My Community Essay

Talcott Parsons was an American sociologist who was born on December 13, 1902. He is seen by many as the most influential American sociologist. He has brought the ideas of Weber and Durkheim to American students. After bringing this to his students, he challenged them to think bigger than the ideas brought forth to them. One of the theories he talked about was the Modernization theory. Modernization theory can be defined as “the thesis that all societies will inevitably and invariably follow the same linear path of economic (e.g., industrialization), social (e.g., urbanization, education), and culture (e.g., democracy; self-orientation) progress achieved by American Society”(Dillion 2014:183). This states that modernization theory is basically a theory that examines how a society goes from a traditional one to a modern one. The theory looks at all the little steps in the transition from one to another. Within this theory, Parson developed five “dichotomously opposed value-oriented goals determining social action”(Dillion 2014:183). He calls these patterns variables. Parsons explained that modern society can be characterized by its placement among these five value patterns. In this essay I will first examine the five pattern variables, then discuss each of the five patterns and whether it applies to my community or deviates from it.

The five pattern variables are Universalistic versus Particularistic, Specificity versus Diffuseness, Achievement vs Ascription, Neutrality versus Affectivity, and Self versus Collectivity. One side of the pattern reflects the values of traditional society while the other side reflects modern society. With that said, through the lens of modernization theory, a more modern society is seen as more Universalistic rather than Particularistic. This is because, according to the theory, in modern society, no one group is favored. Instead of people belonging to smaller, religious or tribal groups, they are brought together as one group and formed into a citizen of a nation. The next value of the five is Specificity over diffuseness. Modern societies favor specificity over diffuseness because a modern society wants their citizens to master certain pieces of basic knowledge or skill, but also the ability to specialize in specific competencies. As a result, this creates a system of social stratification. Those who have the ability to specialize may be seen in a higher social status than those who do not. When discussing Achievement vs Ascription modern societies favor achievement over ascription. This is because modern societies are stratified. This stratification is based on individual achievement and merit rather than family or ethnic background. For the fourth of the five patterns, modern societies believe in Emotional neutrality over affectivity. In modern societies, people keep work and family separate. There is no mixing of the two in modern society. At work people solely focus on the execution of certain jobs and take the emotion out of it, while with family they can express their emotions. The final pattern modern societies believe in, according to Parsons, is self over collectivity. In modern societies, people are expected to do what they want. This goes for jobs, marriage partners, etc. Instead of going about it in a traditional way, where one would be letting race, religion or family dictate decisions in life. According to Parsons, these are the five main variables of the modernization theory. The closer a society is to all the actions favoring modern society, the more modern it should be.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

For the first pattern variable of universalistic versus particularistic, I believe that my community does not match this specific feature defined by Parsons of modern society. People from my community tend to associate with people from their side of town, their respective religions, or even people from their social class. An example of this would be a gang. Usually, gangs are composed of people from similar social classes, races, and neighborhoods. Because of this, gangs are more like tribes. Instead of being socialized into being a member of a nation, they are a member of the group, usually brought together by being from a certain section within a nation or city. They don’t abide by laws and regulations set out by the nation, but instead, they follow their own rules. Social class also plays a role in why Parson's idea of universalism can not be applied to my community. This is because social class not only exists but also determines so much for people in my community. If you are rich or white in my community the more power or leeway you get. If you're a person of color or poor the less power you have. The people in power, who are usually White and rich, get to make decisions on what direction the community goes, while the poor people of color tag along for the ride. Also because of the cruel history of the United States, White people are born with an advantage over people of color. They are more favored than people of color. Since there tends to be a hierarchy in my community that is composed of particularistic demographics, it seems that Parson's idea of universalism being a more modern trait is inapplicable to my community.

When it comes to Specificity over Diffuseness, it seems that my community fits right in with this idea. School is one area in my community that matches the idea of specificity. My high school, Berkeley High, was a larger high school that was split into smaller schools. One of these schools focused on green energy and science, there was a small school that focused on arts like dancing and media arts, and there was even a school that focused on international studies. In a sense, this goes along with specificity as the course load in high school was taught so that people could get a deeper understanding of the small school’s “focus”. In my community, there is also a vocational school, where a person is taught the skills needed to do a specific job, and learn the job on a deeper level. College is also another great example of specificity in my community. In college, students are expected to go through courses, and eventually (if not already picked at the beginning) pick something they will major in. Once a major is selected, students will take more courses, and learn more in-depth than others, gaining a specific competency on this topic. More often than not, students will then graduate and find a job related to the field they studied, which will only cause them to gain more knowledge in that field. Parson's idea of modern societies requiring their people to master basic knowledge and ability matches my community well. From a very young age, people in my community are told to go to college, do well in school and get a job. For those of us who did that, we have mastered a certain skill, and have obtained a certain ability that we can make a profit off of. This also falls with the idea of social stratification, which is another part of Parson's analysis. Those who go to high school and college tend to have a higher social status, than those who do not. Going to college, especially, is very valued as it can increase social status.

Parsons’ idea of achievement over Ascription partly applies to my community, but not in all aspects. My father always told me that it’s about “who you know”. Getting far in life is about networking and making the right connections with people in the world. People day-to-day move forward in life because they have a connection to someone that can help them move forward in life. This is also usually passed down from family. Connections that someone in my family might have, such as my father or mother, may be passed down to me. For example, my grandfather played professional soccer in Honduras. He was the leading goal scorer of one of the biggest clubs. Due to this, he was very valued in the community and was able to get my father trials in Honduras, without hesitation. My grandfather’s connections were passed down to my father. Sometimes connections can help more than hard work. In my community, even though a person may work really hard, it does not guarantee that they will be successful. Another example, and probably the biggest and most obvious example that goes against achievement over Ascription in my community is the ethnic background and family ties. As I’ve said before, race and ethnicity play such a huge role in lives in my community. Due to the cruel history in America, Whites have an upper hand when it comes to political, occupational, and social status over people of color. When you look at the people in power in my community you usually see an older White man in his 40s. When you look at college acceptance, a person who comes from more of a well-off family is more likely to be accepted than a person who comes from a struggling family. This goes against Parson's idea because due to a person's skin tone or family they’re able to achieve more, instead of it being the person who works the hardest. However, the one area I think that Parsons’ ideas may relate to my community is social status as a result of what you do. While college may be harder to get into for someone who comes from a family that struggles, once they do get into college and complete school, this is very valued. Their achievement is valued, which is what Parsons believes. I think that achievement versus ascription, in Parson's analysis, applies in some aspects, but does not apply in more aspects. It seems that while there are achievements that are valued, sometimes these achievements are harder to get for some, due to the things valued that are passed down (such as wealth, power, etc).

Emotional Neutrality versus Affectivity certainly matches up with my community. Growing up and being a boy I was always taught to suppress my emotions. “Boys don’t cry, girls do” has been something that I have been told. While it is deemed more acceptable for women to cry and show emotion, they are still not “allowed” to do so in public. If they do, it will usually result in some sort of backlash. When a person shows their emotions in public whether it be crying, angry, or stressed they get labeled. Examples of these labels are “depressed” or “crazy”. While these terms may be true for some, they are overgeneralized to many for simply just showing how they feel. That’s why in modern society and in my community people refrain from showing the emotions that will get them labeled or make people think of them differently. People in my community save their emotions for when they get home in their own private space. This also seems to be true when people have guests over. Usually, when people have guests, they are expected to be happy hosts, even if they may not truly be happy. On the other side of this, Parsons believes that a more modern society keeps work at work, and it should not be mixed with family. This seems to be mostly true. Most people tend to have a mindset that once you clock out, you are done for the day and mentally check out of work. They don't come back into a work mindset until their next shift. Parson's idea of emotional neutrality seems to match my community pretty well.

For the last of the five pattern variables that Parson talked about, the idea that modern societies believe in self-orientation over collective orientation somewhat fits my community. Unlike all traditional societies, in my community, a person gets to choose who they want to be, who they want to marry, and the life they want to live. For example, people are not expected to work a similar job as their parents. In my community parents/elders give their opinion on certain ideas, but the person who will be affected is usually the person that will have the final say so. However, in my community race, ethnicity, and social class will always play a role in some decisions. A person within my community may want to marry/join or affiliate themselves with a certain group of people but because of their skin tone they are not allowed or it is very hard for them to do so. For example, a Black man may have a harder time being in a relationship with a White woman, than a White man would, simply because of the way the community perceives race. With that said, while I believe that Parsons is correct in that people can make their own choices, and are less influenced by family members, there are still communital beliefs that may hold one back from being able to do what they truly want. Therefore, Parson's analysis only partially matches my community.

To conclude, when it comes to Parson's five patterns variables my community is split between what he believes to be a modern society and a traditional society. My community tends to be more “modern” in the sense of preferring more specificity and emotional neutrality to their counterparts. However, I think my community tends to be more “traditional” in the sense of preferring particularistic ideologies, with many groups from similar statuses. Lastly, there are places in which I feel my community has a mix of modern and traditional characteristics. In my community, we see both achievements, as well as ascription being valued. This also holds true for self-orientation versus collective orientation. Parsons argues that his pattern variables can be used to evaluate the degree of modernization in any society. It seems that it is pretty accurate. While my community may not fit everything perfectly, it is also not fully modernized. Perhaps in the future when it is “completely” modernized, Parson's analysis of the modernization theory may fit even better.