Talcott Parsons developed his social theory of action systems throughout his career. Parsons own approach to the social system is integrative[1] in nature since he not only brought out the significance of motivational factors, such as those present in the utilitarian perspective in the formation of the system, but also that of values. He formulates this approach through his theory of social action, which is an intrinsic element of the social system. Action, according to Parsons, does not take place in isolation. The concept of action, according to Parsons, is derived from behaviour of human beings as living organism. As living organisms they interact with outside reality as well as within their own mind. According to Parsons , any act consciously performed is social action. It becomes social action when four conditions are present:

•          It is oriented to attainment of ends or goals or other anticipated affairs,
•          It occurs in situations,
•          It is regulated by norms and values of society, and
•         It involves an investment of ‘energy’ or motivation or effort.

When all these factors are present, behaviour becomes action. Take for example a lady driving an automobile to go to a temple. She is probably going to offer prayers. In which case then the offering of the prayer is her end or goal to which she is oriented. The situation is the road on which she is driving and the car in which she is sitting. Moreover, her behaviour is regulated by social norms or values in which the offering of prayers is recognized as desirable. In addition, she is applying her intelligence in the skill of driving which is learnt from society. Finally, the very act of driving the car implies expenditure of energy, holding the wheel, regulating the accelerator and skillful negotiation through the traffic on the road. When behaviour is seen in this analytical context, it can be defined as action.

Orientation of action can therefore be divided into two components: the motivational orientation and the value orientation. Motivational orientation refers to a situation in which action takes place taking into account needs, external appearances and plans.

The range of motivational orientations are three. These are the cognitive, the cathectic and the evaluative orientations.

•           The cognitive orientation makes actors see their environment or object in relation to their need dispositions as a mental object. They, i.e. the actors, attempt to understand the objectivity of the subject matter of observation.
•          The cathectic orientation involves emotional attitude of actors towards their object, and
•          The evaluative orientation leads the actors to organize their effort in realization of their object with optimum efficiency. Take for example the behaviour of a housewife going to the market to purchase vegetables. The cognitive orientation enables her to judge the quality of vegetables in relation to her need and need in relation to its prices, the cathectic orientation would determine as to which vegetable she likes more than the others, and the evaluative orientation would make it possible for her to make a choice of a vegetable which gives her maximum satisfaction.

The second form of orientation is value orientation, which is based on considerations of standards of values, esthetics, and morality and of thinking.

The range of value orientations also comprises three parts. These are the cognitive, the appreciative and the moral.

•           The cognitive orientation is one, which relates to the issue of validity of judgment.
•          The appreciative orientation is that which makes it possible for actors to judge their emotional response to object, it appropriateness or consistency.
•          The moral orientation is one, which refers to value commitment of an actor towards his or her objects.The example of a housewife buying vegetables reveals only the motivational orientation of the housewife. But in value orientation it is the value system and the cultural pattern of the society, which is involved. The individual actors act in the context of this cultural-pattern. For example, the role and status of a son in his family is guided by certain norms of the society. As a son in a patriarchal family, he has a different status than as a son in a matriarchal family. His behaviour will be guided by the norms of his society.

Thus, the motivational orientation involves only the motives or psychological aspects of the individual while the value orientation involves the cultural system. Both, the psychological and the cultural aspects of individual behaviour are, however, interlinked and interdependent.

The motivational orientations and value orientations are two levels of orientations, according to Parsons, that define the behavioral and cultural aspects of role and role expectations.

The role expectations in a social system serve as patterns of evaluation. Every actor who performs a role has a dual capacity, because role implies interaction with other person or persons. It divides role into two kinds according to Parsons. The first is, the orientation role where actor as ego (self) interacts with alter (the other person) as his or her object. The second is, the object role where actor is the object of alter’s orientation.

Role being the most vital element of the social system, its performance generates forces of strain or tension. The extent of strain depends on the way role-expectations are institutionalized in society and also on the degree to which the values of role-expectations are internalized by social actors. In relation to motivational orientation and value orientation, in the performance of roles, each actor faces dilemmas. These dilemmas emanate from strains in an individual’s choice of or preference within a range of orientations both related to needs and to values. Though these dilemmas are often seen dichotomously they in fact are placed along a continua. These dilemmas Parsons refers to as Pattern Variables. The actor must choose between the options, before she or he can act in character. The actor must choose between the options, before she or he can act with respect to the situation. For example, in a situation, which requires an actor to choose between universalistic values or particularistic values, the actor can choose only one of them.

For reasons of simplicity these dilemmas were seen by Parsons in a dichotomous character. There are in all five-pattern variables, each side of it represents one polar extreme. These pattern variables are:

•          Affectivity versus affective neutrality
•          Self-orientation versus collectivity orientations
•          Universalism versus particularism
•         Ascription versus achievement
•          Specificity versus diffuseness.

Affectivity versus affective neutrality concerns the dilemma of role performance where evaluation is involved in relation to a situation. How much should a situation be evaluated in emotional terms or with a degree of emotional neutrality? This poses a difficult choice in most roles that we are expected to perform in society. Take for example the mother-child relationship. It has high degree or affective orientation, but discipline is also required. So on many occasions a mother would have to exercise affective-neutral role in relation to her child’s socialization. But mother-child relationship is essentially dominated by affectivity. In comparison, doctor-patient relationship brings out the aspect of affective neutrality that characterizes a doctor’s role. Affective-neutrality is essential for proper medical care, especially where surgical treatments are involved. But according to Parsons in all role performance situations the dilemma of choice and its degree of expression or commitment remains.

Similarly, in self-orientation versus collectivity orientation pattern variable the main issue is that of moral standard in the procedure of evaluation. The moral standard arises from the fact that actor has to make a choice between his or her own gratification and its deferment for the good of a larger number of people, a collectivity. Some form of altruism and self-sacrifice is involved. The dilemma of this pattern variable has always been present in human life from primitive mode of economy and society to modern civilization. The notion of socialist society and socialist consciousness offers us a good example where a whole social system and patterns of its institutions are based on the dominant choice in favour of collectivity orientation. But as Parsons has rightly pointed out, institutionalization of such values is always fragile. This is because the response to the situation by the actor is always in the form of a dilemma.

Universalism versus particularism is a pattern variable, which defines the role situation where the actor’s dilemma is between the cognitive versus the cathectic (or emotional standards) evaluation. A very good example of roles adhering to universalistic standards of human behaviour are role performance which go strictly by legal norms and legal sanctions. If one abides by the rule of law irrespective of personal, kinship or friendship considerations, then that would be an example of the universalistic mode of role performance. If one violates legal norms only because the person involved is a kin or a friend, then particularistic considerations would be said to be operating. Persons says that in societies where the role of the bureaucracy of formal organizations and modern institutions have become widespread there the dilemmas of universalism and particularism have become a matter of choice in everyday life.

The actor’s dilemma in the ascription versus achievement pattern variable is based on whether or not the actor defines the objects of his or her role either in terms of quality or performance. In India a very good example of this pattern variable is the role performance governed by the caste system. In the caste system, the statuses of persons are determined not on the basis of their personal achievement or personal skills or knowledge but on the basis of their birth. Ascription is based on assigning certain quality to a person either by birth, or age, or sex or kinship or race. Achievement is based on personal acquisition of skills and levels or performance in society.

The specificity versus diffuseness pattern variable concerns the scope of the object of role performance. Scope, in this case, is to be understood in terms of the nature of social interaction.

Some social interactions, such as between doctors and patients, or between buyers and sellers of goods in the market, have a very specific scope. The nature of these interactions is defined in terms of a very precise context of interaction. A doctor does not have to understand the social, financial or political background of his or her patients in order to treat them and to give them a prescription. Doctor’s task is very specific. So is the case of sellers of commodities in the market, who do not have to know the general details of the life of their customers. Such roles are specific in terms of the standards of response between actors.

On the contrary, some role relationships are very general and encompassing in nature. Such roles involve several aspects of the object of interaction. Some examples of such role relationships are friendship, conjugal relationship between husband and wife, relationships between kin of various degrees. All these relationships are such where the actor does not interact with another in a relationship in a specific context as such, but in a diffuse manner such as in case of two close friends. The scope of interaction is flexible, open and encompassing in nature.

The pattern variables, according to Parsons, not only define the nature of role interaction and role expectations in social system but provide, in addition the overall direction in which most members of a social system choose their roles. It also gives us an idea about the nature of the social system. For instance, take the family as a social system: the role expectations within the family amongst its members can be said to be affective, largely collectivity oriented, particularistic, ascriptive and diffuse.

On the contrary, take the example of your membership in a medical associations or bar association, or student association: here role expectations and standards or role performance would largely be oriented towards pattern variables of affective neutrality, self-orientation (due to competition), universalism, achievement and specificity. But these are extreme examples. In real life the dilemma of choices in terms of pattern variables are much more precarious and full of strain than we find in the examples we have mentioned.