Talcott Parsons
December 13, 1902 – May 8, 1979
Talcott Parsons served as the 39th President of the American Sociological Society. His Presidential Address, “The Prospects of Sociological Theory,” was delivered at the organization’s annual meeting in New York City in December 1949. Parsons professional papers are housed at Harvard University Archives; a finding aid is available online. The Harvard Archives collection includes the following brief biographical sketch of Parsons:
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) was an educator and scholar of sociology. He contributed to the field of sociological theory, particularly through his development of a “general theory of action.” Parsons spent most of his professional career at Harvard University, where he was affiliated with the various incarnations of the sociology department for thirty-two years.
Parsons graduated from Amherst College in 1924, having majored in philosophy and biology. In 1925 he redirected his intellectual focus and entered the London School of Economics, studying with Bronislaw Malinowski, L.T. Hobhouse and Morris Ginsberg. The following year he received a fellowship at the University of Heidelberg, where he first encountered the work of Weber. Parsons completed his doctoral dissertation, on the concept of capitalism in recent German scholarship, in 1927 while teaching economics at Amherst. The following year he joined the Harvard faculty as an instructor in economics. He continued to teach at the University until his retirement in 1973.
Parsons’ career is entwined with the development of sociology as an academic discipline at Harvard. In 1931 he joined Carle Zimmerman and Pitirim Sorokin as inaugural faculty in the Department of Sociology. Gordon Allport and Henry Murray, of the Psychology Department, and Clyde Kluckhohn, of the Anthropology Department, joined with Parsons in 1945 to establish the Department of Social Relations. This department became a landmark of interdisciplinary collaboration in the behavioral sciences and served as a model for similar departments at other institutions. Parsons served as chairman for the first ten years and continued to work enthusiastically in the Department until its dissolution in 1972.
Parsons’ scholarship is unified by his effort to draft a set of concepts of the determinants of human behavior. He began to develop his “general theory of action” in Structure of Social Action (1937). He refined this theory in Social System and Towards a General Theory of Action (both published in 1951). Parsons spent the later years of his career further modifying his theory and eventually applying it to discrete social situations.
Obituary
Written by Y.B. Damle, published in Sociological Bulletin, 1979.
Can death be beautiful? Yes, when a person or particularly a scholar has contributed a great deal-to the advancement of know ledge and even more so, when it has been suitably appreciated and acknowledged by the scholarly world. Prof. Talcott Parsons died almost a year ago. He was specially invited to Heidelberg where he had obtained his Ph.D. many many years ago, in order to honour him for his remarkable attainments and contribution to the field of knowledge. It is reported that the same evening Prof. Parsons went to eternal sleep.
Therefore, under such circumstances death can be said to be beautiful. Talcott Parsons can be appropriately described as a Dnvana Yogi, who carried on the pursuit of knowledge relentlessly and with a remarkable degree of enthusiasm tor exploring fresh pastures. Apart from his initial training he kept on expanding his intellectual horizons. Tn his case, it should be mentioned that he was ever evolving, emerging, as well as evaluating earlier knowledge and insights which he had himself formulated or others had formulated. It was an unending quest for knowledge and insights which has now come to an end with his death although his contribution to sociology is so phenomenal and unique that it is bound to continue to stimulate debate for years to come as it did in the past.
Yet, in spite of all his learning, attainments and contribution, Parsons struck me as a remarkably modest person. I distinctly remember when I first met him in early September, 1960 at the Harvard University Faculty Club. He put me at ease by making enquiries about mv interests and work. During the year I spent at MIT and Harvard, when I had a few occasions to discuss my work with him, I was particularly impressed by his unfailing graciousness and kindness. He practically read all that I could offer to him for his comments and remarks which made me really feel obliged, because I had no claim on his time whatsoever. Later on again, when I met him at Philadelphia when he was also Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, I could renew my acquaintance with him and again I had the privilege of getting his comments and suggestions on whatever I had written in the meanwhile. I distinctly remember that Talcott Parsons never even mentioned about his own work or contribution but used to enthusiastically mention the work of some junior scholars in different fields of sociological inquiry. This modesty and graciousness become all the more charming when viewed in the lights of his firm intellectual convictions, commitments and towering contributions.
Parsons was initially trained in economics at the Amherst college, although he was originally scheduled to study biomedical sciences. Later on his training at the London School of Economics, and particularly at Heidelberg paved the way for the remarkable career which he was to follow. His initial training in economics and particularly his concern for delineating the various disciplines of social sciences, particularly economics and sociology, laid the foundation of his future career. It can be truly said that he was trying to grapple with the western civilization, trying to absorb its best features and also trying to understand its weaker elements at the same time. Even more important has been Parsons’ attempt to theorize about all that the western civilization has stood for, rather continues to stand for.
Talcott Parsons, partly as a result of his attainments, and also partly due to his continued struggle to encompass the western civilization in all its ramifications and complexities, has been one of the most controversial figures in contemporary social sciences. Over forty five years or so, it would be extremely difficult not to come across reference to his contributions in any important work worth the name in social sciences. This is not to suggest that all that he had to sav has been readily acceptable, but Parsons and his work have provided a significant point of criticism as well as departure for many serious students of sociology and also of related social sciences too. Parsons had the unique distinction of quite a few times being written on his contribution in his lifetime. He also had the good fortune of attending several symposia where his work and contributions were discussed As far as his own publications are concerned, it is not necessary to list all of them because they have occupied a central place in socio logy and even in other social sciences over the last forty years or more, which speaks volumes for his contribution or rather for stimulation he has provided for serious scholars of various social sciences.
While Parsons kept on evolving, expanding and evaluating both his own work, as well as, that of others, there is a complicated balance in him between continuity and change. While there is an essential continuity, he has never taken a finite and final position because he had the courage of conviction which is born out of extremely remarkable intellectual ability and an equally open and receptive mind. While he familiarized English knowing scholars with the works of Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, (in his famous work: The Structure of Social Action), he also in a way revisited these authors after initial introduction and encounter. For Parsons, any contribution which tried to grapple with the problem of social reality in its complexity was adequately stimulating. Particularly in view of his initial love for economics and his branching away to sociology meant that he really tried to scan the entire field of social and economic organization.
In his professional career he started as an Instructor in Economics although later on he gave up economics in preference to sociology which has certainly been a great gain to the world of sociology. After accepting the position in sociology, he started by enquiring into the distinctive features of modern society with special reference to the study of professions. Study of capitalism, study of societal complexities and the characteristic features of a modern society occupied a special place in his mind.
Having been trained in economics and having particularly ad dressed himself to the complexity of western civilization, he tried to formulate a general theory of action, emphasizing the relationship between social system, cultural system and personality as a system. In his another monumental work The Social System, Parsons provides a unified knowledge of the working of society, instead of fragmented knowledge. He tried to encompass total social reality which has been attempted by very few social scientists. Moreover on the basis of his analysis, he has even provided some clues about the shape of things to come. In this context special reference must be made to his formulations about future society, particularly with reference to the importance of bureaucracy, science and secularism. This shows his deep concern for human society and its progress. Even while studying the western civilization and modern societies, he felt that rationality would not provide a comprehensive framework and therefore, he turned his attention to the contribution of Freud. It is indeed remarkable that Parsons came under the influence of Henderson — a famous scientist at Harvard and was greatly impressed by Conant who had contributed a great deal to the biological sciences. In fact, the concept of system and homeostasis were internalized by Parsons by virtue of his interaction with Henderson and Conan. For him evolution of societies meant emphasis on cultural and structural features without neglecting the biological aspects of evolution too.
He was equally well concerned about the reality which was not amenable to empirical verifications, particularly religion. Simultaneously, he was equally impressed by the role of modern science. Parsons reacted sharply to behaviourism and developed, what is known as, ‘analytical realism’. His was a fantastic attempt to integrate the diverse dimensions and insights to which he was exposed by his sustained and rigorous interaction with eminent scholars, particularly from other disciplines. While Parsons was concerned with analytical theory and system he was not insensitive to important events like the Russian Revolution or the Fascist Movement in Germany.
Parsons continued to deal with the problem of rationality and he was very much concerned with the study of professions with a view to understand the modifications in the western civilization which was basically characterized by private enterprise etc. In fact, he was very much concerned about the social change and evolution via. the analysis of structural differentiation. He had addressed himself in a very definite way to the understanding and analysis of modern societies-structures and processes. He was naturally concerned about the intrinsic importance of power in modern societies. In fact, his analysis of power and polity has been referred to in all serious works or discussions in political science during the last three decades at least. It is true that he was very much concerned with the problem of solidarity and the societal communities. However, he was sensitive to the dimensions of disorder, deviance and alienative dispositions etc. Parsons’ work, because of the vastness of its enterprise, has been to a certain extent problematic. As a matter of fact, he has provided a taxonomy of complex society and his work continued in elaborate details as a system of concepts which are interrelated. All the time he was trying out various concepts and taxonomies in order to extend and understand complex social reality. About his taxonomy, it can be said that it provides a box of tools for social analysis instead of providing a definite clearcut theory, in the usual and narrow sense of the term. Parsons’ work was programmatic, which he stated elaborately, without going into the details. As mentioned earlier, the work has been rated to be very controversial and yet something which every serious scholar in the broad field of social science has been required to take serious note of, during the last forty years or more. Is this not a remarkable achievement for a single individual? His work has stimulated debate, controversy and has also encouraged various scholars to grapple with this contribution either by bits or as a whole. What more can a person attain in one Life?
Damle, Y.B. 1979. “Obituary: A Tribute To Talcott Parsons.” Sociological Bulletin. 28(1/2):131-135.
