"A CONCRETE action system is an integrated7 structure of action elements in relation to a situation" (Parsons 1951:22)

We are here concerned with what has been called the “boundary-maintaining” type of system (Values, Motives, and Systems of Action, op. cit.). For this type of system, as noted there, the concept integration has a double reference: a) to the compatibility of the components of the system with each other so that change is not necessitated before equilibrium can be reached, and b) to the maintenance of the conditions of the distinctiveness of the system within its boundaries over against its environment. Integration may be relative to a moving equilibrium, i.e., an orderly process of change of the system, as well as to a static equilibrium. (Parsons 1951:23n)

BEFORE clarifying this statement further it is necessary to distinguish clearly between the processes within the system and processes of change of the system. It is very common to confuse these two things under the term “dynamic.” For the purposes of our conceptual scheme the distinction derives from the concept of equilibrium and the way in which this has been used in the present work. Beyond the most general meaning of the concept of equilibrium, the meaning which is most directly applicable here is that applying to what we have called a “boundary-maintaining” system.(Parsons 1951:323)

The special methodological significance of this approach to the analysis of motivational process, i.e., of “dynamics,” lies in two interrelated sets of considerations. The first of these is the implication of the fact that we are dealing with the boundary-maintaining type of system. The definition of a system as boundary-maintaining is a way of saying that, relative to its environment, that is to fluctuations in the factors of the environment, it maintains certain constancies of pattern, whether this constancy be static or moving. These elements of the constancy of pattern must constitute a fundamental point of reference for the analysis of process in the system. From a certain point of view these processes are to be defined as the processes of maintenance of the constant patterns. But of course these are empirical constancies, so we do not assume any inherent reason why they have to be maintained.(Parsons 1951:324)

The analysis of the conditions or factors affecting motivational process is always stated in terms relative to this point of reference. The problem is always some version of the problem why, given a certain change in the relevant conditions, the constant pattern which is the point of reference is altered in a certain way or, conversely, why it fails to be altered in the face of certain alterations in the conditions. The latter question is always implicit in the problem structure, the problems of theory, that is, revolve about the conditions of maintenance and alteration of equilibria which are defined as the empirically observed pattern-constancies of a boundary-maintaining system. The essential point is that for there to be a theory of change of pattern, under these methodological assumptions, there must be an initial and a terminal pattern to be used as points of reference.(Parsons 1951:324-325)

The second set of considerations constitute implications of the fact that we are operating on the level of theory which we have called “structural-functional.” The two are interdependent in that for such theory to have relevance it must apply to a boundary-maintaining type of system, because only in this way can the system to which such a theory is applied be delimited. But, in addition to this fact, the crucial characteristic of structural-functional theory is its use of the concept system without a complete knowledge of the laws which determine processes within the system.(Parsons 1951:325)

It should be clear that when we say that a structure in the social system is empirically given, e.g., the “conjugal” type of kinship structure, we mean that the processes within the relevant sub-system of the society may be assumed to be in a sufficiently stable state of equilibrium so that within a defined range of variation in other respects this structure, i.e., this “system pattern,” can be assumed to be constant. Obviously the use of structural categories for explanatory purposes in this way is dependent on the assumption that the constancy of pattern to which we have referred has some empirical significance, But if this were not true we clearly would not be dealing with a boundary-maintaining type of system at all.(Parsons 1951:326)

The first consideration involves what we may call the phenomenon of vested interests. This derives from the nature of the processes of equilibrium in a boundary-maintaining type of system. The specific application of the idea of equilibrium which is of concern to us is one aspect of the phenomenon of institutionalization. Institutionalization produces, as we have seen, a form of the integration of the need-dispositions of the relevant actors with a set of culture patterns which always include in one sense patterns of value orientation. We have defined strain in the technical sense of our discussion as disturbance of the expectation system which is an essential part of this integration. Strain in this sense always, i.e., by definition, sets up re-equilibrating processes. In terms of personality as a system this is precisely what is meant by the mechanisms of defense and of adjustment. It is thus in the nature of this type of integration of the action system that it should be resistant to change in certain respects. So far as it impinges on institutionalized patterns of action and relationship, therefore, change is never just “alteration of pattern” but alteration by the overcoming of resistance.(Parsons 1951:330)

biobliography

• Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.