Premium
Economics, Sociology, and the “Professional Complex”
Author(s) -
Holmwood John
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
american journal of economics and sociology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.199
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1536-7150
pISSN - 0002-9246
DOI - 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00445.x
Subject(s) - reductionism , sociology , capitalism , concreteness , epistemology , fallacy , positive economics , argument (complex analysis) , methodological individualism , context (archaeology) , relation (database) , action (physics) , institutional economics , social science , neoclassical economics , economics , law , political science , philosophy , politics , paleontology , biochemistry , chemistry , physics , quantum mechanics , database , anthropology , computer science , biology
A bstract . This article discusses the relationship between economics and sociology in the context of Parsons's analytical theory of action and systems and his criticisms of orthodox and institutional economics. The article also addresses his view of the importance of the professions to an understanding of the nature of advanced capitalism. The professions are discussed as both an illustration of his theoretical argument and a substantive problem that stimulated the development of his theory. The “professional complex” is an emergent phenomenon in capitalism that modifies its operation and points to the complexity of systems of social action that require to be analyzed without being reduced to one of their elements. This reductionism is evident in orthodox economic theory and also in the more sociologically‐oriented approach of institutional economics. Parsons argues that each is a form of what, following Whitehead, he calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” Although Parsons offers a significant critique of dominant approaches in economics, major flaws within his own theory create the appearance that he has simply carried over the deficiencies of orthodox theory into his own general statement of theory. These flaws contribute to major misunderstandings of Parsons's project and, therefore, indicate continuing problems in the relation between economics and sociology.