Parsons biography briefly

Solkott Parsons was born in the year in Colorado Springs, in the family of a Protestant preacher. His father, Edward Parsons, adhered to liberal views and was interested in science, which he considered as an important addition to the socio-gospel religion. The mother of Tolkott, Mary Parsons, was known as a supporter of suffrazhism - the movement for the political rights of women.

Henderson Biology and Economics. Thanks to Henderson, Parsons deeply mastered the sociological theory of V. Pareto, many ideas of which subsequently received development in the general theory of social action. In the years, Parsons got the opportunity to study at the London School of Economics. His scientific interests were formed under the influence of G. Laski, R. Tuni, E.

Kennan, L. Gobhaus, M. Evolutionism and Liberalism were the predominant views at the London School of Economics, and continental speculative idealism was regarded here as a fad. The most significant impact on Parsons in London was exerted by anthropologist-functionalist B. It was at the Malinovsky seminar that one of the first published works of Parsons “Magic, Science and Religion” was prepared by Parsons conducted a critical analysis of a common look at the economy and social orders of “primitive communities” as “irrational” and “low -development” and pointed out the inadequacy of the positivist “scientific” explanations of such an inevitable event of human life as death.

From this follows the need for a functional religious element of primitive crops that support the self -regulation of behavior. The functional interpretation of culture as a system of interacting elements corresponding to biological needs and expressed in social differentiation has significantly influenced the formation of a Parsons understanding of the social system.

In the year, Parsons continued his education in Germany, at Heidelberg University. The spirit of German speculative philosophy, the traditions of I. Kant and G. Hegel, commitment to historical idealism were a clear contrast in relation to the social orientation of the London School of Economics. The social sciences in Heidelberg were under the strong influence of the romantic view of history and culture as the development of a “popular soul”, which cannot be the subject of detached scientific analysis.

In addition to historical idealism, a Marxist line developed at the university, which also recognizes the uniqueness of cultural and historical types, but considering them as a result of the development of productive forces. M. Weber's neo -Kantian social theory was a clear and dominant alternative to positivist and Marxist ideas. At the Faculty of Philosophy of Heidelberg, Parsons studied under the leadership of A.

K. Yaspers, who led the course in critical philosophy, had a significant influence on Parsons. Yaspers discovered for Parsons not only the transcendental idealism of I. Kant, but also the methodological possibilities of E.'s teachings in Heidelberg Parsons met with K. Mannheim, who developed the sociology of knowledge. This was extremely important, since the London School of Economics was then dismissively, for example, E.

Durkheim did not admit because of the mystical, according to M. Ginzberg, the concept of “collective representation”. Malinovsky also treated Durkheim rather restrained. The in -depth reading of the works of M. Weber and V. Zombaret on the history of the economy, cooperation with the specialist in the economic theory of Marxism E. Lederer prompted Parsons to intensive work on the study of modern capitalism.

The dissertation of Parsons at the University of Heidelberg was devoted to the comparison of the methodological approaches of K. Marx, M. In the year, Parsons returned to Harvard University. In his publications of the end of the 10ths, he developed the Webering thesis of capitalism as an economic system based on historically defined cultural norms. In the year, he translated into English and published the work of M.

Weber "Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism." At the same time, Parsons believed that the task of distinguishing between analytical and historical categories remained with M. Weber of the Unsecure. The problem, in the opinion of Parsons, is to develop a systemic analytical theory of modern societies. The search for the grounds for such a theory was carried out in the field of neoclassical political economy.

At Harvard, Parsons had the opportunity to discuss these issues with economists adhering to neoclassical methodological attitudes: F. Taussig, W. Ripley, E. Gay and J., under the influence of Taussig, Parsons is engaged in the search for general methodological premises in economic theory and sociology. In the year at Harvard University, the Faculty of Sociology was created, which led P.

Relations of Sorokin and Parsons remained quite difficult throughout their work in Harvard. However, by the beginning of the 10ths, when Parsons received a permanent professor, a strong school of structural functionalism has developed at the faculty. Among the students of the faculty were R. Merton, K. Davis, R.Williams, U. In the years, Parsons adhered to a structural and functional methodology.

Subsequently, he did not use this term, but the Parsons school received the name of structural functionalism, the categorical apparatus of which began to be widely used not only in sociology, but also in political science, psychology, and cultural studies. Having synthesized the theoretical approaches of M. Weber, G. Zimmel, E. Durkheim, V. Pareto, A. Marshall, Z. Freud, Parsons developed a general theory of action and, in particular, social action as a self -organizing system of structural functionalism.

In the latter, which is set by a set of functional problems of any system adaptation, achievement of the goal, integration, maintaining the sample, Parsons analytically isolate the subsystems of the social structure, culture, and personality. The orientations of the actor actor are described by a set of standard typical variables. Parsons used this theoretical language to describe social systems, institutions and relations.

In the center of the sociological theory of Parsons is the question of how a society is possible, that is, a social order, normative regulation of behavior. The concept of society does not correlate with the totality of individuals, but with organized forms of interaction between people who are supported by a social system striving for sustainable balance. Accordingly, social actions should be considered as institutional samples of “patterns” that support the systematic whole.

Normative factors that are analytically regardless of personal motives, economic interests in the usual sense, and the interests of political power are the main thesis of the Parson sociology. The sociological concept of Parsons is distinguished by a pronounced “nadile” systemic orientation and indifference to the so -called human problem. Parsons considers the “personality” as a system phenomenon, separately from the individual, and thereby overcoming the ambiguities associated with the romantic confrontation of the subjective and objective worlds.

Indeed, according to Parsons, a “personality” is not a person, but a system of action, a set of roles and expectations. The very differentiation of “personality” from other systems allows society to solve the problems of adaptation. Thus, the Parsons “new synthesis” - an attempt to combine the traditions of sociological nominalism and sociological realism in the general theory of action - is a detailed version of analytical realism.

The spread of structural functionalism in the years entailed its active criticism from left -wing radical sociologists. Critics indicated mainly to theoretical unwrittenness of structural functionalism, its analytical orientation, static, inattention to changes, conformism in relation to social order, anti -Marxism, neglect of the active life position of the personality, and the apologist of capitalism.

However, Parsons continued to develop his theory even in conditions of sharp politicized attacks. Subsequently, structural functionalism was perceived not only in analytical and positivist schools, but also in neo -Marxism. The peculiar versions of structural functionalism developed by L. Altusser, E. Mandela, Yu. The study of the problems of professionalization of medicine in the end of the problems of the professionalization of medicine and detailed familiarization with psychoanalysis allowed Parsons to consider therapy as an extensive family of types of “social control”.

Parsons is actively cooperating with the anthropologists of K. Klakhon, E. Mayo, W. Warner, psychologist G. In the years, he also studies the theory of personality, conducts a study of professional norms in medicine. In the year at Harvard University, the Faculty of Social Relations was created, which Parsons led for ten years. Published in the years of the monograph “Social System”, “On the issue of the general theory of action”, “Economics and society” contained the detailed theoretical descriptions of the functional details supporting social balance.