The action frame of reference and the general theory of action systems 7

reactions of alter, a conditional standard comes to be set up of what conditions will and
what will not call forth the “gratifying” reactions, and the relation between these
conditions and the reactions becomes as such part of the meaning system of ego’s
orientation to the situation. The orientation to a normative order, and the mutual
interlocking of expectations and sanctions which will be fundamental to our anal-ysis of
social systems is rooted, therefore, in the deepest fundamentals of the action frame of
reference.
This fundamental relationship is also common to all types and modes of interactional
orientation. But nevertheless it is important to work out certain differentiations in terms
of the relative primacies of the three modal elements, the cathectic, the cognitive and the
evaluative, which have been outlined above. An element of a shared symbolic system
which serves as a criterion or standard for selection among the alternatives of orientation
which are intrinsically open in a situation may be called a value.
In one sense “motivation” consists in orientation to improvement of the gratification-
deprivation balance of the actor. But since action without cognitive and evaluative
components in its orientation is inconceivable within the action frame of reference, the
term motivation will here be used to include all three aspects, not only the cathectic. But
from this motivational orientation aspect of the totality of action it is, in view of the role
of symbolic systems, necessary to distinguish a “value-orientation” aspect. This aspect
concerns, not the meaning of the expected state of affairs to the actor in terms of his
gratification-deprivation balance but the content of the selective standards themselves.
The concept of value-orientations in this sense is thus the logical device for formulating
one central aspect of the articulation of cultural traditions into the action system.
It follows from the derivation of normative orientation and the role of values in action
as stated above, that all values involve what may be called a social reference. In so far as
they are cultural rather than purely personal they are in fact shared. Even if idiosyncratic
to the individual they are still by virtue of the circumstances of their genesis, defined in
relation to a shared cultural tradition; their idiosyncrasies consist in specifiable departures
from the shared tradition and are dcfined in this way.
However, along with this social reference, value standards may also be differentiated
in terms of their functional relations to the action of the individual. The social reference
implies, from the motivational side, an evaluative significance for all value standards. But
still the primary relevance of a standard may be to cognitive definitions of the situation,
to cathectic “expressions” or to the inte-gration of the action system as a system or of
some part of it. Hence on the value-orientation side we may repeat the three-fold
classification of “modes” of orientation as cognitive standards, appreciative standards
and moral standards of value-orientation.
A word of explanation of these terms is in order. The classification, as noted,
corresponds to that of the modes of motivational orientation. In the cognitive case there is
not much difficulty. On the motivational side the concern is with the cognitive interest in
the situation and its objects, the motivation to define the situation cognitively. On the
value-orientation side, on the other hand, concern is with the standards by which the
validity of cognitive judgments is assessed. Some of these, like the most elementary
standards of logic or correctness of observation may be cultural universals, while other
elements are culturally variable. In any case it is a matter of selective evaluation, of
 The social system 8

standards of preference between alternative solutions of cognitive problems, or

alternative interpretations of phenomena and objects.
The normative aspect of cognitive orientation is readily taken for granted. In the case
of cathexes this is not so obvious. There is of course a sense in which the actor’s relation
to an object just is or is not gratifying in a given way. But it must not be forgotten that
gratification takes place as part of an action system where actors are in general
normatively oriented. It is out or the question that this one aspect should be exempted
from the relevance of normative standards of valuation. There is always a question of the
rightness and the propriety of the orientation in this respect, in terms of choice of object,
and of attitude toward the object. This, therefore, also involves standards by which
selections among the possibilities of cathectic significance can be made.
Finally the evaluative aspect of motivational orientation also has its value-orientation
counterpart. Evaluation is concerned with the problem of integrating the elements of an
action system, fundamentally the “you can’t eat your cake and have it” problem. Both
cognitive and appreciative value standards are of course relevant to this. But every act
has both cognitive and cathectic aspects. A primacy of cognitive interests, therefore, still
leaves the problem of integrating the concrete action in terms of the relevance of
cathectic interests and vice versa. There must, therefore, in an action system, be a
paramount focus of evaluative standards which are neither cognitive as such nor
appreciative as such, but involve a synthesis of both aspects. It has seemed appropriate to
call these moral standards. In a sense they constitute the standards in terms of which more
particular evaluations are themselves evaluated.
It should also be clear from the general character of action systems that moral
standards in this sense have peculiarly a social relevance. This is because every action
system, concretely is in one aspect a social system, even though the focus on personality
is very important for certain purposes. The moral reference is by no means exclusively
social, but without the social reference it is impossible to conceive a concrete action
system as integrated in an overall sense. In particular from the point of view of any given
actor, the definition of the patterns of mutual rights and obligations, and of the standards
goveming them in his interaction with others, is a crucial aspect of his general orientation
to his situation. Because of this special relevance to the social system, moral standards
become that aspect of value-orientation which is of greatest direct importance to the
sociologist. We shall have much to say about them in the chapters which follow.
Though there is a direct parallel between this classification of value-orientation
patterns and the classification of motivational orientations it is very important to be clear
that these two basic aspects, or components of the action system are logically
independent, not in the sense that both are not essential, but in the sense that the content
under the two classifications may be independently variable. From the fact of a given
“psychological” cathectic significance of an object one cannot infer the specific
appreciative standards according to which the object is evaluated or vice versa. The
classification of the modes of motivational orientation provides essentially a framework
for analyzing the “problems” in which the actor has an “interest.” Value-orientation, on
the other hand, provides the standards of what constitute satisfactory “solutions” of these
problems. The clear recognition of the independent variability of these two basic modes
or levels of orientation is at the very basis of a satisfactory theory in the field of “culture
and personality.” Indeed it can be said that failure to recognize this independent