Parsons’ View on Social Systems and Culture

From Parsons’ perspective, the concept of society or the social system does not encompass culture but only includes the interactions and social organizations within it. For him, when we speak of society or the social system, we are referring only to the reciprocal actions and social organizations governing it, excluding the culture of that society. (Parsons, T. 1965)

According to structural-functionalists, the analyzable pattern of the total action system, including its internal organization, consists of five distinct structures or subsystems:

The economic structure, which ensures the functions related to production, distribution, and consumption in society.

The political structure, which guarantees not only the will to maintain social order and security but also the achievement of collective goals and planned futures through various political organizations such as the state and political parties.

The normative structure: This subsystem, through various organizations and institutions, not only preserves and protects the prevailing norms and values of society but also involves the process of either accepting or expelling an individual from society or a social group. This structure encompasses all social organizations and institutions that uphold norms, such as social classes, social groups, religions, parties, and others, as well as organizations that ensure social cohesion and socializing the members of society.

The structure of assimilation and cultural adaptation: The most important institution ensuring the cultural adaptation of individuals in society is the family. Through this subsystem, culture is perpetuated independently of the individual’s limited life and transmitted from one generation to the next. An individual’s actions in society result from the teachings imparted to them by this subsystem. This structure dictates how individuals speak and behave. While the socialization structure is imposed voluntarily, the cultural adaptation structure is involuntary and automatic. For example, a child learns their mother tongue by the age of two, and their accent becomes shaped. Throughout their life, they may learn additional languages through institutions involved in socialization, but they never forget the mother tongue and the accent formed in childhood. Cultural adaptation is an intrinsic and foundational process shaping an individual’s primary personality and behavior, whereas socialization is a surface-level, contractual, and external process determining their voluntary and rational behavior.

The educational structure: The educational structure is also one of the important subsystems of society.

These five subsystems are not independent and separate from each other; rather, they intersect, depend on, and are connected with each other. In other words, there are no clear boundaries between them, and sometimes one subsystem performs the functions or part of the functions of another subsystem. For example, the family, which is a cultural institution and an organic reproductive unit, also performs the functions of religious institutions and organizations. Similarly, a religious institution may carry out the functions of political or economic structures. Generally, the more advanced a society is, the more distinct the roles of its institutions and subsystems become, each gaining greater independence in its functions. For example, in early societies, the family undertook the functions of all societal structures. It was both the economic structure (family members worked on the farm), the political structure (the authority of tribal elders), the educational and normative structure (it was responsible for the education and training of children), and it also performed its primary function of reproduction and cultural transmission. This is similar to a unicellular organism, which by itself carries out all the functions of an organic system, including absorption, expulsion, respiration, and others.

Although the family and school, as cultural institutions, play a significant role in an individual’s education, modern society, with its complex structure, cannot continue to exist without the establishment of educational institutions. One might only imagine a social system without these institutions in primitive societies or in the wilderness.

This structure includes all institutions and organizations related to public education, such as primary and secondary education, higher education, vocational training, and the entire educational system of a society, both public and private.

There is always a continuous economic exchange between the five structures that form the subsystems of a society. Each structure provides its outputs as data to the other structures and, in return, receives the necessary data to continue its functions. This creates a constant exchange of outputs and data in a bilateral flow.

For example, the educational institution, through investments generated by the sale of its services to other structures (economy, politics, family, etc.), produces outputs consisting of skilled and educated individuals. These individuals are then integrated into the other structures as data. They receive wages and salaries, which in turn keep the family functioning. The family uses its income to purchase daily necessities from production institutions and organizations, which again reintegrates this data into the economic system to ensure continued production. Thus, we observe a continuous cycle of economic exchanges between the structures.

In other words, the educational, political, economic, and normative subsystems provide human resources, and in return, they receive goods and services (such as education, healthcare, leisure, security, etc.). For example, the educational subsystem provides the economy with skilled human resources, and the economy, in turn, provides goods and services. Similarly, the political subsystem provides managers and skilled workers, who, through their salaries and wages, obtain goods and services from the economic subsystem. All subsystems are interdependent and engaged in a continuous exchange of functions.

Exchange Tools in the Subsystems of Society

Among the five subsystems, five tools, instruments, and forces of exchange can be observed, which act as intermediaries to make exchange possible:

In the economic system, money is not only a medium for circulating goods and services but also plays a crucial role in connecting the subsystems of society. It acts as a primary and essential tool in the social system, linking different parts of the societal structure.

In the political subsystem, power is the tool used to subject the actors of a particular social system to achieve collective goals by mobilizing societal resources toward a specific purpose. Power, in this context, serves as the means of imposing order and direction within the political sphere.

In the ideological and normative cultural subsystem, the tool used is the power of persuasion or influence, aimed at attracting members from different social groups, classes, and parties. This tool serves as a means for recruitment. In a democratic society, for example, when a political party or social group gains the majority vote, it converts into the ruling power, and here, the tool of persuasion transforms into the tool of power. This distinction shows that the tool used in this subsystem should not be confused with the power of the political subsystem.

Adherence to societal values and norms serves as the tool for the structure of social cohesion and cultural integration. A family instills values in its members, expecting them to uphold these values. If the members fail to honor these commitments, the stability of the social organization is jeopardized. Through this adherence, each actor or group within society demonstrates its commitment to the social system. As a result, the stronger the community’s adherence to prevailing values, the greater the capacity of this subsystem to shape societal culture.

In advanced societies, however, the power of negative entropy is weaker, and instead, the entropy, which reflects the system’s ability to change, increases. Consequently, adherence to societal values tends to be weaker, as values continuously evolve and become fluid. This results in weaker cultural integration mechanisms in such societies, though their societal integration structures are stronger. In contrast, in traditional societies, adherence to values is stronger, and thus the system’s cultural integration capacity is more robust. In all societies, however, the structure of cultural integration exists, but its force varies.

In the educational structure, the tool of action is the certificate or diploma that an individual earns after completing formal education. In modern societies, individuals invest in education to obtain credentials that prove their qualifications for specific tasks. Once they acquire a position aligned with their education and experience, they are able to earn income. Thus, a certificate becomes a key tool in the educational structure of society.

The vast flow of interactions and exchanges between the subsystems and their interconnections ultimately shapes the dynamics of social equilibrium within the social system. In other words, the continuous stream of adaptation and self-regulation by individuals in society causes disruptions in the equilibrium process, and this dynamic balancing will ensure the system constantly adapts to the new conditions. The ongoing processes of equilibrium and disequilibrium in social systems result in a drive for change and improvement. Access to power and money—two essential tools—determines the level of collective commitments and acts as a motivator for social actors to function within the values and norms of a specific society.

This social dynamism and equilibrium-building process represents the reality of stability maintenance. Therefore, in a structural-functional analysis of systems, changes occur in two forms: long-term and short-term (or structural) changes.

According to Buckley, modern sociology tends to analyze societies and their internal communities through a structural systems approach. For example, culture, norms, values, social roles, groups, and organizations cannot be analyzed independently or outside the systemic relationships between their components. This perspective may lead us to a deterministic and static view of society.

Ultimately, Buckley’s main characteristic of a self-regulating complex system is pressure, meaning social coercion, not the law of social inertia or the spontaneous forces of equilibrium. This concept of pressure is a critical and detailed extension of Parsons’ systemic view.

This pressure emerges as soon as a gap forms between the desires of social groups and the resources available to fulfill these desires.

Studies focused on reducing this pressure can lead to fundamental and structural change. This means that when balance and homogeneity are absent in the socio-cultural system, the structure suffers from disequilibrium caused by the mismatch between desires and available resources. In advanced societies, this disequilibrium does not last long because their capacity for self-regulation and adaptability is high. In contrast, in traditional societies, this adaptation occurs at a slower pace.