§1 the theory of political systems. Political system theory

Introduction

Society and social order in Parsons
The principle of functionalism in sociology
Essence of the theory of social action

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) - an outstanding American sociologist, the author of the theory of structural functionalism. His books: "The Social System", "Sociological Theory and Modern Society", "The Structure of Social Action".

The concepts developed by Parsons are grouped along two lines.

1) An attempt to develop a theoretical scheme of "social behavior" within the framework of the theory of social action, in which he psychologized sociological problems.

2) Development of general methodological principles and conceptual apparatus of sociology.

The main aspect of his theory is the construction of society on the basis of social equilibrium or order, which in turn will be maintained on the basis of the social systems identified by Parsons.

Parsons in his work considers the division of society into social systems, but also shows the individual's belonging to these systems.

1. Societyand social order in Parsons

Society, according to Parsons, is a complex system of social elements that are in a state of active interaction. The interaction of social elements is directed by the system of values. The development of society itself, according to Parsons, is evolutionary in nature and is described using the categories of differentiation (inevitably emerging and progressively growing heterogeneity within the system) and integration (increase in the integrity of the system due to the emergence and strengthening of new complementary connections and coordination between parts). Parsons distinguishes three types of society:

primitive, in which differentiation is expressed slightly;
intermediate, associated with the emergence of writing, social stratification, the separation of culture into an independent area of human activity;
modern, a characteristic feature of which is the separation of the legal system from the religious one, the formation of an administrative bureaucracy, a market economy and a democratic electoral system.

According to Parsons, all regularities in the life of society are based on certain changes in the form of social consciousness, primarily psychological and ethical phenomena - changes in values, norms, customs, etc.

“The core of society as a system is a structured normative order through which the collective life of a population is organized. As an order, it contains values, differentiated and particularized norms and rules, all of which must be culturally relevant in order to be meaningful and legitimate. It defines an understanding of membership that distinguishes between people who belong to society and those who do not. »

So, Parsons acts as a supporter of the "social order" and substantiates it as the "natural form" of society. (Comte was the first to come up with this idea). According to Parsons, order is the dominance of social consent (consensus) over social conflict. He suggests two ways to achieve harmony in society:

Sociolization - social values are transmitted from generation to generation, which is a mechanism for the transfer of values. With all the differences in forms, the status of an adult in all societies implies a certain autonomous responsibility. An individual produces some kind of service in some context of a collective organization. As a result of a long evolutionary process in modern societies, these services are institutionalized mainly in the form of a professional role within a specifically functioning team or bureaucratic organization. In any case, the primary functional relationship between adult individuals and the societies in which they live has to do with the contribution they make to society through their services, and with the satisfaction and rewards they receive in doing so. In sufficiently differentiated societies, the ability to produce services becomes a source of movement for society, mobilized through the market. When this stage is reached, we can speak of services as a product of the economic process available for "consumption" in non-economic contexts.
Creation of various social control mechanisms, i.e. social control over a person and his behavior. Because of this territorial interrelationship of place of residence, work, religious activity, political organization, and various other factors, the maintenance of normative order cannot be separated from the territorial control of behavior. The management function should include responsibility for maintaining the territorial unity of the normative order of society. This imperative has both internal and external aspects. The first concerns the conditions for imposing general norms and facilitating the performance of essential functions by the various divisions of society. The second concerns the prevention of destructive interference by non-people who are not members of the society in question. From the presence of organic needs and needs in the place of residence, it follows that both of these aspects have something in common: the last resort to prevent destructive action is the use of physical force. The use of force is possible in various forms, especially such as the protection of the territory from an external enemy or the placement of offenders in places of deprivation of liberty (imprisonment). The control or neutralization of the organized use of force is one of the functional needs in maintaining a societal community. In more highly differentiated societies this always implies some degree of governmental monopolization of social organized power.

2. The principle of functionalism in sociology

Parsons develops these ideas on the basis of the principles of functionalism in sociology. “The concept of function is used in the more general and neutral sense of ‘consequences’ which may or may not be intended or recognized and which may or may not positively contribute to the social system. » According to the developed principles, the essence of each element and phenomenon in the life of society is determined by its role in maintaining “balance”. ““Equilibrium” is the main concept that Parsons introduces, because the social system tends to maintain a state of internal unity or harmony, or it tends to maintain balance. »

The main problem that Parsons is trying to solve is the problem of keeping society in this stable state. Society, according to Parsons, always tends to a state of some kind of "absolute equilibrium", and social conflicts and the struggle of tendencies are phenomena of the "disease" of society.

We can highlight the main provisions of Parsons' functional approach:

1) social systems are focused on stability;

2) social systems are integrated;

3) social systems are based on consent;

4) social life includes the need for social control and responsibilities of the individual;

5) the basis of social life are norms and values;

6) social life depends on cooperation, interaction, solidarity.

Parsons believed that no social system, be it a society or an individual, can survive unless its basic problems are solved:

adaptation to the environment (adaptation);
formulating goals and mobilizing resources to achieve them (goal setting);
maintaining internal unity and orderliness, suppressing possible deviations (integration);
ensuring internal stability, balance, self-identity of the system (latency - maintaining the pattern).

In this regard, Parsons singles out independent systems, which, in turn, are designed to solve these problems. The biological functions of respiration, digestion, movement and information processing are the basis of differentiated organ systems, each of which is specialized in relation to the needs of certain relationships between the organism and its environment. Parsons uses this principle to build his analysis of social systems. So, he singled out three systems:

Spiritual system of society
Economic system of society
The political system of society

These systems differ in functions, but he gave the leading role to the spiritual system, since it is she who is focused on maintaining an established lifestyle, education, development of social consciousness, and conflict resolution.

The economic system helps society adapt to the environment, creates the material benefits necessary for a person to overcome the external environment. It can be said that it creates comfort for the individual and satisfies the biological and psychological needs of a sufficient part of the members of this society.

The political system should ensure the integration (preservation of internal unity) of society and the effectiveness of its functioning. Political activity is the coordination of all aspects of public life. Political structures are also concerned with the organization of collective action to achieve collectively important goals, either on a broad, society-wide basis, or on a narrower, territorially or functionally defined basis.

Parsons understands society as a system that is located in the natural environment and which, like any other system, strives for self-preservation, that is, for maintaining within itself certain basic parameters that determine the organization of this system. It is possible to save oneself only by constantly overcoming chaotic influences from the environment, and for this, society creates within itself a complex and branched structure of subsystems, and within the subsystems, a structure of social institutions. This shows that Parsons advocated a structural-functional approach to the study of society.

Every system contains social institutions: for example, in the economy, these are capitalist firms, and in politics, state institutions and civil society institutions. As for a person, each of us, as soon as he is included in any social institution, begins to behave in accordance with certain rules (which partly have a formal and partly informal expression). These "rules of the game" are also determined by the function that we already perform within the framework of our social institution (Parsons calls it a social role). Thus, through our own social institution, we are involved in the activities of the whole society as a whole, which has as its task self-preservation, and in the same way, each social institution claims to "survive" already in the social environment (and a person - to a prosperous existence already within the social institutions).

3. The essence of the theory of social action

Parsons says that society is bound not only by economic relations, but also by what makes these relations possible, namely: “the commonality of people's values and mutual observance of the rules of social behavior. » So he singled out an elementary social action, for the explanation of which he resorted to the theory of psychoanalysis. The specificity of social action from physical and biological lies primarily in:

symbolism (the presence of such mechanisms of action regulation as language, traditions, values, etc.)
normativity (which indicates the dependence of individual behavior on the rules and norms accepted in a given society)
voluntarism (which manifests itself in the dependence of social action on subjective definitions of situations).

The main elements of social action: situation, conditions of activity, actor, goals, norms, rules of conduct, ways to achieve goals. All these elements are included in the system and each performs its function. Social action must be purposeful and has a subjective meaning. The situation can be a variety of physical, cultural, social factors that are relevant at the moment. The one who acts must have knowledge of the conditions in which the goal is realized, the objects with which he is dealing; feel the need to achieve goals and respond emotionally to their activities. Finally, the structure of social action is determined by:

a system of norms and values that, in general terms, correlates the goal with the situation, limiting the choice of means, setting a range, a set of possible and impossible
making individual decisions about how to achieve the goals existing means and conditions

In a certain sense, every action is the action of individuals. At the same time, both the organism and the cultural system include essential elements that cannot be explored at the individual level.

The primary structural characteristic of an organism is not the anatomy of an individual organism, but the species type. Of course, this type is not actualized on its own, but is worked out through the genetic constitution of a unique individual organism, which contains both various combinations of genetic characteristics inherent in the species and the results of environmental conditions. But however important individual differences may be in determining a particular action, it is the common properties of large human groups—including their differentiation by sex—that form the organic basis of action.

Talcott Parsons in his work "The Social System" defined social control as a process by which deviant behavior is neutralized through the imposition of sanctions and thereby social stability is maintained. He analyzed three main methods of exercising social control.

(1) Isolation, the essence of which is to put impenetrable partitions between the deviant and the rest of society without any attempts to correct or re-educate him.

(2) Isolation - limiting the deviant's contacts with other people, but not complete isolation from society; such an approach allows for the correction of deviants and their return to society when they are ready to fulfill the generally accepted norms again.

(3) Rehabilitation, seen as a process in which deviants can prepare to return to normal life and the correct performance of their roles in society.

Thus, the essence of social control lies in the desire of society and its various constituent communities to strengthen the conformity of its members, cultivate "socially desirable" forms of behavior, prevent deviant behavior, and return the deviant to the mainstream of social norms.

Conclusion

Parsons in his scientific work described and studied the fundamental theoretical construction that explains the most general social processes. Based on the material studied, it can be said that Parsons studied society at the macrosociological level. He represented society as a system, and a change in an element of this system is seen as a change in the system as a whole. Parsons said that the main task of sociology is to give recommendations for the stabilization of society, i.e. to maintain balance. Equilibrium is maintained by social systems, which in turn contain social institutions. Social institutions are directly related to the activities of the individual. Thus, one can clearly see the structural-functional analysis, which was the main basis of the theory of Talcott Parsons.

Bibliography

The system of modern societies Parsons T .. / Per. from English. L.A. Sedov and A.D. Kovalev. - M.: Aspect-Perss, 1998
Modern sociological theory in its continuity and change. G. Becker, A. Boskov. Translation from English by V.M. Karzinkina, Yu.V. Semenov. - M: foreign literature publishing house, 1961
Sociology: Textbook for universities / V.N. Lavrinenko, N.A. Nartov, O.A. Shabanova, G.S. Lukashova; Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional — M.: UNITI-DANA, 2003.
Sociology: Part II: Educational method. allowance. S.V. Yamschikov, Dubna: Intern. University of Nature, Society and Man "Dubna", 2003
Philosophy: Textbook / Ed. N.S. Sidorenko. - M .: publishing house Ros. Economy Acad., 2004.

The theory of political systems was created in the 50s. primarily through the efforts of the American political scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, R. Dahl, K. Deutsch, and others. One of the reasons for the emergence and spread of the theory of political systems at that time was the general dissatisfaction with the methods of political analysis used.

Behavioral approaches made it possible to analyze political phenomena only in separate, often rather insignificant fragments. There was a quite conscious need for a generalizing theory. And it appeared, and its creators as a whole managed to avoid both the over-factuality of the “empiricists”, “because of the trees that do not see the forest”, and large losses of information in the abstract philosophical conclusions of the “theorists”.

The concept was based on the ideas of a systematic approach borrowed from economics, sociology and cybernetics. The initial postulates of general systems theory are simple. Any system object must meet certain indispensable rules of systemicity, namely: it must consist of several interconnected elements, have a relative isolation from other objects, i.e., a certain autonomy, and, finally, have a minimum internal integrity (this means that the whole is not reducible to the sum of the 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 "social system" by T. Parsons, who considered the systems of human action at any level in terms of functional subsystems specialized in solving their specific problems. So, at the level of the social system, the function of adaptation is provided by the economic subsystem, the function of integration is provided by legal institutions and customs, the function of the reproduction of the structure, which, according to Parsons, constitutes the "anatomy" of society, the system of beliefs, morality and institutions of socialization (family, education system, etc.) d.), the function of achieving goals is the political subsystem. Each of the subsystems of society, having 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 commitments and power. Power is primarily a "generalized mediator" in the political subsystem, while money is a "generalized mediator" of 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“ political system ”, writes K. von Beime, appeared in order to fill the“ theoretical vacuum ”that was left by the concept“ state ”. categories of observable behavior.The conceptual breadth of the term makes it a useful tool of analysis in the study of informal political structures, while "governance" is often closely identified with formal institutions" (Glossary of Political Analysis).

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

D. Easton considers interaction to be the unit of study of the political system. He writes: “In a broader context, the study of political life ... can be described as the totality of social interactions between individuals and groups. Interaction is the basic unit of analysis. What primarily distinguishes political interactions from all other kinds of social interactions is that they are oriented primarily towards the authoritarian distribution of values in society. Hence, the political system is interpreted as a set of interactions carried out by individuals and groups, within the limits of their recognized roles, interactions aimed at the authoritarian distribution of values in 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 making authoritarian decisions, 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, any stable type of human relations can be defined as a political system, which includes, as its main components, power, norms and rules, authority. Thus, political systems can differ in the level of political institutionalization and political participation. A political system can be considered that intragroup structure that makes decisions in subsocietal groups (i.e., groups below the level of society as a whole), such as a family, a church, a trade union, or a commercial organization. At the same time, notes R. Dahl, no 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, one can speak of an international political system with a geographical organization and national subsystems. This understanding of the political system can be called expansive, but it does not oppose the Eastonian approach.

In general, only in the political science of 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 (by structure we mean the standardization of interactions), or changes the functions of structural elements. In order to cope with the stressful situations that arise in the political system, it must have, according to M. Kaplan, “the ability to reduce tensions 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 in general. or at least their appearance in their former forms. If the system does not have such “capabilities” and does not take measures to prevent the destructive influence of the environment, and if the tensions within the system are so great that the authorities cannot enforce 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 "input-output" (the concepts are borrowed from cybernetics). "Input" 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.

"Input" is either in the form of "requirements" or in the form of "support". A demand is an opinion addressed to the authorities about the desirable or undesirable distribution of values in society. We are talking about such values as security, individual independence, political participation, consumer benefits, 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 quite independently when making decisions, choose between certain requirements, resolve certain issues at its own discretion.

In such cases, she refers to the so-called "reserve of support", where support is such a political attitude, when A acts on the side of C or orients itself favorably towards B, where A is the people, and B is the political system as interconnected in a certain way. and an interacting set of political institutions and political leaders pursuing appropriate political goals and guided by certain political attitudes and values ”(D. Easton). Support manifests itself in two forms: internal support (or potential), expressed in the mood of commitment to a given political system, tolerance, patriotism, etc., and external support, which involves not only the acceptance of the values of this system, but also practical actions on its side. It is the support that ensures the stability of the authorities that transform the demands of the environment into appropriate 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 confidence in the system and compared it with bank deposits.

Since it is support that ensures the normal functioning of the political system, every system seeks to create and introduce into the minds of its citizens through the channels of political socialization the so-called “work values”, that is, an ideology that strengthens its legitimacy. It is no coincidence that in the Western tradition, legitimacy is usually defined primarily as “the ability of a system to generate and maintain the belief of the people that its political institutions are most in the interests of a 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 the 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, it is an adjustment of the current policy and the proposal of its alternatives. Interest groups are the main subject of articulation. Aggregation is one of the goals of the activities of political parties, mass media and the state.

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

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

Since the political system is a complex hierarchical formation, the question of its subsystems and elements inevitably arises. Answering 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-bearers such as individual monarchs, legislators and administrators; 3) specific public events, decisions or execution of decisions”.

These structures, vehicles, and decisions can, in turn, be classified in detail according to whether they are included in the political process or "input" or in the administrative process or "output"*. Moreover, analyzing the internal structure of the political system, G. Almond brings to the fore not so much the structures as the links between them, their interaction, the roles they play in the political system.

In domestic literature, it is customary to distinguish the following subsystems of the political system: political organization, covering 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 (that is, to the list of stable political institutions of society).

The dynamic characteristic 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 move from a meaningful description of the process to creating a formal model (scheme) of the process in a mathematical or tabular form. graphic form.

Hence, the political process is “the process of transforming information, transferring it from the “input” to the “output”” (D. Easton). Thus, we are talking practically about the reduction of the political process to "the transfer of meanings that are significant for the functioning of the political system," i.e., to political communication. K. Deutsch even expressed the opinion that political communication could become the focus of political science, then political systems would be interpreted as extensive communication networks. However, this extreme approach was criticized for "mechanically transferring the 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 of the political process, or entry, we mean the flow of demands from society to the state and the conversion of these demands into authoritative political events. The entities primarily involved in the entry process include political parties, interest groups and the 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. The structures predominantly involved in this process include the bureaucracies and the 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;

transformation of the political system;

Based on the foregoing, we can define the political process as the total activity of all actors of political relations associated with the formation, change, transformation and functioning of the political system.

Because any political system strives to be self-preserving and adapt to the demands of its environment, structural functionalists argue that a finite number of processes can be identified to make these goals attainable. In their opinion, in all political systems of the past and present, the same “functions” were provided, only the composition and complexity of state and other political structures 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”, the functions aimed at the self-production of the system and its adaptation to the environment are divided into three groups: 1.

Conversion functions, conversions. Their purpose 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 carried out at the level of "input" and should ensure the regulation of everything that feeds the political system: it is about identifying interests and requirements and harmonizing them.,

Three other functions are on the way out, these are: a) development of binding rules; b) putting them into practice; c) judicial function.

The sixth function - political connection / communication (movement or containment of information, transfer of meanings significant for the functioning of the political system) concerns both the "input" and "output" of the system. 2.

adaptation function. The pressure exerted on the political system by demands of all kinds creates a constant factor of imbalance. Opposed to this overload are two functions of the system: a) the recruitment of political specialized personnel who accept the requirements and conduct their optimal processing; b) the function of political socialization, i.e., the spread of a political culture compatible with the requirements of the system's survival and adaptation to its environment. 3.

Capabilities. They concern 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, to establish control over people located 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 associated with public values that contribute to the achievement of consent; e) the ability to listen, that is, the ability to accept demands before they generate 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 put forward by the "environment". At the same time, such openness can reach such an extent that even protest movements are co-opted into existing power structures, and their demands are somehow assimilated by political institutions.

Closed political systems, on the contrary, 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 of them, 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 legislature (as opposed to the executive) is directly accountable to voters, it is more sensitive to the demands of the population, and hence social movements, interest groups, etc. 3.

The nature of the interaction between the executive branch and organized interest groups. It is believed that where relatively free informal ties develop between these social institutions, the access of new demands to the decision-making center is facilitated, which means that the likelihood of radical protest movements is low. four.

The presence of a mechanism for aggregating the 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 (the 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 of political scientists also because, it would seem, it made it possible to model political relations, made it possible to “unfold” the political situation in the direction opposite to the real flow of time, that is, from effect to 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 a test could be used to "unfold" the situation in the future and detect crisis factors in advance. It seemed that at last a means had been found that would allow political science to perform its prognostic function in full.

In addition to great interest, the ideas of systemic analysis of politics have also generated great disappointments, as researchers are faced with four "damned" problems: subjectivity, multidimensionality, uncertainty, and blurring of the criteria for political behavior. This was the price that had to be paid for applying a systematic approach (not universal, as it turned out) to the knowledge of political realities.

However, there were also clear achievements. Adherents of this approach brought to political science a rich and rigorous language of systems analysis. Structural functionalism made it possible to include the countries of the "Third World" in the field of comparative political analysis, which led, in particular, to the promotion of theories of political modernization in political science (since the 60s). The turn to the study of informal mechanisms for making political decisions and the functioning of the state was also very important.

T. Parsons. On the concept of “Political power”. Squeeze.

In his article, Talcott Parsons compares the concept of "power" in the political subsystem of society with the concept of "money" in the economic one. Just like money, power is an intermediary between the elements of an institutionalized system of relations. Power "is the realization of a generalized ability, which consists in obtaining from the collective the fulfillment of their obligations, legitimized by the significance of the members of the latter for the purposes of the collective, and allowing the possibility of coercion of the obstinate by applying negative sanctions to them, whoever the actors of this operation are." That is, according to Parsons, a single case of the use of the threat of force in private interests is not yet an act of domination (in this he disagrees with Dahl). Further, again drawing a parallel with economic phenomena, the author asks the question: "Is the amount of power in society limited? And if not, is there a mechanism for increasing this amount (by analogy with bank loans that can increase the amount of money supply)". And he comes to the conclusion that there is. This mechanism is the delegation of power to a person elected to a political post.

Power is understood here as an intermediary, identical to money, circulating within what we call the political system, but going far beyond the latter and penetrating the three functional subsystems of society (as I imagine them) - the economic subsystem, the subsystem of integration and the subsystem of maintaining cultural patterns . Having resorted to a very brief description of the Properties inherent in money as an economic instrument of this type, we will be able to better understand the specific properties of power.

Money, as the classics of economic science argued, is both a means of exchange and a "value standard". Money is a symbol in the sense that, while it measures and therefore "expresses" economic value or utility, it does not itself have utility in the original consumer sense of the word. By making up for the lack of direct utility from itself, money endows the recipient with four important degrees of freedom in terms of participation in the system of general exchanges:

1) the freedom to spend the money received on the purchase of any thing or a set of things from among those available on the market and within the limits of available funds;

2) the freedom to choose between many options for the desired thing;

3) freedom to choose the time most suitable for the purchase;

4) the freedom to consider the terms of the purchase, which, due to the freedom of choice of time and variant of the offer, a person can, depending on the circumstances, accept or reject. Conversely, in the case of barter, the bargainer is bound by what his partner has or is willing to have in exchange for what he had and will concede at the moment. [...]

The first money was an intermediary that was still very close to the commodity - the most famous example of this is precious metals [...] predominantly not for metal as a real intermediary, but for money “without value”. Moreover, the acceptance of this money "without value" is based on a certain trust institutionalized in the financial system. [...]

And finally, money is “good”, i.e. they function as an intermediary, only in the depths of a sufficiently defined network of market relations, which has indeed reached the world level today, but the maintenance of which requires special measures to ensure the mutual convertibility of national currencies. Such a system is an area of virtual exchanges in which money can be spent, but in the depths of which certain conditions are maintained that provide the system with protection and control from both the law and the responsible authorities controlled by law.

Similarly, the notion of an institutionalized system of power primarily highlights a system of relationships in which certain types of promises and obligations, imposed or taken voluntarily - for example, in accordance with a contract - are considered as enforceable, those. under statutory conditions, authorized persons may require their implementation. In addition, in all established cases of refusal or attempts to refuse obedience, whereby the actor tries to evade his obligations, they will be “forced to respect” by threatening him with the real application of situational-negative sanctions, which in one case serve as a deterrent, in another - punishment.

Power, therefore, is the realization of a generalized ability, which consists in obtaining from the collective the fulfillment of their obligations, legitimized by the significance of the members of the latter for the purposes of the collective, and allowing the possibility of coercion of the obstinate by applying negative sanctions to them, no matter who the actors of this group are. operations.

The reader will notice that I used the concepts of "generalization" and "legitimation" to define power. To obtain possession of a useful item by exchanging it for another item does not mean making a monetary transaction. In the same way, it follows from my definition that to achieve the satisfaction of one's desire, whether it is defined as an obligation of an object or not, by a mere threat from a superior force, does not constitute an act of domination. I am well aware that most political scientists would choose a different definition and see here an example of dominance [...] but I intend to stick to my own definition and study the consequences flowing from it. The power to secure the satisfaction of desire must be generalized so that it can be called a power in the sense I give to the term, and not only a function of the individual application of a sanction that one person is able to impose, and, finally, the mediator used must be "symbolic ". In second place among the properties of power, I put legitimation. This necessarily follows from my understanding of power as "symbolic", which, being exchanged for something really significant for the effectiveness of the community, namely obedience, leaves no benefit to the acquirer, i.e. to the person who fulfilled the obligation, "no tangible value." This means that he is left with nothing but the totality of anticipation, namely: under other conditions and in other cases, he can recall certain obligations on the part of other communities. In systems of power, legitimacy is thus a factor analogous to trust in the mutual agreement to accept a currency and its stability in financial systems.

Both criteria are united by the fact that if the legitimacy of the possession and use of power is questioned, then this leads to the use of increasingly powerful means to achieve obedience. These means must be more and more efficient "internally" and therefore better adapted to the special situations of the objects, given their lack of generality. Moreover, to the extent that these means are internally effective, legitimacy is gradually becoming less of an important factor in their effectiveness; at the end of this development is the application - first of various types of coercion, then force as the most essentially effective of all means of coercion.

[...] We are now in a position to touch on the last of those important problems that we have decided to deal with in this article, which is to find out whether power is a zero-sum problem in the sense that in the system every increment of power unit A is an effective cause of the loss of a corresponding amount of power by other units - B, C, D ... The comparison with money, on which we insisted from the very beginning, could help in search of an answer that in some circumstances will be clearly in the affirmative, but by no means case will not be so under any circumstances.

The case with money is clear: in developing a budget designed to distribute the available income, any allocation of funds for any one item must be at the expense of other items. The most obvious political analogy here is the distribution of power within a separate community. It is quite obvious that if A, who previously held a position of real power, is moved down in rank and B is now in his place, then A loses power and B gains it, and the total amount of power in the system remains unchanged. Many theorists, including G. Lasswell and C. Wright Mills, believed that this rule is equally valid for the entire set of political systems.

The most obvious and serious fact that broke the zero-sum theory was the establishment of credit by commercial banks. This case is so important as a demonstration model that it requires a brief explanation. When depositors put their money in a bank, they not only put it in a safe place, but also transfer it to the bank, which can lend it. In doing so, depositors in no way lose ownership of their money. Deposits are returned in full amount at the request of the depositor, and the only generally accepted restrictions here are determined by the mode of operation of the bank. The bank still uses part of the deposits to provide interest-bearing loans. [...] In other words, the same money begins to perform a “double function”: it is considered as property by both the depositors who keep documents for deposits and the banker, who has received the right to lend this money, as “his own”. Thus, there is an increase in the amount of money in circulation, measured by the number of current loans in relation to the volume of termless deposits.

[...] In the same way let us now try to make a precise analysis of systems of power. My suggestion is that there is a circular motion between the political sphere and the economy; its essence lies in the exchange of the factor of political efficiency - in this case, participation in control over the productivity of the economy - for an economic result, which consists in control over resources, which can, for example, take the form of an investment loan. This circular motion is regulated by power in the sense that the factor represented by the obligations to be fulfilled, in particular the obligation to provide services, more than balances the result represented by the opportunities opened up for effective action.

My suggestion is that one of the conditions for the stability of this system of circulation is the balance of the factors and results of domination on both sides. This is another way of saying that this condition of stability as far as power is concerned is formulated ideally as a zero-sum system, although the same is not true, due to the investment process, for the money involved. The system of circular circulation inherent in the political sphere is then understood as a place of habitual mobilization of expectations regarding their fulfillment; this mobilization can be carried out in two ways: either we recall the circumstances that arise from previous agreements, which in some cases, as, for example, in the question of citizenship, establish rights; or we assume, within the established limits, new obligations, replacing old ones already fulfilled. Equilibrium characterizes, of course, the whole system, and not individual parts.[...]

Is there a political equivalent of the banking system, a device that would break the cycle of power, allowing significant additions to the amount of power held in the system? The meaning of my reasoning is to prove that such a remedy exists and that its source is in the support system, i.e. in the zone of exchanges between power and influence on it, between the political system and the system of integration.

First of all, I suggest, and this is especially evident in the case of democratic electoral systems, that political support should be considered as generalized a concession of power that, in the event of victory in the elections, puts the elected leaders in a position similar to that of a banker. The "contributions" of the authorities made by the voters can be withdrawn - if not immediately, then at least at the next elections and on a condition similar to the bank's working hours. In some cases, elections are associated with conditions comparable to barter, more precisely, with the expectation of fulfilling some specific requirements advocated by strategically minded voters, and by them alone. But it is especially important that in a system that is pluralistic in terms not only of the composition of the forces providing political support, but also of the issues to be resolved, such leaders are given the freedom to make various binding decisions, in this case affecting other groups of society, and not just those whose "interest" was directly satisfied. This freedom can be thought of as limited by a circular flow: in other words, it can be said that the factor of power passing through the channel of political support will be most precisely balanced by its result - political decisions in the interests of those groups that specifically demanded them.

There is, however, another component of the freedom of the elected leaders, which is decisive here. It is the freedom to use influence - for example, due to the prestige of the office, which does not coincide with the amount of power due to it - to make new attempts to "equalize" power and influence. It is the use of influence to reinforce the overall supply of power. How can you imagine it?

What is important is that the relationship between the means used for positive and negative sanctions is an inversion of the case with the creation of bank credit. There, it was really about the use of power, specified in the obligatory execution of loan agreements, which made it possible to “feel the difference”. Here we are talking about the ability to selectively exercise influence through persuasion. This process appears to be fulfilling its role through a governance function which - through relationships maintained with various aspects of the community's constituency structure - generates and structures a new "demand" in the sense of a specific demand for solutions.

It can then be said that such a demand - applied to those who make decisions - justifies the increased production of power, which was made possible precisely because of the generalized nature of the mandate of political support; since this mandate was not issued on the basis of barter, i.e. in exchange for specific decisions, but because of the “equalization” of power and influence established through elections, it is the means by which, within the framework of the constitution, what appears to be most in the “general interest” at the governmental level. In this case, leaders can be compared to bankers or "brokers" who can mobilize commitment from their constituents in such a way that the pool of commitments made by the entire community increases. This increase must still be justified by the mobilization of influence: it must be both perceived as being in line with current norms and applicable to situations that “require” action at the level of collective commitment.

The critical problem for justification is, in a certain sense, the problem of consensus, its impact on the value principle, which is solidarity. The criterion corresponding to this value principle becomes, therefore, consensus.

In this case, the problem arises of finding a basis that allows one to break the circular stability of the zero-sum power system. Crucial to this is that this can happen when a community and its members are willing to take on new, enforceable obligations beyond and beyond those previously in force. There is then an urgent need to justify such an expansion and to transform the "feeling" that something needs to be done into an obligation to take effective action, containing, if necessary, coercive sanctions. In this process, a strong agent is represented by elected leaders - to the extent that they are subject to an analytically independent characterization of the position of power inherent in their function, which defines the leader as a person burdened with finding the necessary justification for political programs that would not be accepted in the event of a circular turnover of power.

It can be assumed that the comparison with a loan, along with others, turns out to be correct from the point of view of its time dimension. The need for greater efficiency to carry out the new programs that add to the overall burden of the community entails changes at the organizational level through a new combination of factors of production, the development of new organisms, the engagement of personnel, the development of new norms, and even the modification of the bases of legitimation. Therefore, elected leaders cannot be legally held accountable for immediate implementation, and, conversely, it is necessary that sources of political support give them credibility, i.e. did not demand immediate "payment" - at the time of the next election - for the share of power that their votes had, decisions dictated by their own interests.

It may be legitimate to call the responsibility assumed in this case, the responsibility of management, emphasizing its difference from administrative responsibility, focused on day-to-day functions. In any case, I would like to present the process of increasing power in a way strictly analogous to economic investment in the sense that "reimbursement" should entail an increase in the level of collective success in the direction identified above, namely: an increase in the efficiency of collective action in areas of revealed value. , which no one suspected if the leader had not taken risks, like an entrepreneur who decided to invest. [...]

Based on the general theory of systems and the theory of general properties of living and non-living systems (cybernetics), the theory of society as a social system was developed by the outstanding American sociologist Talcott Parsons. His works became an event in the social thought of the 1950s-1960s, they have a huge influence on theorists and analysts at the present time. To this day, the theoretical system of T. Parsons has nothing equivalent in depth and integrity [Parsons, 1998; Parsons, 1966].

According to T. Parsons, scientific sociology begins from the moment when society is considered as a system. According to him, the founder of this approach to society was K. Marx. Parsons builds the following theoretical model of a social system. Widespread social interactions give rise to a network of social relations, organized (homeostasis) and integrated (balance) due to the presence of a common value orientation (centralized system of values) in such a way that it is able to standardize individual activities (roles) within itself and maintain itself as such. in relation to environmental conditions (adaptation). The social system is therefore 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 (actor), having goals, ideas, attitudes, etc., and an object of orientation for other actors and for himself. The system of interaction, therefore, is an abstract analytical aspect, isolated from the integral activity of the individuals participating in it. At the same time, these "individuals" are also organisms, personalities, and participants in cultural systems. Parsons rightly notes that his idea of society is fundamentally different from the generally accepted perception of it as a collection of concrete human individuals.

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

The first is the necessary conditions, which form a hierarchy of conditioning factors. These factors are:

1) first of all, in order for human activity to exist (carry out), physical conditions are necessary for the life (existence) of a person;

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 forms a system of norms and values that exist in a given set of people - society.

The second direction is the hierarchy of command and control, otherwise, the hierarchy of controlling factors. In this regard, 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 the life of 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 and norms that provide control over society is of great importance. This control itself exists and is implemented in the sphere (subsystem) of management. The problem of planned and unplanned management is also significant here. T. Parsons believed that it was political power in society that was the generalizing process that controlled 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) the organization of political power. Any political power must first of all ensure control over what is happening on the territory;

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

3) the economic basis of society - the organization of social production and distribution between the population and individuals, optimization of the use of society's resources, primarily human potential;

4) a set of cultural norms embodied in institutions, in other terminology - a subsystem for maintaining institutional cultural patterns;

5) communication system.

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

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

Purposefulness, i.e., the desire to achieve goals in relation to the environment;

Adaptability, i.e. adaptation to the influence of the environment;

Integration of active elements, i.e. individuals;

Maintain order.

Regarding adaptation, Parsons spoke repeatedly and in different contexts. According to him, 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 a social system (family, organization, nation-state) "governs its environment".

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, a problem arises: do all societies have a centralized system of values, at all stages of their existence (reproduction)? And if not, what are the consequences for them? Thus, regarding modern Russian society, there are widespread judgments about its value split, about the coexistence of different value systems in it, about its borderline existence in the civilizational confrontation “West-East”.

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

The process of changes in the social system is multifactorial and very complex. These factors are relatively independent of each other. None of them can be considered original. 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. In this case, three types of social processes take place.

1. 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 is that higher education was previously ecclesiastical, then there was a process of separation of higher education from the church. To this we can add the continuously ongoing process of differentiation of professions, the emergence of new social strata and classes.

2. Adaptive reorganization, that is, an organization that must adapt itself to new conditions. So, for example, it happened with the family, which 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 complex both due to the emergence of new elements, and due to the multiplication of connections between them, and thus is 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 old social units be preserved in the new conditions - for example, a traditional rural society in the conditions of increasing urban dominance, which is built: a) at the place of residence; b) at work. The final conclusion of T. Parsons is as follows: a 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 that which strengthens and preserves the structural lattice of society, and that which undermines and destroys it is 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 ones, 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 towards the growth of conscious control over the behavior of individuals, which in turn allows solving 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 sides that serious critics have long noticed. The traditional criticism of the systemic approach to society is that this approach does not sufficiently take into account the subjectivity, creative activity and free will of a person, relegating 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-evolutionist in its orientation) to shift the focus from the study of 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 the gradual and gradual complication of the social structure.

Robert Merton (1910–2003) questioned Parsons' idea of 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 (in relation to the system) institutions. Thus, he opposed the postulate of 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 the elements of culture. The degree of integration in different societies is different. Merton also disagreed with T. Parsons' view of the common system of values 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 normative structure of society. Hence, in society as a social system, the phenomena of disintegration of value-normative standards, or anomie, arise. By anomie, R. Merton meant social situations that do not correspond to culturally determined goals (for example, organized crime in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s, or, let us add, in the 1990s and 2000s in Russia). Anomie means low social cohesion as a result of the breakdown of normative and value agreement [Merton, 1966, p. 299-313].

Parsons' theoretical constructions were subjected to critical analysis 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 (M.: NOTA BENE, 2001). He believed that: the idea of the normative order of the "high theorist" Parsons is aimed at the actual recognition of the legitimacy of any power and harmony of interests in any society; Parsons' theory of the social system is the scientific justification for stable forms of domination; under the guise of common values of members of society, in fact, symbols of the domination of the elite are affirmed. He believed that the world is dominated by societies incorporating a variety of value orientations, the unity of which is ensured by various combinations of legitimation and coercion. Mills builds a scale - from social systems that have universal fundamental values, to social systems in which the dominant set of institutions, exercising total control over members of society, imposes its values by force or the threat of its use. This implies a variety of real forms of "social integration".

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

... in analyzing Germany's defeat in World War II, Parsons directed the fire of criticism at the social basis of Junkerism as "a phenomenon of exclusively class privilege" and analyzes the composition of the German state apparatus from the point of view of the "class approach to its recruitment." In short, both economic and professional structures are unexpectedly found, which are comprehended in consistently Marxist terms, and not in the terminology ... of a normative structure” [Mills, 2001, p. 56–57].

However, for all the debatable nature of many elements of Parsons' theory, no one has put forward another equally holistic concept of society as a social system. It is no coincidence that after many years of criticism and all sorts of rebuttals at a difficult turning point in the life of mankind, in the 1990s, it was Parsons's ideas that once again moved to the forefront of sociological thought. At the same time, they received special development in the direction of replenishing his theory with the concepts of democracy and civil society.

This work was done primarily by a student of Parsons, Jeffrey Alexander. He believes that after the collapse of the communist system, issues of democracy and civil society become the central moments of sociological activity. Democracy is a necessity for an effectively governed society. This thesis of T. Parsons proved its viability. 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, in the development of society as a social system. It was historical factors that brought to the fore 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 non-social sphere, a prerequisite for democracy. The sphere of civil society is associated with 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 do have invisible power. One of its mechanisms is public opinion polls. The spontaneity of the respondents' choice is a sign of civil society, evidence of respect for citizens as carriers of rationality. An example of their impact is the impact of such polls on ending the Vietnam War. Mass media play an important role. These means are also available in non-democratic societies, but only in democratic ones do they become independent of other institutions, including state authorities and corporations. Although in themselves they 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. J. Alexander also refers to the components of civil society mass social movements (for example, environmental, civil rights, etc.), spontaneously emerging groups of people designed to protect the interests of specific sections 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, ordering, strengthening adaptation? Where is the limit to this process? What follows it? Since the time of Parsons, research has gone in the direction of analyzing the problems of non-equilibrium, non-linearity, irreversibility and higher organization.

The modern concept of "political system" began to take shape intensively in Western political science in the 1950s and 1960s. last century, and in our country - since the 1970s. The development of the general concept of "political system" was decisively influenced by:

understanding the complexity and multidimensionality of power relations;
awareness of the internal interconnection of structures and processes;
irreducibility of the problem of power to state structures.

What is the value of introducing the concept of "political system" into scientific circulation? First, in modeling power as a complex social system. Secondly, supporters of the systemic analysis of power laid the foundation for the vision of the constant dynamics of power and society, their ability to mutually influence. Thirdly, with the introduction of the term "political system" into scientific circulation, a positivist view of power was developed. The emphasis is not on what the essence of power is, but on what its specific functions are and how it implements them. The modern understanding of the political system is associated with the development of issues of power on the basis of structural-functional, information-communicative and systemic approaches.

The concept of "system" in the study of society was used by T. Parsons. The essence of his theory is that society is a complex open system where four subsystems interact: economic, political, social and spiritual, which are in a relationship of interdependence and interchange. Each of these subsystems performs certain functions, responds to requirements that come from inside or outside. Together they ensure the vital activity of society in business. The economic subsystem is responsible for meeting people's needs for consumer goods (adaptation function). The function of the political subsystem is to determine the collective interests and goals, mobilize resources to achieve them. The social subsystem ensures the maintenance of an established lifestyle, the transmission of norms, rules and values, which become important factors in motivating the behavior of an individual (the function of stability and self-preservation). The spiritual subsystem carries out the integration of society, establishes and maintains links of solidarity between its elements. The significance of the theory of T. Parsons lies in the fact that he laid the foundations for a systematic and structural-functional approach to the study of politics.

In political science, several models of the functioning of the political system have been developed. Consider the models of American scientists D. Easton, G. Almond, C. Deutsch.

The founder of a systematic approach in political science is considered to be D. Easton (born 1917). In his works "Political System" (1953), "System Analysis of Political Life" (1965), "Analysis of the Political Structure" (1990) and others, he develops the theory of the political system. For him, politics is a relatively independent sphere, but consisting of interrelated elements. On the one hand, politics is part of a broader whole - society. In this capacity, it must respond primarily to external impulses entering the system and prevent emerging conflicts and tensions between members of society. On the other hand, it participates in the distribution of material and spiritual resources and encouragement to accept this distribution of values and benefits between individuals and groups. Important is the ability and possibility of the political system to reform itself and change the environment.

The political system is an organism that is self-developing and self-regulating due to its connection with the external environment. Using elements of the general theory of systems, D. Easton tries to build a holistic theory based on the study of "direct" and "reverse" links between the political system and its external and internal environment and presents the political system as a mechanism for transforming social impulses coming from society (demands or support ) into political decisions and actions. D. Easton calls the political system a "machine for processing decisions." To build their theoretical model, four basic categories are involved: "political system", "environment", "reaction" of the system to the impact of the environment, "feedback" or the impact of the system on the environment (Fig. 6.1).

Rice. 6.1.

D. Easton put at the forefront the question of self-preservation, maintaining the stability of the political system in a continuously changing environment. The exchange and interaction of the political system with the environment is carried out according to the principle of "input" - "output". He distinguished between two types of input: demand and support.

Requirements may relate to the distribution of material goods and services (on wages, health care, education, etc.); regulating the behavior of actors in the political process (security, protectionism, etc.); communication in information (free equal access to information, demonstrations of political power, etc.). But this does not mean that the political system must satisfy all the demands addressed to it, especially since this is impossible and practically impossible. The political system can act quite independently when making decisions.

D. Easton considers support to be the main sum of variables linking the system with the environment. Support is expressed in material (taxes, donations, etc.) and non-material (observance of laws, participation in voting, respect for authority, performance of military duty, etc.) forms. D. Easton also identifies three objects of support: political society (a group of people connected to each other in one structure due to the division of activities in politics); the political regime (whose main components he considers values, norms and power structures); government (here he includes people who participate in the affairs of the political system and are recognized by the majority of citizens as responsible for their activities).

Regardless of their origin, demands and support become part of the political system and must be taken into account in the process of functioning of power. Demands tend to weaken the political system. Support leads to a stronger political system.

The output of information expresses how the system reacts to the environment and indirectly to itself. "Outgoing" impulses are carried out in the form of decisions and political actions (creation of laws and norms, distribution of values and services, regulation of behavior and interaction in society, etc.). According to D. Easton, they are determined by the very essence and nature of political power and are the main purpose of the political system. If decisions and actions are in line with the expectations and demands of multiple sections of society, then the support given to the political system is strengthened. It is very difficult for decisions and actions to find understanding and support when the authorities are indifferent to the demands of the members of society and pay attention only to their own demands and ideas. Such political decisions can have negative consequences, which can lead to a crisis in the political system.

D. Easton considers adaptation, self-preservation, reorientation of efforts, change of goals, etc. to be the main means by which one can cope with tension in the political system. And this is possible only thanks to the ability of the authorities to respond to "feedback" impulses entering the system. Feedback is one of the mechanisms for eliminating crisis or pre-crisis situations.

The political system can be subject to numerous environmental influences. These influences are of various strengths and directions. If the impulses are weak, then the political system does not have enough information to make decisions. Sometimes the impact can be strong, but one-sided, and then the power structures make decisions in the interests of any strata, groups, which can lead to destabilization of the political system. Erroneous decisions are also inevitable due to the oversaturation of the system with information coming from strong impulses from the external environment.

Thus, the political system, according to D. Easton's model, is a constantly changing, functioning, dynamic system directed from input to output and closed by stabilizing feedback.

Another version of the analysis of the political system was proposed by G. Almond in his works "Policy of developing regions" (1966), "Comparative politics: the concept of development" (1968), "Comparative politics today" (1988). When studying ways to preserve and regulate the political system, he not only supplements and develops the views of D. Easton, but also uses the structural-functional method and considers the political system as a set of interacting roles and functions of all the structures that make it up (legislative, executive, judicial branches of government, bureaucracy, political parties, pressure groups). G. Almond focuses not on his own structural elements of the political system, but on the connections of the political system with the environment. The concept of a role (instead of an organization, an institution, a group) is basic in his concept. The content of formal and informal interactions that develop the political culture of society, which the author considered decisive for the development of the entire complex of power relations, depends on the role.

From the point of view of G. Almond, the political system is a system of interaction between various forms of political behavior of state and non-state structures, in the analysis of which two levels are distinguished - institutional (political institutions) and orientation, which includes two levels: information-communicative and normative-regulatory (set moral, legal and political norms). G. Almond's model takes into account the psychological, personal aspects of political interactions, impulses coming not only from the outside, from the people, but also from the ruling elite. In his opinion, when studying a political system, it is necessary to take into account the fact that each system has its own structure, but all systems perform the same functions.

G. Almond in his model of the political system distinguishes three levels of groups of functions, linking them with the activities of individual structural elements (institutions, groups, individuals). The first level, the "process level" or "entry level", is related to the impact of the environment on the political system. This can be manifested in the implementation of functions (Fig. 6.2) implemented through the institutions of the political system. With the help of these functions, the requirements of citizens are formed and distributed according to the degree of importance and direction. The effective functioning of the aggregation mechanism helps to reduce the level of demands on the political system and increase support.

Rice. 6.2.

The second level includes the functions of the system, during the implementation of which the process of adaptation of society to the political system takes place and the degree of stability of the political system itself is determined. The function of political communication occupies a specific place, since it ensures the dissemination, transfer of information both between the elements of the political system and between the political system and the environment.

Information output functions or conversion functions consist of setting rules (legislative activity), application of rules (executive activity of the government), formalization of rules (giving them legal form), direct information output (practical activity of the government to implement domestic and foreign policy).

Further, through feedback, one can check the stability of the political system, since the results of the activities of management, regulation of public resources must somehow change the social environment, which in the end can strengthen or weaken its stability and efficiency.

In G. Almond's model, the political system appears as a set of political positions and ways of responding to certain political situations, taking into account the plurality of interests. Most important is the ability of the system to develop popular beliefs, attitudes and even myths, creating symbols and slogans, maneuvering them in order to maintain and strengthen the necessary legitimacy for the effective implementation of functions. An important feature of the political system is its multifunctionality and mixing in the cultural sense.

To implement functions or roles, the political system must have sufficient capabilities, which can be conditionally divided into the following types: extraction, regulatory, distributive, integral and symbolizing.

The extraction possibility of a political system is its ability to extract natural and human, intellectual and physical resources from society: the involvement of people in politics as voters, civil servants and activists; taxation; donations and other mechanisms for replenishing the budget of the institutions of the political system.

Regulatory capacity is the ability to manage, regulate, coordinate the behavior of individuals and groups, ensure effective political management and interaction with civil society. It is carried out through laws, orders, orders, setting interest rates on loans and taxation, processing public opinion, etc. The more effective and wider the extraction opportunity is, the stronger the dependence of the political system on civil society, but the wider the scope of its regulatory capabilities.

The distribution opportunity is the possibility of the emergence of a social state that redistributes national wealth, creating broad public control over the distribution of goods and resources.

An integral opportunity is the ability of a political system to adequately respond to changes in external conditions and internal conditions, quickly adapt to them, which makes the system stable and capable of self-development.

A symbolizing opportunity is the ability to appeal to the population with popular slogans, to create symbols and the necessary stereotypes of thinking. The degree of consolidation of society, and hence the implementation of all other functions of the political system, depends on this.

Thus, through specialization and division of political roles and functions, stability is ensured not only of the political system itself, but of the whole society, its ability to adapt to changing conditions.

A fundamentally different approach to the study of the political system was proposed by the American political scientist C. Deutsch (1912–1992), having developed its information-cybernetic (or information-communicative) model. In his work "Nerves of Management: Models of Political Communication and Control" (1963), he considered the political system as a fairly complex network of information flows and communication links, built on the principle of feedback. The goals of the political system are to ensure constant development and dynamic balance between the interests of all political groups. The effectiveness of the functioning of the political system depends on the quantity and quality of incoming information, the level of certain political agents, the tasks being solved, the characteristics of the processing, transmission and storage of the chain of messages and other factors, as well as the state of its communication networks.

The political system as a communication network includes four main, sequentially located blocks associated with various phases of the passage of information and communication flows that make up a single information and communication process of managing society: receiving information, evaluating and selecting information, making decisions, implementing decisions and feedback (Fig. .6.3).

Rice. 6.3.

At the first stage, a block of information data is formed based on the use of information coming from various sources: open and closed, official and unofficial, state and public. The political system receives information through the so-called receptors (external and internal). These are information services, centers for the formation and change of public opinion, etc. At the same time, both external and internal information should enter the political system. This information is sometimes not strictly tied to the subsequent formulation of public policy objectives. In this block, selection, systematization and primary analysis of incoming information data and their coding takes place.

At the second stage, further processing, evaluation and processing of the already selected information that entered the "memory and values" block takes place. Here there is a correlation of the received information with the dominant values, norms and stereotypes, with the current situation, the preferences of the ruling circles, as well as a comparison with the already available data. K. Deutsch was one of the first to consider the “memory and values” block in the model of the political system, in which the results of information processing are subjected to additional transformation, after which they are already sent to the decision-making center.

In the third block, appropriate decisions are made to regulate the current state of the system. The government makes a decision after receiving a final assessment of the degree of compliance of the current political situation with the main priorities, tasks and goals of the political system. K. Deutsch considers the government as a subject of public administration, which mobilizes the political system by regulating information flows and communication interactions between the system and the environment, as well as individual blocks within the system itself.

At the fourth stage, the executors (effectors) implement the decisions made by the government. "Effectors" not only carry out the decisions made, but also inform the system about the results of the implementation of decisions and about the state of the system itself, i.e. new information is fed to the input of the system - a "feedback" signal. Thus, new information through the "feedback" mechanism again gets to the "input" and brings the entire system to a new round of functioning. Feedback plays a stabilizing role in the system.

According to K. Deutsch, using the proposed information and communication model, one can quite reliably assess the reality of political systems, since they largely depend on the quality of a wide variety of communications: the transfer of information from managers to controlled objects and vice versa, between blocks of the political system and the environment. K. Deutsch identifies three main types of communication: personal, informal communications; communications through organizations; communications through the media.

The type of political system influences the quality and speed of communication. In a democratic regime, the production, transmission and use of information do not encounter artificial obstacles in the form of censorship, restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, the activities of parties and public organizations, etc. In an authoritarian political system, the speed of information transfer from bloc to bloc and the degree of citizens' awareness of political decisions systems are much lower due to constant monitoring and censorship and other obstacles.

Analyzing the success of the functioning of the political system in the process of managing society, K. Deutsch deduced the following patterns - the possibility of success is inversely proportional to the information load and the delay in the reaction of the system; depends on the magnitude of the increment of response to changes; depends on the ability of power structures to see the future and take the necessary actions in case of threats to the achievement of the goal.

The concept of the political system, developed by D. Easton, G. Almond, K. Deutsch, expanded the possibilities of political science theory in the study of the problem of interaction between the social structure and political institutions, the social environment and decision-making centers. These concepts adapted systemic, communicative and structural-functional approaches to the analysis of political life and gave a dynamic character to the study of the totality of state institutions and their active interaction with society.

There are other versions of the theory of the political system. For example, the theory of the political system of D. Truman, based on the postulates of the theory of "pressure groups", the theory of G. Powell and M. Kaplan, which is an attempt to transfer the main provisions of the concept of D. Easton from the sphere of domestic political life of a particular country to the sphere of external relations, stands out. There is a theory of a functional political system, built on the basic postulates of the social system of T. Parsons, a theory of the political system as a specific, active structure, etc.

C. Endrein developed the so-called culturological direction of understanding politics. He put the cultural characteristics that determine the behavior of people and the functioning of the institutions of the political system as the basis of politics. The structure of the political system is presented to him by three parts - cultural values, power structures and the behavior of citizens. The type of political system is determined by the level of development of political culture. It is cultural values that play a decisive role in the development of society.

The political system, functioning in conditions of constant change in the balance of forces and interests, solves the problem of ensuring social dynamics within the framework of sustainability and legality, maintaining order and political stability.

easton D . A. Framework for Political Analysis. N.Y., 1965. P. 112.
easton D. An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems // Political System and Change. Princeton, N. J., 1986, p. 24.
Almond Gabriel A. The Political of Developing Areas / Gabriel A. Almond and James Coleman, Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1960. P. 7.
Deutsch K. The Nerves of Government Modesl of Political Communication and Control. N. Y., 1963.
Endrain C.F. Comparative analysis of political systems. M., 2000. S. 19-20.