The Domestication of Critical Theory by Thompson Michael J.;

Author:Thompson, Michael J.;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield International

Chapter 5

System and Function

The Normative Basis of Social Power

I. Introduction

The legitimacy of the social order—of any social order—is the primary area of research for any critical theory of society. The mechanics of domination work in such a way in modern societies such that it is necessary to shape the value systems of culture as well as the value-orientations of individuals. The deep structures of socialization and of the personality system of individuals are therefore the place where the tendrils of power reach and shape a cohesive system of legitimacy for any system of power and hierarchy. Seen from this point of view, it can be said that critical theory is centrally concerned with the issue of norms. Norms are the mechanism by which social power is concretized. They are social facts while also being cognitive concepts, and they organize not only cognitive forms of knowledge but also the evaluative and judgmental capacities of subjects as well. They are the very sociological means that allow for the shaping of the subjective states of individuals, affecting their cognitive, affective, and evaluative capacities. The shaping of a normative order is also the way that social power is effectively created and constructed. Any kind of material form of power—say, the ownership of property, of the ability to control political or other forms of economic power, and so on—are only really possible through the shaping of a normative order that unifies and in some basic sense stabilizes the power relations within the community. Structure and function are therefore essential aspects to understanding the actual mechanisms of social power and to understand the ways that individuals as well as whole societies come to accept and acquiesce to the prevailing forms of social power that pervade their world.

Perhaps one of the most significant turns in critical social theory has been the collapse of the structural and functionalist understanding of the institutions that make up modern social life. The general thesis that guided social theory and much of the social sciences—“critical” and otherwise—held that there existed a background logic for the systems of action and behavior that social actors performed. There was a systemic logic to the patterns of behavior that bound individuals at the most internal, personal level to the system of norms and expectations that existed outside of them. The vision of society that it promulgated was one that was in contrast to conflict theories that emphasized differential interests, asymmetrical relations of power, and the real possibility of concrete social change and transformation.1 By contrast, an emphasis on the equilibrium of systems glossed over these differentials and struggles over power, influence, and resources. But jettisoning the systemic, structural-functionalist understanding of social life—particularly as brought forth by Talcott Parsons—prevents us from seeing the deep mechanisms of personality adaptation, subject-formation, diagnosis of social and personal pathologies, and a critical appreciation for the strong, centripetal power of modern—particularly capitalist—institutional arrangements that predominate in modern society. In this chapter, I would like to reconsider the contributions of Parsons with respect

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.