The phrase state as actor in a situation is designed primarily as a shorthand device to alert us to certain perspectives while still adhering to the notion of the state as a collectivity. Explicit mention must be made of our employment of action analysis and of some of the vocabulary of the now well-known Parsons Shils scheme. We emphasize vocabulary for two reasons.
First, as new schemes of the theoretical system of which they are a part. Second, we have rejected a general application of the Parsons Shils approach as an organizing concept for reasons which will emerge later. At this point we may simply note that our intellectual borrowings regarding fundamental questions of method owe much more to the works of Alfred Schuetz.
Basically, action exists when the following components can be ascertained: actor, goals, means, and situation. The situation is defined by the actor relates himself to other actors, to possible goals, and to possible means, and in terms of the way means and ends are formed into strategies of relating himself to the situation will depend on the nature of the actor or his orientations. Thus, state X mentioned above may be regarded as a participant in an action system comprising other actors; state X is the focus of the observer's attention. State X orients to action according to the manner in which the particular situation is viewed by certain officials and according to what they want. The actions of other actors, the actor's goals and means, and the other components of the situation are related meaningfully by the actor. His action flows from his definition of the situation.