r self-analysis. Parsons proposed that the social norms which are embodied in the Freudian Superego are not available for inspection or manipulation by the Ego in ôsociological man,ö and are acted on almost mechanically.
Many people to a large extent, and all people to some extent, do not habitually engage in pathological self-analysis as their favorite hobby. People are also almost never totally transparent to themselves; so this simplified model of ôsociological manö does have some predictive value for social behavior. If one knows what the social norms for behavior are in various situations, then one can predict peopleÆs behavior in such situations fairly reliably, without concern about the psychological makeup or specific circumstances of the particular individuals involved.
Similarly, cultural anthropologists have long pointed out that one can study the history and ôbehaviorö of cultural characteristics as if they, rather than human beings, were the independent variables. Of course, that one can know how people will probably behave in various situations seems also to be much like ordinary common sense, so that it can be questioned how much of a ôscientificö advance has been made here.
The scientific difficulties with Parsonian theory increase as the size of the group under study decreases. Social norms may predict large-scale behavior reasonably well, but what about behavior in small groups? And what about the behavior of an individual? Individuals who flout social norms are rare enough that in a crowd they will not significantly affect the outcome of a series of events, but if one is dealing with an individual, how can it be predicted whether that individual will flout the norms or apply the norms--or, for that matter, what norms the individual will decide apply to the situation? It was such concerns that began to focus GarfinkelÆs research interest on small groups and individuals.
The classic philo...