Breaking down the question
The command word examine asks you to assess, not merely describe — to weigh how far Parsons's model of the social system still helps us understand present society. The phrase in the present society is the evaluative pivot: the answer must connect a mid-twentieth-century theory to contemporary conditions.
You must therefore do two things economically within 10 marks: state the essentials of the Parsonian social system — its functional prerequisites and its concern with order and integration — and then judge its continuing relevance, noting both enduring insights and well-known limitations.
A strong answer avoids the two easy verdicts, that Parsons is either timeless or wholly obsolete, and arrives at a calibrated judgement. Ground the exposition in the note on Parsons' social system and pattern variables.
How to approach it
Open with a compact statement of the model: society as a system of interrelated parts tending towards equilibrium, held together by shared values, and meeting four functional needs. Introduce AGIL — Adaptation, Goal-attainment, Integration, Latency — and the pattern variables as the choices that distinguish traditional from modern roles.
Then turn to relevance. On the credit side, note the enduring value of a systemic view, the insight that societies must solve certain functional problems, and the usefulness of the pattern variables in charting modernisation. On the debit side, register the standard criticisms: neglect of conflict, power and change, and an over-integrated image of society.
Close with a balanced verdict: dated as a total theory, still valuable as an analytical lens.
Model answer
Talcott Parsons's theory of the social system remains one of sociology's most ambitious attempts to explain social order, and its relevance to present society is real but partial.
The model in brief. Parsons conceives society as a system of interdependent parts oriented towards equilibrium. Its cohesion rests on a shared value consensus internalised through socialisation. Every social system, he argues, must meet four functional prerequisites, summarised as AGIL: Adaptation to the environment (the economy), Goal-attainment (the polity), Integration of its parts (law and norms) and Latency or pattern-maintenance (family, education, religion). His pattern variables — such as ascription versus achievement, particularism versus universalism — describe the shift from traditional to modern role-orientations.
Where it remains relevant. The systemic perspective endures: the insight that institutions are interconnected, so that change in one — say the economy — reverberates through the family, polity and culture, is now common sociological sense. The claim that any society must solve certain functional problems of production, governance, cohesion and cultural continuity still offers a useful checklist for institutional analysis. The pattern variables remain a serviceable tool for charting modernisation, capturing the movement of contemporary societies towards achievement, universalism and specialised roles. And Parsons's emphasis on shared values and socialisation speaks to real questions about social cohesion in fragmented modern societies.
Where it falls short. The model's weaknesses are equally clear in present society. Its stress on consensus and equilibrium underplays conflict, power and inequality, which are conspicuous features of contemporary life. It struggles to explain social change, tending to treat it as a disturbance to be reabsorbed rather than a normal condition. Critics charge it with a conservative bias that legitimises the status quo, and with an over-integrated, over-socialised image of the individual. In a world of visible dissent, diversity and rapid transformation, a theory built around order and value consensus can appear one-sided.
Assessment. The Parsonian social system is best judged as partly relevant. As a complete account of modern society it is dated — too tilted towards order, too weak on conflict and change. But as an analytical framework for seeing society as an interconnected system with functional needs, and for mapping the traditional-to-modern transition, it retains genuine value. Its relevance today lies less in its conclusions than in the questions it teaches us to ask about how societies hold together.
Examiner's perspective
Answers stumble when they merely describe AGIL and stop, ignoring the evaluative heart of the question. The examiner wants relevance examined — a clear weighing of what still works against what does not.
Marks improve when candidates credit the enduring systemic perspective and the pattern variables' use in analysing modernisation, while frankly acknowledging the neglect of conflict, power and change. The best short scripts refuse both extremes — timeless or obsolete — and settle on a precise verdict: limited as a total theory, valuable as an analytical lens for understanding social order.