As a typical example of "High Theory", let's consider some positions from Tolcott Parsons' "Social System".
It is widely believed that this is a very important book written by the most prominent representative of this intellectual style.
"An element of a generally accepted symbolic system, which is a criterion or standard for the selection of orientation alternatives that are inherently appropriate to the situation, can be called a value... However, this motivational and orientation aspect of the totality of action should be distinguished from that of the motivational and orientation aspect, in view of the role-played by symbolic systems, it is necessary to distinguish the "value-orientation" aspect.
This aspect is related not to the way the expected state of affairs may affect the balance of remuneration-deprivation of the actor, but to the content of the selection standards themselves. In this approach, the notion of value orientation is a logical tool for formulating one of the main aspects of cultural tradition articulation in the system of action.
From the derivative nature of normative orientation and the role that values play in action, as shown above, it follows that all values have what can be called a social reference... In short, the "normative orientation" of action is inherent in the system of action itself.
This follows, as it has been shown, from the concept of expectations and its place in the theory of action, especially in the "active" phase, in the actor pursues its goals. Further, expectations, combined with what I have called the "double population" of the interaction process above, raise a crucial order problem.
In turn, two aspects can be distinguished in this problem: the order in the symbolic systems providing the possibility of communication and the order in the reciprocity of motivational orientation to the normative aspect of expectations - the Hobbes' problem of order.
The problem of order and, thus, the problem of the nature of integration of stable systems of social interaction, that is, social structure, is reduced, thus, to the integration of motives of actors with normative cultural standards, integrating the system of action in this case at the interpersonal level. These standards, in the terminology of the previous chapter, are typical examples of value orientation and as such constitute a fundamentally important component of the cultural tradition of the social system. Of course, many people express their views, but there are even more of those who remain silent in waiting for the "High Theory" to bring professional results, if at all. Although this may seem like a collapse, many social scientists know nothing about it or know it by hearsay.
The unpleasant question of the intelligibility of the "High Theory", which, of course, goes beyond the limits of the theory itself, arises naturally. However, adepts are so much passionate about it that I'm afraid we just need to find out whether the "High Theory" is a mere pile of words or whether it still contains a rational grain. I think there is a rational grain, but it is very deeply buried.
Therefore, we will raise the question as follows: if we remove everything from the "High Theory" that prevents us from understanding it, what can we learn from it, in other words, what is it actually about? There is only one way to answer this question: "translate" one of the fragments of this style of thinking, and then understand the "translation". I have already quoted such an excerpt above. I just want to point out that I don't want to evaluate Parsons' work as a whole. If I am going to turn to other works by him, I will only seek to clarify some points contained in the Social System at the lowest cost.
To be continued
