Parson’s critics: Mills and Merton

Sociological theory in the 1980’s and 1990’s

Science Probably the decisive issue was who

was the best scientist: the conservative Harvard professor (Parsons) or the liberal/radical Columbia scholars.

Lieberson posed his 1991 ASA presidential address in terms of one of the most exiting and decisive empirical tests in all of science: Einstein’s general relativity.

He argued that if and only if we can do that, are we a science.

The test of General RelativityHowever, the test of general relativity

theory was not a “direct test.”When a theoretical disagreement is in

an important one, a direct test is rarely possible.

But being able to do indirect, empirical tests is the difference between science and astrology.

Scientific developmentAfter the fact, scientific development

appears as a series of discoveries.E.g. is space curved?Before the fact, it appears a series of

debates about what is the most useful way of looking at things.

E.g. is power zero-sum?

Review: reasons for Parsons’ importance Norms are important. Social structures are systemic. Many social processes are functional – I.e.

jobs have to get done, children have to get raised, etc.

General theory is essential if the discipline is going to avoid fragmenting.

Universalism and achievement are very important components of the US value system,

And increasingly there is development of the world value-system.

The two fundamental failures of the Parsonian system

The methodological criticism was that Parsonian theory was too separated from actual research. This problem was consolidated in the criticisms of

“grand theory” by Merton and Mills.

The substantive criticism was that Parsonian theory failed to take serious account of the dynamic of inequalities, power and privilege. Both critics suggested that Parsons underestimated

positive feedback structure of privilege. His answer to the question?, “Who get’s what?” and

“Why?” are not plausible today.

Mills’ Sociological Imagination

One of the sociological best sellers of all time

“Translations” of ParsonsConcepts of “norm,” “value,” “sanction,”

“institutionalization,” “interaction,” “anomie,” etc. are important,

and abstracted empiricism is sterile, but

1) A conceptual scheme is just a language “The ideas of the grand theorists when

translated are more or less standard ones, available in many textbooks.” Sometimes a formalized conceptual

framework can be useful, or even indispensable.

But putting ideas into an abstruse jargon to avoid real debate is just a shoddy trick.

2) It is a language that tends to neglect power and privilege: “To what is translated we must add that the

roles making up an institution are not just one big ‘complementarity’ of “\’shared expectations’. Have you ever been in an army, a factory – or for that matter a family. Well those are institutions. Within them the expectations of some men seem just a little bit more urgent than those of anyone else.” The whole Parsonian analysis tends to obscure

domination and privilege.

Mills’ analysis of the Power Elite

interlocking directorate

Power elite: pentagon

old wealth

Middle e.g. congress:

levels of any issue that comes power up in congress is likely to be unimportant

Powerless

mass

Mills’ “plain Marxism” The analysis of a power elite has affinities

both with Weber and with Marx. Until The Marxists, Mills never said he was

one or the other, and didn’t make general claims about power structures or their change.

But at the very least, he believed that one has to see whether inequality is functional and structures reflect norms,

not assume those ideas, as Parsons did. He did argue, empirically, that class, gender

and race structures were unfair and undemocratic.

Some books by Mills on the concentration of powerWhite CollarThe New Men of PowerThe Power EliteListen YankeeThe Causes of World War III

All were hot, topical, liberal/radical and somewhat muck-raking.

Current Theory similar to Mills in its assumptions:

Feagin: Racist America and Liberation Sociology Massey: An American Apartheid Reskin: The Realities of Affirmative Action in

Employment. Each addressed major political issues of our time. Each emphasizes self-reinforcing structures of

privilege. These privileges are rationalized as functional and as

achievement values, but these authors claim that they really contradict values such as equal opportunity.

Merton’s Criticisms of Parsons Both his methodological and his substantive

criticisms of Parsons were milder than Mills’ Instead of grand theory, Merton said one

should work on “theories of the middle range.” Instead of universal functionalism, one should

analyze the balance of functions and dysfunctions in social structures.

His theory of anomie stressed the structural strain between the norm of equal opportunity and the availability of legitimate means of success.

Theories of the middle range Merton wrote three important papers that

consolidated the conventional wisdom about the relation of theory to research:

1. “Theories of the Middle range,”

2. “The Bearing of Sociological Theory on Empirical Research.”

3. The Bearing of Empirical Research on Sociological Theory.”

All three papers maintained the conventional view is too simple:

Theories Research

Operationalize hypotheses

Test hypotheses to accept or reject theories.

It is good to test theories, when one can do it, but there are many other reasons that productive theory must be in close contact with empirical research.

A middle range theoryDiffers from an empirical generalization. It is an empirical generalization that all

the coins in my pocket are quarters. I would have a theory if I could claim

that if there were another coin in my pocket, it would have to be a quarter.

I.e. that there is some general mechanism operating.

The bearing of sociological theory on research: A theory must suggest testable empirical

generalizations, or it is sterile. There are three other key tasks of theory:

1. It also shapes the over-all methodology,

2. the conceptualization of the variables,

3. and the interpretation of the findings.

The bearing of empirical research on theory

1. Research findings often suggest entirely unanticipated theories.

2. They often lead to pressure to extend, modify or clarify theories.

• Whenever one replicates or applies a theory to some data,

• one makes modifications in the theory in order to apply it,

• And the data often requires further modifications, that cannot be anticipated.

A Procrustian bedOne usually has to stretch or

foreshorten a theory in order to apply it.Learning how to make a theory flexible

in this way is a central aspect of contemporary theory.