>>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
Don't you find problems with "sociology of deviance"?
>caveat: i don't like parson's framework typically.
I'd like to hear your criticism of Talcott Parsons. (No hurry, though -- just when you get around to it.)
Yoshie