COMMENT ON "ON THE CONCEPT OF INFLUENCE"

This article is a comment on the article "On the Concept of Influence," by Talcott Parsons. Parsons makes a fundamental distinction between influence in a Gemeinschaft relation, or between members of a collectivity oriented to the collectivity's goals, and those in a non-Gemeinschaft relation. The simplest way of putting this is that, in some situations, the influenced can assume that the influencer's goals are the same as his own, while in others the goals are different. Parsons' discussion of Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft influence intermixes with his discussion of four types of influence. The basic distinction he makes between influence where ends are shared involving action relevant to a common goal orientation and influence where ends are not often involving the allocation of scarce resources is quite important. He makes a serious mistake in identifying the first with political influence, while excluding the second from this area calling it fiduciary influence. Many, if not most, governmental decisions involve allocation of scarce resources. In continuing the analogy of influence to money, Parsons raises the question of whether influence can be considered a quantity subject to conservation, as money is often thought to be and in a strict sense is, at any moment of time. He then points out that there may be an expansion or contraction of money in circulation. There is a serious confusion here, for by relending its demand deposits a bank is not increasing the amount of money in the system. Its loans merely increase the velocity of the money's circulation through the system. In fact, by whatever proportion of its depositors' funds it fails to lend, it is decreasing the amount of money in circulation, that is, stopping the circulation of this portion of money.