AGIL Paradigm - Criticism of The AGIL Scheme

Criticism of The AGIL Scheme

Parsons' theory has been criticised as being too abstract to be used constructively in any significant empirical research. While the four functions of AGIL scheme are intuitive and many social systems can be described according to the paradigm of Parsons' structural functionalism, one can question the utility, that such an inspection brings to a scientific sociological study. Defenders of AGIL scheme respond that there have indeed been situations, where social systems, such as industries have failed to operate because they have neglected one or more of the four functions. Hence, AGIL scheme can be used to be tested against political or economical operations to see if they meet the criteria. Defenders also highlight that all theoretical system are abstract (indeed modern physics uses extremely high levels of theoretical abstractions (without anyone "protesting")) and indeed good theoretical system has to be abstract, since this is the meaning and function of theoretical system. If they are not abstract, then they are useless.

Another notable criticism attacks AGIL schemes' failure to take historical change into account. Critics argue that Parsons' theory is unexcusably static and lacks the flexibility to meet the criteria of social change. While Parsons purports that AGIL scheme is a general theory of social functions that can be applied to any social system at any time or place in the history of humankind, critics contend that it is basically just a model of post-war United States, or, moreover, merely an ideal social structure of the middle-class of United States. Parsons' defenders argue that such criticisms are misplaced inasmuch as Parsons tried to identify the most important systemic features of any society whatsoever: any society would need to meet the functions indicated by AGIL, even if it used different institutions or arrangements for doing so. Moreover, Parsons himself tried to develop a theory of world history, and to explain social change through his system, although his critics have suggested that this amounts to little more than window-dressing. Nevertheless, despite recent sympathetic reappraisals, Parsons no longer dominates Anglophone social theory in the way he once did.