Parsons also becomes intrigued with interrelation among the four subsystems (organismic personality, social, and cultural) of the overall action system. Parsons develops what he terms the “cybernetic hierarchy of control” to explore these relations among the subsystems of this overall action system. . The basic idea is that systems high in “information,”  such  as the cultural system (since, indeed, it is a system of symbols), provide regulation and control for systems lower in information but higher in energy. Thus, the symbols of the cultural system constrain and regulate interactions in social systems, the roles  and positions  of  the social system circumscribe the action of the personality system, and internalized controls,  such as the super ego and other cognitive processes, influence many bodily functions  of the organismic system. Conversely, system  high  in  energy provide  the conditions and energy resources for systems higher in information. Thus, a personality system cannot exist without the energy from the human organism: the social system cannot exist without the drives and motives of the personality  systems  that play roles; and the cultural system’s values, beliefs, language, and other symbolic components could not exist without the interactions in the social system that lead to the creation of symbols.

This scheme, Parsons feels, allows for much understanding of the dynamics of the social world. If there is an information or energy imbalance, certain consequences can be predicted. For example, if informational control from the cultural system is inadequate-a state  that  Durkheim termed “anomie-their interaction in the social system will be disrupted. Or, if personality systems are unwilling to deposit energy in the roles of the social system then a situation of alienation exists and interaction will be disrupted. Similar disruptive consequences could be predicted for information or energy imbalances between other systems. For example, a strong super-ego in the personality system can create guilt and anxiety (too much information that in turn-can lead to organic pathologies, such as high blood pressure and ulcers. Similarly, an insufficient calorie intake or organic disorder can cause disruption of one personality system.

He has developed the concept of “generalized media of exchange” to conduct his analysis.  Basically, Parsons visualizes each functional sector of societal social systems as employing its own distinctive medium. Exchanges among subsystems of any sector are conducted in terms of a distinctive medium, and exchanges with subsystems of other functional sectors involve exchange of one distinctive symbolic medium for another. For example, money is the symbolic medium of the adaptive sector, since adaptive subsystems conduct their affairs with money. And when adaptive subsystems exchange with subsystems of another sector, money is exchanged for the distinctive medium of that sector. For instance, the latency sector’s symbolic medium is “commitments” to play roles, and thus, money comes from the economic organizations of the adaptive sector in exchange for the commitment on the  part of  households to perform labor. Parsons has yet to fully work out this scheme, but his intent is to begin examining the interrelations between functional sectors, or within a sector in terms of the distinctive media that they employ. Hence, the goal attainment sector’s distinctive symbolic media is “power” (the capacity to induce of coerce conformity); the integrative sector’s media is “influence” (the capacity to persuade); and as mentioned, the adaptive and latency sector’s media, respectively, are “money” and “commitments.”

It also becomes evident in his more recent work on social evolution.  In general, he views the outputs of one system level as beings inputs to another with insufficient or excessive inputs creating problems for meeting a given set of requisites for system.  For example, personality inputs-commitment and ability to play roles into the social system are insufficient, then the requisites that system cannot be met. Similar deficiencies or excesses of information of energy pose problems for meeting requisites of other action systems.  Thus,   if we view, the “systemic whole” as an overall action system and “specific structures” as one of the four action systems, we can see that Parsons’ more recent analysis is much the same as his earlier requisite functionalism, only grander in scope