Political science / 3. Theory of political systems
Medvedeva A.V., Rybakov V.V.
Donetsk National University of Economics and Trade named after Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky
Theories of political systems by D. Easton and T. Parsons
The theory of political systems was created in the 50s. in the twentieth century, primarily through the efforts of the American political scientists D. Easton, T. Parsons, G. Almond, R. Dahl, K. Deutsch and others. The first political scientist who described political life from a systemic perspective was the American scientist David Easton. In the works "Political System" (1953), "The Limit of Political Analysis" (1965), "System Analysis of Political Life" (1965), he laid the foundations of the theory of the political system. He presented the political system as a developing, self-regulating organism, flexibly responding to external impulses and consisting of a whole complex of components and subsystems. Its main purpose is, according to D. Easton, in the authoritative distribution of values in society.
In a whole series of works, D. Easton is trying to build a holistic theory based on the study of "direct" and "reverse" links between the actual political system and its external environment, in a sense, borrowing the cybernetic principles of the "black box" and "feedback", and using thus in the course of conceptualization the systems approach and elements of general systems theory. To build a theoretical model, Easton draws on four basic categories: 1) "political system"; 2) "environment"; 3) "reaction" of the system to the impact of the environment; 4) "feedback", or the impact of the system on the environment. According to this model, the mechanism of functioning of the political system includes four phases. First, it is the "entrance", the impact of the external environment (social and non-social, natural) on the political system in the form of demands and support. Secondly, the "conversion" (or transformation) of social demands into the preparation of alternative solutions, which are a certain response of the government. Thirdly, it is an “exit”, decision-making and their implementation in the form of practical actions. And finally, fourthly, the results of the government's activities affect the external environment through the "feedback loop". The political system is an "open system" receiving constant impulses from the environment. Its main goal is the survival and stability of the system through adaptation and adaptation to the environment. This mechanism is based on the principle of "homeostatic balance", according to which the political system must constantly respond to the violation of its balance with the external environment in order to maintain internal stability.
The disadvantages of Easton's political system model are:
· excessive dependence on the "requirement-support" of the population and underestimation of its independence;
· some conservatism, orienting to the preservation of stability, immutability of the system;
· Insufficient consideration of psychological, personal aspects of political interactions.
Studying society, the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902 - 1979) singled out such fairly independent systems as spiritual, economic and political, differing in their functions.
The economic system serves to adapt society to the environment; the spiritual system supports established ways of life, educates, develops public consciousness, resolves conflicts; the political system ensures the integration of society, the effectiveness of common activities and the implementation of common goals.
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, first of all, a "generalized mediator" in the political subsystem, while money is a "generalized mediator" of the economic process, and so on.
In addition to these manifestations of a practical nature and the service role of the theory of the political system in political science, there are other forms of its expression. All of them, despite their differences, testify not only to the academic, but also to the political, practical, and applied significance of the topic under consideration.
Literature:
1. Andreev S. Political systems and political organization of society. // Socio-political sciences. 1992. No. 1.
2. Soloviev A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies: A textbook for university students. - M., 2007.
3. Seleznev L.I. Political systems of modernity: Comparative analysis. - St. Petersburg, 1995.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
I. Political System Theory
1. The concept of the political system of society
2. Model of political system D. Easton
3. Concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, K. Deutsch, G. Almond
II. Structure, functions and types of political system
1. Concept, characteristics of political subsystems
2. Functions of the political system
3. Types of political systems
III. State in the political system of society
1. The concept of the state in the historical aspect and its modern understanding
2. Place and role of the state in the political system of society
3. Main features and functions of the state
4. Structure and typology of states
5. Political regime: concept, signs
6. Form of government
Conclusion
Literature
ATineating
Political science occupies a prominent place among other social sciences. Its high significance is determined by the important role of politics in the life of society.
Elements of political knowledge originated in the ancient world. The understanding of political processes in ancient Egypt, India, and China was peculiar. The “Laws of Hammurabi” that have come down to us (mid-18th century BC) testify that political life was already relatively developed at that time: there was a corresponding administrative division of society, statehood, and legislation.
The political organizations of society are a system that provides society with integrity and order.
System(from the Greek "system" - a whole made up of parts, a connection) - this is a set of elements (objects, phenomena, views, knowledge, etc.) naturally connected with each other, representing a certain integral formation, unity.
The use of a systematic approach makes it possible to single out political life from public life as an independent part or subsystem.
Human society is a combination of social, economic, political, ethnic, legal, cultural systems.
The political system is a set of state, party and public bodies and organizations participating in the political life of the country. It is a complex formation that ensures the existence of society as a single organism, centrally controlled by political power. Depending on the time and place, the concept of a political system has a different content, since the significance of the components of the political system varies according to the type of political regime. In addition, the political system is defined as the interactions through which material and spiritual values are authoritatively distributed in society.
Any system has the following characteristics:
Consists of many parts
The parts make up a whole
· the system has boundaries Political science Course of lectures Belogurova T.A. Electronic version page 28
In political science, there are different approaches to the definition of a political system. In this test, analyzing the basic definitions, theories and concepts, you can try to determine what a political system is.
I. Political system theory
1. Understande political system of society
Politic system - a set of political relations, political institutions, within which the political life of society takes place and state power is exercised.
The concept of "the political system of society" became widespread in the twentieth century. Such Western scientists as T. Parsons, G. Almond, D. Easton, and others contributed to the development of the theory of the political system. D. Easton was the first to offer the most systematic presentation of this theory in his works “Political System”, “System Analysis of Political Life” and others. He presented the political system as a developing, self-regulating organism, flexibly responding to external impulses and consisting of a whole complex of components and subsystems. Its main purpose is, according to D. Easton, in the authoritative distribution of values in society. The ideas of D. Easton were subsequently widely used by most scientists who studied the problems of the political system of society.
Modern political science distinguishes various concepts of political systems. Webster's Dictionary mentions up to two dozen definitions of a political system.
Some scholars present the political system as a set of ideas underlying politics; others - as a system of interactions; still others - as a set of certain elements, subjects of policy, etc. All these definitions are inherent in the desire for a universal interpretation of political life, its independence from history, the social situation.
At the heart of modern theories of political systems is the idea of politics as a kind of independent integrity. Along with the economy, morality, religion, politics is a special form of human activity. Political activity is carried out within a certain political system.
According to D. Easton, the political system is a developing and self-regulating organism, which consists of many parts that form a single whole. The system has an input to which impulses arrive from the outside - requirements or impulses - support. At the output of the system are political decisions, on the basis of which political actions are carried out.
The political system may respond differently to the demands coming from the population. If the democratic system uses them to improve work, then the totalitarian system suppresses them, creating the image of a powerful and infallible power.
2. Modell political system of D. Easton
Further development of the theory of political systems went along the lines of overcoming some of the shortcomings of D. Easton's model. D. Easton's theory considers the political system as a mechanism for the formation and functioning of power in society regarding the distribution of resources and values.
The systematic approach made it possible to more clearly define the place of politics in the life of society and identify the mechanism of social changes in it. Politics is a relatively independent sphere, the main meaning of which is the distribution of resources and the motivation to accept this distribution of values between individuals and groups.
In a whole series of works written in the 1950s and 60s. (“Political System” (1953), “Model for Political Research” (1960), “System Analysis of Political Life” (1965)), D. Easton is trying to build a holistic theory based on the study of “direct” and “reverse” links between the political system itself and its external environment, borrowing in a certain sense the cybernetic principles of the “black box” and “feedback”, and thereby using the systemic approach and elements of general systems theory in the course of conceptualization. To build a theoretical model, Easton draws on four basic categories: 1) "political system"; 2) "environment"; 3) "reaction" of the system to the impact of the environment; 4) "feedback", or the impact of the system on the environment (Scheme 1).
Scheme 1. Model of the political system of D. Easton
According to this model, the mechanism of functioning of the political system includes four phases. Firstly, it is “input”, the impact of the external environment (social and non-social, natural) on the political system in the form of demands and support. For example, it may be the demand of the population to reduce income tax while legitimately supporting the activities of the government as a whole. Secondly, the "conversion" (or transformation) of social demands into the preparation of alternative solutions, which are a certain response of the government. Thirdly, it is “output”, decision-making and their implementation in the form of practical actions. And finally, fourthly, the results of the government's activities affect the external environment through the "feedback loop" (feedback loop). The political system is an "open system" receiving constant impulses from the environment. Its main goal is the survival and stability of the system through adaptation and adaptation to the environment. This mechanism is based on the principle of "homeostatic balance", according to which the political system must constantly respond to the violation of its balance with the external environment in order to maintain internal stability.
Despite strong criticism of the systems approach in the late 1960s and early 1970s. D. Easton in his new work "Analysis of the Political Structure" (1990) continues the conceptual development of his model by studying the internal structure of the "black box", that is, the political system, based on a critical analysis of the neo-Marxist structuralism of N. Pulanzas. "The political structure is like an invisible force that reigns in the depths of the political system" In general, various political structures, in his opinion, are formed from such elements as state bodies, parties and group associations, elite groups and mass forces, as well as from the political roles they all play . The “political structure” itself acts as an attributive characteristic of politics, which causes restrictions on the behavior of individuals and groups, as well as at the same time can contribute to the achievement of their goals. Easton identifies various types of political structures that make up the "stuffing" of the political system: highly organized and low-organized, formal and informal, regime and differentiated institutions.
Disadvantages of the political system model according to Easton are:
· excessive dependence on the "requirement-support" of the population and underestimation of its independence;
· some conservatism, orienting to the preservation of stability, immutability of the system;
· Insufficient consideration of psychological, personal aspects of political interactions.
3. Concepts of political systems in the light of the theories of T. Parsons, K. Deutsch, G. Almond
Theory T. Parsons . It lies in the fact that society interacts as four subsystems: economic, political, social and spiritual. Each of these subsystems performs certain functions, responds to requirements that come from inside or outside. Together they ensure the vital activity of society as a whole.
Economic subsystem is responsible for fulfilling the needs of people in consumer goods. Function political subsystem is to identify collective interests, mobilize resources to achieve them.
Maintaining an established lifestyle, transferring norms, rules and values to new members of society, which become important factors in motivating their behavior, ensures social system.
The spiritual subsystem carries out the integration of society, establishes and maintains links of solidarity between its elements.
Theory of K. Deutsch (cybernetic theory). He viewed the political system as cybernetic, in which politics was understood as a process of managing and coordinating the efforts of people to achieve their goals. Political Science (lecture notes) M.: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. article 31
The formulation of goals and their correction is carried out by the political system on the basis of information about the position of society and its attitude towards these goals: about the distance left to the goal; about the results of previous actions. The functioning of the political system depends on the quality of the constant flow of information coming from the external environment, and information about its own movement.
K. Deutsch in his main work "Nerves of Management: Models of Political Communication and Control" (1963), defines the political system as a network of communications and information flows. Within the framework of the developed information-cybernetic approach, K. Deutsch makes a bold attempt to interpret political life through the prism of cybernetic analysis and communication mechanisms. Recalling that both the Latin "gubernare" (from which the English "government" is derived) and the Greek "kubernan" (respectively, the English "cybernetics") come from the same semantic basis associated with the "art of government", and originally with nautical navigation, ship management. According to Deutsch, the government (as a subject of public administration) 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.
K. Deutsch develops in "Nerves of Control" a very complex and echeloned model of the functioning of the political system as a set of information flows, built on the principle of feedback. In a greatly simplified version (reflecting only its fundamental structure), it looks like this (diagram 2).
Scheme 2. Model of the political system by K. Deutsch
In his model of the political system, there are four blocks associated with various phases of the passage of information and communication flows: 1) receiving and selecting information; 2) processing and evaluation of information; 3) decision making, and finally, 4) implementation of decisions with feedback. Firstly, the political system receives information through the so-called "receptors" (foreign and domestic), which include information services (governmental and private), public opinion research centers (government receptions, intelligence network, etc.). Here the selection, systematization and primary analysis of the received data takes place. Secondly, in the next phase, the selected new information is subject to processing within the “memory and values” block, where, on the one hand, it is compared with the already available, old information, and on the other hand, it is evaluated through the prism of values, norms and stereotypes. For example, information about the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979 was naturally assessed differently in the countries of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Thirdly, after receiving the final assessment of the degree of compliance of the political situation with its priorities and goals, the government (as a decision-making center) makes an appropriate decision to regulate the current state of the system. And finally, the so-called “effectors” (executive organs, etc.) implement decisions in the last phase, and then their results serve as new information through “feedback” for “receptors” that bring the system to a new cycle of functioning.
K. Deutsch identifies three main types of communications in the political system: 1) personal, informal communications (face-to-face), such as, for example, personal contact of a candidate for deputy with a voter in a relaxed atmosphere; 2) communications through organizations, when contact with the government is carried out through parties, pressure groups, etc., and 3) communications through the media, print, electronic, whose role in a post-industrial society is constantly growing. The concept of the political system of K. Deutsch was criticized no less than the approaches of D. Easton, although at the same time she introduced into the analysis such an important and active component of power relations as information flows and communication links.
Another structural-functional approach to the interpretation of political systems was proposed by the American political scientist G. Almond, the model has some similarities with the “Estonian” theoretical construction we have already considered above, although they have significant differences (Scheme 3).
In his model of the political system, G. Almond distinguishes three analytical levels (or blocks), linking groups of functions (or various functions) of the macrosystem with the activities of individual institutions, groups, and even individuals included in the system organization as its elements. The first block, the so-called "process level" (process functions), is associated with the "input", that is, with the impact of the environment on the political system. This is manifested in the implementation of certain functions by political institutions, moreover, in a dynamic, procedural context: 1) articulation interests (group associations); 2) aggregation of interests (parties); 3) development of a political course (parliament); 4) policy implementation (executive administration); 5) arbitration (judicial bodies).
Scheme 3. Model of the political system of G. Almond http://www.vuzlib.net
The interaction of the social environment with the institutional system thus constitutes the dynamics of the political process. At the same level, Almond essentially "converts" the interests of individuals and groups into the appropriate decisions and actions of state bodies.
In the second block, the "system functions" level, society adapts to the political system, on which the prospects for its stable reproduction or, conversely, radical change depend. Firstly, it is a function of the socialization of individuals to the standards and values of the political system, associated with the social institutions of the church, family and school. Secondly, it is a function of recruiting supporters or opponents of the system, active and passive citizens, including those who will then professionally engage in political activities. And finally, thirdly, this is the function of political communication, which is provided through the information, propaganda and manipulative work of the media and other organizations. During the transitional period, the former political system weakens primarily due to the dysfunctional nature of the old institutions that do not provide adequate socialization, recruitment and effective propaganda.
And in the final third block, the “level of management” (policy functions), the last tasks in this cycle are solved, related to the management of the collective resources of society: 1) their “mining” (or development), as is the case with the collection of taxes in the country; 2) their structural regulation (transfer from some social spheres and sectors of the economy to others), and finally, 3) their distribution (distribution of social benefits and pensions, organization of economic events, etc.). Further, through feedback, the “cycle” closes, as in the model of D. Easton, since the results of the activities of the “control block”, the regulation of public resources, must somehow change the social environment, which ultimately will strengthen or weaken the stability of the manager, that is, political , systems. With all the scope and completeness of G. Almond's theoretical model, it was also criticized for ethnocentrism and static character, since, in fact, it did a good job of demonstrating only the stable operation of the American political system in the post-war years, resembling a kind of "water cycle in nature", a cyclical mechanism.
It is interesting that this concept of political “circulation”, the cyclical functioning of the political system, was especially widespread in the USA and Europe precisely in the 1950s and 60s, and, paradoxically, it was no less popular in the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s. 's in the USSR. What is the reason for the strange popularity of the ancient-as-the-world idea of political development in a circle, "circulation" as a cyclical functioning? In the 1950s in the United States and Europe, the post-war socio-economic development and the functioning of Western regimes were characterized by a certain degree of stability and stability. Some liberalization of the totalitarian, autocratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe in the 1960s and 1970s also gave a certain basis and even optimism to consider the functioning of the socialist political system and the Soviet model as something like “perpetual motion”. But already in the late 1960s and especially in the first half of the 70s, even the “founding fathers” of the system-wide and functional theories of the political system themselves began to revise some of its foundations under the influence of the turbulent processes of political development unfolding in the third world. For example, G. Almond proposes to combine a functional political theory with a dynamic approach of "development" (developmental approach), thereby shifting the emphasis from the survival and reproduction of the political system to its transformation and change.
II. Structure, functions and types of political system
The approach of political scientists to the structure of the political system is diverse. However, there are certain elements distinguished by representatives of various theories.
1. Pconcept, characterpolitical subsystems
As part of the political system of society, four large subsystems function in close relationship: institutional, regulatory, communicative, and political-ideological.
The institutional subsystem includes political institutions and, above all, forms of political government (republic, monarchy), political regimes (democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian, etc.), legislative, executive and judicial authorities, political parties and movements, numerous public organizations, electoral system, etc. This subsystem plays a key role in the political system. It is here that the normative-legal, which determines the conditions, possibilities and boundaries of the functioning of the entire political system, is created.
The regulatory subsystem, based on the political and legal norms adopted in society, reflected in the country's constitution and other legislative acts, regulates the formation and operation of political institutions and the functioning of the political system of society as a whole. The initial basis on which this system relies is not only political and legal norms, but also national, historically established customs and traditions, political views, beliefs, and principles that prevail in society and influence the political system of society.
The communicative subsystem is a set of relations that arise in the process of functioning of the political system of society. First of all, it is the relations concerning the management of the society. The subjects of these relations are political institutions and organizations, political leaders, representatives of the political elite, and citizens. These are also relations associated with the struggle for political power: its conquest, retention, implementation. http://www.politicalscience.boom.ru/structure.htm
The political and ideological subsystem includes political concepts, theories, views. They underlie the creation and development of socio-political institutions, political and legal norms, the improvement of political relations and the entire political system.
In domestic political and sociological literature the political system is usually defined as a set of state and socio-political organizations, associations, legal and political norms, principles of organizing and exercising political power in society. Most political scientists adhere to similar positions. As follows from the above definition, the core of the political system of a society is political power, with the use of which various state and socio-political institutions, norms, models and standards of political activity, etc. are formed and function around it. Taking into account the foregoing, the structure of the political system is a multi-level education, consisting of several subsystems.
First one of them is a set of subjects - carriers of political power, in the role of which are diverse political communities of people. These include not only political elites, a class of state bureaucracy, but communities of deputies at all levels, as well as, of course, the people of any country, which in a democracy is the only source of state power in society.
Second the place belongs to the institutional subsystem, consisting of numerous macro, micro and mesopolitical institutions, organizations of institutions of political power. The most influential of them are such state institutions as the Government, Parliament, the Supreme Court, as well as non-state institutions - political parties, socio-political organizations, etc.
Third is a regulatory subsystem that includes the whole variety of laws, codes, by-laws that regulate the life of subjects, institutions of the political system and society as a whole. A special place here is occupied by the Constitution (Basic Law), which determines the type and nature of the entire political system and state system of the country.
Fourth, a special place is occupied by the cultural and ideological subsystem, which includes various types of political culture and political ideology, the carriers of which are political subjects and government institutions. In some countries, a state ideology is practiced, acting as the doctrinal foundation of the state. The main types of political culture and political ideology will be discussed below.
Fifth the subsystem is communicative, which includes a set of relationships and interconnections between the subjects and institutions of the political system of society. Of particular importance in this subsystem are balanced relationships between the main branches of state power - the executive, legislative and judicial.
2. Functions of the political system
Thus, the political system of society is not a simple sum of various institutions and institutions of power, but a holistic formation that has an orderly internal structure and performs appropriate functions. On the issue of the functions of power in foreign political science, the opinion of D. Easton and G. Almond dominates, according to which the regulatory, extraction, distributive and responsive functions of the political system are distinguished. In domestic political science, there are several classifications of the functions of the political system. Summarizing the existing approaches, we can distinguish such main functions as:
1. The function of articulation and aggregation of interests of different groups of citizens of the state. The political system is the arena for the representation and realization of these interests by means of political power.
2. Management function associated with the political management of the economy, social and other spheres of society.
3. The function of developing a political strategy and tactics for the socio-economic development of society.
4. The function of political socialization of citizens and society as a whole.
5. The function of legitimizing political power, associated with the justification, recognition and acceptance of the existing political regime by the citizens of the state.
6. Mobilization and consolidating function, expressed in maintaining the unity and cohesion of civil society on the basis of national ideas, priorities and goals.
In modern science, the concept of a political system has two interrelated meanings. In the first of them, the political system is an artificially created, theoretical tool that allows you to identify and describe the system properties of various political phenomena. This category does not reflect the political reality itself, but is a means of systemic analysis of politics. It is applicable to any relatively integral political entity: party, state, trade union, political culture, etc. Each of these entities is a specific political system http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ .
The use of the term "political system" in its first, methodological meaning in relation to the entire political sphere, implies its consideration as an integral organism that is in complex interaction with the environment - the rest of society through "input" - channels of influence of the environment on the political system and “output” is the feedback effect of the system on the environment.
The political system performs a number of functions in relation to the environment. This is the definition of goals, objectives of the program of the society; mobilization of resources to achieve the set goals; integration of all elements of society through the promotion of common goals and values, the use of power, etc.; compulsory distribution of scarce values for all citizens.
Some authors even more detail the list of functions of the political system. So, G. Almond describes its four functions of "input" - political socialization; getting citizens involved; articulation of their interests; aggregation of interests and three functions of "output" -- development of norms (laws); their application; control over their observance. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/
Some other functions of the political system of society are also distinguished. In different countries, the ratio of the above functions develops in different ways. Depending on this, various types of political system are formed.
3. Types of political system
In political science literature, there are different approaches to the definition of types of political systems. Consider the five main types of political systems in a generalized form: 1. Slave, feudal, capitalist, socialist system. The basis of the typology are socio-economic formations, the authors of the concepts are Marx, Engels, Lenin. 2. Democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. The basis of the typology is the degree of democracy of power and the existence of mechanisms for resolving contradictions, the author is Robert Dahl. 3. Anglo-American, European continental, pre-industrial, totalitarian. The basis of typology is political culture (homogeneous or heterogeneous), by Gabriel Almond. 4. Administrative-command, competitive, socially conciliatory. The basis of typology is the methods of managing society, the author is V.E. Chirkin. 5. Etacratic, democratic, where the basis of typology is the place and role of the state in the political system. The authors of this typology are: V.V. Radaev, O.N. Shkaratan.
It can be seen from the foregoing that political systems can be explored from different perspectives. Does it have not only theoretical but also practical significance?
The typology of political systems bears a methodological and applied burden. Thus, the first theory claims that political systems exist and function only within the framework of a class society, and with the withering away of classes, they lose their political character. If the second part of this theory is completely rejected today, then the first remains in force. However, the preference for the class approach, when analyzing the modern political system, significantly limits the idea of it as a whole, since in the political system, along with class signs and features, interclass, general social, national, group and universal are also reflected.
The concept of R. Dahl is the most popular in modern conditions: political systems are most often characterized as democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian. He proposes three types of political system, which are distinguished on the basis of the specific nature of the political regime. We are talking about democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian political systems. In addition, one can also designate a transitional form of the political system associated with its transformation from totalitarian to authoritarian and democratic, and vice versa.
Equally important is the typologization of G. Almond's political systems. The interaction of different types of political systems is carried out more fruitfully if the features of diverse cultures are taken into account in their characterization. This opens up additional channels for effective cooperation and partnership between different political systems. http://society.polbu.ru/sadriev_politsystem/ch03_i.html
It is hardly possible to draw a line under the existing theories of typology of political systems. There may well be new grounds for identifying differences between them, in accordance with the changing conditions of their occurrence and functioning.
What underlies the replacement of one type of political system with another? In the first place should be put a change in the forms of ownership (ownership of a slave, land, the means of production, the state as a whole, an equal right to the existence and development of various forms of ownership); changes in the state form of government and change of ideologies.
So, the type of political system is characterized by the correlation and interaction of its structural elements. The nature of the political system, as well as the pace of development of society as a whole, depend on their place, role, content and direction. Any political system needs to be recognized by society. This recognition may be active or passive, overt or covert, conscious or unconscious, voluntary or forced.
Various political phenomena are inextricably interrelated and constitute a certain integrity, a social organism that has relative independence. It is their property that reflects the concept of a political system.
Being extremely complex, rich in content phenomena, political systems can be classified on various grounds. So, depending on the type of society, they are divided into traditional, modernized democracies and totalitarian (R. Aron, W. Rostow, etc.), according to the nature of interaction with the environment - into open and closed: http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/ closed political systems have weak links with the external environment, are immune to the values of other systems and are self-sufficient; open systems actively exchange resources with the outside world, assimilate the values of advanced systems, are mobile and dynamic. American, continental European, pre-industrial and partially industrial, totalitarian (G. Almond).
There are many others, including more complex typologies of political systems. One of their fairly simple, widespread, and most importantly, fairly deep classifications is the division of political systems into totalitarian, authoritarian, and democratic. The criterion for their differentiation is the political regime - the nature and ways of the relationship of power, society (people) and personality (citizens). In the most general form for * totalitarian political system is characterized by:
Denial or significant restriction of the rights and freedoms of the individual, the establishment of strict state control over all aspects of society;
Erasing the line between personal and public, individual and public, mixing freedom with power;
Breaking by the all-powerful political mechanism of the autonomy of all social relations;
A radical limitation of the initiative of the individual, his complete dependence on the state machine in solving almost all political problems.
Use of strong, tough means of solving social and political problems, reliance on repressive bodies in the activities of the authorities;
Restriction of political freedoms of citizens, suppression of the opposition;
Centralization of management, suppression of regional and personal autonomy;
The concentration of the functions of managing society in one person or a narrow social stratum.
Features democratic systems:
Majority rule;
Freedom of criticism and opposition to the government;
Protection of the minority and its loyalty to the political community;
The right of the people to participate in solving state affairs, respect and protection of human rights.
Moreover, if a person has autonomy, rights and freedoms, is recognized as the most important source of power, then there is a liberal democracy. If the power of the majority is not limited by anything and seeks to control the public and private life of citizens, then democracy becomes totalitarian.
Authoritarian and totalitarian political systems are also heterogeneous. So, depending on who - one person or a group of people - is the source of power, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes can be autocratic (one person in power) or group-cratic (aristocratic, oligarchic, ethnocratic, etc.).
This classification reflects the ideal types of political systems that are significantly different from those existing in real life. And yet, totalitarianism, authoritarianism and democracy in one form or another and in varying degrees of approximation to the ideal are widely represented in the history of mankind and in the modern world.
Depending on historical experience and traditions, national types of political systems are distinguished.
According to the dominant methods of management and resolution of political contradictions, systems are divided into command(focused on the use of coercive methods of management), competitive(administrative tasks are solved in the course of confrontation between various political forces) and socially conciliatory(aimed at maintaining social harmony and overcoming conflicts
III. State in the political system of society
1. The concept of the state in historical termswho and its modern understanding
In historical terms, the state can be considered the first political organization. It is natural that the term "politics" and the words derived from it originate from the word "policies", which the ancient Greeks used to designate their city-states. Different peoples of the state arose in different ways, at different stages of development, in different historical periods of time. But common to all of them were such factors as the improvement of the tools of labor and its division, the emergence of market relations and property inequality, the formation of social groups, estates, classes, people's awareness of common and group (class) interests. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/
The state became the first, but not the last and not the only political organization of class society. Objectively established human relations gave rise to new political forms of the movement of social matter. History shows that along with the state and within its framework, various kinds of non-state associations arise, reflecting the interests of certain classes, estates, groups, nations and participating in the political life of society. For example, Aristotle mentions the parties of the mountains, the plains and the coastal part of the city of slave-owning Athens. Under the conditions of feudal society, various associations of owners - communities, guilds, workshops - exerted a significant influence on the exercise of political power. A special role in this regard was played by church institutions, which acted as the organizational and ideological support of the ruling classes. In bourgeois and socialist society, in addition to the state, there are various kinds of political parties, trade unions, women's and youth public associations, organizations of industrialists and farmers, reflecting in their activities the interests of certain social forces and influencing politics. And yet the state occupies a central place in the political and social life of any country. The foregoing is due to the following.
1. The state acts primarily as an alternative to the struggle between various social groups, strata, classes with their conflicting interests. It prevented the self-destruction of human society at the earliest stage of our civilization and prevents it today. In this sense, it "gave life" to the political system of society in its modern sense.
At the same time, none other than the state, throughout the history of mankind, has drawn its subjects a thousand times into internecine and regional armed conflicts, wars, including two world wars. In some cases (as an aggressor), the state was and is an instrument of certain political groupings, reflecting the interests of the ruling strata, classes of society. In other cases (as a defender), it often expresses the interests of the whole people.
2. The state can be viewed as an organizational form, as a union of people united for living together. Each of the members of the "state community" is interested in its existence, since personal independence and freedom in communicating with fellow citizens, the protection of the family and property, the guarantee of security from intrusion into private life from the outside are provided by the state. As a citizen, an individual acquires stable primary political qualities, which become the basis for his participation in the political life of the country, in the activities of socio-political associations and movements, political parties, etc. In other words, first of all, through the state, the individual is “included” in the political system of society .
At the same time, there is a complex of contradictions between the state and individual citizens (regardless of which class they belong to), which is generally characterized as one of the main internal contradictions of the political system of society. These are contradictions between democracy and bureaucracy in the sphere of legislative and executive power, between trends in the development of self-government and the limited possibilities for its implementation, etc. These contradictions become sharply aggravated when the state pursues a pronounced class, national, racial policy in relation to citizens who do not belong politically. dominant social groups.
3. Among the factors that led to the emergence of the state, an important place is occupied by the social class stratification of society. It follows that the state is the political organization of the economically dominant class.
4. The state was the first result of the political activity of people organized in some way and representing the interests of certain social groups and strata. This led to his claims to the universality of the coverage of political phenomena, and the signs of territoriality and public power made the significance of the state as a form of political hostel of various social and national entities, as well as various organizations and parties expressing their interests, real. Statehood is a form of existence of a class society. http://www.vuzlib.net/beta3/html/1/25993/26036/
5. The state is the most important integrating factor that links the political system and civil society into a single whole. By virtue of its social origin, the state takes care of common affairs. It is forced to deal with general social problems - from the construction of homes for the elderly, communication devices, transport arteries to energy, environmental security for future generations of people. As the main owner of the means of production, land, its subsoil, it finances the most capital-intensive branches of science and production and bears the burden of defense spending.
For the political system of society, the sovereign nature of state power has an important consolidating value. Only the state has the right to act inside and outside the country on behalf of the people and society. The entry of the political system of a particular society into the world political community will largely overestimate the realization of the sovereign qualities of the state.
6. The political system due to the mobility of economic, social and class relations, ideological variability! and the psychological aura is in constant motion. All its elements and components work, as it were, equally, linking and coordinating the interests of social groups, and developing political decisions. When emergency social situations arise (natural disasters occur, the form of government or the political regime changes), a special role in resolving them is assigned to the state. Moreover, in this case we are talking not just about the state, but about its substantial manifestation - state power. Only legitimate state power can ensure a relatively painless and bloodless transition to a new state of society.
2. Place and role of the state in the political systemsocieties
When characterizing the role and place of the state in the political system of society, one should proceed, first of all, from the fact that it - in any country and at any stage of the development of society - acts as the most massive and most comprehensive organization. It unites or seeks to unite around itself various segments of the population.
In constitutions and other legislative acts, it seeks to define itself as a community of the whole people, an association acting for the common good. This aspiration was enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR in 1977. (Article 1 “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people, expressing the will and interests of workers, peasants, intelligentsia, workers of all nations and nationalities of the country”), and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 (Article 2 “Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value. Recognition, observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen is the duty of the state", Article 3 "... the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people"), and in the US Constitution ("We, the people of the United States , for the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, establishing justice, preserving domestic peace, organizing the common defence, promoting the general welfare, and securing to us and our posterity the blessings of liberty, we ordain and promulgate this Constitution for the United States of America").
Similar aspirations to express the will of the entire people manifested themselves in the constitutional acts of other states. In this case, the “people” is often only a social background behind which hides the real state power belonging to a certain class, social stratum or ruling group. In reality, it is those in whose hands the state power is located that are the real creators of domestic and foreign policy.
The special place and role of the state in the political system of society is also determined by the fact that it has huge material and financial resources in its hands. In some countries, it is the monopoly owner of fixed assets and instruments of production, which was especially clearly manifested in the internal political activities of the former socialist countries. Thus, in the USSR, land, its subsoil, forests and waters, as well as the main means of production in industry, banks, means of communication, basic housing stock, etc., and other property necessary for the implementation of state functions were in the exclusive ownership of the state.
The main difference between the state and other political institutions of society is, first of all, that it has the highest power in society. Its imperious force is universal: it extends to the entire population and social parties of a given country; it rests on prerogatives - the power to abolish any other power, as well as on the availability of such means of influence that no other public organizations, except for it, have at its disposal. Such means of influence include legislation, the apparatus of officials, the army, the court, etc.
Political parties and mass public organizations can also have their own permanent apparatus, which is designed to ensure their normal functioning. However, unlike the state apparatus, they do not have in their structure, for example, such bodies that are called upon to protect the legal system operating in society - police, courts, prosecutors, lawyers, etc., functioning in the interests of all members of society.
Among the various elements of the political system, the state is also distinguished by the fact that it has an extensive system of legal means that enable it to manage many sectors of the economy and influence all social relations. Possessing the appropriate powers, various state bodies not only issue regulatory legal and individual acts within their competence, but also ensure their implementation. This is achieved in different ways - by educating, encouraging and persuading, by constantly monitoring the exact implementation of these acts, by applying, if necessary, measures of state coercion.
Finally, the state has sovereignty. The sovereignty of political power acts as one of the signs of the state. Its content lies in the supremacy of this power in relation to all citizens and non-state organizations formed by them within the country and in the independent behavior of the country (state) in the external arena.
So, the state is a political community that has a certain structure, organization of political power and management of political processes in a certain territory.
The state is the most important institution of the political system. The significance of the state is determined by the maximum concentration in its hands of power and resources, allowing it to effectively and decisively influence social change. Political Science (lecture notes) M.: PRIOR Publishing House 1999 Oganesyan A.A. article 46
Since its inception, the state has been treated ambiguously in the history of political thought. A variety of reasons for the emergence and existence of the state were put forward: in theological theory, this is the Divine power; in the contract - the power of reason, consciousness; in the psychological - factors of the human psyche; in the organic - socio-economic factors; in the theory of violence - military-political factors. The literature highlights the factors that influence the formation of the state: geographic, ethnic, demographic, informational. The emergence of statehood is due to reasons, among which it is hardly possible to single out any one as the main, determining one. The state arises, exists and develops as a result of the complication of socio-economic life, as a tool for streamlining the joint satisfaction of the interests of society, groups, classes, social strata, individuals.
The functioning of the political system of society is carried out on the basis of legal norms. All organizational structures of the political system operate within the framework and on the basis of laws that form the legal foundation of state and public life.
3.Basicfunctions and features of the state
Of course, these features do not exhaust all the specifics of the state as an element of the political system of society against the background of all its other structural elements. But they give a general idea of the state, as well as the factors that determine the place and role of the state in the political system of society.
Similar Documents
The essence of system analysis of politics in political science. The concept, essence, structure and functions of the political system. Classification of its varieties according to typologies. The main provisions, advantages and disadvantages of the theories of the political system of D. Easton, G. Almond.
abstract, added 02/17/2016
The concept and theory of the political system of society. The structure and functions of the political systems of society. The place and role of the state in the political system. Neutralization of negative trends in the development of society. Change of state-political regimes.
term paper, added 04/29/2011
The concept, meaning, structure and functions of the political system of society. Theories of the political system (T. Parsons, D. Easton, G. Almond). Types of systems of political organization of society. Formation of the institutional subsystem of the political system of Kazakhstan.
presentation, added 10/16/2012
The concept of the political system of society, its structure and functions. Interaction of the state with political parties, public associations and other subjects of the political system of society. The role of the state in the political system of society.
term paper, added 07/21/2011
The concept of the political system of society. Functions of the political system. The main structural elements of the political system. The role of the media and the church in politics. The theory of political systems in the science of politics.
term paper, added 04/09/2004
Institutional and systemic approach to the description of the political system of society. Structure, functions, typology of the political system of society, the state as its main structural element. Elements of the political system of society in the Republic of Belarus.
test, added 01/20/2010
The concept, structure and main functions of political culture. Types of political culture. The concept, structure and functions of the political system. Modern theory of the state. Model of political system D. Easton. The effectiveness of political activity.
test, added 03/03/2013
The concept and features of the political system. Expression of political interests of various classes, social strata and groups. The structure of the political system of society and trends in its development. Specific and functional characteristics of the political system.
abstract, added 11/14/2011
The place of system analysis of politics in modern political science. The concept of the political system of society. Structure, functions, typology and specifics of the political system of Russian society. Institutional-imperious basis of political activity.
abstract, added 04/15/2009
The concept, structure and types of the political system of society, the laws of its development and characteristics. Features of the political system of the Russian Federation. The state as the main institution of the political system, its place and role, the essence of the legal and social state.
Introduction
2 Comparative political science methodology
3.1 Systematic research in political science by T. Parsons
2 Composition by T. Parsons "On the concept of "political power"
Conclusion
Introduction
The relevance of the topic of the course work chosen for research is due to the fact that the political thought of the 20th and 21st centuries is characterized by a wide range of manifestations, scientific schools and political positions, which largely solve old questions in a new way about what politics, power, democracy, state are. etc. Considered through the categories of "role", "interaction", "political behavior" and other issues of state and law, they appear not as special metaphysical entities alienated from man, developing according to their own special laws, but as a condition and at the same time the result of human efforts, will, interests. There is a great humanistic sense in this approach.
A certain contribution to the development of the methodology of political science was made by the American sociologist T. Parsons. First of all, Parsons is known for the fact that he proposed and substantiated a systematic approach in sociology, on the basis of which D. Easton substantiated a similar approach in political science. Thus, using some provisions of the structural-functional approach of T. Parsons, D. Easton concluded that a systemic analysis of political life is based on the concept of “a system immersed in the environment and subject to its influences.
Thus, the purpose of this course work is to study the contribution of T. Parsons to the methodology of comparative political science.
This goal can be achieved by solving the following tasks:
Describe the biography of T. Parsons;
characterize the formation of the comparative approach in political science;
analyze the methodology of comparative political science;
explore the contribution of T. Parsons to the formation of the methodology of comparative political science;
study systemic research in political science by T. Parsons;
analyze the work of T. Parsons “On the concept of “political power”.
The object of the research is the methodology of comparative political science.
The subject of the study is the political ideas of T. Parsons, which form the basis of the methodology of modern political science, in particular, systematic research in political science by T. Parsons and the views of T. Parsons expressed in his work “On the Concept of “Political Power”.
As the main methods, a systematic and comparative analysis of concepts, theoretical provisions and methods is used.
Thus, having clearly formulated the purpose and objectives of the course work, defining its object and subject, comprehensively using the possibilities of the main methods of political science, relying on the achievements of domestic and foreign political thought and my own observations, I tried to create a holistic comparative study of the contribution of T. Parsons to the development of methodology political science.
Chapter 1. Biography of T. Parsons
Talcott Parsons was born December 13, 1902 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA. His father was a Protestant minister who taught at one of the state's small colleges. Parsons' father later became president of that college. The origin from the Protestant environment undoubtedly had a certain influence on the worldview of the scientist. Parsons was educated at Amherst College (Massachusetts). It is noteworthy that the field of interest of the young Parsons was not at all the social sciences, but biology. The future scientist intended to devote himself either to this science or to engage in medical practice. Parsons himself noted that a certain interest in the social sciences arose in his penultimate year under the influence of "a kind of" institutional economist "Walton Hamilton" .
As often happens, chance intervened, which prompted Parsons to change the field of intellectual pursuits. At the end of his penultimate year, the president of the college was fired, and after him all the teachers whose courses Parsons was going to take. These events, together with an awakened interest in the social sciences, lead Parsons to the London School of Economics. Thus, Parsons entered social science not as a sociologist, but as an economist. In London, Parsons, in his own words, "discovered" Bronisław Malinowski. This eminent social anthropologist Parsons considered "intellectually the most important person" of all with whom he interacted in London. Then Parsons participates in a scholarship exchange program with Germany and ends up at the University of Heidelberg. Max Weber taught at this university, and here the intellectual influence of this scientist was especially strong. In Heidelberg, Parsons wrote a thesis on "The concept of capitalism in the new German literature", which he successfully defended in 1927. The ideas of Weber and Werner Sombart were at the center of attention of this first scientific work, although some attention was paid to other researchers, in particular Karl Marx, which was taken by Parsons as the starting point of the discussion. In his biography, Parsons devotes very little space to his dissertation, which earned him the German degree “Dr. Phil., noting only that "in this work, two main directions of my future scientific interests were determined: firstly, the nature of capitalism as a socio-economic system and, secondly, Weber's research as a sociological theorist" . According to one of the researchers of Parsons, Edward Devre, from Germany, in addition to these two directions, the scientist also brought a complex and ponderous style of presentation of thoughts, which so often characterizes his theoretical work.
Since the autumn of 1927, Parsons has been working as a lecturer at Harvard University. Of the intellectual influences that should be noted for this period, the scientist's contacts with a group of Harvard economists: Taussig, Carver, Ripley and Schumpeter are important. At Harvard, Parsons expanded his knowledge of economics. Communication with Schumpeter turned out to be especially fruitful, which was combined with an independent study of the heritage of the English economist, the leader of the neoclassical school in political economy, Alfred Marshall. Parsons even tried at this time to extract Marshall's "sociology", which was facilitated by the absence in the "Principles of Economics", the main work of the scientist, of clear boundaries of research, to which Marshall would consider it necessary to limit himself.
During the same period, there is an acquaintance with the ideas of Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian sociologist-economist. Parsons acquired the bulk of Pareto's ideas through the mediation of the biologist L. Henderson, who at that time was the greatest connoisseur of Pareto's sociological ideas. In a later work, The Theory of Action and the Position of Man, Parsons notes that Henderson attached great importance to the concept of "system", which he adopted from Pareto, extending it to the field of biology.
From the study of the ideas of Weber - Marshall - Pareto, the idea is born of writing a work that would demonstrate the "convergence" of the theoretical constructions of these scientists. This work, called The Structure of Social Action, was described by Parsons as "the first great synthesis." Already in this work, those provisions appeared that later became integral components in the further development of Parsonian theory. We are talking, first of all, about the "voluntaristic theory of action", as well as the constant emphasis on the importance of the normative regulation of human behavior (Parsons himself preferred the term "action", pointing out that behavior can be meaningless, that it is equally inherent and animals, and man, at the same time, the meaningful nature of human behavior can be conveyed through the term "action").
Following the publication of The Structure of Social Action, a new period of intellectual development and replenishment of the baggage of theoretical knowledge begins. Parsons' main scientific interest at this time lay in the study of medical practice, especially the doctor-patient relationship.
In 1944, Parsons took the position of Dean of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, which he held until 1956. In 1949 he was elected president of the American Sociological Association. These posts can be taken as evidence of the high prestige enjoyed by Parsons, although from 1937 to 1951 he did not publish a single work that could be compared in importance with the "Structure". There was an extensive monograph on the problems of the sociological study of medical practice, but it was not written, largely due to personal circumstances. Part of the material on the problem was included in the work "The Social System", but it should be noted that they add a lot to the main ideas.
The year 1951 became significant from the point of view of the development of the theoretical scheme, when Parsons published two large and rather close works: “Toward a General Theory of Action” in collaboration with E. Shils and “The Social System”. In 1953, another significant work was published - "Workbooks on the Theory of Action" in collaboration with R. Bales. This work outlines a “four-functional paradigm”: AGIL - A (adaptation) - adaptation, G (goal-attainment) - goal achievement, I (integration) - integration, L (latent pattern-maintenance and tension management) - latent pattern reproduction and regulation stresses.
Following the Workbooks, Parsons turns to the topic that actually led him to sociology - to the topic of the relationship between economics and society and sociological and economic theory. In 1956, together with N. Smelser, the work "Economy and Society: A Study of the Integration of Economic and Social Theory" was published. In this work, the AGIL scheme was first used to study the most complex problems of the position of the economy in the social system and its relationship with other "analytically distinguished subsystems of society" .
At the end of the 60s. In the 20th century, the scientist's scientific interest shifted to an area that had attracted the best minds almost since the advent of sociology - the study of social development. Parsons turns to the analysis of the emergence and development of Western civilization. In addition to a number of articles, two works were devoted to this problem, which cannot be called large, given that Parsons is unusually verbose when presenting his thoughts. These are Societies: An Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective (1966) and The System of Modern Societies (1971). It is worth noting that the second work, being far from the most significant in the creative heritage of the scientist, is so far the only work translated into Russian in full. All other translations are either individual articles or fragments.
Two other topics that have constantly attracted the attention of Parsons, at least since the early 40s. The twentieth century were themes of modern professional structure and socialization. The first of these was closely related to Parsons' interest in the problem of social stratification. The result of this interest was the publication of the works "Family, socialization and the process of interaction" (1955, with R. Bales and a number of other co-authors) and "American University" (1973, with J. Platt). These works lie somewhat apart from the mainstream of Parsons' theoretical activity: the development of a systematic general theory of society based on the theory of action and systemic representations.
Along with major theoretical works, Parsons is the author of many articles on a wide variety of topics: his range of interests extends from the sociological study of politics and economics to the analysis of medical practice. If in most of his major works he acts as a theoretician, in many articles he appears as a publicist, often taking an active civic position. As an example, Parsons' participation in the collection of articles "The Black American" (1966) should be cited. In his article, published in this collection, he raises a serious question for American society of that period about the need to integrate black Americans into the institutional structure of American society as equal citizens.
Parsons' death followed in 1979 at the age of 77.
Thus, throughout his life, the scientist showed himself as a multilaterally developed specialist, from whose attention almost no topic in sociology escaped, on the other hand, as a theorist who persistently moved towards the goal set at the beginning of his creative activity - to create a general theory, which would become the basis of systematic sociology. It is noteworthy that the last of Parsons' theoretically significant works, The Theory of Action and the Position of Man (1978), extends the scope of Parson's general theory to the entire universe.
Chapter 2. Features of the methodology of comparative political science
1 The formation of a comparative approach in political science
The historical approbation and justification of the comparative approach (usually along with and in combination with other methods) makes it possible to state the separation of a special branch of knowledge in political theory - comparative political science.
In a homogeneous cultural and civilizational environment, the use of political comparisons is not associated with fundamental difficulties. In addition, much simplifies here, say, in relation to the post-Christian civilization of the West, the use of a generally accepted and developed language for describing political culture, which began to take shape even in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. The famous scheme of political regimes of the latter was, by the way, the result of a comparison of dozens of states of Mediterranean antiquity. In this sense, A. de Tocqueville's well-known book "Democracy in America" remains an exemplary comparative study. At this level of comparison, today it is permissible to use the definition of political culture as an individual-personal attitude to the phenomena of political life, a style of behavior of a subject of political power. Categories of comparison can be found in the developments of political socialization and education, political philosophy and political economy, political psychology and ethics, political geography, demography and political ecology, political cybernetics and even political astrology.
Difficulties increase when comparing political consciousness, political systems and instruments, political elites and political leadership of various civilizational and cultural objects, for example. East and West. M. Weber faced similar difficulties when he tried to use Chinese material in his research. Comparison of political traditions requires a shift in emphasis to a slightly different definition of political culture - as the assimilation of existing political experience, which is given by history, which requires a comparable level of knowledge of civilizational and cultural objects (objectively) and an adequate scientific choice of methods on the part of a political scientist (subjectively). In this sense, the presumption will be the rejection of Eurocentrism, the vitality of which, in addition to subjective preferences, can be determined by the language of political science. In many cases, it simply has no equivalent to describe the political realities of the East. Rejection of Eurocentrism will allow avoiding adherence to the concept of the "highway" of the political development of mankind, which is openly manifested in Marxism-Leninism and latently contained in the doctrines of the liberal democratic persuasion.
Comparative study and assimilation of political cultures can habitually proceed from the "more advanced" scientific and theoretical achievements of the West in their application to the "traditional" societies of the East. This concerns both the borrowing of ready-made political forms and the use of rather rigid (in theoretical terms) political technologies of the West in the political environments of the East in the process of modernization, understood not as “Europeanization”. The structural-functional approach, combined with the sociological approach, could provide accurate and comparable information about the survival of Western institutions on Eastern soil.
However, the whole path is also possible - from fixed cultural and civilizational differences (Western Christian, Arab-Islamic, Indo-Buddhist, Chinese-Confucian and Russian-Orthodox civilizations) to the allocation of invariants of the behavior of political structures, behavior and mentality, which do not necessarily coincide with the primitive interpreted by universal, so-called "universal" values in politics. After isolating the invariants, elements of national political specificity will appear in the “sediment”, which can become rich source material for practical-political and theoretical-political creativity.
Each subsequent generation is not satisfied with the understanding of political life that it inherits, and puts forward new approaches to the organization of historical material, modern politics and forecasting political events. Today, three general sociological global paradigms, which include proper political science approaches, retain their significance (i.e. work complementing each other): formational, civilizational-culturological and world-systemic - each with its advantages and disadvantages.
The formation scheme of the world-historical process developed in Marxism includes, as is known, five stages-formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and future communist, which, from the point of view of this theory, must inevitably replace the antagonistic society.
The civilizational-cultural paradigm (N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, D. Ikeda) is basically a theoretical product of our century. Here, the entire history of mankind is conceived as a set of peculiar, relatively closed civilizations (they numbered from 5 to 21), each of which goes through the stages of emergence, growth, breakdown and decay, dying from natural disasters, military defeats or internal conflicts.
The combination of formational and civilizational approaches in East-West comparisons is still not a simple problem and is only partially resolved with the help of the third newest paradigm proposed in the 70s of the twentieth century by the school of world-system analysis (F. Braudel, I. Wallerstein). According to Wallerstein, in the XVI century. in Europe there was a change of world-systems: world-empires based on political domination gave way to a world-economy based on trade. The center of power moved from Seville (Habsburg Empire) to Amsterdam. It was a victory for the capitalist world-economy (CME), which has since emerged as the modern world-system (CMS) and around which the concentration rings of the world periphery were formed. The core-center of the LME, receiving the bulk of trade profits, is constantly fighting for a monopoly, and the state acts as an instrument of this struggle, a decisive factor in internal and external expansion.
Over the entire 500-year history of the SMS, its center of power has shifted several times: from the United Provinces (Holland) to Great Britain, from Great Britain to the United States. The peaks of hegemony tended to come after the World Wars.
In any case, one can use the strengths of all three approaches to organize the material, keeping in mind the original Eurocentric sin of Marxism, the internal Eurocentric dominant of world-systems analysis, its capital-centrism , about the balancing potential of the civilizational approach for the destinies of a single world in its diversity. The latter is especially important, because no one will deny that the world of politics looked and looks differently from New York, London, Paris and Berlin, and these differences increase when viewed from Beijing, Delhi, Cairo, Tokyo or Moscow, that national political culture-traditions have not yet grown a single metalanguage, which is far from being the only language of Western Christian civilization.
And yet, it is intuitively clear that political truth can be obtained by comparison, provided that phenomena are compared that have been studied to a comparable extent, concepts of the same order, side by side, and therefore sufficiently abstract. Today it is possible to show that the current level of knowledge of the political cultures of the West, Russia and the East allows them to be compared. And it does not matter that the differences between them are obvious, the similarities will have to be sought.
2.2 Methodology of Comparative Political Science
Comparative political science, actively developing under the influence of the positivist methodology of behaviorism and structural functionalism in the 1950s and 60s, came under fire at the beginning of the next decade. Several directions can be distinguished. First, political science in general, and comparative politics in particular, turned out to be immune to the new social and political changes that so violently emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the form of countercultural movements, the post-industrial revolution, and communication transformations. Secondly, an attempt to create a political science on the basis of behaviorism and structural functionalism, devoid of value, actually led to the dominance of only one theoretical paradigm associated with the ideology of "bourgeois liberalism". Thirdly, it turned out that these methodologies of comparative analysis, oriented towards the search for regular connections and similarities, actually led to the creation of a picture of the political world, devoid of a significant amount of uniqueness and diversity. Fourth, the predominance of quantitative methods of analysis in comparative political science, although it created an opportunity to test hypotheses, but at the same time led to their impoverishment. By means of statistical verification, often either rather banal truths or already known dependencies were asserted. Fifth, although comparative politics included in its field of vision the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, but the formed teleological concept of dependent development caused protest both among Western comparativists and researchers of non-Western countries.
After the crisis of the 1970s, comparative politics lost its significance as a methodology-homogeneous industry and developed either under the influence of intentions to find a new methodological paradigm, or under the influence of changes in the object of study itself. In this regard, for two decades, comparative politics has maintained the status of a highly differentiated branch both in subject matter and in research methods. The methodology of neo-institutionalism, which became widespread in political science as a result of economic imperialism, still did not change the overall picture, and the third wave of democratization made it possible to advance some theoretical constructs without a radical transformation of the industry. Comparative political science begins to demonstrate a new revival at the end of the last - the beginning of this century. Generalizing works appear in which an attempt is made to sum up certain results of the development of comparative political science in the post-crisis period. The discussion about the relationship between quantitative and qualitative methodology of comparative research is being developed again. Some researchers bring to the fore the problems of a hermeneutic understanding of political action and an interpretive approach to politics and management. At the same time, they point out a fundamental difference between the scientistic American tradition of political research and British political science, noting in the latter an emphasis on historical knowledge and interpretivism. What is even more significant is the desire of all participants in the discussion not to oppose different approaches and traditions, but to try to find some synthetic basis for their interaction and mutual enrichment. In this regard, the general attitude is formulated by Gerardo Munch, who, concluding the chapter on the history of comparative politology, writes: “In short, both the commitment of comparative politology to the humanistic tradition and its lively aspiration to science require respect. The soul of the comparatists is excited not only by the essential interest in global politics, but least of all - only by the methods used to study their subject. Hence, the future of comparative politics should probably revolve around the ability of the comparativists to overcome the waning differences and to connect their interest simultaneously with substance and method, politics and science.
"Weakening differences" are associated with a decrease in the level of opposition between the Durkheimian and Weberian traditions, quantitative and qualitative methods, explanation and understanding, clarification of causes and simple description, positivism and hermeneutics. In general, in comparative politics, the belief begins to dominate that the method should be subordinated to the research substance, i.e. politics; one should look for such approaches that would be based on the peculiarities of political reality. In this movement towards synthesis, the cognitive components of the political process, the ideas that guide people in politics, begin to play a special role. That ideas influence politics is, in this case, a rather banal assertion; new is the consideration of ideas as significant explanatory causes of political processes and events. Prior to this, ideas have always been reduced to interests, functions, structures, institutions, worlds, i.e. to something objectively given, real and analytically deducible from observations, and these objectified facts were considered as the basis of explanations. Ideas needed to be explained, but they themselves rarely acted as an explanatory factor. The instrumentalist understanding of ideas for politics is now being replaced by a substantial understanding of political ideas and their meaningful implementation in the process of constructing interests, functions, structures, institutions, worlds, regimes. In political science and comparative politics, this turn in methodology finds expression, in particular, in the constructivist approach.
Thus, the methodology of comparative political science began to take shape in the second half of the twentieth century.
The main method of comparative political science is the method of comparison, the essence of which is to identify the general and particular in the studied phenomena. Comparison is the correlation of phenomena with the abstractions of thinking ("standards", "ideals").
The comparative method is actively used in political science, since it is practically impossible to apply the experimental method, which is one of the main ones in the natural sciences. The logic of comparative analysis is to a certain extent comparable with the logic of experiment. Comparison is a "substitute" for experiment in political science.
When conducting comparative studies, both the strategy of maximum similarity and the strategy of maximum difference are used.
parsons political science power
Chapter 3. The contribution of T. Parsons to the formation of the methodology of comparative political science
1 System research in political science by T. Parsons
Talcott Parsons, synthesizing the theoretical approaches of Max Weber (whose works he translated), Georg Simmel, Emile Durkheim, Pareto, Alan Marshall, Sigmund Freud, developed "a general theory of action and, in particular, social action (structural functionalism) as a self-organizing system" .
In the latter, which is given by a set of functional problems of any system (adaptation, achievement of a goal, integration, maintenance of a model), Parsons analytically singles out subsystems of the social structure, culture, and personality. The orientations of the acting person (actor) are described in this case with the help of a set of standard (typical) variables. Parsons used this theoretical language to describe the systems of economics, politics, law, religion, education, to analyze the family, hospital (and, in particular, mental hospital), school class, university, art, mass media, sexual, racial and national relations, social deviations. , and later - to build a neo-evolutionary comparative sociology of various societies involved and continue to be involved in the universal process of modernization. Parsons and his theory were critical to the establishment of sociology as an academic discipline.
At an early stage of research, Parsons sought to find a certain compromise between E. Durkheim's "sociologism", which rigidly determined human behavior by the influence of the external social environment, and M. Weber's "understanding" theory of social action, which describes human behavior through compliance with "ideal types". Parsons' early work was also significantly influenced by V. Pareto, who proposed a model similar to Weber's for dividing human actions based on motivation into "logical" and non-logical ones, A. Marshall, G. Simmel, Z. Freud.
Structural-functional analysis - "the principle of studying social phenomena and processes as a system in which each element of the structure has a specific purpose (function)" . Function in sociology - the role that a certain social institution or process performs in relation to the whole (for example, the function of the state, family, etc. in society).
The concept of "system" came to political science from sociology. The development of the concept of "political system" is associated with the names of American representatives of structural-functional and system analysis.
Thus, according to T. Parsons, the political system ?
2 Composition by T. Parsons “On the concept of “political power””
Power in this work by T. Parsons 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 into the three functional subsystems of society - 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 can 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. Money does not have a “use value”, but only an “exchange value”, i.e. allow you to buy useful things. Money thus serves to exchange offers to sell or, conversely, to buy useful things. Money becomes the main intermediary only when the exchange is not obligatory, like the exchange of gifts between certain categories of relatives, or when it is not made on the basis of barter, i.e. exchange of goods and services of equal value.
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:
) 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;
) the freedom to choose between many options for the desired thing;
) the freedom to choose the time most suitable for the purchase;
) the freedom to consider the terms of the purchase, which, due to the freedom of choice of time and offer option, a person can, depending on the circumstances, accept or reject. Along with gaining four degrees of freedom, of course, a person is exposed to the risk associated with the hypothetical assumption that money will be accepted by others and that its value will remain unchanged.
Similarly, the concept 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 to be enforceable, i.e. 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 actual application of situational-negative sanctions that perform the function of deterrence in one case, and punishment in the other. It is the events in the case of the actor in question that deliberately change (or threaten to change) the situation to his detriment, whatever the specific content of these changes.
Power, therefore, “is the realization of a generalized ability, which consists in obtaining from the members of the collective the fulfillment of their obligations, legitimized by the significance 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 group are. operations".
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 associated with real power, is moved to a lower 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 fair for the entire set of political systems."
There is a circular movement 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.
One of the conditions for the stability of this system of circulation is the balance of the factors and results of ruling 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 are in some cases, as, for example, in the question of citizenship, establishing 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.
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, one can say that the factor of power passing through the channel of political support will be most accurately 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.
This process fulfills its role through the function of governance, which - through relationships maintained with various aspects of the structure of the electoral corps of the community - 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 the commitment of their constituencies in such a way that the pool of commitments made by the whole community increases. This increase must still be justified by the mobilization of influence: it must be both perceived as conforming to current norms and applicable to situations that "require" action at the level of collective commitment.
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 production factors, the development of new organisms, the commitment 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, one must imagine 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 effectiveness of collective action in zones with a revealed value, about which no one suspected if the leader did not take risks, like an entrepreneur who decides to invest.
Thus, for T. Parsons, power is a system of resources with the help of which common goals are achievable.
In general, summing up the above, I would like to note that T. Parsons was more of a sociologist than a political scientist, therefore, T. Parsons' political views are closely related to sociology and stem from his sociological research. In relation to the methodology of political science, T. Parsons formulated the concept of a political system, which was later adopted to substantiate the theory of systems in political science, as well as political power.
Conclusion
Based on the research conducted in the course work, the following main conclusions can be drawn.
The contribution of T. Parsons to political science is due, first of all, to the fact that he developed the concept of political power, and also was the founder of the systemic and structural-functional method in modern political science.
Thus, power is understood by Parsons 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 - 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 can better understand the specific properties of power.
Power, therefore, is the realization of a generalized ability, which consists in obtaining from the members of the collective the fulfillment of their obligations, legitimized by the significance of the latter for the goals 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. .
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.
The concept of "system" came to political science from sociology. The development of the concept of "political system" is associated with the names of American representatives of structural-functional and system analysis. So, according to T. Parsons, the political system ? it is a subsystem of society whose purpose is to set collective goals, mobilize resources and make the decisions necessary to achieve them.
The system method has been used in political science since the 1950s and 1960s. This method explores the political life of society as an open system, subject to internal and external influences, but at the same time able to maintain its existence. The systems method focuses on the integrity of the policy and on its relationship with the external environment. It allows you to determine the most important goals of the functioning of states and other elements of the political system, the best ways and means to achieve these goals - by building a model that includes all the factors of the relationship of the real political situation.
The structural-functional method in political science has been used since the middle of the 20th century. Structural-functional analysis breaks down a complex policy object into its component parts, reveals and studies the links between them, determines their role in meeting the needs of the system. Through structural-functional analysis, the number of social changes to which the political system can adapt is clarified, ways of maintaining and regulating the political system are established. The structural-functional method allows answering the questions: what functions should the political system perform, with the help of what structures and with what efficiency it performs them.
List of sources used
1Belanovsky S. On the sociology of T. Parsons / S. Balanovsky // Personal website of Sergei Belanovsky
2Gadevosyan E.V. Dictionary-reference book on sociology and political science / E.V. Gadevosyan //. -M.: Knowledge, 1996.-271s.
Dobrolyubov A.I. Power as a technical system: On the three great social inventions of mankind / A.I. Dobrolyubov //. - Minsk: Science and technology, 1995. - 239 p.
Zhigulin V.S. "Intellectual biography of T. Parsons" as a means of theoretical analysis / V.S. Zhigulin //
6Ilyin M.V. Main methodological problems of comparative political science /M.V. Ilyin // Polis. - 2001. - No. 6. - 203s.
Kozhev A. Concept of Power /A. Kozhev//. - M.: Praxis, 2007. - 182 p.
8V.P. Kosharny. From the history of socio-political thought from ancient ideas to socio-political theories of the early XX century / V.P. Kosharny // Socio-political magazine. - 2002. - No. 6. - 62s.
9Mannheim D. Political science. Research methods /D. Mannheim//. - M.: Ed. "The whole world", 2007. - 355s.
Masaryk T.G. Philosophy - sociology - politics / T.G. Masaryk // - M .: Publishing house RUND, 2003. - 664 p.
11Rovdo V.V. Comparative Politics. In 3 parts. Part 1. The theory of comparative political science / V.V. Rovdo //- St. Petersburg: European Humanitarian University, 2007. - 296p.
12Sanders D. Some methodological considerations for comparative interstate studies /D. Sanders // International Journal of Social Sciences. - 2005. - No. 9. - 52s.
13Smorgunov L.V. Comparative Politics. In Search of New Methodological Orientations: Do Ideas Mean Anything for Explaining Politics? /L.V. Smorgunov // Polis. - 2009. - No. 1. - 129p.
14Ushkov A. Comparative Politics / A. Ushkov // Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. - Series: Political science. - 1999. - No. 1. - 81s.
Fursov A.I. School of world-system analysis / A.I. Fursov // Vostok. - 2002. - No. 1. - 184p.
16Chilcot R.H. Theories of comparative political science. In search of a paradigm. /R.H. Chilcot // - M.: Ves Mir, 2011. - 412 p.
Huntington S. A clash of civilizations? /FROM. Huntington // Polis. - 2004. - 187p.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Society is a special kind of social system. We consider the social system as one of the primary subsystems of the system of human action, along with such subsystems as the organism, the personality of the individual, and the cultural system.
GENERAL CONCEPTUAL SCHEME OF ACTION
Action is formed by the structures and processes by which people form meaningful intentions and more or less successfully implement them in specific situations. The word "meaningful" suggests that representations and references are carried out on a symbolic, cultural level. Intentions and their implementation in their totality presuppose the ability of a system of action - individual or collective - to modify its attitude to the situation or environment in the desired direction.
We prefer to use the term “action” rather than “behavior”, since we are not interested in the physical eventfulness of behavior in itself, but in its pattern, meaningful products of action (physical, cultural, etc.), from simple tools to works of art, and also mechanisms and processes that control this pattern.
Human action is "cultural" insofar as the meanings and intentions of actions are expressed in terms of symbolic systems (including the codes through which they are realized in the corresponding patterns) associated mainly with language as a common property of human societies.
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.
It would be wrong to assume that the genetic constitution of an organism is modified under the influence of the external environment. Rather, the genetic constitution includes a general "orientation" that develops into specific anatomical structures, physiological mechanisms, and behavioral patterns, and interacts with the environment throughout the life of the organism. Environmental factors can be analytically divided into two categories: first, factors that determine the non-hereditary elements of the physical organism; secondly, the factors that determine those elements of behavior that are acquired through the mechanisms learning. It is on them that we should focus our attention. Although an organism is, of course, capable of learning directly in an environment in which no other behavioral organisms are present, action theory primarily examines the process of learning in which other organisms of the same species constitute the most important feature of the environment.
Symbolically organized cultural patterns - like all other components of living systems, of course, arise through evolution. At the same time, human linguistic level their development is a phenomenon absolutely specific to humans. The ability to learn and use language obviously depends on the specific genetic makeup of humans, as shown by attempts to teach it to other species (especially primates and "talking" birds) 2 . But only this general ability is genetically predetermined, and not the specific symbolic systems that are actually taught, used and developed by specific human groups.
Moreover, despite the great ability of the human organism to learn and, in fact, to create cultural elements, no single individual by himself is able to create a cultural system. Main patterns of cultural systems change only over the course of many generations, their always held by relatively large groups of people.
They are never the property of one or more individuals. The individual always only learns, in such a way that he can introduce into them only a side creative (creative or destructive) change. More general cultural patterns thus provide systems of action with highly stable structural supports, much like those provided by the genetic materials of the species. They are associated with cognitive elements of action, just as genes are associated with innate elements 1 .
Within the boundaries defined by species genetics and ordering cultural patterns lie the opportunities for given individuals and groups to develop independent structured behavioral systems. Because the actor is non-genetically human, and because he learns within the context of a particular cultural system, his learned behavioral system (which I will call his personality) shares traits with other personalities, such as the language he is used to speaking. At the same time, his organism and his environment - physical, social and cultural - are always in certain aspects are unique. Hence, his own behavioral system will be a unique variant of the culture and its specific patterns of action. Therefore, it is essential to consider the personality system as not reducible either to the organism or to culture. That, what is learned is neither a "structure" of an organism in the ordinary sense of the word, nor a property of a cultural system. Personality forms analytically independent system.
The process of social integration, although it is internally connected with the personalities of the interacting individuals and patterns of cultural systems, forms a fourth system, which is analytically independent both from the systems of personality and culture, and from the organism 3 . This independence becomes particularly evident when considering the demands of integration that are imposed on systems of social relations because of their inherent propensity for conflict and disorganization. This is what is sometimes referred to as order problem in society, staged in classical form by Thomas Hobbes. The system of interaction constitutes the social system, it is the subsystem of action, which is the main subject of analysis in this book.
The above classification of the four general subsystems of human action—organism, personality, social system, and cultural system—represents a particular case of applying a general paradigm that can be used in the analysis of the entire field of action and which I will apply later to the analysis of social systems.
With this paradigm any system actions are analyzed in terms of the following four functional categories related to provision: 1) the main “guiding” or controlling patterns of the system; 2) internal integration of the system; 3) its orientation towards achieving goals in relation to the environment; 4) its more generalized adaptation to a wide range of environmental conditions, i.e. to the physical environment. Within systems of action, cultural systems specialize in the function of maintaining a pattern; social systems - on the integration of acting units (human individuals) or, more precisely, individuals who play roles); personality systems - on achieving the goal; and the behavioral organism is on adaptation (see Table 1).
THE CONCEPT OF A SOCIAL SYSTEM
Since the social system is formed by the interactions of human individuals, each participant is both figure(having certain goals, ideas, attitudes, etc.), and object orientation both for other actors and for oneself. The system of interaction is certain aspect, analytically abstracted from the total set of processes of actions of the participants in the interaction. At the same time, these "individuals" are also organisms, personalities, and participants in cultural systems.
Under this interpretation, each of the other three systems of action (culture, personality, behavioral organism) is part of the environment, or, one might say, the environment of the social system. Beyond these systems are the environments of action itself, above and below the general hierarchy of factors that control action in the world of life. These relationships are shown in Table 1.
Below the action in the hierarchy is the physical-organic environment, including subhuman species and the "non-behavioral" components of human organisms. This is an especially important boundary of action, since as humans we know the physical world only through our organism. Our consciousness has no direct experience of perceiving an external physical object if we have not perceived it through physical processes and through brain information “processes”. On the plane of psychological knowledge, physical objects are aspects of action.
In principle, similar reasoning applies to the external environment above the action - the "higher reality", which ultimately has to be dealt with when referring to what Weber called "problems of meaning" (for example, the problems of evil and suffering, the temporal boundaries of human life etc.). In this area, "ideas" as cultural objects are, in a sense, symbolic "representations" of higher realities (eg, representations of gods, the supernatural), but not these realities themselves.
The fundamental principle of the organization of vital systems is that their structures are differentiated in accordance with the various requirements imposed on them by the external environment. Thus, 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. We use this principle to build our analysis of social systems.
We will consider social systems in their relationship with the most important environments. I argue that the functional differentiations among the three subsystems of action (excluding the social one) - the cultural system, the personality system, and the behavioral organism - and the relationship of two of them to the two environments of the whole action system serve as the main reference points for analyzing the differences between social systems. This means that the analysis will be developed on the basis of the fundamental relations of the system and its environment, reflected in Table 1.
In the functional terms of our paradigm, the social system is an integrative subsystem of action as a whole. Three other subsystems of action constitute its main environments. In the analysis of societies and other social systems, the above principle can be applied. We will see that three of the primary subsystems of society (Table 2, column III) are functionally specialized in interaction with the three main environments of the social system (Table 2, column IV). Moreover, each of the subsystems has a direct connection with one of the environments. Each of these three combination subsystems can also be considered as a separate environment of the subsystem, which is the integrative center of society (Table 2, column II).
We will always use this dual application of the functional paradigm in exposing our general theoretical framework and in analyzing specific societies in this book.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIETY
In defining society, we use a criterion that goes back at least to Aristotle. A society is that type of social system among any universe of social systems that achieves the highest level of self-sufficiency as a system in relation to its environment.
This definition refers to an abstracted system, in relation to which similarly abstracted action subsystems form primary environments. This point of view contrasts sharply with the generally accepted view of society as a formation consisting of specific human individuals. The organisms and personalities of the members of society would then be something internal to the society, and not part of its environment. We cannot discuss the merits of both points of view here. But the reader must be clear about the point of view underlying this book.
With this understanding, the criterion of self-sufficiency can be subdivided into five sub-criteria, each of which refers to one of the five environments of social systems: higher reality, cultural systems, personality systems, behavioral organisms, and the physical-organic environment. The self-sufficiency of a society is a function of a balanced combinations mechanisms of control over his relationship with these five environments, as well as from his own state of internal integration.
We turned to the hierarchy of control, which organizes the relations of analytically isolated systems. It includes cybernetic aspects of control by which systems with a high level of information but with a low level of energy control other systems with a higher level of energy but lower information (Table 1, column V). Thus, a programmable consequence of mechanical operations (for example, in a washing machine) can be controlled by a timer switch, which uses very little energy compared to the energy that drives the components of the machine and warms the water. Another example is a gene and the protein synthesis it controls, as well as other aspects of cellular metabolism.
The cultural system structures commitments to your reality into meaningful orientations towards the rest of the environment and system of action, the physical world, organisms, personalities, and social systems. In cybernetic terms, it occupies the highest place in the system of action, then the social system is located, below, respectively, the personality and the organism. The physical environment is the last in conditioning(as opposed to organizational) sense of the word. To the extent that physical factors are not controlled by cybernetically highly ordered systems, we must adapt to them - otherwise human life will disappear. Human dependence on oxygen, food, acceptable temperatures, etc. is a very familiar example.
In view of our broad evolutionary perspective, we will focus on the cultural system among the non-social subsystems of action. As a result of a long process of development and various circumstances, forms of social organization arise that have ever greater adaptive abilities. They become less and less subject to serious changes under the influence of narrow, particular, accidental causes, acting through specific physical circumstances or individual organic, as well as personal differences. In more advanced societies, differences between individuals may even grow as the structures and processes of society become less dependent on individual characteristics. Therefore, we must focus on cybernetically highly organized structures - the cultural system among the environments of society - in order to see the main sources of wide-ranging changes.
SOCIETAL COMMUNITY AND ITS ENVIRONMENT
The core of society as a system is a structured normative order through which the collective life of the 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. Issues regarding the “jurisdiction” of the regulatory system can make it impossible to accurately match the status of “subject to” regulatory obligations and the status of membership, since the imposition of the regulatory system seems to involve control (for example, through the police function) through sanctions used for and against people located in any territory. As long as these problems do not become critical, the societal collective can, when necessary, act effectively as a whole. The same can be said about its various subgroups.
We will call this unified entity in its collective aspect a societal community. As such, it is created by a normative system of order, as well as by a set of statuses, rights, and obligations corresponding to subgroup membership, the nature of which may vary for different subgroups of the community. To survive and develop, a social community must maintain the unity of a common cultural orientation generally shared (though not necessarily uniformly and unanimously) by its members as the basis of their social identity. It is about connection with a real cultural system. The necessary conditions concerning the integration of the organisms and personalities of the participants (and their relation to the physical environment) must also be systematically satisfied. All these factors are completely interdependent, although each of them is a focus for the crystallization of a separate mechanism.
CULTURAL SYSTEM FOR SOCIETY
The main functional requirement in the relationship between society and the cultural system is the legitimation of the social normative order. System legitimation determines the grounds for rights and prohibitions; first of all, but not exclusively, the use of power requires legitimation. The concept of legitimation used here does not need the adjective "moral" in the modern sense of the word. But it presupposes that in some sense it is "right" to do what is done according to the institutionalized order.
The legitimation function is independent of operational functions of the social system. No normative order is ever self-legitimizing in the sense that the way of life it approves or forbids is simply right or wrong and unquestionable. Nor can it be adequately legitimized by a necessity determined by the lower levels of the hierarchy of control, for example, by the fact that something must be done by someone. specific because the stability or even the survival of the system is at stake.
Nonetheless degree culturally based independence of grounds of legitimation from specific lower-level operational mechanisms (eg, bureaucratic organization and economic markets) differs significantly in different societies. In general, the strengthening of this independence is one of the main directions of the evolutionary process, affecting the differentiation between cultural and social structures and processes. Whatever the place of this or that system of legitimation on this line of development, it is always connected and dependent on the relationship to the higher reality. This means that its foundations are always in some sense religious in nature. In quite primitive societies there is very little differentiation between the general structures of the society and its religious organization. In more advanced societies, the relationship of social and cultural systems in religious and legitimation contexts involves highly specialized and complex structures.
Cultural value patterns provide the most direct connection between social and cultural systems while legitimizing the normative order of society. The mode of legitimation, in turn, is rooted in religious orientations. As cultural systems become more and more differentiated, other structures of culture increase their independence, especially art, which is specifically related to the autonomy of the individual and empirical knowledge, which at a high level of development becomes science.
PERSONALITY AS ENVIRONMENT FOR SOCIETY
The relationship of society to the system of personality is radically different from its relationship to the cultural system, since the personality (like the behavioral organism and the physical-organic environment) is located below the social system in the cybernetic hierarchy. Society as a system and each of its constituent units are subject to limiting conditions (which must also be disposed of) in each of these three contexts. Behavior, one of the analytical aspects of which are social systems, in another aspect is the behavior of living human organisms. Each such organism has at any given moment a given position in physical space, which can only be changed by means of physical movement. Consequently, the ecological aspect of the relationship between individuals and their actions should never be overlooked. Similar considerations apply to the organic process, as well as to the functioning and development of the personality, which are constantly present as factors in a particular action. Needs relating to personalities, behavioral organisms, and physical-organic environments explain many of the complex, intersecting dimensions of the present organization and functioning of social systems, require careful analysis, and continually pose challenges to scientists.
The main functional problem associated with the relationship of the social system to the system of the individual concerns the assimilation, development and establishment in the process of the life cycle of adequate motivation for participation in socially significant and controlled patterns of action. Society, in turn, must also adequately satisfy or reward its members through such patterns of action if it is to be continually reproduced as a system on the basis of these actions. This relationship constitutes "socialization", a single complex process by which individuals become members of a societal community and maintain this status.
Because personality is learned organization individual, the process of socialization is crucial for its formation and functioning, the success of socialization requires that social and cultural learning be strongly motivated through the involvement of the body's pleasure mechanism. Therefore, it depends on relatively constant close relationships between young children and adults, whose erotic motives and attitudes are also deeply woven into these relationships. These conditions, which we have come to understand much more fully since Freud's time, are an essential aspect of the functioning of kinship systems in all human societies. Kinship is always associated with the ordering of adult erotic relationships, their status in relation to presumptive parenthood, the status of the new generation, and with the ordering of the process of socialization itself. "This is an evolutionary universalization that can be found in all societies, although its forms and relations to other structural formations vary in many ways.
The kinship system requires certain permanent establishments for daily life, which relate both to organic and psychic as well as to social factors. Therefore, this is a zone of interpenetration of systems of behavior, personality and physical environment. This includes the institutionalization residence through location, as well as the design of the social unit we call home. The members of the house are people who live together, forming a unity. They share a specific location, coupled with a corresponding physical entity such as a hut, house, or temporary settlement such as a "camp". In most societies, people usually sleep, cook, eat, and perform at least a formally approved sexual function in such a physical and social location...
With all the differences in forms, the status of an adult in all societies implies a certain autonomous responsibility. The individual makes some services in some context of 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. Anyway primary The functional relationship between adult individuals and the societies in which they live is related to the contribution to society that they make through their services, as well as to the satisfaction and rewards they receive for this. 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.
For most people in most societies, places of residence and work are not separated. Where such a separation occurs (mainly in developed urban communities), both of these places constitute the spatial axes of the individual's routine life. Moreover, these two places must be mutually accessible - this is a functional requirement that determines the ecological structure of the formation of a modern city.
The variety of functional relationships between individuals and their environment must also be considered in other contexts related to the social system. The individual's value attachments and their maintenance are initially associated with the cultural system, especially when interacting with society through religion. The establishment of adequate levels of motivation concerns mainly the social structures associated with socialization, especially kinship. Physical health is a special issue, and in many ways it passes into the important but undefined area of \u200b\u200bmental health and is associated with the will of the patient to restore health. none society does not exist without a mechanism of positive motivation operating through certain types of therapeutic procedures. In many societies, these procedures are predominantly religious or magical in nature, but in modern societies they develop into applied science. However, they are never radically separated from kinship. Rather, therapy mainly supplements kinship, which is the main guarantee of the security of the individual.
Strange as it may seem, the relationship between the individual and the social system, socially structured through what we have called service, forms the basic unit political aspect of societies. Political structures are associated 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. At an advanced stage of political development, differentiation of status among the adult population is required, based on a combination of two bases. The first defines levels of responsibility for coordinated collective action and establishes institutions of leadership and authority. The second concerns levels of competence based on knowledge, skill, etc., and gives more influence in shaping the collective opinion of the more competent.
The differentiation of the political system from the matrix of the societal community leads to the institutionalization of high-order statuses in both of these contexts, and often in very complex combinations. The relation of such statuses to religious leadership, especially the degree of differentiation between leadership in religious and political contexts, can be very confusing. The main context of such confusion is the imperative of legitimation, not only of the societal order, but also, in particular, of political authority.
Further down in the cybernetic hierarchy is another source of possible complexity. As we noted earlier, maintaining a normative order requires that it be carried out in a variety of ways. There must be a very significant—even if not always complete—consistency with behavioral expectations set through values and norms. The most important condition for such coherence is the internalization of the values and norms of society by its members, since such socialization underlies the consensus foundation of the societal community. In turn, socialization as the basis of consensus is reinforced in many ways by interrelated interests. especially economic and political ones. No society can maintain stability in the face of various needs and tensions so long as the interests of its citizens are not bound by solidarity as well as by internal loyalty and commitment.
In addition to consensus and interrelated interests, a machine is still needed coercion. This need is in turn related to the need for an authoritative interpretation of institutionalized normative obligations. All societies therefore have some type of "legal procedure" whereby a right or wrong action can be decided without violence, and whereby offenders can be deterred from acting on their interpretations, interests, and feelings to the detriment of others.
Because of this territorial interconnection of place of residence, work, religious activity, political organization, and various other factors, the maintenance of a normative order cannot be separated from the territorial control of behavior. The management function should include responsibility for maintaining territorial unity 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: 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.
In this way, primary the need of society for its constituent individuals is the motivation for their participation, including their acceptance of the requirements of the normative order. This need can be divided into three levels. The first is a highly generalized adherence to value patterns that are directly related to religious orientations. The second is the “substrate” of the personality, which, having been formed during the period of early socialization, is associated with the erotic complex, the motivational significance of kinship, and other intimate relationships. The third level is the level more directly related to services and instrumental activities, which differs depending on the specific goals and situation. These levels of personality roughly correspond to the Superego, Id and Ego, according to Freud's classification.
Further, the connection of the personality with the organism and the involvement of the organism in the physical world are manifested in the two contexts we have indicated. The first includes general organic processes that ensure the adequate functioning of the personality, especially in relation to complexes of kinship, place of residence and health. The second is the relationship between coercive physical force and the problem of maintaining the unity of the societal normative order in different territories.
THE ORGANISM AND THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AS A SOCIETY ENVIRONMENT
Consideration of the relationship of the societal system to its organic basis and through this to the physical world must begin with a consideration of the physical requirements of organic life. Primary among these problems are the provision of food and shelter, but many other factors are also a problem for all known societies. Technology, from the relatively simple tools and skills of primitive people to the highly complex systems of modern times, is the socially organized ability to actively control and change the objects of the physical environment, the interests and needs of people. In some cases, the social organization may only be used to train artisans who work individually. But even in these cases, the artisan is hardly completely isolated from other artisans (with the exception of the master who teaches him). Moreover, if his work is specialized, he must to have an organized system of relations with consumers of its product and, quite possibly, with suppliers of materials and equipment. Indeed, there can be no craft completely separated from social organization.
Technological processes obviously serve the realization of human needs and desires. Technical skills depend on the cultural environment: the contribution of an individual to the amount of technical knowledge is always an increment, and not the creation of a completely “new system”. Moreover, technological tasks in this sense are always carried out in a socially defined role. The results in most cases, though not always, are the result of a collectively organized process, and not the work of one person. Thus, some executive or coordinating functions must be carried out within the framework of a variety of social interactions with consumers, suppliers, workers, researchers, etc.
Technology is thus primarily a physical component of a complex that includes economy as its primary moment in the social system. The economy is that aspect of the societal system that functions not only for the social maintenance of technological procedures, but, more importantly, for their inclusion in the social system and their control in the interests of social units, individual or collective. The institutional complexes of ownership, contract and regulation of terms of employment are important integrative elements here. The more strictly economic aspects of this complex in primitive and archaic societies are embedded in diffuse structures where kinship, religion and political interests are predominant. Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, markets develop along with money as a medium of exchange.
Technological organization, therefore, must be seen as a boundary structure between society as a system and the organic physical environment. On the societal side of this boundary is the economy as the main structure that provides a connection with the societal community. Here, as certain traditions of economic theory emphasize, the function distribution is the main one. Resources must be allocated for the purposes of satisfying the wide variety of desires present in any society, and the opportunities for their satisfaction should be distributed among different categories of the population. Socially organized technological developments are also applicable to the use of services. As the services of individuals become truly mobile and distributed resource, they form an economic category, as can be seen from their mention along with physical goods in the economic formula “goods and services”. Being included (through labor) in the operating organization, they are thereby involved in what in analytical terms is called political functioning - an organizational process focused on achieving the specific goals of society or the corresponding sub-collectives.
These considerations suggest that the technology is in complex of territorial relations, along with the place of residence. Indeed, it separated from the residential complex only at the later stages of social evolution. The main thing here is the location of the “production”. Since staff fulfill differentiated professional or service roles, people must work where their services are needed, although this place must be coordinated with the place of residence. However, the location should also depend on the ability to access materials, equipment and product distribution. Production, in the strict sense of the word, is a case in which the considered economic considerations are of paramount importance. But the problems of accommodating an administrative office or specialized religious personnel can be analyzed in much the same terms.
SOCIETAL COMMUNITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Certain advantages of control are inherent in the links between societal subsystems that relate society to its environments and the societal community itself. The societal community depends on a built-in system cultural orientation, which, among other things, is the main source of legitimation of its normative order. This order then constitutes the most essential and high-level references for the political and economic subsystems, which are, respectively, most directly related to the person and the organic physical environment. In the political sphere, the primacy of the societal normative order is highlighted most acutely in the function of coercion and in the need for acting members of society to have effective control over physical sanctions - not because physical force is a cybernetic controller, but because it must be controlled in order for control to be more effective. high order. In the economic sphere, the parallel is expressed in the fact that the economic process in society (for example, distribution) must be institutionally controlled. Both cases also emphasize the functional significance regulatory control over the body and the physical environment. Force and other physico-organic factors used as sanctions contribute to the enhancement of the security of collective processes to a much greater extent than they can simply as “necessary conditions”. Similarly, the priority of economic considerations over technological considerations is the question of whether what should produced (and for whom), takes precedence over the question how things must be produced - is the main condition for making technology really useful.
We can now bring together the various moments of the criterion of self-sufficiency used in defining the concept of society. Society must constitute a societal community, which has an adequate level of integration, or solidarity, and a distinctive membership status. This does not exclude a relationship of control or even symbiosis with elements of the population that are only partially integrated into the community, such as, for example, the Jews of the Diaspora. However, it must have a core of fully integrated members.
This community must be the "bearer" of a cultural system sufficiently generalized and integrated to legitimize the normative order. Such legitimation requires a system of constitutive symbolism that justifies the identity and solidarity of the community as well as the beliefs, rituals, and other cultural components that embody such symbolism. Cultural systems are usually broader than any society and its communal organization, although in areas that include many societies, different cultural systems may actually blend into each other. In this context, the self-sufficiency of a society implies the institutionalization of a sufficient number of cultural components in order to satisfy societal needs in a tolerable way. Of course, relations between societies with the same or related cultural systems pose special problems, some of which will be discussed below.
The element of collective organization requires an additional criterion of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency by no means requires that all role obligations of all members of a society be fulfilled within the society itself. Nevertheless, society must provide individuals with a set of role opportunities sufficient to fulfill their fundamental personal needs and to fulfill its own needs. A monastic order does not meet this criterion, since it cannot recruit new members through birth without violating its fundamental norms.
We have shown that the exercise of a normative order among a collectively organized population entails the control of a territory. This is a fundamental imperative for the relative unity of governance institutions. Moreover, this is the main reason why no functionally specific collective, such as a church or a business firm, can be called a society. In relation to members of society as individuals, social self-sufficiency requires (and perhaps this requirement is the most fundamental) adequate control over motivations. With some internally limited exceptions (such as the formation of new colonies), it requires that members of the community be recruited through birth and socialization, initially primarily through formal education and other mechanisms. The system of social recruitment can be considered as a mechanism of social control over the personal structure of members of society.
Finally, self-sufficiency implies adequate control over the economic and technological complex so that the physical environment can be used as a resource base in a purposeful and balanced way. This control is intertwined with political control over territory and with control over membership due to a complex of kinship and residence.
None of these criteria of self-sufficiency is predominant, except for the case of their relation to generalized connections in cybernetic hierarchies and hierarchies of conditions. The substantial incompleteness of any combination of these criteria may be sufficient to destroy a society, create chronic instability or rigidity that will hinder further evolution. Therefore, this scheme will be especially useful in explaining the gaps in the process of social evolution.
STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF COMPANIES
In presenting the relationship between society and its environment, a relatively systematic classification of structural components has been used. It is important to make this schema explicit.
Our original definition of a societal community focused on the relationship of two factors: normative order and organized in collectives population. For most general purposes in the analysis of societies, we do not need to extend our classification of components by extending the values of each of these factors. In each factor, we will single out those aspects that are primarily internal to the societal community and those that predominantly link it to the surrounding systems.
Normatively, we can separate norms and values. Values - in the sense of a model" - we consider as the main connecting element of social and cultural systems. Norms, unlike values, are predominantly elements of a social system. They have a regulatory significance for social processes and relations, but do not embody the "principles" applicable beyond within the framework of a social organization or, more often, even a certain social systems. In more advanced societies, the structural foundation of norms is the legal system.
When it comes to an organized population, then collective organization is a category of intrasocial structure, and role - boundary structure category. A meaningful boundary relationship is a relationship with the personality of an individual member of a social system. The boundary with the organic-physical complex does not require special conceptualization in this context, although the result of the activity of both personal and cultural systems converges on an organism that is in the process of socialization, the realization of its skills, etc.
These four structural categories - values, norms, collective organizations, roles - can be correlated with our general functional paradigm. Values are primary in maintaining the pattern of functioning of the social system. obligations The functioning of a collective organization is associated primarily with the real achievement of goals in the interests of the social system. societa.shu important functions in the team as its members. And, finally, the primary function of the role in the social system is adaptation. This is especially clear in the case of the "services" category. for the ability to perform meaningful role activities is the most common adaptive resource of any society, although it must be coordinated with cultural, organic and physical resources.
Any specific structural unit of a social system is always a combination of all four components - this classification uses components, not types. We often speak of a role or a collective organization as if they were concrete entities, yet they are, strictly speaking, elliptical in nature. There is no collective organization without role membership and, conversely, there is no role that is not part of the collective organization. There is also no role or team that is not “regulated by norms” and is not characterized by adherence to certain value patterns. For analytical purposes, we can, for example, abstract value components from structure and describe them as cultural objects. But when they are used technically as categories of social structure, they always refer to the components of social systems, which also include all three other types of components.
However, all four categories of components are by their nature independent variables. Knowledge of the value pattern of a collective organization does not create, for example, the possibility of deducing a role structure from it. Situations in which the content of two or more types of components change together in such a way that the content of one can be directly inferred from the other are social or particular, not a general case.
So, same value patterns usually form part of widely differing blocks or subsystems in society and are often found at many levels in structural hierarchies. Furthermore, same norms are often essential to the operation of various kinds of acting units. Thus, legal property rights define common normative elements, regardless of whether the owner of these rights is a family, a religious majority, or a commercial firm. Of course, norms differ depending on the situation and function, but the grounds for their differentiation are different from the grounds for differentiating collective organizations and roles. Within certain limits, it is clear that any a collective involved in a certain situation or performing a certain function will be governed by certain norms, regardless of its other properties. Finally, such independent variability is also characteristic of roles. For example, executive or managerial roles and certain types of professional roles are common to many types of teams, not just one.
The same basic principle of independent variation applies to the relationship between a social system and its environments.
The individual in his specific role, and not the total individual, is a member of the collective, and even of the societal community. For example, I am a member of certain international communities that are not part of the American societal society. The plural nature of the roles assimilated by the individual is the main postulate of sociological theory and must always be kept in mind. As society evolves, role pluralism becomes more rather than less important, but it characterizes any society.
PROCESSES OF CHANGE
The expression "evolutionary and comparative perspectives" is the subtitle of this book. The outline of the structural categories outlined will constitute the main points of comparative aspects in our empirical analysis. Evolution, however, is a summary generalization meaning a certain type of process of change. Before embarking on empirical research, we must briefly consider how the process of change and the concept of social evolution should be considered.
The type of procedural characteristic of social systems is what we call interaction. To understand action in our sense, this process (understanding) must focus on symbolic level. This means essentially linguistic level expressions and communications - such a broad approach is justified, since the factors that we call speech and writing are mixed with many other significant events, such as “gestures”, physical “realizations” of goals, etc. Moreover, there are symbolic means of interaction other than language, such as money, which are perhaps better seen as specialized languages than as orders of communication that are essentially different from language.
Language is not just a collection of symbols that have been used in the past; this is system characters that have meaning related to code. The linguistic code is regulatory a structure parallel to that of societal values and norms. In fact, it is quite possible to consider it as a specific case of norms if one focuses on their cultural aspect, distinct from the social one. Communication processes usually affect the recipients of messages, although it remains an open question to what extent this effect corresponds to the intentions of the communicators. What is invested in generalization can in some sense stimulate a reciprocal result. However, a failed response is also possible as an alternative, especially if the messages are mass communications (eg printed in a newspaper) and therefore "anyone may or may not notice, and may or may not respond".
The process leading to a response that relates in some way to one or more communicative contents, we may call a "decision". This process takes place inside the "black box" - the identity of the actor. Since communication is part of the social process, individuals act within the framework of a role, the nature of which depends on its relationship with actual and potential recipients of the message, and on the sources from which it receives communicative content.
Although a decision may be a response to a particular message, it need not be seen as the effect of a single stimulus alone. Solution always is a consequence combinations factors, among which the direct content is the only one. All social processes must be understood as combinations and recombinations of variables, interacting factors.
For example, the exercise of power can be seen as conveying a decision to interested parties, the consequences of which bind the collective and the actions of its members. Thus, when an officer gives the order to his unit to attack, he simply gives the command through which the complex system of behavior of his men is put into action. It is obvious, however, that such cybernetic communication processes can operate effectively only in a context in which institutional structures exercise tight cybernetic control over the various factors discussed above.
Social processes will be analyzed in more detail using specific examples from the life of specific societies, classes and systems. The main object of interest in this book is a special type of process - change. Although all processes change something, it is useful for our purposes to isolate processes that change social structures. It is obvious that for maintaining The functioning of any societal system requires many complex processes. If the people who make up the society stop doing anything, the society will cease to exist very soon.
At the most general theoretical levels, there is no difference between processes that maintain a system and those that change it. The difference is rooted in the intensity, distribution and organization of the "elementary" components of certain processes, related to the states of the system they affect. However, when we describe a charismatic revolution or the development of a bureaucratic system as processes, we are not talking at such elementary levels, but are generalizing very complex combinations of elementary processes. Of course, we must do this from many points of view, partly because of spatial limitations that exclude many details, and partly because of a lack of knowledge about the more complex nature of many of the processes under consideration.
PARADIGM OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE
Among the processes of change, the most important from an evolutionary perspective are those enhancing adaptive capacity either within a society by generating a new type of structure, or through cultural penetration and the involvement of other factors in combination with a new type of structure, within other societies and possibly in later periods. Some societies have proved to be the germline for processes of development that have acquired extraordinary significance long after these societies themselves ceased to exist. Ancient Israel and classical Greece did not exist for long as separate politically independent societies, nevertheless they made a significant contribution to the system of modern societies.
However, both cases of development from some source and cases of more direct adaptive reinforcement (such as the emergence of large-scale bureaucratic organizations in some empires) can be analyzed in terms of a general paradigm that I will only outline here but develop later.
First of all, we should talk about the process differentiation. An element, subsystem or category of elements and subsystems, having its relatively well-defined place in society, is divided into elements and systems (usually two), differing both in structure and in functional significance for the wider system. Take, for example, the well-known, already mentioned example of an economy organized on the basis of kinship in predominantly peasant societies. It is simultaneously place of residence and the primary unit of agricultural production. In certain societies, however, most of the productive work is done in specialized places, such as workshops, factories, and offices, and the people employed in them simultaneously are members of the family household. Thus, the two sets of roles and teams are differentiated and their functions are separated. In addition, there must be some differentiation at the level of norms and some specification of common value patterns in relation to different situations.
In order for differentiation to contribute to a balance, a greater development of the system, each newly differentiated subsystem (for example, the manufacturing organization in the example above) must increase the adaptive capacity in the implementation of its primary functions versus implementation this functions in the preceding, more diffuse structure. Thus, for example, economic production tends to be more efficient in factories than in households. We can call this process aspect adaptive gain cycle of evolutionary change. This process affects the levels of roles and collective organizations. People, as well as collectives as a whole, from the point of view of relations of production and costs, must at the same time become more productive than at the previous stage. These changes do not imply that the older "leftover" element will "lose function" in all contexts of its operation. The household is no longer an important economic producer, but it can perform its other functions better than in its earlier form.
Differentiation processes also raise new problems related to integration systems. The actions of two (or more) categories of structural elements must be coordinated where before there was only one category. Thus, in a system where there is employment and professional employment, the head of the house can no longer control production within his own kinship role. The producing organization must therefore develop a system of authority that is not rooted in kinship systems. Production and home teams must be coordinated within the larger system, for example through changes in the structure of the local community.
Adaptive enhancement thus requires specialized functional abilities to be free from prescription within more diffuse structures. It is about relying on more generalized resources independent of ascretive sources. For this reason, processes of differentiation and amplification may require inclusion with the status of full membership in the general system of the community of previously excluded groups that have developed "the ability to make their" contribution "to the functioning of the system". Perhaps the most common case concerns systems that have been divided into upper and lower classes, and in which the upper class has monopolized "real" membership status, treating the lower class as second-class citizens. The process of differentiation and reinforcement makes it increasingly difficult to maintain such a dichotomy. Differentiation especially leads to a situation where the need to integrate newly separated subsystems insistently requires the inclusion of once excluded elements.
The last component of the process of change is related to its relation to the value system of society. Every value system is characterized by a certain type sample, so that when this pattern is institutionalized, it also determines the preference for some general type of social system. Through what we have called specification, such a general evaluation is "formulated" in its application to various differentiated subsystems and various segmented units. Consequently, the value orientation inherent in a particular group, role, or normative complex is not a general model for the system, but its adapted, specialized “application”.
A system or subsystem undergoing a process of differentiation, however, faces a functional problem that is the opposite of specification: the establishment of such a variant of the value model that is suitable for a new type emerging system. Since this type is generally more complex than its predecessor, its value model must be formulated at a higher level of generality in order to legitimize a wider variety of goals and functions of units. The process of generalization, however, often encounters strong resistance, since adherence to a value model is often experienced by various groups as adherence to some of its specific content inherent in a previous, lower level of generalization. Such resistance can be called "fundamentalism". For the fundamentalist, the demand for greater generality in valuation standards appears as a demand for abandoning "real" commitments. Very tough conflicts often crystallize around such problems.
The condition of any given society and, moreover, of a system of related societies (such as the ancient societies of the city-states of the Middle and Near East) is a multi-part resultant of progressive cycles involving these (and other) processes of change. This result, in the context of any more general process, will produce a fan-shaped spectrum of types that vary according to different situations, degrees of integration, and functional positions in the larger system.
Some variants within a class of societies that share a common spectrum of similar characteristics will be more prone to additional evolutionary development than others. Others may be so blocked by internal conflicts or other hindrances that they find it difficult to maintain themselves or even collapse. But among these latter there may be, as we have already pointed out, societies that are most creative in terms of generating components of long-term significance. our paradigm of evolutionary change. Such a breakthrough provides the society with a new level of adaptive capacity in some vital respects, thereby changing its competitiveness with respect to other societies in the system. More broadly, this situation opens up all four possibilities for societies not directly involved in the innovation process. First, innovation can simply be destroyed by stronger, albeit less developed, rivals. If an innovation is only cultural, it is difficult to completely destroy it, and it can become of great importance even after the society that created it has been destroyed. Second, levels of competitiveness can be leveled out through adaptation of innovations. An obvious and important example is the movement of underdeveloped countries towards “modernization” at the present time. The third option is to establish an isolated niche in which society can continue to keep its old structure relatively unchanged. The last possibility is the loss of societal identity through disintegration or absorption into the larger societal system. These features are typical, creating many complex combinations and transitions.
DIFFERENTIATION OF SOCIETY SUBSYSTEMS
We must now consider the general directions of the process of societal differentiation. If we combine the nature of social systems with cybernetic, then these directions should be understood as functional. The increasing complexity of systems, if it is due not only to segmentation, includes the development of subsystems that specialize in more specific functions in the operation of the system as a whole and in integrative mechanisms that link functionally differentiated subsystems.
For our purposes, it was important to analyze the function at two fundamentally significant levels: the general system of action and the social system. Each level has the potential to increase the degree of its differentiation into subsystems along the four functional areas that we have identified.
The most obvious processes of evolution from primitive social conditions are related to the level of common action, especially the relationship between social and cultural systems. Nevertheless, the special relationships of organisms to technology and of the personality system to political organization indicate that the other two primary subsystems of action are also involved in the process in the most fundamental way.
It will be argued in the next chapter that the extremely low level of differentiation among these four subsystems—perhaps approaching that minimum level which is compatible with the human level of action—is the chief distinguishing criterion of the most primitive type of society.
The differentiation between cultural and social systems in the early stages of their development is most noticeable in the realm of religion, where it becomes apparent as the “distance” between gods and people increases. This is the first movement in the most advanced primitive societies and reaches a completely new level in what Bella proves by "historical" religions 2 . A parallel process can be found in the differentiation between the individual and society, which determines the degree of autonomy of individuals. Between the organism and society, differentiation emerges as a differentiation between the level of physical technology and the level of economic processes regarding the allocation of mobile resources, the goods consumed, which are “appropriated” or produced, and the factor of production.
On the basis of the earlier analysis between systems of relations, one might expect that the process of differentiation at the level of the general system of action stimulates and will be stimulated by a similar process inherent in society as a system.
What we call the system for maintaining the pattern of society also has primacy in terms of culture, since it is the place of direct relationship with the cultural system. It is the first to become apparently differentiated from other social subsystems, as the latter are established as purely "secular" spheres which, although legitimized in religious terms, are not directly part of the religious system. This process leads to a differentiation of “church and state”, which is not fully achieved until the post-Roman phase of Christianity.
The development of an autonomous legal system is perhaps the most important indicator of differentiation between a societal integrative system that focuses on the societal community and a political arrangement that is concerned with selection, ordering, and the achievement of collective goals, rather than the maintenance of solidarity (including order) per se. Among all pre-modern societies, Roman society made the most progress in this direction.
Finally, economics tends to differentiate itself not only from technology, but also from politics and those aspects of pattern maintenance systems that are associated with kinship. Money and markets are the most important institutional complexes associated with economic differentiation. Perhaps the divergence between Mesopotamian and Greek society witnessed the most serious early stages in this institutional development, although there were many additional developments in the transition to modern systems.
The main scheme of the four functions and our analysis of the tendencies of societal systems to differentiate into four primary subsystems will form the main directions of our analysis. Where more than four important subsystems appear, we will explain it in one of three ways or some combination. First, an important phenomenon may emerge from segmentation rather than differentiation. Second, more than one level of systemic correlation may be involved. For example, kinship institutions provide specific integration between societal components located in pattern and personality subsystems and are therefore less functionally differentiated than structures such as modern universities or churches. Third, there are different distributions of importance among functionally important components, and therefore, important typological divisions must be made inside relatively highly differentiated subsystems, such as the economy or the state. Often these differences result from the interpenetration of elements of different levels of the system or other subsystems of the same level.
Therefore, it should be clear that the rationale for this classification is analytical and not specific. Any given subsystem of society can contain all three types of complexity in a specific combination. Nevertheless, from a theoretical point of view, their analytical division is important. Although the specifics will vary considerably (and complexly) depending on the type of system being analyzed, the instances of societal subsystem correlation - pattern maintenance, integration, political organization, and economics - form the main analytical tool of our full analysis.
STAGES OF THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY
The evolutionary approach assumes both a criterion for determining the direction of evolution and the establishment of an evolutionary scheme of stages. We pointed out as a factor in the direction of evolution towards an increase in the general adaptive capacity, consciously borrowing this from the theory of organic evolution.
Here we should also turn to the problem of stages. We do not regard social evolution as either a continuous or a simple linear process, but we can still distinguish general levels of advancement without losing sight of the differences found in each of them. For the limited purposes of this book and its result, we distinguish three very broad evolutionary levels, which we can call primitive, intermediate and modern. This book will focus on the first two levels, leaving the third for further study. There is a certain derivation in any particular level scheme, and we will find it necessary to subdivide each of the two broad categories further.
The division criteria, or watersheds, between the major stages in our classification center around decisive changes in the code elements of normative structures. In the transition from primitive to intermediate society, language plays a key role, which is primarily part of the cultural system. In the transition from intermediate to modern society, this role is played by the institutionalization of codes of normative order inherent in the societal structure and associated with the system of law.
In both cases, the proposed criterion is simply a designation pointing to an extremely complex subject. Writing - the focus of a fateful exit from primitiveness - exacerbates the basic differentiation between social and cultural systems and significantly expands the boundaries and power of the latter. The main symbolic contents of a culture can be embodied through writing in forms that do not depend on specific texts of interaction. This makes possible a much wider and more intense cultural diffusion both in space (for example, in relation to human populations) and in time. The phenomenon of “translation” is generated, i.e. targeting messages to an indefinite audience: to those who are more literate and read the document. Moreover, there are no time limits for receiving a message. Only written cultures can have history in the sense of an awareness based on documented evidence of past events that go beyond the memory of living people and the vague messages of oral traditions.
Written languages and literacy have many aspects, stages of development and institutionalization. These early stages, especially pronounced in archaic societies, are characterized by the fact that the "craft" of writing is the property of small groups, using it for special purposes, often esoterically religious and magical. Another important change, perhaps the hallmark of an advanced intermediate society, is the institutionalization of universal literacy for upper-class adult males. Such societies usually organize their cultures around a set of particularly important, usually sacred, scriptures that any "educated" person is expected to know. Only modern societies achieve the institutionalization of literacy for the entire adult population, which in fact may mean the second major stage in the development of modernity.
Writing and the existence of a written law strengthen most of the social relations. For example, clauses of a contractual agreement no longer need to depend on the error-prone memory of the parties or witnesses, but can be written down and used for verification if necessary. The importance of such stability should not be underestimated. On the contrary, it is the main condition for the breadth and complexity of many components of social organization.
At the same time, writing is also a source of mobility and the ability to innovate. As often as "classical" documents serve as the basis for rigid traditionalism, the availability of officially correct documents makes possible a far-reaching and deep-reaching critique of relevant cultural issues. If the document is normative for some areas of action, it poses a rather acute problem of how, in practical situations, its prescriptions can be fulfilled. Among other things, written documents form the basis for cumulative cultural development; they capture the differences introduced by innovation, defining them more precisely than oral tradition.
While writing contributes independence cultural system from the more transient needs of society, the law, having developed to the required level, promotes the independence of the normative components of the societal structure from the coercion of political and economic interests, as well as from personal, organic factors and factors of the physical environment acting through them.
An extremely difficult problem concerns the kind of law whose institutionalization means the transition from intermediate to modern societies. Obviously, in accordance with universalist principles, such a law must have a highly generalized form. This is the very factor that prevents systems such as Talmudic law or traditional Islam from being considered "modern law". They lack that level of universality that Weber called formal-rational. Modern legal systems must also strongly emphasize the factor procedures, as different from substantive prescriptions and standards. Only on the basis of the supremacy of the system's procedure, without being previously linked to any specific decision, can the law cope with a wide variety of changing circumstances and cases.
Roman law during the period of the empire came closest of all the pre-modern systems to adopting a large number of the "formal" aspects of such requirements, and, of course, it made a significant contribution to the emergence of fully modern systems in the future. However, it was not a sufficient condition for the development of "modern" structures in the Roman Empire itself. We will assume that this circumstance was due primarily to the level of institutionalization of law in Roman society. The Roman Empire did not develop a sufficiently integrated societal community and could not integrate all major ethnic, territorial and religious groups through a single primary normative order that was significant for the whole society and the superior authority of the Roman government.
Tab. 1 presents the main relationships between the societal system and its general system of environments in terms of the functional diagram we are using.
Column 1 lists the functional categories interpreting here at the level of general action. Column 2 singles out a social system from others in accordance with its integrative functions within the system of action. Column 3 corresponding to column 4 in Table. 2 lists three other primary subsystem actions as the immediate (within the action) environment of the social system. Column 4 represents the two environments within which the action systems function - as they differ here, i.e. the physico-organic environment, with which relations are mediated in the first example by the behavioral organism, and the environment, which we call "ultimate reality", with which relations are mediated constitutive symbolic systems (i.e., religious components) of a cultural system. Finally, column 5 shows the two directions in which various factors exert their influence on these systems. The arrow going up fixes the hierarchy of controlling factors in the cybernetic sense of the word. As we move downward, control over increasingly necessary conditions makes WHO-
Table 1
ACTION SUBSYSTEMS
|
Internal environments of action of social systems |
Action environments |
cybernetic relations |
|||||
|
"higher reality" physical-organic environment |
high level of information (control) hierarchy of conditioning factors hierarchy of controlling factors high energy (conditions) |
||||||
|
cultural system |
|||||||
|
Maintenance - - -sample Integration |
social system |
||||||
|
personality system |
|||||||
|
Achievement of goals" Adaptation ----- |
|||||||
|
behavioral organism |
|||||||
possible implementation of samples, plans and programs. Systems located orderly higher, respectively, higher in the level of information, while those located lower - higher in terms of energy.
Tab. 2 schematically represents the set of relationships that are revealed in the text concerning the primary structures of society as a system located at the center of the societal community. Column 1 lists the four primary functional categories according to their place in the cybernetic hierarchy of control. In relation to column 1, column 2 identifies the societal community as an integrative subsystem of society, i.e. this analytically the defined subsystem is characterized by the primacy of the integrative function in the former system. Column 3 denotes the remaining three analytical subsystems, the functions of which are also given in relation to column 1 as constituting the environment of the societal community, which is internal for society as a societal system. Column 3 shows both the processes of interchange, inputs and outputs of information, and some zones of their penetration. Column 4, in a similar order, details the primary subsystems of action (other than the social system), in turn showing them as constituting the environment for the social system, while assuming the same order of interchange and interpretation, but with different specific content. The slanted dotted lines show that the whole societal system (rather than each of its subsystems) is involved in these interchanges with different environments of action. Finally, column 5 lists functional categories in terms of which systems of action are differentiated, not social systems, as in column 1.
table 2
SOCIAL COMMUNITY AND ITS ENVIRONMENTS
|
Internal societal functions |
Internal social environments of the societal community |
External social environments of the societal community |
Functions in general systems of action |
|||
|
cultural system |
sample maintenance |
|||||
|
Maintenance - - -sample Integration |
Maintaining Institutional Cultural Patterns |
|||||
|
societal society |
||||||
|
system - personalities Behavioral organism |
integration achievements of goals adaptation |
|||||
|
Achievements of goals Adaptation |
State |
|||||
|
economy |
||||||
Topic 6. The political system of society
1. The concept and essence of a systematic approach in political sociology
The overwhelming majority of thinkers of the past and present have addressed to the idea of political institutions as the basis of stability and order . Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke, Montesquieu and Tocqueville, Marx and Weber and many other thinkers, justifying the need to improve political life, turned to the idea of political institutions. More often than not, they appealed to the institution of the state, less often to civil society institutions. In their development, political institutions have gone a long and contradictory path, evolving and changing along with the structures of society. There was a rather long historical period in the history of the development of politics, when all of it was reduced exclusively to the functioning of the state and was embodied in the activities of the monarch and his inner circle.
Modern politics exists and is implemented through a whole ensemble of political institutions that form the political system of society. . Institutions are the "rules of the game" or human-made bounding boxes that organize interactions between people. (D. North).
The political activity of actors in modern society cannot be carried out outside the institutional space, which is in a state of dynamic equilibrium. It remains relatively stable, and at the same time, changes are constantly taking place in it, associated with the activities of many actors pursuing their own interests. The interactions between political actors and institutions are described using the theory of political systems, which entered modern political sociology in the middle XX centuries and has taken a strong position in it.
The theory of the political system gained its recognition through the popularity of the general theory of action and social systems in sociology in the middle of the last century. This approach in the modern sense was discovered T. Parsons(1902-1979) and E. Shilsom(1911-1995). Developers set as their goal the creation of a concept capable of covering all aspects of the social world and reconciling the understanding of social life with the achievements of the natural sciences — biology (L. von Bertalanffy) and cybernetics (N. Wiener).
By T. Parsons, theory should be built by introducing abstract concepts, because the environment around us reality consists of complex and intricate connections. However, despite her immensity, she organized logically and rationally, has a systemic character , that is, the selected abstract provisions must be logically organized into a single body of abstract concepts.
Any phenomenon or process in the world around us is based on a certain kind of action . The model of any human action includes two aspects:
Ø actor (actor ), that is, an actor, a person who has the desire to act to achieve certain goals;
Ø situational environment, that is, the factors to which the action is directed and on which it depends.
T. Parsons took the concept of the social system from the general theory of systems in the natural sciences. The development of a systems approach was associated with the problem of maintaining the state of order in systems , which contradicted the third law of thermodynamics, which states the thesis about the tendency of closed systems to increase entropy (a measure of chaos). The solution to the problem was introduction of the concept of open systems, that is, capable of interacting with the environment through the exchange through the channels of "inputs" and "outputs". It is this mechanism that allows systems to maintain a state of complex order. Parsonian systems of action too are open, therefore, to continue their life(preserve order) they need to fulfill four functionally necessary conditions-requirements:
1. Adaptation (any system must adapt to environmental conditions).
2. goal setting (to achieve the goals set, the system must have a set of goals to be pursued and the possibility of mobilizing resources to achieve them).
3. Integration (the system must maintain a certain unity and interconnection of the constituent components).
4. Shape saving (the system should tend to a state of equilibrium).
The system also includes subsystems that perform a specific function . So, in a social system interact:
Ø economic subsystem , carrying the function of adaptation;
Ø societal community system , which includes all institutions of social control from laws to informal rules (integration function);
Ø socialization system , which performs the function of maintaining the model, involving the individual in the sphere of relations of the cultural system;
Ø political subsystem of society , which, through the performance of the goal-setting function, carries all forms of decision-making, formalization of the goals facing the social system and mobilization of available resources to achieve them. Thus, we can talk about the central role of the political system in the life of society.
Using a systems approach in political science began in the 1950s with the advent of the work of American researchers D. Easton, G. Almond and K. Deutsch. Political life began to be viewed as a system, believing that there is a relatively stable relationship between the diverse aspects of politics and political phenomena.
The possibility of applying a systematic approach in political research M.Kaplan substantiated in the work "The system and process of international politics" . The main thesis of this work was as follows. Scientific political science is possible only if it is considered as a system of actions. A system of actions is a series of interrelated variables in a special way; at the same time, describable behavioral patterns characterize both the internal relationships of these variables and their relationship with a combination of external variables.
System analysis was based on four principles :
1. Determination of the system through a distinction with the environment (the system is not identical to the environment and is subject to its influence).
2. Consideration of political life as a system of actions and interactions of actors.
3. The concept of reaction (processes and elements of the system interact and change under the influence of sources of tension inside and outside the system).
4. Feedback (the actions of the system entail the reaction of its structures and the external environment).
That is, key provisions of the general systems theory and the theory of social action were adopted T. Parsons. Political theory also wanted to build " grand theory in your field of study, move away from looking at specific institutions, and “ Stato » Machiavelli, the rule of law and civil society.
Renowned American political scientist G.Almond considers the introduction of systems analysis an important step in political science. The system as a key concept is defined by:
firstly , as a complex whole, a set of interconnected things;
Secondly as a method, organization, generally accepted principles and procedures.
The concept of physical and analytical systems are different. If a physical system is a set of empirically observed relationships, then an analytical construct is made up of speculative constructions from aspects or attributes of specific entities. Almond proposed to define the political system as“a system of interactions found in all independent societies that performs the function of integration and adaptation through the use or threat of use of coercion. The political system is a legitimate, orderly and transformative system in society. ».
In general, the political system is understood as a special type of social relations that are involved in making powerful public decisions. She is is a collection of institutions (such as parliaments, bureaucracies and courts), that shape and implement the collective goals of society or the groups that exist within it .
Subjects or actors these systemic relationships are individuals and social groups of society, who act in various capacities, since in many situations, depending on the purpose of their activities, they operate within the framework of existing political institutions.
According to another American scientist, D. Easton, general features of system analysis can be characterized as follows :
1. A political system is a series of interactions, abstracted from general social behavior, through which the distribution of values in society occurs. Moreover, this distribution is of an “authoritative” nature, that is, obliging to obey.
2. Social systems, like living organisms, have the ability to overcome disturbances in their systems. The political system has a "reactive" and "self-regulating" potential, which enables it to coordinate the actions of structures and the course of processes.
3. The political system is not a static phenomenon. It changes under the influence of both internal and external forces, adapting to new conditions in order to “preserve the pattern”.
4. The political system is open, as it interacts with the environment and is amenable to its influence.
Systems theory came to be used because of its advantages in conducting systematic empirical analysis. A theory built using systems analysis allows standardizing terminology, codifying data, that is, making constructions universal. The above is of great use for conducting a comparative analysis of aspects of the political life of various societies.
2. Political system: elements and structure
The existence of a political system is determined through the separation of the system and the environment . In general, these concepts can be used when we have an idea about the space and time of existence of socio-political phenomena.
The political space is formed within the boundaries of human communications regarding the distribution of power. . It is formed because each person lives not only in the geographical world, but also in the world of his own kind. A person initially socializes this world, endowing it with the properties and qualities necessary for interpersonal communication. This kind of socio-cultural macrocosm, soldered together by culture and tradition, consists of separate "worlds" - legal, economic, political, religious and others.
So, the sphere of the political is seen as a limited space, filled with life. Means, within this space there is a constant interaction of various interests, their clash and cooperation . The predominance of one of them leads to the loss of the importance of others, the clash of interests leads to a conflict that affects many areas of political life in general. Depending on the breadth of coverage of political interaction, three levels of political space can be distinguished : micro, macro, and mega level.
In micropolitics the main thing is the interaction of individuals and groups, the dynamics of their interests in power.
Macropoliticsto a greater extent is connected with the characteristics of the space of functioning of the basic agent of modern political life - the "nation-state", limited by the administrative and legal boundaries of the spread of legitimate public authority.
Content megapolitical level- connections and external interactions of national-state and supranational entities in global relations regarding the world political order. From this point of view, it is the nation-state that is of the greatest interest for research, since it contains elements of the micro- (parties, movements, interest groups) and mega-structures (international associations) of the political world.
So, the national state is the core of the political space, its main functional component. It combines many multidirectional vectors of the entire spectrum of political forces. Awareness of this, the development of systems theory in the natural sciences, the urgency of the need to combine theoretical developments with the empirically observable led to the emergence of systems theory in the political sphere.
The most serious research in the field of political system theory connected with "systemic" model of D. Easton, « functional" model of G. Almond and " cybernetic" model of K. Deutsch. Generalizing their classical approaches, one can get an idea of the political system.
Within the framework of the political system, there is a transformation (conversion) of public demands into political decisions, they affect the environment and corresponding changes occur in it , which in turn causes changes in public opinion, and the conversion process is repeated. This process is described using the concepts of "input-output" and "feedback".
Loginensures the flow of information from the environment to the political system. According to D. Easton, such information is expressed in requirements and in various forms of support. it requirements regarding:
1) distribution of material and spiritual values;
2) regulation of behavior, i.e. publication of norms;
4) necessary information about the activities of government agencies, etc.
Support, in its turn, appears:
1) in material form - payment of taxes and other payments;
2) in the form of subordination to existing norms;
3) through political participation - in elections, rallies, demonstrations
etc. in support of the existing system and decisions made within its framework;
4) in various forms of expressing respect for the state: state symbols, ceremonies, etc.
Decision Makers process the received information and provide a way out of the political system. They are determine the order of distribution of values; issue standards of conduct; establish forms and methods of material support; offer samples of political symbols and etc.
The interaction between "input" and "output" is provided "feedback": the decisions made affect the environment, cause changes in it and, accordingly, cause the emergence of new needs, desires, requirements, striving for "entry" into the political system. In this way, politics appears as an endless process.
The effectiveness of a political system is measured by its ability to :
1) extract the necessary material and human resources from the environment;
2) effectively distribute material and spiritual values (goods, services, honors, etc.);
3) regulate and control the behavior of individuals and groups, using coercion if necessary;
4) to secure support from society, instilling in it respect for the symbols approved by the state, that is, to influence the feelings and attitudes of people, and, more broadly, political culture in order to use it for its legitimation.
In the end, the effectiveness of a political system is determined by its ability to adequately respond to changes in the environment .
Strictly speaking, any political system is secondary in the sense that it develops in response to the requirements of the environment, a its sustainability and effectiveness are determined by the ability to adapt to changes in the environment . This concerns the content of decisions made and the structural characteristics of systems.
Appeal to this category is a way of studying power as a product of the total activity of people, as a process and result of the interaction of laws, the administrative system, parties, associations, leaders, and elites. These empirically observed phenomena are considered in theory as the interaction of internally complex structures and processes regarding the adoption and implementation of power decisions. The primary elements in the political system are political resources, that is, some forces that can be used to exercise power , interests due to which an individual or a group is involved in the process of making and implementing decisions; values and orientations of subjects in political behavior.
According to D. Easton, the study of politics is focused on understanding how authoritative decisions are made and how they are implemented in society . If politics consists in the authoritative distribution of values, then the political system is an organism that reacts to impulses that come to it, prevents conflicts that arise over the distribution of values.
G. Almondproposed to understand under the political system all types of actions related to the adoption of political decisions or acting as a set of interacting roles. From his point of view, the main concepts in the system analysis of power are the role and interaction , which can give much more than individual concepts of an institution, a group, since they involve taking into account both formal and informal relations. According to Almond, the political system should be understood as the system of interactions that exists in all independent societies, which performs the functions of integration and adaptation (within society, outside it and between societies) through the use or threat of use of more or less legitimate physical violence.
G. Almond and J. Powell singled out as a common feature for all definitions of a political system association with the use of legalized physical coercion in society , since in general this category is associated with the concept of power and constitutes the core of the political system, which determines its essence, nature, structure and boundaries. In general, the political system is a combination of state and public organizations, norms and rules that determine their relationship regarding power, and the psychological attitudes and orientations of individuals regarding the nature of the exercise of power in society. Based on this definition, it is possible to distinguish the main components, or subsystems, political systems , constituting its essential characteristics:
1) Institutional.
2) Normative.
3) Communication.
4) Cultural and ideological.
Center for Institutional System - state , which is a combination of elements: the legislative power, the structure of the executive power and the state apparatus (bureaucracy), the judiciary. In addition to the state, this includes institutionalized elements of civil society - parties, lobbying structures.
The institutional system interacts with the system of norms and creates the rules (norms) necessary for subordination of participation in power relations, which are generated and accepted by the whole society , but are legitimized through the proclamation of their state. This is explained by the fact that it is it that has a monopoly on the use of legalized violence in case of non-compliance with established norms.
Relations about power themselves exist insofar as people enter into communication with each other, therefore norms and institutions are possible only in the field of human communications. In modern system developments, communication is understood as the basis of society. For example, N. Luhmann argues that it is impossible to understand society as a collection of individuals, because all its structures and systems exist only in the field of our communications. Man in the ordinary sense is generally excluded from the concept of society.
The study of the political system is not limited to the study of its internal space. The environment of its habitat is distinguished, both internal and external. D. Easton defines internal environment concept " intrasocietal", a external - « extrasocietal».
The first consists of systems that are not political by definition of a political system, have other types of interaction. intrasocietal systems include such a variety of types of behavior, attitudes, ideas as economics, culture, social structure, interpersonal relationships . They are components of society as a whole, of which the political system itself is a part. In this society, the listed systems act as sources of influence on the actions of the political system.
Another part of the environment extrasocietal and includes all systems that are external to a given society . They act as functional components of the international environment. Easton cites as an example of the extrasocietal system interethnic cultural system .
Both considered classes of systems form a complete environment of the political system. Since the political system is open, the environment has perturbing effects on it, and vice versa . The mechanism of these interactions is described in terms of "input" and "output".
Under "Inputs' means that material that the system must process and formalize in order to establish common norms and rules for the behavior of society in the process of distributing values to prevent conflicts .
Decisions made - this is "outputs" of the system they are realized in society.
Among the "entrances" of the political system Easton distinguishes two main types of them: requirements and support . These "inputs" give the system a dynamic character, since requirements - this is the material or information that the system is designed to process, and support is the energy required for the system to operate. Requirements are an indispensable component of the organization of any social system, since individuals enter into the process of communication in order to satisfy their needs.
At Almond under the political input”) process is understood the flow of society's demands for policy and their involvement in the process of making an authoritative decision . administrative process (" at the exit") there is the process by which a policy is implemented and enforced .
In Easton's modelpresent feedback concept. Its essence is that the result of making a political decision is perceived by the environment (both intrasocietal and extrasocietal), which reacts to the decision and sends impulses of this reaction to the "inputs" of the political system.
In his first developments, Easton paid little attention to the core of the political system - the decision-making center, or, as it was called, the "black box". It is there that most of the functions performed by the system are concentrated. The functions of the political system can be defined as the actions of its structural components aimed at achieving the goals set for the system. . Achieving the goal contains the ability of the system to interact with the environment, adapt to changing conditions of existence and self-preserve. The emphasis on the functional aspect of the political system was made by Almond in his works.
So, we can single out the main components of a political system: the environment, the relationship between the system and the environment (“inputs”, “outputs”), structure, functions.
3. Functions of the political system
Study of the political process allows us to consider the political system of society, previously presented in a static state, already in terms of functional and dynamic , revealing , primarily, mechanisms of functioning of the macrosystem, the dynamics of its interaction with civil society .
In this context The term “process” can be defined as:
Ø the functioning of the system in time, that is, the successive change of its states ( dynamic aspect );
Ø a set of basic actions performed by the political system regardless of time ( structural aspect ).
So, the concept of process is associated with the functions of the political system , that is, with the most interesting aspect for the comparative researcher. It is by the content of functional actions that political systems can be compared. This is due to the fact that the concept of "function" combines both the institutional and behavioral aspects of interactions in the political structure.
An attempt to consider the political system from a functional point of view was made by G. Almond, using D. Easton's construct as the basis of his model (see Fig. 1).
This model contains three functional blocks:
1) System functions.
2) Process functions.
3) Control functions.
Rice. 1. Model of the political system of G. Almond
System functions can be called macro-level functions , since here the most general requirements for its activities are highlighted, characterizing the ability to cooperate with society, to adapt its members to its structure, that is, to remain. It:
Ø socialization function , which ensures the acceptance by individuals of the rules and values existing in the given system;
Ø recruiting function , that is, "hiring" direct participants in the political process (supporters or opponents);
Ø political communication function , both within the system and between the system and the external environment.
General functions of the political system can be specified as follows. To ensure its sustainability, the political system, through its political institutions, must carry out:
Ø political socialization of members of society;
Ø political recruiting;
Ø expression - the articulation of political interests that have developed in society;
Ø aggregation of interests;
Ø creation of generally binding norms;
Ø imperious execution of norms;
Ø resolution of disputes arising from these rules.
Political socialization - this is the process of perception and assimilation by individuals of knowledge about politics, political norms, values, and, in general, the political culture of a given society and, accordingly, their inclusion in the political system . Political socialization occurs through the training and education of individuals and spontaneously (spontaneously) through the impact on their consciousness of real political practice. The more members of society perceive systemic political values, the more stable the system and the faster it can adapt to changes in the environment.
However, the process of socialization does not always go smoothly and painlessly .
Firstly, passing from generation to generation values inevitably undergo more or less significant changes . In this sense, the conflict of generations (“fathers and children”) is not only a normal phenomenon, but also a necessary one, expressing the variability and stability of the system. However, in that case when radical, revolutionary changes occur in society and correspondingly, there is a sharp rejection of old political values, a conflict between generations , that is, between those who continue to adhere to the old values, and those who deny them, can take on a threatening character . The political system can be in a state of anomie (absence of norms), which leads to disordered relations, and in extreme cases, to chaos.
Secondly, in any society there are “non-socialized” individuals and groups of individuals who, for one reason or another, do not perceive systemic values and norms . This phenomenon is referred to as " marginality". Marginals are alienated from the political system, they cannot or refuse to obey systemic norms, use systemic rules or procedures. Therefore they tend to resort to non-normative, often violent ways to defend their interests , or, denying the value of a given political system or politics in general, refuse to participate in political life (so-called absenteeism, from lat. absense - absent). In different political systems and in different political situations, marginality and absenteeism are caused by different reasons; different groups may be alienated from the political system, including the carriers of humane political values (for example, liberal ones in a totalitarian political system).
Political recruiting - this is the process of instilling special knowledge, skills, values that orient the individual to the performance of special political roles : president, minister, legislator, party leader, party activist, ideologist, etc. Their behavior must meet certain expectations when they perform their respective functions.
Selection of candidates for political recruitment can be carried out according to various criteria : origin (ethnic or social); belonging to a certain clan, tribe; religion; adherence to a certain ideology; by type and level of education; ability to perform a particular function.
The effectiveness of political recruiting directly affects the vitality of the entire political system. The process of recruitment, through which individuals are included in an active political life, expresses the connection between society and the political system, the ability of the system to draw from society the most capable individuals for political activity. . When this ability wanes, the political system, in terms of the recruitment process, becomes closed. In this case, which was noted by the classics of the theory of elites G. Moska and V. Pareto, the ruling elite degenerates and dies, which can lead to the collapse of the entire political system.
Expression or articulation of interests - this is those means and methods by which the interests of individual citizens and groups take the form of political demands addressed to the subjects of decision-making . Forms of articulation by citizens of their interests (forms of civic participation) can be very different, from voting in elections, participation in social movements or political parties, to protest activities.
If social groups that have been objectively established in society, for one reason or another, do not have open, formalized channels through which they can express their interests, needs and demands, then the likelihood of their satisfaction is very problematic and completely depends on the decision makers (on the ruling elites). The result of this may be the growing dissatisfaction of those groups whose interests are ignored, their alienation from the political system and the manifestation on their part of a propensity for violent actions against the ruling elite and the political system it personifies. Generally all known stories of riots, uprisings and revolutions were caused by ignoring the interests of certain social groups .
Second functional block - process block. Together with the management functions, it constitutes the concept of the functional core of the system, deciphering the "black box". The functions of the process are directly connected with the "input", with the influence of the environment. This block is built by Almond as a dynamic alternation of functions. The input process goes through two basic stages : articulation and aggregation of interests. Articulation is the process of forming interests and requirements, their awareness by individuals and small groups.
Aggregation represents the translation of articulated interests into projects, programs and goals by groups of society seeking to implement them at the level of authoritative decisions made by the political system for the entire society. These two functions are performed by active elements of civil society - interest groups and institutionalized participants in the political process - parties.
Articulationmay be hidden and open . First expressed in the behavior of the indie species, a second - in the formulation of already meaningful requirements . This is the importance of articulation, since in this understanding it is individuals who, through the selection of interests, form the flow of requirements for the political system, choosing the “style” of its actions, the nature of the decisions made. However, with the help of socializing mechanisms, the system also influences people's value orientations.
Interest aggregation - this is the first stage of the direct conversion process. Allocate two forms of aggregation : pragmatic and ideological. Expression pragmatic form of aggregation is reduction of many interests to a specific set of alternative courses or programs . At the core ideological form lies the principle of "sorting" interests on the basis of the chosen values of development, justice, equality .
In various political systems, the scale of aggregation and the structures that carry out aggregation differ from each other. Usually, aggregation of interests is performed by political parties . In some systems, it is performed other institutional structures , for example, system of democratic corporatism .
The next step is policy making . Here, the functions of the political system begin to be performed by its central element - state. Public administration as part of the conversion process was initially the focus of comparative politics. Now the idea of studying state institutions has regained a second wind in the concepts of "new institutionalism".
Table 1. Structures that carry out the aggregation of interests in individual modern states
| The scale of aggregation of interests by this actor[*] | |||||
|
Country |
Patron/ client networks | Collaboration groups | Competitive parties | Non-competitive parties | Armed forces |
| Great Britain | Short | High | High | Short | |
| China | Average | Short | Short | High | Average |
| Egypt | High | Short | Short | Average | Average |
| France | Short | Average | High | Short | |
| Germany | Short | High | High | Short | |
| India | High | Average | Average | Short | |
| Japan | Average | High | High | Short | |
| Mexico | Average | Average | Short | High | Short |
| Nigeria | High | Short | Average | Average | Short |
| Russia | Average | Short | Average | Average | Average |
| Tanzania | High | Short | Short | High | Short |
| USA | Short | Average | High | Short | |
Policy Block can be interpreted as part of a broader concept of "public policy", which can be defined as a process of determining and developing the strategic course of society, the main directions of development and ways to implement the goals and objectives .
The following structural levels are distinguished in the mechanism of state policy :
Ø formation of a legitimate subject and institutional hierarchy of state policy;
Ø policy strategizing and decision making;
Ø mobilization of funds for the implementation of management decisions;
Ø implementation of state control and arbitration, ensuring the functioning of the mechanism of "feedback" with the objects of state administration.
In G. Almond's model first aspect may be included in policy making node, a third and fourth presented as course implementation and arbitrage stage And How control function block(extraction, regulation, distribution). The legislative (parliament) and executive (government) branches of power take an active and major part in the process of policy making.
A. Degtyarevleads two main models for the formation of the state strategy and decision making: active" and "representative». In the first case the basic rules and norms of public administration are formed legislature, and the executive branch of government only follows the directive. Second model reflects the situation when the legislative institution determines the main directions and restrictions in state activity, and real situational decisions are made by executive authorities. For example, the "subordinate" executive power was the National Assembly in France of the 4th Republic.
If a articulation and aggregation of interests represent inbox functions", then implementation of the course and arbitration together with a block of management functions are, according to Almond, " outgoing". The decision-making center in the model includes elements of both "incoming" and "outgoing" functions, performed, respectively, by a representative legislature and executive institutions. Outbound Policy Enforcement and Arbitration Functions performed by the executive administration and the judiciary .
The third final level of control associated with the manipulation of resources necessary to meet social requirements , which is in their obtaining(development), regulation(determining the number and the need for their use in a particular area) and distribution(for example, activities in the field of social policy - the payment of benefits and pensions). After the implementation of the functions of the last stage, the "reaction" of society to the results of the work of the political system begins , which then, as information, enters the "inputs".
In general, G. Almond's model represents the political process in the form of a well-coordinated interaction of the social environment with institutional structures. This construct reflected the stable state of the US political system in the 1970s and 80s, which served as the basis for criticism of its static and ethnocentric nature. However, in general, it was accepted, as it had a significant share of generalization and concretized the political process from a functional point of view. In addition, in that time period, not only the United States, but also Russia and the countries of Europe were in a relatively stable political and economic position.
[*] The scale of interest aggregation is rated only as low, medium and high. Estimates are of a generalized nature and may vary depending on the time and the problem field.
