Abstract
The work of building a systematic general theory of the sociology of international law draws to a large extent on the general theory of social action in the field of theoretical sociology. The classic form of the general theory of social action was set forth by Talcott Parsons, who attempted to construct a general framework for the analysis of interactions among social phenomena by examining and integrating the theories of Weber, Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Alfred Marshall, and Vilfredo Pareto. Parsons derived his basic ideas regarding social systems and their integration from Durkheim, his analysis of social structure and of the boundaries between social and cultural systems from Weber, and the idea of seeking a bridge between social systems and personality from Freud.1 While recognizing the greatness of his predecessors’ achievements, he was aware, as he weighed their success in constructing general analytical frameworks, that their formulation of the problems and their findings were merely a starting point from which to proceed toward his own goal of building a general framework for the analysis of social interactions. In his methodology, Parsons was greatly influenced by theoretical economics,2 behavioral psychology,3 and social anthropology.4 He aimed to systematically integrate the bodies of knowledge represented by these disciplines into his own theory. This work resulted in Parsons’ general theory of social action and in the approach known as structural-functional analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Parsons, The Social System, p. xi; Parsons, The Structure of Social Action, Preface to 2nd edition, chaps. VIII-XI, XVIII; Parsons et al., Theories of Society, p. 31. See also Hirose, K., Funso to ho (Conflicts and law), 3.1, notes 13, 14.
Parsons began as an economist, and he was trained in the American institutionalist school. In contrast to classical and neoclassical economists, institutionalists, in constructing their economic theories, emphasize the influence of social institutions and other external factors. The major difference between Parsons and the institutionalists was that he evaluated theoretical economics positively, although he regarded it as insufficient on its own. He considered the economic system in theoretical economics to be a special case of a social system, and he attempted to use theories that described the former to lay the foundation for a more general theory of action that would describe the latter. Parsons and Smelser, Economy and Society, p. 6; Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” p. 624.
he behavioral psychologist with whom Parsons was most closely associated was Edward Tolman. Of more importance, however, was James Olds, whose cooperation contributed to Parsons’ theoretical system. Parsons, The Social System, p. xi; Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” pp. 612–24, esp. p. 612, note 1
ee Hicks, Value and Capital, Part I and Mathematical Appendix; Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, chaps. V, VII; Samuelson, “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference.”
Ibid. I do not believe that Parsons was right, but I will not discuss this question in detail here. For further discussion, see Hirose, K., “Keizaishakaigaku to hoshakaigaku no sotsuisei ni tsuite” (On the duality of economic sociology and legal sociology), 2.1 and 2.3.
Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” p. 613.
Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, pp. 119–24; Dahrendorf, “Out of Utopia: Toward a Reorientation of Sociological Analysis,” pp. 115–27; Lockwood, “Some Remarks on `The Social System,’” pp. 134–46.
For Parsons’ evolutionary theory, see Parsons, “Some Considerations on the Theory of Social Change,” pp. 219–39; Parsons et al., Theories of Society, pp. 70–79; Parsons, Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives.
Anthropologists have considered functionalism and evolutionism to be incompatible after functionalists challenged evolutionists in the nineteenth century. Another criticism of functionalism is that it is not suited to studies that involve time series. See Evans-Pritchard, Social Anthropology, pp. 58–63.
Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” pp. 629–34.
“The same concrete behavior usually involves all four reference points. In a sense to be explained later, the four interpenetrate each other.” Parsons, “An Approach to Psychological Theory in Terms of the Theory of Action,” p. 613 (Parsons actually referred in this passage to four points; in addition to the three types of systems discussed here, his action theory includes the organism system, but I have excluded this from the present discussion).
See Levy, “Some Questions about `The Concepts of Culture and of Social System,”‘pp. 247–48.
Williams, op. cit.,p. 70; Parsons, “A Rejoinder to Ogles and Levy,” pp. 249–50. For a concise summary of Parsons’ later views, see Parsons, Editorial Foreword to Part Four Section A: “Symbolic Processes and the Cultural Heritage,” in Parsons et. al., Theories of Society, pp. 997–99.
For explanations of functional analysis or structural-functional analysis, see Parsons et al., Working Papers in the Theory of Action; Parsons et al., Socialization and Interaction Process; Parsons and Smelser, op. cit.; Parsons, “Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations,” pp. 63–85, 225–39; Parsons, “The Point of View of the Author,” pp. 311–63; Parsons, “Introduction to Max Weber,” pp. xix-lxvii; Parsons, “On the Concept of Political Power,” pp. 232–62; Levy, The Structure of Society; Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, pp. 21–81; Black, op. cit.; Parsons, “Recent Trends in Structural-Functional Theory,” pp. 140–58.
Snyder et al. (eds.), Foreign Policy Decision Making; Jacob and Atherton, The Dynamics of International Organization; McClelland, “Applications of General Systems Theory in International Relations,” pp. 27–34; Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics; Etzioni, Political Unification; Kaplan and Katzenbach, The Political Foundations of International Law; Hoffmann, “International Systems and International Law”; McDougal, “International Law, Power and Policy,” pp. 137–258.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kawaguchi, K.H. (2003). The Relationship of the Present Theory to Parsons’ Theory. In: A Social Theory of International Law. International Law in Japanese Perspective, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4978-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4978-7_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-4672-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-4978-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive