Kitabı oku: «Ecosociology Sources. Series: «Ecosociology»», sayfa 3
New environmental paradigm
Social situation changed in the early 1970s. Environmental awareness became the cause and source of more active ecological ideas not only in sociology but also in the international community. The discourse comprised with such notions as “environmental pollution”, “deficit of natural resources”, “overpopulation”, “negative consequences of urbanization”, “extinction of species”, “degradation of landscapes and desert advancing”, “dangerous climate changes leading to natural catastrophes” and so on. All these phenomena are now recognized as being socially significant due to their influence on the development of not only local communities but also the international community. As a result, they acquire a trans-local parameter.
Ecosociologists never missed the chance to highlight the existence of two main problems of the sociological disciplinary tradition, namely, the Durkheim sociologism and the Weber tradition of studying a single act and its significance for the individual. However, sociologists-traditionalists completely ignored the space-temporal, physiological, psychological and biological characteristics.
William Robert Catton (1926—2015) and Riley E. Dunlap proposed a “new environmenta0l paradigm”. It constituted a new stage of socio-ecological research and theorizing characterized by an interdisciplinary approach26. The new environmental paradigm identifies two periods in the development of the sociological theory27. The first one encompasses everything corresponding to the “paradigm of human exceptionalism”, which preceded the second period. The first one encompasses everything corresponding to the “human exceptionalism paradigm”, which preceded the second period. The second period relates to the emergence of the new environmental paradigm – the paradigm of human emancipation.
Referring to the preceding theories, environmentalists characterize them as anthropocentrism, social optimism and anti-ecologism. They emphasize that these are more than just theories but a way of thinking and a “modus vivendi”. Adverse socio-ecological consequences of the preceding period could be dealt with if the environmental (ecological) initiative becomes a mass movement and switches from anthropocentric consciousness to ecological one.
Older theories maintain that the socio-cultural factors are the main determinants of human activity, and culture makes the difference between a human and an animal. With the socio-cultural environment being the determinant context of interaction, the biophysical environment became somewhat alienated. Bearing in mind the cumulativeness of culture, social and technological progress may continue indefinitely. This is followed by an optimistic conclusion that all social problems can be resolved. The new environmental paradigm proclaims a new social reality:
– Humans are not the dominant species on the planet;
– Biologism of humans is no radically different from the other living creatures also being part of the global ecosystem;
– Humans are not free to choose their fate as they please, as it depends on many socio-natural variables;
– Human history is not a history of progress, which to a certain extent enhances adaptive capability, but a history of fatal errors, crises and catastrophes resulting from unknown causes and scarcity of natural resources.
The new environmental paradigm does show an understanding that humans are not exclusive specie but specie with exclusive qualities – culture, technology, language and social organization. In general, the new environmental paradigm is based on the postulate that, in addition to genetic inheritance, humans also have a cultural heritage and are hence different from the other animal species. In this, the new paradigm continues the tradition of the old paradigm of human exceptionalism.
Besides, even those sociologists, who did not subscribe to the new environmental paradigm, pointed out a traditional omission: society is not really exploiting ecosystems in order to survive but is rather trying to overexploit the natural resources for the sake of its prosperity, thus undermining the ecosystem’s stability, and may eventually destroy the natural base that makes human existence possible. This dilemma, initially posed within the framework of the new environmental paradigm, turned out to be so serious that representatives of other social sciences joined the debate.
Herman Edward Daly, within the framework of the economic sciences, presented the theory of a steady state economy, thus making a scientific contribution to the sustainable development concept, and participated in establishing the “International Society for Environmental Economics”28.
William Ophuls, in his political studies, called for a new ecological policy while denying the very possibility of sustainable development. This assumption was based on forecasts of quick depletion of the planetary reserves of fossil fuel. In the end, under the laws of thermodynamics and due to inexorable biological and geological constraints, civilization is doomed. In his opinion, this was already obvious, given the rising tide of socio-ecological, cultural and political problems29.
Donald L. Hardesty, who specialized in ecological anthropology, a subject area of the anthropological science, studied miner’s communities, the history of their cultural change, public living conditions, gender strategies and so on. He monitored how these communities were transforming the natural landscape into a cultural one, pointing out the accompanying process of toxic waste generation30.
Allan Schnaiberg (1939—2009), within the framework of the sociology of labor, opined that social inequality and production race (“the treadmill of production” theory) were the main causes of anthropogenic environmental issues. From the Neo-Marxist positions, he criticized all “bourgeois” authors who were showing at least some optimism regarding the possibility of peaceful resolution of the socio-ecological problems (other than through class struggle and a change in the social relations of production)31.
John Zeisel, within the framework of the sociological theories of architecture, paid attention to important hands-on aspects relating to interaction of humans with the natural environment, believing that psychic, physical and psychosomatic peculiarities of people of different age require different architectural solutions32.
Ecosociology now included the notions of an ecological complex and an ecosystem, considering the natural environment as a factor influencing the behavior of humans and society. One might say that ecosociology analyzes interaction between the physical (natural) environment and society. To perceive all forms of interaction between humans / society and the natural environment, it was proposed that organizational forms of human collectives, their cultural values and composition had to be taken into account.
Therefore, the natural environment influences all stages of Park’s social evolution and elements of the ecological complex proposed by Duncan and Schnore – population, technology, culture, social system, and the individual. In this context, the basic questions posed by ecosociology were: How can different combinations of all the above elements influence the natural environment? And how can one ensure effective change in the natural environment when these elements are modified?
Foreign authors of environmental theories
An important issue in ecosociology related to rethinking of the notion “environment”. By this, traditional sociology meant the social environment while ecosociology primarily meant the natural or biophysical environment. This division took some time to be accepted by all sociologists.
In addition, ecosociology made an attempt to go beyond the vision of a symbolic or cognitive interaction between the man and the environment. Ecosociologists were trying to prove that the surrounding natural conditions – such as air and water pollution, waste generation, erosion and depletion of soil, spillages of oil and so on – in addition to a symbolic effect, have a direct, non-symbolic impact on human life and social processes. This meant that, besides the impact made by polluted air and urbanized landscape on people’s perception of the same, one had to take into account the influence of this factor on physical human health when studying social mobility, and mental health – when studying deviant behavior.
In the 1970s, according Franklin D. Wilson, the focus of attention of social ecology and ecosociology shifted to the following issues: interaction of humans and the artificial (“built”) environment; organizational, industrial, state responsibility for environmental issues; natural perils and catastrophes; assessment of environmental impact; impact from scarcity of natural resources; issues relating to deployment of scarce natural resources and carrying capacity of natural environment33.
Ecosociologists also noted the increasing influence of that part of public movement, which was showing concern over the state of natural environment and propagated such values as an environmentally friendly lifestyle and shaping a new ecological awareness, on social processes and institutes. These people were somewhat different from the environmental movement due to a greater emphasis on developing an ecological behavior and inner human potential (deep ecology). This difference is explained by the fact that these people were participants of other public movements and adherents of new religions rather than of the ecological movement per se.
Murray Bookchin (1921—2006), the main ideologist of ecoanarchism, studied social ecology-related issues, criticizing biocentric theories of deep ecologists and sociobiologists, as well as the followers of post-industrial ideas about the new epoch34. He and other authors believed that a socio-ecological crisis was inevitable wherever state authority existed. All forms of governance are violence of man against man and nature.
In the opinion of ecoanarchists, a global ecological crisis could be prevented via decentralization of society and abandonment of large-scale industrial production. All people were to stop working for transnational corporations, move from metropolitan cities to small towns, rural municipalities, small communes and communities. Social relationships were to be regulated by methods of direct democracy and governed by direct right to life and natural resource use.
In the late 1990s, Bookchin refused to call himself an ecoanarchist, probably after seeing the implementation of his ideas in rural ecoanarchist communities and assuring himself that these ideas were inviable due to the impossibility of collective action and self-sufficiency, breakup and reverse migration to the cities caused by inequality and violence.
David Pepper, the ideologist of ecosocialism, and other authors were positive that the main causes of the socio-ecological crisis were the capitalist mode of production where society only exploited natural resources without producing them. In contrast with ecoanarchists, they suggested centralization of management (in the form of a state-controlled socialist economy), which was to help preserve nature as a universal human value35.
In the 1980s, these ideas were still popular but radical socio-ecological reforms were no longer associated with major social change. Instead, they were associated with internal change in the individual and society, a change in the system of values and attitude to nature. They proposed to renounce anthropocentrism and replace it with biocentrism.
Arne Dekke Eide Naess (1912—2009) and other authors promoted the idea of deep ecology, suggested distinctions between social and natural, holism instead of dualism, i.e., the unity of man and nature, society and the environment. Homo economicus was to make way for homo ecologicus, a bearer of ecological consciousness, which, in the transitional era of ecological crises and catastrophes, was to be cultivated and developed. After that, all artificial boundaries (ideological, state, religious, race, cultural, gender, biological) were expected to collapse, and a New Age would begin36.
As already mentioned above, ecosociologists also responded to the ongoing social change, proposing the new ecological paradigm, under which the paradigm of human exceptionalism would be replaced by that of human emancipation. These ideas were extremely popular among younger people and public movements addressing the issues relating to the quality of life. The power, industrial and financial elites could propose no viable alternative. Children saw no future in the activities of their parents. Society was afraid that it was edging towards a catastrophe and extinction. This situation could not last for a sufficiently long time and an intellectual breakthrough was needed.
The publication of expert’s works on limits of economic growth and the World Commission on Environment and Development report “Our common future” in the late 1980s gave rise to the popularity of the sustainable development theory, which will be considered in more detail in the chapter “Theories of sustainable development”.
Unlike ecoanarchists and ecosocialists, Albert Arnold Gore, one of ideologists of “green” capitalism, and other authors believed that industrial production, based on competition and profit generation, could be ecologized through state regulation and formation of new “green” markets. This did not make any changes in social relationships, but modernize them. This was to happen gradually and naturally as ecological challenges emerged, which were to be responded via new norms and rules for activities, behavior, morals and culture37.
For example, demand for ecologically clean products has grown, causing structural and technological adjustments in industry, i.e., a modernization. An increase in the government annuity for natural resource use and penalties for pollution would also encourage modernization of industry (improvements in the technology used for extraction of natural resources), reduce generation of waste, save energy, and introduce recycling, closed and waste-free production cycles. This would also lead to changes in corporate culture – acceptance of the sustainable development concept, greater responsibility of business for socio-ecological consequences of its activities.
In addition to being a state, national strategy, ecopolicy is becoming a strategy pursued by international companies and corporations. They declare that, if used rationally, global natural resources are virtually inexhaustible and can satisfy the needs of the humanity indefinitely. Even if some resources are depleted, new technology would be able to provide new materials and products of a better, or, as a minimum, the same quality.
Problems of growth would remain in the form of demographic, informational and other “explosions”, which look catastrophically from the local management level, but can be dealt with via development and implementation of global programs. All interested organizations and individuals, who will form a new global design, could now be involved in a constructive dialog and decision-making process.
Therefore, those environmentalists, who had opposed industrialization, technocracy and bureaucracy in the 1970s, lost much of their popularity in the environmental movement by the 1990s. However, the first works published in the 1980s by authors who opined that management, industry and technology, which ensure the high standard of life of the modern society, were not ecologically dangerous per se and that they could be changed for the benefit of the environment, still were criticized.
In contrast with their European colleagues, the American environmentalists, who in the 1980s participated in numerous public organizations, state-run ecological councils and research expert groups, enjoyed the support from the population, government and business, were more optimistic. A considerable part of the United States environmentalists was hoping that ecological problems could be addressed via improvements in technology and management techniques, distribution of benefits, conservation and accumulation of the national natural wealth.
The intellectual breakthrough occurred in the 1980s when Josef Huber proposed his ecological modernization concept38, which in the 1990s evolved into a scientific theory supported by business and the government. The theory of ecological modernization became quite popular among the European environmentalists, which allowed moving from confrontation to dialog and partnership with the state and business.
The ideas of ecological modernization are now largely accepted by the global environmentalist movement and implemented practically from the individual to state level. Because of scientific debate and hands-on experience, the theory of ecological modernization has gone through several stages of development and received both recognition and criticism. Several authors have proposed a number of development classifications. Historical and modern application examples have been studied, and a number of methodological approaches, allowing identification of independent lines of research, elaborated. This we will consider in more detail in the chapter “Modernist theories”.
Russian authors of environmental theories
In Russia, just like in the West, environmental theories were used by authors who included the natural context into their studies of social phenomena, who spoke of the mutual influence between humans and the natural environment and made interesting unusual conclusions. In doing so, they made a significant contribution in the development of sociology and the rise and development of ecosociology.
The specifics of Russian history make possible to split this scientific reflection into three periods – pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet. All Russian authors could be classified into those who represented the organic (sociological naturalism) and geographic school (social evolutionism), as it was done for non-Russian authors. However, for Russian authors, a division between these schools and principles would be quite notional.
Nikolay Dmitrievich Nozhin (1841—1866) had a considerable influence on his contemporaries, including sociologists. His views and publications are a good example showing the notional character of classification into scientific schools. As a biologist and a sociologist, he recognized Darwin’s biological evolution; however, he opposed Malthusianism and racism typical for some social-Darwinists. He was the first to propose an organic approach and formulated its main principles.
The main postulate goes that biological laws apply to human communities just as they do in animal species communities. Therefore, known biological laws could be used for explaining social phenomena and processes. A good example would be collective organizations – free associations of people based on the principles of solidarity and mutual assistance39.
He criticized political experts and economists for seeing contradiction where, from the biology’s point of view, they did not exist. In biology, multi-functionality does more for survival of specie than functional development within the specie. This provision is analogous to the multi-functionality of peasants and artisans and division of labor in the course of industrial production. Therefore, crises and creative regress of participants are inevitable for industrial production. He believed that his conclusions and their propagation would serve the practical purpose of science – helping people to avoid mistakes in choosing their path of development. In his opinion, dividing science into social and natural disciplines was one of these mistakes.
Aleksandr Ivanovich Stronin (1826—1889) in 1869—1885, published a three-volume edition titled “History and method” (on evolution of research methods and approaches taken by social sciences), “Politics as a science” (on social structures – groups, statuses) and “History of the public” (on evolution of society). His works show the desire to link the methodology for social and natural sciences. He believed that, as the natural and social environments are a whole, analogy could become the basic unifying method. The laws discovered in natural sciences can apply to social sciences. Realizing that scientific experiments cannot and should not be made on humans, he used the philosophic method of separating particulars from universals to construct an ideal particular model of a social phenomenon40.
This ideal social model, that was analogous to reality, could already be used for experimenting, theoretically placed in a modified environment, to obtain new knowledge, which could be subsequently verified in another analogous place and situation. This method, in different variations, was widely used at that time and is still used in sociology as Max Weber’s method for forming ideal types.
Pavel Feodorovich Lilienfeld-Toal’ (1829—1903) conducted sociological research adhering to the position that society is a real organism. In his works “Thoughts on the social science of the future” and “La pathologiе sociale” he maintained that social interactions and interrelations are in essence physiological. Just as any organism consisting of cells, intercellular substance and the nervous system, society consists of people, the natural environment and a system that manages the social processes41.
Lilienfeld believed that human society is a biological organism, living by the same laws and in the same ways as the other biological organisms. He assumed that society and nature are no different. Society is alive and thus is a direct extension of nature. Preferring such general scientific methods as comparison and analogy, he suggested an original socio-embryological law, under which society and the individual, just as any specific living organism, go through the phases of birth, maturity, senility and death (transition into a non-organic form).
The social structure suggested by Lilienfeld is similar to Stronin’s, with the addition to the natural environment, which plays the roles of an intercellular substance, of implements and spiritual achievements. He provided several historical examples of societies that were born, flourished, got old and died in various locations over time. In his opinion, a younger society could absorb some civility from an old or dead society. This indicates that he proposed a scheme of multi-vector social development long before the neo-evolutionists.
Structurally, the three laws of progress govern social development:
1) Greater political freedom strengthens the government;
2) Greater economic freedom leads to larger possessions;
3) Greater legal freedom leads to improvement in laws. As for revolutions, riots and struggle, he viewed them as a social pathology. Another social pathology is a political, economic and legal parasitism. Parasites are social structures that became detached from the social organism and act to its detriment.
In today’s encyclopedias and sociology textbooks, Russian sociologists of the organic school are mentioned only cursorily. It is normally said that their ideas are part of the history and can be interesting only for focused experts.
At present, the organic school in sociology is studied and developed by Galina Pavlovna Kuzmina. She has published more than a hundred works on the subject, prepared a training course and, one can say, revived the Russian organic school42.
Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822—1885), due to his work “On migration of population in Russia”, is viewed by historians of sociology as a founding father of Russian sociology and a representative of the geographic school. Studying the Russian society in the historical perspective, he compared it with Europe and interpreted within the framework of sociology43.
He did extensive research on the influence of climatic factors on local communities and urban population of the Vologda region44 and studied fishery on the Volga, in the Caspian and White Seas and the Arctic Ocean. Based on the existing social practices and fishery technologies as well as on the evaluated stock of selected fish species, he developed efficient fishery legislation for European Russia. As a result, depletion of the fishery resources began only in the 1960s with the start of commercial fishing by large fishing vessels.
Danilevsky could be viewed as one of the first ecosociologists as he used sociological methods for studying natural resource use and nature management. This statement can radically change the current opinion in the history of ecosociology that Russian ecosociologists “descend” from the Chicago ecosociologists. It appears that, at this stage of development of Russian ecosociology, we could conduct a more in-depth study of the domestic scientific heritage, doing a “test fit” for works written by the fathers of sociology, where they tested interaction of humans and natural sites, from the ecosociology standpoint. Sadly, historians of sociology often keep silence about these works or mention them cursorily, paying more attention to the historical aspect.
Interestingly, Danilevsky, reckoned as a follower of the geographic school due to the research and analytical methods used, sharply criticized evolutionism in his work “Darwinism”45. Truly speaking, that criticism was aimed at the advocates of social Darwinism, also followers of the geographical school, along with the supporters of social biologism, rather than Darwin himself. Danilevsky argued that social inequality is radically different from biological one and cannot be a subject of studies for natural sciences.
This means that fishermen should be studied by sociologists and social sciences while fish – by biologists and natural sciences. This position helped to separate sociology from other sciences and authors writing in the interdisciplinary domain. It also contributed to sociology’s drift towards sociologism, where people interact only with people and all this happens in a non-material social space (social environment).
Danilevsky criticized social evolutionism for the belief in the existence of planetary humankind with a common history of evolution. He wrote that this view was not supported by any geographical, archeological, culturological or anthropological research. He distinguished a number of geographically isolated cultural-historical society types, in particular, ten old types – Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Chaldean, Persian, Hebrew, Arab, Greek, Roman, and Germanic, also mentioning two immature types – Incas and Mayas – that had been forcibly destroyed, leaving a question mark about the status of the New World in North America. As for the Russian society, he viewed it as a new cultural-historical type.
Lev Il’ich Mechnikov (1838—1888) was another representative of the geographical school. In his book “Civilization and great historical rivers”, he classifies cultures into riverside, seaside and ocean-side types, associating ancient civilizations with big rivers, antique civilizations – with seas and modern ones – with oceans. This division is based on the social fabric, which influences the level of the geographical environment’s exploration46.
He leant towards scientific materialism, supporting the idea of universal global development from non-organic (mechanisms) to organic (organisms) and further to intelligent nature (society). The social structure is based on solidarity, which can be compulsory, subordinate and free. These three forms of social structure correspond to three types of civilizations and three types of biogenous water bodies. Solidarity is necessary for survival in adverse conditions of the surrounding physical-geographical environment. It is expressed through teamwork and leads to progress. Progress results in the emergence of free people (anarchists), whose life is associated with the world ocean. For this reason, Mechnikov is regarded as the founder of Russian geopolitics and an ideologist of anarchism.
The Russian specifics led to a situation when, in the beginning of the 20th century, the interdisciplinary area between sociology and medicine and statistics became the most promising sociological subject (as related to further development of environmentalism). Theoretical constructions and conclusions were gradually replaced by scientific experiments. The important thing was to obtain, from natural sciences, an exhaustive reply to the questions: Who exactly are humans? How and why do they act (interact with other people and nature)?
Ivan Mihaylovich Sechenov (1829—1905) turned social science about humans into an exact science. Based on extensive experiments and data, he offered a rational explanation for all nervous and mental signs, including consciousness and its manifestation in the form of an act of will. Leaving the holistic approach to the organism as a whole, he divided acts into subconscious and conscious. He substantiated this view suggesting that all mental signs are also physiological (reflexive), and that acts and interactions of cells, organisms (individuals) and populations (society) with their inner and external environment could be studied using objective methods47.
He shared and developed the views of Russian cosmists. Together with his wife, he was the first to translate Darwin’s “The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex”48 into Russian, becoming a popularizer of the evolutionary theory, arguing in its favor in terms of physiology and psychology. He is the founding father of the synthetic evolution theory, currently comprising data from paleontology, molecular biology, genetics and systematics.
Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849—1936) was the first to formulate the physiological principles of higher nervous activity, based on investigation of dogs49, making clear the difference between involuntary and conditional reflexes and the role of the reinforcement mechanism in the conditioning of reflexes. It was now clear that, unlike reinforcement, incentives or punishments fail to form conditional reflexes (habits) among humans as they take effect over time rather than during an act itself.
Ücretsiz ön izlemeyi tamamladınız.
