Talk:Talcott Parsons

Hastily constructed

This article appears to have been hastily constructed and is in severe need of rewriting—or at the very least, an editor with a keen eye for detail.

Indeed. It looks as if someone has just dumped an entire undergraduate essay of theirs into this article. I've made some minor adjustments to the chronology of thing, tried to form a proper brief opening paragraph etc (it was about 1000 words long), but Parsons is not a theorist I specialise in. WHITE KNIGHT (preferably with a phd in social theory) URGENTLY REQUIRED!! --Tomsega (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It's strangely almost a really decent article, except that it's incredibly long and unstructured, and the use of English in the biography section, in particular, is hardly academic!!

It is not an undergrad essay. It is a hagiography of Parsons stanboy written by a retired prof of sociology who got his Phd between the 50s and 70s and is bitter that Parsons, although clearly the central figure in Post War US sociology from 50s to 70s is completely and totally ignored by the field today. Even in the lsit of people he influenced, there significance is not in applying or extending his theories, but for something else, often in disagreement with him. What empirical work came from AGIL that still stands up and g3ets referred to??? Parsons was a complete dead end.

The anti-Nazi stuff is there because he was in fact too close to that wing of the German Intelligentsia that stayed in Germany but didn't get suppressed by the Nazis. If you stayed and didn't get oppressed then the Nazis didn't view you as a threat. IF the Nazis didn't oppose you, you must have been VERY VERY conservative and right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:BD0:75CE:B7F4:1A76:291B (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Edits

I have attempted to begin the editing process, but it would be nice if someone more familiar with Parsons' work would become involved.

the guy was a prick...that much i can tell about him......his work..never clearly understood... supported feminists ideas

I really feel no inclination and it's not my field, but I agree. Also, the publications should be in order of publishing, seems to me, with the most recent at the bottom and outdated or irrelevant pubs deleted.

On 8/5/06, I added some books to the reference list, gave a fuller account of his mode of functional analysis, including the AGIL scheme, and made some minor edits. I also deleted a few statements here and there that seemed out of place for this article. More clean-up may be useful. In particular, the pattern variable description is now very limited and needs expansion if this section is to be retained.

I removed this section because it has been vandalised:

"After a year as instructor of economics at Amherst, he joined Huddersfield as an instructor of scientology in 1910. In 1931, he moved to the Department of Sociology that had been created a year earlier by Pitirim Sorokin. He initially moved up in rank only slowly, but became extremely influential after the publication of some major works, such as 'support your bartender, helping ugly people get laid.' Parsons stayed at Huddersfield and became emeritus in 1973. He died in 1979 in a freak shark related accident in a Munich aquarium."

Parsons was the opposite of a feminist. He suggested that women could only provide emotional support and socialization to children and that they must in order for society to function stay out of the labor market and stay at home and raise children and be warm and loving. In contrast, it requires a penis, er a man, to go out into the labor market, and be instrumental and practical and rational. These affective and instrumental roles can never mix, never overlap, no one can be instrumental from say 9 to 5 and then come home and be affective. Men must be emotionally dead with children and women must be emotional and never instrumental. This was his grand theory of the structure and function of the family in 1955. Notably, 1955 was the low point for women's participation in the labor force for the 20th century, women were more active in 20s, went down during great depression, rose in the 1940s due to the war, collapsed in mass wave of sexist job discrimination late 1945-46, and didn't really start rising again until early 1960s. For a culturalist Parsons totally missed the modernization of the US culture across the 1960s and 70s, those changes in the real world were basically impossible, they were contrary to the structure and function of society. Functionalism is basically a tautology. For Parsons, and colleagues who followed him. If X exists in the mainstream of a culture, it therefore must be necessary for the smooth and orderly functioning of society. Society can not and does not change, it only continues to exist in the static status quo that exists. Parsons, Bales, Davis and Moore claimed that stratification of wealth and income was a matter of rewards to keep high skill labor in place doing those essential high skill labor tasks. This was not a partial theory of stratification explaining some high skill jobs and the premium they get in the labor market, not this was a general theory of stratification..... At a time when there were still open "quotas" limiting the number of Jews who could attend Harvard (where Parsons taught) at a given time, at a time when the US was still openly and legally an apartheid regime with 1st and 2nd class citizen status being upheld in the law, courts etc. Parsons was anti-feminist. and far from an anti-racist. His and other structural functionalists' scholarship was a matter of writing up alibis for whatever the mainstream status qou was in the late 1940s and early 1950s, period. This is why Parsons is irrelevant to social science today. It is an embarrassing case of dogma, and neither empirically viable or even an interesting set of ideas (like some philosophy).

Parsons' Translation of Weber

One of my mentors alleges that Parsons' translations of Weber were flawed. As I am not fluent in German I cannot confirm or deny these charges? If there is merit to said accusations, however, they should be noted in the article. What does it say about Parsons and structural-functionalism if Parsons misinterpreted Weber (either intentionally or out of ignorance) and then went on to publish some of his key works according to his own falty translations. Again, however, I am not making such accusations but merely relaying them to fellow inquirers. Can someone who either (1) has read multiple translated versions of Weber, or (2) is fluent in German, comment on the validity of the Parsons translation? M. Frederick 08:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only reading this now, one and a half year on, but it's certainly interesting enough to warrant a response. The problem is that your statement is terribly unspecific. I think nobody is prepared to go through hundreds of pages to hunt down mistakes. We would need more hints as to what exactly is supposed to be "flawed" and what misinterpretations these flaws have resulted in. And even if it turns out your mentor is right, noting this in the article would violate WP:NOR unless your mentor has published his concerns in any citeable form. --Thorsten1 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were flawed. I'll add this material now. The canonical flaw is Talcott's translation of the German word stahlhartes Gehäuse. Talcott translates as "steel cage", but a better translation is "steel cloak." Apparently, some prefer "shell hard as steel" but it's terribly unpoetic, and in all my years as a practicing sociologist the preferred phrase has always been "steel cloak". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:37E0:5FF0:7CE6:81FD:7175:7E22 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I've merely linked Iron cage and Protestant Ethic in the translations section, and these details are provided on those pages. I felt this was simplest but may not be unreasonable to repeat some of the story on this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:37E0:5FF0:7CE6:81FD:7175:7E22 (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism 11/8/2007

I'm really not sure why this page would attract vandalism, but it certainly has. See the following passage of the article, which I'm not sure what to do with (breakdancing and hip-hop rapping - apparently an insult for the vandal...?):

"Parsons contributed to the field of breakdancing and hip-hop rapping. He divided evolution into four subprocesses: 1) differentiation, which creates functional subsystems of the main system, as discussed above; 2) adaptation, where those systems evolve into more efficient versions; 3) inclusion of elements previously excluded from the given systems; and 4) generalization of values, increasing the legitimization of the ever-more complex system."

I've reverted to the version immediately before this strangely random vandalism. Fixifex 18:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is itself an act of intellectual vandalism. It is really a hagiography of Parsons and not reflective at all of what contemporary sociology, or other social science thinks of Parsons or his structural functionalist theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:BD0:75CE:B7F4:1A76:291B (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Further reading section removed

I removed the following list of publications about the work of Parsons. Such a list has little added value here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Middle Names

What was the source for the middle names? His family is unaware of any middle names, and the family genealogy does not list any middle names. (I'm his grandson, and his daughter is in the room as I type). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauwhe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Further readings

• Alexander, J.C. 1982. Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Vol. I. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Alexander, J.C. 1984. “The Parsons revival in German sociology”, Pp. 394-412 in R. Collins (ed.). Sociological Theory 1984. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Brownstein, L. 1982. "Talcott Parsons' General Action Scheme: An Introduction to Fundamental Principles". Boston: Schenkman Press.79.74.39.14 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Cohen, I.J. 1996. “Theories of Action and Praxis”, Pp. 111-142 in B.S. Turner (ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Connell, R.W. 1997. “Why Is Classical Theory Classical?” American Journal of Sociology 102:1511-1557.
• Fararo, Thomas J. 2001. Social Action Systems: Foundation and Synthesis in Sociological Theory. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Grathoff R. (ed.). 1978. The Theory of Social Action: The correspondence of Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. "Theory of Communicative Action". Beacon Press. (Second Volume)
• Hamilton, Peter. 1983 Readings from Talcott Parsons. London: Tavistock Publications. 33-55.
• Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 1995. Sociology: Themes & Perspectives. London: Collins Educational.
• Lackey, Pat N. 1987 Invitation to Talcott Parsons’ Theory. Houston: Cap and Gown Press. 3-15.
• Levine, Donald N. 1991. “Simmel and Parsons Reconsidered.” American Journal of Sociology 96:1097-1116.
• Luhmann, Niklas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Mills, C, Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press.
• Parsons, Talcott. [1937] 1967. Structure of Social Action: Vol. II. Free Press.
• Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Free Press.
• Perdue, William D. 1986. Sociological Theory: Explanation, Paradigm, and Ideology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 112-119.
• Rocher, Guy. 1975. Talcott Parsons and American Sociology. New York: Barnes & Nobles.
• Sewell, W.H. Jr. 1992 “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1-29.
• Turner, Jonathan H. 1998. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Cincinnati, OH: Wadsworth.
• Wallace, Walter L. 1969 Sociological Theory: An introduction. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
• Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. Free Press.
• Zeuner, Lilli 2001. “Social Concepts between Construction and Revision.” Danish National Institute for Social Research. Copenhagen.

Image Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons

User:Thorsten1 has recently removed the image of Talcott Parsons from his article, with the argument:

"remove image - no image at all is still better than this. The colors are hurting people's eyes and it's not even very similar."

I think this is unacceptable. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that it's a dreadfully unaesthetic image, what bothers me is that, despite it being from the Commons, it is missing pertinent source information and may therefore be a copyright infringement. Judging from the uploader's talk page, they had a history of uploading images without specific author/copyright info and numerous of them have been deleted. For now, I've tagged it as having no source; if nothing is added, it may be subject to deletion. María (habla conmigo) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the copyright issue is troubling - I added an infobox with a free use photo. Marcel - what do you think? --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

@Maria. Dreadfully unaesthetic is just a matter of taste, and is not a good reason. We can't just eliminate all expressionistic art. The missing source information is another thing, we do should look into. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware that it is merely a matter of (my) taste, Mdd, but nowhere did I say that it should be removed from the article for that reason. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is never a good argument. I agreed with Thorsten1's sentiment that it's ugly, but I do not feel the image should be used because of suspected copyright infringement. Follow? María (habla conmigo) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree this image is quite ugly, but it certainly also has it's charm. Especially if you see the two, drawing and picture, together, you can see the artists clearly created a more "depressed" Parsons figure. There can only be a copyright infringement, if you have an image which the same expression, which is far from clear. But... at the moment both the artists and the background data of the drawing is unclear... and that is to bad. The only positive point is, that we will soon be allowed to use the fair use image, Jiuguang Wang uploaded. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the source information... which probably only got lost, because it was moved incorrectly. The artist is Japanese and has made a series of similar portrets, see here. So this point is off the table..!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics

@Marcel, would you care to explain what exactly is "unacceptable" about removing an amateurish sketch which a) isn't similar to the person it's supposed to portray, b) is "dreadfully unaesthetic", as María put it, and c) is missing source information? Just so that I understand. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC) PS: "We can't just eliminate all expressionistic art. " First, I don't think this sketch qualifies as Expressionism. Even if it did, the question is, do we need any such "expressionistic art" in a biography of a sociologist? You are right of course, that this is also a matter of taste. But including this silly work of "art" is as much a matter of taste as removing it, so "just a matter of taste" isn't a valid argument. --Thorsten1 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you suddenly an art expert? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not suddenly, no. However, it doesn't take an art expert to decide that this isn't expressionism. At best, I would call it naïve art minus any talent. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be universal dislike for this "artist"'s work; it would seem that quite a few of those images are ridiculed and removed from the articles with assessments similar to Thorsten's: 1. "Is there a reason that a pathetic cartoonish looking picture is used instead of an photo that can be freely used or no picture at all?", 2. "The illustration for this article is hideous and looks like it was drawn by a nine year-old.", 3. "even nothing is better than this...", 4. "The article had a terribly ugly picture of Amitai Etzioni. The picture seems to have been drawn by one of the editors in Paint (software). I am interested in reasons as to why it should be included."... I can go on. María (habla conmigo) 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Universal dislike? At the moment the image:Talcott_Parsons.jpg is used on 32 pages in 22 projects:

• en.wikipedia.org: - used on 6 pages [+]:
• fr.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• pl.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• ja.wikipedia.org: - used on 3 pages [+] : タルコット・パーソンズ, User:キヨンネ, User talk:キヨンネ
• it.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• nl.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• pt.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• es.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• ru.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Парсонс, Толкотт
• sv.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• no.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• ca.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• tr.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• cs.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• sk.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• hr.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• nn.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• el.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Τάλκοτ Πάρσονς
• simple.wikipedia.org: - used on 1 pages [+] : Talcott Parsons
• de.wikibooks.org: - used on 2 pages [+] : Soziologische Klassiker/ Parsons, Talcott, Talk:Soziologische Klassiker/ Parsons, Talcott, de.labs.wikimedia.org:

It seems to me that there is some personal dislike. And every time a person feels like it, it deletes an image. Nice going. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you dividing the discussion and subsequently altering other people's comments? I would like for my replies to remain as I wrote them, just my personal taste. As for its widespread use, some may be under the opinion that a poor image is better than none, but as I listed above, others obviously do not feel this way. It's a polarizing issue, but seeing as how the image has been replaced in the article, I fail to see why we're still discussing this. María (habla conmigo) 02:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I alterted your comment back. I agree that this is a polarizing subject.. and I agree there is little use to discuss this subject some more here. In the Dutch Wikipedia we have a special "Village pump" for images, but here I don't know (yet)... It still isn't right that a free image is replaced by a fair use image.... but I can live with that. Thanks for your comment. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

All the above list proves is that there is someone who keeps putting in these works of art. Big deal. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use

@Jiuguang Wang. It's not a "free use photo", but a "Non-free / fair use media" you now have added as a replacement. The rules here are, as far as I know, that all "fair use media" should be replaced with "GNU Free Documentation license media", when even possible. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

@Marcel. Sorry, that was a typo - I meant fair use. My take is that an infobox such as this usually takes photos, and regardless of the outcome on the expressionism argument, no free photos are available, hence the rationale for the use of this particular photo is valid. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that it's about images: photo's and drawing.

I think formally at the moment, we are not allowed to use a fair use image, because the drawing is available. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not if the drawing is an amateur effort, which itself has copyright problems. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The images of this artist are in Wikipedia/wikimedia for 2 years now in at least two dozend projects/languages. And suddenly they are "amateur effort, which itself has copyright problems" because you say so? Forget it. WP:OI tells me those images should be have long be proposed for deletion if there was any problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"The images of this artist are in Wikipedia/wikimedia for 2 years now in at least two dozend projects/languages. And suddenly they are "amateur effort, which itself has copyright problems" because you say so?" I remember that I myself removed them from Niklas Luhmann and Immanuel Wallerstein, and that was about two years ago. So this is hardly a new problem. If you think that these awkward Paintbrush experiments have "charm", as you said above, why don't you put them on your user page? In the article namespace, they only serve to deface otherwise OK articles. And yes, I know that this is a purely aesthetical point. But so is yours. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The work of Simon fieldhouse

After a discussion at the Visual Arts Project talk page, the concensus was against using a similar set of amateur(ish) images worked up from photos, on a combination of arguments - copyright concerns (re the original photo), aesthetics, authenticity, and conflict of interest. Similar arguments would apply here, I believe. Johnbod (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to this kind of work of Simon Fieldhouse, here. I noticed his work on Harold Ross and Dorothy Parker are still in place. It is not as black and white and similar as you say...!?

I think works like this should be looked at individually. There are no general rules against portrait drawings I know of? There do however seems to be some individuals with high problems with these kind of works. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can be bothered to find a free photo, or do a free-use rationale, they should be replaced imho. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are saying: All drawings should be replaced by a free or fair use photo ...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying all fair use photos should be replaced by drawings, no matter how primitive and ugly?! --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Family history removed

I removed the following a new section about the history of the Parson family. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The father would later become the president of Marietta College in Ohio. Parsons' father Edward Smith Parsons was educated at Amherst (BA 1883) and studied theology at Yale, where he got his BD in 1887. He was ordained in 1888. After graduating from Yale Edward moved to Greeley in Colorado, where he served as a priest of the First Congregational Church. In 1982, Edward joined the faculty of Colorado College (founded in 1874) where he became known as an expert in the work of John Milton (1608-1647) who was a driving force in the English Puritan revolution. Edward S. Parsons was a liberal in both theological and socio-political issues. He generally was a strong supporter of liberal theology and accepted the new wave of historical Bible criticism. In this and in other ways, he was generally a proponent of the progressiv spirit of the age yet still deeply embedded in his Puritanist-Calvinist beliefs. During his years in Greeley he had become intellectually committed to the social gospel movement and had read basically all of its main works including the work of Josiah Strong, Washinton Gladden, Charles Kinsley, Walter Rauschenbusch, Francis G. Peabody and Shailer Mathews among others. Parsons' father was born in Brooklyn in 1863, the son of Charles Henry Parsons (1826-1905) and Rosetta Smith Parsons (1826-1899), Talcott Parsons' grandparents. Charles Henry, the grandfather, was involved in various manufactory and commercial activities, including manufacturing of salt bags, especially for the use in the booming shiping business and he established a firm in New York by the name of C.H. Parsons & Co; this company was primarily a family business involving his brother Samuel and his father (and Talcott Parsons' great-grandfather) Captain Jotham Parsons (1783-1860). Parsons' family is one of the oldest families in American history; his ancestors were some of the first who arrive from England in the first half of the seventeenth century. (See also Joan Parsons Wang (Parsons' granddaughter) Captain Jotham Parsons (1783-1860): A Genealogical Biography. The estate of Joan Parsons Wang, 2001). Parsons family heritage is divided into two separate genealogical Parsons-lines; one on the mother Mary Augusta Ingersoll's side and another on the father, Edward Smith Parsons, side. The one of the mothers side, the Ingersoll side, branches back to Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) (the key theological figure in "the Great Awakening" (1735-1744)). Johathan Edwards had many daughters and the oldest Sarah married Elihu Parsons on June 11, 1750. From Elihu Parsons the Parsons lines go back and includes some of the key actors in American Colonial history's earliest period but especially Cornet Joseph Parsons (1620-1683) who was one of the orginal key founders of Springfield (1636) and Northampton (1655). He had arrived in America in 1635 on the ship "Transport." Cornet Joseph Parsons married Mary Bliss (c1628-1712), who twice was accused of being a witch and submitted to witch-trails. The couple got 13 children. Cornet Joseph Parsons was born in June 1620 and baptized in Beaminster, Dorset, England, which was a puritan stronghold at the time (and which rallied for Cromwell in the English civil war). Cornet Jospeh Parsons was the son of William Parsons (1570-1653) and Margaret Hoskins (1584-1655) and the Parsons family history in this area of England can be traced back to approximately 1530. On the fathers line of the Parsons family tree, the family can be traced back to John Parsons (1650-1692) who according to one source was born on August 14, 1650 in Springfield, Hampden, MA but who lived most of his life in the settlement of York in Maine. On March 12, 1677 (1678?), the city of York, Maine granted John 12 acres on the condition that he would buy the shomakers house and follow his trade. John Parsons married Elizabeth Hutchins (1655-1720) and the couple got 8 children. John Parsons was killed in the Candlemas Massacre of 1692 and three of his children (the 15 years old John, the 8 years old Rachel and the 2 years old Mercy) was taken captive by the Indians and forced on a 400 miles long march through the cold winter landscape into Canada, where they were sold to the French.

References

Comment

If this section proves notable enough it should be a separate article. It is (as far as I know) not done in Wikipedia to add the family history in so much details. -- 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• This must have been re-aded as family history was again deleted today, by an IP editor.[1] the previous poster is correct that WP bios don't usually dwell on heritage or distant relatives. Even close relatives may go unmentioned. As part of the effort to bring this article into trim, I think the deletion is wise.   Will Beback  talk  08:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I removed it, given this valid reason (see above). Now today just a summary was deleted which I restored. I think the current family history is not overdone and is a god introduction here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it relevant to his notability? Isn't it better to focus on the subject than his ancestors? Do you disgree that the article is hard to digest? (See below.)   Will Beback  talk  09:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In compare to the family history I removed (in March 2009, see above), the current Family's heritage is sort of limited to his fathers career. I personally think this is (or might be) acceptable, and interesting because it put's his childhood in perspective. I would be nice though, to read something more about his actual youth.

Now I agree this article is hard to digest, and (me) adding subtitles only partially improved it. I am not sure what to do about this. Maybe the anomynous editor(s) should join us here in the discussion. I allready proposed to move the whole article to Wikibooks and keep a summary here. What do you think? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wikibooks, but if that's acceptable over there then that might be a solution which would preserve the work done on this long biography while getting a more easily readable bio for Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel conformatble deciding this on my own. I am not sure how to proceed. And if we move it, were do we get the more easily readable bio for Wikipedia? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Action theory

It's a little odd that here Parsons' primary accomplishment is stated as developing action theory, yet the article on that subject, including a long list of "Scholars of action theory," fails to include him. Lacking the relevant expertise myself, can someone explain the discrepancy? Sestibel (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Structural functionalism, a paradigm attributed to Parsons in that article, is not even mentioned here! Sestibel (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created (or rather spliced) an opening paragraph which (1) mentions he was a functionalist, and (2) acknowledges the fact 'social action' leads to a philosophy page which has no real bearing on Parsons own use of the term by NOT TAGGING those words!! --Tomsega (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Convoluted and difficult article

This article is really convoluted and impenetrable, almost to the extent you'd think it's trying to be. Obfuscation is not the aim of wikipedia or social science (well, except maybe for Derrida and Baudrillard...). We require flowing, economic prose, not a dumped undergraduate essay. Overall, there's a lot of decent information in here, but the implimentation is appalling. --Tomsega (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should move most of it to wikibooks and keep a short and clear article here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to it. To be fair, it'd be possible just to flick through and delete one in three paragraphs entirely, it's all tmi. --Tomsega (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, from what I read the text seems very well written, full of interesting details, and very well referenced. I guess my main problem here is that the whole text reads like an essay, which (I think) is difficult to read online. FTwo points:

• The chapters are much to long. For example the bio of Albert Einstein consists of multiple short subchapters, which I think could work here as well
• I have serious doubts about the stucture. With longer biographies there are (at least) two structures possible
  • One kind of chronological story like the article of Einstein
  • A separation between life and work such as for example in the Béla H. Bánáthy
  • In both cases the articles heading should give a summary of the whole

I think a choice has to be made to make it all chronological or make introduce that division in life and work.

I don't think the removal of whole sections such as about "Systems theory and cybernetics" see here, or about "The Structure of Social Action", see here really is a solution here. I would propose to restructure the whole article, starting with the introduce a set of subtitles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just to explore the possibilities I made a start adding subtitles, see here. Doing so made me realise the current article is really a collection of numerous stories. I do think it would be better if the original author(s) of the article would make the changes themself(s).

I implemented a (first) series of subtitles, as I suggested. I personally think this is an improvement (although thing can be improved here), and I hope other editors here share my opinion...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just re-added the second of the two texts previously removed (about "Systems theory and cybernetics" and "The Structure of Social Action"). As I decleared in my last comment, I oppose the removal of text elements of an article, when they are well written en well sourced. I do approve (like I did with the family history) that certain parts are moved to the talkpage, were a discussion get start why this particular part should/or should not be removed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:AdornoHorkheimerHabermasbyJeremyJShapiro2.png

The description reads:

"Photograph taken in April 1964 by Jeremy J. Shapiro at the Max Weber-Soziologentag. Horkheimer is front left, Adorno front right, and Habermas is in the background, right, running his hand through his hair."

It would be interesting to know who the remaining depicted persons are.

Among the other participants of the conference on Max Weber in Heidelberg April 1964 of who I've read were Herbert Marcuse, Ernst Topitsch, Raymond Aron, Talcott Parsons, Reinhard Bendix and Benjamin Nelson (Sociologist.

My guess is that Talcott Parsons is the man on the left, covered halfway by Horkheimer, while Reinhard Bendix is the man talking with Habermas with his back to the camera, covered halfway by Adorno.

Does anyone know more? --Schwalker (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The man on the left is definitely not Talcott Parsons, whom I saw more than once in person. Shotoffashovel (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Article size issues

This article is very long - at 159KB, it's well over the recommended maximum length for an article, making it difficult to read and edit. Are there any sections that could be split off into separate articles, per Summary style? Robofish (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to pull a huge amount out of the summary of his thinking... there's currently so much that it goes through decade by decade. It's ironic that this article suffers from the same problem that Parsons suffered from, being excessively long and dense. I'm fairly biased against Parsons so I'll leave it to someone else to decide what should be cut... I'm going to go read some C. Wright Mills instead :D 203.217.150.68 (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly too long -- it is, in fact, (looking at a dump from a month ago) the longest article about a person on wikipedia Mynameisntbob1 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critiques of Parsons' theories

This article gives the sense that nobody has ever critiqued any of Parsons' work? Does anyone know of any critiques? Should a section on criticism be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.41.102.207 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Parsons is an embarrassment to sociology today. His impact is nil, or negative. No one in the field under 50 even knows his theory anymore. I got my Phd in the 1990s and in our theory classes the Prof. spent 20 minutes talking about why he was wrong, we didn't even hvae to read the inpenetratable nonsense that the man wrote for the class. I'm a theory head and read it on my own, but it was not assigned reading in either my MA or Phd level theory classes. But from the 50s to 70s Parsons and his terrible theory were considered the center of the field of sociology. Notably, there is no body of either theory or research that claims him as a founding figure today. Structural Functional is considered an embarrasment, word salad and tautology alibi's for whatever the established status qou of the 1950s was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:BD0:75CE:B7F4:1A76:291B (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

parody of academic prose

Parsons' action theory can be characterized as an attempt to maintain the scientific rigour of positivism, while acknowledging the necessity of the "subjective dimension" of human action incorporated in hermeneutic types of sociological theories. It is cardinal in Parsons' general theoretical and methodological view that human action must be understood in conjunction with the motivational component of the human act. In this way social science must consider the question of ends, purpose and ideals in its analysis of human action

I mean, am i the only one thinks this is awfull ? also, theintor sucks; no way it is at the right level for a general encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.10.169 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Parsons on instrumental action

I describe the contribution of The Structure of Social Action to the meaning of instrumental action in Instrumental and value-rational action. I welcome comments.TBR-qed (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

But Parsons contributed nothing of his own here, he is a Weber cover band - nothing added, nothing original, one of those cover bands that tries to exactly replicate the original, not a cover that changes the arrangement to bring something new and different to the songs. IF anything Parsons is a much worse writer than Weber was and Parsons thought constructing models of hollow abstract definitions was "theory building" instead what it really is - is semantic onanism. This is why literally no one of importance in the field today claims Parsons as an influence. They will claim Weber or Durkheim, but not Parsons, there is no there there in Parsons worth being influenced by. The book is just barely in the top 500! books in the area of SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY (which it is supposed to be Parsons Magnum Opus and major contribution to the field of Sociological THeory - and itis the 483 most popular book iin that area at Amazon. No one reads Parsons anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:BD0:75CE:B7F4:1A76:291B (talk) 06:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Something's missing, a little je ne sais quoi...

I came to this article for a quick refresher about what I should remember about Taclott Parsons from undergrad and I wasn't able to quickly glean that from the lead or the rest of the article, so I feel like something key is missing or that the wording needs to be adjusted, but I can't put my finger on it. Right now, the first paragraph says: "Talcott Parsons (December 13, 1902 – May 8, 1979) was an American sociologist who served on the faculty ofHarvard University from 1927 to 1973." If we were making notecards of prominent sociologists to study for the Soc 101 final, what would the other side of Talcott Parsons' notecard have said? It wouldn't have been that he was on the Harvard faculty. Maybe it would have said "Structural functionalism", but I'm doubting myself because of the way that's currently addressed in the lead, both the wording and its placement towards the end: "Although he was generally considered a major structuralist functionalist scholar, in an article late in life, Parsons explicitly wrote that the term "functional" or "structural functionalist" were inappropriate ways to describe the character of his theory." IMO the first paragraph should say something like:

"Talcott Parsons (December 13, 1902 – May 8, 1979) was an American sociologist known for XYZ. He served on the faculty of Harvard University from 1927 to 1973."

But I'm not confident I remember what XYZ is. Any ideas? —PermStrump(talk) 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. It was structural functionalist. The article is a worshipful hagiography written by a Parsons stanboy. The term structural functionalism is sparse in the article because it is so discredited, but it is/was Parson's major contribution to the field - a long winded, totally hollow abstraction of mutually influencing tautologies - that is the sum total of what SF is/was and is known as - hence no one uses Parsons today or cites him as an influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:BD0:75CE:B7F4:1A76:291B (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talcott Parsons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081023230720/http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/talcott-parsons-1902-1979 to http://www.bolenderinitiatives.com/sociology/talcott-parsons-1902-1979

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)