Sun, 9 Oct 1994 20:52:25 -0700 for <SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 20:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Duniway <duniway@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: response to Bob
To: Steve Harvey <HARVEY@UConnVM.UConn.Edu>
Steve,

I wasn't trying to refute your post, just to raise an important and often 
overlooked point.  Rational choice theory is built on motivated actors, 
but the source of their motives is unclear.  Theorists who wish to look 
at society from the standpoint of social structure as the independent 
variable of interest can comment on the impact of social structure on the 
distribution of motives.  Parsons is not my favorite theorist, but his 
discussion of socialization is motivated by the focus of his interests. 
While he is routinely criticized for treating individuals as over 
socialized role enactors rather than autonomous RCT type agents, in fact 
Parsons could be right and RCT could still hold on the micro level.  For 
example, we could be socialized to be individualist consumers, and 
rationally act on those preferences.  [Note:  Again, let me be clear that 
I don't think Parsons account is complete.  Preferences probably come 
from a variety of sources, including eccentric personal histories, 
biological drives, and socialization into role identities and normative 
(or deviant) values.  All I am saying is that RCT really doesn't say 
where preferences come from, so is in no direct conflict with Parson's 
notion of socialized values and role demands.  Empirical evidence 
challenging the existence of Parson's oversocialized actors neither 
strengthens nor weakens the claims of RCT.]


Bob Duniway					University of Washington