REPLIES DUE IN 5 HOURS
combs
Mod4replies.docxMod 4 replies
The minimum length for each of your replies to classmates in order to earn any credit is 150 words.
ANA’S POST:
Part A – Parsons and Merton Social Theory Concepts
Talcott Parsons’s “An Outline of the Social System,” from Theories of Society (1961), introduces the concept of functions. He defined functions “as the link between the system's structural and the dynamic aspects” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). Parsons stressed four essential functions needed for a society's stability and cohesion: "pattern-maintenance, goal-attainment, adaptation, and integration” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). These will be described in a sequential order as Parsons believed they occurred.
First, Parsons considered pattern maintenance, in which the focus lies on values and is driven by the motivational commitment of the individual. He described this function as “the imperative of maintaining the stability of the patterns institutionalized culture defining the system's structure” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). Parsons also noticed two different aspects of this functional imperative and stated: “The first concerns the character of the normative pattern itself, and the second concerns its state of institutionalization.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). This function operates within a social system where a person adopts the established norms and makes them part of his personality; as Parsons explained: “the focus of pattern maintenance lies in the structural category of values... “The essential function is maintenance, at the cultural level, of the stability of institutionalized values through the processes which articulate values with the belief system, namely, religious beliefs, ideology, and the like (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 285-286). Parsons also considered an important element within the pattern maintenance function is the “motivational commitment of the individual called ‘tension-management.’ Although individual values are internalized, the personal commitments involved are subject to different kinds of strain.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286). He concluded by stating the roles of this function with the social systems, serves as a reference for further analysis of other factors, and clarifies that when analyzing structural changes, ensuring that it is based on a different theoretical problem than that involved in equilibration. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286).
Second, Parsons considered the function of goal attainment and described it as adaptation. He defined this function and stated: “It is a directional change that tends to reduce the discrepancy between the needs of the system, concerning input-output interchange, and the conditions in the environing systems that bear upon the fulfillment of such needs.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286). Parsons explained that this function considers the variability of a system’s relation to its situation and works along with the process of adaptation, considering the structures, mechanisms, and processes involved.
Third, Parsons considered the function of adaptation, and he described it as the facilitating capacity to interact, secure, and employ the resources leading to goal attainment. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). Parsons specified the factor of plurality within this function. He described that in the case of working towards one goal, the importance relies on attaining the goal. However, when pursuing multiple goals raises concerns about the cost. The adaptive function ensures that everything needed for goal attainment is facilitated. He pointed out that “just as there is a pluralism of lower order, more concrete goals, there is also a pluralism of relative concrete facilities” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He believed the efficacy of facilities resided within its flexibility, the disposability in the processes of allocation of resources between uses; however, this disposability of facilities crystallizes about institutionalization of money and markets. Parsons also considered control of physical objects, access to human services, and cultural elements are alienable, and the control is more important than adaptation. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287).
Fourth, Parsons described the function of integration, in which all the components unify, ensuring solidarity and cohesion among all the participants working together. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He specified (except for some) that the characteristics of systems for integration are that systems are differentiated and segmented into relatively independent units. Parsons mentioned, “The functional problem of integration concerns the mutual adjustment of these ‘units’ or subsystems from the point of view of their ‘contributions,’ to the effective functioning of the system as a whole. This, in turn, concerns their relation to the pattern-maintenance problem, as well as to the external situation through processes of goal-attainment and adaptation” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He concluded this “functions” concept establishing that the integrative function is the most distinctive property and processes of any social system. Parsons finished this section by stating: “We contend, therefore, that the problems focusing on the integrative functions of social systems constitute the central core of the concerns of sociological theory.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287).
In Talcott Parsons’s “Illness and the Role of the Physician” (1951), Parsons introduces the “phenomena of illness, and of the processes of therapy, and the role of the therapist, as aspects of the general social equilibrium of modern Western society.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 289-290). However, Parsons considered the term “illness” as a framework to examine it as what sociologists consider “deviant” behavior. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). He further stated that “the sick person is, by definition, in some respect disabled from fulfilling normal social obligations, and the motivation of the sick person in being or staying sick has some reference to this fact.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). Parsons also considered four premises for the concept of illness and stated:
In his paper (1951), “Illness and the Role of the Physician,” Talcott Parsons discussed the concept of “illness” as seen from a sociological standpoint to be treated as “deviant” behavior” where he stated: “By this is meant behavior which is defined in sociological terms as failing in some way to fulfill the institutionally defined expectations of one more of the roles in which the individual is implicated in society.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). Parsons implied that a productive member of society is physically and mentally healthy. If a person is otherwise incapacitated to fulfill normal social obligations and his only motivation is to stay sick, he is considered a sick person. He further explained that because it is expected that to participate as a functional member of society, one must be healthy. He discussed the concept in four parts. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290).
First, Parsons stated: “Something will have to be said about the processes of genesis of illness insofar as it is motivated and thus can be classed as deviant behavior.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). In this regard, Parsons indicated that a sociologist's emphasis will concentrate on what triggered the illness's onset. For instance, the study of a parent-child relationship concentrated on attitudes that triggered the onset of a child's anger outbursts.
Second, Parsons stated: “Something will have to be said about the social role of the sick person.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). In this regard, Parsons indicated that some contributing factors or circumstances in the relationship prompted the appearance of “pathogenic strains.” As Parsons felt intrigued, he was concerned about the parent-child relationship. These two exchanged the “pathogenic strains.” One is the child's " support " (acceptance/wanted) from those surrounding him. Two, the “upholding of the value patterns” constitutive of the group (rejection, evasion of norms). Parsons explained the results of these pathogens when members do not observe the standards and have difficulty managing impulses, which results in an ambivalent vicious cycle. These patterns feed each other and contribute to illnesses and consequences. Parsons concluded: “The essential point is that illness is one pattern among a family of such alternatives and that the fundamental motivational ingredients of illness are not peculiar to it but are of more general significance.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 291).
Third, Parsons considered the physician's role in the therapeutic process. He discussed four conditions of psychotherapy that would benefit the motivational processes much needed for reversing the pathogenic conditions: first is the “support” which means acceptance as a member of a social group characterized by the solidarity within the therapist/patient relationship; second, is a special permissiveness for expression and this is confined to verbal and gestural levels; third, the obverse of permissiveness as a therapist restriction; and fourth, the conditional manipulation of sanctions by the therapist in where the acceptance of an interpretation by the patient demonstrates his capacity to the relevant extent, to discuss matters on a mature plane with the therapist, who shows his approval of this performance. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 293)
Fourth, Parsons briefly discussed how the roles fit in the general equilibrium of the social system. Parsons did not underestimate the role of medical assistance and psychotherapy in all these premises. He stated: “Conscious psychotherapy is only part of the process. Indeed, the effective utilization of these aspects of the physician’s role is a prominent part of what has long been called the art of medicine.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014 p. 294). Parsons concluded that “the phenomena of physical and mental illness and their counteraction are intimately connected with the general equilibrium of the social system that is generally supposed, and there are certain positive functions in the role of illness from the social point of view.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 294-295).
Robert Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) depicts a “coherent, systematic approach to the study of socio-cultural sources of deviated behavior. Moreover, Merton’s primary objective was “discovering how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain people in society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 92). He established two separate social and cultural structure elements and eventually merged them into one concept; he stated: “The first consists of culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests. The second defines, regulates, and controls the acceptable modes of achieving these goals.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 92-93). Merton’s argument focuses on how institutional norms facilitate a way for people to pursue and achieve their goals without engaging in illicit or corrupt behavior. He argued that “regulatory norms and moral imperatives do not necessarily coincide with technical or efficiency norms.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). He also stressed the importance of having an equilibrium, where a balance between cultural goals and institutional means is maintained, where these two elements are integrated and relatively stable. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Merton also stated, “Satisfaction comes from clear participation in a competitive order, the occasional sacrifices in institutionalized conduct must be socially rewarded, and the distribution of statuses and roles must be organized in which positive incentives would be equally distributed.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Lastly, Merton stressed that an “aberrant conduct, may be viewed as a symptom of dissociation between culturally defined aspirations and socially structured means.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Summarizing his theoretical perspective, he argued that in societies that strongly emphasize success, people who cannot achieve success for any reason are subject to engaging in deviant behavior. Within his work, Merton identified five modes of individual adaptation: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. He also highlighted how societal pressures can provoke deviant behavior, thus minimizing social cohesion. Merton’s work reinforced the view that deviance is not only pathological but could result from social inequalities. (Garner and Hancock, 2013, pp. 96-97).
Part B – Parsons and Merton's Social Theory Influence on Modern America
By “Social Stratification and Inequality, Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative, and Global Perspective” states: “One of the central figures in modern American sociology, Talcott Parsons, developed a theory that is often considered the most important functional statement on all aspects of society ever made.” (Kerbo, 2000, p. 119). Parsons’s functionalism is relevant in modern America. In his “Family: Socialization and Interaction Process,” Parsons demonstrated his interest in the functioning of the contemporary American family and its place in the structure of our society, stating that perhaps the most important function lies in its contribution to the socialization of children. He introduced the concept of social functions that help us understand how different societal institutions work together for stability and order. (Bales and Parsons, 1956, p. 307). His functionalism has influenced the modern American family model, emphasizing families' roles and functions in maintaining social order and stability in this Nation. The family is the fundamental institution of society. The family is multifunctional; out of this gigantic recipient, it prepares and serves society. Although many family models have already been institutionalized, they all enhance our modern American society. The family creates, nurtures, instructs, equips, works, sustains, gives, shares, worships, plays, sings, constructs, and many more activities with the sole purpose of living. Despite the rapid and constant evolution of the many institutions in the United States, Parsons’ functions principle remains present. It continues to set the stage for any institution wanting to impact and promote stability and continuity in modern America’s society.
Talcott Parsons’s social theory, particularly the concept of “illness,” has significantly influenced the understanding of sickness and health in modern America. Although his work titled “Parsons’s Illness and the Role of the Physician” (1951) has a biological connotation, it presents the concept of “illness” from a social scientific perspective (Garner and Hancock, 2013, p. 289). Parsons introduced the “sick role,” describing it as a social phenomenon impacting society. A (2010) study conducted by Body & Society established and described the relationship between the sick role and chronic illness:
The sick role is firmly based on the reciprocities of a resiliently capitalist achievement society; it still informs normative expectations in the field of health and illness. Unfortunately, modern America carries the stigma of chronic patients' precarious social position between being governed by and being consumers of medicine. This can be understood and argued if we consider Parsons’s perspective, viewing the situation through the moral economy surrounding health and illness. (Varul, 2020, pp. 72-94)
Parsons' “sick role” described the rights and responsibilities of ill-afflicted people and highlighted how society accommodates the unwell. Modern America is saturated with ill people, and I say this with my utmost respect because I am among the statistics. However, with this understanding, this concept should be an encouraging message to transform our view of the ill from a society problem to a society solution seeker and promoter. By doing so, we can create a better society and nation.
Robert Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) is a portrait reflecting the effects of the social structure, anomie, and inequalities as social forces that impel individuals into deviance and crime. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 92). Merton’s theoretical concept impacts modern American society. A recently published article titled “Anomie Theory” states: “Merton argued how a shared overemphasis on monetary success goals undermines individual commitment to social rules and generates a particularly acute strain on individuals in disadvantaged social positions.” (Bernburg, 2024, n.d.). When society sets culturally appropriate goals that are not attainable to all its people, this results in a disparity. If this falls in the economic spectrum, it can be seen as an economic inequality, and those affected may retaliate and engage in deviant behaviors, including crime. This scenario is typically seen in disadvantaged neighborhoods in modern America. Therefore, as social inequalities will never cease, Merton’s insights can be considered positive initiatives rather than punitive measures aiming to enhance social structural policies in modern America.
References
Bales, R.F., & Parsons, T. (1956). Family: Socialization and Interaction Process (1st ed.) Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824
Bernburg, J. (2024, June 18). Anomie Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190264079-e-244
Garner, R., & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader. Continuity and confrontation. (3rd ed.).
University of Toronto Press.
Varul, M.Z. (2010). Talcott Parsons, “the sick role and chronic illness.” Body & Society 16, no. 2
(2010): 72-94 https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x10364766
INDYAH’S POST:
Part A – Parsons and Merton Social Theory Concepts
Talcott Parsons’s “An Outline of the Social System,” from Theories of Society (1961), introduces the concept of functions. He defined functions “as the link between the system's structural and the dynamic aspects” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). Parsons stressed four essential functions needed for a society's stability and cohesion: "pattern-maintenance, goal-attainment, adaptation, and integration” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). These will be described in a sequential order as Parsons believed they occurred.
First, Parsons considered pattern maintenance, in which the focus lies on values and is driven by the motivational commitment of the individual. He described this function as “the imperative of maintaining the stability of the patterns institutionalized culture defining the system's structure” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). Parsons also noticed two different aspects of this functional imperative and stated: “The first concerns the character of the normative pattern itself, and the second concerns its state of institutionalization.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 285). This function operates within a social system where a person adopts the established norms and makes them part of his personality; as Parsons explained: “the focus of pattern maintenance lies in the structural category of values... “The essential function is maintenance, at the cultural level, of the stability of institutionalized values through the processes which articulate values with the belief system, namely, religious beliefs, ideology, and the like (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 285-286). Parsons also considered an important element within the pattern maintenance function is the “motivational commitment of the individual called ‘tension-management.’ Although individual values are internalized, the personal commitments involved are subject to different kinds of strain.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286). He concluded by stating the roles of this function with the social systems, serves as a reference for further analysis of other factors, and clarifies that when analyzing structural changes, ensuring that it is based on a different theoretical problem than that involved in equilibration. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286).
Second, Parsons considered the function of goal attainment and described it as adaptation. He defined this function and stated: “It is a directional change that tends to reduce the discrepancy between the needs of the system, concerning input-output interchange, and the conditions in the environing systems that bear upon the fulfillment of such needs.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 286). Parsons explained that this function considers the variability of a system’s relation to its situation and works along with the process of adaptation, considering the structures, mechanisms, and processes involved.
Third, Parsons considered the function of adaptation, and he described it as the facilitating capacity to interact, secure, and employ the resources leading to goal attainment. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). Parsons specified the factor of plurality within this function. He described that in the case of working towards one goal, the importance relies on attaining the goal. However, when pursuing multiple goals raises concerns about the cost. The adaptive function ensures that everything needed for goal attainment is facilitated. He pointed out that “just as there is a pluralism of lower order, more concrete goals, there is also a pluralism of relative concrete facilities” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He believed the efficacy of facilities resided within its flexibility, the disposability in the processes of allocation of resources between uses; however, this disposability of facilities crystallizes about institutionalization of money and markets. Parsons also considered control of physical objects, access to human services, and cultural elements are alienable, and the control is more important than adaptation. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287).
Fourth, Parsons described the function of integration, in which all the components unify, ensuring solidarity and cohesion among all the participants working together. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He specified (except for some) that the characteristics of systems for integration are that systems are differentiated and segmented into relatively independent units. Parsons mentioned, “The functional problem of integration concerns the mutual adjustment of these ‘units’ or subsystems from the point of view of their ‘contributions,’ to the effective functioning of the system as a whole. This, in turn, concerns their relation to the pattern-maintenance problem, as well as to the external situation through processes of goal-attainment and adaptation” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287). He concluded this “functions” concept establishing that the integrative function is the most distinctive property and processes of any social system. Parsons finished this section by stating: “We contend, therefore, that the problems focusing on the integrative functions of social systems constitute the central core of the concerns of sociological theory.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 287).
In Talcott Parsons’s “Illness and the Role of the Physician” (1951), Parsons introduces the “phenomena of illness, and of the processes of therapy, and the role of the therapist, as aspects of the general social equilibrium of modern Western society.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 289-290). However, Parsons considered the term “illness” as a framework to examine it as what sociologists consider “deviant” behavior. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). He further stated that “the sick person is, by definition, in some respect disabled from fulfilling normal social obligations, and the motivation of the sick person in being or staying sick has some reference to this fact.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). Parsons also considered four premises for the concept of illness and stated:
In his paper (1951), “Illness and the Role of the Physician,” Talcott Parsons discussed the concept of “illness” as seen from a sociological standpoint to be treated as “deviant” behavior” where he stated: “By this is meant behavior which is defined in sociological terms as failing in some way to fulfill the institutionally defined expectations of one more of the roles in which the individual is implicated in society.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). Parsons implied that a productive member of society is physically and mentally healthy. If a person is otherwise incapacitated to fulfill normal social obligations and his only motivation is to stay sick, he is considered a sick person. He further explained that because it is expected that to participate as a functional member of society, one must be healthy. He discussed the concept in four parts. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290).
First, Parsons stated: “Something will have to be said about the processes of genesis of illness insofar as it is motivated and thus can be classed as deviant behavior.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). In this regard, Parsons indicated that a sociologist's emphasis will concentrate on what triggered the illness's onset. For instance, the study of a parent-child relationship concentrated on attitudes that triggered the onset of a child's anger outbursts.
Second, Parsons stated: “Something will have to be said about the social role of the sick person.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 290). In this regard, Parsons indicated that some contributing factors or circumstances in the relationship prompted the appearance of “pathogenic strains.” As Parsons felt intrigued, he was concerned about the parent-child relationship. These two exchanged the “pathogenic strains.” One is the child's " support " (acceptance/wanted) from those surrounding him. Two, the “upholding of the value patterns” constitutive of the group (rejection, evasion of norms). Parsons explained the results of these pathogens when members do not observe the standards and have difficulty managing impulses, which results in an ambivalent vicious cycle. These patterns feed each other and contribute to illnesses and consequences. Parsons concluded: “The essential point is that illness is one pattern among a family of such alternatives and that the fundamental motivational ingredients of illness are not peculiar to it but are of more general significance.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 291).
Third, Parsons considered the physician's role in the therapeutic process. He discussed four conditions of psychotherapy that would benefit the motivational processes much needed for reversing the pathogenic conditions: first is the “support” which means acceptance as a member of a social group characterized by the solidarity within the therapist/patient relationship; second, is a special permissiveness for expression and this is confined to verbal and gestural levels; third, the obverse of permissiveness as a therapist restriction; and fourth, the conditional manipulation of sanctions by the therapist in where the acceptance of an interpretation by the patient demonstrates his capacity to the relevant extent, to discuss matters on a mature plane with the therapist, who shows his approval of this performance. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 293)
Fourth, Parsons briefly discussed how the roles fit in the general equilibrium of the social system. Parsons did not underestimate the role of medical assistance and psychotherapy in all these premises. He stated: “Conscious psychotherapy is only part of the process. Indeed, the effective utilization of these aspects of the physician’s role is a prominent part of what has long been called the art of medicine.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014 p. 294). Parsons concluded that “the phenomena of physical and mental illness and their counteraction are intimately connected with the general equilibrium of the social system that is generally supposed, and there are certain positive functions in the role of illness from the social point of view.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 294-295).
Robert Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) depicts a “coherent, systematic approach to the study of socio-cultural sources of deviated behavior. Moreover, Merton’s primary objective was “discovering how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain people in society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 92). He established two separate social and cultural structure elements and eventually merged them into one concept; he stated: “The first consists of culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests. The second defines, regulates, and controls the acceptable modes of achieving these goals.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, pp. 92-93). Merton’s argument focuses on how institutional norms facilitate a way for people to pursue and achieve their goals without engaging in illicit or corrupt behavior. He argued that “regulatory norms and moral imperatives do not necessarily coincide with technical or efficiency norms.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). He also stressed the importance of having an equilibrium, where a balance between cultural goals and institutional means is maintained, where these two elements are integrated and relatively stable. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Merton also stated, “Satisfaction comes from clear participation in a competitive order, the occasional sacrifices in institutionalized conduct must be socially rewarded, and the distribution of statuses and roles must be organized in which positive incentives would be equally distributed.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Lastly, Merton stressed that an “aberrant conduct, may be viewed as a symptom of dissociation between culturally defined aspirations and socially structured means.” (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 93). Summarizing his theoretical perspective, he argued that in societies that strongly emphasize success, people who cannot achieve success for any reason are subject to engaging in deviant behavior. Within his work, Merton identified five modes of individual adaptation: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. He also highlighted how societal pressures can provoke deviant behavior, thus minimizing social cohesion. Merton’s work reinforced the view that deviance is not only pathological but could result from social inequalities. (Garner and Hancock, 2013, pp. 96-97).
Part B – Parsons and Merton's Social Theory Influence on Modern America
By “Social Stratification and Inequality, Class Conflict in Historical, Comparative, and Global Perspective” states: “One of the central figures in modern American sociology, Talcott Parsons, developed a theory that is often considered the most important functional statement on all aspects of society ever made.” (Kerbo, 2000, p. 119). Parsons’s functionalism is relevant in modern America. In his “Family: Socialization and Interaction Process,” Parsons demonstrated his interest in the functioning of the contemporary American family and its place in the structure of our society, stating that perhaps the most important function lies in its contribution to the socialization of children. He introduced the concept of social functions that help us understand how different societal institutions work together for stability and order. (Bales and Parsons, 1956, p. 307). His functionalism has influenced the modern American family model, emphasizing families' roles and functions in maintaining social order and stability in this Nation. The family is the fundamental institution of society. The family is multifunctional; out of this gigantic recipient, it prepares and serves society. Although many family models have already been institutionalized, they all enhance our modern American society. The family creates, nurtures, instructs, equips, works, sustains, gives, shares, worships, plays, sings, constructs, and many more activities with the sole purpose of living. Despite the rapid and constant evolution of the many institutions in the United States, Parsons’ functions principle remains present. It continues to set the stage for any institution wanting to impact and promote stability and continuity in modern America’s society.
Talcott Parsons’s social theory, particularly the concept of “illness,” has significantly influenced the understanding of sickness and health in modern America. Although his work titled “Parsons’s Illness and the Role of the Physician” (1951) has a biological connotation, it presents the concept of “illness” from a social scientific perspective (Garner and Hancock, 2013, p. 289). Parsons introduced the “sick role,” describing it as a social phenomenon impacting society. A (2010) study conducted by Body & Society established and described the relationship between the sick role and chronic illness:
The sick role is firmly based on the reciprocities of a resiliently capitalist achievement society; it still informs normative expectations in the field of health and illness. Unfortunately, modern America carries the stigma of chronic patients' precarious social position between being governed by and being consumers of medicine. This can be understood and argued if we consider Parsons’s perspective, viewing the situation through the moral economy surrounding health and illness. (Varul, 2020, pp. 72-94)
Parsons' “sick role” described the rights and responsibilities of ill-afflicted people and highlighted how society accommodates the unwell. Modern America is saturated with ill people, and I say this with my utmost respect because I am among the statistics. However, with this understanding, this concept should be an encouraging message to transform our view of the ill from a society problem to a society solution seeker and promoter. By doing so, we can create a better society and nation.
Robert Merton’s “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938) is a portrait reflecting the effects of the social structure, anomie, and inequalities as social forces that impel individuals into deviance and crime. (Garner and Hancock, 2014, p. 92). Merton’s theoretical concept impacts modern American society. A recently published article titled “Anomie Theory” states: “Merton argued how a shared overemphasis on monetary success goals undermines individual commitment to social rules and generates a particularly acute strain on individuals in disadvantaged social positions.” (Bernburg, 2024, n.d.). When society sets culturally appropriate goals that are not attainable to all its people, this results in a disparity. If this falls in the economic spectrum, it can be seen as an economic inequality, and those affected may retaliate and engage in deviant behaviors, including crime. This scenario is typically seen in disadvantaged neighborhoods in modern America. Therefore, as social inequalities will never cease, Merton’s insights can be considered positive initiatives rather than punitive measures aiming to enhance social structural policies in modern America.
References
Bales, R.F., & Parsons, T. (1956). Family: Socialization and Interaction Process (1st ed.) Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824
Bernburg, J. (2024, June 18). Anomie Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology
https://oxfordre.com/criminology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-
9780190264079-e-244
Garner, R., & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader. Continuity and confrontation. (3rd ed.).
University of Toronto Press.
Varul, M.Z. (2010). Talcott Parsons, “the sick role and chronic illness.” Body & Society 16, no. 2
(2010): 72-94 https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x10364766
