Search

The article presents a text of the discussion that took place between Talcott Parsons and Ken'ichi Tominaga on December 12, 1978. Tominaga claims that he asked the editor of SHISO to publish questions and answers between them. His role will be limited to ask several questions. He also claims that his questions are from the point of view of the general readers and Japanese social scientists. According to Tominaga, the books and papers of Parsons developed much original theoretical thinking especially the voluntaristic theory of action, the action frame of reference, the theory of social system, structural-functional analysis, the paradigm of four functional requisites of A-G-I-L, the scheme of boundary interchange and the theory of generalized media of exchange. In terms of the problem areas, perhaps economic sociology, political sociology, and religious sociology would be the big three among other things and in addition to that, organization theory, social stratification, ego structure, educational problems, and medical problems are several topics which Parsons has developed. Parsons states that not only did he borrow ideas from European scholars but he actually translated two things from Max Weber from German into English and thinks that is one of the best possible ways to get to understand his work.

This article traces the involvement of Talcott Parsons in research and teaching about Asian nations, especially China and Japan, in the period of World War II. The data indicate that, in contrast to his Eurocentric image, Parsons worked to develop a global perspective in studies on comparative institutions. This approach, inspired by the sociology of Max Weber, also addressed the practical needs of policy makers in connection with the war effort. Within Parsons's intellectual biography, it stands between the "voluntaristic" framework of his early treatise, The Structure of Social Action (1937) and the later non-historical formalism of The Social System (1951) for which he is perhaps most famous. An understanding of this relatively unknown phase of Parsons's work is therefore indispensable for an adequate appreciation of his career as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the sociology of knowledge. Despite occasional outbursts, the sociology of knowledge has failed to emerge as a clearly defined area of research. Many social scientists have endeavored to define the sociology of knowledge as a disciplinary matrix, whose main identifying feature would be to empirically explain the relationship between ideas and social structure. Sociologist Karl Mannheim and his sociology of knowledge have been prominent targets for the presentist project in the social sciences, most notably through the efforts of another sociologist Robert Merton. The practice of sociology of knowledge is at odds with the overall concerns of a scientific community to enforce consensus of belief and method among its members. Despite the failure of Merton's groundwork to give form and substance to the sociology of knowledge, an inchoate field addressing similar issues has emerged.