Editing Talcott Parsons (section)

===Symbolic interactionism===
In 1975, Parsons responded to an article by [[Jonathan H. Turner]], "Parsons as a Symbolic Interactionist: A Comparison of Action and Interaction Theory".<ref>Jonathan Turner, "Parsons as a symbolic interactionist: A Comparison of Action and Interaction theory". ''Sociological Inquiry'' Vol.44. no.4. 1974.</ref> Parsons acknowledged that [[action theory (sociology)|action theory]] and [[symbolic interactionism]] should not be regarded as two separate, antagonistic positions but have overlapping structures of conceptualization.<ref>Talcott Parsons, "Comment on 'Parsons as a Symbolic Interactionist' by Jonathan Turner.''Sociological Inquiry''. Vol.45. no.1. 1975. pp. 62–65.</ref> Parsons regarded symbolic interactionism and the theory of [[George Herbert Mead]] as valuable contributions to action theory that specify certain aspects of the theory of the personality of the individual. Parsons, however, criticized the symbolic interactionism of [[Herbert Blumer]] since Blumer's theory had no end to the openness of action. Parsons regarded Blumer as the mirror image of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]],<ref>Claude Lévi-Strauss, ''Structural Anthropology'', Garden City, New York, 1963.</ref> who tended to stress the quasi-determined nature of macro-structural systems. Action theory, Parsons maintained, represented a middle ground between both extremes.