>>
>>kelley
>
>On general principles, I agree with Kelley, in that we don't have time to
>keep up with every innovation in every science & technology. There are
>some exceptions, though. Earlier, you mentioned Talcott Parson's idea of
>"the sick role" in the course of discussion on anti-depressants. One
>thing that I was going to say (but didn't get around to saying it) is that
>Parsons' study of "the sick role" does not fit chronic illnesses (such as
>clinical depression)
ahhh. but you miss the point! parsons says society NEEDS sick people (as well as criminals and deviance. society NEEDS illness, crime and deviance and you can't get rid of them). so, unlike liberls of the day, a structural functionalist says: all your efforts to cure society of social problems like illness and crime or to "normalize" what had been thought of as deviant (such as queers) are for naught: society becomes dysfunctional without illness, crime, deviance just as it becomes dysfunctional with too much of that
caveat: i don't like parson's framework typically.
note: i was being sarcastic in both instances that i used the expression. tho in my case of sm d depression i thought it applied quite well.