Parsons’ concept of Pattern Variable
Parsons speaks about pattern variables in his book ‘the structure of social action’. Man is a bundle of impulses but is bound by compulsions i.e., he wants to do something, but culture and norms bind him to do something else. Parsons discusses the interconnectivity between the Actor, Social structure and Cultural structure. Pattern variables talk about the successful negotiation between the three. Parsons had sought to identify the choices between alternatives that an actor confronts in a given situation and the relative premises assigned to such choices. Pattern variable is a framework through which Parsons tries to understand how the actor negotiates with the action situation and manifests a particular kind of behaviour.
Therefore, Parsons sought to identify the choices between alternatives that an actor confronts in a given situation and the relative primacies assigned to such choices. Thus he proposed the five dichotomies of pattern variables listed below (The following is taken from Modern Sociological Theory: An Introduction by M. Francis Abraham, pp. 57-59):
1. Affectivity vs. affective neutrality (The Gratification – Discipline dilemma):
The pattern is affective when an organized action system emphasizes gratification, that is, when an actor tries to avoid pain and to maximize pleasure; the pattern is affectively neutral when it imposes discipline and renouncement or deferment of some gratifications in favour of other interests. For example, soldiers are expected to ignore immediate gratification and be affectively neutral in their line of duty, even if that involves risking their lives. Similarly, unbridled expression of emotions and impulse gratifications are negatively evaluated by cultural patterns.
2. Self–orientation vs. Collectivity–orientation (The private vs. collective interest dilemma):
This dichotomy depends on social norms or shared expectations, which define the pursuit of the actor's private interests as legitimate or obligate him to act in the interests of the group. Salesmen and shopkeepers are expected to glorify their products and give ‘sales talk’ in accordance with self-orientation but the doctor is expected to tell the patient what is best for him, even if he can make extra money from an expensive operation. This dichotomy has nothing to do with ‘selfish’ or ‘altruistic’ motives which are individual character traits but with shared expectations commonly held by a collectivity.
3. Particularism vs. Uuniversalism (The choice between types of value–orientation standard):
The former refers to standards determined by an actor’s particular relations with a particular object, the latter refers to value standards that are highly generalized. A teacher is supposed to give grades to all students 'impartially9»that is» in accordance with the -same abstract, general, universal principles. But if he favours his son or a friend who happens be in the same class, he is behaving particularistically, for he is treating people differently on the basis of their particular relationship to him. To give another example: a woman on the trial jury has to be universalistic, otherwise she will be dishonest; but as a wife she has to be particularistic, otherwise she will be unfaithful.
4. Quality vs. performance (Originally designated as Ascription vs Achievement: The choice between ‘modalities’ of the social object):
This is the dilemma of according primary treatment to an object on the basis of what it is in itself, an inborn quality, or what it does, and the quality of its performance. The former involves defining people on the basis of certain attributes such as age» sex, colour, nationality, etc.; the latter defines people on the basis of their abilities. Compulsory retirement, racial discrimination and the notion of ‘caste superiority’ are based on considerations of quality. Recruitment of personnel in a modern bureaucracy based on technical qualifications and standard tests involves consideration of performance.
5. Diffuseness vs. specificity (The definition of scope of interest in the object):
This ‘is the dilemma of defining the relation borne by object to actor as indefinitely wide in scope, infinitely broad in involvement, morally obligating, and significant in pluralistic situations (diffuse- ness); or specifically limited in scope and involvement (specificity).’ The relationship between the employer and the employees in a modern factory is specific since no obligation is assumed to exist beyond what is specified in the ‘contract’. However, certain systems of land tenure such as the semi-feudal and zamindari types are supposed to involve the tenants in an infinite variety of obligations to their ‘masters’. Similarly, patterns of friendship and husband-wife relationships are supposed to involve a ‘limitless’ number of obligations.
Talcott Parsons’ concept of the pattern variable is a key element in his social action theory. It provides a framework for understanding the choices individuals and societies make in various social situations, contributing to the analysis of social systems, cultural values, and the dynamics of social change.
Post a Comment