Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi Vol 1(2): 227–256 [1468–795X(200109)1:2;227–256;018785]
ABSTRACT This article compares the main elements of Parsons’ and Sorokin’s
sociological work in the context of the formation and development of an
American school of social theory during the 1930s–1950s. Of these elements,
four are meta-theoretical, and four substantive or theoretical. Included in the first
group are the problems of methodology, selection, convergence versus diver-
gence, and interpretation. The possibility of social dynamics, the conception of
the social system, micro- versus macro-social and economic action comprise the
second. The comparison suggests that the different roles of Parsons and Sorokin
in American social theory are to be, in part, accounted for by extra-scientific rather
than strictly scientific factors.
Talcott Parsons and Pitirim Sorokin are without doubt two towering figures of
20th-century sociology. However, their respective roles (and recognition) in the
founding of an American school of sociological theory during the 20th century
were asymmetrical. Specifically, they ‘were men of equal brilliance but Parsons
founded a major sociological school while Sorokin left no school or intellectual
stamp on the discipline’ (Tiryakian, quoted in Johnston, 1995: ix).
To some extent, Sorokin has been subject to the same fate as Comte and
Spencer in being virtually forgotten in much of American sociology. This contrasts
with Parsons’ position as an ever-present figure to be followed and elaborated
upon, or, alternatively, reinterpreted and analyzed. Such an asymmetry in the roles
of Parsons and Sorokin in the creation of an American school of social theory
seems greater than that in recognizing the parts Weber, Durkheim and Marx
played in classical sociology. In contemporary sociology, this asymmetry tends to
widen, as indicated by Parsons’ rehabilitation in neo-functionalism as well as by
his presence in sociological rational choice theory, including its social exchange
version. Compare this to Sorokin’s secondary status, even irrelevance – reminis-
cent of Spencer, for example. The question arises as to why such an asymmetry
exists in the role attributed to Parsons and Sorokin, respectively, in the formation
and the subsequent development of an American school of social theory during
the 20th century.
Previous research has suggested some answers to this question. One
answer relates to the institutional setting of Harvard in conjunction with the
developments within the sociological community and the discipline (Johnston,
1996). Another answer concerns the different ideological-political and moral
outlooks or implications of the two theoretical systems rather than these systems
per se (Buxton, 1996). Still another answer singles out the conformity with
(Parsons) or deviance from (Sorokin) the expectations of the academic commu-
nity in the search for identity or moral career (Nichols, 1989). Also invoked as
possible answers are the ability (Parsons) or inability (Sorokin) successfully to
establish sociological schools, as well as successful (Parsons) or unsuccessful
(Sorokin) relations with graduate students and colleagues (Johnston, 1995;
Nichols, 1996) and university and other elites, including Rockefeller officials
(Buxton, 1996), and so on.
In light of this asymmetry the article makes a comparison between
Parsons’ and Sorokin’s sociological works as regards the founding of an American
social theory at Harvard in the 1930s–1950s. The question is whether purely
scientific-theoretical or extra-curricular factors are responsible for such an asym-
metry. With necessary precautions (Buxton, 1996; Nichols, 1996) and tentatively,
one can formulate and examine the argument that the causes for the differential
roles of Parsons and Sorokin in the formation of an American school of social
theory lie in the equivalent qualitative differences of their sociological works.
Presumably, the reason for this different destiny is that the former’s sociology is
simply superior to that of the latter in terms of theoretical-empirical adequacy.
This meta-theoretical argument can be examined by considering a selective
sample of the essential components of Parsons’ and Sorokin’s works. This
consideration is undertaken from the perspective of classical sociological theory.
Of these elements, four refer to the meta-theories, and four to the theories of the
two writers. The first group includes the questions of theoretical methodology,
selection, convergence versus divergence, and interpretation. The second includes
the issues of the possibility of social dynamics, the conception of the social system,
micro-social versus macro-social, and economic action and rationality. If such a
consideration provides no decisive support for the argument of scientific ade-
quacy, this negative ‘evidence’ might suggest that the reasons for Parsons’ and
Sorokin’s different academic fates in American sociology are to be sought
somewhere else. They may reside in extra-scientific factors, such as the institu-
WEBER
Instrumentally rational action Economy (adaptation)
Value-rational action Polity (goal-attainment)
Traditional action Culture (integration)
Emotional action Societal community/family
(latency)
PARETO
Logical actions (interests) Economic system/equilibrium
Non-logical actions (residues and Social system/equilibrium
derivations)
and Paretian approaches than extending and making dominant a single action type
(e.g. instrumentally or logical) in all social phenomena/systems. Elements of this
second procedure are present in Parsons, and subsequently brought to their
limiting consequences in the economic approach to social behavior. Table 4
condenses this section.
Notes
1. To do justice to Parsons, despite his fascination with and application of it, he has never taken
neoclassical economics at face value (Bourricauld, 1981); this holds true of his attitude toward
utilitarianism.
2. It seems that Parsons’ two earlier articles on Marshall were adapted and implanted in the main
body of The Structure in order to prove the convergence argument. The first article was titled
‘Wants and Activities in Marshall’ (Parsons, 1931) and the second ‘Economics and Sociology:
Marshall in Relation to the Thought of his Time’ (Parsons, 1932).
3. This especially applies to Sorokin’s coverage of a number of obscure Russian authors whose
relevance for sociology was largely inconsequential.
6. Another symptom of such nihilistic attitudes toward his predecessor is Parsons’ infamous role in
replacing Harvard’s Department of Sociology, founded by Sorokin in 1930, with the Department
of Social Relations in 1946 (Johnston, 1996), subsequently regaining its original name (under
Homans as the chair).
7. For example, Parsons was largely instrumental in Coleman’s conversion to rational choice theory,
especially with the analogy between wealth and power, an analogy converted into a full
equivalence by this public choice theorist.
References
Black, Max (1961) ‘Some Questions about Parsons’s Theories’, in Max Black
(ed.) The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bourricauld, François (1981) The Sociology of Talcott Parsons. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Buxton, William (1996) ‘Snakes and Ladders: Parsons and Sorokin at Harvard’, in
Joseph Ford, Michael Richard and Palmer Talbutt (eds) Sorokin and
Civilization: A Centennial Assessment. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Camic, Charles (1989) ‘Structure after 50 Years: The Anatomy of a Charter’,
American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 38–107.
Milan Zafirovski is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at University of North Texas. His
research interests are interdisciplinary and include classical and contemporary sociological and economic
theory, economic sociology, rational choice and social stratification. His recent publications include
Exchange, Action and Social Structure: Elements of Economic Sociology (2001), ‘The Rational Choice
Generalization of Neoclassical Economics Reconsidered’ (Sociological Theory, 2000), and ‘Spencer Is
Dead, Long Live Spencer: Individualism, Holism, and the Problem of Norms’ (British Journal of
Sociology).
Address: Department of Sociology, University of North Texas, PO Box 311157, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
[email: milanzafir@yahoo.com]