AGIL Paradigm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For the chemical laser, see All gas-phase iodine laser.

AGIL is a sociological paradigm formulated by Talcott Parsons

A is for Adaptation, G is for Goal attainment, I is for Integration, L is for Latency.

Adaptation means the level of a system's ability to react to the changing external conditions.

Goal Attainment stands for its ability to secure the achievement of goals.

Integration is aimed at ensuring the maximal level of cohesion and inclusion in a society or a societal group.

Latency is a function guaranteeing the maintenance of minimal social structure and order.

Adaptation	Goal attainment
Integration	Latency

[edit] The social system

At the most abstract level this model represents Parsons 'social system' with each subsystem representing a particular institution in society. The adaptive system represents the economy, goal attainment the polity, the integration system society's norms (from which emerge group solidarity) and the latency system society's general values. Each subsystem requires input from the neighboring subsystems in order to continue functioning correctly. For example the economic subsystem requires input from the 'G' subsystem (external support from the state for businesses) the 'I' subsystem (legal norms regulating contracts) and the 'L' subsystem (value commitments internalised in economic actors). Within each subsystem itself there is another AGIL system - corporations (of the adaptive subsystem) contain within them positions specifically involved with internally regulating values (for example human resources departments) promulgating norms (the legal department), political organisation (board of directors) and adaptation to the environment.

Each subsystem's output is in the form of a 'symbolic medium of exchange' - at the level of the social system 'A's medium is money, 'G's is power, 'I's is influence and 'L's is commitment. The status of each medium as symbolic is useful - for example money, as a generalised medium of exchange can stand for a wide range of goods, allowing a sophisticated division of labour not available in barter economies. Furthermore it allows large amounts of capital to be built up, and hence large scale production to be engaged in. This example highlights the importance of input from the other subsystems. As money is symbolic it has no real use-value in itself - a £5 note is nothing more than a flimsy piece of paper after all. Input from the value commitment and normative subsystems generates trust allowing us to accept that we can exchange the note for its promissory value on demand.

[edit] Problems with system theory

Parsons early work focused on action as 'volunteristic' - he wished to give action a dynamism not afforded by the economic determinism of Marx or the rigid self interest of thinkers like Hobbes. However, his work on systems theory seems to undermine this early effort - his emphasis on the internalisation of norms and values and on the overbearing influence of the social system is a typical criticism of structural-functionalism generally and Parsons particularly. His concept of pattern variables does allow for a discussion of individual action - the problem is we cannot discuss volunterisic action at the same time as Parsonian social systems theory. His theory is useful as it demonstrates the constraints placed on our action. However, he neglects the degree to which social life is generated by the meanings we ourselves create - this is addressed more fully by the schools of symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology.