It is most unfortunate that a paper the main content of which in terms of bulk consists of sound and valuable insights to the extent that this is true of Professor Talcott Parsons's article on “The Motivation of Economic Activities” should be utterly misleading with respect to the main question at issue. Without quoting or mentioning any single author, or referring in any specific way to any group, school, or tendency among economists themselves, Professor Parsons tells us merely that: “On the economic side the impression has been wide-spread that a predominantly ‘self-interested’ or ‘egoistic’ theory of the motivation of economic activities was a logical necessity of economic theory” (p. 189, my italics). Throughout his own article, Professor Parsons certainly gives the “impression” that the position he has indicated is that which characterizes the typical writings of reputable economists extant and down to date.

In view of the author's standing as a sociological interpreter of economic concepts to both sociologists and economists, and also, as already observed, the great merit of his concrete observations on motivation in this particular article, this second impression should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. For the facts are definitely to the contrary. And the true position regarding the type of attitude which may be referred to as “self-interest” in the structure and methodology of modern economic theory should be stated. Still more desirable, if it were possible, would be some intelligible statement as to what this attitude is, or what the expression may be taken to mean. For Professor Parsons gives practically no positive indication of the content of the position he is arguing against. He affords an example more flagrant than that of the economists criticized of what is their real fault. For he himself warily steers clear of any effort to say what he means by the term self-interest or egoism. We find only the negative and noncommittal statement that the assumption proper to economic theory “does not necessarily have anything to do with ‘egoism’ in the usual sense” (p. 189, my italics).