Abstract
Social order exists to the extent that there is peaceful coexistence in the operation of social institutions. The existence of social order is a fundamental problem for sociological theory. For it is inherent in social life that the actions of one individual (or group) can facilitate or hinder those of another individual (or group). Thus in every social situation there is a latent tension as to whether one or more of the actors will in fact behave — intentionally or unintentionally — so as to facilitate or hinder the actions of another. This tension may manifest itself in a conflict between actors for control over the actions of others to ensure their co-operation in the attainment of goals determined by those who emerge successfully from that conflict. Such a conflict may lead to an unlimited struggle for domination in which all possibility of attaining other goals is lost and many scarce resources are expended. The extent to which such a latent tension is manifested depends on the particular social situation rather than on the general form assumed by the problem of order. While the contingency of order is indeed grounded ultimately in the nature of interaction itself, the particular structure of a concrete interactive situation is the immediate determinant of that contingency and the extent and manner of its realisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The major contemporary exponents of the normative functionalist approach are Talcott Parsons and Neil Smelser. Their most important works include: T. Parsons, ‘The Social System’ (London, 1951);
N. J. Smelser, ‘Social Change and the Industrial Revolution’ (London, 1959);
T. Parsons and N. J. Smelser, ‘Economy and Society’ (London, 1956).
W. C. Mitchell, ‘Sociological Analysis and Politics’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1967) pp. 193–208.
Parsons and Shils have defined social order as ‘peaceful coexistence under conditions of scarcity’; this definition is the basis of our own formulation. See T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (eds.), ‘Towards a General Theory of Action’ (New York, 1962) p. 180.
Cf. T. Parsons, ‘Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) p. 5.
It is in the most recent writings of Talcott Parsons that we find this homology thesis most fully elaborated. See, for example, T. Parsons, ‘Systems Analysis: Social Systems’, in ‘International Encylopedia of the Social Sciences’, ed. R. Sills (New York, 1968) xv 458–72; ‘Some Problems of General Theory’, in ‘Theoretical Sociology’, ed. J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (New York, 1970) pp. 26–68; and ‘Societies’, pp. 5–29.
Cf. T. Parsons, ‘An outline of the Social System’, in ‘Theories of Society’, ed. T. Parsons, E. A. Shils, K. D. Naegele, J. R. Pitts (New York, 1961), pp. 30–79, esp. p. 73.
Marvin Scott has developed a theory of the social sources of alienation from this typology. Value strain produces extreme social isolation; normative strain produces underconformity, non-involved intimacy, anomie and mistrust; mobilisation strain leads to alienation from the role and to relative deprivation; and facilities strain produces a sense of powerlessness. Scott stresses also the indeterminacy between structured strain and alienation. Ackerman and Parsons have distinguished between alienation and anomie in somewhat similar terms: alienation is focused on commitment to role occupancy while anomie concerns the adequacy of normative specification of role requirements. See M. B. Scott, ‘The Social Sources of Alienation’, in ‘The New Sociology’, ed. I. L. Horowitz (New York, 1964), pp. 239–52;
C. Ackerman and T. Parsons, ‘The Concept of “Social System” as a Theoretical Device’, in ‘Concepts, Theory and Explanation in the Behavioural Sciences’, ed. G. J. DiRenzo (New York, 1966) pp. 24–40, esp. 34–40.
Cf. the definition of social movement proposed by Joseph Gusfield — ‘socially shared activities and beliefs directed toward the demand for change in some aspect of the social order’. See J. R. Gusfield (ed.), ‘Protest, Reform, and Revolt’ (New York, 1970) p. 2; the definition is italicised in the original.
Ibid., p. 364; cf. T. Parsons, ‘On the Concept of Value Commitments’, ‘Sociological Inquiry’, xxxviii (1968) 135–60.
Cf. Parsons, ‘Sociological Theory and Modern Society’, pp. 286–93 and 337–45. Parsons’ analysis of power inflation is somewhat vague and the illustration of power deflation is actually drawn from the integrative system. An analysis similar in many ways to Parsons’ discussion, but more intelligible, is to be found in K. W. Deutsch, ‘The Nerves of Government’ (New York, 1963) pp. 120–4.
A less abstract analysis — which does not refer to coercion — is found in H. C. Bredemeier and R. M. Stephenson, ‘The Analysis of Social Systems’ (New York, 1962) pp. 387–91.
For an examination of these other aspects, see M. Black (ed.), ‘The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1961) and Mitchell, ‘Sociological Analysis and Politics’. The latter work reviews a number of Parsons’ empirical applications as well as his theoretical framework.
Cf. R. Dahrendorf, ‘Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society’ (London, 1959) and ‘Conflict after Class’ (London, 1967).
Cf. A. Gramsci, ‘The Prince and other Essays’ (New York, 1969).
The ‘New Left’ also tends to this view: see, for example, P. Anderson and R. Blackburn (eds.), ‘Towards Socialism’ (London, 1965).
Cf. Gramsci, ‘Modern Prince’, pp. 169–75; and V. I. Lenin, ‘What Is To Be Done?’ (London, 1970 ed.) pp. 80–3, 102–11, 122–39, 149, and passim. Cf. ‘Towards Socialism’, pp. 223–47.
Cf. C. W. Mills, ‘The Sociological Imagination’ (Harmondsworth, 1970) pp. 45–56.
This is also true for more recent Marxist sociology: see, for example, the contributions to P. Berger (ed.), ‘Marxism and Sociology’ (New York, 1968) esp. at pp. 40, 65–6, and 80–1;
R. Miliband, ‘The State and Capitalist Society’ (London, 1969) p. 15.
Cf. K. Marx, ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (Chicago, 1904) pp. 11–3;
K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘The German Ideology’ (New York, 1967), pp. 6–12 and passim.
On joint-stock companies and co-operatives, see K. Marx, ‘Capital’, vol. iii (London, 1962) 431.
The former resolve the antagonism between capitalists and proletariat negatively, the latter positively. For discussion, see S. Avinieri, ‘Karl Marx: Social and Political Thought’ (London, 1968) pp. 174–84;
J. A. Banks, ‘Marxist Sociology in Action’ (London, 1970) pp. 30, 166, 95–7;
T. Nichols, ‘Ownership, Control, and Ideology’ (London, 1969).
Marx-Engels, ‘German Ideology’, p. 24; F. Engels, ‘Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State’ (New York, 1942) pp. 154–8.
See particularly F. Engels, Letter to Bloch, in K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Selected Correspondence’ (Moscow, 1935) pp. 498–500.
Cf. K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘Communist Manifesto’ (London, 1948 ed.) pp. 119–35.
For a discussion of these three phenomena, see G. Lichtheim, ‘Marxism’ (London, 1964 ed.)
C. W. Mills, ‘The Marxists’ (Harmondsworth, 1963) pp. 86–90.
K. Marx and F. Engels, ‘On Britain’ (London, 1962) pp. 494–5.
Cf. M. Olson, jr., ‘The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups’ (Cambridge, Mass., 1965) passim.
Cf. V. I. Lenin, ‘The State and Revolution’, in ‘The Essential Left’ (London, 1960) p. 152.
Marx-Engels, ‘On Britain’, p. 353; cf. R. Miliband, ‘Marx and The State’, in ‘Socialist Register, 1965’, ed. R. Miliband and J. Saville (London, 1965) pp. 278–96 esp. 283–5.
Cf. Miliband, in ‘Socialist Register’, p. 287; and G. Lichtheim, ‘Marx and the Asiatic Mode of Production’, in ‘St Antony’s Papers’, xiv (1963) 86–112.
Cf. K. A. Wittfogel, ‘Oriental Despotism’ (New Haven, 1957) pp. 372–412, for an analysis of these developments.
In rejecting economism Gramsci draws on Lukacs’ emphasis on the independent role of class consciousness: see G. Lukacs, ‘History and Class Consciousness’ (London, 1970).
Cf. Gramsci, ‘Modern Prince’, passim. For commentaries on Gramsci, much of whose work is not available in English translation, see: G. Williams, ‘The Concept of “Egemonia” in the Thought of Gramsci’, in ‘Journal of the History of Ideas’, xxi (1960) 586–99;
J. Merrington, ‘Theory and Practice in Gramsci’s Marxism’, in ‘Socialist Register, 1968’, ed. R. Miliband and J. Saville (London, 1968) 145–76;
J. Cammett, ‘Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism’ (Stanford, 1967).
Cf. P. M. Blau, ‘Exchange and Power in Social Life’ (New York, 1964) pp. 2 and 12–4;
G. C. Homans, ‘Social Behaviour: its elementary forms’ (London, 1962) pp. 378–96;
W. J. Goode, ‘A Theory of Role Strain’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxv (1960) 483–96.
A. W. Gouldner, ‘The Norm of Reciprocity’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxv (1960) 161–78; Blau, ‘Exchange and Power’, pp. 92–3.
Cf. the discussion of Homans in W. G. Runciman, ‘Justice, Congruence, and Professor Homans’, in ‘European Journal of Sociology’, viii (1967) 115–28; and Homans, ‘Social Behaviour’, pp. 243–64.
Blau, ‘Exchange and Power’, pp. 279–80. Cf. S. N. Eisenstadt, ‘Institutionalisation and Change’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxix (1964) 49–59.
Wagner provides an important discussion of emergence and its significance for sociological theory construction in his article on the fallacy of displaced scope: see H. R. Wagner, ‘The Displacement of Scope’, in ‘American Journal of Sociology’, lxix (1963–4) 571–84.
Cf. R. L. Curry and L. L. Wade, ‘A Theory of Political Exchange’ (Englewood Cliffs, 1968) pp. 51–71. Elsewhere the authors develop political models of perfect competition, oligopoly and monopoly.
Cf. W. C. Mitchell, ‘The Shape of Political Theory to Come: from Political Sociology to Political Economy’, in ‘American Behavioral Scientist’, xi (1967) 8–37.
For an examination of several such models, see B. M. Barry, ‘Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy’ (London, 1969) passim; for a useful discussion of market and plan rationality, see Dahrendorf, ‘Essavs’, pp. 215–31.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1972 Robert Douglas Jessop
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jessop, B. (1972). Approaches to the Study of Order. In: Social Order, Reform and Revolution. New Perspectives in Sociology. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00967-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00967-1_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-00969-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-00967-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)