Parsons' Sociological Thought

As a leading figure in American sociology after World War II, Parsons has been criticized by people for the defects of structural functionalism. However, it is undeniable that his theoretical system allows us to see the emergence of a discipline. Despite the pioneering work of Durkheim and others, it is still impossible to achieve imperialism like economics. Its main points can be seen in AGIL's theoretical paradigm and model variables about modernity.

A brief introduction of structural functionalism is to look at society as a whole. Parsons thinks that the analytical framework of his general action theory combines the correct views of positivism and idealism. From the standpoint of general action theory, national background and normative orientation are two independent factors that affect action: in the process of action, people have some freedom to choose goals and means to achieve them, but this freedom is limited by two aspects, and the value norms in social culture guide and adjust this choice. The adjustment of value norms to action is the core view of Parsons' general action theory, and it is also the main thread that runs through all his later theories. Here we can see that Parsons is actually culture-oriented, and he emphasizes integration. At first, because Parsons was engaged in sociological writing, he was in the stage of American and world economic crisis, so he was deeply influenced by Roosevelt's New Deal and tried his best to maintain social order. Gouldner believes that Parsons' theory is actually the product of a rather isolated university system, in which university professors are not sensitive to or understand the outside world, while intellectuals deeply affected by the economic crisis are closer to the actual social conditions and problems. Song believes that Parsons is not ignorant of the reality of social and economic crisis, but tries to maintain the stability of the existing social order and avoid practical problems.

In The Structure of Social Action, Parsons first abstracts some elements from the complex empirical reality, classifies them, and then reveals the relationship between the elements and embodies this relationship in the concept. Finally, holism links all kinds of phenomena together.

Parsons tries to determine the basic functional requirements of the system and analyzes how various basic structures meet these functional requirements. In fact, on the whole, he emphasized how all parts of society are effectively linked to maintain the operation of society. Therefore, the most severe criticism he suffered came from the fact that his theoretical model emphasized structure rather than process, which led to the lack of reform trend. Of course, Parsons also stressed that science and technology and technological progress are beneficial to the changes of the whole society. But his main energy is still to maintain such a huge scale.

Ideological criticism

Ralph dahrendorf was born in Hamburg on 1929. 1947 ~ 1952 studied philosophy and classical linguistics at Han Xuebao University, 1952 ~ 1954 studied sociology at London School of Economics. From 1957 to 1969, he taught sociology in Sal, Hamburg, Tubingen and Konstanz universities successively. He was the President of the German Social Society and the Dean of the London School of Economics. His major works include Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Theoretical Discussion on Social Conflict, Conflict after Class, New Freedom and so on.

First, dahrendorf's social outlook.

Dahrendorf is a German sociologist, but he actively participated in American sociology's criticism of Parsons' structural functionalism. In the late 1950s, dahrendorf lashed out at the utopian views of functionalists' balance theory and integration theory, believing that they provided an excessively unified, integrated and static social view. He integrated Marx's thoughts into his own conflict theory and put forward a theoretical model of dialectical conflict theory. Dahrendorf's view of society is based on the following assumptions, which are totally contrary to the assumptions based on functionalism: (1) Any society is undergoing changes everywhere, and social changes are everywhere. (2) Any society is experiencing social conflicts all the time. (3) Every element in society has contributed to its changes. (4) Any society is based on the coercion of some social members on other members. It is not difficult to see that dahrendorf's social view is dialectical. He not only thinks that society has a unified side, but also thinks that society has a changing side, and pays special attention to the social changes caused by the opposition of social members. He criticized functionalism for distorting social reality, because he regarded the social balance as the only and comprehensive social picture. Dahrendorf pointed out that "society has two real faces: one is stability, harmony and consciousness, and the other is change, conflict and coercion." He believes that the current sociology mainly cares about the former, so it is important to devote to the study of the latter and formulate the theory of social conflict, which is very important to explain social changes. This theory is one of the cornerstones of dahrendorf's general social theory and the theoretical basis for his analysis of the so-called "post-capitalist society".

Starting from his own social view, dahrendorf thinks that functionalism has the nature of utopia. He pointed out that the viewpoint of functionalism was not developed from the daily familiar reality, but was subjectively imagined by sociologists, which was not only unhelpful, but even harmful to sociological research. Therefore, dahrendorf advocated studying society from the opposite side of functionalism and establishing sociological theory. However, dahrendorf's criticism of functionalism is not a complete negation, but only emphasizes its one-sidedness and arrogance as a general theory. At the same time, dahrendorf also clarified that his conflict theory is also a concrete theory and one-sided theory, not a general theory. It's just that functionalism has a wide influence, so he especially emphasizes conflict theory.

Second, the conflict theory based on authority relationship.

(A) the root causes of social conflicts

Dahrendorf believes that the root of social conflict is a specific social structure, not anything else. This special social structure is the class structure. However, this class structure is not divided according to whether it owns the means of production, but according to the authoritative relationship between rule and obedience. He believes that in the 20th century, great changes have taken place in western industrial society, and class division has a new basis, which is the possession of power.

Dahrendorf's interpretation of "power" and "authority" basically follows Weber's definition, that is, power is the ability to impose one's will on others regardless of opposition, and authority is the legal power to expect others to yield. He believes that modern society has formed two classes around "power" and "authority": one class holds a lot of power and authority, and the other class is forced to obey it. These two classes exist in any organization of society. Therefore, social organizations are not a system that originates from the same desire, but a combination of compulsory cooperation and a group with a certain authoritative structure. In the compulsory cooperative consortium, the distribution of resources as power and authority cannot be equal, so there are two roles of dominance and obedience, and different members of the dominance and obedience class are formed. In a certain kind of compulsory cooperative association, there is a clear boundary and differentiation level between the leading role and the subordinate role, but there are many forms of social combination of domination and obedience in the whole society. In any case, different degrees of oppression and coercion are common phenomena in society. Systematic social opposition and conflict arise from this.

(B) the formation of social contradictions

Dahrendorf pointed out that group interests can be divided into "potential" and "obvious". "Potential benefit" is an objective benefit determined by human role, but it is in the state of human consciousness. "Obvious benefit" refers to the benefit that people realize and pursue as a goal. When the interests of the ruling class group and the ruled class group are still in a state of potential interests opposition, these two groups are just "quasi-groups", that is, an aggregate without class consciousness, rather than an organized group. When the group is established on the basis of obvious interests, people in the group develop the class consciousness of * * *, realize the interests of * * *, and organize to pursue these interests. At this time, the quasi-group also disappeared and became the dominant group. An "explicit group" is an organized group with clear interests and goals. Among the prominent groups, what was once a potential interest requirement turned into a clearly stated struggle program or ideology, so the conflict became public. The interests of those in power are incompatible with those of those deprived of power: the former is most concerned with maintaining the status quo, while the latter tries to change the status quo and abolish privileges. The transformation from quasi-groups to obvious interest groups is similar to Marx's transformation from "comfortable class" to "self-supporting class". dahrendorf believes that this process and the conflicts of interest groups that accompany it are inevitable, and it is futile to try to suppress or eliminate conflicts. However, how did the quasi-regiment become the present regiment? Dahrendorf believes that the following three conditions must be met: 1, basic technical support, including leader, material setting, program and ideology; 2. There must be some political freedom in politics, and associations and alliances should be allowed in law; 3. There may be formal communication procedures within quasi-groups.

(C) the degree of social conflict

Dahrendorf studied the degree of social conflicts from the intensity and intensity of conflicts. Intensity refers to the energy consumption of all aspects of the conflict and the degree of involvement in the conflict, whether people are fully involved in a conflict, whether the conflict is big or small, and so on. Fierceness refers to the means used by both sides to pursue interests, and the scope of fierceness is very large, from peaceful negotiations to open violence.

1, the factors affecting the conflict intensity

(1) Degree of social overlap: that is, people play the same role in all kinds of compulsory associations. The higher the degree of overlap between societies, the greater the intensity of conflicts. Dahrendorf pointed out that in the industrial structure, if the members of the ruling class group are also in a subordinate position in other authoritative relations, it will eventually lead to the division of society into two opposing camps and increase the intensity of social conflicts.

② Degree of social mobility. Dahrendorf believes that the situation of vertical mobility is very important in society and groups. If society and groups do not provide any opportunities for people's upward mobility, the members of the ruling and ruled groups are rigid, and the intensity of conflicts will increase. If the situation is the opposite, class conflicts cannot be extensive and important.

(3) The relationship between authority and other salary distribution. If the members of the ruling class seek various interests by virtue of their power, it will widen the gap and inequality between the ruling class and the ruled class in terms of remuneration and ways of obtaining remuneration. This will strengthen the image and contradiction of the two class structures and increase the intensity of the conflict.

2. Factors affecting conflict intensity

(1) Social and economic deprivation. The intensity of the conflict depends on whether the social and economic deprivation of the ruling class is absolute or relative. Absolute deprivation refers to the phenomenon that people in a dominant position are also at the bottom of social and economic status. Accompanying deprivation refers to the phenomenon that the living standard of the dominant people is higher than the minimum living standard, but the wealth and social and economic security are lower than those above them. Dahrendorf believes that if the social and economic deprivation of the ruling class is relative, violent conflict will not occur, although the intensity of the conflict may be high. On the contrary, if it is absolute, class conflicts are likely to take the form of violence.

② The adjustment of conflict, that is, the way of conflict control, is one of the most important factors that affect the viciousness of conflict. The adjustment of conflict is related to the political conditions for the formation of conflict interest groups. Sometimes, the dominant people often stop conflicting interest groups. However, this practice can only hide the conflict under the surface, and once it breaks out, it often takes the form of violence. If the rulers can clearly understand the existence of conflicts of interest and provide opportunities and ways for the governed to express and negotiate, violent conflicts will be reduced. There are three conditions to adjust the conflict: first, both sides of the conflict recognize each other's legitimate but opposing interests; Second, interest groups have their own organizations and public institutions to deal with disputes; Third, both parties to the conflict agree to abide by some formal conflict rules.

(D) the results of social conflicts

Dahrendorf believes that the result of social conflict causes the change of social structure, especially the change of authority structure. He summed up three different types of changes: 1, the replacement of all ruling personnel, that is, the biggest revolutionary change; 2. The replacement of some ruling personnel, that is, the reform and transformation at the intermediate level; 3. Integrate the interests of the ruled class into the policies of the ruling class, that is, the lowest level of improvement and change. Dahrendorf also investigated social changes from the perspective of measurement, and he proposed two methods to measure social changes: fundamental and sudden. Fundamentality is to examine the degree of social change, and suddenness is to examine the speed of social change.

Third, dahrendorf's viewpoint is not sufficient academically.

1, the authority relationship is of course an extremely important social relationship, especially dahrendorf's attention to distinguish between power and authority. Power mostly depends on coercive power, and authority is the legalized power, that is, the power that has been generally recognized. Here, we can also see the influence of Weber's legitimacy thought. But authority is not the only decisive factor. Property, status, prestige and lifestyle are also important factors in the social class structure. In this respect, Weber's class theory is more comprehensive than dahrendorf's.

2. Authority relationship is not the only and main source of conflict. Conflicts between castes and clans rarely stem from authoritative relations. Throughout human history, many conflicts arise from ideology, value model and belief system.

3. dahrendorf's "Social Change" seems to be limited to the authoritative structure, which is not credible at all. There are many exceptions in history. Sometimes change is a profound social change, but there is no fundamental change in the authority structure, such as the Ming-xiu plank road in Japan and the reform of Peter the Great.

Sociological theory school

Neo-functionalism

Since the 1980s, there has been a school or theoretical development trend among American sociologists, trying to reconstruct Parsons' theoretical tradition of structural functionalism by synthesizing the latest contemporary research results. The word "neo-functionalism" was first used by J. Alexander, an American sociological theorist, in the collection "Neo-functionalism" edited by 1985.

Theoretical origin

Key inheritance of characteristics

open

In order to form a unified theory

Theoretical origin

Key inheritance of characteristics

open

In order to form a unified theory

Expand and edit the theoretical source of this paragraph.

From the end of World War II to the mid-1960s, structural functionalism represented by Parsons was the dominant theoretical school of American sociology. Since the middle and late 1960s, a series of drastic changes in American society have prompted sociological theorists to rethink the direction of sociology, and various new theories have emerged one after another, attacking Parsons' "Giant Theory". Among them, the micro-sociological theory, represented by symbolic interaction theory, social exchange theory and folklore methodology, lashed out at Parsons theory with social structure analysis as its core. They emphasize the analysis of individual actions and behaviors and demand the restoration of individual creativity and freedom. Macrosociological theory, represented by conflict theory, accuses Parsons of attaching too much importance to order, harmony and stability and neglecting conflict, coercion and change. They asked sociology to pay more attention to physical structures such as violence, revolution and power in social changes. These theories gradually replaced Parsons' theory in 1970s. At the same time, there is a "micro/macro split" between these theories. On the one hand, the theory of symbolic interaction, the theory of social exchange and the methodology of folklore, on the other hand, the theory of conflict has launched a fierce debate on major theoretical issues such as social action, social order and social change. These arguments themselves expose the fatal weakness of the above theory-paranoia and lack of comprehensiveness. Since the late 1970s, the strong sense of synthesis in Parsons' theory has once again aroused the interest of sociologists, and various attempts to conduct new synthesis have begun to appear within various theories. Neo-functionalism is just trying to critically inherit Parsons' theoretical heritage and open up a new road of synthesis.

Edit the characteristics of this paragraph

Compared with other schools, neo-functionalism has the following three characteristics:

Critical inheritance

He holds a critical inheritance attitude to Parsons' theoretical tradition, emphasizing not only the inheritance relationship with Parsons' structural functionalism, but also the necessity of criticizing Parsons' theory from within. Among them, Alexander criticized the positivist epistemological basis of Parsons' theory and advocated rebuilding a multi-dimensional theoretical framework on the basis of "post-positivist" scientific view. Neo-functionalists also reinterpreted Parsons' theory to correct the prejudice against functionalism.

open

In 1970s, he was open to various schools of anti-Parsons theory, and tried to integrate the above theories on the basis of the tradition of functionalism theory. Aiming at the microscopic analysis of symbolic interaction theory, social exchange theory, folklore methodology and other theories, neo-functionalism tries to synthesize its theoretical insights by reconstructing Parsons' action theory and explore the relationship between micro-individual action and macro-social structure and system. For the conflict theory in the field of macro-sociology, neo-functionalism advocates that the analysis of power, war, coercion and conflict should be emphasized on the premise of maintaining Parsons' "normative order", and the analysis of social change should be incorporated into Parsons' "differentiation" theory. "Neo-functionalism" also broke the boundary that Parsons once defined sociology as only studying social system problems, attached great importance to the "cultural sociology" prevailing since 1980s, and tried to solve the relationship among culture, society and personality system within the framework of functionalism.

In order to form a unified theory

There is no unified theoretical form of neo-functionalism. Sociologists are classified in the name of neo-functionalism. The older generation includes R.N. Bella, A.Jinker, N.J. Smelser and others, and the new generation includes Alexander, S.N. Azenstadt, N. Luhmann, W. Schlucht and so on. In addition to the theoretical tradition of * * *, they hold different or even opposing views on many issues. Neo-functionalism can only be said to be an attempt to transcend the first stage of post-war sociological development and establish a new comprehensive theory. After the new functionalism theory was put forward, it caused widespread concern and different reactions in the field of sociology. Many people oppose and doubt neo-functionalism. In this regard, Alexander's answer is: "Whether it is old wine in new bottles or really new wine will be judged by history."