Parsons and Park both explained order through consensus rather than transactions.

Evidence

Virtually all the principles developed by Parsons are at variance with the previously discussed principles of Simmel. The main thing to note here is that Parsons in many ways follows the same logic as Park did. Although Parsons starts with “action,” Park with “interaction,” both find the central sociological problem to be that of explaining concerted action. Once one defines the phenomenon of consensually maintained moral restraints as the essential ingredient of social order, one can dispense with looking at social order, as Simmel had, as the complex resultant of a great number of variously shaped transactions. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 141

Categorization

• XREF: The consensus-vs-transaction contrast parallels the reader’s blasé-attitude argument: Simmel’s transactional view is the theoretical foundation the essay mobilizes against civil-inattention’s isolating cost.