Sociological Thinkers II

UNIT- I B
Social Action-Talcott Parsons

Sociology is the study of man’s behaviour in society. Man’s
behaviour is defined by the norms and statuses. But norms alone do not
explain as why a man behaves in a particular way in a given situation
because such things as choice, thought, emotion and perception are
inextricably involved in every action that he does.
Every social science makes some assumptions about the internal

working of human mind and to understand man’s behaviour it is necessary
that these assumptions must be brought into open. Thus any theory of
social behaviour must take into account the elements of human action.
Action is that behaviour which is initiated with an end in view. It
involves a thought and exertion process. It is some intelligible unit of
voluntary behaviour—voluntary in the sense that it is not a mere reflex
action like the knee jerk. Thus every activity of an individual like, singing,
laughing, weeping, eating, studying, playing and quarrelling, etc. can be
called his action.
But man being a social animal does his actions in a social context.
The actions of an individual done in a social context are termed social
action. Max Weber writes. “Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the
subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual (or individuals) it
takes account of the behaviour of others and thereby oriented in its
course.”
According to Anderson and Parker, “Human actions when

meaningfully oriented to those of others through the use of a common set
of symbols are social actions.”
Talcott Parsons has enumerated four elements of social action (i)

An actor, (ii) An end, a future state of affairs towards which in the mind of
the actor, the process of action is arrived, (iii) A set of conditions, aspects
of the situation over which the actor has no control, and (iv) A set of
means, aspects of the situation over which the actor has control.
Thus while analyzing the action of an individual, the above four
factors are to be kept in mind. Each of these factors is indispensable since
the one cannot be deprived from the other. They are analytically distinct.
Ends cannot be derived from means, or means from conditions.
A brief description of these factors follows:

(I) Actor:
An actor is the first element of social action. Though every action
involves an actor so the element of actor can be taken for granted without
needing any explanation yet it is better to keep the element of actor as an
independent element. When it is said that every action has its agent, what
is implied in the statement is actually not the body of the actor but the ‘ego’
or ‘self’.
It is the ego which acts. The ego is the subjective entity that
possesses awareness and has experience. The development of this
awareness comes in the course of the development of the self. As the self
develops man comes to develop the feeling of the ‘I’, and the ‘Me’.
It is the ‘I’ which reflects and acts. Because of his possession of

language and a superior intelligence, man has unique capacity for
thinking. On account of this capacity man becomes an object to him and
develops an “ego”.
Thus to study man’s behaviour, one must not feel satisfies with
merely observing the external aspect of the behaviour but must also look
for the internal subjective experience which accompanies the behaviour.
The way a person thinks, the way he perceives the world, the way he feels
is an indispensable clue to his behaviour.
(ii) End:
Another element which helps to explain the behaviour of an
individual is the end which motivates his action. To be defined the end is
“that part of the future state of affairs which would not eventuate if the
actor did not want it and did not exert himself to attain it.”
An end may be distinguished from a sheer resultant. If a future state

of affairs comes about regardless of the actor’s intervention, it is not an
end. The end presupposes both the desire to attain and the exertion for
the same.
A farmer may want it to rain next week, but whether or not it actually
will rain is beyond his control. Rainfall is not, therefore, one of his ends.
But he sows the seeds on the assumption that it rains, the seeds will grow,
the future growth of the crop is an end that he has and if the things turn
out well and the crop does grow, it is parity because he has acted to attain
that end.
It may be noted that ends are chosen. The choice of the ends is
influenced by the values. A value is that which is considered desirable,
worthy of being pursued. In making his choice the actor is influenced partly
by his sentiments and partly by organic urges. In other words, the end is
the particular application of a sentiment or value to a given situation as
perceived by the actor.
The end has always reference to the future and so it is defined as

“the future state of affairs,” something which does not exist now. A man
exercises his imagination to choose the end and makes efforts to realize
that end. Therefore, the end requires the use of imagination, efforts and
will.
Some sociologists, anthropologists and social psychologists have

taken the view that a person’s behaviour is mostly a reflection of the
situation he happens to be in. Inherent in the situation are the social forces
that shape and determine his behaviour at any given moment.
No doubt, the social forces do influence man’s behaviour; however,

the end element cannot be neglected in interpreting behaviour. Though all
activity may not be motive ted in the sense of having an end in view, yet
much of the activity that is social in character does have an end in view.
(iii) Conditions:
What a man may achieve and what he may fail to achieve is largely
determined by the conditions he is surrounded with. The conditions are
the obstacles in the way of the realization of an end. They set the stage
within which the end may be realized. In order to successfully realize the
end these obstacles must be overcome.
The conditions imposed on the actor may be both external and
internal. The external conditions may consist of physical environment or
social laws. The internal conditions are those which lie in the actor’s own
organism. Many persons who aspire to be great poets may fail because
they lack the talent. Thus a poor personality may set a condition on what
one can attain.
If conditions prove obstacles, they may also be the sources of the

means. Physical environment, social laws and personal qualities may help
the actor in the realization of his end. Whether something is a condition or
means depends upon the situation.
It may be referred that the individuals should not cherish ends that
are incapable of realization because if one constantly fails to realize the
end it may lead to the disintegration of personality. Their flights of
imagination should be weighed against reality to save from despair. One
should wish for neither too much nor for too little.
(iv) Means:
To reach an end one must employ means. The means are to be
carefully chosen. Mahatma Gandhi laid great stress on the purity of
means. Means and ends are co-related. As the means, so the end.
Sometimes, the same end may be attainable by more than one means,
giving the actor considerable choice as to which he shall utilize. In such a
situation, the actor may make an error, for the means chosen by him may
not be most efficient.
What is a means for one may be a condition for another. For a man
who knows to operate a machine it may be a useful tool, but for one who
does not know its operation, it may be a condition. Thus whether or not a
given part of the situation is a means or a condition depends not so much
upon the part itself as upon the actor.
The Problem of Rationality of Means:

In order to attain the end, the means, as we have remarked above,
should be properly chosen. The means must be adapted to the end. But
sometimes means adopted do not lead to the end. In such cases the
means may not have been rationally chosen. As a rational and striving
being man tries to adopt only rational means but still error occurs.
There are several causes of error:

(I) Super-Empirical Ends:
The first cause of the error may be in the ends themselves. Some
men strive for imaginary ends, for example, the end of realizing salvation.
Such an end can be realized only by the ‘next life’ and since this end
visualizes a future state of affairs in the super-empirical world, it is difficult
to prove in scientific terms that any means chosen is adequate.
The result is that in such cases the question of rationality of means

becomes irrelevant. The person who kills his child as an offering to the
goddess ‘Kali’ to win her favour is adopting a means to his end, but his
choice of means has arisen from no knowledge of cause and effect but
rather from arbitrary tradition.
Though the man believes that his action will realize the end but the
connection between means and end cannot be rationally perceived. He
simply accepts the connection on faith rather than on evidence.
Among the Hindus a number of religious ceremonies represent non-

rational conduct, nevertheless these ceremonies motivate people to
behave in a way useful to social survival. In such ceremonies the question
of proof is ruled out. Neither the error can be demonstrated nor the
rationality be proved.
(ii) Haziness of the End:

Sometimes the actor may fail in the realization of his end due to the
end not being clear. He may desire a particular end without carefully
distinguishing between the future states of affairs as it would be with or
without effort.
He may also have not been able to distinguish between different

ends in the same action. When he has not clear perception of the end he
aspires, he naturally fails to judge accurately the effect of the means he
utilizes. He may succeed or fail without knowing why.
(iii) Ignorance:
Ignorance or lack of knowledge may be another cause for non-
rational behaviour. The actor can utilize only what he knows, and he never
knows all the possible means in his situation. He may wrongly perceive
something that would be of use to him, for example when a person boards
a wrong train.
Again, he may be ignorant of something that he could have known

because it is a part of his culture, but which he either never learned or has
forgotten. The man is blamed for such errors because he is ignorant of
something which he should have known.
(iv) Normative Restriction:

The norms exercise a great influence upon man’s behaviour in
society. They not only control the ends to be pursued by a man but also
control the means which can be utilized to attain those ends. The norms
debar a man from utilizing certain means which would gain the end but
which are taboo to him.
The Brahmin, for example, who does not want to get himself
examined by a doctor because he is of a low caste, is debarred from
utilizing the right means due to the taboo of untouchability. Such taboos
placed on the use of means coalesce with ignorance. The Brahmin is
supposed not to allow a scheduled caste doctor to feel his pulse and treat
him for his illness even when he knows that the doctor can cure him.
Thus, the norms limit that actor’s available means. Though

something may be said on the value of norms in maintaining the solidarity
of groups, however, the reasons which are given for the necessity of
norms are fallacious explanations of why the choice of means is narrowed.
In sum, the man may adopt non-rational means because,
(I) His ends are super empirical

(ii) He has vague and confused conception of ends,
(iii) He is ignorant of means,
(iv) His choice of means has been controlled by the norms.
Though the conduct of a man may be non-rational, however, the

actor carries the illusion of rationality. This is because his attention is
concentrated on those means only which are known to him. This illusion
of rationality acts as a protection both to his ego and to his society.
No social order could be made up entirely of rational behaviour nor

could it be as rational as it seems to the members of society. The illusion
of rationality is all pervasive so much so that it permeates the social
sciences and prevents their taking an entirely objective and clear view of
their own subject matter.
Many social sciences analyze human behaviour only in so far as

such behaviour can be assumed to be rational with the result that many
errors with reference to human behaviour have been made.
To conclude, a man’s action is not all rational nor has it to be rational

to succeed. Rationality is only an element. There are always other factors
which influence the result.

Sociological Thinkers II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Thinkers II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Thinkers II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT- I B

Social Action-Talcott Parsons

Every social science makes some assumptions about the internal

According to Anderson and Parker, “Human actions when

Talcott Parsons has enumerated four elements of social action (i)

A brief description of these factors follows:

It is the ‘I’ which reflects and acts. Because of his possession of

An end may be distinguished from a sheer resultant. If a future state

The end has always reference to the future and so it is defined as

Some sociologists, anthropologists and social psychologists have

No doubt, the social forces do influence man’s behaviour; however,

If conditions prove obstacles, they may also be the sources of the

The Problem of Rationality of Means:

There are several causes of error:

The result is that in such cases the question of rationality of means

Among the Hindus a number of religious ceremonies represent non-

(ii) Haziness of the End:

He may also have not been able to distinguish between different

Again, he may be ignorant of something that he could have known

(iv) Normative Restriction:

Thus, the norms limit that actor’s available means. Though

In sum, the man may adopt non-rational means because,

(I) His ends are super empirical

(iii) He is ignorant of means,

(iv) His choice of means has been controlled by the norms.

Though the conduct of a man may be non-rational, however, the

No social order could be made up entirely of rational behaviour nor

Many social sciences analyze human behaviour only in so far as

To conclude, a man’s action is not all rational nor has it to be rational

You might also like