Editing Talcott Parsons (section)

===General theory===
It is important to highlight that Parsons distinguished two "meanings" or modes of the term ''general theory''. He sometimes wrote about general theory as aspects of theoretical concerns of social sciences whose focus is on the most "constitutive" elements of cognitive concern for the basic theoretical systematization of a given field. Parsons would include the basic conceptual scheme for the given field, including its highest order of theoretical relations and naturally also the necessary specification of this system's axiomatic, epistemological, and methodological foundations from the point of view of logical implications.<ref>The issues were generally those that Parsons discussed in his first major work: Talcott Parsons, ''The Structure of Social Action.'' New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937.</ref><ref>For another discussion of such questions, see Rainer C. Baum and Victor Lidz, "Introduction to Meta-Theory" In Jan Loubser et al. (eds.) ''Explorations in General Theory in the Social Science: Essays in Honor of Talcott Parsons.'' New York: The Free Press, 1976</ref> All the elements would signify the quest for a general theory on the highest level of theoretical concern.

However, general theory could also refer to a more fully/operational system whose implications of the conceptual scheme were "spelled out" on lower levels of cognitive structuralization, levels standing closer to a perceived "empirical object". In his speech to the American Sociological Society in 1947, he spoke of five levels:<ref>Talcott Parsons, "The Prospects of Sociological Theory". (1948). In Talcott Parsons, ''Essays in Sociological Theory''. New York: The Free Press, 1954.</ref>
# The General Theory level, which took form primarily as a theory of social systems.
# The theory of motivation of social behavior, which especially addressed questions of the dynamics of the social system and naturally presupposed theories of motivation, personality and socialization.
# The theoretical bases of systematic comparative analysis of social structure, which would involve a study of concrete cultures in concrete systems on various levels of generalization.
# Special theories around particular empirical problem areas.
# The "fitting" of the theories to specific empirical research techniques, such as statistics, and survey techniques.

During his life, he would work on developing all five fields of theoretical concerns but pay special attention to the development on the highest "constitutive" level, as the rest of the building would stand or fall on the solidity of the highest level.<ref>For one discussion of his efforts, see Jan J. Loubser, "General Introduction" in Jan Loubser et al. (eds.) ''Explorations in General Theory in the Social Science: Essays in Honor of Talcott Parsons.'' New York: The Free Press, 1976.</ref>

Despite myths, Parsons never thought that modern societies exist in some kind of perfect harmony with their norms or that most modern societies were necessarily characterized by some high level of consensus or a "happy" institutional integration. Parsons highlighted that is almost logically impossible that there can be any "perfect fit" or perfect consensus in the basic normative structure of complex modern societies because the basic value pattern of modern societies is generally differentiated in such a way that some of the basic normative categories exist in inherent or at least potential conflict with each other. For example, freedom and equality are generally viewed as fundamental and non-negotiable values of modern societies. Each represents a kind of ultimate imperative about what the higher values of humanity. However, as Parsons emphasizes, no simple answer on the priority of freedom or equality or any simple solution on how they possibly can be mediated, if at all. Therefore, all modern societies are faced with the inherent conflict prevailing between the two values, and there is no "eternal solution" as such. There cannot be any perfect match between motivational pattern, normative solutions, and the prevailing value pattern in any modern society. Parsons also maintained that the "dispute" between "left" and "right" has something to do with the fact that they both defend ultimately "justified" human values (or ideals), which alone is indispensable as values but are always in an endless conflictual position to each other.

Parsons always maintained that the integration of the normative pattern in society is generally problematic and that the level of integration that is reached in principle is always far from harmonious and perfect. If some "harmonious pattern" emerges, it is related to specific historical circumstances but is not a general law of the social systems.