The+Unit+Act+of+Action+Systems

Parsons tries to create a theory of what the fundamental units of “actions systems” are – or the basic units of analysis that we should look at when studying social action.
 * =Title: “The Unit of Action Systems” from //The Structure of Social Action//= ||  ||
 * =Author: Talcott Parsons= ||  ||
 * =Date: 1937= ||  ||
 * =Summary By: Kate Tennis= ||  ||
 * =Summary=

In the hard sciences, subjects of study are broken down into their constituent pieces and described in terms of their “mass, velocity, location… “ etc. (231). So to, in the social world things can be broken down.

The basic unit is the **social act.** This in turn consists of four elements 1. 1. An **__agent__** (the one acting) 2. 2. And **__end__** (“a future state of affairs toward which the process of action is oriented”) 3. 3. A situation, which in turn consists of a. **__Conditions__** of action – the things the agent cannot change, and b. The **__means__** of action – the things the agent CAN change. 4. 4. A **__normative orientation__** by which the agent chooses which of the alternative means towards the end should be implemented.

What are the implications of this classification? - - “An act is always a process in time” oriented towards an end goal - -Given multiple ends and means and normative orientations, an agent may make an error – choosing the wrong means or getting the wrong ends - -The frame of reference is subjective. The social scientist tries to study the content of other peoples’ minds, and thus must distinguish between objective (“from the point of view of the scientific observer of action”) and subjective (“from the point of view of the actor”) (233) - -There should not be infinite regress in the study of social action – we don’t need to go all the way down to the molecular or chemical levels. Instead, focus on the social act as the unit of analysis, including its four constituent parts, and don’t worry about physical things except as they directly constitute these. || - || - - Can we really separate the physical from the social world this clearly? Parsons allows room only for those physical elements that constitute the social act, but this could be interpreted either very broadly or narrowly.
 * =Discussion points=

- - Parsons writes: “The analytical distinction between actor and situation quite definitely cannot be identified with the distinction in the biological sciences between organism and environment. It is not a question of distinctions of concrete “things,” for the organism is a real unit. It is rather a matter of the analysis required by the categories of empirically useful theoretical systems.” o My interpretation is that this implies that a distinction can be drawn between the subjective and objective, it’s just a trickier task than in the biological sciences. However, I find his treatment of the issue confusing. Any thoughts? ||  || = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = =

= =