Abstract
According to Parsonian point or view, we can designate a given set of interactions as a social system in so far as statistical uniformities and orderliness or factual orders observable in that interaction process are, at the same time, normative orders which effectively control actions of persons interacting. Apparently, the concept of the social system just defined implies by definition the tendency for the gratification-deprivation dimension and the conformity-alienation dimension in the interaction process to coincide to a lesser or greater degree. Judging from this reason, it should be clear that Parsonian concept of the social system is a conceptual scheme appropriately called “the institutionally integrated social system”.
Then, we can assume that structures of the social system in the above sense consist of the following two types of interdependent roles-complex. One is that of networks of institutionalized roles interlocked by interactions, and the other is that of patternconsistently organized role systems or institutions. In addition, it is also assumed that institutions are differentiated into recruitment, relational and regulative institutions.
On the basis of the above preliminary conceptual clarification, it follows that the normative regulation of recruitment and allocation of personnel to roles is the prerequisite for the establishment of the distributive order of social resources at the societal level which in turn makes possible the compatibility (peaceful coexistence) of members under the condition of scarce social resources. It should be recalled that the distributive order is not anything but normative order, the change of which in auy direction is possible only if the resistance of vested interests is successfully overcome.
