AGIL Paradigm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit one. |
- For the chemical laser, see All gas-phase iodine laser.
AGIL is a sociological paradigm formulated by Talcott Parsons
A is for Adaptation to the environment, G is for Goal attainment, I is for Integration, L is for Latent pattern maintenance.
Adaptation means the level of a system's ability to react to the changing external conditions: the economy.
Goal Attainment stands for its ability to secure the achievement of goals: political systems, the state.
Integration is aimed at ensuring the maximal level of cohesion and inclusion in a society or a societal group: legal or religious systems
Latent pattern maintenance is a function guaranteeing the maintenance of minimal social structure and order: socialization, family, schools, cultural institutions.
(Source: Social Stratification and Inequality, 2nd ed. by Harold R. Kerbo. McGraw-Hill 1991, page 136.)
|
Adaptation |
Goal attainment |
|
Latency |
Integration |
[edit] The social system
At the most abstract level this model represents Parsons 'social system' with each subsystem representing a particular institution in society. The adaptive system represents the economy, goal attainment the polity, the integration system society's norms (from which emerge group solidarity) and the latency system society's general values. Each subsystem requires input from the neighboring subsystems in order to continue functioning correctly. For example the economic subsystem requires input from the 'G' subsystem (external support from the state for businesses) the 'I' subsystem (legal norms regulating contracts) and the 'L' subsystem (value commitments internalised in economic actors). Within each subsystem itself there is another AGIL system - corporations (of the adaptive subsystem) contain within them positions specifically involved with internally regulating values (for example human resources departments) promulgating norms (the legal department), political organisation (board of directors) and adaptation to the environment.
Each subsystem's output is in the form of a 'symbolic medium of exchange' - at the level of the social system 'A's medium is money, 'G's is power, 'I's is influence and 'L's is commitment. The status of each medium as symbolic is useful - for example money, as a generalised medium of exchange can stand for a wide range of goods, allowing a sophisticated division of labour not available in barter economies. Furthermore it allows large amounts of capital to be built up, and hence large scale production to be engaged in. This example highlights the importance of input from the other subsystems. As money is symbolic it has no real use-value in itself - a £5 note is nothing more than a flimsy piece of paper after all. Input from the value commitment and normative subsystems generates trust allowing us to accept that we can exchange the note for its promissory value on demand.
[edit] Problems with systems theory
Parsons early work focused on action as "voluntaristic," that is, he wished to understand dynamics of action not grasped by the economic determinism of Marx or the rigid insistence on actors' pursuit of self-interest of thinkers like Hobbes ("utilitarianism"). However, systems theory seems to undermine this early effort. A typical criticism of structural-functionalism generally and Parsons particularly takes issue with the emphasis on the internalization of norms and values and on the overbearing influence of the social system. His concept of pattern variables does allow for a discussion of individual action. The problem is, however, that one cannot discuss voluntaristic (unconstrained) action in the terminology of Parsonian systems theory. His theory is useful in that it demonstrates the constraints placed on action. However, it neglects the degree to which social life is generated by meanings created by actors themselves. This issue is addressed more fully by Parsons' student Niklas Luhmann (who made the case for functional structuralism) and the schools of symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology.[citation needed]
