toys in the attic:
ideological furnishings for the homeless mind


daurril library:  talcott parsons

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION

 

Contents:

 

THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOCIETAL COMMUNITY

THE EDUCATIONAL REVOLUTION AND THE CONTEMPORARY PHASE OF MODERNIZATION

THE INCREASING DIFFERENTIATION OF THE P-M SUBSYSTEM FROM THE SOCIETAL COMMUNITY

THE INCREASING DIFFERENTIATION OF THE POLITY FROM THE SOCIETAL COMMUNITY

THE INCREASING DIFFERENTIATION OF THE ECONOMY FROM THE SOCIETAL COMMUNITY

CONCLUSION

 

            The industrial and democratic revolutions were transformations by which the institutional bulwarks of the early modern system were weakened.  European monarchies survived only when they became constitutional.  Aristocracy still twitches but mostly in the informal aspects of stratification systems – nowhere is it structurally central.  There are still established churches, but only on the less modern peripheries like Spain and Portugal is there restriction on religious freedom.  The trend is toward the separation of church and state and denominational pluralism (except for the Communist countries).  The industrial revolution shifted economic organization for agriculture and the commerce and handicrafts and commerce of small urban communities; it also extended markets. 

 

            The emergence of full modernity thus weakened the ascriptive framework of monarchy, aristocracy, established churches, and an economy circumscribed by kinship and localism to the point where ascription no longer exercises decisive influence.  Modern components had already developed by the eighteenth century, particularly a  universalistic legal system and secular culture, which had been diffused through Western society by the Enlightenment.  Further developments in the political aspects of societal community emphasized the associational principle, nationalism, citizenship, and representative government.  In the economy differentiated markets developed for the factors of production, primarily labor.  Occupational services were increasingly performed in employing organizations structurally differentiated from households.  New patterns of effectively organizing specific functions arose, especially administration (centering in government and the military) and the new economy.  The democratic revolution stimulated efficient administration, the industrial revolution the new economy.  Weber saw that in a later phase the two tend to fuse in the bureaucratization of the capitalist economy.1 

 

183 THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION

 

            The modern structural pattern crystallized in the northwest corner of Europe, and a secondary pattern subsequently emerged in the northeast corner, centering in Prussia.  A parallel development took place in the second phase of modernization.  The United States, the "first new nation," has come to play a role comparable to that of England in the seventeenth century.2  America was ripe for the democratic and industrial revolutions and for combining them more intimately than had been possible in Europe.  By the time of Tocqueville's visit, a synthesis of the French and English revolutions had been achieved: The United States was as democratic a society as all but the extreme wing of the French Revolution had wished for, and its level of industrialization was to surpass that of England.  We shall therefore concentrate in the following discussion upon the United States. 

 

THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOCIETAL COMMUNITY (return to Contents)

 

            Behind the developments outlined in the preceding paragraphs were a special religious constitution and societal community.  The United States was in a position to make new departures from the ascriptive institutions of early modern society: monarchy with its subjects rather than citizens; aristocracy; an established church; an economy committed to localism and only a little division of labor; and an ethnically defined societal community or nation.  American territory was settled mainly by one distinctive group of migrants.  They were nonconformists in search not so much of freedom from persecution as of greater religious independence than they could enjoy at home.3  They were predominantly Puritans, the prototypes of ascetic Protestantism.  In the colonies, however, they were divided into a number of denominations and sects.  In the early period, for instance in Congregational Massachusetts, the colonies estabished their own churches.  But a conception of the church as ideally a voluntary association emerged only gradually.  It was

 

1 Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: Oxford University Press, 1947).

2 Seymour M. Lipset, The First New Nation (New York: Basic Books, 1963).

3 Perry Miller, Errand into the Wilderness, (New York: Harper, 1964).

 

184 THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION

 

fairly well accepted by the time of independence,4 though in Massachusetts disestablishnaent did not occur until more than a generation later.  The religious pluralism of the thirteen colonies and the rationalistic, Enlightenment-influenced cultural atmosphere set the stage for the First Amendment, which prescribed a constitutional separation of church and state for the first time since the institutionalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire.5 

           

            Religious pluralism spread from differences among the original colonies to pluralism within each state, in contrast to the pattern of cujus regio, cius religio.  This pluralism formed the basis for toleration and eventually for full inclusion of non-Protestant elements, a large Roman Catholic minority, and a small Jewish minority.6  This inclusion was clearly symbolized in the 1960s by the election of a Roman Catholic, John F. Kennedy, to the presidency.  American society thus went beyond England and Holland in differentiating organized religion from the societal community.  One consequence of this differentiation was that publicly

supported education developed in the nineteenth century as secular education.  There was never, as in France, a major political struggle over that problem.  

A parallel development occurred in ethnic composition, the other historic basis of nationality.  The United States was for a time an Anglo-Saxon society, which tolerated and granted legal rights to members of some other ethnic groups but did not fully include them.  This problem grew acute with the arrival of waves of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, predominantly Roman Catholic and Jewish, from about 1890 to the beginning of World War I.7  Although the process of inclusion is still incomplete, the societal community has become ethnically pluralistic.  Negroes are still in the early stages of the inclusion process.  The bulk of the Negro population was until recently concentrated geographically in the rural South, a region insulated from the rest of American society since the Civil War.  But the South has been undergoing modernization through inclusion in the society as a whole, and there has been migration of Negroes to the northern and western cities. These developments have stimulated a further process of inclusion that is creating tensions.  The long-run trend, however, is toward successful) inclusion.8 

 

4 Ibid. See J. J. Loubser. "The Development of Religious Liberty in Massachusetts," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1964; and Alan Heimett, Religion and the American Mind.  From the Great Awakening to the Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966).

5 Perry Miller, The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War (New York: Harcourt, 1965).

6 Will Herberg, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, rev. ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1960); and Talcott Parsons, "Some Comments on the Pattern of Religious Organization in the United States," in Structure and Process in Modern Societies (New York: Free Press, 1960.) 

7 Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted (New York: Grosset & Dunlap. 1951).

 

185

 

            One reason that the American community has moved toward shedding its identity as a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant community is that the “WASP" formula was never monolithic.  Not only do the Irish speak English, hut there are many Anglo-Saxon Roman Catholics and many Protestant Negroes.  Pluralism has also been fostered by the socialization of the newer immigrant groups in more general societal values.  Thistrend offers a possible solution to the instability of ethnic nationalism, the problem of securing congruence between the boundaries of the societal community and the state.  One difficulty is inherent in ethnically

pluralistic systems, however.  Because language is a determinant of ethnic membership, the right of each ethnic group in a pluralistic community to use its own language can lead to disruptive internal tensions, as demonstrated by the conflicts between Walloons and Flemish in Belgium and English and French in Canada.9  Where the language of one ethnic group has become the community language, strains may be imposed upon members of other groups.  There are enormous benefits in linguistic uniformity, however.  Its adoption in a multiethnic community depends on the type of priority enjoyed by the ethnic group whose language becomes the national language and on the number of competing languages; a plurality encourages the designation of only one language as official.  In both twentieth-century superpowers (the U.S. and the USSR), the societal communities have gone beyond ethnic bases and adopted single languages. 

 

            The settlement of American territory was originally by English-speaking colonists from Great Britain.  Other language groups were small and geographically limited - the Dutch in New York, the French in backwoods outposts and Louisiana, the Spanish in Florida and the Southwest - and none could seriously claim to provide a second language for American society as a whole.  The first large ethnically distinctive immigrant group was the Roman Catholic Irish, who spoke English (Gaelic was a romantic revival, not the actual language of Irish immigrants). As non-English-speaking Roman Catholic elements arrived, the Irish pressed for their assimilation into the English-speaking community by opposing foreign-language parochial schools.  Indeed, common Roman Catholic interests could not have been promoted had the Roman Catholic population been split into language groups.  The Protestant immigrants (for example, the Scandinavians) were assimilated easily, without language becoming an issue.  Jewish groups arrived quite late and did not represent one European language.  Furthermore, they never exceeded 5 percent of the total population. The United States has thus retained English as the common language of the total societal community without widespread feeling that it represents the imposition of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. 

 

8 Talcott Parsons, "Full Citizenship for the Negro American?" in Talcott Parsons and Kenneth Clark (eds.), The Negro American (Boston: Houghton Mittlin, 1966). 

9 Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism (New York: Macmillan, 1961). 

 

186  THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION

 

            A relatively well integrated societal community has thus been established in the United States on bases that are not primarily ethnic or religious.  Despite diversity within the population, it has largely escaped pressure by ethnic-linguistic or religious communities for political independence or equal rights that would undermine the solidarity of the more inclusive community.  Parallel developments occurred in American patterns of ascriptive stratification, especially compared with European patterns of aristocracy.  Tile American population was nonaristocratic in origin and did not develop an indigenous aristocracy.10  Furthermore, a considerable proportion of upper-class elements left the country during the American Revolution.  Granting of titles came to be forbidden by the Constitution, and neither landed proprietorship nor wealth have legal recognition as criteria for government office and authority.  Although American society was from the first differentiated internally by class, it never suffered the aftermath of aristocracy and serfdom that persisted in Europe; tile nearest approximation appeared in the South.  The participation of the wealthier and more educated groups in government has been disproportionate, but there has also been a populist strain and political mobility, advancement coming first through wealth and recently through education.

 

            American society thus abandoned the tradition of aristocracy with only a mild revolutionary disturbance. It also lacked the heritage of Europe's peasant classes.  As an industrial working class developed, the European level of class consciousness never emerged, largely because of the absence of aristocratic and peasant elements.11  American society has also carried differentiation between government and societal community very far.  For government and societal community to become differentiated, the right to hold office must be dissociated from ascription to monarchy and aristocracy and associated with achievement.  Furthermore, authority must be limited to the legally defined powers of office so that private prerogatives and property interests are separated from those of office.  Finally, the elective principle requires that holding office be contingent upon constituent support; loss of office through electoral defeat is an inherent risk.  The independence of the legal system from the executive and legislative branches of government has been one mechanism for maintaining this kind of differentiation. 

 

10 Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, 1953).

11 Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, 1955).

 

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION  187

 

            Another mechanism is the connection between the government and community stratification. The newly independent nation opted for a republican form of government (with precautions against absolutism)12 linked with the societal community through the franchise.  Although the franchise was originally restricted by property qualifications, it was extended rapidly, and universal manhood suffrage, except for Negroes, was attained early in the nineteenth century.  The highest government authority was vested in elected officials: the President and members of the Congress, the state governors anti members of state legislatures.  The

exception has been the appointment of Federal (and increasingly state) judges, with the expectation that they be professional lawyers.  A competitive party system based upon the participation in politics of broad segments of the societal community soon emerged.13  It has been fluid, oriented toward a pluralistic structure of interest groups rather than toward the regional, religious, ethnic, or class solidarities more typical of Europe. 

 

            The societal community must articulate not only with the religious and political systems but also with the economy.  In the United States the factors of production, including land and labor, have been free of ascriptive ties, and the Federal Constitution has guaranteed their free movement among the different states.  This freedom has encouraged division of labor and the development of an extensive market system.  Locally oriented and traditionally directed economic activities and the ascriptive community structures in which they were embedded have thus been undermined, which has had consequences for the stratification system; to the extent that stratification was rooted in occupational structure, it was pushed toward universalism and an open class structure but not toward radical egalitarianism.  The American societal community that emerged from these developments was primarily associational.  This characteristic reflected components of the value system.  Universalism, which had its purest modern expression in the ethics of ascetic Protestantism, has exerted continuing value pressure toward inclusion - now reaching the whole Judeo-Christian religious community and beginning to extend beyond it.  The inclusion component alone could lead to a static, universalistic tolerance.  It is complemented by an activist commitment to building a good society In accordance with Divine Will that underlies the drive toward mastery of the social environments through expansion in territory, economic productivity, and knowledge.  The combination of these two components contributes to the associational emphasis in modern social structure - political and social democracy being conspicuously associational. 

 

12 Rossiter, op. cit.; and Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1940). 

13 William N. Chambers, Political Parties in a New Nation, 1776-1809 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963); and Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966). 

 

188  THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION

 

            The associational emphasis has been enhanced in the United States by the partial elimination of ethnic membership and social class as ascriptively constitutive structures.  In the early modern phase, the basis of community in Europe was ethnic-national.  Yet the coincidence between ethnic membership and territorial organization throughout Europe was incomplete.  Ethnic-centered nationalism was thus not an adequate substitute for religion as a basis of societal solidarity, even though it gained in importance with secularization and the inclusion of religious diversity within the same political jurisdiction.  The new basis of inclusion in the societal community has been citizenship, developing in association with the democratic revolution.14  Citizenship can be dissociated from ethnic membership, which leans toward nationalism and even racism; race provides an ascriptive criterion of belonging.  The alternative has been to define belonging in universalistic terms, which must include reference to voluntary allegiance, although no societal community can be a purely voluntary association.15  The institutionalization of access to citizenship through naturalization, regardless of the ethnic origins of individuals, represents a break with the imperative of ethnic membership. 

 

            The development of the American pattern of citizenship has followed the pattern outlined by Marshall for Great Britain, starting with the civic component and developing the political and social components from there.  The social component, though it has lagged behind that of the principal European societies, has been extended through public education, social security, welfare policies, insurance, and union benefits, in the present century.  Contemporary concern with problems of poverty marks a new phase in that development.  The structural outline of citizenship in the new societal community is complete, though not yet fully institutionalized.  There are two stress points: race and poverty.  Their salience reflects the need to extend the processes of inclusion and upgrading still farther. 

 

14 T. H. Marshall, Class, Citizenship and Social Development (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1965). 

15 See Karl W. Deutach, Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1953). 

16 See Edwin S. Corwin, The "Higher Law": Background of American Constitutional Law (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955). 

 

THE CENTRAL PROBLEM OF MODERN SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION  189

 

            A developed legal system is necessary for a stable societal community that has dispensed with religious and ethnic uniformity as radically as has American society.  The Puritan tradition and the Enlightenment fostered a predilection for a written constitution, with its echoes of covenant and social contract.16  An individualistic fear of authoritarianism fostered the separation of government powers.17  A federal structure was practically necessitated by the legal separation of the colonies.  All three circumstances placed a premium on legal forms and on agencies charged with legal functions.  Furthermore, many of the framers of the Constitution had legal training.  Even though they provided for only one Supreme Court, without specifying membership qualifications and with little specification of its powers, they did lay the foundations for an emphasis on the legal order. 

 

            But three developments were not foreseen by the Founding Fathers.  First was the effect of judicial review in settling conflicts among the branches of Federal government, among the states, and between the states and the Federal government.  The second was the adoption of English common law and the resulting proliferation of judge-made law.  Finally, there was the professionalization of legal practice.  In contrast to the systent in Continental Europe, the legal profession, though participating freely in politics, has not been organized about governmental functions.18  Because the separation of powers and federalism have decentralized American government, legal institutions have been important in the attenuation of local autonomy.  The recent reintegration of the South into the nation is a conspicuous example.  The Constitutional framework emphasizes universalistic criteria of citizenship.  These criteria have undergone continuous evolution, involving both specification and generalization in interdependence with the evolution of the legal system.  One consequence has been pressure toward inclusion, most dramatically of Negroes. 

 

            The duality in the civic component of citizenship has become noticeable in the United States because of this nation's reliance on a written constitution.   One aspect is the citizen's rights and obligations as they have been formulated in the course of legal history.  This component covers a wide range, including principles of equality before the law.  Back of it stand more general principles, first embodied in the Bill of Rights and extended both by amendment and by judicial interpretation.  The second aspect, increasingly stressed over time, consists of the basic equalities of citizens' rights to protection, freedoms, basic conditions of welfare, and opportunities, especially access to education and occupational development.  At least in principle, the new societal community has come to be defined as a company of equals.  Departures from the egalitarian principle must be justified, either on the basis of incapacity to participate fully - as among small children - or of being qualified for special contributions, as through competence, to the societal welfare. 

 

17 Bernard Bailyn, "General Introduction," in Pamphlets of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965). 

18 See Roscoe Pound, The Spirit of the Common Law (Boston: Beacon, 1963); and James Willard Hurst, Law and the Conditions of Freedom (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956). 

 

continued

(return to top)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1