Talcott Parsons

Despair and Modernity

Shaun Best

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317046929
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze sociali
• Subtopic: Sociologia

This is not a conventional biography but an attempt to explore the motives and intentions that underpin Talcott Parsons' published work by exploring the reasoning Parsons shares with his readers in the pages of his many published works and the possible links between Parsons' academic outputs and the social, economic and political situations in which Parsons found himself during the course of his life. Shaun Best brings together biography and the sociology of knowledge to demonstrate that there are links between the phases of Parsons theorizing the political, economic and social problems facing the United States; the circumstances in which he found himself and the intellectual decisions he made about what to publish. The assumption which underpins Parsons' work is that knowledge is produced by people in particular historical conditions, grounded in sensory experience, exercising choice, judgment and reflection on those experiences. Thus, this book explores and evaluates Parsons' ideas and arguments in relation to developments in social theory since the 1970s.

Chapter 1
Introduction: Text and Context

Why would anybody want to make another study of Talcott Parsons? This study is about identifying the fact and fiction of Talcott Parsons and draws upon his body of published writing to outline his view of the world in order to re-evaluate or reconsider Parsons’ social theory for an audience who have had their conception of his work shaped by decades of often uninformed or biased secondary sources that often presented a caricatured conception of Parsons’ ideas and arguments, often to support what was presented as a new, more fashionable, more politically radical or more inclusive contribution to our understanding of social life.

Although concerned with issues of evidence and interpretation, this ‘intellectual biography’ does not conform to the normal procedures of biography. Biography is an interpretation of a life, a narrative construction in which coherence is imposed upon the life of the subject by the emplotting of events. Emplotment is a term coined by Paul Ricœur to describe an assembly or sequence of historical incidents or happenings that is shaped by the author into a description or narrative with a plot. The process of emplotting events involves imposing coherence on a life and this process is never a neutral description; it is always a politicized process. The most well-established view of Talcott Parsons’ life is that he was a conservative thinker who was conservative in terms of both his character and his personality and view of the world. His published work is commonly understood to be little more than an apology and justification for American capitalism and for the inequalities found within American society.

A biography is a narrative account of a person’s life that that reflects the subject’s values, beliefs and attitudes but it also says something about the culture in which the subject lived. Parsons’ critics have hijacked his life and work and ‘rhetorically reconstituted’ his life in terms of a conservative persona; his life and work have been subjected to such a radical transformation that the real Parsons as identified by what he has written in his books and papers is lost to many consumers of social theory. Parsons’ persona has become a text – a social construction or articulation – structured within or around hostile and not well-informed discourses and readings of his work. People appear to know the constructed conservative persona, not the person or his work. This book is about the genesis and content of Parsons’ sociology. In addition, this study is not a psychological reduction of a life but rather aims to provide an opportunity for this audience to think again about Parsons’ work by reading it against the grain of much contemporary exegesis.

A traditional biography would open with comments such as Talcott Parsons was born in Colorado Springs in 1902 and died in Munich during a lecture tour in 1979. According to Talcott’s son Charles Parsons (2004), Talcott’s father, Edward Smith Parsons (1863-1943), was known to have liberal views, supported trade unionism, attempted to accommodate socialism within his world view and was enthusiastically involved in Walter Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel Movement, a group that drew upon Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in an effort to resolve the problems of allowing people to enjoy decent living, public health and compulsory publically funded education, to end racial discrimination, improve the social and economic position of immigrants and provide better working conditions under economic conditions within a capitalist society that generated inequality.

Charles Parsons (2004) traces the interconnecting Parsons, Ingersoll and Smith family histories from the earliest family members who arrived in New England in the 1630s. Several of Parsons’ ancestors came to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in its earliest years, and Charles Parsons argues that one came on the Mayflower. Over the generations the family were involved in Free Will Baptism and Congregational orthodoxy. The name ‘Talcott’ was the family name of Katherine Talcott who married George Lynman Ingersoll in 1855. George Lynman Ingersoll was Talcott Parsons’ maternal grandfather and the name ‘Talcott’ remains within the family and is held by David Talcott Cramer who is Charles Parsons’ nephew. Charles Parsons refutes the argument put forward by Martel (1979: 610), Wearne (1989: 11) and Camic (1991: x) that Talcott Parsons’ family came from a ‘long line of Yankee merchants’. What these authors can point to at best was that Talcott Parsons’ great-grandfather owned sailing ships. The Parsons family have a long history of association with Amherst College, which Talcott Parsons attended after he graduated from Horace Mann School in the Bronx; the family also have a long association and membership of Chi Psi, stretching back to the mid-nineteenth century. Talcott Parsons had five brothers and sisters: Esther (1890-1965) and Charles Edwards (1892-1940), both born in Greeley, Elizabeth Ingersoll (1894-1957), Josephine (1897-1899) and Edward Smith Jr. (1898-1960); Talcott was the youngest (1902-1979), and the later four were born in Colorado Springs.

For Talcott Parsons the development of social science was a product of the processes of rationalization, which, taking its starting point from advances in science and technology, impacted on the cognitive processes of human agents that undermined religious thought and helped to establish a secularization of social thought found in a ‘professional’ pattern of instrumental orientations, notably affective neutrality (Parsons 1951: 518). Walter Rauschenbusch was the grandfather of philosopher Richard Rorty and his books Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917) were to have an influence not only on Talcott Parsons’ underpinning values but also on the formation of the New Deal and on civil rights campaigners, notably Martin Luther-King. Guy Rocher (1974) has argued that Parsons’ interest in social reform and his interest in sociology have their origins in his father’s Protestant social reformism. Holton and Turner (1986) argue that Parsons assumed that we live in a secular society and that it is the processes of secularization that makes sociology possible. We may no longer accept a conception of the sacred, or worship religious objects or accept without question the views of religious people but that is not to suggest that there has been a de-Christianization of our value commitments. Moreover, it is Parsons’ social theology that underpins his liberal reformist view, and Christian values underpin his politics and world view. Parsons’ reformist view is clearly seen in his continuing support for the reformist wing of the Democratic Party. In October 1952 Parsons came out publically in support of Adlai Stevenson, whom he described in the Harvard Crimson as a part of a ‘cultivated circle’ of wealthy and cultured people who had moved towards the political left, such as Roosevelt, Stetinnius, Acheson and Harriman. Parsons said that he enjoyed Stevenson’s brand of humour, his ‘striking courage’ in the face of special interest groups, his forthrightness, realistic optimism and charismatic quality. Stevenson is portrayed by Parsons as a ‘conspicuous intellectual’ who uses ‘Harvard words’, but has ‘the real common touch’. Parsons continued: ‘Recognizing that Stevenson has a particular appeal to the academic group, I must say I feel personally very comfortable with the picture of him in the White House … He struck me right away as a man of high ideals combined with practical realism’ (cited in Lucas 1952).

This book is not a traditional biography but a sociologically informed account of the links between the life events of Talcott Parsons, the contexts in which he found himself and how these in turn are reflected in the contours of his academic writings. The links between Parsons as human agent and the social structure of American society and culture at the time he was writing will be explored. Biography is more than simply an interpretation of a person’s life; people lead a life against the backcloth of changing historical circumstances. There is history in our biographies just as there is biography in history. Individual people find themselves in given circumstances with their own distinct concept of self. From the perspective of Gilles Deleuze ‘folding’ the interface of the individual human agent and the wider historical process in which we find ourselves brings about the construction of our intimate subjectivity. Deleuze’s concept of the fold is derived from Foucault and is concerned with the ontological processes involved in self-actualization and the construction of subjectivities (Deleuze 1988). Elements of the outside world are folded into our sense of self in order for us to make sense of ourselves as a self. These processes of folding and re-folding take place on an immanent plane in which distinctive selves emerge. Biography can also play a significant role in countering the personal myths that individuals engage in when reflecting upon their life. There is then an object element to the subjective construction of self and identity that the biographer can draw upon in order to make sense of a life, what Carolyn Barros (1998) describes as the dynamis, the perceived motive force which drives the transformation of the life described within the account of a person’s life. Biography and history are complexly but inseparably intertwined and the studies of history and biography have become inseparable in the field of memory and memorialization. The links between Parsons’ life, his academic work and American society will be explored. For those readers who would like to explore more fully the methodological approach to biography, a methodological appendix has been added to the book.

The aim of this book is to puncture some of the myths that have emerged about the life and work of Talcott Parsons, in particular to challenge the assumption that Parsons was an apologist for American modernity, a consensus-driven conservative who not only assumed and accepted that consensus existed in the world but also celebrated it. However, there were occasions when Parsons did express ‘conservative’ views. For example, in a lecture he gave at the weekly Hillel Round Table discussion in November 1960 Parsons argued that conformity was essential to realizing ‘higher freedom’; the Harvard Crimson reported Parsons’ lecture on 21 November 1960 by saying:

Writers and sociologists who have denounced increasing conformity in American society received some quiet criticism yesterday afternoon from Talcott Parsons, professor of Sociology.

Complex social organization – which requires a good deal of conformity of individuals – is a prerequisite of the ‘higher levels of freedom’ most people value, Parsons maintained. Consequently a gain in these ‘higher’ freedoms involves a sacrifice of some other, ‘lower’ freedoms, such as freedom to do what one pleases regardless of the needs of society.

The individual must make certain sacrifices. He becomes dependent on shifts in the market, the money he accepts for his goods ‘Is merely an expectation’: he has no guarantee that it will be worth as much when he tries to buy something with it.

Complex forms of organization exact another price: the requirement that everyone abide by the rules of the game, Parsons said.

‘For example, I doubt that even the most hardened non-conformist thinks I thought [sic] to be able to make any noise or any marks on paper I please, and say this is my individual way of expressing deep and profound thoughts.’

The desirable effects of organization often justify the conformity it requires, Parsons said. For example, the vastly increased efficiency of assembly-line production provides reason for pressuring individuals to cooperate.

Parsons observed that in modern society technical specialization takes away a significant amount of freedom from people:

‘It creates dependency – we have to respect technical competence because important desirable effects depend on it.’ But in return for abandoning our freedom (for example, to treat our own diseases) we obtain some other freedoms, such as the freedom of action which comes from being healthier, he said. (‘Parsons Says Uniformity Essential to Realizing “Higher Freedom”’)

This book will attempt to show that Parsons’ major works were concerned with trying to understand some of biggest problems facing liberal modernity and to explain the nature of dissensus. Unfortunately Parsons’ use of language is one factor that makes this task difficult. The major books are often written in an abstract, apolitical style and some of his critics use this as an excuse to label his work inherently conservative in nature. One of the entry criteria to the Harvard Department of Social Relations was that students should have the ability to speak a second language and in an often repeated joke many asked if Parsonese could be counted. Whether or not this anecdote is true, Parsons’ heavy abstract prose was often commented upon and is said by many to have overstated the complexities of his conceptual generalizations, making his analysis at best suggestive. In 1956 one colleague was reported to have said ‘If I were he … I’d spend a whole year revising each book. He just doesn’t stop to sweat out expressions.’ As a consequence, Toward a General Theory of Action (Parsons and Shils 1951) was labelled by some as ‘The Yellow Peril’, and Parsons’ publishers were rumoured to have invited in a graduate student to explain the meaning of Parsons’ writing.

Many of the key concepts that we use in the social sciences to explain forms of human behaviour operate solely at the level of ideas. Abstract concepts such as inclusion, class, race, gender, sexuality, disability and so on can only be accessed by looking at the lives of individual people and exploring their memories, by exploring the situated activities of individual human agents as they go about their everyday lives. If we want to fully understand the impact and significance of social division or any of the other abstract concepts and ideas that we draw upon within our explanation building we need to have an understanding of the biography of individual people, their motives and intentions, and in Parsons’ terms the mechanisms of social action.

Cultural patterns are generated by the human agents within a social system, and as such cannot be understood without the analysis of motivation in relation to concrete situations. The system of social relationships is not merely of situational significance, but has a role to play in the construction of the agent’s personality itself. Dynamic motivational processes within a context are of functional significance for the social system and provide the basis for Parsons’ formulation of the concept of mechanism. The research process then starts with a descriptive presentation of ‘structural’ categories into which appropriate ‘motivational’ constructs or mechanisms are fitted:

A mechanism as the term will here be used is an empirical generalization about motivational processes stated in terms of its relevance to the functional problems of an action system. (Parsons 1951: 3 fn.)

Motivational dynamics in sociological theory take their starting point from the formulation of mechanisms. It is these motivational processes that are responsible for the maintenance of structural patterns within the social system. A mechanism is then an empirical generalization about the operation of motivational ‘forces’ within a context that generates an observable output. A mechanism is then a mode of organization of the motivational systems of personalities, which are understood in relation to the socially structured level or behaviour while conducting a role (Parsons 1951: 19).

The social system is understood as the context and the mechanism mediates between the needs and capacities of the personalities of the human agents that compose social systems, and whose behaviours form the structure of the social systems (Parsons 1951: 71-72).

Christian Influences

In the aftermath of the American Civil War American Protestantism had to come to terms with the changing nature of modernity which contained new forms of economic and social inequality. Henry Hughes’ A Treatise on Sociology: Theoretical and Practical (1854) expressed the opinion that unless a new synthesis emerged in which different social and political perspectives could be coordinated, which fused social theory with social policy, liberal democracy in American would degenerate into dictatorship or stagnation. Hughes drew upon Protestantism to develop the idea of society as a ‘social system’ as a moral order and also made the distinction between the ‘free sovereign’ society of the North and the ‘warranteeism’ or ‘slavocracy’ of the South, which reflected the distinction made by Parsons in 1937 between liberal modernity and fascist modernity. In contrast to Hughes, Parsons identified utilitarianism with irreligion. However, like Parsons, Hughes was concerned with using sociology to provide an understanding of American society with the aim of informing social reconstruction. Also like Parsons, Hughes redefined Protestant values into a secular form to inform social and political change. Edward Cummings, who became the first professor of sociology at Harvard, attempted to bring together social psychology with a form of Christian socialism. The Social Gospel-inspired Social Ethics programme of the university was incorporated into the Sociology Department. Social Gospel was also central to other Harvard academics, notably Charles Peirce, William James, George Santayana and Josiah Royce, all of whom were concerned with applying Christian ethics to the practical aspects of social life. Royce was also a leading thinker on the application of communitarianism to American life, and he taught Franklin Roosevelt during his time at Harvard. Even sociologists such as Lester Ward who appeared to reject religion, suggesting that the university should be a values driven organization and play the role in society that was previously played by the Church, also drew upon Protestant values to shape their argument.

There is something of a translation of Parsons’ faith into political activism in his work. In his contribution to the First International Symposium on Belief, Parsons (1971) describes himself as a ‘somewhat backsliding Protestant of Congregationalist background’ but he did explain that the concern with religion had been a major orientation in his attempt to understand moral commitments and practical action (1970: 873). Roland Robertson (1982: 308) has suggested that Parsons’ sociology ‘sustained and nourished’ his personal convictions.

Communitarianism

From 1920 to 1924 Parsons was a student at Amherst College during the period when civil rights campaigner Alexander Meiklejohn was the College’s president. Alexander Meiklejohn was a very keen supporter of John Macmurray’s communitarian standpoint. This influenced Parsons in respect of Macmurray’s critique of utilitarianism, and Macmurray’s Christian perspective on the link between agency and structure without specific reference to God fitted with Parsons’ Social Gospel upbringing. Macmurray’s reflection on the relationship between agency and morality appeared to have had a significant influence on Parsons. Macmurray investigated personal and impersonal modes of being moral – a set of concerns that Parsons was to explore later in his own work.

Like Parsons, the starting point for Macmurray’s moral philosophy is the self as an agent that thinks ‘from the standpoint of action’ (Macmurray 1957: 85). The social actions of each agent are functionally related to the activity of others. Action is choice and is possible because consciousness is central to agency and when the agent acts, the agent modifies the world. There is right and wrong inherent in our choice of action. The moral rightness of a social action comes about because the action of one person will affect others. The freedom of all members of a community depends upon the in...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• 1 Introduction: Text and Context
• 2 The Structure of Social Action: Can Modernity Survive?
• 3 McCarthyism and the End of Ideology
• 4 Agency and Structure
• 5 Parsons Contra Sociology
• Conclusion: What was the Parsons Project About?
• Methodological Appendix: The Lives of Others: Biography as a Form of Data Collection
• Index