Pattern variables

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pattern variables (German translation: basic pattern , cultural pattern or pattern variables ) designates in sociology an instrument for the structural-functionalist analysis of an action. The “pattern variables” were introduced by the North American sociologist Talcott Parsons .

Pattern variables are five dichotomous decision alternatives , between which, according to Parsons, an individual must consciously or unconsciously choose for every action. They are derived directly from the action frame of reference . The first three model variables (affectivity vs. affective neutrality, universalism vs. particularism, self-orientation vs. collective orientation) are made up of the three modes of motivational orientation and the three modes of value orientation. They result from the lack of a biologically predetermined hierarchy among the orientations.

The last two variables result from the indeterminacy of the object situation. They refer primarily to social objects.

In the case of “attribution vs. Achievement ”by distinguishing social objects as complexes of properties ( qualities ) or achievements ( performance ), while the variable“ diffusivity vs. Specificity ”is derived from the specific or diffuse meaning of social objects for the actor.

In detail

Each actor has to choose between the following five dichotomies for each action, or each action can be analyzed using these variables:

  • Affectivity versus affective neutrality: Does the action depend on feelings, or is it an action that is largely free of emotions? Often this variable is also seen as a choice between immediate need satisfaction or satisfaction of a long-term need.
  • Universalism versus particularism : An action can be analyzed on the basis of these variables according to whether the norm of this action (according to Parsons there is a norm in every action) is applicable to all people, or only applies to a certain person or group of people.
  • Attribution versus achievement : These variables can be used to analyze an action according to whether it was carried out to another person or group of people on the basis of an attribution, or on the basis of the achievements and merits that this person (s) have earned.
  • Diffusivity versus specificity : alternative between actions that affect the whole person (e.g. family father: role as provider, educator, loving father) and actions that focus on specific segments, ie individual, clearly defined “parts” (roles) of the individual are related (e.g. as a heating fitter).
  • Self-orientation versus collective orientation : alternative between self-interest (self-interest) and reference to the collective good (common good).

The five model variables defined by Parsons are intended to enable both an exhaustive, ie complete analysis of the role behavior of an individual and the determination of the basic structures of entire societies. In theory, up to 32 combinations are possible, with Parsons himself admitting that some combinations will occur very rarely or never.

The instrument of the “basic pattern” can be a useful tool to identify certain tendencies in a society. However, in the eyes of contemporary sociology, it is too reductionist to allow further explanations, since it is based on a binary plot. In contrast to Parsons' theory, individuals rarely make a clear decision between the available poles, but rather weigh them up and usually choose an intermediate path. They do not commit themselves, as postulated by Parsons, but rather weigh up each time a decision is made.

Historical

In terms of the history of science, Parsons' five basic patterns are ideally based on the properties of “community” or “society” described by Ferdinand Tönnies , whereby community in Tönniesian understanding is characterized by actions that are characterized by affectivity, collective orientation, particularism, attribution and diffusivity society, on the other hand, through the respective opposite terms (affective neutrality, self-orientation, universalism, achievement, specificity). However, Parsons breaks away from this rigid division by showing that, through theoretically possible combinations, significantly more complex states arise.

literature

  • Erwin K. Scheuch : Social Change , Vol. 1: Theories of Social Change , Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag 2003, pp. 210–212