Thanks Jim, but my query concerns the specifics of Parsons' concept of role. In my story I am arguing, roughly, that his concept of role is crucially ambiguous, and therefore that he does not succeed in theorizing social roles as the nexus of social structure and social action. Parsons' concept was supposed to provide a sociological complement to neoclassical economics.
But I just want to check that I am correct, by referring to an authoritative critic of Parson's role theory. I am not arguing that Parsons is stupid, to the contrary, he is highly sophisticated (and indeed there are bourgeois-feminist Parsonians), but his concept of role falls short of what's required. Parsons has been criticized for his functionalism, tautology, oversocialized man, etc., but there are very few sociological writings which critically examine his role concept in any detail. J.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
