Search

The article focuses on the book "Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives," by Talcott Parsons. Readers who may hope that this will provide them with a simplified approach to the work of Parsons will be disappointed; his style is as turgid as ever, making this a doubtful member of a series of books for beginners. Nevertheless it is a shorter route to Parsonian ideas than most, and is much more rooted in empirical data than his other books. The societies under examination do not include those of modern Europe, which will be dealt with in a later volume.

Sociology today has many burdens and not the least of these is a persistent and somewhat humiliating question of theoretical excursions of sociologist Talcott Parsons. The issue is not so much intellectual disagreement over contrasting views of man and society. It is rather a case of the "Emperor's clothes." The problem of arriving at a reasoned assessment of Parsons' thought is greatly complicated by a remarkable obscurity of structure and style. Even those accustomed to abstract philosophical discussion find it a considerable chore to decide what is being said on any page, let alone also to assess its intellectual worth. Under these conditions, the book "The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons: A Critical Examination," edited by Max Black, is a welcome contribution. A large part of the book is devoted to a restatement of Parsons' central ideas. In some essays, Parsons is involuntarily guided to analyze mechanisms of social control and socialization by which a social system manages to hold deviance in check and enlist motivations of its participants.

The first business meeting of the American Sociological Society was held at 11:00 A.M. in the Gold Room, The Manhattan Center, on Thursday, December 29, with President Talcott Parsons presiding. Parsons summarized the activities of the Reorganization Committee of 1949 and the formation of the new Reorganization Committee of 1950 together with the grant from the Carnegie Corp. which makes possible the creation of an Executive Office. The minutes of the first three Executive Committee meetings, held in the past two days, were read by the Secretary, and were approved. The President then called upon Carl Taylor to report on proposed changes in the constitution and by-laws and to introduce motions for their acceptance. The first amendment pertaining to Article IV, Section I, was accepted by the Society after brief description by Parsons that such a measure would bring about better continuity in the official personnel of the Society. The second proposed amendment, Article VI, Section 2, had been divided into two parts, a and b, when it was considered by the Executive Committee. Taylor explained that these parts were to be considered separately.

The writings of Talcott Parsons have excited great admiration among many of his fellow academics, and aroused the intense hostility of many others; but even his adversaries admit his remarkable pre-eminence in contemporary sociological theory. On the other hand, his admirers do not deny that his thought is extremely complex and its expression often highly obscure. Parsons, then, has produced a body of work which is important, difficult, and controversial; a body of work which therefore calls for sustained and rigorous analysis. The present essay is an attempt to come to grips with the crucial theoretical problems of the Parsonian system. It focuses on one of the key elements of Parsons' conceptual scheme, the four so-called system-problems, or functional prerequisites of social systems, and the four functional sub-systems associated with these prerequisites.

This article presents views of various social scientists on sociologist Max Weber's theories. The general verdict on Weber has, indeed, been unfavourable. In the opinion of sociologist Talcott Parsons, for instance, Weber failed to complete the process (of the analysis of social action), and the nature of the half way point at which he stopped helps to account for many of the difficulties of his position, in particular, the illogicality of his argument made it impossible for his theories to be assimilated to the pattern of science. But is this all that is to be said? It is possible to agree with another researcher when he concludes that Weber knew what he wanted, but somehow could not break through to it. He saw the promised land, but was not permitted to enter it, he saw not only all the defects of German idealism, but also many of the shortcomings of positivism the turn of the century, and inhibited the development of new lines of argument. He asked the right questions, and his discussion of them was relevant and highly penetrating.

The article presents historical perspectives in the development of the sociology of religion. As a researcher rightly says, those early days were exhilarating and stimulating. It was a gemeinschaft group of about a dozen that author recalls sitting around a table in one of Harvard's old Emerson Hall classrooms. There was Pitirim Sorokin at one end of the table, banging on it with his fists and calling for research in "Altruism and Brotherly Love," and Talcott Parsons at the other end discoursing on Max Weber. And sometimes the fur flew. For this listener it was purely enjoyable academic "fur." Jeffrey Hadden points out that the SSSR grew up in the 1950's in an academic climate that had a touching faith (since called in question) in role differentiation. The author shared this faith and remember being much annoyed when some members suggested that authors should in their writing and research label their denominational affiliations or lack of them. But times changed. Both academics and denominational personnel began to share common interests in social and ethical problems, notably in the area of Civil Rights.