See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227328702

Bernard Barber’s social system theory

Article  in  The American Sociologist · June 2002

DOI: 10.1007/s12108-002-1004-4

CITATIONS READS

2 351

1 author:

Bruce Wearne
Graduate of Monash (BA 1971), Waikato (MSocSci 1978) and LaTrobe (1987) Universities
39 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biblical studies and scholarship. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce Wearne on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bernard Barber's Social System Theory

BRUCE C. WEARNE

Introduction

This essay is a b o u t Bernard Barber's theory of the social system. The formu-
lation of this theory given b y Barber in his "late in career" essays brings to the
fore a theoretical d e v e l o p m e n t that goes back, at least, to Barber's undergradu-
ate education in the 1930s, and has b e e n implicit in his p u b l i s h e d writings ever
since, including seminal w o r k s in that subspecialty of sociology for which he is
well-known, the sociology of science. 1 Barber was b o r n in 1918 and graduated
from Harvard A.B. (1939), M.A. (1942), and Ph.D. (1949).
In formulating this theory, Barber has h a d to give special and e x t e n d e d
consideration to h o w his o w n thinking on the social s y s t e m c o m p a r e s a n d
contrasts with that of Talcott Parsons. It might b e p o s s i b l e to read Barber's
theory writing since the 1980s as simply an attempt to restate Parsons' theory in
accessible prose, but that w o u l d be a mistake. There's more to it. Barber does write
social system theory in a style that is more transparent than Parsons' prose, and w e
might even wish to argue that this is an integral c o m p o n e n t of Barber's social
system theory. But Barber's social system theory also n e e d s to b e c o n s i d e r e d as
social system theory in it's o w n right. And that is the p u r p o s e of this article.
As w e examine what he has written, w e e n c o u n t e r various p r o b l e m s that
Barber has e n c o u n t e r e d in his attempts to state his o w n theory. As w e follow
his logic w e can indeed derive certain valuable insights not only a b o u t social
system theory, but also a b o u t the processes of theory construction and the w a y
in which scientific w o r k is a collective enterprise requiring careful rethinking
of basic assumptions.
Barber's version of "functionalist theory" is a sophisticated and loyal formula-
tion by a student of Parsons w h o has, over time, d e v e l o p e d his o w n indepen-
dent evaluation of the strengths and w e a k n e s s e s of the social system theory of
his former mentor. The basic thrust of Barber's theoretical effort in these es-
says 2 should not b e m i s c o n s t r u e d as m e r e traditionalism, b u t is a c o n c e r t e d
effort to address s o m e prevailing p r o b l e m s in the theoretical tradition in w h i c h
he locates his o w n theorizing.

Address for correspondence: 29 Lawrence Rd., Point Lonsdale, Vic 3225, Australia. E-mail:
bcwearne@ozemail.com.au.

86 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

 We b e g i n to a p p r e c i a t e s o m e o f t h e s e w h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h e w a y T a l c o t t
P a r s o n s identified the intellectual p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h t h e o r e t i c a l a d v a n c e m e n t
in social s y s t e m t h e o r y h a d b e e n m a d e possible. B a c k in 1949, P a r s o n s h a d p u t
it in t h e s e terms:

Our own generation has seen at least the beginnings of a process of more general pulling
together. Even when a good deal of theory was actually being used in research much of the
teaching of theory was still in terms of the "systems" of the past, and was organized about
names rather than working conceptual schemes. Graduate students frantically memorized the
contents of Bogardus or Lichtenberger with little or no effect on their future research opera-
tions and little guidance as to how it might be used. But this has gradually been changing.
Theory has at least begun no longer to mean mainly a knowledge of "doctrines", but what
matters far more, a set of patterns for habitual thinking. This change has, in my opinion, been
considerably promoted by increased interest in more general theory, especially coming from
study of the works of Weber and Durkheim and, though not so immediately sociological, of
Freud. There has thus been the beginning at least, and to me a very encouraging beginning, of
a process of coalescence of these types of more or less explicit theory which were really
integrated importantly with research, into a more general theoretical tradition of some sophis-
tication, really the tradition of a working professional group. 3

T h i s s t a t e m e n t is o v e r 50 y e a r s old. E v e n b e f o r e w e c o m e to e x a m i n e
Barber's writings a b o u t the t h e o r e t i c a l tradition that is h e r e b e i n g r e f e r r e d to,
w e can e x p e c t that m a n y o f t h o s e i n v o l v e d f r o m that time will h a v e d e v e l o p e d
their o w n r e t r o s p e c t i v e v i e w o f the s u b s e q u e n t "patterns" that did i n d e e d e m e r g e .
T h e fact is that B a r b e r did n o t give u p "structural-functionalism" e v e n if t h e
i m m a n e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s to "social s y s t e m t h e o r y " p r e f i g u r e d b y P a r s o n s ' o w n
u t t e r a n c e did n o t take place. If P a r s o n s ' a n n o u n c e m e n t o f it w a s i n d e e d the
b e g i n n i n g to a n e w tradition for s o c i o l o g y , the s t a t e m e n t in itself actually raises
a critical q u e s t i o n . After all, P a r s o n s h a d n e v e r t h e l e s s d e f i n e d scientific rational-
ity as a t r e n d opposed to traditional rationality. T h a t logical p r o b l e m , in r e l a t i o n
to the a b o v e rhetoric, is c o m p o u n d e d later in the s a m e a d d r e s s w h e n P a r s o n s ,
h a v i n g o u t l i n e d the d e v e l o p m e n t s that h a d t a k e n p l a c e at H a r v a r d , in c o l l a b o r a -
tion w i t h " P r o f e s s o r s T o l m a n o f California a n d Shils o f C h i c a g o , ''4 c o n c l u d e s
w i t h a prophetic a n n o u n c e m e n t that s o c i o l o g y w a s t h e n s t a n d i n g " n e a r t h e
b e g i n n i n g o f o n e o f t h o s e i m p o r t a n t c o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f c u l t u r e g r o w t h . ''5
If that s t a t e m e n t is to f u n c t i o n in a scientific c o n t e x t , a c c o r d i n g to the stan-
dards that P a r s o n s h i m s e l f e m p h a s i z e d , t h e n it is i m p o r t a n t to test it empirically.
Did s o c i o l o g y as a discipline e x p e r i e n c e s u c h g r o w t h ? Did the d e v e l o p m e n t s in
a g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f action w h i c h P a r s o n s t h e r e f~ted, p r o v i d e s o c i o l o g y w i t h
the i n t e g r a t i o n w h i c h P a r s o n s said it w o u l d ?
That b o l d p r e d i c t i o n w a s m a d e w h e n the f o r m a l a c a d e m i c c a r e e r o f B e r n a r d
B a r b e r w a s just b e g i n n i n g . H e h a d b e e n P a r s o n s ' s t u d e n t a n d h a d g r a d u a t e d
with the Ph.D. in that s a m e y e a r / ' T h e y e a r b e f o r e h e h a d p u b l i s h e d a n article
with P a r s o n s 7 a n d in the first v o l u m e o f P a r s o n s ' Essays, p u b l i s h e d in 1949, his
"Biographical Sketch" h a d also a p p e a r e d . 8
Even t h e n , Barber's 1949 " B i o g r a p h i c a l S k e t c h o f Talcott P a r s o n s " r e m i n d e d
the social s c i e n c e c o m m u n i t y o f the r o o t s o f P a r s o n s ' social s y s t e m t h e o r y in
P a r s o n s ' critical e v a l u a t i o n o f Marshall a n d o t h e r e c o n o m i s t s . It s e e m s as if
B a r b e r w r o t e that with an intuitive h u n c h that it w a s likely s o m e w o u l d take
Parsons' "systematic sociological t h e o r y " w i t h o u t giving d u e r e f e r e n c e to w h a t

Weame 87
had p r e c e d e d it in Parsons' o w n theoretical development. Parsons' sociological
t h e o r y b e g a n life as a systematic study of the n o n e c o n o m i c aspects of eco-
n o m i c behavior as p r e s e n t e d by leading neoclassical economists. So, in that
small piece Barber explained, by w a y of a highly c o n d e n s e d summary, that the
theory of the social system c a m e about w h e n ends and m e a n s gave w a y to
system and function. That small d o c u m e n t has remained an important reminder
ever since, standing over against the emerging criticism that affixed itself to Parsons'
social system theory with the stereotypes of "Grand Theory," "abstracted empiri-
cism," and the "associating or dissociating of concepts." Even then it seems that
Barber was intimating another w a y for social theory discussion.
In these recent articles and books Barber has e x t e n d e d his o w n distinctive
position by critical re-affirmation. The social system c o n c e p t was implicit for
him in the late 1930s. 9
Sometime in the 1980s Barber decided to re-chart his o w n contribution and
has d o n e so by reference to his understanding of what occurred at that time.
The w o r k of Jeffrey Alexander, which sought to redefine the logic of sociologi-
cal analysis by reference to Parsons' place in the sociological tradition, 1~ pro-
vided an initial stimulus in the d e v e l o p m e n t of "neofunctionalism''n which Barber
has w a t c h e d very carefully and sympathetically. Since then he has b e e n busy
developing his o w n distinctive formulation of social system theory. Indeed, he
states plainly that the "neofunctionalist" m o v e m e n t that h a d e m e r g e d f r o m a
reconsideration of Parsons' theory, still lacked the "one essential c o m p o n e n t . ''12
Clearly, this has b e e n an intellectual pursuit which, in its o w n way, not only
demonstrates Barber's single-mindedness, but also helps us u n d e r s t a n d some-
thing of the complex path which a student of social theory will sometimes have
to tread. It is not as if Barber w o u l d simply take Parsons' "earlier" form of social
system theory only to depart from it o n c e his dissenting contribution b e c a m e
clear to him. 13 That has not b e e n his approach.
W h e n the "prophetic a n n o u n c e m e n t " m a d e by Barber's primary m e n t o r was
read subsequently it must have p r o v o k e d former students to reconsider h o w
sociology had d e v e l o p e d since that time.
Many have e x p e r i e n c e d the difficulties of trying to specify the "organon ''14
of Parsons' sociological theory. But w h e n the exposition of Parsons' theory was
pedagogically and publicly i n t e r w o v e n with the professional a n d p r o p h e t i c
statements I have referred to above, t h e n d e e p analytical p r o b l e m s e m e r g e ,
even as the underlying motif of the theory, as Parsons saw it, is clarified. It is
also an ambiguity which any loyal and critical student must wrestle with.
Of course, there are admirable features w h i c h should not be ignored w h e n a
scholar demonstrates an ability to c o n v e y a vision for theoretical work. As well,
w h e n that vision is a c c o m p a n i e d by an exposition of scientific self-criticism,
seeking to s h o w h o w one had previously b e e n h e a d e d in a w r o n g direction,
w e n e e d to take note and listen carefully in a respectful scientific attitude. Self-
critical listening to the theoretical arguments of a n o t h e r is neither taking the
theorist's w o r d for it as the last word, nor is it a matter of waiting for s o m e
fallacy or error or inconsistency to emerge.
But at that point, Parsons' "Prospects" essay, in so far as it is a "report in
progress," contained complex interpretative and other problems w h i c h did not
easily p r o m o t e a self-critical appropriation of Parsons' "social system theory"

88 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

a m o n g his o w n students. Yes, Parsons w a s cognizant of the variant r e s p o n s e s to
his exposition in that professional after-dinner audience. 15 But w h a t w e n o w
have to go on is the published form of Parsons' self-criticism w h i c h prima facie
involves an assumption that his d e m o n s t r a t i o n that his t h e o r y is provisional
should suffice for any reader's critical reception of his argument. It d o e s not, of
course. It n e e d s critical and self-critical reflection. T h e y are different, if inti-
mately related, matters.
As w e s e e k to u n d e r s t a n d Barber's social s y s t e m theory, let us c o n s i d e r
further Parsons' a n n o u n c e m e n t of h o w he s a w the "Prospects for Sociological
Theory." O n this, as on other occasions, Parsons w a s quite u n a b a s h e d to ac-
k n o w l e d g e that the "essential n e w insight" w a s unfortunately not easy to state.16
He w e n t on to explain that he also n e e d e d to o v e r c o m e a particularly unpro-
ductive phase in his post-1937 d e v e l o p m e n t b e c a u s e of his use of a "biological
m o d e of thought. ''.7 Culture had not b e e n granted i n d e p e n d e n t variable status TM
in the evolving system of concepts. As w e read on in that a c c o u n t w e are
presented with details of a specific intellectual process b y w h i c h Parsons w o r k e d
through, and b e y o n d , the implications of the theory, as it had b e e n b a s e d u p o n
assumptions that derived from a previous paradigm. 19 Even then they w e r e o n
the w a y to b e i n g s u p e r s e d e d w i t h the e m e r g e n c e of n e w possibilities for
logical d e v e l o p m e n t and elaboration. Midway after apologizing for an abstruse
explanation of h o w theory m a y b e integrated with empirical research at a level
higher than hitherto, z~ Parsons described h o w a serious p r o b l e m e n c o u n t e r e d in
his collaboration with Tolman and Shils w a s overcome.

But something about this paradigm did not quite "click." It almost suddenly occurred to us to
"pull" the value-element out and put it into a separate range, with a classification of its o w n
into three m o d e s of value-orientation: cognitive (in the s t a n d a r d , not content, sense), appre-
ciative and moral. This gave us a paradigm of three "dimensions" in which each of the three
ranges or sets of m o d e s is classified against e a c h of the other two. 21

Certainly the "click" indicates a crucial point has b e e n reached. The conse-
q u e n c e s of this found their way, w e are told, into Towards a General Theory of
Action. Parsons continues:

This transformation o p e n e d up n e w possibilities of logical d e v e l o p m e n t and elaboration w h i c h

are m u c h too c o m p l e x and technical to enter into here. I n d e e d the implications are as yet only
very incompletely w o r k e d out or critically evaluated and it will be m a n y months b e f o r e they
are in shape for publication. But certain of t h e m are sufficiently clear to give m e at any rate the
conviction that they are of considerable importance, and taken together, will constitute a
substantial further step in the direction of unifying our theoretical k n o w l e d g e and b r o a d e n i n g
the range of generality of implication, with the p r o b a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e of contributing substan-
tially to the cumulativeness of our empirical research. =

But s e v e n years later, in 1956, Barber outlined four basic theoretical p r o b -

lems which he said w e r e in n e e d of resolution within sociology in general and
in the structural-functional stream of general theory in particular. 23 Clearly, for
all of his g o o d faith and g o o d intentions, Parsons' statements a b o u t the integra-
tion of theory and empirical research h a d not then b e e n fulfilled. Barber re-
flects that at that time Parsons w a s b e c o m i n g "the optimist a n d promoter,"
e x p e n d i n g considerable time and effort p r o m o t i n g sociology as a "truly inte-

Weame 89
grated, inter-disciplinary social science. ''24 This w a s a project on a national
scale and the effort continued into the 1960s. 25
Of note here, from Parsons' 1949 address, is that his optimism then had m u c h
to d o with his expectations a b o u t the e m e r g e n c e of an authentic interdiscipli-
nary culture within Harvard's Department of Social Relations w h i c h was "com-
mitted to the synthesis of sociology with parts of p s y c h o l o g y and anthropol-
ogy. ,,26
But Barber also points out that The Social System, Parsons' 1951 "major e x p o -
sition of the author's conceptual s c h e m e for the analysis of the dynamics of the
social system," "never p r e s e n t e d such a c o m p l e t e system; indeed after a start in
that direction, it w a n d e r e d off in all sorts of other, if interesting, directions. ''27
Moreover,

...in the preface [to The Social System] Parsons speaks of the rapid theoretical development
that had been occurring during the very writing of that book as a result of his work with Shils
on the monograph Toward a General Theory o f Action. In his Daedalus memoir 28 Parsons also
notes the rapidity with which his ideas changed at the time, and mentioned the fact that he
experienced what he liked to call a theoretical "breakthrough. ''a9

Parsons' seems to b e referring to the same, or a similar, personal e x p e r i e n c e

in his 1949 Presidential Address. In his address he was then leading u p to the
point w h e r e he unveiled his collaborative w o r k with Tolman and Shils that w e
have d i s c u s s e d above. A c k n o w l e d g i n g the interpretative p r o b l e m s his audi-
ence will u n d o u b t e d l y have had up to this point in his lecture, he continued:

With relatively little alteration, everything I have said up to this point had been written, and has
deliberately been left standing, when I underwent an important personal experience which
produced what I hope will prove to be a significant theoretical advance in the field of general
theory.-~~

We k n o w that The Social System, as originally conceived, was to be but o n e

of several monographs, prefigured in Toward a General Theory o f Action, the
other t w o being c o n c e r n e d with Personality and Cultural Systems. 31 But despite
the predictions, "full expectations" concerning revision and "the field being in a
process of such rapid development, "32 the guiding vision of the overall project
in Toward a General Theory o f Action s e e m s to have g o n e into recess and The
Social System b e c a m e b y default the major exposition of Parsons' c o n c e p t u a l
scheme. We are n o w left w o n d e r i n g w h e t h e r the project that w a s integral to
The Social System and Toward a General Theory o f Action w a s d i s p l a c e d in
s o m e way. The series of b o o k s w h i c h t h e s e w o r k s anticipated w o u l d h a v e
given a s o m e w h a t different form to the general theory of the system of action.
The series of b o o k s which w e r e then anticipated w o u l d have given form to
the general theory of the system of action. Parsons w a s then emphatic a b o u t the
s c h e m e of five "pattern variables":

These concepts can now be systematically derived from the basic frame of reference of action
theory, which was not previously possible. 33

Barber opines, critically, that this is p r o b a b l y the turning point at w h i c h

Parsons was to "find that m y o w n thinking ... had e v o l v e d b e y o n d the stage

90 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

reached in that b o o k , almost before it w a s published. ''34 In Barber's view, this is
the point at w h i c h the significant difference b e c o m e s evident b e t w e e n his o w n
a n d Parsons' social system theory. The Social System r e p r e s e n t e d a promising
start but " w a n d e r e d off in all sorts of other, if interesting, directions. ''35 It w a s
less empirical and m o r e analytically abstract than Barber had initially e n c o u n -
tered in Parsons' "Sociology 6, Comparative Institutions" course a d e c a d e ear-
lier.
The theoretical d e v e l o p m e n t s that are said to have taken place in Parsons'
thinking b e t w e e n the formulation a n d the publication of The Social System 36
have everything to do with the t w o limitations Barber specifies in Parsons' later
w o r k on the social system. These limitations notwithstanding, Barber states that
"Parsons w a s always committed to the importance of constructing a c o m p l e t e
empirically relevant social system theory. ''37
To get at this same problematic another way, w e find that w h e n w e consider
Barber's "late-in-career" e s s a y s w e are i m p r e s s e d that he has c o n t i n u e d to
m a k e a c o n c e r t e d theoretical effort to identify the "stuff ''3~ in the Parsonian
argument which, in his judgment, still n e e d s to b e given c o n c e r t e d scientific
r e s p e c t . 39 P r e s u m a b l y , the task of c o n s t r u c t i n g social s y s t e m t h e o r y s h o u l d
maintain continuity with its past, but it should d o so in ways that allow succes-
sive generations to d e v e l o p their o w n basic ideas of social system theory and to
a p p l y t h e m empirically.
In the rest of this paper, therefore, I aim to give an account of h o w Barber
addresses, and attempts to o v e r c o m e , the p r o b l e m s he says he has f o u n d in
Parsons' social system theory. Barber's arguments in the a b o v e m e n t i o n e d es-
s a y s , in p a r t i c u l a r " T a l c o t t P a r s o n s a n d t h e S o c i o l o g y o f S c i e n c e , "
"Neofunctionalism and the T h e o r y of the Social System, ''4~ a n d the relevant
sections of Chapter 2 of Intellectual Pursuits (26-33) will be examined. Later
w o r k in "Barber studies" might c o m p a r e these statements systematically with
Chapters O n e and T w o of Parsons' definitive work, The Social System.
Barber points out that the title of his "Neofunctionalism" essay is m o r e a
reflection of the audience to w h i c h his c o m m e n t s w e r e originally addressed,
and, as is clear from his argument, he w r o t e to address all sociologists, not
simply a narrow coterie of self-styled neofunctionalists. 41 As w e shall see, this
is not a minor point. In Barber's o w n words:
...the chapter is addressed not just to neofunctionalists but all sociologists, as is clear from the
substance of the work. That I had to address this functionalist p a p e r e v e n to self-styled
neofunctionalists is indicative of the great n e e d for the theory and m o d e l I offer in the paper. 42

Moving on to an exposition of the r u d i m e n t a r y outline of Barber's social

system theory, I w o u l d suggest that it is not only a clear and precise formulation
of functionalist theory, but it also s u c c e e d s in presenting a convincing case that
s o m e basic theoretical questions n e e d to b e reconsidered b y sociologists a n d
social theorists. In Barber's view, that is the w a y it always should b e in science.

Barber's Social System Theory

Barber p r e s e n t s his m o d e l for social s y s t e m t h e o r y i m m e d i a t e l y after he
outlines the various characteristics in c o n t e m p o r a r y sociology that stand in n e e d

Weame 91
o f c o r r e c t i o n . For t h e p u r p o s e o f this e x p o s i t i o n o f B a r b e r ' s t h e o r y I will dis-
c u s s his p o s i t i v e " d o c t r i n e s " first, k e e p i n g in m i n d that this is a critical " s k e t c h , "
in the B a r b e r style, o f a p r e s e n t - d a y f u n c t i o n a l i s t w h o s e t h e o r i z i n g w a s f o r m e d
as P a r s o n s ' social s y s t e m s t h e o r y t o o k its initial d i r e c t i o n f r o m P a r s o n s . B u t
B a r b e r explicitly n o t e s that it

...is an improved alternative to Parsons's own later, more abstract, hard-to-use-empirically

version of social system theory. 43

As w e h a v e s e e n , B a r b e r e m p h a s i z e s t h e " e m p i r i c a l " f o c u s P a r s o n s e m p h a -
s i z e d in his 1 9 3 7 - 1 9 3 8 S o c i o l o g y 6 c o u r s e . 44 H e p r o p o s e s t h a t f a u l t y s o c i a l
s y s t e m t h e o r y c a n b e o v e r c o m e in t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y :

...a model that presupposes the following: the independence and interdependence of all its
categories; a functional or causative relationship among its categories; and the possibility of
both stability and change in the available alternatives within and among the categories. It is an
inherently provisional model, as all scientific theories and models should be. For example, in
recent years it has become apparent that the social-structural category of gender should be
added as a separate and partly independent (but not absolutized) variable. Finally, the words
"Avoid 'the fallacy of the list'" should be added to the model to signify the theoretical principle
of the equality of all the category variables; no one is theoretically to be preferred over all the
others; the variables can be listed in any order so long as they are all listed. 4s

So, B a r b e r is o p e n l y a d m i t t i n g that this is a n e x c e s s i v e l y b r i e f g e n e r a l state-

m e n t , a n d w e n o t e that it w a s f o r m u l a t e d to m a k e c l e a r h o w the t h e o r y o f t h e
social s y s t e m s h o u l d f u n c t i o n in the s u b - d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e s o c i o l o g y o f s c i e n c e .
For all it's b r e v i t y it is a s t a t e m e n t that a l l o w s for t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l
criticism. It's b r e v i t y also o p e n l y invites t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l criticism.
And, as a "sketch," it also a v o i d s a n y i m p l i c a t i o n that it is s o m e h o w b e y o n d o u r
q u e s t i o n i n g or revision. As a "sketch," it is a b r i e f o u t l i n e o f b a s i c i d e a s o n a
g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l level for f u r t h e r scientific d i s c u s s i o n . In fact, as w e l o o k at it
carefully, w e n o t e that it c o u l d i n d e e d b e a " s k e t c h " o f a n y g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l
s c h e m e , a n d s o a f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n arises for clarification a n d e l a b o r a t i o n : W h a t
are the v a r i o u s g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i a l t h e o r e t i c a l s c h e m e s that B a r b e r h a s in m i n d ?
To a n s w e r this q u e s t i o n w e h a v e to realise h e is p u t t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o n t h e
level o f general theoretical systems a n d , t h e r e f o r e , critically, w e s h o u l d p r o c e e d
b y a s k i n g a b o u t t h e b a s i c c a t e g o r i e s that p e r t a i n to this level. A n d B a r b e r ' s
a n s w e r is f o r t h c o m i n g :

Action, life, and matter are partly independent of one another but also considerably interde-
pendent, although it is often extremely difficult, in any particular case or area, to find precise
and definitive empirical evidence of just how they interact with each other. 4('

O n this level, the c o n f u s i o n a b o u t the u s e o f t h e t e r m "social s y s t e m " c a n b e

clarified b y n o t i n g that:

General system of action should be used to refer to the special basic stuff, human action,
distinguishing it from those other two basic stuffs, life and matter, each of which is the focus
of a general system of theory? 7

By d e v e l o p i n g the social s y s t e m t h e o r y in this w a y , B a r b e r n o t o n l y p r o t e c t s

the t e r m "social s y s t e m " f r o m b e i n g u s e d as a n e q u i v a l e n t to "action" o n t h e

92 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

general "stuff' level, but he also indicates a way in which we can theoretically
a v o i d its a m b i g u o u s a n d c o n f u s i n g m i s u s e i n s o c i o l o g i c a l analysis. In Barber's
view, this continuing misuse of the term "social system" was, at least in part,
derived from Parsons' own confusing and, ironically, less than systematic, use
o f t h e t e r m itself.

Sometimes he used it to refer to a total social system, a society, called in the later phase of his
work a "societal community." More often, he used it to refer to one of three subsystems of any
society or total social system, that is, social systems as against culture and personali W. This
usage became more common as his theoretical interests shifted somewhat away from the
study of social structure to the study of the two other subsystems, culture and personality. His
emphasis also shifted to what he called "the general system of action. ''48

T h i s is w h y B a r b e r c a n c o n c l u d e that although T h e Social System is a w o n d e r -

ful b o o k ,

...there is no orderly presentation of a comprehensive, empirically grounded model for the

social system. Instead, there are analyses of some functionally essential social, structural, and
cultural elements of a generalized model of society as a social system, such as kinship,
stratification, power, and socialization (education) mixed with cultural elements such as reli-
gion, science, ideology, and v a l u e s . 49

B a r b e r is c l a i m i n g t o b e a n a d v o c a t e o f a t h e o r e t i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t that The
Social System h a s s o u g h t t o p r o m o t e , b u t w h i c h it f a i l e d , e s s e n t i a l l y a n d s u b -
stantively, to provide. Looking over these "excessively brief' statements again,
we can make some brief comments on three aspects of Barber's alternative
t h e o r y : 1. h o w s o c i a l s y s t e m t h e o r y r e l a t e s t o s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ; 2. t h e c h a r a c t e r
o f t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m c o n c e p t ; 3. t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e o r e t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n .

The Social System T h e o r y o f Social Institutions

Initially, Parsons had been concerned with sociology as the theory of social
i n s t i t u t i o n s . T h i s w a s w h e r e B a r b e r " c a m e in" a s a H a r v a r d s t u d e n t . W e h a v e
already mentioned that Parsons's two-semester c o u r s e , S o c i o l o g y 6, i n C o m -
parative Social Institutions was important for Barber's empirical orientation. He
observes:

Parsons, naturally, was the organizer and theorist in the course, but he was assisted by a set of
specialist Harvard colleagues whom he invited to lecture on various social institutions in such
very different societies around the world as China, India, the ancien r~gime in France, Navaho
Indians in the United States, Antonine Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Victorian England, ancient
Greece, and mediaeval Europe. Parsons's purpose in inviting these lectures was to provide
expert demonstrations of both the constants and the great historical and societal variability in
such social institutions as kinship, stratification, religion, law, education, and politics. For it
was "social institutions," he said explicitly in his opening theoretical statement, that were (sic!)
the central concept necessary for the analysis of societal structure and variation. Sociology he
said, had to be theoretical, had to have a way of selecting the constants and the variants in
social behavior, and social institutions was what he had chosen. Thus, in 1937-39, there was no
mention, as there might well have been, of the social system; instead, social institutions was what
he called the "central concept"...it was this course that set me on the path I eventually took to the
goal of constructing an empirically based, comparative, relatively complete theoretical model of
the social system. For me at least, the concept of the social system was implicit already. 5~

Weame 93
 This is a w e l c o m e , albeit c o m p l e x , a n d also n o t surprising, o b s e r v a t i o n ;
Barber s e e m s to be suggesting that Parsons the theorist/lecturer a v o i d e d mak-
ing any connection b e t w e e n the empirical results of the comparative analysis
of social structure and variation on the o n e hand, and the social system c o n c e p t
on the other. Parsons had already e n c o u n t e r e d the c o n c e p t in the w o r k s o f
Pareto and Henderson. But, Barber claims he then considered the "social sys-
tem" c o n c e p t to b e implicit in the course and its empirical findings. Presum-
ably, Barber was intrigued b y the w a y social institutions w e r e integrated into a
(historical) system at any particular point in time a n d / o r place.
But w h a t is this "system"? Is it s o m e m e c h a n i s m of functional integration
"behind the scenes," so that all the different institutions of a particular society
will take on the stamp of that particular society? If so, this is a kind of function-
alism that is impressed with the practical research orientation that e x p e c t s to
find social i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e the m o r e o n e investigates and analyzes i n d e p e n -
dent social realities. As o n e studies any one, other, or a group of social institu-
tions, then an outline o f the entire social horizon, with its variety of social
institutions, will, in time, c o m e into view. This then unveils a methodological
assumption that any particular institution is structured as a function of the entire
society in which it exists, and, in so doing, reflects in its o w n w a y that particular
manifestation of the entire social system.

The System C o n c e p t

If w e look back over the "excessively brief' statements Barber has given to
us concerning the w a y he defines his o w n social system theory, w e are im-
p r e s s e d by various things. First, there is the a s s u m p t i o n that o n e can m a k e
significant advances in theory construction by relatively brief statements. As I
have implied in various w a y s already, I think that Barber s h o u l d b e rightly
r e c o g n i z e d as a social theorist w h o has i n c o r p o r a t e d "brief summaries," or
"sketches," into his theory writing style. The other thing that is evident from
t h e s e statements is that they are as m u c h definitions of w h a t social s y s t e m
theory is not as they are positive statements of theoretical axioms.
This itself gives us cause to pause, but p e r h a p s it indicates Barber's v i e w that
theorizing must follow after reality, rather than p r e c e d i n g it in a p r i o r i a n d
dogmatic fashion. In this sense, social system theory is that theoretical orienta-
tion c o n c e r n e d with "action" that is not specifically directed to culture a n d
personality. Likewise, "action" is that dimension of reality, substance, or "stuff,"
which is neither physical nor living "stuff." It is, therefore, quite consistent to
affirm that:
The essential presupposition of social system theory is that its basic stuff is, to use what has
become a technical term, "action"; that is, the exchange of meanings and ideas in social
interaction through mutually understood symbols..."Action" is the basic stuff of the social
world in the same way that "life" is the basic stuff of the biological world and that "matter" is
the basic stuff of the physical world. All three of these basic stuffs are ontologically and
theoretically coequal...All three stuffs are partly independent of one another, and each is
partly and always interdependent with the other two .... 51

A variation of this idea w e f o u n d in the statement a b o u t the important c h a n g e s

Parsons had r e p o r t e d in his "Prospects" lecture (see 87-89 a b o v e ) . 52 But in

94 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

Barber's formulation it is more a m e n a b l e to theoretical criticism, if only b e c a u s e
it is stated simply as an axiom: a n d just like a n y o t h e r science, s o c i o l o g y
requires a model that p r e s u p p o s e s the i n d e p e n d e n c e and i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e of
all of its categories. From this w e can also derive a definition (albeit provi-
sional) of a system as a set of interdependent i n d e p e n d e n t variables, and the
theoretical task of analysis of the social system can b e specified as exploring
the functional or causative relationships a m o n g its categories, as well as inves-
tigating social stability and social change that is inherent in any particular soci-
ety. 53
We might wish to push this discussion further in the following way: A system
can b e defined as a set of interdependent i n d e p e n d e n t variables. But what d o e s
this set refer to? What is a social system? Another w a y of saying this is m a y b e
that a social system is (an account of) the order, or ordering principles, w h i c h
pertain b e t w e e n a n y set of social actors. A s y s t e m identifies the order, or
ordering principle, of i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n i n d e p e n d e n t variables. But
that is this writer's formulation, not necessarily Barber's. The w o r d "order,"
admittedly, m a y b e problematic.

Theoretical Reflection

By setting forth his o w n social system theory in these terms, Barber s u c c e e d s

in linking sociology to basic questions of the p h i l o s o p h y of science. A particu-
larly pertinent and critical m o m e n t is r e a c h e d b e c a u s e it s e e m s that the ques-
tion of the nature and significance of scientific reflection is itself a c c e p t e d as an
integral part of theorizing. It is not to b e dismissed as a diversion, but since
under Barber's m o d e l there is inherentprovisionality to w h a t e v e r statements are
put forward, it is possible to see philosophical and other questions as valid and
needing to be raised as part of the same intellectual pursuit. Barber's o w n v i e w
on this is considered in his essay "On the Relations b e t w e e n P h i l o s o p h y of
Science and Sociology of Science. ''54
The alternative formulation to social system theory that Barber puts forward
involves the use of simple diagrams, but with the caveat "Avoid 'the fallacy of
the list! '''ss They have a simplicity which, in terms of his overall discussion, are
put forward to assist in the painstaking and difficult process of "constructing the
social system." They also w o u l d b e a useful point of departure in critical theo-
retical discussion a b o u t research m e t h o d s in any sociological research investi-
gation. They are fornmlated as aids to discussion.
It s e e m s likely that Barber is actually formulating his argument to c o u n t e r a n y
construal of social system theory as s o m e attempt to include all k n o w l e d g e into
o n e encyclopedic whole. It is in the form of an invitation, as m u c h to scholarly
and scientific debate, as it is to all sociologists to consider the value of the
various sociological "schools." He has raised the question of the meaning and
structure of our act of theorizing and d o e s so in a w a y that suggests it is an
integral part of, rather than a peripheral diversion from, our scientific work.
There is another issue which Barber's alternative formulation can help bring
to light. It is this: The critique of functionalism t o o k off after 1951, but w h a t e v e r
targets it aimed at--alleged d o g m a s a b o u t the static character of social structure;
implicit conservatism; value absolutism; Grand Theory; or the m e r e "associating

Weame 95
a n d dissociating of c o n c e p t s " - - i t did not criticise social system t h e o r y itself
which, in Barber's terms, had not then attained any concise, precise, or defini-
tive form. T h e s u b s e q u e n t "sociological p e r s p e c t i v e , " w i t h its implicit cri-
t i q u e of the functionalist social s y s t e m t h e o r y , must t h e r e f o r e i n v o l v e the
d o g m a t i c a v o i d a n c e of s o m e crucial t h e o r e t i c a l a n d p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues.
Barber's late-in-career e x p o s i t i o n of social s y s t e m t h e o r y is t h e r e f o r e also a
pertinent stimulus to reconsider s o m e taken-for-granted assumptions a b o u t the
structure of the sociological enterprise o v e r the s e c o n d half of the twentieth
century. It is a challenge that is well w o r t h the consideration of all involved in
the discipline.

Conmaentary

It is n o w well over a d e c a d e since Barber m a d e s o m e of these alternative

formulations. For him, the formulation of his o w n version was a long time in
coming. The task of constructing his o w n contribution to social system theory
m a y have b e e n developing and evolving in his thought and research since the
1930s w h e n he w a s an undergraduate. But Barber's essays are the result of a
concentrated effort by a sociologist to give a theoretically responsible a c c o u n t
of his o w n "intellectual pursuits." He seeks the insight that c o m e s from focusing
u p o n a central theoretical problem: h o w his professional w o r k has, in its o w n
w a y , b e e n c o n c e r n e d with formulating social s y s t e m theory. That task, he
wants us to understand, has o c c u p i e d his thought all these years. But it is also
clear from his late-in-career essays that he d o e s not want us to understand his
intellectual effort solely in relation to this specific theoretical demand.
This m a y b e v i e w e d as a matter of Barber's distinctive "style," but, in m y
reading at least, it indicates a d e e p l y held "doctrine" that allows him to distin-
guish his o w n contribution to the theory of the social system from the contribu-
tions he has made, for example, in the sociology of science. And immediately
w e m a k e this o b s e r v a t i o n w e confront, b y implication, the "doctrine," also
formulated b y Parsons in his o w n way, that making analytical distinctions is not
the same as making logical separations. As w e consider his argument, w e will
see that this implicit "doctrine" gives his w o r k a "multi-dimensional" stamp that
w e can also identify as functionalist (or neofunctionalist).
Barber's r e p e a t e d effort to give concise a n d cogent expositions o f his ap-
proach to sociology, and the theory that is implied b y that approach, b e s p e a k
an "intellectual pursuit" with m a n y different horizons in view. These are always
interrelated in the basic schema of the scientist or scholar w h o scans t h e m for
critical theoretical understanding. Barber's exposition of the multidimensional
horizon is b a l a n c e d b y a v i e w that e a c h s e p a r a t e h o r i z o n is also, to s o m e
degree, i n d e p e n d e n t of the others. T h e y require the d e m a n d i n g specialist in-
quiry that empirical analysis alone can give.
Barber seeks to give an account of the intellectual "stream" within w h i c h he
w a s nurtured academically and he has consciously d e v e l o p e d his o w n distinc-
tive contribution with that in mind. But his essays also involve an invitation to
all sociologists and not simply those of any particular camp, still less his own.
He is well k n o w n for his w o r k in the sociology of science. But it can b e said,
b y w a y of generalization, that the tidal impact of W h i t e h e a d ' s "intellectual

96 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

adventure" is evident in various w a y s in his work, as it has b e e n in the w o r k of
his teachers and colleagues. We discern that for Barber, as for his "significant
others," there is a c o n c e r t e d a c a d e m i c p r o m o t i o n of that singular search to
follow scientific problems w h e r e v e r they m a y lead.
In s o m e respects, this impact can b e described as a psychological disposition
and interpreted as a "personality factor" driving the individual theorist. Parsons
identified himself as an "incurable theorist," b u t it is part of Barber's o w n
a p p r o a c h that he reckons with the fact that theoretical a d v a n c e m e n t is not just a
matter of w h a t the specialist in general theory m a y say or produce. It is theo-
retical w o r k itself, which takes on a life of its own, and the workers, the actors,
the theorists, in any particular scientific field, b e c o m e a b s o r b e d in the adventur-
ous spirit b y w h i c h answers are sought for problems, or sets of interrelated
problems, in an ongoing and time-consuming manner. 56
So w e note in Barber's case that, although most of his intellectual e n e r g y and
output has b e e n in terms of the subspecialty of the sociology of science, 57 a
p o i n t has b e e n r e a c h e d w h e r e he, q u a g e n e r a l theorist, felt c o m p e l l e d to
"return" (in the sense of Whitehead's "wandering") to give an a c c o u n t of his
o w n "intellectual odyssey," specifying w h a t he considers the "organon" of his
o w n specialist contribution. We have tried to re-present these positive results in
the a b o v e discussion.
Barber, the general theorist, confronted a p r o b l e m not entirely of his o w n
making. H o w can "theoretical results" b e p r e s e n t e d to an audience w h o have
not necessarily b e e n present, step b y step, p h a s e b y phase, during the unfold-
ing of the scientific odyssey? H o w d o e s the social scientist w h o s e o w n w o r k
d e v e l o p e d and matured in o n e generation outline his contribution to those of a
s u c c e e d i n g generation?
It seems to me that Barber has s u c c e e d e d , via these "late in career" essays,
to present his o w n position in a convincing and w i n s o m e way. He put his social
systems t h e o r y in its personal context b y m e a n s of brief biographical refer-
ences. We note that these later essays evince a similar "spirit" to that in w h i c h
he wrote his masterly "Sketch of the American Social Structure" in his doctoral
d i s s e r t a t i o n 58 as well as his "Biographical Sketch of Talcott Parsons. ''s9 H e
writes as one w h o takes time to appreciate the difficulties of those "not present,"
"outside," or "from another time and place," and in so doing reminds those w h o
"were present," "on the inside," and "from the same time and place" of matters
that are easily forgotten by s u b s e q u e n t developments, if not s u b s e q u e n t retro-
spective accounts.
W h e n o n e is involved in the w o r k of intellectual evolution, w h e n o n e has
b e e n a mechanic in its theoretical engine room, then there is a n e e d to "tell the
story," to help the supporting c o m m u n i t y u n d e r s t a n d w h a t their s u p p o r t has
meant and h o w it has e n a b l e d important scientific or theoretical advances. The
story is also n e e d e d so that further theoretical and empirical w o r k can b e
undertaken in the same or similar "stream." Hence, such adventurers s e e m to
experience a n e e d to responsibly set the context of their work, and findings,
for the audience, those to w h o m the results are being presented.
But t h o s e w h o have ever i m m e r s e d t h e m s e l v e s in the writings of Talcott
Parsons will recognize that the literary traits characteristic of the writings of the
"incurable theorist," e m b o d y an academic value or n o r m w h i c h characterizes

Wearne 97
the world-view of structural-functional sociological theory. 6~ They might affirm
the value, but do not necessarily endorse the form that it took with Parsons. In
his late-in-career works, Parsons gathered together his various publications, and
openly tried to clarify his own approach to republishing his essays by striking
an explicitly autobiographical note. This he did, "more strongly than before,"
because he judged that the original intellectual context in which the several
contributions had been made had itself been transcended by newly emerging
constellations of analytical problems with corresponding n e w lines of theoreti-
cal inquiry. 61 But the confusion which any n e o p h y t e encounters in Parsons'
writings is not overcome, and it seems as if Parsons responsive anticipation to
such confusion was not altogether successful. At times, critical re-presentation
of Parsons' theory seems to degenerate into a formal restatement of Parsons'
A.G.I.L schema in the cybernetic terms which Parsons himself described. 62 The
problem for the secondary analyst of Parsons is to identify the essential prob-
lems to which his theorizing was an answer. But the more one reads Parsons,
the more one b e c o m e s convinced that these, too, were subject to ongoing
development. And, in that way, the critical interpretation of Parsons too easily
became displaced by what was effectively but another summary of Parsons'
theory, bordering on unnecessary transcription of what had already b e e n writ-
ten. At the same time, the developing unsympathetic critique of functionalism,
which, as Barber suggests, may never have had a genuine target, helped to
foment a disciplinary incomprehension as to h o w Parsons' theory ever reached
its successive phases of development.
Parsons' A.G.I.L schema is indeed difficult to understand and it d e m a n d s
much of the reader. And Parsons seems to have k n o w n it very well. For those
who have picked up his anthologies from the late 1970s--Social Systems and
the Evolution of Action Theory (1977) and Action Theory and the Human Condi-
tion (1978)--the interpretative problems are compounded, as a result of Par-
sons' good intentions, because the contextualizing statements are themselves in
n e e d of very careful interpretation indeed. In those late-in-career essays of
Parsons there is a preface, a general introduction, and a series of "small" intro-
ductory essays to the various sections in both volumes. The unintended conse-
quence of Parsons' clarification is that such clarifying statements contribute to
an evolving interpretative uncertainty for the reader, who can never be sure
that the final layer of the Parsons' theoretical onion has been peeled, or that the
final drawer in the A.G.I.L 'Chinese Box '63 has at last been o p e n e d to reveal its
final contents.
To put this in another way: It is one thing to assert that the evolution of
scientific insight is always provisional; it is quite another thing to try, as Parsons
repeatedly tried to do, to keep track of the evolution of his own ideas (for the
sake of his readers) with declaratory statements that purport to present the
"context" to neophytes.
Admittedly, Parsons' brand of scientific endeavour presupposed a personal
openness which, at any particular stage, presents the reader of his "theory"
with a sense of uncertainty--there is always the emergence of the unanswered
question: How is this particular stage of logical development to be interpreted
in relation to the theory itself?. And so Parsons' embracing of the provisional
nature of his theory can easily be read as a d e e p - s e a t e d ambivalence, the

98 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

ambivalence of the pioneer w h o is simply not sure w h a t the long-term pros-
pects are, but w h o is always seeking to define himself in terms of that temporal
horizon.
After considering Barber's alternative, w e m a y have a n e w view about Par-
sons' pioneering efforts. He seems to have b e e n uncertain about the status of
the roots of his latest cultivating efforts. Could it be that a d e v e l o p m e n t is about
to take place that will override all previous d e v e l o p m e n t s in a n e w constella-
tion? W h i t e h e a d h a d specified the characteristics of such "intellectual adven-
ture" in these terms:

Modern science has imposed on humanity the necessity of wandering. Its progressive thought
and its progressive technology make the transition through time, from generation to genera-
tion, a true migration into uncharted seas of adventure. The very benefit of wandering is that
it is dangerous and needs skills to avert evils.64

It is instructive, w h e n w e consider Bernard Barber's work, to note that his

writings do not present the reader with such a problematic vortex of interpreta-
tive uncertainty, at least not with the intensity that seems to have characterized
Parsons' "clarifications." But before giving Barber lavish praise for literary el-
egance, w e must observe that, unlike m a n y others w h o have been c o n f r o n t e d
by Parsons' interpretative "vortex," Barber did not shut the b o o k and turn a w a y
from the "danger." There were i n d e e d problems inherent in Parsons' formula-
tion of social system theory, and o n e of the most difficult to negotiate must
have b e e n in the mind of the student w h o w a n t e d to take w h a t Parsons taught
or wrote with the seriousness it deserved.
O n e s u c h p r o b l e m that Barber carefully identifies is the a l l e g e d "static"
character of structural-functional theory. 65 But w h a t choice other than "static re-
presentation" does a sympathetic reader of Parsons have if, having read Par-
sons' view that scientific ideas are i n h e r e n t l y provisional, is t h e n p r e s e n t e d
with the theorist's "new developments" that m a k e previous formulations obso-
lete? It is as if Parsons asks us to retrace the previous form of Parsons' theory to
see w h y it was r e n d e r e d obsolete in the light of the alleged n e w d e v e l o p -
ments. This interpretative problem is not h e l p e d by Parsons' declaration that the
n e w insight w h i c h s u p e r s e d e s previous insight is extraordinarily difficult to
explain. And then Parsons himself did affirm that a n y assessment of c h a n g e
stands in n e e d of a relatively constant b a c k g r o u n d of n o n - c h a n g e 66 to w h i c h
later changes can then be related. That w o u l d s e e m to e n c o u r a g e a formulation
of Parsons' social system theory w h i c h is both static and a d hoc at the same
time.
S o m e h o w , in the m a n n e r in w h i c h Parsons c o n s t r u c t e d his a r g u m e n t , he
presented a case that m a d e it logically difficult for his readers to follow him
d o w n the analytical paths he trod. It is almost as if his intention to be scientific
had to suffice for objective scientific p r o o f that the theory had finally arrived.
And this stood in the w a y of the productive theoretical and empirical results
that his labour strongly suggested to him. Another w a y of saying this is to point
to the difficulties critics face in m o u n t i n g an authentic theoretical criticism of
social systems theory without "playing the man" in s o m e w a y or other.
Now, I am not suggesting that this nest of problems can be solved simply by
stating it. Nor is it m y view that Bernard Barber has d o n e so. But he d o e s

Weame 99
enable us to reconsider the theoretical tradition in w h i c h he has w o r k e d with
questions like these in mind. What Barber has done, in some of his later writ-
ings, and in other writings c o m p o s e d t h r o u g h o u t his career (including his doc-
torate), has b e e n to m a k e it possible to address this "nest" by teasing out some
basic assumptions of the resultant sociological a p p r o a c h a n d m a k e t h e m more
amenable to philosophical a n d scientific criticism. By contrast, Parsons seems to
have p u s h e d on relentlessly in his theoretical d e v e l o p m e n t by a tour de force in
w h i c h a particular philosophical construal of the "nest" is set forth as a defini-
tive provisional f o r m u l a t i o n of k n o w l e d g e at w h a t e v e r stage o f intellectual
evolution h a d b e e n reached.
We have spent m u c h of our discussion describing Barber's o w n account of
h o w his contribution to sociological theory e m e r g e d out of its relationship to
the social system theory of Talcott Parsons. But Barber describes some endur-
ing and f u n d a m e n t a l shortcomings of current sociological theory, a n d by n o
means limits himself to functionalism or neofunctionalism.

The paper is largely self-explanatory...It tells how long and continuously I have been con-
cerned with the task of constructing social system theory and of how it has been a developing
and evolving theory in my thought and research. And it specifies three of the fundamental
shortcomings in a great deal of contemporary sociological analysis that I think this theory
avoids: 1. vagueness and imprecision of terminology; 2. ad hoc-ism; and, 3. reductionism and
absolutism of theories. These shortcomings are what the theory aspires to reduce or elimi-
nate. 67

Barber uses these three shortcomings as a kind of interpretative grid, by

which he assesses sociological theory per se, neofunctionalism as a n e w theo-
retical movement, and the contribution of sociology as one science a m o n g the
sciences. Barber attempts to overcome a pattern in w h i c h the task of construct-
ing "a comprehensive systematic theory about the substance of the social sys-
tem ''6~ has b e e n repeatedly sidetracked.
From this angle we judge that Barber has i n d e e d "applied" his critical inter-
pretative grid to the w a y he discusses Parsons' impact u p o n his o w n thought.
Yes, that is a difficult task. But Barber's writing about it is clear and precise. 69
His critical posture towards the strengths and w e a k n e s s e s in Parsons' theory is
purposive, and expresses an important analytical c o m p o n e n t of his systematic
attempt to contribute to social system theory. He presents his o w n version of
this theory, w h i c h will not stop short at "action theory," and reminds his readers
of the as yet unfulfilled promise of "Parsons's s e c o n d project. ''7~
Barber's concern about the theory in its present state does not prevent him
from identifying himself as a "functionalist" of long-standing 71 but his exposi-
tion avoids reducing his contribution to a description of an a p p r o a c h by some-
one in a "stream" or "school." There is vigor in the w a y he m a k e s his o w n
contribution to science and he does so within the parameters indicated b y the
t h e o r y of action. Barber's doctrine of the i n h e r e n t provisionality of science
means that any model for the social system must be inherently provisional. 72 So,
in these terms, Barber embraces social system t h e o r y as a n e c e s s a r y task, a
specific type of action with its o w n normative constraints, w h i c h is not abso-
lute. Its provisional character acts as a spur to m o v e o n further a n d refine the
theory still more and develop social system theory anew.

100 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

 Conclusion

Barber's theory writing expressed his vocation. For him, theory-user-friendli-

ness, academic-sociological-openness, and scientific-empirical-insightful-encour-
agement seem to have been synonyms. Hence, there is a hypothesis implicit to
this memoire that should be tested by a full assessment of Barber's academic
contribution, perhaps by a doctoral dissertation. It is this: Bernard Barber has
continued to contribute to sociological theory in the way he began (before his
doctorate was completed) a n d his was a contribution driven by a desire to en-
courage students to scientifically reflect upon the "paradigmatic" theory enunci-
ated by Parsons (and Merton), how it had developed, a n d how it could be made
more fruitful. This was also a special 'field of study" which gave ongoing stimulus
to his studies in the sociology o f science and, finally, to his late-in-career exposi-
tion of his social system theory. This would have to be confirmed by a careful
study of all his works, based upon what he wrote, the accounts of those w h o
knew him, and of those who have studied his work as students and colleagues.
It would also involve analysis of the work of his students, colleagues, and
collaborators.
As a "systematic exposition," Bernard Barber's social system theory deserves
a place in the historiography of sociological theory. It may, in time, become a
definitive systematic statement, wherever the various sociological perspectives
are lined up against each other for critical comparison and contrast.
Barber's use of language has b e e n an important aspect of his clear and
clarifying contribution. But more is involved than language, although Barber's
writings are certainly always lucid. With Barber the emphasis is not upon things
becoming clearer after they have been written down, but adopting a posture
which has a keen eye for the misunderstandings his readers will e n c o u n t e r
before he begins to compose.
Barber's approach also seems to invite further reflection upon the systematic
and critical reconsideration of the encyclopaedia of the sciences. A fruitful line
of inquiry may be provided by Barber's Intellectual Pursuits w h e r e he ex-
pounds "The Concept of Culture in Social System Theory." This might also
develop some principles for the division of scientific labor and the w a y in
which the university should be organized.
Barber's "percolated" formulations make the structural functional approach
more amenable to theoretical criticism while encouraging empirical application
at a scientifically rigorous, albeit modest, level. He has t h e r e b y raised the
question of the true limits of social systems theory.
Responding to his challenge will be a major task, but it also invites a critical
historical reexamination of the way in which confusion about social system
theory was generated in the early 1950s. Barber helps us by raising questions
about how Parsons initially formulated, and then reformulated, the limits of
what he was actually then trying to construct.

Notes

1. Bernard Barber. 1952. Science and the Social Order. New York: Free Press. On Barber's
sociology of science see material referred to in footnote 57 below. A "Complete Bibliography

Wearne 101
 of the Writings of Bernard Barber 1941-1993" can be found in Barber's Constructing the
Social System Lanham: Transaction 1993.
2. "Beyond Parsons' Theory of the Professions" in Jeffrey Alexander (ed) Neofunctionalism
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1985); "Fact and Theory in the Work of Talcott Parsons" in S. Z
Klausner and V. M. Lidz (eds) The Nationalization of the Social Sciences (Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press 1986); "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science: An Essay
in Appreciation and Remembrance" in Social Studies of Science (New Brunswick: Transaction
1990) [also in Theory, Culture and Society 6 (1989): 623-35]; "Talcott Parsons on the Social
System: An Essay in Clarification and Elaboration" Sociological Theory 12 (1994): 101-105;
"Culture and Intellectual Pursuits" Chapter 2 of Intellectual Pursuits: Towards an Understand-
ing of Culture Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield 1998; "Parsons's Second Project: The Social
System-- Sources, Development, and Limitations" in A. Javier Treviflo Talcott Parsons Today:
His Theory and Legacy in Contemporary Sociology Lanham Mass., Rowman and Littlefield
2001.
3. Talcott Parsons "The Prospects of Sociological Theory" in Essays in Sociological Theory New
York: The Free Press 1954, 348-369 at 349-350. (A Presidential Address read before the
American Sociological Society, New York City, December 1949 and first published American
Sociological Review 15, 1950:3-16 at 4.)
4, ibid 356 (8).
5. ibid 369 (15).
6. Bernard Barber "Mass Apathy" and Voluntary Social Participation in the United States Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Sociology, Harvard University 1948. Published in Series "Dissertations
in Sociology" Advisory Editors Harriet Zuckerman & Robert K Merton, Arno Press. New York
1980
7. Talcott Parsons and Bernard Barber "Sociology 1941-1948" American Journal of Sociology 52,
4 January 1948: 245-57.
8. Bernard Barber. "A Biographical Sketch of Talcott Parsons" in Talcott Parsons Essays in
Sociology: Pure and Applied. 1949. New York: Free Press, 349-352.
9. Bernard Barber. "Parsons's Second Project," 80. It seems that Barber was developing a
position that was distinct to both sides of the Parsons-Merton debate as that emerged at the
December 28-30 meeting of the American Sociological Society. See Talcott Parsons "The
Position of Sociological Theory" American Sociological Review 13 1948, 156-164. See also the
"Discussion" by Robert K Merton, 164-168.
10. Jeffrey C. Alexander. 1982-1984. Theoretical Logic In Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul (Volume 1: Positivism, Presuppositions and Current Controversies (1982); Volume 4: The
Modern Reconstruction of Classical Thought--Talcott Parsons 1984).
11. And came to published form, with a contribution by Barber, in Jeffrey Alexander (ed). 1985.
Neofunctionalism Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage 1985.
12. Bernard Barber "Neofunctionalism and the theory of the social system" in Constructing
Social System Theory 1993, 5-27 at 26.
13. That does seem to characterize the intellectual path that James Coleman describes Founda-
tions of Social Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1990). The formulations of Coleman and the analysis of his own intellectual development
post 1937 is, of course, worthy of careful critical examination as well.
14. A term which Parsons, in his early critical phase, had used in relation to the voluntaristic
theory implicit in the economics of Alfred Marshall. See "Economics and Sociology: Marshall
in Relation to the Thought of His Time" in Charles Camic's edition of Talcott Parsons: the
Early Essays. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991, 69-94 at 69. This edition actually
makes serious scholarly analysis of Parsons more difficult. Apart from the new pagination
without any indication of the original Q/E pages, the initial Marshall essay "Wants and Activi-
ties in Marshall" Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (1931): 101-40, is left o u t - - a decision
based on the assumption that it was exactly the same as the chapter already in print in The
Structure of Social Action (1937), which it was not.
15. Talcott Parsons "The Prospects of Sociological Theory" (1950) in Essays in Sociological Theory
(Revised Edition) New York: Free Press, 1954, 348-369 at 56 (American Sociological Review
XV, 1 February 1950:1-16 at 8).
16. ibid 357 (8).

102 The American Sodologist / Summer 2002

17. ibid 357 (9).
18. ibid 357 (9).
19. a term he uses in this context see ibid 358 line 3 (9).
20. ibid 356 (8).
21. ibid 358 (9).
22. ibid 358 (9).
23. Bernard Barber "Structural-functional analysis: some problems and misunderstandings" Ameri-
can Sociological Review 21 (2) 1956: 129-35.
24. "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science" in Social Studies in Science 1990, 35-36.
25. Talcott Parsons (ed) Knowledge and Society.. American Sociology Voice of America Forum
Lectures 1968 and Klausner and Lidz (eds) 1986 op cit.
26. Talcott Parsons "Prospects" 356 (8).
27. Bernard Barber "Neofunctionalism and the theory of the social system" in Constructing
Social System Theory 1993, 5-27 at 12.
28. Barber is referring to Parsons' contribution to Daedalus Fall 1970 "On Building Social System
Theory: A Personal History" 826-881 and reprinted with slight amendments in Social Systems
and the Evolution of Action Theory 1977 22-76.
29. Barber "Parsons's Second Project: The Social System--Sources, Development and Limita-
tions" in A Javier Trevifio (ed) Talcott Parsons Today 2001 82.
30. "The Prospects of Sociological Theory" (1949) 356 (8).
31. The Social System New York The Free Press 1951, ix.
32. ibid x.
33. Parsons "Prospects" 360 (10).
34. Parsons The Social System, ix quoted in Barber "Parsons's Second Project," 82.
35. Barber "Neofunctionalism" 12.
36. Parsons The Social System ix.
37. Barber "Neofunctionalism" 12.
38. Of note, philosophically, is the way Barber is very careful in his use of philosophically
loaded terms. In this regard, his implicit distinction between "substance" (stuff) and "es-
sence" (idea) would be worthy of further examination. See his statements about "some
functionally essential social, structural, and cultural elements" in Parsons' generalized model
and of The Social System as "well worth studying for its theoretical and empirical substance"
("Parsons's Second Project," 82); and compare with "Unfortunately, this valuable effort of
Neofunctionalism lacks one essential component, a substantive theory and model of the
social system such as is presented here" ("Neofunctionalism" 24) [my emphases added].
Clearly system is of the essence, and action is the substance, and there is an important
philosophical issue here worth further exploration.
39. In this regard, Barber's extensive late-in-career writings on constructing social system theory
can also be seen as an implicit corrective to the construal of Parsons' development by James
Coleman in his publicly-stated intention to build on Parsons' major achievement by rejecting
Parsons' post-1937 work, see James Coleman "Social Theory, Social Research and a Theory
of Action" (American Journal of Sociology 91 (6) May 1986: 1309-35).
40. The version I am referring to is Chapter 1 of Bernard Barber Constructing the Social System.
New Brunswick: Transaction, 1993, 5-27. It was originally published in Paul Colomy, ed. The
Dynamics of Social Systems. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1992.
41. Constructing the Social System 3.
42. ibid.
43. "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science" 33-44 at 41.
44. Barber "Parsons's Second Project" 80.
45. "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science" 42.
46. "Neofunctionalism ... " 14.
47. Bernard Barber "Parsons's Second Project" 83.
48. ibid 83.
49. ibid 82.
50. ibid 80.
51. Intellectual Pursuits 26-27.
52. "Prospects of Sociological Theory" 358 (9).

Wearne 103
53. "Talcott Parsons and the Sociology of Science" 42.
54. Chapter 15 of Social Studies of Science 245-251.
55. ibid 42. See the diagrams Fig 15.1 "Action (interaction), Social Systems, Society 247, and Fig
15.2 Society, 249. Other diagrams can be found in Intellectual Pursuits [Figure 1 Relationships
among Action, Life and Matter (28) and Figure 2 A Provisional Theoretical Model for the
Social System (31)] which are repeated in Constructing Social System Theory, 14 and 16
respectively.
56. Here I can only draw brief attention to the fact that "serendipity" is referred to differently in
the scientific writings of Barber and Parsons. Compare what Barber wrote about the concept
in his 1949 "Biographical Sketch," 351-52, with what Parsons wrote in the 1949 Preface of
The Structure o f Social Action, A-B.
57. I. B. Cohen, the historian of science, refers to Barber's Science a n d the Social Order (1952),
a Current Contents "citation classic" (Current Contents 20(27): 16 July 4, 1988), when he re-
views Barber's Social Studies of Science (1990) (Current Contents 24(9): 3 March 2, 1992). He
says that in this 1952 work Barber was a pioneer in the sociology of science. It was "the first
general work on the sociology of science to be written by a trained or professional sociolo-
gist." That identifies a central aspect of Barber's contribution. But it is noteworthy that the
"Biographical Sketch" of Talcott Parsons is not included in the 1992 Current Contents list of
references and Barber's books. It deserves a special place in any listing of Barber's signifi-
cant publications in the sociology of science. It is a nudging, historically sensitive reminder
that twenty-first century social theory still needs to remain scientifically truthful and histori-
cally alert about itself and about its own "pre-history," which then must also have an impact
upon an evaluation of its subsequent development.
58. "Mass Apathy" a n d Voluntary Social Participation in the United States Ph.D. Thesis, Depart-
ment of Sociology, Harvard University 1948 (published 1980 see footnote 5 above), 13-27.
59. See footnote 7 above.
60. One of Parsons' important contributions to sociology defining itself as a discipline was his
famous essay "On Building Social Systems Theory: A Personal History" written for a special
edition of Daedalus Fall 1970, 826-881 and republished and slightly revised in Talcott Par-
sons Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory (SSEAT) New York: Free Press 1977,
22-76.
61. SSEAT "Preface," ix-x, and "General Introduction," 1-13, and "Introduction" to Part 1, Action
and Living Systems 17-21.
62. "Introduction" to Part IV The Human Condition in Talcott Parsons Action Theory a n d the
H u m a n Condition New York: Free Press 1978, 325-330.
63. To quote a term used by Guy Rocher.
64. A. N. Whitehead Science and the Modern World MacMillan. New York 1925, 258-9.
65. "Neofunctionalism and the Theory of the Social System," 21 25.
66. Talcott Parsons "Some Considerations Towards a Theory of Social Change" Rural Sociolog~v,
26 (3): 219-39 at 220.
67. Bernard Barber "Introduction to Part I" Constructing the Social System, 3.
68. Constructing the Social System, 7.
69. "Neofunctionalism" Constructing the Social System, 5.
70. Bernard Barber "Parsons's Second Project."
71. Constructing the Social System, 5.
72. ibm 9.

104 The American Sociologist/Summer 2002

View publication stats