Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

FIGURE 9.1 Structure of the General Action System

L I

Cultural system	Social system
Behavioral organism	Personality system

A G

Finally, it can be argued that we do not have to offer people power, prestige, and income to get them to want to occupy high level positions. People call be equally motivated by the satisfaction of doing a job well or by tile opportunity to be of service to others.

Talcott Parsons's Structural Functionalism

Over the course of his life, Talcott Parsons did a great deal of theoretical work (Holm-wood, 1996; Lidz, 2000). There are important differences between his early work and his later work. In this section we deal with his later, structural-functional theorizing. We begin this discussion of Parsons's structural functionalism with die four functional imperatives for all "action" systems, his famous AGIL scheme. After this discussion of the four functions, we will turn to an analysis of Parsons's ideas on structures and systems.

Talcott Parsons:A Biographical Sketch

Talcott Parsons (1902 - 1979) Talcott Parsons is considered the founder of American sociological theory. Among his many former students, Parsons's name is a virtual synonym for theoretical brilliance; among a comparable number of younger sociologists, the same name is synonymous with abstract, conservative, and incomprehensible scientism After graduating with an economics degree from Amherst College in 1924, Parsons studied in England at the London School of Economics, then at Heidelberg from 1925 to 1926. in England, Parsons studied the economics of Alfred Marshall; in Germany, he discovered the writings of Max Weber. Parsons translated Protestant Ethic and other works by Weber. He first taught economies at Harvard in 1927. Later, he began teaching sociology at the invitation of the Russian 6migr6, Pitirim Sorokin (1889- 1968), who was instrumental in establishing sociology's reputation at Harvard. Parsons came into his own with the publication of The Structure of Social Action in 1937. This two-volume tour de force carefully analyzed those whom Parsons considered the classical social theorists (Weber, Durkheim, Marshall, and ViLfredo Pareto) in order to renew sociological theory and research. His goal was to establish a general theory of social action that encompassed all the behavioral sciences, including biology. In the 1940s, Parsons's theoretical synthesis formed the intellectual basis for Harvard's Department of Social Relations, which, in the 1950s, was considered by many the major department in the field. Parsons chaired the department from 1946 to 1956, but the experiment at synthesis collapsed when Parsons retired and times changed.

"The Unit Act of Action Systems," from Structure of Social Action, may be difficult reading, but it is an important sample of Parsons's theoretical intention to define the elements in a theory of social action~ the actor, the actor's ends (or goats), the social situation, and the structured relation among these elements. Though this is a different sort of writing from that of Keynes (who was also an influence on Parsons) or of Lukbca or the others in this period, readers should be able to see a common theoretical concern for the fate of the individual in modem, structured society.

In "Action Systems and Social Systems," his summary of that theory as he worked it between 1961 and 1971, two of the most distinctive features of Parsons's social theory are illustrated. First, he understands the social system to be a distinct entity, different from but interdependent with three other action systems~ culture, personality, and the behavioral organism. Second, parsons makes exp))cit reference to Durkheim in his view that social systems are sui generis things in which values serve to maintain the patterned integrity of the system. Some have argued that these theoretical convictions were traceable to the Golden Age culture, in which it was widely believed America was the exemplification of society itself because of the power of its values.

AGIL A function is "a complex of activities directed towards meeting a need or needs of the system" (Rocher, 1975:40). Using this definition, Parsons believes that there are four functional imperatives that are necessary for (characteristic of) all systems-adaptation (A), goal attainment (G), integration (I), and latency (L), or pattern maintenance. Together, these four functional imperatives are known as the AGIL scheme, In order to survive, a system must perform these four functions:

1. Adaptation: A system must cope with external situational exigencies. It must adapt to its environment and adapt the environment to its needs.

2. Goal attainment: A system must define and achieve its primary goals.

3. lntegration: A system must regulate the interrelationship of its component parts. It also must manage the relationship among the other three functional imperatives (A, G. L).

4. Latency (pattern maintenance): A system must furnish, maintain, and renew both the motivation of individuals and the cultural patterns that create and sustain that motivation.

FIGURE 9.2 :Parsons's Action Schema

High information High information

(controls) (controls)

1,.Environment of action

ultimate reality

2. Cultural system

Hierarchy of 3. Social system Hierarchy of

conditioning 4. Personality system conditioning

factors 5. Behavioral organism factors

6. Environment of action:

physical-organic environment

High energy (conditions) High energy (conditions)

Parsons designed the AGIL scheme to be used at all levels in Iris theoretical system (for one example, see Paulsen and Feldman, 1995). In the discussion below on the four action systems, we will illustrate how Parsons uses AGIL.

The behavioral organism is the action system that handles the adaptation function by adjusting to and transforming the external world. The personality system performs the goal-attainment function by defining system goals and mobilizing resources to attain them. The social system copes with the integration function by controlling its component parts. Finally, the cultural system performs the latency function by providing actors with the norms and values that motivate them for action. Figure 9.1 summarizes the structure of the action system in terms of the AGIL schema.

The Action System We ale now ready to discuss the overall shape of Parsons's action system. Figure 9.2 is an outline of Parsons's schema.

It is obvious that Parsons had a clear notion of "levels" of social analysis as well as their interrelationship. The hierarchical arrangement is clear, and the levels are integrated in Parsons's system in two ways. First, each of the lower levels provides the conditions, the energy, needed for the higher levels. Second, the higher levels control those below them in the hierarchy.

In terms of the environments of the action system, the lowest level, the physical and organic environment, involves the nonsymbolic aspects of the human body, its anatomy and physiology. The highest level, ultimate reality, has, as Jackson Toby suggests "a metaphysical flavor," but Toby also argues that Parsons "is not referring to the super-natural so much as to the universal tendency for societies to address symbolically the uncertainties, concerns, and tragedies of human existence that challenge the meaningfulness of social organization" (1977:3).

The heart of Parsons's work is found in his four action systems. In the assumptions that Parsons made regarding his action systems we encounter the problem of order that was his overwhelming concern and that has become a major source of criticism of his work (Schwanenberg, 1971 ). The Hobbesian problem of order what prevents a social war of all against all--was not answered to Parsons's (1937) satisfaction by the earlier philosophers. Parsons found his answer to the problem of order in structural functionalism, which operates in his view with the following set of assumptions:

1. Systems have the property of order and interdependence of parts.

2. Systems tend toward self-maintaining order, or equilibrium.

3. The system may be static or involved in an ordered process of change.

4. The nature of one part of the system has an impact on the form that the other pare can take.

5. Systems maintain boundaries with their environments.

6. Allocation and integration are two fundamental processes necessary for a given state of equilibrium of a system.

7. Systems tend toward self-maintenance involving the maintenance of boundaries and of the relationships of parts to the whole, control of environmental variations, and control of tendencies to change the system from within.

These assumptions led Parsons to make the analysis of the ordered structure of society his first priority. In so doing, he did little with the issue of social change, at least until later in his career:

We feel that it is uneconomical to describe changes in systems of variables before the variables themselves have been isolated and described; therefore, we have chosen to begin by studying particular combinations of variables and to move towed description of how these combinations change only when a firm foundation for such has been laid.

(Parsons and Shils, 1951:6)

Parsons was so heavily criticized for his static orientation that he devoted more and more attention to change; in fact, as we will see, he eventually focused on the evolution of societies. However, in the view of most observers, even his work on social change tended to be highly static and structured.

In reading about the four action systems, the reader should keep in mind that they do not exist in the real world but are, rather, analytical tools for analyzing the real world.

Social System Parsons's conception of the social system begins at the micro level with interaction between ego and alter ego, defined as the most elementary form of the social system. He spent little time analyzing this level, although he did argue that features of this interaction system are present in the more complex forms taken by the social system. Parsons defined a social .system thus:

A social system consists in a plurality of individual actor interacting with each other in a situation which has at lest a physical or environmental aspect, actors who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the "optimization of gratification" and whose relation to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.

(Parsons, 1951:5-6)

This definition seeks to define a social system in terms of many of the key concepts in Parsons's work--actors, interaction, environment, optimization of gratification, and culture.

Despite his commitment to viewing the social system as a system of interaction, Parsons did not take interaction as his fundamental unit in the study of the social system.Rather, he used tile status-role complex as the basic unit of the system. This is neither an aspect of actors nor an aspect of interaction but rather a structural component of the social system. Status refers to a structural position within the social system, and role is what the actor does in such a position, seen in the context of its functional significance for the larger system. The actor is viewed not in terms of thoughts and actions but instead (at least in terms of position in the social system) as nothing more than a bundle of statuses and roles.

In his analysis of the social system, Parsons was interested primarily in its structural components. In addition to a concern with the status role, Parsons (1966:11) was interested in such large-scale components of social systems as collectivities, norms, and values. In his analysis of the social system, however. Parsons was not simply a structuralist but also a functionalist. He thus delineated a number of the functional prerequisites of a social system. First, social systems must be structured so that they operate compatibly with other systems. Second, to survive, the social system must have the requisite support from other systems. Third, the system must meet a significant proportion of the needs of its actors. Fourth, the system must elicit adequate participation from its members. Fifth, it must have at least a minimum of control over potentially disruptive behavior. Sixth, if conflict becomes sufficiently disruptive, it must be controlled. Finally, a social system requires a language in order to survive.

It is clear in Parsons's discussion of the functional prerequisites of the social system that his focus was large-scale systems and their relationship to one another (societal functionalism). Even when he talked about actors, it was from the point of view of the system. Also, the discussion reflects Parsons's concern with the maintenance of order within the social system.

Actors and the Social System However, Parsons did not completely ignore the issue of the relationship between actors and social structures in his discussion of the social system. In fact, be called the integration of value patterns and need-dispositions 'the fundamental dynamic theorem of sociology" (Parsons, 1951:42). Given Iris central concern with the social system, of key importance in this integration are the processes of internalization and socialization. That is, Parsons was interested in the ways in which the norms and values of a system are transferred to the actors within tile system. In a successful socialization process these norms and values are internalized; that is, they become part of the actors' "consciences." As a result, in pursuing their own interests, the actors are in fact serving the interests of the system as a whole. As Parsons put it, "The combination of value-orientation patterns which is acquired [by the actor in socialization] must in a very important degree be a function of the fundamental role structure and dominant values of the social system" (1951:227).

In general, Parsons assumed that actors usually are passive recipients in the socialization process.4 Children learn not only how to act but also the norms and values, the morality, of society. Socialization is conceptualized as a conservative process in which need-dispositions (which are themselves largely molded by society) bind children It the social system, and it provides the means by which the need-dispositions can be satisfied. There is little or no room for creativity; the need for gratification ties children to the system as it exists. Parsons sees socialization as a lifelong experience. Because the norms and values inculcated in childhood tend to be very general, they do not prepare children for the various specific situations they encounter in adulthood. Thus socialization must be supplemented throughout the life cycle with a series of more specific socializing experiences. Despite this need later in life, the norms and values learned in childhood tend to be stable and, with a little gentle reinforcement, tend It remain in force throughout life.

Despite the conformity induced by lifelong socialization, there is a wide range of individual variation in the system. The question is: Why is this normally not a major problem for the social system, given its need for order? For one thing, a number of social control mechanisms can be employed to deduce conformity. However, as far as Parsons was concerned, social control is strictly a second line of defense. A system runs best when social control is used only sparingly. For another thing, the system must be able to tolerate some variation, some deviance. A flexible social system is stronger than a brittle one that accepts no deviation. Finally. the social system should provide a wide range of role opportunities that allow different personalities to express themselves without threatening the integrity of the system.

Socialization and social control are the main mechanisms that allow the social system to maintain its equilibrium. Modest amounts of individuality and deviance are accommodated, but more extreme forms must be met by reequilibrating mechanisms. Thus, social order is built into the structure of Parsons's social system:

Without deliberate planning on anyone's part there have developed in our type of social system, and correspondingly in others, mechanisms which, within limits, are capable of forestalling and reversing the deep-lying tendencies for deviance to get into the vicious circle phase which puts it beyond the control of ordinary approval disapproval and reward punishment sanctions.

(Parsons, t951:319)

Again, Parsons's main interest was the system as a whole rather than the actor in the system--how the system controls the actor, not how the actor creates and maintains the system. This reflects parsons's commitment on this issue to a structural-functional orientation.

Society Although the idea of a social system encompasses all types of collectivities, one specific and particularly important social system is society, "a relatively selfsufficient collectivity the members of which are able to satisfy all their individual and collective needs and to live entirely within its framework" (Rocher, 1975:60). As a structural functionalist, Parsons distinguished among four structures, or subsystems, in society in terms of the functions (AGIL) they perform (see Figure 9.3). The economy is the subsystem that performs the function for society of adapting to the environment through labor, production, and allocation. Through such work, the economy adapts the environment to society's needs, and it helps society adapt to these external realities. The polity (or political system) performs the function of goal attainment by pursuing societal objectives and mobilizing actors and resources to that end. The fiduciary system (for example, in the schools, the family) handles the latency function by transmitting culture (norms and values) to actors and allowing it to be internalized by them. Finally. The integration function is performed by the societal community (for example, the law), winch coordinates the various components of society (Parsons and Platt, 1973).

FIGURE9.3

Society, Its Subsystems, and the Functional Imperatives

L 1

Fiduciary system	Societal community
Economy	Polity

A G
As important as the structures of the social system were to Parsons, the cultural system was more important. In fact, as we saw earlier, the cultural system stood at the top of Parsons's action system, and Parsons (1966) labeled himself a "cultural determinist."

Cultural System Parsons conceived of culture as the major force binding the various elements of the social world, or, in his terms, the action system. Culture mediates interaction among actors and integrates the personality and the social systems. Culture has the peculiar capacity to become, at least in part, a component of the other systems. Thus, in the social system culture is embodied in norms and values, and in the personality system it is internalized by the actor. But the cultural system is not simply a part of other systems; it also has a separate existence in the form of the social stock of know]edge, symbols, and ideas. These aspects of the cultural system are available to the social and personality systems, but they do not become part of them (Morse,1961:105; Parsons and Shils, 1951:6).

parsons defined the cultural system, as he did his other systems, in terms of its relationship to the other action systems. Thus culture is seen as a patterned, ordered system of symbols that are objects of orientation to actors, internalized aspects of the personality system, and institutionalized patterns (Parsons, 1990) in the social system. Because it is largely symbolic and subjective, culture is transmitted readily from one system to another. Culture can move from one social system to another through diffusion and from one personality system to another through learning and socialization. However, the symbolic (subjective) character of culture also gives it another characteristic, the ability to control Parsons's other action systems. This is one of the reasons Parsons came to view himself as a cultural determinist.

However, if the cultural system is preeminent in Parsonsian theory, we must question whether he offers a genuinely integrative theory. As pointed out in the Appendix, a truly integrative theory gives rough equivalency to all major levels of analysis. Cultural determinism, indeed any kind of determinism, is highly suspect from the point of view of an integrated sociology. (For a more integrated conception of Parsons's work, see Camic, 1990.) This problem is exacerbated when we look at the personality system and see how weakly it is developed in parsons's work.

Personality System The personality system is controlled not only by the cultural system but also by the social system. That is not to say that Parsons did not accord some independence to the personality system:

My view will be that, while the main content of file structure of the personality is derived from social systems and culture through socialization, the personality becomes an independent system through its relations to its own organism and through the uniqueness of its own life experience; it is not a mere epiphenomenon.

(Parsons, 1970:82)

We get the feeling here that Parsons is protesting too much. If the personality system is not an epipbenomenon, it is certainly reduced to a secondary or dependent states in his theoretical system.

The personality is defined as the organized system of orientation and motivation of action of the individual actor. The basic component of the personality is the "need-disposition." Parsons and Shils defined need-dispositions as the "most significant units of motivation of action" (1951:113). They differentiated need-dispositions from drives, which are innate tendencies--"physiological energy that makes action possible" (Parsons and Shils, 1951:111). In other words, drives are better seen as part of the biological organism. Need-dispositions are then defined as "these same tendencies when they are not innate but acquired through the process of action itself' (Parsons and Shils, 1951:111 ). In other words, need-dispositions are drives that are shaped by the social setting.

Need-dispositions impel actors to accept or reject objects presented in file environment or to seek out new objects if the ones that are available do not adequately satisfy need-dispositions. Parsons differentiated among three basic types of need-dispositions. The first type impels actors to seek love, approval, and so forth, from their social relationships. The second type includes internalized values that lead actors to observe various cultural standards. Filmily. there are the role expectations that lead actors to give and get appropriate responses.

This presents a very passive image of actors. They seem to be impelled by drives, dominated by the culture, or, more usually, shaped by a combination of drives and culture (that is, by need-dispositions). A passive personality system is clearly a weak link in an integrated theory, and Parsons seemed to be aware of that, On various occasions, he tried to endow the personality with some creativity. For example, he said: "We do not mean.., to imply that a person's values are entirely 'internalized culture' or mere adherence to rules and laws. The person makes creative modifications as he internalizes culture; but the novel aspect is not the culture aspect" (Parsons and Shils, 1951:72). Despite claims such as these, the dominant impression that emerges from Parsons's work is one of a passive personality system.

Parsons's emphasis on need-dispositions creates other problems. Because it leaves out so many other important aspects of personality, iris system becomes a largely impoverished one. Alfred Baldwin, a psychologist, makes precisely this point:

It seems fair to say that Parsons fails in his theory to provide the personality with a reasonable set of pries or mechanisms sins aside from need-dispositions, and gets himself into trouble by not endowing the personality with enough characteristics and enough different kinds of mechanisms for it to be able to function.

(A. Baldwin, 1961:186)

Baldwin makes another telling point about Parsons's personality system, arguing that even when Parsons analyzed the personality system, he was really not focally interested in it: "Even when he is writing chapters on personality structure, Parsons spends many more pages talking about social systems than he does about personality" (1961:180). This is reflected in the various ways Parsons linked the personality to the social system. First, actors must learn to see themselves in a way that fits with the place they occupy in society (parsons and Shils, 1951:147), Second, role expectations are attached to each of the roles occupied by individual actors. Then there is the learning of self-discipline, internalization of value orientations, identification, and so forth. All these forces point toward the integration of the personality system with the social system, which Parsons emphasized. However, he also pointed out the possible malintegration, which is a problem for the system that needs to be overcome.

Another aspect of Parsons's work his interest in internalization as the personality system's side of the socialization process reflects the passivity of the personality system. Parsons (1970:2) derived this interest from Durkheim's work on internalization, as well as from Freud's work, primarily that on the superego. In emphasizing internalization and the superego. Parsons once again manifested his conception of the personality system as passive and externally controlled.

Although Parsons was wilting to talk about the subjective aspects of personality in his early work, he progressively abandoned that perspective, In so doing, he limited his possible insights into the personality system. Parsons at one point stated clearly that he was shifting his attention away from the internal meanings that the actions of people may have: "The organization of observational data in terms of die theory of action is quite possible and fruitful in modified behaviouristic terms, and such formulation avoids many of the difficult questions of introspection or empathy" (Parsons and Shils, 1951:64).

Behavioral Organism Though he included the behavioral organism as one of the four action systems, Parsons had very little to say about it. It is included because it is the source of energy for the rest of the systems. Although it is based on genetic constitution, its organization is affected by the processes of conditioning and learning that occur during the individual's life? The behavioral organism is clearly a residual system in Parsons's work. but at the minimum Parsons is to be lauded for including it as a part of his sociology, if for no other reason than that he anticipated the interest in sociology and the sociology of the body (B. Turner, 1985) by some sociologists.

Change and Dynamism in Parsonsian Theory Parsons's work with conceptual tools such as the four action systems and the functional imperatives led to the accusation that he offered a structural theory that was unable to deal with social change. Parsons had long been sensitive to this charge, arguing that although a study of change was necessary, it must be preceded by a study of structure. But by the 1960s he could resist the attacks no longer and made a major shift in his work to the study of social change, particularly the study of social evolution (Parsons, 1977:50).

Evolutionary Theory Parsons's (1966) general orientation to the study of social change was shaped by biology. To deal with this process, Parsons developed what he called "a paradigm of evolutionary change."

The first component of that paradigm is the process of differentiation. Parsons assumed that any society is composed of a series of subsystems that differ in terms of both their structure and their functional significance for the larger society. As society evolves, new subsystems me differentiated. This is not enough, however; they also must be more adaptive than earlier subsystems. Thus. the essential aspect of Parsons's evolutionary paradigm was the idea of adaptive upgrading. Parsons described this process:

If differentiation is to yield a balanced, more evolved system, each newly differentiated substructure.,, must have increased adaptive capacity for performing its primary function, as compared to the performance of that function in the previous, more diffuse structure.... We may call this process the adaptive upgrading aspect of the evolutionary change cycle.

(Parsons. 1966:22)

This is a highly positive model of social change (although Parsons certainly had a sense of its darker side). It assumes that as society evolves, it grows generally better able to cope with its problems. In contrast, in Marxian theory social change leads to the eventual destruction of capitalist society. For this reason, among others, Parsons often is thought of as a very conservative sociological theorist. In addition, while he did deal with change, he tended to focus on the positive aspects of social change in the modem world rather than on its negative side.

Next. Parsons argued that the process of differentiation leads to a new set of problems of integration for society. As subsystems proliferate, the society is confronted with new problems in coordinating the operations of these units.

A society undergoing evolution must move from a system of ascription to one of achievement. A wider array of skills and abilities is needed to handle the more diffuse subsystems. The generalized abilities of people must be freed from their ascriptive bonds so that they can be utilized by society. Most generally, this means that groups formerly excluded from contributing to the system must be freed for inclusion as full members of the society.

Finally. the value system of the society as a whole must undergo change as social structures and functions grow increasingly differentiated. However, since die new system is more diverse, it is harder for the value system to encompass it. Thus a more differentiated society requires a value system that is "couched at a higher level of generality in order to legitimize the wider variety of goals and functions of its subunits"(Parsons, 1966:23). However, this process of generalization of values often does not proceed smoothly as it meets resistance from groups committed to their own narrow value systems.

Evolution proceeds through a variety of cycles, but no general process affects all societies equally. Some societies may foster evolution, whereas others may "be so beset with internal conflicts or other handicaps" that they impede the process of evolution. or they may even "deteriorate" (Parsons, 1966:23). What most interested Parsons were those societies in which developmental "breakthroughs" occur, since he believed that once they occurred, the process of evolution would follow his general evolutionary model.

Although Parsons conceived of evolution as occurring in stages, he was careful to avoid a unilinear evolutionary theory: "We do not conceive societal evolution to be either a continuous or a simple linear process, but we can distinguish between broad levels of advancement without overlooking the considerable variability found in each"(1966:26). Making it clear that he was simplifying matters, Parsons distinguished three broad evolutionary stages--primitive, intermediate, and modem. Characteristically, he differentiated among these stages primarily on the basis of cultural dimensions. The crucial development in the transition from primitive to intermediate is the development of language, primarily written language. The key development in the shift from intermediate to modem is "the institutionalized codes of normative order," or law (parsons,1966:26).

Parsons next proceeded to analyze a series of specific societies in the context of the evolution from primitive to modern society. One particular point is worth underscoring here: Parsons turned to evolutionary theory, at least in part, because he was accused of being unable to deal with social change. However, his analysis of evolution is not in terms of process; rather, it is an attempt to "order structural types and relate them sequentially" (Parsons, 1966:111). This is comparative structural analysis, not really a study of the processes of social change. Thus, even when he was supposed to be looking at change, Parsons remained committed to the study of structures and functions.

Generalized Media of Interchange One of the ways in which Parsons introduces some dynamism, some fluidity (Alexander, 1983:115), into his theoretical system is through his ideas on the generalized media of interchange within and among the four action systems (especially within the social system) discussed above. The model for the generalized media of interchange is money, which operates as such a medium within the economy. But instead of focusing on material phenomena such as money, Parsons focuses on symbolic media of exchange. Even when parsons does discuss money as a medium of interchange within the social .system, he focuses on its symbolic rather than its material qualifies. In addition to money, and more clearly symbolic, are other generalized media of interchange-political power, influence, and value commitments, parsons makes it quite clear why he is focusing on symbolic media of interchange: "The introduction of a theory of media into the kind of structural perspective I have in mind goes far, it seems to me, to refute the frequent allegations that this type of structural analysis is inherently plagued with a static bias, which makes it impossible to do justice to dynamic problems" (1975:98-99).

Symbolic media of interchange have the capacity, like money, to be created and to circulate in the larger society. Thus, within the social system, those in the political system are able to create political power. More importantly, they can expend that power, thereby allowing it to circulate freely in, and have influence over, the social system.Through such an expenditure of power, leaders presumably strengthen the political system as well as the society as a whole. More generally, it is the generalized media that circulate between the four action systems and within the structures of each of those systems. It is their existence and movement that give dynamism to Parsons's largely structural analyses.

As Alexander (1983:115) points out, generalized media of interchange lend dynamism to parsons's theory in another sense. They allow for the existence of "media entrepreneurs" (for example, politicians) who do not simply accept the system of exchange as it is. That is, they can be creative and resourceful and in this way alter not only the quantity of the generalized media but also the manner and direction in which the media flow.