• 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. 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 the 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 com[1]ponent 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 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.
• 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.
• Although the idea of a social system encompasses all types of collectivities, one specific and particularly important social system is society. As a structural functionalist, Parsons distinguished among four structures, or subsystems, in society in terms of the functions (AGIL) they perform. 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), which coordinates the various components of society.

Criticisms

• Despite its contributions to the field of sociology, Parsons’ social systems theory has faced several criticisms. One major criticism is that his functionalist perspective tends to assume that all parts of society are necessary and beneficial. This assumption can lead to a conservative view of society, in which existing social structures and institutions are seen as inherently good and necessary. Critics argue that this perspective can overlook the ways in which certain social structures may be oppressive or harmful to certain groups within society.
• Another criticism is that Parsons’ theory focuses too heavily on the stability and order of society, often neglecting the role of conflict and power dynamics. Critics argue that social systems are not always in a state of equilibrium and that conflict and power struggles are an inherent part of social life. By focusing on social equilibrium, Parsons’ theory may overlook the ways in which social change and transformation can occur through conflict and struggle.