Talcott Parsons’s sociology of education: cognitive rationality and normative functionalism

Abstract

Talcott Parsons did not leave us with a global and consistent sociology of education. Instead, different aspects can be found in Parsons’s oeuvre in different theoretical contexts. This paper summarises these different parts of Parsons’s sociology of education – his writings on the concepts of education and socialisation, the university, the school, the professions, and modernisation – and discusses central criticisms and perspectives for further theoretical development. The paper goes on to argue that the value of cognitive rationality serves as a common basis of Parsons’s sociology of education and that Parsons’s sociology of education should be characterised as normative functionalist. Since the current sociology of education does not deal very intensely with Parsons’s theoretical approach, the paper also considers references to other authors and the relevance for current questions and research in the sociology of education.

Keywords:

• Talcott Parsons
• functionalism
• socialisation
• educational system

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the reviewers for their time and their insightful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The increasing criticism of Parsons, beginning in the 1950s, was also related to a changing political and societal climate (Alexander 1987, 112–118; Nichols 2021, 4–5). This situation explains why, alongside reasoned critical engagement with Parsons, there were also blanket ‘ideological attack[s]’ (Lidz 2011, 549) that made it risky to refer to him in a positive or constructive way. One could say that Parsons was a subject of a cancel culture that denounced his (supposedly) conservative political thinking. Fortunately, engagement with Parsons is no longer so ideologically biased and he has received ‘at least a partial restoration to a place of honor’ (Nichols 2021, 9).

2 It is accepted by Parsons (1959, 299, 1970a, 18–21) as well as by current empirical research (Hadjar and Becker 2016, 235–236; Kerbo 2012, 377–381) that this constitutes an ideal because social origin still influences educational attainment and occupational status.

3 Functions could be roughly defined as ‘exigencies of a system maintaining an independent existence within an environment’ (Parsons 1970b, 849; for a critical discussion of this concept relative to schooling, see Feinberg and Soltis 2009, 34–37; more generally, Bourricaud 1981, 89–98). Structures and processes perform these functions (Parsons 1977, 236), there being four in all systems. Concerning the initial letter of these functions, these are summarised as the AGIL scheme; for our scope of interest, the L-function is central.

4 It follows that the function of pattern-maintenance is the ‘overall function’ (Turner and Mitchell 1997, 22) of university (and school). This function includes the more concrete following functions.

5 Parsons developed this scheme to classify decisions an actor has to make during action and to establish types of values and roles (Bourricaud 1981, 59–73; Lidz 2011, 525; Parsons and Shils 1962, 76–84).

6 Depending on the understanding of the term ‘functionalism’, this question of compatibilities of aspects of societies could be seen as central to functionalist thinking (Bourricaud 1981, 95).

7 The functionalist thinking exemplified above by inclusion is also instructive for the teaching profession. There is intensive discussion as to whether the characteristic of independence or self-governance, which is valid for other professions, applies to teaching (Evans 2008, 23–24; Ingersoll and Collins 2018, 207–208). Teachers are not the sole decision makers regarding what to do in the classroom. Political actors and education administration also play a decisive part in this, through curricula, for example. Here, too, it would be worth investigating how and with which (different) logics or values the various actors in the educational system interact.