¹ For a discussion of some of this research, see my article “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support,” British Journal of Political Science, 5 (1975), 435–57.

² Strictly speaking, in Power and Discontent (Homewood, Ill. 1968) William Gamson does contribute to the theoretical development of this area using both Parsons's and my own work as a point of departure. Limits of space, however, prevent discussion of this interesting book here.

³ The articles by Parsons, Talcott particularly relevant to his political ideas are found in his Sociological Theory and Modern Society (New York 1967)Google Scholar, chaps 8–11 and chap. 14; and in “The Political Aspect of Social Structure and Process” in Varieties of Political Theory, ed. Easton, D. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1966)Google Scholar, chap. 4.

⁴ Effectiveness is the “standard” unique to the political system just as “utility” is to the economy. See Parsons, “Social Structure and Process,” 110.

⁵ See Easton, , The Political System (New York 1953).Google Scholar

⁶ Parsons, “Social Structure and Process,” 82

⁷ Ibid., 79, italics in original

⁸ Ibid., 79–80

⁹ Easton, , A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York 1965), 472–6Google Scholar; and Easton, D. and Dennis, J., Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy (New York 1969), 21–4 and 85–8Google Scholar

¹⁰ See Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, chaps 11–13

¹¹ See Parsons, “Voting and the Equilibrium of the American Political System” in Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society, chap. 8, and “Social Structure and Process.”

¹² See Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, chaps 22–8

¹³ The description of the political aspects of society as the goal attainment function is worthy of an essay in itself. It seems to imply a kind of goal homogeneity that is seldom evident in a political system. At times it appears that these goals can be disembodied from the underlying social conflicts that shape them. But not everything can be dealt with at once in so complexly intertwined a framework into which action analysis has evolved.

¹⁴ Those whom Parsons describes as the political leadership constitute only a part of what I call the political authorities. For the concept of political authorities see Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, chap. 13.

¹⁵ For a full discussion of political community, see ibid., chap. 11; and a paper, still in manuscript (with William Coleman), “A Re-Assessment of Support for the Political Community.”

¹⁶ Parsons, “Social Structure and Process,” 73 and 87–8

¹⁷ Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society, 285–6

¹⁸ Ibid., 235

¹⁹ For various bases of beliefs in legitimacy, see Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Parsons, (New York 1947).Google Scholar

²⁰ See Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, chap. 10.

²¹ The political leadership is, of course, only one component within the authorities. See note 14.

²² Parsons, Sociological Theory and Modern Society, 276–7

²³ Some may approach this question with a closed mind about the adequacy of contemporary democracies in providing for popular involvement. Others may question the adequacy of research orientations and findings that predispose research towards Candide-like conclusions about modern democracies. These positions represent subvariations on the main moral thrust inherited from the past.

²⁴ See Abramson, P.R. and Inglehard, R., “The Development of Systematic Support in Four Western Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies 2 (1970), 419–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boynton, G.R. and Loewenberg, G., “The Decay of Support for Monarchy and the Hitler Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany,” British Journal of Political Science 4 (1974), 453–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boynton, G.R. and Loewenberg, G., “The Development of Public Support for Parliament in Germany, 1951–59,” British Journal of Political Science 3 (1973), 169–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boynton, G.R., Patterson, S., and Hedlung, R., “The Structure of Public Support for Legislative Institutions,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 12 (1968), 163–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bullock, C. III, and Rodgers, H. Jr, Black Political Attitudes: Implications for Political Support (Chicago 1972)Google Scholar; Dennis, J., “Support for the Institutions of Elections by the Mass Public,” American Political Science Review 64 (1970), 819–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, J., “Support for the Party System by the Mass Public,” American Political Science Review 60 (1966), 600–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, J., Lindberg, L., and McCrone, D.D., “Support for Nation and Government Among English Children,” British Journal of Political Science 1 (1971), 21–44Google Scholar; Dennis, J., Lindberg, L., McCrone, D., and Steifbold, R., “Political Socialization to Democratic Orientations in Four Western Systems,” Comparative Political Studies 1 (1968), 71–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dennis, J. and McCrone, D., “Preadult Development of Political Party Identification in Western Democracies,” Comparative Political Studies 3 (1970), 243–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easton, D. and Dennis, J., “The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political Efficacy,” American Political Science Review 61 (1967), 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easton, D. and Dennis, J., Children in the Political System (New York 1969)Google Scholar; Fraser, J., “The Impact of Community and Regime Orientations on Choice of Political System,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15 (1970), 413–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garcia, F., “Orientations of Mexican American and Anglo Children Toward the American Political Community,” Social Science Quarterly 53 (1973), 814–29Google Scholar; Goldman, S. and Jahnige, T.P., eds., The Federal Judicial System: Readings in Process & Behavior (New York 1968)Google Scholar; Kim, C.L., Support for the Institution of Elections Among Legislative Candidates: An Empirical Test for Diffuse Support, Laboratory of Political Research, Univ. of lowa, Report #39 (1971)Google Scholar; Lindberg, L., “Integration as a Source of Stress on the European Political Community,” International Organization 20 (1966), 233–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lujan, B., “The Structure of Political Support: A Study of Guatemala,” American Journal of Political Science 18 (1974), 23–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muller, E., “Correlates and Consequences of Beliefs in Legitimacy in Regime Structures,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 14 (1970). 392–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muller, E., Political Stability and the Habit of Legitimacy, Laboratory of Political Research, Univ. of lowa, Report #23 (1968)Google Scholar; Muller, E., “A Test of a Partial Theory of Potential for Political Violence,” American Political Science Review 66 (1972), 929–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Murphy, W. and Tannenhaus, J., “Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court,” Law and Society Review 2 (1968), 357–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Okamura, T., “The Child's Changing Image of the Prime Minister,” The Developing Economies 6 (1968), 566–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Special Issue: Postwar Japan, Part I: The Polity, ed. H. Shinohara); Okamura, T., “The Child's Image of America,” The American Review 4 (The Japanese Association for American Studies, Univ. of Tokyo, 1970), 43–70Google Scholar; Patterson, S., Boynton, G., and Hedlund, R., “Perceptions and Expectations of the Legislatures and Support for It,” American Journal of Sociology 75 (1969), 62–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roth, M. and Boynton, G., “Communal Ideology and Political Support,” Journal of Politics 31 (1969), 167–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wahlke, J., “Policy Demands and System Support: The Role of the Represented,” British Journal of Political Science 1 (1971), 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See Easton, “A Re-Assessment of the Concept of Political Support.”

²⁶ See Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life.

²⁷ These three models may be intermixed in a number of interesting ways but this would lead us into a long digression.