Unit-IV (Sociological Thinkers)

Talcott Parsons

Social System, Pattern Variables

One way that Parsons organized his analysis of social action and activities
within social systems is through pattern variables. Remember that social
action is voluntary, oriented, and subject to guidance or influence of social
norms. These pattern variables provide a way of categorizing the types of
choices and forms of orientation for individual social actors, both in
contemporary society and historically. The variables include “categorization
of modes of orientation in personality systems, the value patterns of culture,
and the normative requirements in social systems”.

Pattern variables also provide a means of describing and classifying

institutions, social relationships, and different societies, and the values and
norms of these. All of the norms, values, roles, institutions, subsystems and
even the society as a whole can be classified and examined on the basis of
these pattern variables. For Parsons, these were necessary to make the
theory of action more explicit and “to develop clearer specifications of what
different contingencies and expectations actors were likely to face”.

Parsons speaks about pattern variable in his book ‘the structure of social
action’. Man is a bundle of impulses but is bound by compulsions i.e. he
wants to do something but culture and norms bind him to do something
else. Parsons talks about the interconnectivity between

Actor; Social structure; Cultural structure

Pattern variables talk about the successful negotiation between the above
three. Parsons had sought to identify the choices between alternatives that
an actor confronts in a given situation and the relative premises assigned to
such choices.

To make the social system more clear, Parsons deals with cultural variables
or Pattern Variables. He considers that there is a huge amount of diversity
across social system, and so there is a need to arrive at a common set of

Contact-onlysocio@gmail.com Page 1
variables by which they can be analyzed. Those variables should be valid for
all types of social systems. These are called pattern variables.

Parsons’ idea of Pattern variables is closely linked with his idea of social
actions and inspired from Weberian idea of Ideal Types. ‘Pattern Variables’ is
the connecting link between the Parsonian idea of social action and social
system, while pattern variables are dilemmas, social system is the solution.
Actions according to Parsons never occur in isolation, but in constellation in
form of Action Systems and there are some dilemmas that exist in social
systems while performing social action.

Parsons and Modernity

Prior to Parsons, the study of modernity had been the centrality to

sociological inquiry. In his study of modernity, Parsons is influenced by the
work of Ferdinand Tonnies, Durkheim and Weber.

Parsons as defender of modernity indicated that modernity is not just the

production of culture, social structure or social action, rather the negation
between the personality, social and cultural system and its outcomes
sufficiently explain the possibility of modernity in a given society. He
develops the theory of pattern variables to explain modernity, recognizing
the fact that modernity is:

● A product of actor understanding the demands of action situation;

● Negotiating with other actors, confirming to the normative and value
system differently;
● Realizing the dilemma in an action situation;
● Making attempts to neutralize this dilemma;
● The outcomes of all these discourses manifest the possibility, degree,
form and content of modernity in a given society.

Hence, pattern variable is a mega theoretical framework where

Parsons defines, how in an action situation:

● An actor identifies the counter actors;

● The degree of emotional relationship appropriate in an action situation;
● Range of obligation of actor towards counter actors;
● Form of attachment between the actor and counter actor;

Contact-onlysocio@gmail.com Page 2
 ● Benefits/results coming out of interaction
Pattern variable is a framework through which Parsons tries to understand
how the actor negotiates with the action situation and manifest a particular
kind of behaviour. Further, Parsons says that culture is patterned and
institutionalized, but culture is not patterned in a monolithic way, rather it is
dualistically patterned. This duality of cultural patterns offers us the range of
choice either this or that. This duality confronts the actors as dilemma,
which the actor has to resolve through a culture. According to Parsons this
duality exists at multiple levels. He identified five levels of this duality. The
five levels at which duality is manifested, Parsons called them Pattern
Variables.

A ‘Social System’ may be characterized by the combination of solutions

offered to these dilemmas that actor faces or in other words, these pattern
variables structure any ‘system of interaction’. These dilemmas confronting
every actor are exhaustive in coverage. According to Parsons, such
dilemmas can be resolved by ‘role institutionalization’ and ‘role
internalization’.

To explain this further, he develops 5 different pairs of Pattern

Variables. Through this he explains the mode of orientation of actor,
demands of action situation, dilemma in action situation, how it is resolved
and what the outcomes of it.

Therefore his pattern variable theory is designed to explain microscopic and

macroscopic situation to explain the negotiation between social actors and
the influence of cultural and social system on his behaviour in different social
situations and its outcomes.

(i) Particularism Vs Universalism

It refers to dilemmas regarding the standard of values to be used in the

evaluation process. Particularism refers to traditional values and beliefs.
Universalism refers to modern and rational value system.

This is the dilemma of categorization of social objects. When the actor has to
evaluate and judge, there are two possible ways in which it can be judged.
For example, A man may consider his son intelligent simply because he is
his son, but if he is a member of a recruitment board, he has to follow an
objective criterion in judging intelligence.

Contact-onlysocio@gmail.com Page 3
On the other hand the choice of a doctor not on the basis of his competence
but because he is a friend, is an example of giving precedence to
particularistic criteria over universalistic one.

(ii) Ascription Vs Achievement

These are patterns which help the actors judge others in a situation whether
the judgment is to be done in terms of ascriptive (based on birth) attributes
or on the basis of achieved attributes.

This is yet another dilemma. It is to be judged in terms of what it is or what

it does. The above two are pattern variables of modality of objects. For
example, Is an actor expected to give importance to the achieved or
ascribed? Sex, age, family and caste are ascribed while merit and success
are achieved.

(iii) Affectivity Vs Affective Neutrality

Here the actor has to make a choice between two situations. The choice is
whether to let emotions dominate behaviour or to keep emotions apart. For
example, A husband should be effectively involved with wife, but a doctor is
not supposed to be with his patient. Social system of a family is different
from that of medical care. The roles of the same person as a doctor and as a
husband are different.

Affective or emotional relationships are found in family or peer groups, here

emotions dominate over behaviour. But in occupational groups like soldier,
civil servant etc. relationship is instrumental, task-oriented and not to be
enjoyed in its own right. In other words, action is not for self-gratification
but to achieve the goal of large organizations.

(iv) Diffuseness Vs Specificity

Here the dilemma is to participate in a relation as a total person (diffuse) or

participate in a specific capacity (specificity). For example, the marriage
relationship (Husband-Wife) may serve as a prototype of diffuse relationship
i.e. ego orients to alter as a total personality. But as a boss he should have
job-specific relationship with his secretary.

(v) Collective-orientation Vs Self-orientation

Contact-onlysocio@gmail.com Page 4
It refers to the dilemma between fulfillment of self-interest or collective
interest; collective or private (personal) interest. The concern is primacy of
moral standards in an evaluative procedure. For example, a man as a
husband or a father is expected to think for his family, i.e. to be collective
oriented but as a salesman he has to think of profits for himself i.e. to be
self-oriented.

According to Parsons, all social systems can be described in terms of these

five pattern variables. These pattern variables represent dilemmas of choices
of orientation (socialization) which have to be resolved before an action is
performed. All these levels are subsumed under natural and rational will.

Thus there is no unlimited freedom. Later he says for most part culture itself
answers the questions. For example, be particularistic in private and
universalistic in family, which is culturally accepted way.

Criticism

(i) Parsons did not take into account the clash of interests across sections,
clashes or roles (role conflict) in a society. In modern society there is an
interchange of personnel between systems so there is great potential for
conflicts in standardized norms and values. Parsons has ignored this
dilemma.

(ii) C.W. Mills considers that an institution is a set of roles graded in

authority. For example, in doctor-patient relationship, the doctor wants to
maintain distance from a normal patient, vice-versa if the patient is VIP he
tries to develop closeness.

(iii) Devereux considers Parsons list of pattern variables inadequate. He

mentions that Parsons at one time entertained the idea of introducing long
run versus short run as a variable. He didn’t include it at the end. If he
would have included it as well as influence of power in relationship, his
theory would have contained more merit.

Contact-onlysocio@gmail.com Page 5