Pattern Variables of System Theory

In delineating the structure of action Parsons initially followed the lead from tennies; gemeinschaft a Gesellschaft.
However, soon he became convinced that a given structure might clearly exhibit attributes suggestive of both the
polar types. The professional status-role of the physician is a case in point. In terms of the application of the general
principles of medical science, the physician’s relation to his patient is Gesellschaft – but by virtue of the canon the
‘’welfare of the patient’’ should come ahead of the self-interest of the doctor, this was clearly one of gemeinschaft.
Therefore, Parsons sought to identify the choices between alternatives that an actor confronts in a given situation
and the relative primacies assigned to such choices. Thus he proposed the five dichotomies of pattern variables listed
below:

Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality

The pattern is effective when an organized action system emphasizes gratification, that is when an actor tries to
avoid pain and maximize pleasure; the pattern is affectively neutral when it imposes discipline, and renouncement or
deferment of some gratifications in favour of other interests, for example, soldiers are expected to ignore immediate
gratification and be affectively neutral in their line of duty even if that involves risking their lives. Similarly,
unbridled expression of emotions and impulse gratifications are negatively evaluated by cultural patterns.

Self-orientation vs. Collectivity-orientation

This dichotomy demands social norms or shared expectations which define as legitimate the pursuit of the actor’s
private interests or obligate him to act in the interests of the group. Salesmen and shopkeepers are expected to
glorify their products and give sales talk in accordance with self-orientation but the doctor is expected to tell the
patient what is best for him, even if he can make extra money from an expensive operation. This dichotomy has
nothing to do with selfish or altruistic motives which are individual character traits but with shared expectations
commonly held by a collectivity.

Particularism vs. Universalism

The former refers to standards determined by an actor’s particular relations with a particular object, the latter to
value standards that are highly generalized. A teacher is supposed to give grades to all students impartially, that is,
in accordance with the same abstract, general, universal principles, but if he favours his son or a friend who happens
be in the same class, he is behaving particularistic ally, for he is treating people differently on the basis of their
particular relationship to him. To give another example: a woman on the trial jury has to be universalistic, otherwise,
she will be dishonest; but as a wife, she has to be particularistic, otherwise she will be unfaithful.

Quality vs. Performance

This is the dilemma of according primary treatment to an object on the basis of what it is in itself, an inborn quality,
or what it does, and the quality of its performances, the former involves defining people on the basis of certain
attributes such as age, sex, colour, nationality, etc; the latter defines people in the basis of their abilities. Compulsory
retirement, racial discrimination and the notion of caste superiority are based on considerations of quality.
Recruitment of personnel in a modern bureaucracy based on technical qualifications and the standard tests involves
consideration of performance.

Diffuseness vs. Specificity

This is the dilemma of defining the relation borne by the object to the actor as indefinitely wide in scope, infinitely
brood in involvement, morally obligating, and significant in pluralistic situations (diffuseness); or specifically
limited in scope and involvement (specificity). The relationship between the employer and the employees in a
modern factory is specific since no obligation is assumed to exist beyond what is specified in the contract. However,
certain systems of land tenure such as the semi-feudal and zamindari types are supposed to involve the tenants in an
infinite variety of obligations to their masters. Similarly, patterns of friendship and husband-wife relationships are
supposed to involve a limitless number of obligations.

Criticism of Talcott Parsons Theory

Parsons’ formulation of the pattern variables to categorise expectations and the structure of relations of actors in
situations however suffers from serious shortcomings. If it is assumed, in the Parsonian framework, those individual
actors are socialized and thus are motivated to meet the demands of societal expectations, then we can expect actors
to make appropriate choices about the pattern variables, and we can predict their behaviour on the basis of
information about values and normative expectations. However, there are situations in which the choice is not
simply a matter of one or the other. Thus the pattern variables scheme is not as neat as it appears at first glance,
either as a way of clarifying and describing role relationships or as a way of predicting people’s appropriate choices.

The first objection to parsons’ concept of pattern variables is that few of these pairs of alternatives are true dilemmas
for any social actor since they are provided to actors by the norms of society, and are not freely chosen.

The second criticism of the pattern variables scheme is that even if particle norms are solved by the actor they are
not necessarily solved in one way or other according to the alternatives presented by Parsons. Further, a particular
solution may be part of one sort or part of another. In our society, for example, there is equality before the law. But
the judge in passing a sentence may be influenced even quite consciously, by the character of the offender, which
may not appeal to him.

The third criticism is that Parsons does not explain that his pairs of dilemmas exhaust the possibilities of orientation
in social interaction.