Breaking down the question
"Critically analyse" is a demanding command word: you must explain Parsons' pattern variables accurately and then weigh their strengths and weaknesses. The question names a specific concept, so a general essay on Parsons will not do — the pattern variables must be the centre of gravity.
Pattern variables are the set of paired choices that, according to Parsons, every actor must resolve before acting, and by which the normative orientation of roles, institutions and whole societies can be characterised. They sit within his broader theory of social action and social systems, developed in our notes on Parsons' social system and pattern variables.
At 10 marks, set out the five pairs concisely, indicate their analytical use in contrasting tradition and modernity, and reserve a clear paragraph for critique.
How to approach it
Begin by locating pattern variables within Parsons' action frame of reference: every act involves choices about how to orient oneself, and Parsons reduced these to five dichotomies.
List and briefly gloss the five pairs — affectivity versus affective neutrality, self-orientation versus collectivity-orientation, particularism versus universalism, ascription versus achievement, and diffuseness versus specificity. Then show their significance: they allow roles and institutions to be classified, and, taken together, they map the shift from traditional to modern society.
Finally, deliver the critique — the charges of abstraction, static bias, over-integration and Western assumptions — so that the "critically" is properly honoured.
Model answer
Pattern variables occupy a central place in Talcott Parsons' theory of social action. Parsons held that before any actor can act in a situation, they must resolve a series of dilemmas of orientation — choices about how to relate to the object of their action. He argued that these choices could be reduced to five basic dichotomies, the pattern variables, each a pair of alternatives one of which every actor selects, consciously or not, in every role they perform.
The five pairs are as follows. Affectivity versus affective neutrality concerns whether an actor seeks immediate emotional gratification or defers it for a disciplined, instrumental purpose. Self-orientation versus collectivity-orientation concerns whether one pursues private interest or the interest of the wider group. Particularism versus universalism concerns whether one judges and treats others by their particular relationship to oneself or by general, impersonal standards applying to all. Ascription versus achievement concerns whether one responds to others on the basis of who they are — their given qualities such as birth, sex or age — or what they have done and can do. Diffuseness versus specificity concerns whether a relationship is broad and all-embracing or narrow and limited to a defined purpose.
The significance of the scheme is twofold. First, it provides a precise vocabulary for classifying roles and institutions. The role of a mother, for instance, tends towards affectivity, particularism, ascription and diffuseness, whereas that of a bureaucrat or doctor tends towards affective neutrality, universalism, achievement and specificity. Second, and more ambitiously, the pattern variables map the contrast between types of society. Traditional societies characteristically emphasise the first term of each pair — emotion, collectivity, particular ties, ascribed status and diffuse relationships — while modern industrial societies emphasise the second — neutrality, universalism, achievement and specificity. In this way Parsons offered a systematic restatement of the classic transition from community to association, giving analytical shape to the process of modernisation.
Critically assessed, the pattern variables are an elegant and influential contribution. They supply a general, comparative framework applicable to interaction, roles and societies alike, and they translate vague notions of tradition and modernity into specifiable dimensions. Their analytical clarity has proved useful well beyond Parsons' own system.
Yet the conception attracts serious criticism. It is often charged with excessive abstraction and formalism — a set of neat categories far removed from the messy reality of social life, difficult to apply unambiguously to concrete cases. Critics such as C. Wright Mills saw in it the "grand theory" that dressed the obvious in forbidding language. The dichotomies also present matters as either-or when real orientations are frequently mixed, so that most roles combine elements of both poles. As part of Parsons' functionalist edifice, the scheme shares its conservative bias: it stresses value consensus and integration, tends to be static, and neglects conflict, power and change. Finally, its identification of the "modern" pole with universalism and achievement reflects an idealised, ethnocentric image of Western society and underestimates the persistence of ascription and particularism even within it. The pattern variables remain a valuable heuristic, but one whose rigidity and functionalist assumptions limit its explanatory power.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner expects all five pairs to be named and correctly glossed, since these are the substance of the concept; missing or muddling a pair is a costly error at this level. The better answers do more than list them, showing how the scheme classifies roles and, above all, how it maps the tradition-to-modernity shift.
Because the command word is "critically analyse", a dedicated evaluative paragraph is essential. Noting the charges of abstraction, false dichotomy, static functionalist bias and Western ethnocentrism converts a descriptive account into a critical one. Citing a specific critic such as Mills, and giving a role example for the classificatory use, marks the script as first-class within the tight word budget.