Nonlinear developing conditions are characterized by "wave, oscillatory processes of fight, competition and alternate victories of two dialectically opposed trends - the sustainability of relations in this system and the instability of fluctuations introduced from the outside and shaking the structure from within" [13, p. 54]. Then, non-linearity becomes the form of uncertainty, and the system acquires a nonlinear character of development. However, the non-linearity may strengthen the possibility of positive social change, and intensify dramatically the absence of structural connections within a system. Thus, it becomes the factor of uncertainty growth, i.e. it becomes the cause of uncertainty from its result. Accordingly, it ceases to be a form of uncertainty and it becomes its condition.

"The non-linearity of social evolution is not an infinite multiplicity of historical opportunities during the bifurcation period, but a certain social dilemma, since the choice is made by cognitive subjects capable to understand and assess the impact of society differentiation with respect to a limited number of future societal attractors" [13, pp. 36-37]. As the result, the creation of non-linear emerging media, organizes multi-directional actions of social actors, realizes their potential for self-organization, becoming the social order factor of postmodern type, defined by I. Prigozhin and I. Stengers as the order generated out of chaos [14, p. 96-115].

In comparison with the Heisenberg "uncertainty principle", an unfinished state and incompleteness mean that "one and the same event, the same reality may be covered ... by the two opposing ways of description, the reality acquires the features of uncertainty, i.e. the combination of two (or more) opposite opportunities" [15, p. 81]. If "it is possible to determine the degree of an option probability qualitatively and quantitatively" the individual risk situations appear [16, p. 19]. But the presence of opposite opportunities creates the situations with many unknown variables that do not have a clear outcome and making people or the system as a whole to have an inevitable choice - a necessary risk act. Consequently, risk is an activity mechanism removing the uncertainty through the practical transformation of capabilities into reality within multi-variant terms.

However, uncertainty is manifested not only in the combination of several opposite features, but in the absence of clearly defined relationship between the events and their consequences, which makes the relation between an action and a result a non-linear, i.e. an ambiguous one. Therefore, the risk of activity does not become a calculated one within the extent where he is able to give a secured result, but creates a new uncertainty, provoking the talks about the incompetence of decision-makers and an unjustified risk [17, p. 68]. From this viewpoint, any administrative intervention consisting in the choice of the means and methods of ordering within the system embodying an activity risk may provide the result opposite to an expected one, i.e. to provoke a new uncertainty instead of achieving a certainty.

This is the mechanism of formation of a modern "risk society" development. The following factors became the determinants of the intrusion in its backbone elements and in its social nature: radicalism and the relative speed of change; the absence of clearly progressive, and most importantly, the positive direction of change; the duration and the depth of anomie caused by an advance decomposition of old social institutions compared with the creation of new ones; principal relationship of progress and results with the subjective factors which are almost equal to objective ones by importance (or, let's say, are objectified in the process), including the behavior of the ruling elite and the groups of influence; a weak controllability and predictability of a process; a significant share of natural elements of development and its unclear results [18, c. 133; 19, pp. 42-43]. These processes are vividly manifested in the Russian society. And the risk became an immanent part of individual and group interaction with the environment.

The specified processes are intensified by periodically occurring crisis at the absence of sustainable mechanisms of its regulation, when the discontinuity of social and cultural environment existence is associated with the reproduced sudden and dramatic changes - the crisis - in each of its main segments (loci). The crisis becomes the cause of a risk acquiring a systemic character. Appearing uniquely in each complex subenvironmental loci, a risk influences the fundamental mechanisms of social reproduction. O.N. Yanitsky writes: "In such a society the key natural conditions to ensure a human activity (water, air, soil, food), as well as socio-technical life-support systems developed by him (urban environment, energy and transport systems), turn into the sources of risk. Thus, the life support medium is transformed into a life destruction environment", it experiences an "organic violation in the production system of resources required for the normal functioning of society .... It only degrades, turning into a pile of protective systems "[20, p. 26, 31].

Since "natural and social environments are not limited to the role of risk accumulation and become their producers" [20, p. 26], this changes the nature of public relations, interactions and relations of social reproduction as a whole. Thus, risk society is a particular way of social relations, interactions and relationship development between people who are in a transition state from certainty to uncertainty (or vice versa) when the reproduction of the life means (living conditions), physical and spiritual powers of an individual is mostly casual and spontaneous displacing by the risk production [21, pp. 162-163].

Thus, the risk on the one hand, becomes the property of individual environment objective reality, and on the other hand, it is manifested in their individual unpreparedness and the inability to operate in such conditions, the inability to optimize its possible consequences.

Problems of risk social regulation in a changing reality

The special report of the British Royal Society states that the fact of an objective risk existence is questioned by individuals in more or less subjective manner [22]. On this basis, risk is considered as a constant value, while the response of people on its occurrence is interpreted as a dependent variable. Therefore, the problem of risk management is updated when risk itself is seen as a social reality phenomenon.

A man perceives directly the part of an objective reality, about which he has his own knowledge. The knowledge and experience obtained during intersubjective interactions is objectified and transformed into an image that corresponds to some object. And the object becomes a known, familiar and real one. Therefore, "social reality" is understood as "the entire set of objects and events in the socio-cultural world as the object of everyday consciousness of people living their daily lives among similar ones and related to them with various interaction relations" [23, p. 485]. The objects which are cognized by a person as the space of their own life activity become real. The subjective relation to the objects is performed in comparison (the assessment) of object properties, mediated by the consciousness of other people. The evaluation of an object significance and the degree of its risk happens due to this. This evaluation consists of its nature understanding (basic relation aspect) and the understanding of his relation with the specific conditions of life activity (social and situational aspect). Both aspects are interrelated, and are resulted in an object image form. An imaginative cognition of reality requires a special form of relation to its objects - not just to techniques and technologies, but also to emerging risks. In general, research shows that people tend to calculate the risks, the information about which is more accessible; an easily imagined risk is usually overestimated, the threats that are in close proximity, i.e. among the habitat are the most dangerous ones; rare but memorable types of risk are treated as more serious and dangerous than frequent and general risks, which is obviously conditioned by the effect of addiction to dangers [24, pp. 42-44].

The source of emerging risk knowledge is the study of objective reality i.e. the conditions of the habitat. Due to the knowledge about the condition of man-made, natural, informational, social and cultural environment, the understanding of subenvironmental loci features and the resulting dangers and threats, a more or less adequate subjective view appears about them as the objects of reality. But the reality objects are realized by different groups as the risks of life and the object of regulation.

One of the significant contradictions of the modern risk society is an objective and a natural contradiction between progress and its negative impact on the environment, between new opportunities and the growing dangers and threats. When ineffective policy takes place contradictions are not solved timely, and accumulate, leading to the reproduction of risk. Thus, the environmental balance between the living conditions of individuals and groups and their needs and expectations is disrupted, which requires appropriate regulatory interventions.

With regard to the issue of risk regulation social regulation involves a purposeful action, carried out by the means of direct management influence or self-regulation, as the consequence of living condition conscious change, the creation of the necessary incentives or other means of indirect effects. Their common goal is the reduction of threats appearing in subenvironmental loci.

A special role in the risk regulation mechanism belongs to reflection - the "theoretical understanding of one's activity reasons" [25, p. 239], and the ability to respond to changes in a risk habitat. The interaction of institutional structures and self-organized groups during risk reflection provides a more complete understanding of risk and its manifestations in specific subenvironmental loci. Due to the critical analysis of the environment state and its risk, the risk management measures are explained. The system of formal and informal rules and procedures aimed to monitor the risk processes is developed at institutional level, and an adequate response as the basis for the selection of optimal behavior strategies within risk terms is developed at individual and group level.

However, in modern society, social regulation is not based mainly on enforcement but on information-communicative interaction of subjects. Accordingly, the redistribution of the priorities from a focused impact takes place within the control system of social organization as an external factor, to self-organization, as the result of internal self-reflection. Therefore, the subjects of regulation are not only the institutional structures that organize regulatory strategies and provide them a systemic nature, but also individuals and groups as self-organized actors who are aware of their own needs, interests and values. In the course of their interaction with each other and with social institutions the most common criteria for risk assessment are developed and its regulation aims are specified in the environment. Together they allow you to determine the extent of an acceptable risk, the basic steps for its optimization and to expect an effect.

The study show [26], that even an active risk-reflection of regulatory process entities entails, as a rule, the positive evaluations of risk management capabilities and expands the space of social reality. Not only new risks, but also the ability of their control becomes real. Similarly, the ideas, aspirations and the actions of other participants of the regulatory process (institutional or public organizations) are valued. Positive assessments are resulted in trust, and negative assessments are resulted in distrust towards them. In practice, trust increases the level of certainty and security in the environment and distrust caused by unfulfilled expectations, increases the state of uncertainty and generates the social structure of unsafe environment. The result of new scientific knowledge or rumors about environmental conditions is the replacement of certainty into uncertainty and vice versa. At that a man does not remain a passive observer of changes in the environment, and acts as an active subject and acquires knowledge as after interactions. Therefore, during the transition from certainty to uncertainty, and vice versa, that is, activity related risks change from the credibility to the distrust in respect of habitat objects (technique, technology, government and public institutions, or the decision-makers). Integrating into the social reality, they strengthen or weaken the degree of subenvironmental loci risks and the environment in general.

A number of urgent problems appears in a changing social reality during the process of risk regulation.

Firstly, an order is not so much the result of self-organization but the motion thereto, i.e. not the result but the process of self-ordering and self-regeneration based on synergy. Risks and threats regenerating due to uncertainty and non-linearity are not eliminated, but at best are reduced and located in different subenvironmental loci or social groups.

Secondly, the choice of an alternative regulation method is not performed through a determined need, but via an accident, and is the result of conflict, competition and synergy of opposing attractors (the set modes of a system evolution), as well as the activity of subjects. The branching (bifurcation) of possible ways of evolution occurs at the moment of maximum stress.

The choice in a bifurcation point is the consequence of fortuitous circumstances confluence or a conscious activity of subjects. The first model of selection is implemented in a nonlinear developing and little predictable processes of self-organization, when non-linear social fluctuations (random deviations from the mean values), give rise not only to chaos, but also the possibilities of change. The condition of the second selection model is the revealing possibilities of changes when the transition from uncertainty takes place inherent for the bifurcation point, to the certain specific ways of influence on risk environment. In such a situation, the choice becomes the result of possible deviation probability evaluation by participants, providing the self-conscious, calculated risk for a self organization. And the risk becomes the factor of certainty increase and stimulates social activity.

Thirdly, new forms of risk optimization appear in terms of nonlinearity. With the acceleration of social reality and the nonlinear relationship between investments and the result achieved in the process of risk regulation the situational understanding about the rational, i.e., the most optimal in a given situation varies. In the situation of conflict between an urgent need to respond to the risks of the environment by the adoption of concrete measures and their high cost and unpredictability the modern forms of rationalization become useful. The symbolization and performance as the attributes of virtualization are among them.

The symbolic exchange, in contrast to the economic one does not involve the direct exchange of funds, they are replaced by signs. The interaction of people entering into the relations of exchange is virtually unlimited and may include the setting of any objectives, including the most attractive ones, but far from reality, as they are entirely virtual and do not influence the reality itself. "The activity by the means of symbols and signs, which in a certain sense is a virtual activity only, involves only the potential changes in a physical world" [2, p. 145]. The ongoing exchange between the characters, but not between the characters and reality creates the hyperreality under which Jean Baudrillard understands the simulation of anything. Simulative reality is more attractive than the reality that we face in everyday life. For example, a carefully created idea of control strengthening over the quality of food, the use of new medicines, toxic waste disposal, the preservation of cultural monuments, etc have the character of promotional ideas for the development of a positive public opinion about the non-existent or ineffective risk reduction programs. The place of real measures protecting the habitat are occupied by scientific debates, competitions, festivals and spectacular media reportages about them, serving exclusively as the signs and symbols of risk reduction actual policy. Although the relation with reality in the process of symbolization and imitation becomes broken [5, pp. 565-568], it should be noted, that such strategies are quite functional in terms of tension reduction and the statement of some level of certainty. Its retention depends on the search for new vivid forms of presentation.

Thus, the expected achievements in the field of risk regulation are transformed in a bright show called "risk management", develop positive attitudes in the form of hope, people's willingness to trust the propaganda or hope for the best. However, at the exposure of fakes and its comparison to reality, unfulfilled hopes do not lead to frustration by the actions of the institutional structures immediately, and they achieve a symbolic form for some time ("if only there is no war") or is replaced by other existential manifestations - patience ("I've had worse"), fear ("let it be so, the things of others are worse").

Post-modern forms of rationalization act as the factors of people social life dynamic organization, an active role of which belongs to themselves. For example, organizations, movements, associations, which take over the functions of environmental protection, historical heritage, etc. are created with the help of a state support. Their actions become symbolic ones. And they exist in the form of signs - the attributes of civil society, public or political pressure groups with their offices, elected to the authorities, but without a real impact on the process of risk regulation and only pretending. Such theatrical activities (like the The Mickey Mouse Company, described by Ilf and Petrov), in practice becomes the way of a purposeful regulation of risk in terms of non-equilibrium environment and constantly increasing threats. Thus, the risk regulation funds become the part of the sign system, and the process of its regulation becomes the act of manipulation with signs.

Implementing simulative practices, social institutions are adapted to the management in a non-linear social dynamics, and the individuals and groups, simulating real activity, giving it a playing, not a real character, gradually adapt to the risk environment. Through self-reflection successful gaming practices are institutionalized gradually, become habitual ones, are included in the value-normative structure of social representations and in everyday interactions, in political, economic, social structures and organizations, ensuring the involvement of individuals and groups to the policy of risk regulation and the access to resources provided for the development and implementation of risk regulation measures. While these strategies are based on the principles of ritualism in his Merton understanding as the replacement of socially significant goals using socially approved means the system of social management in general acquires flexibility and mobility paradoxically. It acquires an opportunity to respond quickly to rising social tensions by old or new simulacra.

An individual self-regulation of risk is associated with the exposure on individuals and groups in order to achieve a status that will be compared to a reference sample. In the case of risk regulation institutional mechanism weakening and the increase of confidence to them self-regulatory mechanisms are enhanced. And, although the regulatory framework is made by social institutions, social behavior is often a direct result of happening by people's perceptions, the attitude towards created situation and is regulated by personal considerations, individual or group experiences, intuitive perceptions about a possible future. Uncertainty and the experience of interaction with the risk medium start a transgressive exit mechanism beyond the virtual boundaries of space and time in order to detect the potential dangers and future threats, realizing the expectations of risk, based on an intuitive foresight and the anticipation of still invisible, but intuitively perceived future changes. According to U. Beck, the concept of risk changes the relationship between time loci: past, present and future. The past loses its power over the present, its place as the cause of the everyday experience and activity is taken by the future - something non-existent, constructed and fictitious. The discussions and debates evolve around fictions, the things which could happen if we did not alter the natural course of development [27, p. 214]. The transgressive mechanism is manifested in the construction of reality with the focus on preventive technologies of interaction in potentially risk-taking habitat.

An important role in the selection performance during the bifurcation point belongs to mentality. It is presented by a deep level of collective and individual consciousness, and including unconscious non-reflected images, behaviors and reactions [28, pp. 616-617]. From a sociological point of view, mentality is considered as a historically evolved system of spiritual codes predetermining people's perception of happening things in a certain light, the assessment of events in a certain way, the general vector of their actions. Formed under the influence of natural and social factors embodied in historical memory, mentality manifests itself in the form of phenomena, convictions, beliefs, values, norms of behavior sound estimate [29; 30; 31]. From these positions mentality plays the role of conscious and unconscious risk control.

In the self-regulation of choice mentality role is determined by the fact that, on the one hand, it is directly related to the conditions and way of life of individuals and communities, and on the other hand, it influences the formation of a certain type of "everyday consciousness", which determines the criteria of rationality. Mental representations and sets are reflected in the motivational structure and act as reference samples during the choice of alternative courses of action in terms of risk.

While mental structures that combine unconscious and reflected elements of reality reflection, form a basic aspect of the attitude towards risk environment and the risk as the way of interaction with it, the idea of his connection with the specific conditions of life activity are reflected in the minds of individuals and groups by social-situational risk characteristics. Reflecting in the form of stereotypes, i.e. schematized, simplified images of reality, they dictate the sets on some methods of risk perception, with some risk level in life strategies and daily activities. So, against the acceleration, freedom and openness of modern societies one has a developed sense of fear in respect of unknown, the desire for self-preservation and self-defense, while others have the same developed fear of monotony and boredom, the maniacal search of fun and excitement, the fear of settlement, archaic and cultural backwardness. The need to do everything without losing tempo causes the incorporation of risk in everyday life practice as the sign of modernity and the faster pace of life as the only possible way to adapt to a rapidly changing, escaping reality.

Thus, the development of discussed social regulation issues in risk habitat on an interdisciplinary basis will allow to optimize the process in a changing social reality.