Talcott Parsons  (1902-1979) is one of the most significant sociologists of the second half of the 20th century, most fully formulating the foundations of functionalism. In his writings, Parsons devoted considerable attention to the problem of social order. He proceeded from the fact that “mutual benefit and peaceful cooperation are more characteristic of social life than mutual hostility and annihilation,” arguing that only adherence to common values \u200b\u200bprovides the basis for order in society. He illustrated his views with examples of commercial transactions. When conducting a transaction, interested parties draw up a contract based on regulatory rules. According to Parsons, the fear of sanctions for breaking the rules is not enough to force people to strictly follow them. The main role here is played by moral obligations. Therefore, the rules governing commercial transactions must flow from universally recognized values \u200b\u200bthat indicate what is right and proper. Consequently, order in the economic system is based on general agreement regarding commercial morality. The sphere of business, like any other component of the activity of society, is necessarily a sphere of morality.

Consensus on values \u200b\u200bis a fundamental integrative principle in society. From common values \u200b\u200bfollow common goals that determine the course of action in specific situations. For example, in Western society, workers at a particular factory share the goal of efficient production, which follows from a general view of economic productivity. A common goal becomes an incentive for cooperation. The means of translating values \u200b\u200band goals into action are roles. Any social institution requires a combination of roles, the contents of which can be expressed using norms that define the rights and obligations in relation to each specific role. Norms standardize and streamline role behavior, making it predictable, which forms the basis of the social order.

Based on the fact that consensus is an essential social value, Parsons sees the main task of sociology in the analysis of the institutionalization of value orientation patterns in the social system. When values \u200b\u200bare institutionalized and behavior is structured accordingly, a stable system arises - a state of “social equilibrium”. There are two ways to achieve this state: 1) socialization, through which social values \u200b\u200bare transmitted from one generation to another (the most important institutions that perform this function are the family, the educational system); 2) the creation of various mechanisms of social control.

Parsons, considering society as a system, believes that any social system should meet four basic functional requirements:

• adaptation - refers to the relationship between the system and the environment: in order to exist, the system must have a certain degree of control over its environment. Of particular importance to society is the economic environment, which should provide people with the necessary minimum material wealth;
• goal attainment - expresses the need for all societies to set goals for which social activity is directed;
• integration (integration) - refers to the coordination of parts of the social system. The main institution through which this function is realized is law. Through legal norms, relations between individuals and institutions are streamlined, which reduces the potential for conflict. If a conflict does arise, it should be settled through the legal system, avoiding the disintegration of the social system;
• sample retention (latency) - involves maintaining and maintaining the core values \u200b\u200bof society.

Parsons used this structural-functional grid in the analysis of any social phenomenon.

Consensus and system stability does not mean that it is not capable of change. On the contrary, in practice, no social system is in a state of perfect equilibrium, so the process of social change can be represented as a “moving equilibrium”. So, if the relationship between society and its environment changes, this will lead to changes in the social system as a whole.

Sociology of T. Parsons

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) - American sociologist, very influential in the XX century, an outstanding representative of structural functionalism. The main works are “The Structure of Social Activity” (1937), “The System of Modern Societies” (1971). He considered himself a follower of Durkheim, Weber and Freud, who tried to carry out a mature synthesis of utilitarian (individualistic) and collectivist (socialist) elements of thinking. “The intellectual history of recent years,” writes T. Parsons, “makes, it seems to me, the following conclusion is inevitable: the relationship between the Marxist type of thinking and the type of thinking presented by proponents of the theory of action at the turn of the twentieth century has the character of a staged sequence in a certain development process ".

Parsons continued to develop a theory of social action. he considers   system of (social) action, which, unlike social action (the actions of the individual) includes the organized activities of many people. The action system includes subsystems that perform interrelated functions: 1) a social subsystem (group of people) - a function of integrating people; 2) cultural subsystem - reproduction of a pattern of behavior used by a group of people; 3) personality subsystem - goal-achievement; 4) a behavioral organism - a function of adaptation to the external environment.

The subsystems of the social action system differ functionally, having the same structure.   Social subsystem  It integrates the behavior of people and social groups. Varieties of social subsystems are societies (family, village, city, country, etc.).   Cultural  (religious, artistic, scientific) subsystem is engaged in the production of spiritual (cultural) values \u200b\u200b- symbolic meanings that people, organized into social subsystems, realize in their behavior. Cultural (religious, moral, scientific, etc.) meanings orient human activity (give it meaning). For example, a person rises to the attack, risking his life, for the sake of protecting his homeland.   Personal  the subsystem realizes its needs, interests, goals in the process of some activity in order to meet these needs, interests, achieve goals. The personality is the main performer and regulator of the processes of action (the sequence of some operations). Behavioral organism It is a subsystem of social action, including the human brain, human movement organs, capable of physically affecting the natural environment, adapting it to the needs of people. Parsons emphasizes that all these subsystems of social action are “ideal types”, abstract concepts that do not exist in reality. Hence the known difficulty in the interpretation and understanding of T. Parsons.

Parsons sees society as the type of social subsystem that has the highest degree of   self-sufficiencyregarding the environment - natural and social. Society consists of four systems - bodies that perform certain functions in the structure of society:

• a societal community consisting of a set of norms of behavior that serves to integrate people into society;
• a subsystem for the preservation and reproduction of a sample, consisting of a set of values \u200b\u200band serving to reproduce a sample of typical social behavior;
• a political subsystem that serves to set and achieve goals;
• economic (adaptive) subsystem, which includes a set of roles of people in interaction with the material world.

The core of society, according to Parsons, is   societal  a subsystem consisting of different people, their statuses and roles that need to be integrated into a single whole. The social community is a complex network (horizontal relations) of interpenetrating typical collectives and collective loyalties: families, firms, churches, etc. Each such type of  the collective consists of many specific families, firms, etc., which include a certain number of people.

Social evolution, but Parsons believes, is part of the evolution of living systems. Therefore, following Spencer, he argued that there is a parallel between the emergence of man as a biological species and the emergence of societies of a modern kind. All people, according to biologists, belong to the same species. Therefore, we can assume that all societies evolved from one type of society. All societies go through the following stages: 1) primitive; 2) advanced primitive; 3) intermediate; 4) modern.

Primitive  the type of society (primitive communal society) is characterized by the homogeneity (syncretism) of its systems. The basis of social ties is formed by family and religious ties. Members of a society have role statuses prescribed by it, which are largely dependent on age and gender.

Advanced primitive society is characterized by a division into primitive subsystems (political, religious, economic). The role of prescribed statuses is weakening: people's lives are increasingly determined by their success, which depends on people's abilities and luck.

AT   intermediate  societies there is a further differentiation of systems of social action. There is a need for their integration. Writing appears, separating the literate from everyone else. On the basis of literacy, the accumulation of information begins, its transmission to a distance, preservation in the historical memory of the people. The ideals and values \u200b\u200bof people are freed from religiosity.

Modern  society arises in ancient Greece. It gave rise to a system of modern (European) societies, which are characterized by the following features:

• differentiation of adaptive, targeting, integrative, supporting subsystems;
• the basic role of a market economy (private property, mass production, commodity market, money, etc.);
• the development of Roman law as the main mechanism for coordination and control of social activities;
• social stratification of society based on success criteria (political, economic, cultural).

In each social system, two kinds of processes occur. Some processes -   managing and integrativethat restore the balance (stabilization) of the social system after external and internal disturbances. These social processes (demographic, economic, political, spiritual) ensure the reproduction of society and the continuity of its development. Other processes affect the core   ideals, values, norms,  which guides people in social behavior. They are called processes.   structural changes.  They are deeper and more essential.

Parsons identifies four mechanisms for the evolution of social systems and societies:

• mechanism   differentiationstudied by Spencer when social action systems are divided into more specialized in their elements and functions (for example, the production and educational functions of the family were transferred to enterprises and schools);
• increase mechanism   adaptability  to the external environment as a result of differentiation of social action systems (for example, the farm produces more diverse products, with less labor and in large quantities);
• mechanism   integration, ensuring the inclusion in society of new systems of social action (for example, the inclusion in the post-Soviet society of private property, political parties, etc.);
• mechanism   value generalizationconsisting in the formation of new ideals, values, norms of behavior and their transformation into a mass phenomenon (for example, the beginnings of a culture of competition in post-Soviet Russia). The listed mechanisms of societies operate together; therefore, the evolution of societies, for example, Russian, is the result of the simultaneous interaction of all these mechanisms.

Parsons examines the evolution of modern   (European)  societies and does not hide this: “... the modern type of society arose in a single evolutionary zone - in the West<...>  Consequently, the society of the Western Christian world served as the starting point from which what we call the "system" of modern societies "originated." (In my opinion, along with the western type of societies and the system of these societies, there is an Asian type of society and a system of Asian societies. The latter have significant differences from Western ones.)

From what has been said, it can be concluded that Parsons' sociology is largely subjective meta in the sense that Hayek puts into this concept. This sociology focuses on the subjective component of social activity; considers collectivist as the leading form of social activity; refuses to interpret social phenomena by analogy with the laws of nature; does not recognize the universal laws of social development; does not seek to design the reorganization of societies based on open laws.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

I. Theory of the political system

1. The concept of the political system of society

2. D. Easton's political system model

3. The concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, C. Deutsch, G. Almond

II. The structure, functions and types of political system

1. The concept, characteristics of political subsystems

2. The functions of the political system

3. Types of political systems

III. The state in the political system of society

1. The concept of the state in the historical aspect and its modern understanding

2. The place and role of the state in the political system of society

3. The main features and functions of the state

4. The structure and typology of states

5. Political regime: concept, signs

6. The form of government

Conclusion

Literature

ATateating

Political science occupies a prominent place among other social sciences. Its high significance is determined by the important role of politics in society.

Elements of political knowledge originated in the ancient world. The understanding of political processes in Ancient Egypt, India, and China was peculiar. The “Hammurabi Laws” (mid-18th century BC) that have come down to us testify to the fact that political life was already relatively developed at that time: there was a corresponding administrative division of society, statehood, and legislation.

Political organizations of society are a system that provides society with integrity and orderliness.

System  (from the Greek "system" - a whole made up of parts, a combination) is a multitude of elements (objects, phenomena, views, knowledge, etc.) that are naturally connected with each other, representing a definite, integral formation, unity.

Using a systematic approach allows you to distinguish political life from public life as an independent part or subsystem.

Human society is a combination of social, economic, political, ethnic, legal, cultural systems.

The political system is a combination of state, party and public bodies and organizations involved in the political life of the country. It is a complex entity that ensures the existence of society as a single organism, centrally controlled by political power. Depending on time and place, the concept of a political system has a different content, since the significance of the components of a political system changes according to the type of political regime. In addition, the political system is defined as the interaction through which material and spiritual values \u200b\u200bare authoritatively distributed in society.

Any system has the following characteristics:

· Consists of many parts

· Parts make up a whole

· The system has boundaries Political science Lecture course Belogurova T.A. Electronic version p. 28

In political science, there are various approaches to the definition of a political system. In this test, analyzing the basic definitions, theories and concepts, you can try to determine what a political system is.

I.   Political system theory

1. Conceptse political system of society

Political system   - the totality of political relations, political institutions, in the framework of which the political life of society takes place and state power is exercised.

The concept of "Political system of society" was spread in the twentieth century. Such Western scholars as T. Parsons, G. Almond, D. Easton, and others contributed to the development of the theory of the political system. D. Easton was the first to systematically present this theory in his works Political System, System Analysis of Political Life and others. He presented the political system as a developing, self-regulating organism that flexibly responds to external impulses and consists of a whole complex of components and subsystems. Its main purpose is, according to D. Easton, in the authoritative distribution of values \u200b\u200bin society. D. Easton's ideas were later widely used by most scientists who studied the problems of the political system of society.

Modern political science identifies various concepts of political systems. Webster’s Dictionary mentions up to two dozen definitions of a political system.

Some scholars present the political system as a complex of ideas that underlie politics; others as a system of interactions; the third - as a combination of certain elements, subjects of politics, etc. All these definitions are characterized by a desire for a universal interpretation of political life, its independence from history and the social situation.

The basis of modern theories of political systems is the idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics as a kind of independent integrity. Along with economics, morality, religion, politics is a special form of human activity. Political activity is carried out within the framework of a certain political system.

According to D. Easton, the political system is a developing and self-regulating organism, which consists of many parts that form a single whole. The system has an input to which impulses come from outside - requirements or impulses - support. At the exit of the system are political decisions on the basis of which political actions are carried out.

The political system may respond differently to demands coming from the population. If the democratic system uses them to improve work, then the totalitarian system suppresses them, creating the image of a powerful and infallible power.

2. Modell political system D. Easton

Further development of the theory of political systems went along the lines of overcoming some of the shortcomings of D. Easton's model. Theory of D. Easton   considers the political system as a mechanism for the formation and functioning of power in society regarding the distribution of resources and values.

The systematic approach made it possible to more clearly determine the place of politics in society and to identify the mechanism of social changes in it. Politics is a relatively independent sphere, the main value of which is the distribution of resources and the incentive to accept this distribution of values \u200b\u200bbetween individuals and groups.

In a series of works written in the 1950-60s. (“Political System” (1953), “Model for Political Research” (1960), “Systematic Analysis of Political Life” (1965)), D. Easton is trying to build a holistic theory based on the study of “direct” and “inverse” relationships between the political system itself and its external environment, in a sense, borrowing the cybernetic principles of the "black box" and "feedback", and thereby using the conceptualization system approach and elements of the general theory of systems. To build a theoretical model, Easton uses four basic categories: 1) “political system”; 2) "environment"; 3) the "reaction" of the system to the effects of the environment; 4) “feedback”, or the impact of the system on the environment (Scheme 1).

Scheme 1. D. Easton’s political system model

In accordance with this model, the mechanism of the functioning of the political system includes four phases. Firstly, it is “input,” the impact of the external environment (social and non-social, natural) on the political system in the form of demands and support. For example, this may be the demand of the population to reduce income tax while at the same time legitimately supporting the government as a whole. Secondly, the “conversion" (or transformation) of social requirements into the preparation of alternative solutions, which are a specific response of the government. Thirdly, it is “output”, decision-making and their implementation in the form of practical actions. And finally, fourthly, the results of government activities affect the external environment through a “feedback loop” (feedback loop). The political system is an “open system” that receives constant impulses from the environment. Its main goal is the survival and stability of the system through adaptation and adaptation to the environment. This mechanism is based on the principle of “homeostatic equilibrium”, according to which the political system must constantly respond to the violation of its balance with the external environment in order to maintain internal stability.

Despite strong criticism of the systems approach in the late 1960s and early 1970s. D. Easton in his new work “Analysis of the Political Structure” (1990) continues the conceptual development of his model by studying the internal structure of the “black box”, that is, the political system, relying on a critical analysis of the neo-Marxist structuralism of N. Pulanzas. “A political structure is like an invisible force reigning deep in the political system” In general, various political structures, in his opinion, are formed from such elements as government bodies, parties and group associations, elite groups and massive forces, as well as from political roles played by all of them . The “political structure” itself acts as an attributive characteristic of politics, which determines restrictions on the behavior of individuals and groups, as well as at the same time can contribute to the achievement of their goals. Easton identifies various types of political structures that make up the "filling" of the political system: highly organized and low-organized, formal and informal, regime and differentiated institutions.

Disadvantages of the political system model easton  are:

· Excessive dependence on the "demand-support" of the population and underestimation of its independence;

· Some conservatism, focusing on maintaining stability, the invariability of the system;

· Insufficient consideration of the psychological, personal aspects of political interactions.

3. The concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, C. Deutsch, G. Almond

Theory T. Parsons . It lies in the fact that society interacts as four subsystems: economic, political, social and spiritual. Each of these subsystems performs certain functions, responds to requirements that come from inside or outside. Together they provide the vital functions of society as a whole.

Economic subsystem  responsible for fulfilling the needs of people in consumer goods. Function political subsystem  It consists in determining collective interests, mobilizing resources for their achievement.

Maintaining an established lifestyle, transferring to the new members of society norms, rules and values, which become important factors in motivating their behavior, provides social system.

The spiritual subsystem carries out the integration of society, establishes and maintains the bonds of solidarity between its elements.

Theory of C. Deutsch   (cybernetic theory). He regarded the political system as cybernetic, in which politics was understood as a process of managing and coordinating the efforts of people to achieve their goals. Political science (lecture notes) M .: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. Article 31

The formulation of goals and their correction is carried out by the political system on the basis of information about the position of society and its relation to these goals: about the distance that remains to the goal; about the results of previous actions. The functioning of a political system depends on the quality of the constant flow of information coming from the external environment and information about its own movement.

C. Deutsch in his main work, “The Nerves of Management: Models of Political Communication and Control” (1963), defines the political system as a network of communications and information flows. Within the framework of the developed cybernetic information approach, C. Deutsch is making a bold attempt to interpret political life through the prism of cybernetic analysis and communication mechanisms. Recalling that both the Latin “gubernare” (from which the English “government” is derived) and the Greek “kubernan” (respectively, the English “cybernetics”) come from one semantic basis related to the “art of management”, but initially with nautical navigation, ship control. According to Deutsch, the government (as a subject of public administration) mobilizes the political system by regulating information flows and communicative interactions between the system and the environment, as well as individual blocks within the system itself.

K. Deutsch is developing a very complex and layered model of the functioning of the political system as a totality of information flows, built on the principle of feedback, in The Nerves of Management. In a very simplified version (reflecting only its basic structure), it looks as follows (Scheme 2).

Scheme 2. Political system model C. Deutsch

Four blocks are identified in his model of the political system related to the various phases of the flow of information and communication flows: 1) receiving and selecting information; 2) processing and evaluation of information; 3) making decisions, and finally, 4) implementing decisions with feedback. Firstly, the political system receives information through the so-called “receptors” (foreign and domestic), which include information services (government and private), centers for the study of public opinion (government receptions, intelligence network, etc.). Here is the selection, systematization and primary analysis of the received data. Secondly, in the next phase, the selected new information is subject to processing within the “memory and values” block, where it, on the one hand, is compared with already available, old information, and on the other, it is evaluated through the prism of values, norms and stereotypes. For example, information on the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979 was naturally assessed differently in NATO countries and the Warsaw Pact. Thirdly, after receiving a final assessment of the degree to which the political situation corresponds to its priorities and goals, the government (as a decision center) takes an appropriate decision to regulate the current state of the system. And finally, the so-called “effectors” (executive bodies, etc.) implement solutions in the last phase, and then their results serve as new information through “feedback” for “receptors” that bring the system to a new cycle of functioning.

C. Deutsch identifies three main types of communications in the political system: 1) personal, informal communications (face-to-face), such as, for example, personal contact of a candidate for deputy with a voter in a relaxed atmosphere; 2) communication through organizations, when contact with the government is carried out through parties, pressure groups, etc., and 3) communication through the media, print, and electronic, whose role in the post-industrial society is constantly growing. The concept of the political system of C. Deutsch was no less criticized than the approaches of D. Easton, although at the same time she introduced into analysis such an important and active component of power relations as information flows and communicative communications.

A different structural-functional approach to the interpretation of political systems was proposed by the American political scientist G. Almond. The model has some similarities with the “Istonian” theoretical construction that we have already examined above, although they have significant differences (Scheme 3).

In his model of the political system, G. Almond identifies three analytical levels (or blocks), linking groups of functions (or various functions) of the macro system with the activities of individual institutions, groups and even individuals included in the system organization as its elements. The first block, the so-called "process level" (process functions), is associated with the "input", that is, with the influence of the environment on the political system. This is manifested in the implementation by political institutions of certain functions, and in a dynamic, procedural context: 1) articulation interests (group associations); 2) aggregation of interests (parties); 3) development of a political course (parliament); 4) implementation of the policy (executive administration); 5) arbitration (judicial authorities).

Scheme 3. Model of the political system of G. Almond http://www.vuzlib.net

The interaction of the social environment with the institutional system, thus, makes up the dynamics of the political process. At the same level, Almond essentially has a “conversion” of the interests of individuals and groups into relevant decisions and actions of state bodies.

In the second block, the "level of the system" (system functions), the society adapts to the political system, on which the prospects for its stable reproduction or vice versa radical change depend. Firstly, it is a function of the socialization of individuals to the standards and values \u200b\u200bof the political system, associated with the social institutions of the church, family and school. Secondly, it is a function of recruiting supporters or opponents of the system, active and passive citizens, including those who will then professionally engage in political activities. And finally, thirdly, this is the function of political communication, which is ensured thanks to the information, propaganda and manipulative work of the media and other organizations. During the transition period, the former political system is weakening primarily due to the dysfunctional nature of old institutions that do not provide adequate socialization, recruitment and effective propaganda.

And in the final third block, the “level of management” (policy functions), the last tasks in this cycle related to managing the collective resources of society are solved: 1) their “production” (or development), as is the case with tax collection in the country; 2) their structural regulation (transfer from one social sphere and economic sectors to another), and finally, 3) their distribution (distribution of social benefits and pensions, organization of economic events, etc.). Further, through the feedback, the “cycle” closes, as in the model of D. Easton, since the results of the activities of the “control unit”, regulation of public resources must somehow change the social environment, which ultimately will strengthen or weaken the stability of the manager, that is, political , systems. With all the scope and completeness of G. Almond’s theoretical model, she was also criticized for ethnocentrism and static, since in fact she only showed good stability in the American political system in the postwar years, resembling a kind of “water cycle in nature”, a cyclic mechanism.

It is interesting that this concept of the political “cycle”, the cyclical functioning of the political system was especially widespread in the USA and Europe in the 1950s and 60s, and as it may seem paradoxical, it was equally popular in the 1970s and the first half 80 years in the USSR. What is the reason for the strange popularity of the ancient as the world idea of \u200b\u200bpolitical development in a circle, the "cycle" as a cyclical functioning? In the 50s in the United States and Europe, the post-war socio-economic development and functioning of Western regimes was characterized by a certain degree of stability and stability. Some liberalization of totalitarian, autocratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s also provided a certain basis and even optimism to consider the functioning of the socialist political system and the Soviet model as something like a “perpetual motion”. But already in the late 1960s and especially in the first half of the 70s, even the "founding fathers" of the system-wide and functional theories of the political system themselves began to revise some of its foundations under the influence of the turbulent processes of political development unfolding in the third world. For example, G. Almond proposes combining a functional political theory with a dynamic developmental approach, thereby shifting the emphasis from the survival and reproduction of a political system to its transformation and change.

II. The structure, functions and types of political system

The approach of political scientists to the structure of the political system is diverse. However, there are certain elements highlighted by representatives of various theories.

1. Pnumbness, characterlogistics of political subsystems

As part of the political system of society, four large subsystems function in close interconnection: institutional, regulatory, communicative, and political and ideological.

The institutional subsystem includes political institutions and, above all, forms of political government (republic, monarchy), political regimes (democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, etc.), legislative, executive and judicial authorities, political parties and movements, numerous public organizations, electoral system and others. This subsystem has a key role in the political system. It is here that a legal framework is created that defines the conditions, possibilities and boundaries of the functioning of the entire political system.

The regulatory subsystem, based on the political and legal norms adopted in society, reflected in the country's constitution and other legislative acts, regulates the formation and activities of political institutions and the functioning of the political system of society as a whole. The initial basis on which this system is based is not only political and legal norms, but also national, historically established customs and traditions, the prevailing political views, beliefs, principles that influence the political system of society.

The communicative subsystem is a set of relations arising in the functioning of the political system of society. This is primarily a relationship regarding the management of society. The subjects of these relations are political institutions and organizations, political leaders, representatives of the political elite, and citizens. This is also the relationship associated with the struggle for political power: its conquest, retention, implementation. http://www.politicalscience.boom.ru/structure.htm

Political and ideological subsystem includes political concepts, theories, views. They underlie the creation and development of socio-political institutions, political and legal norms, and the improvement of political relations and the entire political system.

In the domestic political and sociological literature the political system is usually defined as a combination of state and socio-political organizations, associations, legal and political norms, principles of organization and exercise of political power in society. Most political scientists hold similar positions. As follows from the above definition, the core of the political system of society is political power, regarding the use of which various state and socio-political institutions, norms, models and standards of political activity are formed and operate around it. In view of the above, the structure of the political system is a multi-level education consisting of several subsystems.

First  of these is the totality of subjects that hold political power, in the role of which are diverse political communities of people. These include not only political elites, the class of state bureaucracy, but the community of deputies of all levels, as well as, of course, the people of any country, which in a democracy is the only source of state power in society.

Second the place belongs to the institutional subsystem, consisting of numerous macro, micro and mesopolitical institutions, organizations of political power institutions. The most influential of them are such state institutions as the Government, Parliament, the Supreme Court, as well as non-state institutions - political parties, socio-political organizations, etc.

Third  is a regulatory subsystem that includes all the variety of laws, codes, regulations that regulate the life of subjects, institutions of the political system and society as a whole. A special place here is occupied by the Constitution (Basic Law), which determines the type and character of the entire political system and the state system of the country.

Fourth, a special place is occupied by the cultural and ideological subsystem, which includes various types of political culture and political ideology, the carriers of which are political actors and power institutions. Some countries practice state ideology, which acts as the doctrinal foundation of the state. The main types of political culture and political ideology will be discussed below.

Fifth  a subsystem is a communicative one, which includes a set of relationships and interrelations between the subjects and institutions of the political system of society. Of particular importance in this subsystem are balanced relationships between the main branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial.

2. The functions of the political system

Thus, the political system of society is not a simple sum of diverse institutions and institutions of power, but a holistic entity that has an orderly internal structure and performs the corresponding functions. On the question of the functions of power in foreign political science, the opinion of D. Easton and G. Almond dominates, according to which the regulatory, extention, distribution and responsive functions of the political system are distinguished. In domestic political science, there are several classifications of the functions of the political system. Summarizing the existing approaches, we can distinguish such basic functions as:

1. The function of articulation and aggregation of interests of different groups of citizens of the state. The political system is the scene of representation and realization of these interests by means of political power.

2. Management function associated with the political management of the economy, social and other areas of society.

3. The function of developing a political strategy and tactics of socio-economic development of society.

4. The function of political socialization of citizens and society as a whole.

5. The function of legitimizing political power associated with the justification, recognition and acceptance of the existing political regime by citizens of the state.

6. A mobilization and consolidating function, expressed in maintaining the unity and cohesion of civil society on the basis of national ideas, priorities and goals.

In modern science, the concept of a political system has two interconnected meanings. In the first of them, the political system is an artificially created, theoretical, tool that allows you to identify and describe the systemic properties of various political phenomena. This category does not reflect political reality itself, but is a means of systematic policy analysis. It applies to any relatively holistic political entity: party, state, union, political culture, etc. Each of these entities is a specific political system. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ .

The use of the term “political system” in its first, methodological meaning in relation to the entire political sphere, suggests its consideration as an integral organism that is in complex interaction with the environment - the rest of society through “input” - channels of environmental influence on the political system and "Conclusion" is the inverse effect of the system on the environment.

The political system performs a number of functions in relation to the environment. This is the definition of goals and objectives of the program of activities of the company; mobilization of resources to achieve the goals; integration of all elements of society through the promotion of common goals and values, the use of power, etc .; mandatory distribution of scarce values \u200b\u200bfor all citizens.

Some authors further detail the list of functions of the political system. So, G. Almond describes its four functions of “input” - political socialization; attracting citizens to participate; articulation of their interests; aggregation of interests and three functions of “conclusion” - development of norms (laws); their use; monitoring their compliance. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

Some other functions of the political system of society are also highlighted. In different countries, the ratio of the above functions is different. Depending on this, various types of political system are formed.

3. Types of political system

In political science literature, there are various approaches to determining the types of political systems. Consider the five main types of political systems in a generalized form: 1. Slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist system. The basis of typologization is socio-economic formations, the authors of the concepts are Marx, Engels, Lenin. 2. Democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. The typologization is based on the degree of democratic power and the existence of mechanisms for resolving contradictions, the author is Robert Dahl. 3. Anglo-American, European continental, pre-industrial, totalitarian. The basis of typologization is political culture (homogeneous or heterogeneous), author Gabriel Almond. 4. Administrative command, competitive, social reconciliation. The basis of typologization are methods of managing society, author V.E. Chirkin. 5. It is ethocratic, democratic, where the basis of typologization is the place and role of the state in the political system. The authors of this typologization are: V.V. Radaev, O.N. Shkaratan.

From the foregoing, it can be seen that political systems can be investigated from different perspectives. Does this have not only theoretical, but also practical significance?

The typologization of political systems carries a methodological and applied burden. Thus, the first theory claims that political systems exist and function only within the framework of a class society, and with the death of classes they lose their political character. If the second part of this theory is today completely rejected, the first remains valid. However, the preference for the class approach, when analyzing the modern political system, significantly limits the idea of \u200b\u200bit as a whole, since in the political system, along with class attributes and traits, interclass, social, national, group and universal are also reflected.

The concept of R. Dahl is most popular in modern conditions: political systems are most often characterized as democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. He offers three types of political system that stand out on the basis of the specific nature of the political regime. It is a democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian political system. In addition, one can also designate the transitional form of the political system associated with its transformation from a totalitarian to an authoritarian and democratic one, and vice versa.

Of no less importance is the typologization of the political systems of G. Almond. The interaction of various types of political systems is more fruitful if, when characterizing them, the characteristics of diverse cultures are taken into account. This opens up additional channels for effective cooperation and partnership between various political systems. http://society.polbu.ru/sadriev_politsystem/ch03_i.html

It is hardly possible to draw a line under the existing theories of typologization of political systems. It may well appear new grounds for identifying differences between them, in accordance with the changing conditions of their occurrence and functioning.

What is the basis for replacing one type of political system with another? The first place should be given to a change in ownership (ownership of a slave, land, means of production, the state as a whole, equal right to exist and develop various forms of ownership); changes in the state form of government and a change in ideologies.

So, the type of political system is characterized by the correlation and interaction of its structural elements. The nature of the political system, as well as the pace of development of society as a whole, depend on their place, role, content and orientation. Any political system needs to be recognized by society. This recognition may be active or passive, open or hidden, conscious or unconscious, voluntary or coercive.

Various political phenomena are inextricably intertwined and make up a certain integrity, a social organism with relative independence. This is their property and reflects the concept of a political system.

Being extremely complex, content-rich phenomena, political systems can be classified on various grounds. So, depending on the type of society, they are divided into traditional, modernized democracies and totalitarian (R. Aron, W. Rostow and others), by the nature of their interaction with the environment - into open and closed: http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ closed  political systems have weak ties with the external environment, are immune to the values \u200b\u200bof other systems and are self-sufficient; open systems actively exchange resources with the outside world, assimilate the values \u200b\u200bof advanced systems, are mobile and dynamic. * (“political science” lecture notes. Moscow: “PRIOR Publishing House”, 1999. On political cultures and their expressions in the forms of organization of power - in English American; continental-European; pre-industrial and partially industrial; totalitarian (G. Almond).

There are many others, including more complex typologies of political systems. One of the fairly simple, widespread, and most importantly, fairly deep classifications of them is the division of political systems into totalitarian, authoritarian and democratic. The criterion for their differentiation is the political regime - the nature and methods of the relationship between the government, society (people) and the individual (citizens). In the most general form for * totalitarian  The political system is characterized by:

Denial or significant restriction of the rights and freedoms of the individual, the establishment of strict state control over all aspects of society;

Erasing the line between personal and public, individual and public, a mixture of freedom with power;

Breaking the omnipotent political mechanism of autonomy of all social relations;

A radical restriction of an individual’s initiative, its complete dependence on the state machine in solving almost all political problems.

The use of strong, tough means of solving social and political problems, relying on repressive bodies in the activities of the authorities;

Restriction of political freedoms of citizens, suppression of the opposition;

Centralization of management, suppression of regional and personal autonomy;

The concentration of the functions of managing society in one person or a narrow social layer.

Traits a democratic  systems:

Majority board;

Freedom of criticism and opposition to government;

Protecting the minority and its loyalty to the political community;

The right of the people to participate in public affairs, respect and protection of human rights.

Moreover, if a person has autonomy, rights and freedoms, is recognized as the most important source of power, then liberal democracy takes place. If the power of the majority is not limited by anything and seeks to control the social and personal life of citizens, then democracy becomes totalitarian.

Authoritarian and totalitarian political systems are also heterogeneous. So, depending on who - one person or group of people - is the source of power, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes can be autocratic (one person in power) or groupocratic (aristocratic, oligarchic, ethnocratic, etc.).

This classification reflects the ideal types of political systems that are significantly different from those in real life. Nevertheless, totalitarianism, authoritarianism and democracy, in one form or another and in varying degrees of approximation to the ideal, are widely represented in the history of mankind and in the modern world.

Depending on historical experience and traditions, national types of political systems are distinguished.

According to the prevailing methods of managing and resolving political contradictions, systems are divided into team  (focused on the use of coercive management methods), competitive(management tasks are solved during the confrontation of various political forces) and social reconciliation  (aimed at maintaining social cohesion and conflict resolution

III. The state in the political system of society

1. The concept of the state in the historical aspectkTE and its modern understanding

In historical terms, the state can be considered the first political organization. It is logical that the term “politics” and its derivatives derive from the word “policies”, which the ancient Greeks designated their city-states. For different peoples, states arose in different ways, at different stages of development, at different historical intervals. But common to all of them were such factors as the improvement of the instruments of labor and its division, the emergence of market relations and property inequality, the formation of social groups, classes, classes, people's awareness of common and group (class) interests. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

The state became the first, but not the last and not the only political organization of class society. Objectively established human relations brought to life new political forms of the movement of social matter. History testifies that along with the state and within its framework various non-governmental associations arise, reflecting the interests of certain classes, classes, groups, nations and taking part in the political life of society. For example, Aristotle mentions the parties of the mountain, plain and coastal part of the city of slave-owning Athens. Under feudal society, various associations of owners — communities, guilds, and workshops — had a significant influence on the exercise of political power. Church institutions played a special role in this regard, acting as the organizational and ideological support of the ruling classes. In bourgeois and socialist society, in addition to the state, there are various kinds of political parties, trade unions, women's and youth public associations, organizations of industrialists and farmers, reflecting in their activities the interests of certain social forces and influencing politics. And yet, the state occupies a central place in the political and public life of any country. The foregoing is due to the following.

1. The state acts primarily as an alternative to the struggle between different social groups, strata, classes with their conflicting interests. It prevented the self-destruction of human society at the earliest stage of our civilization and prevents it today. In this sense, it "gave" life to the political system of society in its modern sense.

At the same time, none other than the state throughout the history of mankind has drawn its subjects thousands of times into internecine and regional armed conflicts, wars, including two world wars. In some cases (as an aggressor), the state was and is an instrument of certain political groups that reflect the interests of the ruling strata, classes of society. In other cases (as a defender), it often expresses national interests.

2. The state can be seen as an organizational form, as a union of people united to live together. Each of the members of the “state community” is interested in its existence, since personal independence and freedom in communication with fellow citizens, protection of the family and property, and a guarantee of security against intrusion into personal life from outside are provided by the state. As a citizen, an individual acquires stable primary political qualities, which become the basis of his participation in the political life of the country, in the activities of socio-political associations and movements, political parties, etc. In other words, first of all, through the state, the individual is “included” in the political system of society .

At the same time, there is a complex of contradictions between the state and individual citizens (regardless of which class they belong to), which is generally characterized as one of the main internal contradictions of the political system of society. These are the contradictions between democracy and the bureaucracy in the sphere of legislative and executive power, between the trends in the development of self-government and the limited possibilities for its implementation, etc. These contradictions are sharply aggravated when the state pursues a pronounced class, national, racial policy towards citizens who do not belong to politically prevailing social groups.

3. Among the factors that caused the emergence of the state, an important place is occupied by the social-class stratification of society. It follows that the state acts as a political organization of the economically dominant class.

4. The state was the first result of the political activity of people, in some way organized and representing the interests of certain social groups and strata. This led to his claim to the universal coverage of political phenomena, and the signs of territoriality and public authority made the state real as a form of political community of various social and national entities, as well as various organizations and parties expressing their interests. Statehood is a form of being of a class society. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/

5. The state is the most important integrating factor linking the political system and civil society into a single whole. By virtue of its social origin, the state takes care of common affairs. It is forced to deal with general social problems - from the construction of homes for the elderly, communications, transport arteries to the energy and environmental support of future generations of people. As the main owner of the means of production, land, its subsoil, it finances the most capital-intensive branches of science and production, and bears the burden of defense spending.

For the political system of society, the sovereign nature of state power is of great consolidating importance. Only the state has the right to speak inside and outside the country on behalf of the people and society. The entry of the political system of a particular society into the global political community is in many ways inflated by the realization of the sovereign qualities of the state.

6. The political system due to the mobility of economic, social and class relations, the variability of the ideological! and the psychological aura is in constant motion. All its elements and components work as if equally, linking, coordinating the interests of social groups, developing political decisions. When emergency public situations arise (natural disasters occur, the form of government or political regime changes), the state plays a special role in resolving them. Moreover, in this case it is not just about the state, but about its substantial manifestation - state power. Only legitimate state power can ensure a relatively painless and bloodless transition to a new state of society.

2. Place and role of the state in the political systemof society

Describing the role and place of the state in the political system of society, one should proceed, first of all, from the fact that it - in any country and at any stage of the development of society - acts as the most massive and most comprehensive organization. It unites or seeks to unite various layers of the population around itself.

In constitutions and other legislative acts, it seeks to define itself as a community of the whole people, an association acting for the common good. This desire was also enshrined in the 1977 Constitution of the USSR. (Article 1 “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist nation-wide state expressing the will and interests of workers, peasants, intelligentsia, working people of all nations and nationalities of the country”), and in the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 2 “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the duty of the state ”, Article 3“ ... the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people ”), and in the US Constitution (“ We, the people of the United States, in order to establish a better Union, establish justice, safeguard internal peace, organize joint defense, promote general welfare and ensure the benefits of freedom for us and our posterity, we establish and introduce this Constitution for the United States of America ”).

Similar aspirations to express the will of the whole people showed themselves in the constitutional acts of other states. In this case, the “people” is often only a social background, behind which lies the real state power that belongs to a certain class, social layer or ruling group. In reality, it is precisely those in whose hands the state power is that are the real creators of domestic and foreign policy.

A special place and role of the state in the political system of society is also determined by the fact that in its hands are huge material and financial resources. In some countries, it is the monopoly owner of fixed assets and implements of production, which is especially pronounced in the internal political activities of the former socialist countries. So, in the USSR, the exclusive ownership of the state was land, its subsoil, forests and water, as well as the main means of production in industry, banks, communications, the main housing stock, etc., other property needed to carry out state functions.

The main difference between the state and other political institutions of society consists primarily in the fact that it owns the highest authority in society. His power is universal: it extends to the entire population and public parties of a given country; it rests on prerogatives - the authority to abolish any other authority, as well as on the availability of such means of influence that no other public organizations except for it possess. Such means of influence include legislation, the apparatus of officials, the army, the court, etc.

Political parties and mass public organizations can also have their own permanent apparatus, which are designed to ensure their normal functioning. However, unlike the state apparatus, they do not have in their structure, for example, such bodies that are called upon to protect the current legal system in society - police, courts, prosecutors, advocates, etc., functioning in the interests of all members of society.

Among the various elements of the political system, the state is also distinguished by the fact that it has an extensive system of legal means that enable it to manage many sectors of the economy and influence all social relations. Possessing the appropriate powers, various state bodies not only issue regulatory and individual acts within their competence, but also ensure their implementation. This is achieved in different ways - by educating, encouraging and persuading, by constantly monitoring the precise implementation of these acts, and by applying, where necessary, measures of state coercion.

Finally, the state has sovereignty. The sovereignty of political power is one of the hallmarks of the state. Its content lies in the supremacy of this power in relation to all citizens and non-governmental organizations formed by them within the country and in the independent behavior of the country (state) in the external arena.

So, the state is a political community that has a certain structure, organization of political power and management of political processes in a certain territory.

The state is the most important institution of the political system. The significance of the state is determined by the maximum concentration in its hands of power and resources, allowing it to effectively and decisively influence social changes. Political science (lecture notes) M .: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. st 46

Since its inception, the state has been treated ambiguously in the history of political thought. The most diverse reasons for the emergence and existence of the state have been put forward: in theological theory, this is Divine power; in contractual - the power of reason, consciousness; in the psychological - factors of the human psyche; in organic - socio-economic factors; in the theory of violence, military-political factors. The literature highlights the factors affecting the formation of the state: geographical, ethnic, demographic, informational. The emergence of statehood is due to reasons, among which it is hardly possible to single out any as the main determining one. The state arises, exists and develops as a result of the complication of socio-economic life, as a tool for streamlining the joint satisfaction of the interests of society, groups, classes, social strata, individuals.

The functioning of the political system of society is based on legal norms. All organizational structures of the political system operate within the framework and on the basis of laws that form the legal foundation of state and public life.

3.Basic  functions and signs of the state

Of course, these features do not exhaust the entire specificity of the state as an element of the political system of society against the background of all its other structural elements. But they give a general idea of \u200b\u200bthe state, as well as of the factors determining the place and role of the state in the political system of society.

Similar documents

The essence of system analysis of politics in political science. The concept, essence, structure and functions of the political system. Classification of its varieties by typology. The main provisions, advantages and disadvantages of the theories of the political system of D. Easton, G. Almond.

abstract, added 02.17.2016


The concept and theory of the political system of society. The structure and functions of political systems of society. The place and role of the state in the political system. Neutralization of negative trends in the development of society. Change of state and political regimes.

term paper added 04/29/2011


The concept, meaning, structure and functions of the political system of society. Theories of the political system (T. Parsons, D. Easton, G. Almond). Types of systems of political organization of society. Formation of the institutional subsystem of the political system of Kazakhstan.

presentation added on 10/16/2012


The concept of the political system of society, its structure and functions. The interaction of the state with political parties, public associations and other entities of the political system of society. The role of the state in the political system of society.

term paper, added 07/21/2011


The concept of the political system of society. The functions of the political system. The main structural elements of the political system. The role of the media and the church in politics. The theory of political systems in the science of politics.

term paper added 04/09/2004


Institutional and systems approach to the description of the political system of society. The structure, functions, typology of the political system of society, the state as its main structural element. Elements of the political system of society in the Republic of Belarus.

test, added on 01/20/2010


The concept, structure and basic functions of political culture. Types of political culture. The concept, structure and functions of the political system. The modern theory of the state. Model of the political system of D. Easton. The effectiveness of political activity.

test work, added 03/03/2013


The concept and characteristics of the political system. Expression of political interests of various classes, social strata and groups. The structure of the political system of society and trends in its development. Species and functional characteristics of the political system.

abstract, added 11/14/2011


The place of systems analysis of politics in modern political science. The concept of the political system of society. The structure, functions, typology and specificity of the political system of Russian society. Institutional and imperious basis of political life.

abstract, added 04/15/2009


The concept, structure and types of the political system of society, the laws of its development and characteristics. Features of the political system of the Russian Federation. The state as the main institution of the political system, its place and role, the essence of the legal and social state.

Theoretical and practical problems of the formation of an active personality

Page 2

In accordance with the theory of T. Parsons, each political system is a closed entity, consisting of characters and collectives, each of which, performing certain functions, interacts with other elements of the system, guided by the norms and cultural values \u200b\u200bof this society. Each individual enters into such an order with hopes and expectations, and whether they are destined to be realized depends on his behavior, which is adjusted by the system with the help of sanctions.

The central question of the structural-functional theory is the question of what ensures the functioning of the system as a whole. Parsons formulates four basic functional requirements for the system:

adaptation or regulation of relationships with the environment;

development of ideas about goals;

integration or regulation of relationships between participants in the system;

conflict resolution.

The structure should streamline the different types of behavior that arise interspersed in each system:

affective - non-affective behavior;

behavior associated with a particular function, or personality behavior in general;

orientation to general and personal norms;

orientation on attributing properties to oneself or on special merits and achievements;

confrontation of their own and common interests.

With this approach, keeping the system in balance is constantly in the spotlight. Proponents of this approach see the main task in the study of the problem of socialization in optimal management of the political system, in attempts to achieve a high degree of its legitimacy.

In contrast, scholars of a Marxist or dialectical-critical direction consider socialization processes to a greater extent from the point of view of an individual or group whose problems must be implemented in spite of the domination of political system domination. They discard the difference between general and political socialization, since this hides the artificial separation of the individual from the state and society. Proceeding from the social conditionality of man, Marxist science focuses on the process of alienation of the individual as the most important problem of industrial society.

The psychoanalytic approach is widely used in the study of the problem of socialization. Easton and J. Dennis proceed from the fact that the main political beliefs are reflected in the relationship between parents and children. Children identify with the party preferences of their parents and transfer their trust in their father to the president and important political institutions.

In the work, Children and the Political System, D. Easton and J. Dennis argue that primary socialization (that is, acquired in childhood) is crucial in creating a positive attitude towards the system. By analogy with 3. Freud, they insist that "basic children's feelings are more difficult to supersede and change than those that were acquired in life later." In their interpretation, political socialization is a process of successively changing stages of political development, which results in the formation of a positive attitude towards the system. Having found out how 12 thousand American children relate to the visible attributes of the political system (president, policeman, state flag and anthem), D. Eaton and J. Dennis identified four phases of socialization, covering the period from 3 to 13 years. The first phase is politicization, in the process of which the child develops the awareness that political power is more important than the power of parents. The second phase is personalization, when the child identifies political power with the figures symbolizing it - the president and the policeman. The third phase is idealization, within the framework of which exclusively positive traits are attributed to political figures. The fourth phase is institutionalization, during which the child perceives power through impersonal institutions (parties, parliament, court, etc.).

In the model of D. Easton and J. Dennis, political socialization is considered as a process of influence of a political system on an individual by creating positive attitudes towards the system. Thus, a tendency toward authoritarianism may be the result of a repressive style in family education. The personality here is interpreted primarily as an element of the political system, which is not the goal of politics, but serves only as a means of maintaining systemic equilibrium. The individual is considered as a passive object of influence of the political system.

In contrast to the foregoing, the cognitive and evolutionary psychological approach puts the subject of socialization at the center of the study. The cognitive developmental psychology proceeds from the active opposition of the individual and his environment. In the framework of this approach, the theory of the German sociologist L. Kohlberg proves that a person goes through many stages of cognitive and moral development. This process continues throughout life and requires certain sociocultural conditions and, accordingly, is predetermined by them, therefore, the subject of socialization can be at different levels of moral development. As the highest level, the maximum possible autonomous personality is recognized, capable of using independent decisions in political life, which focuses on universal principles and human rights. American researchers R. Dawson and K. Prewitt are inclined toward a dynamic understanding of socialization: the individual, in their opinion, should play new and new roles in a collision with the environment that lead to the formation of his own "political self." Among the many theoretical views, he chooses one or an eclectic mixture of different doctrines and political teachings.

Other about politics:

Election systems
   The electoral system - in the broad sense - the procedure for the formation of elected (representative) bodies of the state. The electoral system is governed by legal norms, which together form the right to vote. The electoral system - in the narrow sense - the system of distribution of seats in elected bodies after the establishment of the results of ...

Literature Overview
   When writing this work, normative documents, materials of periodical scientific literature, educational and scientific materials were used. Particular attention is paid to the Constitution of the Russian Federation - a document that defines the basis for the separation of powers in Russia, defines the functions of the branches of state power. Used and commentary ...

The origin of politics and its essence
   At the initial stages of the development of mankind, when society did not yet know a sharp conflict of interests, the mechanisms of self-organization of production and distribution of products, religion, customs and mores naturally regulated both the process of satisfying needs and maintaining the integrity of society. However, these mechanisms are ok ...

The theory of political systems was created in the 50s. first of all, by the efforts of American political scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, R. Dahl, C. Deutsch and others. One of the reasons for the emergence and dissemination of the theory of political systems at that time was a general dissatisfaction with the methods of political analysis used.

Behavioral approaches allowed analyzing political phenomena only in separate, often rather insignificant fragments. A fully conscious need has emerged for a generalizing theory. And it appeared, and its creators as a whole managed to avoid both the superfactological nature of "empiricists", "because of trees that do not see the forest", and large losses of information with the abstract philosophical conclusions of "theorists".

The concept was based on the ideas of a systematic approach, borrowed from economics, sociology and cybernetics. The initial postulates of the general theory of systems are simple. Any system object must meet some indispensable rules of systematicity, namely: consist of several interconnected elements, have relative isolation from other objects, i.e., some autonomy, and, finally, have minimal internal integrity (this means that the whole is not reducible to sum of elements). The political sphere has these elementary qualities.

The essence of system analysis (or structural functionalism) is the identification of the structure of a system object and the subsequent study of the functions performed by its elements. Thus, the problem of studying politics as a system object was solved.

The model for the creators of the theory was the concept of the “social system” of T. Parsons, who considered human action systems of any level in terms of functional subsystems specialized in solving their specific problems. So, at the level of the social system, the adaptation function is provided by the economic subsystem, the integration function by legal institutions and customs, the structure reproduction function, which, according to Parsons, constitutes the “anatomy” of society, is the belief system, morality and socialization institutions (family, education system, etc.) . d.), the function of self-achievement - the political subsystem. Each of the subsystems of society, possessing the property of openness, depends on the results of the activities of the others. At the same time, interchange in complex systems is not carried out directly, but with the help of “symbolic intermediaries”, which at the level of the social system are: money, influence, value commitment and power. Power is primarily a “generalized mediator” in the political subsystem, while money is a “generalized mediator” in the economic process, etc.

The theory of political systems also emerged as an alternative to the traditional institutional approach in political science and claimed not only to generalize the vast empirical material obtained by behaviorists, but also to transform political science into a more accurate discipline. “The concept of a“ political system, ”writes C. von Beime,“ appeared in order to fill the “theoretical vacuum” that left the concept of “state.” This term is free from juridical accompanying meanings associated with the state, and is easier to define in categories of observed behavior. The conceptual breadth of the term makes it a useful tool for analysis in the study of informal political structures, while “management” is often closely identified with formal institutions ”(Dictionary of Political of the analysis).

Considering that the most important property of a political system is the ability to maintain its qualitative certainty when changing the structure and functions of elements, or, in other words, its stability, D. Easton puts forward as a priority the analysis of the conditions necessary for maintaining the stability of the system and its survival (it is no coincidence that the structural and functional the analysis is called macro-sociology of social stability). For what, in his opinion, four main categories should be considered: “political system”, “surrounding social environment”, “reaction” and “feedback”. Since it is precisely these categories that are associated with * ... mobilization of resources and the development of decisions aimed at achieving the goals facing society ”.

The unit of study of the political system D. Easton considers interaction. He writes: “In a broader context, the study of political life ... can be described as a combination of social interactions between individuals and groups. Interaction is the basic unit of analysis. What distinguishes political interactions from all other kinds of social interactions in the first place is that they are oriented primarily toward the authoritarian distribution of values \u200b\u200bin society. ” Hence, the political system is interpreted as a set of interactions carried out by individuals and groups, within the limits of their roles, interactions aimed at the authoritarian distribution of values \u200b\u200bin society. Power in this interpretation of the political system acts as its main attribute. In an effort to emphasize the imperious nature of the political system and its focus on authoritarian decision-making, some followers of D. Easton even call the political system a "decision-making machine."

However, this interpretation of the political system is not the only one. So, from the point of view of R. Dahl, it is possible to define as a political system any stable type of human relations, which includes, as main components, power, norms and rules, authority. Thus, political systems can differ in the level of political institutionalization and political participation. The political system can be considered the intra-group structure that implements decisions in sub-social groups (that is, groups below the level of society as a whole), such as a family, church, trade union or commercial organization. At the same time, notes R. Dahl, not a single association of people is political in all aspects. The political system, consisting of authorized representatives of the population of a given country and its government, is a state. In turn, we can talk about the international political system with a geographical organization and national subsystems. Such an understanding of the political system can be called broad, but it does not oppose the Easton approach.

In general, only in political science in the United States there are more than twenty definitions of the political system, but they do not fundamentally differ from each other, being largely complementary.

Being an “open”, hierarchical, self-regulating system of behavior, the political system is influenced by the environment. With the help of self-regulation mechanisms, it develops responses, adapting to external conditions. Through these mechanisms, the political system regulates its behavior, transforms and changes its internal structure (the structure refers to the standardization of interactions) or changes the functions of structural elements. In order to cope with stressful situations arising in the political system, it must possess, according to M. Kaplan, “the ability to weaken the stresses emanating from the environment, the ability to reorganize itself and the external environment in such a way as to put an end to the emergence of tensions or, at least, their appearance in former forms. " If the system does not possess such “abilities” and does not take measures to prevent the destructive influence of the environment, and if the tensions inside the system are so great that the authorities cannot implement their decisions as binding, then the political system can be destroyed.

The exchange and interaction of the political system with the social environment is carried out according to the principle of “entry-exit” (concepts borrowed from cybernetics). An “entry” is any event that is external to the system and affects it in any way. “Exit” is the response of the political system to this impact in the form of political decisions, statements, laws, various events, symbolic acts, etc.

“Entrance” is carried out either in the form of “requirements” or in the form of “support”. A demand is an opinion addressed to the authorities, regarding the desirable or undesirable distribution of values \u200b\u200bin society. We are talking about such values \u200b\u200bas security, individual independence, political participation, consumer goods, status and prestige, equality, etc. However, this does not mean that the political system must satisfy all the requirements addressed to it, especially since this is practically impossible. The political system can act very independently in making decisions, choose between these or other requirements, and resolve certain issues at its discretion.

In such cases, she refers to the so-called “support pool”, where support is such a political attitude when A acts on side B or orientates herself favorably towards B, where A is people and B is a political system as in a certain way interconnected and an interacting set of political institutions and political leaders who pursue relevant political goals and are guided by certain political attitudes and values \u200b\u200b”(D. Easton). Support is manifested in two forms: internal support (or potential), expressed in the mood of adherence to a given political system, tolerance, patriotism, etc., and external support, which involves not only the adoption of the values \u200b\u200bof this system, but also practical actions on its side. It is support that ensures the stability of authorities that transform environmental requirements into relevant political decisions, and also creates the necessary prerequisites for the application of the means and methods by which these transformations are carried out. T. Parsons defined support as a political credit of trust in the system and compared it with deposits in the bank.

Since it is support that ensures the normal functioning of the political system, to the extent that each system seeks to create and introduce into the consciousness of its citizens through the channels of political socialization the so-called “working values”, that is, ideology that strengthens its legitimacy. It is no accident that in the Western tradition it is customary to define legitimacy primarily as “the ability of a system to generate and support the people's faith that its political institutions are in the best interests of the given society” (S. Lipset).

The process of entering requirements and support is carried out through two main stages: articulation and aggregation of interests. Articulation is a process of awareness and formation of interests by individuals and small groups. Aggregation is already a generalization and coordination of close articulated interests, their transfer to the level of programs, political declarations, draft laws, this is an adjustment of the current policy and the proposal of its alternatives. The main subject of articulation are interest groups. Aggregation is one of the goals of the activities of political parties, the media and the state.

On the other side is the "exit", that which "measures production" of the political system.

This is state policy, i.e., decrees of the head of state and government decrees, laws adopted by parliament, and court decisions. It is also the production of symbols, signs and messages that are also addressed to the environment. These outgoing messages are thus a response to the requirements of the surrounding social environment, which are thereby satisfied, rejected, disputed or partially fulfilled. Finally, power decisions, influencing the environment, inevitably bring to life new demands and support. And this is the feedback.

Since the political system is a complex hierarchical formation, the question inevitably arises of its subsystems and elements. Responding to it, G. Almond, in particular, identifies as such subsystems “... three broad classes of objects: 1) specific roles and structures, such as legislative and executive bodies or bureaucracies; 2) role holders, such as individual monarchs, legislators, and administrators; 3) specific public events, decisions or enforcement of decisions. ”

These structures, media and decisions can, in turn, be classified in detail depending on whether they are included in the political process or “entry”, or in the administrative process, or “exit *. Moreover, by analyzing the internal structure of the political system, G. Almond brings to the forefront not so much the structures as the existing links between them and their interactions, the roles that they play in the political system.

In domestic literature, it is customary to distinguish the following subsystems of the political system: a political organization embracing the stable political institutions of a given society; political norms; political relations; political consciousness (F.M. Burlatsky). This classification is not the only one, but most often Russian researchers reduced the set of elements of the political system to the structural elements of the political organization of society (i.e., to the list of stable political institutions of society).

The dynamic characterization of the political system is given through the concept of “political process”. Descriptions of the political process in Western political science, as a rule, are highly formalized, since they must meet two main requirements: to be operational and verifiable in order to make it possible to switch from a meaningful description of the process to creating a formal model (diagram) of the process in mathematical or tabular graphic form.

Hence, the political process is “the process of transforming information, translating it from“ input ”to“ output ”” (D. Easton). Thus, we are talking about practically reducing the political process to “conveying meanings that are significant for the functioning of the political system,” that is, to political communication. C. Deutsch even expressed the view that political communication could become the focus of political science, then political systems would be interpreted as vast communication networks. However, such an extreme approach was criticized for “the mechanical transfer of terminology, principles of activity and the most important provisions of cybernetics into the sphere of politics” (R. Kahn).

The interpretation proposed by G. Almond has become generally accepted: “Speaking about the political process, or entry, we mean the flow of demands from society to the state and the conversion of these requirements into authoritative political events. The structures that are primarily involved in the entry process include political parties, interest groups and means of communication. ” At the same time, "exit" is interpreted in Western political science as an "administrative process", speaking of it, they mean "... the process of implementing or imposing authoritative political decisions. Structures primarily involved in this process include bureaucracies and courts. ”

So, the political process consists of the following main cycles:

the flow of information from the environment into the receptors of the political system;

its circulation in the system;

the transformation of the political system;

Based on the foregoing, we can define the political process as the aggregate activity of all actors in political relations related to the formation, change, transformation and functioning of the political system.

Since any political system seeks self-preservation and adaptation to the requirements of its environment, adherents of structural functionalism argue that it is possible to isolate a finite number of processes by which these goals become feasible. In their opinion, the same “functions” were provided in all political systems of the past and present, only the composition and complexity of state and other political structures were changed. It was on this basis that a general theory of the functions of the political system arose. For example, in the work of G. Almond and B. Powell “Comparative Politics”, functions aimed at self-production of the system and its adaptation to the environment are divided into three groups: 1.

Conversion functions, conversions. Their goal is to ensure that demands and support are translated into political decisions or actions. G. Almond and B. Powell distinguish six functions here. Two of them are implemented at the “entry” level and should ensure regulation of everything that feeds the political system: it is about identifying interests and requirements and their harmonization.,

Three other functions are at the “exit”, these are: a) development of mandatory rules; b) their implementation; c) judicial function.

The sixth function - political communication / communication (the movement or containment of information, the transmission of meanings that are significant for the functioning of the political system) concerns both the "entrance" and the "exit" of the system. 2.

The function of adaptation, adaptation. The pressure exerted on the political system by demands of all kinds creates a constant factor of imbalance. Two functions of the system are opposed to this overload: a) the recruitment of political specialized personnel that accepts requirements and conducts their optimal processing; b) the function of political socialization, i.e., the dissemination of a political culture compatible with the requirements of survival and adaptation of the system to its environment. 3.

Abilities. They relate to the relationship between the political system and its environment: a) the ability to mobilize material and human resources for the normal functioning of the system; b) the ability to regulate - that is, establish control over people in the territory controlled by the system;

c) the ability to distribute, i.e., the provision of services, status, remuneration, etc .; d) the ability to maintain symbolism - that is, the conduct of actions to give something legal force, the celebration of heroic dates or events related to social values \u200b\u200bthat contribute to reaching agreement; e) the ability to listen, that is, the ability to accept requirements before they create serious tension in society.

Typologies of political systems. Most often, political systems are divided into open and closed.

An open political system is characterized by a high degree of “responsiveness” to the demands made by the “environment”. Moreover, such openness can reach a point where even protest movements co-opt into existing power structures, and their demands are somehow assimilated by political institutions.

Closed political systems, by contrast, are characterized by repressive measures in relation to initiatives and unauthorized collective actions of any kind.

The following indicators of the degree of openness of political systems are distinguished in the literature: 1.

The number of political parties, factions and organized interest groups that are able to translate the demands of various social groups into the language of official politics. It is believed that the more there are, the less likely the formation of social movements whose demands would not fit into the spectrum of political demands put forward by political parties. 2.

Separation of executive and legislative powers. Since the legislative branch (as opposed to the executive branch) is directly accountable to voters, to the extent that it is more sensitive to the demands of the population, and therefore social movements, interest groups, etc. 3.

The nature of the interaction of the executive branch and organized interest groups. It is believed that where relatively free informal ties are developing between these social institutions, the access of new requirements to the decision center is facilitated, which means that there is little likelihood of radical protest movements. four.

The presence of a mechanism for aggregation of requirements put forward by various social and political actors. It is believed that the openness of the system is reduced if it lacks mechanisms for the formation of political compromises and the search for consensus.

Based on these criteria, G. Almond proposed the following classification of political systems: 1) Anglo-American (the most open); 2) continental European (relatively closed); 3) totalitarian and 4) pre-industrial (3rd and 4th systems are closed, but totalitarian, unlike pre-industrial, Almond refers to the modern type of political systems).

The systematic approach aroused great interest among political scientists by the fact that, it would seem, it allowed to simulate political relations, made it possible to “unfold” the political situation in the direction opposite to the real flow of time, that is, from the investigation to the cause, which led to the clarification of factors and actions that contributed to the emergence of political crises and conflicts. It was assumed that the models obtained as a result of such verification could be used to “unfold” the situation in the future and detect crisis factors in advance. It seemed that finally a means had been found that would allow political science to fulfill the full prognostic function.

In addition to great interest, the ideas of a systematic analysis of politics gave rise to great disappointments, as researchers faced four “damned” problems: subjectivity, multidimensionality, uncertainty, and vague criteria for political behavior. This was the price that had to be paid for applying a systematic approach (as it turned out, not universal) to the knowledge of political realities.

However, there were obvious achievements. Advocates of this approach have introduced the rich and rigorous language of systems analysis into political science. Structural functionalism made it possible to include “Third World” countries in the field of comparative political analysis, which led, in particular, to the forefront in political science (from the 60s) of theories of political modernization. The turn to the study of informal mechanisms for making political decisions and the functioning of the state was also very important.

Based on the general theory of systems and the theory of the general properties of living and nonliving systems (cybernetics), the theory of society as a social system was developed by the outstanding American sociologist Tolkot Parsons. His works became an event in the public thought of the 1950-1960s, they have a huge impact on theorists and analysts today. To this day, the theoretical system of T. Parsons is not equivalent in depth and integrity [Parsons, 1998; Parsons, 1966].

According to T. Parsons, scientific sociology begins from the moment when society is seen as a system. In his opinion, the founder of this approach to society was K. Marx. Parsons builds the following theoretical model of the social system. Widely developing social interactions create a network of social relations organized (homeostasis) and integrated (equilibrium) due to the presence of a common value orientation (centralized value system) in such a way that it is able to standardize certain types of activities (roles) within itself and maintain itself as such in relation to environmental conditions (adaptation). The social system, therefore, is a system of social action, but only in the most abstract sense of the word.

T. Parsons wrote about this: “Since the social system is created by the interaction of human individuals, each of them is simultaneously an actor, who has goals, ideas, attitudes, etc., and an object of orientation for other figures and for himself. The interaction system, therefore, is an abstract analytical aspect, singled out from the holistic activity of the individuals participating in it. At the same time, these “individuals” are also organisms, individuals, and participants in cultural systems. ” Parsons rightly notes that his idea of \u200b\u200bsociety is fundamentally different from the generally accepted perception of him as a set of specific human individuals.

Any system, including social, means interdependence, i.e. any change in part of the system affects the entire system. This general concept of interdependence can be developed in two directions.

The first is the necessary conditions that form a hierarchy of determining factors. These factors are: 1)

first of all, for human activity to exist (be carried out), physical conditions are necessary for human life (existence); 2)

for the existence of society, the existence of individuals is necessary. Parsons example: if there are intelligent beings somewhere in another solar system, then they are not like us, biologically and most likely therefore their social life is different; 3)

it follows that the third level of the hierarchy of necessary conditions for the existence of society is formed by psychophysiological conditions;

\\ 4) finally, the fourth level is formed by the system of norms and values \u200b\u200bthat exist in this set of people - society.

The second direction is a hierarchy of management and control, otherwise - a hierarchy of controlling factors. In this respect, society can be approached as the interaction of two subsystems, one of which has energy, and the other has information. The first is the economy. The economic side in society has high energy potentials, but it can be controlled by people with ideas that are not directly involved in production, but organize people.

Here the problem of ideology, values \u200b\u200band norms that provide control over society is of great importance. This control itself exists, is implemented in the sphere (subsystem) of management. The problem of planned and unplanned management is also significant here. T. Parsons believed that it is political power in society that is the generalizing process that controls all other processes in society. Government is the highest point of the cybernetic hierarchy.

Society as a social system, according to Parsons, is characterized by the following five main subsystems: 1)

organization of political power. All political power must first of all ensure control over what is happening on the territory; 2)

socialization, the education of each individual since childhood, control of the population. This is especially important in our time, when the problem of information domination, information aggression arose; 3)

the economic basis of society is the organization of social production and distribution between segments of the population and individuals, the optimization of the use of society’s resources, primarily human potential; four)

the totality of cultural norms embodied in institutions, in another terminology, is a subsystem for maintaining institutional cultural patterns; 5)

communication system.

The criterion of society as a holistic system is its self-sufficiency, a high level of its self-sufficiency in relation to its environment.

An important place in the concept of Parsons society is occupied by the basic functional prerequisites for the survival of the social system, to which he attributed:

focus, i.e. the pursuit of environmental goals;

adaptability, i.e. adaptation to environmental influences;

integration of active elements, i.e. individuals;

maintaining order.

Regarding adaptation, Parsons has spoken out repeatedly and in different contexts. In his opinion, adaptation is “one of the four functional conditions that all social systems must meet in order to survive.” He believed that in industrial societies the need for adaptation is satisfied through the development of a specialized subsystem - the economy. Adaptation is the way in which the social system (family, organization, nation-state) "controls its environment."

The integration (equilibrium) of the social system is carried out on the basis of a common value orientation (centralized system of values). In connection with this theoretical construct of Parsons, the problem arises: do all societies have a centralized system of values, are they at all stages of their existence (reproduction)? And if not, what are the consequences for them? Thus, judgments about its value split, about the coexistence of different value systems in it, about its borderline existence in the civilizational confrontation “West - East” are widespread regarding modern Russian society.

As for such a functional prerequisite for the survival of the social system as social order, here Parsons developed the idea of \u200b\u200bM. Weber, who believed that order is based on the acceptance and approval by the majority of the population of the same values \u200b\u200band norms of behavior, supported by effective social control.

The process of changes in the social system is multifactorial and is very complex. These factors are relatively independent of each other. None of them can be considered as initial. At the same time, any initial change will be reflected in other factors. Changes of a progressive nature reflect the ability of society to realize certain values. Moreover, there are three types of social processes. one.

Differentiation in society. Thus, in the transition from the traditional peasant economy to the industrial type of economy, production goes beyond the family. Another example cited by Parsons: higher education was previously ecclesiastical, then there was a process of separation of higher education from the church. To this we can add the ongoing process of differentiation of professions, the emergence of new social strata and classes. 2.

Adaptive reorganization, i.e. an organization that must adapt itself to new conditions. So, for example, it happened with a family that was forced to adapt to new functions in an industrial society. 3.

The third type of social process is associated with the transformation of society, when this community begins to include a wider range of social units, becomes more differentiated, complex. In other words, society is constantly becoming more complicated due to the emergence of new elements, and due to the multiplication of relations between them and is thus being transformed. As a result, transformation is a change in the totality of the qualities of society, its transition from one qualitative state to another.

Here, according to Parsons, the question arises: how long can the previous social units be preserved in the new conditions - for example, traditional rural society in the conditions of increasing urban dominance, which is being built: a) at the place of residence; b) at the place of work. The final conclusion of T. Parsons is that society can only function normally when the interdependence of its elements is strengthened and conscious control over the behavior of individuals grows, when both mechanisms and structures ensure the stability of the social system.

Society is a self-regulating system: its functions are those that strengthen, preserve the structural lattice of society, and that which shakes it, destroys it, are dysfunctions that impede the integration and self-sufficiency of society.

An analysis of the evolution of mankind leads Parsons to the conclusion that in the course of development from primitive societies to intermediate societies, and finally from them to modern ones, there is a continuous process of complication and growth of adaptive ability. This process is accompanied by a tendency to increase conscious control over the behavior of individuals, which in turn allows us to solve the main problem - the integration of society (as a trend).

In such an original concept of society, fruitful for revealing its internal structure, at the same time, there are many vulnerable parties that have long been noticed by serious critics. The traditional criticism of the systematic approach to society is that this approach does not sufficiently take into account the subjectivity, creative activity and free will of a person, reducing him to a passive element of the system. The main thing, in their opinion, is that within the framework of this approach it is impossible to explain social changes and conflicts. True, within the framework of functionalism an attempt was made (neo-evolutionary in its focus) to shift the emphasis from studying the stable aspects of the functioning of social devices to the analysis of development processes, the source of which was seen in increasing structural differentiation, i.e. in a sequential and phased complication of the social structure.

Robert Merton (1910-2003) questioned the idea of \u200b\u200bParsons on the functional unity of society. He argued that real societies cannot be considered as well-functioning and fully integrated social systems, and showed that in modern social systems, along with functional ones, there are dysfunctional and neutral (with respect to the system) institutions. Thus, he opposed the postulate about the functionality of any existing social institution. This led to the conclusion that it was necessary to equally analyze both the functional and dysfunctional consequences of cultural elements. The degree of integration in different societies varies. Merton also disagreed with T. Parsons' view of the common value system as a prerequisite for a stable and harmonious state of society. The relationship between the value system and the social structure of society is very complex. Due to the heterogeneity of society, there are different value systems in it. This leads society to conflicts that undermine the stability of the regulatory structure of society. Hence, in society as a social system, the phenomena of the disintegration of value-normative standards, or anomie, arise. By anomie, R. Merton meant social situations that did not meet culturally defined goals (for example, organized crime in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s, or, add, in the 1990s and 2000s in Russia). Anomie means low social cohesion as a result of the breakdown of normative and value consent [Merton, 1966, p. 299-313].

Parsons' theoretical constructs were critically scrutinized by a prominent independent author, the “black sheep” of the American sociological community

C.R. Mills. His views can be found in the translated book Sociological Imagination (Moscow: NOTA BENE, 2001). He believed that: the idea of \u200b\u200bthe normative order of the "high theoretician" Parsons is aimed at actually recognizing the legitimacy of all power and the harmony of interests in any society; Parsons' social system theory is the scientific justification for stable forms of domination; under the guise of the common values \u200b\u200bof members of society, in fact, symbols of elite dominance are affirmed. He believed that societies dominating the world incorporate diverse value orientations, the unity of which is ensured by various combinations of legitimation and coercion. Mills builds a scale - from social systems with universal fundamental values, to social systems in which the dominant set of institutions, exercising total control over members of society,

imposes its values \u200b\u200bby force or the threat of its use. From here follows the variety of real forms of “social integration”.

Here is the final judgment of Ch. Mills: “In fact, no significant problem can be clearly formulated in terms of“ High Theory ”.. It is difficult to imagine a more worthless activity than, for example, analyzing American society in terms of“ value standard ”,“ universality of achievement ”without taking into account the understanding of success, changing it nature and forms characteristic of modern capitalism. It is impossible to analyze the changes in the structure of capitalism itself, the stratification structure of the United States in terms of a “prevailing value system” without taking into account the known statistics about people's life chances depending on their property and income level.

In analyzing Germany’s defeat in World War II, Parsons directed criticism on the social basis of junkering as a “phenomenon of exclusively class privilege” and analyzes the composition of the German state apparatus in terms of a “class approach to its recruitment”. In short, both economic and professional structures are suddenly discovered that are interpreted in sequentially * Marxist terms, and not in the terminology ... of a normative structure ”[Mills, 2001, p. 56-57].

However, for all the debatable ™ of many elements of Parsons theory, no one as holistic conception of society as a social system was put forward by anyone. It is no coincidence that after many years of criticism and all sorts of refutations at a difficult turning point in the life of mankind, in the 1990s, it was Parsons’s ideas that once again advanced to the forefront of sociological thought. Moreover, they received special development in the direction of filling his theory with the concepts of democracy and civil society.

This work was done primarily by Parsons' student Jeffrey Alexander. He believes that after the collapse of the communist system, issues of democracy and civil society become central to sociological activity. Democracy is a must for

society, effectively managed. This thesis of T. Parsons proved its vitality. Only democracy can overcome the difficulties associated with money and power. In this regard, civil society acquires a decisive place in ensuring stability and at the same time developing society as a social system. It is historical factors that have highlighted the theory of civil society as a special sphere of the social system (the collapse of communism, other forms of totalitarianism and authoritarianism). Civil society is not a sphere of power, money and economic efficiency, it is not a sphere of family relations or culture. Civil society is a non-economic and extra-social sphere, a prerequisite for democracy. The scope of civil society is related to the inviolability of the individual and his rights.

In civil society, the importance of communicative institutions that organize public opinion is high. These institutions do not have real power, but they have invisible power. One of its mechanisms is opinion polls. The spontaneity of the choice of respondents is a sign of civil society, evidence of respect for citizens as carriers of rationality. An example of their influence is the impact of such polls on ending the Vietnam War. An important role is played by the media. These funds exist in non-democratic societies, but only in democratic ones do they become independent from other institutions, including state authorities and corporations. Although they themselves are large capitalist enterprises, they represent society as such. If a country wants to have a civil society, then these media should become the framework for the development of this society. John Alexander also includes mass social movements (for example, environmental, for civil rights, etc.), spontaneously emerging groups of people designed to protect the interests of specific sectors of society, educational centers independent of the state, etc. [Alexander, 2009, p. 3-17; 1992, p. 112-120; 1999, p. 186-205; Alexander, 2006].

So, based on the works of T. Parsons, we considered society as a social system. But what about the endless process of complication, streamlining, strengthening adaptation? Where is the limit to this process? What follows him? Since the time of Parsons, research has gone in the direction of analyzing the problems of disequilibrium, nonlinearity, irreversibility, and higher organization. 1.4.