¹ I am referring in particular to the work of Talcott Parsons, especially The Social System (Glencoe, Ill., 1951).Google Scholar

² This has been referred to in my previous paper: “Some Problems in the Study of Hostility and Aggression in Middle-Class American Families,” this Journal, XVII, no. 1, 02, 1951, 65–75.Google Scholar Acknowledgments made there apply in large part to the present paper also.

³ More detailed descriptions of the H.R.S. and its relation to the community will be found in my case-study included in Paul, Benjamin D., ed., Health, Culture and Community: A Book of Cases (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1955).Google Scholar

⁴ There is no organized Jewish congregation with its own synagogue in the community, but a Jewish group does meet at one of the churches, and the rabbi associated with it was asked to join the clergy committee. On the other hand the community contains a sizable Roman Catholic population. The priest attending the committee became well integrated into this otherwise predominantly Protestant group. By virtue of his age and scholarship he could in some ways be described as primus inter pares. The details of these relationships are, however, another issue.

⁵ Unfortunately the doctors' committee had not reached the degree of regularity and establishment of the clergy committee, so that our contrasting relations to these two professional groups, neither, as such, “members“ of the organization, is not as fully illustrated here as it might be. Doctors, it might be noted in passing, were more prone to question the organization of the H.R.S. in the first place. They, like many of us, were members of the medical profession and, as such, colleagues. The absence of such a solidarity between ministers and psychiatrists helps to set the stage for the present exploration.

⁶ Erickson, E. H. in Childhood and Society (New York, 1950)Google Scholar provides a useful reminder that the word “clinical” “once designated the function of a priest at the sickbed” (p. 20). Clearly we are entering yet a further stage in the old and continuing process by which “the word ‘clinical’ has long since shed this clerical garb” (ibid.) but by which we have also extended within the realm of science conceptions of illness, and now talk of psychosomatic disturbance, the motivation of illness, and the like. Historic perspectives are needed in most sociological undertakings, but short papers have no space for them.

⁷ The model, as well as some of the terminology, of this account are to be found in Talcott Parsons' work on “pattern variables,” especially as these are used in the analysis of the role of the doctor (see The Social System, chap, x) and of the lawyer ( Essays in Sociological Theory, 2nd ed., rev., Glencoe, Ill., 1954, chap. XVIII).Google Scholar A more general discussion of the same concepts is to be found in Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A., eds., Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), esp. 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ For a clarification of this term see Merton, R. K.: Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill., 1949), 21–81.Google Scholar

⁹ For an elaboration of this point see Hughes, E. C., “Mistakes at Work,” this Journal, XVII, no. 3, 08, 1951, 320–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Even a summary account of this general context would considerably exceed the limits of this paper. For a beginning see Parsons, , The Social System, 367–79Google Scholar; Williams, R. M., American Society (New York, 1951), esp. chap, IXGoogle Scholar; and Tillich, P. J., “The Social Function of the Churches in Europe and America,” Social Research, 02, 1936, 90–104.Google Scholar Tillich emphasizes the American attitude of “nominalism” compared with Europe's mystical realism which yields a concept of “the Church” (in contrast to the American concept of a “federation of churches” oriented toward shaping, or accepting, social life but not to giving spiritual refuge).

¹¹ It is interesting to note in this regard that the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox priests, to take two examples, both make use of the social situation of “confession.” Within that situation they are technically anonymous in a more radical sense than the psychiatrist ever is. Whether or not their, or the confessing person's, identity becomes mutually known is contingent on a series of other matters, including the size of the community. On the other hand, advice, it would seem, is kept separate from the assessment of the gravity of the offence and is offered, where demanded, after confession, in a setting not involving the confessional's kind of physical barrier.

¹² Some of the incompatibility between the medical and the clerical role is recognized, I believe, in the Mormon custom of not choosing bishops from the ranks of doctors, though they may be chosen from amongst dentists. Clearly the scarcity and ecological distribution of doctors and the fact that for sheer reasons of time the two roles would be incompatible should not be overlooked. Yet it seems at least possible that some of the “structural” considerations proposed here also have a bearing on the situation.

¹³ These issues were thorny enough, but they became inadvertently even more complex through the difference between the social structure of this (or any other) school system and that of the H.R.S. We were a “loose” social system. Few of us gave all our occupational time and commitments to the H.R.S. alone. The atmosphere appeared permissive. Routines were flexible, achievement intangible. By contrast the school system is a fairly bureaucratic hierarchy. Authority is clearly vested in particular people and increases in correspondence with a series of statuses which differ with regard to amount of teaching, guidance, and administration. Many decisions are handed down. Routine is guided by rules. Activities follow a time-table. The school and its public own the physical facilities necessary to carry out the former's functions. A principal, on the other hand, is in charge of “his” school and visitors to a school are generally expected to present themselves first at his office. The gate is not wide open. Though all this is distractingly obvious, it took us a long time to become clear about it and see its relevance.

¹⁴ Fragmentary evidence would suggest that in our particular case often the formal educational backgrounds of parents were “superior” to those of many teachers. This has many implications which can only be analysed elsewhere. It would help to explain, though, part of the ambivalence on the part of school personnel toward Parent-Teachers Associations and other parent-teacher encounters. One would hear much about indifference as well as illegitimate “interference” on the part of parents. In that connection it should be remembered that at this time “education” is a controversial area and that schools are under various kinds of attack. To analyse the forms the latter take in different quarters would make a useful sociological contribution to the general effort of accounting for the determinate relations between positions in social structure and orientations toward socialization of Others.

¹⁵ For one kind of investigation of the phenomena surrounding triangles see Mills, Th. M., “Power Relations in Three-Person Groups” in Cartwright, D. and Zander, A., eds., Group Dynamics (Evanston, Ill., 1953)Google Scholar, and the more general perspectives of Simmel, Georg, “Quantitative Aspects of the Group” in Wolff, K. H., tr. and ed., The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Glencoe, Ill., 1950).Google Scholar

¹⁶ With the greatest of caution one might suggest that we are here dealing with another aspect of the social functions of ignorance (see Moore, W. E. and Tumin, M. M., “Some Social Functions of Ignorance,” American Sociological Review, XIV, no. 6, 12, 1945, 787–95Google Scholar). In other words, perhaps “too much” knowledge can under certain circumstances complicate a teacher's role to the disadvantage of all his pupils. Such a notion is easily-misconstrued for practical purposes. It is advanced here only to underline once more the persistent theme that social roles are constituted by a configuration of expectations and that the relation between these usually involves a combination of mutual enhancement and of mutual limitation, and that if more emphasis is placed on one of these elements the others also need redefinition.

¹⁷ See especially: ed., with Shils, , Toward a General Theory of Action; The Social System, 58–67 Google Scholar; and, with Bales, R. F. and Shils, E. A., Working Papers in the Theory of Action (Glencoe, Ill., 1953), esp. 179–202, 228–9, 245–69.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See especially Talcott Parsons, The Social System, chap, x; and Essays in Sociological Theory, chaps. ii, iii and xviii. Also Hall, Oswald, “The Stages of a Medical Career,” American Journal of Sociology, LIII, no. 5, 03, 1948, 327–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Types of Medical Career,” ibid., LV, no. 3, Nov., 1949, 243–53; and “The Informal Organization of the Medical Profession,” this Journal, XII, no. 1, 02, 1946, 30–44.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a more detailed discussion of this term as it is used here see Parsons, Talcott, “The Learning of Social Role Expectations and the Mechanisms of Socialization of Motivation” in The Social System.Google Scholar For one empirical investigation implementing this perspective see Jones, Frank E., “Sociological Aspects of Role Acquisition among Infantry Recruits” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1954).Google Scholar

²⁰ A discussion of these is found in Parsons, Bales, and Shils, Working Papers in the Theory of Action; also Parsons, , The Social System, 299–301; 321–45.Google Scholar

²¹ The issue of permissiveness is an ambiguous one. Clearly, holding standards in suspension is very different from doubting or rejecting their legitimacy. Our idea of “extenuating circumstances” is an order of permissiveness. To proceed at all, psychotherapy involves such suspension a great deal. This easily gives rise to the suspicion on the part of outsiders that psychiatrists are “against” standards; it also leads to confusion within psychiatric circles as to the exact way in which psychotherapy is and cannot be “free from” values. Our early discussions with ministers bear on this point.

²² See Park, Robert E., “Human Migration and the Marginal Man,” American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII, no. 6, 05, 1928, 881–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stonequist, E. V., The Marginal Man (New York, 1937)Google Scholar; and Hughes, E. C., “Social Change and Status Protest: An Essay on the Marginal Man” in his Where Peoples Meet (Glencoe, Ill., 1952).Google Scholar Mediation can of course take forms other than those found in socialization, for instance in the settlement of (labour) disputes. In that connection see Simmel's generalized analysis of the conciliator in Wolff, , tr. and ed., The Sociology of Georg Simmel, esp. 145–54.Google Scholar The issue of “role-conflict” is one further aspect of the phenomenon under discussion. Role-conflicts are clearly derived from diverse sources, and take various determinate forms. In the present connection see especially Burchard, W., “Role Conflicts of Military Chaplains,” American Sociological Review, XIX, no. 5, 10, 1954, 528–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ I am indebted to Odd Ramsøy, Instittutet for Sosiologi, University of Oslo, for helping to focus my attention on the character and importance of “bridge systems.” Parsons, elaborating further his persistent and strategic assumption that social systems involve boundaries (see esp. the monograph “Values, Motives and Systems of Action” in Parsons, and Shils, , eds., Toward a General Theory of Action, 107–9)Google Scholar, has more recently gone much further in analysing the relations among social systems. See Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Ill., 1955)Google Scholar and his yet unpublished Marshall Lectures which were given at Cambridge University in 1953.

²⁴ In that connection see especially E. C. Hughes, “Mistakes at Work”; and “Work and the Self” in Rohrer, J. M. and Sherif, M., eds., Social Psychology at the Cross Roads (New York, 1951)Google Scholar and the proposals of Parsons for a classification of occupational roles ( Parsons, , Bales, , and Shils, , Working Papers in the Theory of Action, 263–4).Google Scholar

²⁵ For a further contrast see a somewhat similar project, carried out in Germany: Bitter, Wilhelm, ed., Psychotherapie und Seelsorge (Stuttgart, 1952)Google Scholar, especially Leist, Fritz, “Die Grenzen zwischen Tiefenpsychologie und Seelsorge,” 163–76Google Scholar, where psychotherapy as the healing of illness is tentatively distinguished from pastoral care as the management of guilt, two activities which meet inasmuch as both deal with the problem of “truth” and “self-deception”; a very brief introductory statement—jointly written by a Catholic priest and a Protestant minister—is also germane to the present essay. Finally, see also in the same volume, Kloeberle, D., “Das Schuldproblem in theologischer und tiefenpsychologischer Sicht,” 154–62.Google Scholar The problems discussed are perhaps more comprehensive (and metaphysical) than were most of the problems that arose in our meetings with the clergy; but our discussions were concerned with more immediate and specifically practical matters which arise from some of the general issues which are posed, but never clearly dealt with, in the German publication.

²⁶ For a theoretic elaboration of the phenomenon of stages in social arrangements see especially Bales, R. F., “The Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups” in Parsons, , Bales, , and Shils, , Working Papers in the Theory of Action, 111–61.Google Scholar