"The functions of the family in a highly differentiated society are not to be interpreted as functions directly on behalf of the society, but on behalf of personality"
About this Quote
Parsons is quietly rebuking the sentimental habit of treating “the family” as society’s little factory for producing good citizens. In a “highly differentiated society” - his term for modern life carved into specialized institutions like schools, workplaces, courts, and hospitals - the family can’t plausibly carry the old civic workload. It no longer educates you for a trade, dispenses justice, runs welfare, or transmits a full cultural curriculum. Those jobs have been professionalized and outsourced.
So he narrows the family’s mission to something both smaller and more consequential: the maintenance of “personality.” That word choice matters. Parsons isn’t talking about quirky individuality; he means the psychological apparatus that lets a person function in a complex system - stable identity, emotional regulation, basic trust, the capacity to internalize norms without falling apart. The subtext is almost managerial: modern society requires reliable, self-steering people, and the family’s primary contribution is producing that inner stability, not directly serving “society” as a collective project.
There’s also a defense embedded in the phrasing. By insisting family functions are “not… directly” for society, Parsons draws a boundary against moralizing demands that families should exist chiefly to meet national, religious, or economic goals. The family becomes a kind of private infrastructure for the self - a space where the costs of modern differentiation (alienation, role strain, impersonality) are metabolized into a workable person. It’s a cool, mid-century functionalist move: modernity fragments the world, so the family’s value is less about tradition and more about emotional engineering.
So he narrows the family’s mission to something both smaller and more consequential: the maintenance of “personality.” That word choice matters. Parsons isn’t talking about quirky individuality; he means the psychological apparatus that lets a person function in a complex system - stable identity, emotional regulation, basic trust, the capacity to internalize norms without falling apart. The subtext is almost managerial: modern society requires reliable, self-steering people, and the family’s primary contribution is producing that inner stability, not directly serving “society” as a collective project.
There’s also a defense embedded in the phrasing. By insisting family functions are “not… directly” for society, Parsons draws a boundary against moralizing demands that families should exist chiefly to meet national, religious, or economic goals. The family becomes a kind of private infrastructure for the self - a space where the costs of modern differentiation (alienation, role strain, impersonality) are metabolized into a workable person. It’s a cool, mid-century functionalist move: modernity fragments the world, so the family’s value is less about tradition and more about emotional engineering.
Quote Details
| Topic | Family |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Talcott
Add to List





