utilitarianism and economic theory
Parsons captured this theory because it is systemic, analytical and action oriented (Calhoun et al 110). The theory deals with action, experience and understanding since it gives the society a motivation dynamic that explains behavior, thus helping people to anticipate specific things when conditions that are assumed in the theory happen.
Parsons however had strong arguments against the economic theory as it were stating that economists who held the theory’s conception need to accept that the theory has no precise application in the empirical world.
As such, Parsons argued that a pure economic theory would never achieve the general theory status because neither the classical nor the utilitarian economists were able to develop a theory that took social order into consideration without having to infuse rationalistic or individualistic frameworks in to their theories (Calhoun et al 141).
Weber on his part argued that understanding (verstehen) was the ideal way of studying social phenomenon since it would help human beings to understand their actions, interactions and experiences (Calhoun et al 142)
Significant points between Parsons and Weber
Parsons and Weber main difference regards their approach to understanding. According to (Calhoun et al 33), “Parsons lays little regard to material objects revealed through empathy or introspection. Weber on the other hand, does not recognize the distinction of material objects since his sociology is based on real subjective and objective components”. Weber’s approach is tenable when one considers the difference between behavior and action.
This is because behavior refers individual actions, whereby the actor has no clear consciousness of the motivation behind it. As such, Weber states that “behavior is not understandable”. Parsons however fails to recognize this aspect of Weber’s allegation and instead focuses on an action theory, which assumes that human actions are voluntary, symbolic and unintentional (Calhoun et al 77).
Another distinction between Parsons and Weber is their approach to economics. Parsons developed a four-prong system based on four tasks, which relates to the environment. Commonly referred to as the GAIL system, the system is based on polity (Goal-attainment), economy (adaptation), cultural system concerned with social control and law (integration) and normative motivation to fulfill roles in the society (latency).
To Parsons therefore, economic prosperity is reliant on how well the scarce resources in a given environment were allocated. This was a reflection of his idealistic approach (Parsons 20, cited in Calhoun et al 40). Weber on the other hand attributed economic prosperity to a society’s work ethic. To him, the more committed a society was to work, the higher their chances of economic success.
Weber terms the notion that government can decide the economic reality of a society through legislation as misguided. “In future as in the past, it will be the ‘interests’ of individuals rather that the ‘ideas’ of an economic administration which will rule the world.” (Calhoun et al 77).
He further points out that the proclamations by governments do not in any way affect the value of money. Rather, money’s value is determined by its associations with other goods, thus meaning that “money is not only a means of payment, but a means of exchange too.’(Calhoun et al 77).
To Parsons, demand and supply economics was at the basis of his economic theories. He perceived money as a ‘medium of exchange’, whereby the capitalist could purchase labor through money rather than giving the labor provider a means of existence such as food or clothing (Parsons 112). To Parsons, moneys value did not just stop at being a medium of exchange. Rather, it is also a ‘measure of trust’, hence providing the society with a tool to measure the trustworthiness of their social interactions.
Parsons grouped money with other media that circulates in the society. In particular, he grouped money with commitment, influence and power, stating that the four (money, commitment, influence and power) circulated in the society thus allowing people to achieve specific objectives (Parsons 324 cited by Calhoun et al 142).
These sentiments are shared by Weber. However, his approach is more from a power-money standpoint. He argues that politics and power is a preserve of the wealthy because the average person is too absorbed in making a living such that even if he had the interest or potential for politics, he would not find the time necessary to commit to politics in order to win an elective post.
“Democracy has only the choice of being run cheaply by rich who hold honorary office or of being run expensively by paid professional politicians” (Calhoun et al 113). He however ruled out the possibility that the society would pay professional politicians to run the politics of the country thus concluding that influence and power was the reserve of the wealthy people in the society.
Although he learnt a great deal of sociology from Weber, Parsons was reluctant to admit Weber’s view regarding that “objects susceptible to interpretative understanding are just as real as the phenomena recognized by the behaviorists.” (Calhoun et al 35).
This was despite Weber’s explanation that the phenomena required different study procedures. Instead, Parsons adopted a problematic strategy, based on structural functional analysis, capable of exemplifying social phenomena on priori models of dependence and interrelation (Calhoun et al 49).
Weber is skeptic when it comes to the suggestion that a socialist economy can be run without money being the mode of exchange. Even when the economy is small, dealing with simple identifiable needs and centered on consumption only, Weber still expresses doubt that people would be able to trade efficiently in such an environment.
“How does one determine which parts of the economy are doing poorly or what factor of production has contributed to product value?” (Calhoun et al 14). To Weber, a society without money is almost impossible because people would have to incentive to evaluate alternative cost.
To Weber, social action presents the most ideal means of analysis society. According to him, action involves verstehen– “understanding of subjective motivations” (Calhoun et al 207). As such, his theories were based on the ability of one form of social order (e.g. religion, culture or economics) that could transform other domains of the society.
He further argued that social actions by individuals were as a result of benefit calculation or conscious cost in the different spheres of life (Calhoun et al 207). This meant that people were no longer tied to traditional guidelines set by the society.
In the Voluntaristic theory, Parsons suggests that a society should or would not adopt a set of values. His argument suggested that societies need common orienting principles. His argument was based on the belief that human actors in a society are faced with five variable dilemmas.
“Gratification-discipline, private-collective, universalism-particularism, achievement-ascription, and specificity-diffuseness” (Calhoun et al 403). Based on these, Parsons argued that the society had a cultural system, a personality system and a social system, all which were interdependent on each other.
Conclusion
Where Weber talks of environment and organisms, Parsons talks of a situation and an actor; where Weber talks of response or behavior, Parson discusses action. From the theories suggested by Parsons and Weber, one gets the impression that social organization consists of social systems, culture, roles and stratifications, which set the conditions which the society is supposed to act on.
However, it is noteworthy that more often than not, people act towards situations rather than towards social structures or culture. This then means that social organization is only potent to the extent where it shapes societal situations thus giving people a reason to act.
According to Calhoun et al (77) social organization can also prompt people to act by giving them with symbols that could help them interpret situations? Both Parson and Weber has given us a reason to view the human society as an organization by identifying the society, conditions or forms that people identify with, and identifying what is most likely to bring change in the specific society.
Works Cited
Calhoun, Craig, Gerteis, Joseph, Moody, James, Pfaff, Steven and Virk, Indermohan. Contemporary Sociological Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Print.
Calhoun, Craig, Gerteis, Joseph, Moody, James, Pfaff, Steven and Virk, Indermohan. Classical Sociological Theory. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2007. Print.