Region, like a social system

The authors of many Russian and foreign research, addressing the problems of the region, often resorting to the use of a systematic approach. However, most confined to a statement of the fact that the region is seen as a complex social or socio--‐economic system. Remain unaffected by issues of system properties and relations within the region as a system. This article is built to fill this gap, but it is already clear that to fully realize this can not be, because in most systems meth--‐ odology, there can be no unity of opinion. Economists use a systematic approach to the interpre--‐ tation, social scientists --‐ in other geographers --‐ in the third. Discrepancies are related not only to the interpretation of a systematic approach, especially with the features of the phenomenon of understanding the region in various fields of knowledge.

To investigate the integrity of the region as an orderly resort to the use of a systematic ap--‐ proach to the interpretation of AI Uemov [2], which is adapted to the analysis of non--‐formalized systems Dmitrevsky IV? [3] In the works of these authors' system is defined as a thing (or many things) with the attitude of a pre fixed properties. This definition is complemented by dual: the system is a thing (or many things) with the properties with a certain attitude. Any system has three levels of organization: conceptual (system--‐level property) --‐ P, structural (system--‐level relation--‐ ships) --‐ R and the substrate (the level of system elements) --‐ m. Accordingly, the definition of the system, as well as construction, suggests a relationship between the components of the system description, from P to R and R to m [3, c. 6]. Thus, the construction of the system always starts from the top level, that is, the concept and structure, and only then is their implementation on the substrate. Therefore, the essence of the systems approach, as opposed to a non--‐system, suggests the direction of research is not the elements of the structure, but on the contrary, from the con--‐ cept and structure --‐ to the elements. The specificity of the system is determined by the concept and structure; the substrate plays a subordinate role. It should be noted that the system in this case is the conventional model, the matrix, through which can be structured in the interior of the region.

The concept of the region, as a system, it acts as the part of the distinctiveness from other similar parts in a particular space, which is taken as a whole. Maintains the integrity of the concept of the region as a system. The structure of the system determines its unit and is based on the spe--‐ cific characteristics of the region that define the relationships of components within the system. In terms of content the interpretation of such a structure can provide important for the functioning of the region's components, such as geographic, economic, historical, political, socio--‐cultural, lin--‐ guistic, cultural and other substrate region plays a subordinate role. At this level, the system im--‐ plemented the principle of the relationship of all the elements, which ultimately allows perceiving the region as homogeneous criteria in the selection (distinctiveness) integrity. This matrix, which is very abstract and arbitrary, depending on the content and refinement--‐making, can be used to ana--‐ lyze the system of relations in all areas. Since this article is devoted to the study of the region as a social system, we should not, how to modify our proposed model to include society.

Central to the region, as we have seen, is its distinctiveness as the part of the other parts. The idea of distinctiveness promotes the idea of social community. The latter arises from the coex--‐ istence and development of people of a certain area, as a result of the transition "landscape" in the "cultural landscape", the transition area from just a physical--‐geographical category in the so--‐ cio--‐cultural.

Decisive in this update is a man in a certain historical period, a particular territory with its specific climate and landscape characteristics. "Every cultural landscape created by the human spirit in its interaction with the natural basis: the landscape becomes an arena in which the human spirit is implementing his ideas" [5, c. 26] --‐ rightly argues RF Turov, describing the role of society in the creation of landscape components as ethnicity, language, religion, passionate elite, art, life and economy. The level of development of a territory determines the peculiarities of the region as a system of relations. Each structural element of this system owes its inclusion or exclusion from it by a process of valuation area and giving it meaning.

Concept that defines the region as the integrity of the system, determines, in turn, the boundaries of the system. But the boundaries are defined by the structural level. The concept of the system, as a system--‐property specifies the system--‐relations. This is due to the selection of the structures necessary for the reproduction of the system. Luhmann noted in this connection "the selection of structures designed to strengthen restrictions. He gives the system the ability to dis--‐ tinguish between external constraints ("Options") and internal, that is, to choose the limit. Moreo--‐ ver, the selection of structures can be also due to pre--‐existing structures (tradition) or preferred angle of vision, in the end, even the rational idea of strengthening ogranichivaemosti system "[6, p. 373].

Thus, each system, including the regional, will set the number relevant to her current struc--‐ tures. All this is reflected at the level of the substrate and is perceived by us as a result of proce--‐ dures for its system through analysis of its self--‐description. For example, analyzing the semiotic space region in which objectified idea of distinctiveness of the region and the idea of a common regional society, we can find out what symbolic elements of the system are now produced and, therefore, self--‐describing, and which are "forgotten" and go outside the system to the plane.

The analysis of the region as a social system involves analysis of self--‐descriptions of the sys--‐ tem or, in other words, the analysis of the discursive practices of the regional society. Regional so--‐ ciety should be considered as autopoietical social system. "Autopoietic systems are the systems that are in their network elements generate not only its structure, but the elements themselves, they consist of" [7, c. 68], --‐ said Luhmann. That is autopoietic system --‐ a system that reproduce themselves. Reproduction is due to all--‐inclusive communications. Under the communication is de--‐ fined as "a kind of flowing concrete historical and therefore dependent on the context of the event" [7, p. 73]. Thanks to emerging communications within the system, such as communications regarding territory, time, power, or other grounds, the system maintains its functionality, repro--‐ duces itself.

These systems support the existence not only because samovosproiz--‐production and self--‐ organization, but also due to the fact that the interaction with the environment. The relationship between the society and the environment, the systems is not static but dynamic, and are channels of the causality. No system can not exist without the world; otherwise it would have reached the state of entropy or not be realized. At the time of the system that do not interact with the world, "would fall immediately, reaching a state of equilibrium devoid of differences" [8, p. 68].

Regional system interacts not only with the environment but also to other similar regional systems. We said that in the structure must be a subsystem with other regional communities. However, the question arises: how the interaction of the system and the systems of the world and each other, if regions are autopoietic systems that is closed at the level of operations? The answer to this question is the key to the system theory of society. Luhmann introduces the concept of "structural conjugacy" [7, c. 106]. Structural contingency limits the possible structures, with which the system can reproduce itself. Structural contingency rule that the realities of the world in pro--‐ portion to its own structure can specify what happens in the system. But the structural contingen--‐ cy prefaced environment. If this would not happen, the system would cease its autopoyezis and eventually cease to exist. Thus, the world affects autopoyezis system predposylaya her structural conjugacy. In other words, if the outside world would not be familiar with, say, the physical space itself, inside the region, there would be a system of communication of this order, and it had no ef--‐ fect on reproduction itself to the system. To structural conjugation space between the outside world and ultimately leads to the fact that the system will recognize the physical space is not for what it really is. After all, the world only prefaces structural conjugation with the physical space, but in the meantime there was a system of communication, and the physical space is now includ--‐ ed in the tree, with which the system performs its autopoyezis. Now the social system plays its own physical space, but social development. In this respect, Bourdieu wrote that "the space in which we live and which we know is socially constructed and marked. Physical space can not be conceived in his capacity as such, except through abstraction (physical geography), that is, ignoring the strongest terms all that it must, as a habitable and assigned. In other words, the physical space is a social construct, and the projection of the social space, the social structure in the objectified state (such as Kabyle house or city plan), the objectification and naturalization of past and present social relations " [4].

Autopoietic systems conjugate to the level of the structure. In this case, the structural cou--‐ pling evinces a high degree of the stability, since they are compatible with any auytopoyetic possi--‐ ble structural systems development. System with the structure of one level can be integrated into a higher level system. This explains the current in the minds of the modern multi--‐level division of the world. We say that there is a global, regional and local dimension of the social world. This, in turn, implies that there is a global social system, regional or local. All these systems are structurally conjugate. And therefore compatible. In the end, local systems form regional systems, regional shape the global autopoietic system – is a system of society.

Looking at the region as at social system, we concluded that the conceptual level of the system is given by the idea of the distinctiveness of the region, the latter contributes to a social community. As the structure of such a system is a ratio of the regional society to its own region (sub--‐system includes regional attitude of society to the geographic, economic, historical, political, socio--‐cultural, Lingvocultural, other components of the region) and other regional communities (sub--‐system includes regional attitude of society to other similar communities). Depending on the level of development of the territory of a regional system of systemic relationships or structures may be increased or decreased. System determines relevant to her current structure. With the help of system of relations (structure) region as a social system maintains its autopoyezis. The structure of the system determines the nature of communication within it. Thanks communica--‐ tions system supports the functionality, reproduces itself and its structure.