' s ▁soci ology . ▁Par s ons ▁had ▁asked ▁Schutz ▁to ▁give ▁a ▁presentation ▁at ▁the ▁rational ity ▁sem inar , ▁which ▁he ▁did ▁on ▁April ▁ 1 3 , ▁ 1 9 4 0 , ▁and ▁Par s ons ▁and ▁Schutz ▁had ▁l unch ed ▁together ▁after ward . ▁Schutz ▁was ▁fasc in ated ▁with ▁Par s ons ' ▁theory , ▁which ▁he ▁regarded ▁as ▁the ▁state - of - the - art ▁social ▁theory , ▁and ▁wrote ▁an ▁evaluation ▁of ▁Par s ons ' ▁theory ▁that ▁he ▁kindly ▁asked ▁Par s ons ▁to ▁comment . ▁That ▁led ▁to ▁a ▁short ▁but ▁int ensive ▁correspond ence , ▁which ▁generally ▁revealed ▁that ▁the ▁gap ▁between ▁Schutz ' s ▁soci olog ized ▁phenomen ology ▁and ▁Par s ons ▁concept ▁of ▁volunt ar istic ▁action ▁was ▁far ▁too ▁great . ▁From ▁Par s ons ' ▁point ▁of ▁view , ▁Schutz ' s ▁position ▁was ▁too ▁spec ulative ▁and ▁subject iv ist ▁that ▁t ended ▁to ▁reduce ▁social ▁processes ▁to ▁the ▁art ic ulation ▁of ▁a ▁Lebens welt ▁conscious ness . ▁For ▁Par s ons , ▁the ▁defining ▁edge ▁of ▁human ▁life ▁was ▁action ▁as ▁a ▁catal yst ▁for ▁historical ▁change , ▁and ▁it ▁was ▁essential ▁for ▁soci ology , ▁as ▁a ▁science , ▁to ▁pay ▁strong ▁attention ▁to ▁the ▁subject ive ▁element ▁of ▁action , ▁but ▁it ▁should ▁never ▁become ▁completely ▁absor bed ▁in ▁it ▁since ▁the ▁purpose ▁of ▁a ▁science ▁was ▁to ▁explain ▁caus al ▁relationships , ▁by ▁covering ▁laws ▁or ▁by ▁other