Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bernard Barber's Social System Theory: The American Sociologist June 2002
Bernard Barber's Social System Theory: The American Sociologist June 2002
CITATIONS
READS
80
1 author:
Bruce Wearne
Graduate of Monash (BA 1971),
35 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Introduction
This essay is a b o u t Bernard Barber's theory of the social system. The formulation of this theory given b y Barber in his "late in career" essays brings to the
fore a theoretical d e v e l o p m e n t that goes back, at least, to Barber's undergraduate education in the 1930s, and has b e e n implicit in his p u b l i s h e d writings ever
since, including seminal w o r k s in that subspecialty of sociology for which he is
well-known, the sociology of science. 1 Barber was b o r n in 1918 and graduated
from Harvard A.B. (1939), M.A. (1942), and Ph.D. (1949).
In formulating this theory, Barber has h a d to give special and e x t e n d e d
consideration to h o w his o w n thinking on the social s y s t e m c o m p a r e s a n d
contrasts with that of Talcott Parsons. It might b e p o s s i b l e to read Barber's
theory writing since the 1980s as simply an attempt to restate Parsons' theory in
accessible prose, but that w o u l d be a mistake. There's more to it. Barber does write
social system theory in a style that is more transparent than Parsons' prose, and w e
might even wish to argue that this is an integral c o m p o n e n t of Barber's social
system theory. But Barber's social system theory also n e e d s to b e c o n s i d e r e d as
social system theory in it's o w n right. And that is the p u r p o s e of this article.
As w e examine what he has written, w e e n c o u n t e r various p r o b l e m s that
Barber has e n c o u n t e r e d in his attempts to state his o w n theory. As w e follow
his logic w e can indeed derive certain valuable insights not only a b o u t social
system theory, but also a b o u t the processes of theory construction and the w a y
in which scientific w o r k is a collective enterprise requiring careful rethinking
of basic assumptions.
Barber's version of "functionalist theory" is a sophisticated and loyal formulation by a student of Parsons w h o has, over time, d e v e l o p e d his o w n independent evaluation of the strengths and w e a k n e s s e s of the social system theory of
his former mentor. The basic thrust of Barber's theoretical effort in these essays 2 should not b e m i s c o n s t r u e d as m e r e traditionalism, b u t is a c o n c e r t e d
effort to address s o m e prevailing p r o b l e m s in the theoretical tradition in w h i c h
he locates his o w n theorizing.
Address for correspondence: 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale, Vic 3225, Australia. E-mail:
bcwearne@ozemail.com.au.
86
We b e g i n to a p p r e c i a t e s o m e o f t h e s e w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e w a y T a l c o t t
P a r s o n s identified the intellectual p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h t h e o r e t i c a l a d v a n c e m e n t
in social s y s t e m t h e o r y h a d b e e n m a d e possible. B a c k in 1949, P a r s o n s h a d p u t
it in t h e s e terms:
Our own generation has seen at least the beginnings of a process of more general pulling
together. Even when a good deal of theory was actually being used in research much of the
teaching of theory was still in terms of the "systems" of the past, and was organized about
names rather than working conceptual schemes. Graduate students frantically memorized the
contents of Bogardus or Lichtenberger with little or no effect on their future research operations and little guidance as to how it might be used. But this has gradually been changing.
Theory has at least begun no longer to mean mainly a knowledge of "doctrines", but what
matters far more, a set of patterns for habitual thinking. This change has, in my opinion, been
considerably promoted by increased interest in more general theory, especially coming from
study of the works of Weber and Durkheim and, though not so immediately sociological, of
Freud. There has thus been the beginning at least, and to me a very encouraging beginning, of
a process of coalescence of these types of more or less explicit theory which were really
integrated importantly with research, into a more general theoretical tradition of some sophistication, really the tradition of a working professional group. 3
T h i s s t a t e m e n t is o v e r 50 y e a r s old. E v e n b e f o r e w e c o m e to e x a m i n e
Barber's writings a b o u t the t h e o r e t i c a l tradition that is h e r e b e i n g r e f e r r e d to,
w e can e x p e c t that m a n y o f t h o s e i n v o l v e d f r o m that time will h a v e d e v e l o p e d
their o w n r e t r o s p e c t i v e v i e w o f the s u b s e q u e n t "patterns" that did i n d e e d e m e r g e .
T h e fact is that B a r b e r did n o t give u p "structural-functionalism" e v e n if t h e
i m m a n e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s to "social s y s t e m t h e o r y " p r e f i g u r e d b y P a r s o n s ' o w n
u t t e r a n c e did n o t take place. If P a r s o n s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f it w a s i n d e e d the
b e g i n n i n g to a n e w tradition for s o c i o l o g y , the s t a t e m e n t in itself actually raises
a critical q u e s t i o n . After all, P a r s o n s h a d n e v e r t h e l e s s d e f i n e d scientific rationality as a t r e n d opposed to traditional rationality. T h a t logical p r o b l e m , in r e l a t i o n
to the a b o v e rhetoric, is c o m p o u n d e d later in the s a m e a d d r e s s w h e n P a r s o n s ,
h a v i n g o u t l i n e d the d e v e l o p m e n t s that h a d t a k e n p l a c e at H a r v a r d , in c o l l a b o r a tion w i t h " P r o f e s s o r s T o l m a n o f California a n d Shils o f C h i c a g o , ''4 c o n c l u d e s
w i t h a prophetic a n n o u n c e m e n t that s o c i o l o g y w a s t h e n s t a n d i n g " n e a r t h e
b e g i n n i n g o f o n e o f t h o s e i m p o r t a n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f c u l t u r e g r o w t h . ''5
If that s t a t e m e n t is to f u n c t i o n in a scientific c o n t e x t , a c c o r d i n g to the standards that P a r s o n s h i m s e l f e m p h a s i z e d , t h e n it is i m p o r t a n t to test it empirically.
Did s o c i o l o g y as a discipline e x p e r i e n c e s u c h g r o w t h ? Did the d e v e l o p m e n t s in
a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f action w h i c h P a r s o n s t h e r e f~ted, p r o v i d e s o c i o l o g y w i t h
the i n t e g r a t i o n w h i c h P a r s o n s said it w o u l d ?
That b o l d p r e d i c t i o n w a s m a d e w h e n the f o r m a l a c a d e m i c c a r e e r o f B e r n a r d
B a r b e r w a s just b e g i n n i n g . H e h a d b e e n P a r s o n s ' s t u d e n t a n d h a d g r a d u a t e d
with the Ph.D. in that s a m e y e a r / ' T h e y e a r b e f o r e h e h a d p u b l i s h e d a n article
with P a r s o n s 7 a n d in the first v o l u m e o f P a r s o n s ' Essays, p u b l i s h e d in 1949, his
"Biographical Sketch" h a d also a p p e a r e d . 8
Even t h e n , Barber's 1949 " B i o g r a p h i c a l S k e t c h o f Talcott P a r s o n s " r e m i n d e d
the social s c i e n c e c o m m u n i t y o f the r o o t s o f P a r s o n s ' social s y s t e m t h e o r y in
P a r s o n s ' critical e v a l u a t i o n o f Marshall a n d o t h e r e c o n o m i s t s . It s e e m s as if
B a r b e r w r o t e that with an intuitive h u n c h that it w a s likely s o m e w o u l d take
Parsons' "systematic sociological t h e o r y " w i t h o u t giving d u e r e f e r e n c e to w h a t
Weame
87
88
Certainly the "click" indicates a crucial point has b e e n reached. The conseq u e n c e s of this found their way, w e are told, into Towards a General Theory of
Action. Parsons continues:
This transformation o p e n e d up n e w possibilities of logical d e v e l o p m e n t and elaboration w h i c h
are m u c h too c o m p l e x and technical to enter into here. I n d e e d the implications are as yet only
very incompletely w o r k e d out or critically evaluated and it will be m a n y months b e f o r e they
are in shape for publication. But certain of t h e m are sufficiently clear to give m e at any rate the
conviction that they are of considerable importance, and taken together, will constitute a
substantial further step in the direction of unifying our theoretical k n o w l e d g e and b r o a d e n i n g
the range of generality of implication, with the p r o b a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e of contributing substantially to the cumulativeness of our empirical research. =
But s e v e n years later, in 1956, Barber outlined four basic theoretical p r o b lems which he said w e r e in n e e d of resolution within sociology in general and
in the structural-functional stream of general theory in particular. 23 Clearly, for
all of his g o o d faith and g o o d intentions, Parsons' statements a b o u t the integration of theory and empirical research h a d not then b e e n fulfilled. Barber reflects that at that time Parsons w a s b e c o m i n g "the optimist a n d promoter,"
e x p e n d i n g considerable time and effort p r o m o t i n g sociology as a "truly inte-
Weame
89
90
Weame
91
o f c o r r e c t i o n . For t h e p u r p o s e o f this e x p o s i t i o n o f B a r b e r ' s t h e o r y I will disc u s s his p o s i t i v e " d o c t r i n e s " first, k e e p i n g in m i n d that this is a critical " s k e t c h , "
in the B a r b e r style, o f a p r e s e n t - d a y f u n c t i o n a l i s t w h o s e t h e o r i z i n g w a s f o r m e d
as P a r s o n s ' social s y s t e m s t h e o r y t o o k its initial d i r e c t i o n f r o m P a r s o n s . B u t
B a r b e r explicitly n o t e s that it
...is an improved alternative to Parsons's own later, more abstract, hard-to-use-empirically
version of social system theory. 43
As w e h a v e s e e n , B a r b e r e m p h a s i z e s t h e " e m p i r i c a l " f o c u s P a r s o n s e m p h a s i z e d in his 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 3 8 S o c i o l o g y 6 c o u r s e . 44 H e p r o p o s e s t h a t f a u l t y s o c i a l
s y s t e m t h e o r y c a n b e o v e r c o m e in t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y :
...a model that presupposes the following: the independence and interdependence of all its
categories; a functional or causative relationship among its categories; and the possibility of
both stability and change in the available alternatives within and among the categories. It is an
inherently provisional model, as all scientific theories and models should be. For example, in
recent years it has become apparent that the social-structural category of gender should be
added as a separate and partly independent (but not absolutized) variable. Finally, the words
"Avoid 'the fallacy of the list'" should be added to the model to signify the theoretical principle
of the equality of all the category variables; no one is theoretically to be preferred over all the
others; the variables can be listed in any order so long as they are all listed. 4s
So, B a r b e r is o p e n l y a d m i t t i n g that this is a n e x c e s s i v e l y b r i e f g e n e r a l statem e n t , a n d w e n o t e that it w a s f o r m u l a t e d to m a k e c l e a r h o w the t h e o r y o f t h e
social s y s t e m s h o u l d f u n c t i o n in the s u b - d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f s c i e n c e .
For all it's b r e v i t y it is a s t a t e m e n t that a l l o w s for t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l
criticism. It's b r e v i t y also o p e n l y invites t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l criticism.
And, as a "sketch," it also a v o i d s a n y i m p l i c a t i o n that it is s o m e h o w b e y o n d o u r
q u e s t i o n i n g or revision. As a "sketch," it is a b r i e f o u t l i n e o f b a s i c i d e a s o n a
g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l level for f u r t h e r scientific d i s c u s s i o n . In fact, as w e l o o k at it
carefully, w e n o t e that it c o u l d i n d e e d b e a " s k e t c h " o f a n y g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l
s c h e m e , a n d s o a f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n arises for clarification a n d e l a b o r a t i o n : W h a t
are the v a r i o u s g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i a l t h e o r e t i c a l s c h e m e s that B a r b e r h a s in m i n d ?
To a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n w e h a v e to realise h e is p u t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o n t h e
level o f general theoretical systems a n d , t h e r e f o r e , critically, w e s h o u l d p r o c e e d
b y a s k i n g a b o u t t h e b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s that p e r t a i n to this level. A n d B a r b e r ' s
a n s w e r is f o r t h c o m i n g :
Action, life, and matter are partly independent of one another but also considerably interdependent, although it is often extremely difficult, in any particular case or area, to find precise
and definitive empirical evidence of just how they interact with each other. 4('
O n this level, the c o n f u s i o n a b o u t the u s e o f t h e t e r m "social s y s t e m " c a n b e
clarified b y n o t i n g that:
General system of action should be used to refer to the special basic stuff, human action,
distinguishing it from those other two basic stuffs, life and matter, each of which is the focus
of a general system of theory? 7
By d e v e l o p i n g the social s y s t e m t h e o r y in this w a y , B a r b e r n o t o n l y p r o t e c t s
the t e r m "social s y s t e m " f r o m b e i n g u s e d as a n e q u i v a l e n t to "action" o n t h e
92
we can theoretically
analysis. In Barber's
was, at least in part,
than systematic, use
Sometimes he used it to refer to a total social system, a society, called in the later phase of his
work a "societal community." More often, he used it to refer to one of three subsystems of any
society or total social system, that is, social systems as against culture and personali W. This
usage became more common as his theoretical interests shifted somewhat away from the
study of social structure to the study of the two other subsystems, culture and personality. His
emphasis also shifted to what he called "the general system of action. ''48
T h i s is w h y B a r b e r c a n c o n c l u d e
ful b o o k ,
that although
T h e Social System is a w o n d e r -
Social System h a s s o u g h t t o p r o m o t e ,
Weame
93
The System C o n c e p t
If w e look back over the "excessively brief' statements Barber has given to
us concerning the w a y he defines his o w n social system theory, w e are imp r e s s e d by various things. First, there is the a s s u m p t i o n that o n e can m a k e
significant advances in theory construction by relatively brief statements. As I
have implied in various w a y s already, I think that Barber s h o u l d b e rightly
r e c o g n i z e d as a social theorist w h o has i n c o r p o r a t e d "brief summaries," or
"sketches," into his theory writing style. The other thing that is evident from
t h e s e statements is that they are as m u c h definitions of w h a t social s y s t e m
theory is not as they are positive statements of theoretical axioms.
This itself gives us cause to pause, but p e r h a p s it indicates Barber's v i e w that
theorizing must follow after reality, rather than p r e c e d i n g it in a p r i o r i a n d
dogmatic fashion. In this sense, social system theory is that theoretical orientation c o n c e r n e d with "action" that is not specifically directed to culture a n d
personality. Likewise, "action" is that dimension of reality, substance, or "stuff,"
which is neither physical nor living "stuff." It is, therefore, quite consistent to
affirm that:
The essential presupposition of social system theory is that its basic stuff is, to use what has
become a technical term, "action"; that is, the exchange of meanings and ideas in social
interaction through mutually understood symbols..."Action" is the basic stuff of the social
world in the same way that "life" is the basic stuff of the biological world and that "matter" is
the basic stuff of the physical world. All three of these basic stuffs are ontologically and
theoretically coequal...All three stuffs are partly independent of one another, and each is
partly and always interdependent with the other two .... 51
94
Theoretical Reflection
By setting forth his o w n social system theory in these terms, Barber s u c c e e d s
in linking sociology to basic questions of the p h i l o s o p h y of science. A particularly pertinent and critical m o m e n t is r e a c h e d b e c a u s e it s e e m s that the question of the nature and significance of scientific reflection is itself a c c e p t e d as an
integral part of theorizing. It is not to b e dismissed as a diversion, but since
under Barber's m o d e l there is inherentprovisionality to w h a t e v e r statements are
put forward, it is possible to see philosophical and other questions as valid and
needing to be raised as part of the same intellectual pursuit. Barber's o w n v i e w
on this is considered in his essay "On the Relations b e t w e e n P h i l o s o p h y of
Science and Sociology of Science. ''54
The alternative formulation to social system theory that Barber puts forward
involves the use of simple diagrams, but with the caveat "Avoid 'the fallacy of
the list! '''ss They have a simplicity which, in terms of his overall discussion, are
put forward to assist in the painstaking and difficult process of "constructing the
social system." They also w o u l d b e a useful point of departure in critical theoretical discussion a b o u t research m e t h o d s in any sociological research investigation. They are fornmlated as aids to discussion.
It s e e m s likely that Barber is actually formulating his argument to c o u n t e r a n y
construal of social system theory as s o m e attempt to include all k n o w l e d g e into
o n e encyclopedic whole. It is in the form of an invitation, as m u c h to scholarly
and scientific debate, as it is to all sociologists to consider the value of the
various sociological "schools." He has raised the question of the meaning and
structure of our act of theorizing and d o e s so in a w a y that suggests it is an
integral part of, rather than a peripheral diversion from, our scientific work.
There is another issue which Barber's alternative formulation can help bring
to light. It is this: The critique of functionalism t o o k off after 1951, but w h a t e v e r
targets it aimed at--alleged d o g m a s a b o u t the static character of social structure;
implicit conservatism; value absolutism; Grand Theory; or the m e r e "associating
Weame
95
Conmaentary
It is n o w well over a d e c a d e since Barber m a d e s o m e of these alternative
formulations. For him, the formulation of his o w n version was a long time in
coming. The task of constructing his o w n contribution to social system theory
m a y have b e e n developing and evolving in his thought and research since the
1930s w h e n he w a s an undergraduate. But Barber's essays are the result of a
concentrated effort by a sociologist to give a theoretically responsible a c c o u n t
of his o w n "intellectual pursuits." He seeks the insight that c o m e s from focusing
u p o n a central theoretical problem: h o w his professional w o r k has, in its o w n
w a y , b e e n c o n c e r n e d with formulating social s y s t e m theory. That task, he
wants us to understand, has o c c u p i e d his thought all these years. But it is also
clear from his late-in-career essays that he d o e s not want us to understand his
intellectual effort solely in relation to this specific theoretical demand.
This m a y b e v i e w e d as a matter of Barber's distinctive "style," but, in m y
reading at least, it indicates a d e e p l y held "doctrine" that allows him to distinguish his o w n contribution to the theory of the social system from the contributions he has made, for example, in the sociology of science. And immediately
w e m a k e this o b s e r v a t i o n w e confront, b y implication, the "doctrine," also
formulated b y Parsons in his o w n way, that making analytical distinctions is not
the same as making logical separations. As w e consider his argument, w e will
see that this implicit "doctrine" gives his w o r k a "multi-dimensional" stamp that
w e can also identify as functionalist (or neofunctionalist).
Barber's r e p e a t e d effort to give concise a n d cogent expositions o f his approach to sociology, and the theory that is implied b y that approach, b e s p e a k
an "intellectual pursuit" with m a n y different horizons in view. These are always
interrelated in the basic schema of the scientist or scholar w h o scans t h e m for
critical theoretical understanding. Barber's exposition of the multidimensional
horizon is b a l a n c e d b y a v i e w that e a c h s e p a r a t e h o r i z o n is also, to s o m e
degree, i n d e p e n d e n t of the others. T h e y require the d e m a n d i n g specialist inquiry that empirical analysis alone can give.
Barber seeks to give an account of the intellectual "stream" within w h i c h he
w a s nurtured academically and he has consciously d e v e l o p e d his o w n distinctive contribution with that in mind. But his essays also involve an invitation to
all sociologists and not simply those of any particular camp, still less his own.
He is well k n o w n for his w o r k in the sociology of science. But it can b e said,
b y w a y of generalization, that the tidal impact of W h i t e h e a d ' s "intellectual
96
Wearne
97
98
ambivalence of the pioneer w h o is simply not sure w h a t the long-term prospects are, but w h o is always seeking to define himself in terms of that temporal
horizon.
After considering Barber's alternative, w e m a y have a n e w view about Parsons' pioneering efforts. He seems to have b e e n uncertain about the status of
the roots of his latest cultivating efforts. Could it be that a d e v e l o p m e n t is about
to take place that will override all previous d e v e l o p m e n t s in a n e w constellation? W h i t e h e a d h a d specified the characteristics of such "intellectual adventure" in these terms:
Modern science has imposed on humanity the necessity of wandering. Its progressive thought
and its progressive technology make the transition through time, from generation to generation, a true migration into uncharted seas of adventure. The very benefit of wandering is that
it is dangerous and needs skills to avert evils.64
It is instructive, w h e n w e consider Bernard Barber's work, to note that his
writings do not present the reader with such a problematic vortex of interpretative uncertainty, at least not with the intensity that seems to have characterized
Parsons' "clarifications." But before giving Barber lavish praise for literary elegance, w e must observe that, unlike m a n y others w h o have been c o n f r o n t e d
by Parsons' interpretative "vortex," Barber did not shut the b o o k and turn a w a y
from the "danger." There were i n d e e d problems inherent in Parsons' formulation of social system theory, and o n e of the most difficult to negotiate must
have b e e n in the mind of the student w h o w a n t e d to take w h a t Parsons taught
or wrote with the seriousness it deserved.
O n e s u c h p r o b l e m that Barber carefully identifies is the a l l e g e d "static"
character of structural-functional theory. 65 But w h a t choice other than "static representation" does a sympathetic reader of Parsons have if, having read Parsons' view that scientific ideas are i n h e r e n t l y provisional, is t h e n p r e s e n t e d
with the theorist's "new developments" that m a k e previous formulations obsolete? It is as if Parsons asks us to retrace the previous form of Parsons' theory to
see w h y it was r e n d e r e d obsolete in the light of the alleged n e w d e v e l o p ments. This interpretative problem is not h e l p e d by Parsons' declaration that the
n e w insight w h i c h s u p e r s e d e s previous insight is extraordinarily difficult to
explain. And then Parsons himself did affirm that a n y assessment of c h a n g e
stands in n e e d of a relatively constant b a c k g r o u n d of n o n - c h a n g e 66 to w h i c h
later changes can then be related. That w o u l d s e e m to e n c o u r a g e a formulation
of Parsons' social system theory w h i c h is both static and a d hoc at the same
time.
S o m e h o w , in the m a n n e r in w h i c h Parsons c o n s t r u c t e d his a r g u m e n t , he
presented a case that m a d e it logically difficult for his readers to follow him
d o w n the analytical paths he trod. It is almost as if his intention to be scientific
had to suffice for objective scientific p r o o f that the theory had finally arrived.
And this stood in the w a y of the productive theoretical and empirical results
that his labour strongly suggested to him. Another w a y of saying this is to point
to the difficulties critics face in m o u n t i n g an authentic theoretical criticism of
social systems theory without "playing the man" in s o m e w a y or other.
Now, I am not suggesting that this nest of problems can be solved simply by
stating it. Nor is it m y view that Bernard Barber has d o n e so. But he d o e s
Weame
99
100
Conclusion
Barber's theory writing expressed his vocation. For him, theory-user-friendliness, academic-sociological-openness, and scientific-empirical-insightful-encouragement seem to have been synonyms. Hence, there is a hypothesis implicit to
this memoire that should be tested by a full assessment of Barber's academic
contribution, perhaps by a doctoral dissertation. It is this: Bernard Barber has
continued to contribute to sociological theory in the way he began (before his
doctorate was completed) a n d his was a contribution driven by a desire to encourage students to scientifically reflect upon the "paradigmatic" theory enunciated by Parsons (and Merton), how it had developed, a n d how it could be made
more fruitful. This was also a special 'field of study" which gave ongoing stimulus
to his studies in the sociology o f science and, finally, to his late-in-career exposition of his social system theory. This would have to be confirmed by a careful
study of all his works, based upon what he wrote, the accounts of those w h o
knew him, and of those who have studied his work as students and colleagues.
It would also involve analysis of the work of his students, colleagues, and
collaborators.
As a "systematic exposition," Bernard Barber's social system theory deserves
a place in the historiography of sociological theory. It may, in time, become a
definitive systematic statement, wherever the various sociological perspectives
are lined up against each other for critical comparison and contrast.
Barber's use of language has b e e n an important aspect of his clear and
clarifying contribution. But more is involved than language, although Barber's
writings are certainly always lucid. With Barber the emphasis is not upon things
becoming clearer after they have been written down, but adopting a posture
which has a keen eye for the misunderstandings his readers will e n c o u n t e r
before he begins to compose.
Barber's approach also seems to invite further reflection upon the systematic
and critical reconsideration of the encyclopaedia of the sciences. A fruitful line
of inquiry may be provided by Barber's Intellectual Pursuits w h e r e he expounds "The Concept of Culture in Social System Theory." This might also
develop some principles for the division of scientific labor and the w a y in
which the university should be organized.
Barber's "percolated" formulations make the structural functional approach
more amenable to theoretical criticism while encouraging empirical application
at a scientifically rigorous, albeit modest, level. He has t h e r e b y raised the
question of the true limits of social systems theory.
Responding to his challenge will be a major task, but it also invites a critical
historical reexamination of the way in which confusion about social system
theory was generated in the early 1950s. Barber helps us by raising questions
about how Parsons initially formulated, and then reformulated, the limits of
what he was actually then trying to construct.
Notes
1.
Bernard Barber. 1952. Science and the Social Order. New York: Free Press. On Barber's
sociology of science see material referred to in footnote 57 below. A "Complete Bibliography
Wearne
101
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
102
of the Writings of Bernard Barber 1941-1993" can be found in Barber's Constructing the
Social System Lanham: Transaction 1993.
"Beyond Parsons' Theory of the Professions" in Jeffrey Alexander (ed) Neofunctionalism
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1985); "Fact and Theory in the Work of Talcott Parsons" in S. Z
Klausner and V. M. Lidz (eds) The Nationalization of the Social Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 1986); "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science: An Essay
in Appreciation and Remembrance" in Social Studies of Science (New Brunswick: Transaction
1990) [also in Theory, Culture and Society 6 (1989): 623-35]; "Talcott Parsons on the Social
System: An Essay in Clarification and Elaboration" Sociological Theory 12 (1994): 101-105;
"Culture and Intellectual Pursuits" Chapter 2 of Intellectual Pursuits: Towards an Understanding of Culture Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield 1998; "Parsons's Second Project: The Social
System-- Sources, Development, and Limitations" in A. Javier Treviflo Talcott Parsons Today:
His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology Lanham Mass., Rowman and Littlefield
2001.
Talcott Parsons "The Prospects of Sociological Theory" in Essays in Sociological Theory New
York: The Free Press 1954, 348-369 at 349-350. (A Presidential Address read before the
American Sociological Society, New York City, December 1949 and first published American
Sociological Review 15, 1950:3-16 at 4.)
ibid 356 (8).
ibid 369 (15).
Bernard Barber "Mass Apathy" and Voluntary Social Participation in the United States Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Sociology, Harvard University 1948. Published in Series "Dissertations
in Sociology" Advisory Editors Harriet Zuckerman & Robert K Merton, Arno Press. New York
1980
Talcott Parsons and Bernard Barber "Sociology 1941-1948" American Journal of Sociology 52,
4 January 1948: 245-57.
Bernard Barber. "A Biographical Sketch of Talcott Parsons" in Talcott Parsons Essays in
Sociology: Pure and Applied. 1949. New York: Free Press, 349-352.
Bernard Barber. "Parsons's Second Project," 80. It seems that Barber was developing a
position that was distinct to both sides of the Parsons-Merton debate as that emerged at the
December 28-30 meeting of the American Sociological Society. See Talcott Parsons "The
Position of Sociological Theory" American Sociological Review 13 1948, 156-164. See also the
"Discussion" by Robert K Merton, 164-168.
Jeffrey C. Alexander. 1982-1984. Theoretical Logic In Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul (Volume 1: Positivism, Presuppositions and Current Controversies (1982); Volume 4: The
Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought--Talcott Parsons 1984).
And came to published form, with a contribution by Barber, in Jeffrey Alexander (ed). 1985.
Neofunctionalism Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1985.
Bernard Barber "Neofunctionalism and the theory of the social system" in Constructing
Social System Theory 1993, 5-27 at 26.
That does seem to characterize the intellectual path that James Coleman describes Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1990). The formulations of Coleman and the analysis of his own intellectual development
post 1937 is, of course, worthy of careful critical examination as well.
A term which Parsons, in his early critical phase, had used in relation to the voluntaristic
theory implicit in the economics of Alfred Marshall. See "Economics and Sociology: Marshall
in Relation to the Thought of His Time" in Charles Camic's edition of Talcott Parsons: the
Early Essays. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991, 69-94 at 69. This edition actually
makes serious scholarly analysis of Parsons more difficult. Apart from the new pagination
without any indication of the original Q/E pages, the initial Marshall essay "Wants and Activities in Marshall" Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (1931): 101-40, is left o u t - - a decision
based on the assumption that it was exactly the same as the chapter already in print in The
Structure of Social Action (1937), which it was not.
Talcott Parsons "The Prospects of Sociological Theory" (1950) in Essays in Sociological Theory
(Revised Edition) New York: Free Press, 1954, 348-369 at 56 (American Sociological Review
XV, 1 February 1950:1-16 at 8).
ibid 357 (8).
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Wearne
103
104