Ecosociology Sources. Series: «Ecosociology»

Kovalevsky and De Roberti became Russia’s first professional sociologists. They saw their task as providing insights on all theories, approaches and methods used in sociology. Lectures in sociology relied on factual material, supported by physiological and psychological data as well as by statistics, born as an exact science and dating back much earlier than the history of Russian sociology.

The first censuses of population and inventories of extracted natural resources started in Novgorod and Kiev in the 10th century for the purposes of duty levying.

Ivan Kirillovich Kirillov (1689—1737) used the data from the 1710 census of peasant households and the first audit conducted in 1718, which provided the basis for his work “The flourishing state of the Russian land…", published in 1727. In 1734, he prepared the first statistical-economic survey in the form of a historical, ethnographic and economic atlas of Russia54.

In 1737, Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686—1750) compiles the first questionnaire with guidelines for land surveyors, featuring questions in geography, geology, soil science, archeology, natural resource use, agriculture, industrial and backyard production, residential communities and residents, their culture and language. He dispatched the questionnaires himself and used the answers received in his work “Introduction to the historical and geographical description of Russian Empire” sending copies of the answers to the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In 1747, he wrote a scientific work on organization of census registration titled “The reasoning for the audit of the polls…", where he proposed to introduce a uniform census document, reduce census timeframes and improve qualifications of census takers55.

In 1760, Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (1711—1765) presented his work “Academic questionnaire” containing 30 questions, some of which related to physical and economic geography and the rest – to culture, ways and methods of natural resource use. Unlike Tatishchev’s work, this questionnaire was dispatched to governors and regional academics by the government.

Academics then used the poll data for compiling a new “Russian Atlas”56 and Lomonosov – in his treatise “On preservation and reproduction of the Russian people”, where he suggested legislative and public measures aimed at increasing Russia’s population (increase in the birthrate, retention of those already born and measures to encourage foreigners to take Russian citizenship)57.

In parallel with that, Feodor Ivanovich Miller (1705—1783) compiled “Economic questions”, another questionnaire that was similar to Lomonosov’s in its goals. It comprised 65 questions on the population structure, agriculture, industry and trade. This questionnaire was dispatched to governors, officials and major landowners. As a result, he wrote a number of works comprising historical, geographical and ethnographical materials58.

Statistical efforts made by the government since 1764 included the general inventory of MaloRossia, general land surveying and topographic descriptions of provinces, which comprised descriptions containing cultural-historical, geographical, administrative and economic characteristics. These new methodologies for gathering, processing and analysis of diverse data using a single question structure were important for development of sciences in general and for ecosociology. The emergence of economic statistics in the 18th century and its further development provides retrospective research material for analyzing social dynamics and interaction with natural resources.

Aleksandr Nikolaevich Radishchev (1749—1802) was instrumental in further development of Russian statistics, using both the Academy of Sciences and his own data obtained in the course of, one can say, an ecosociological research in his estate59. This data was later used for substantiating expert proposals.

In his work “On legal provisions”, he writes that the government is complaining that the huge Russian territories are scantily populated. With 12—20 children born to a typical peasant family, less than a quarter reach adult age. The government does not know the causes of child mortality and the cause probably lies in the arduous economic conditions of peasant’s life. Many landlords reside outside their land holdings and, totally unaware of the working conditions of their peasants, levy a rent of 1—2 rubles, and some – even 5 rubles. However, this rent should be levied based, as a minimum, on soil fertility. He proposed to exempt the peasants living in areas characterized by infertile soil, harsh climatic conditions and the absence of abundant hunting acreage from the state duty and rent to the landlord.

Further, he suggests establishing a nationwide system of taxes on production and trade based on such poll data from provincial censuses as the number and quality of population (composition and standard of living), land (fertility and capability), local industries (plants and factories) and crafts (product types and output, number of workers, including seasonal ones). The next category of questions relates to various types of duties, landowners, recruitment, road maintenance, prisoners, issue of money and police maintenance costs60.

In the end of the 18th century, Lyudvig Wolfgang Krafft (1743—1814) formulated the need and suggested a statistical methodology for population accounting using mortality and birth rates, deriving a formula for calculating the population doubling time61. In doing this, he strengthened the statistical approach to sociology as a method used in exact sciences, giving momentum to development of quantitative methods in international sociology.

Russia’s first statistical branch, affiliated to the Police Ministry, was then established on 20 March 1811.

Karl Feodorovich German (1767—1838), the first director of this statistical office, specialized in the subject as a researcher and lectured in the state educational institutions62. Other ministries also conducted statistical surveys and published their results. However, they were more interested in departmental data, frequently – about their numerous officials, official buildings and bureaucratic routine conducted in towns and provinces.

After a series of state-initiated reforms and internal reorganization of statistical institutions, the Russian Empire’s first general census of the population was taken in 1897. The results were published in 1899 in 89 volumes featuring data by province. Subsequent editions, containing analytical statistical materials in figures and diagrams, were then published regularly until the year 190563.

The county councils (or “zemstvo” – Russian sound), established by the 1864 reform, conducted their own local social and statistical surveys studying the social structure of the population, social categories, economic activity of peasants and factory workers, their living conditions, education and sanitary culture. In the beginning of the 20th century, a systematic research of this kind covered 17 provinces of the Russian Empire.

This statistical activity has provided and continues to provide ample material for retrospective sociological analysis and theorizing. The professionalism of researchers and census takers, statistical techniques and methods for data processing have been improving all the time, including the Soviet period. And, as some statistical points dealt with interaction between humans and the natural environment, this material and research approach remain relevant for ecosociologists until today.

In the Soviet period, beginning with the 1920s, Russian science was dominated by the Marxist-Leninist ideology; therefore, all ecological ideas, theories and concepts proposed by foreign colleagues were criticized for a “bourgeois” approach. The state funded and strictly controlled scientific research, especially works of authorship. The same control was exercised over ideas inspiring public initiatives, with the only objective being construction of a socialist and, afterwards, a communist society. Everyone was supposed to comply with the resolutions issued by the communist party congresses that were aimed at industrialization, economic growth and extensive use of natural resources.

At the same time, love for nature and proper ecological behavior (ecologism) were taught at schools and propagandized by books for children and young people. For example, school curriculums included such subjects as nature study and studies of local history, books about nature written by Russian and Soviet writers. These provided basic knowledge about environmental links and systems, proper attitude and interaction with natural sites, methods of their conservation, beneficial use and restoration.

This field of Russian teacher’s activity, lasting for two centuries of the pre-Soviet period, seven decades of the Soviet era and until today, is largely overlooked and little known by Russian ecosociologists. In the post-Soviet period, it has taken the form of continuous ecological education and mass ecological movement supported by a huge number of peaceful, positive-minded high school- and college-based ecological groups uniting many lecturers (both in natural and social sciences), students and their parents64.

I can name another three fields of activity in the Soviet period, also aimed at ecologization, which are little known by ecosociologists. Ecosociological researchers view the Russian ecological movement as one of the main study subjects of ecosociology. However, they only attend to public organizations and some prominent environmental activists, somehow leaving aside the lines of activity listed below. I hope the situation will change in the future.

The second line of activity relates to the movement of inventors and innovators. Many suggestions made by inventors and innovators were aimed at saving and restoration of natural resources, ensuring their more efficient use and recycling, and elimination of waste toxicity. Some suggestions intended to improve the conditions of communal living, health protection, disease treatment and safety. This activity also needs to be studied in the industries associated with natural resource use – agriculture, forestry and fisheries, tourism and so on.

The third line of activity is probably the oldest, and much of it falls within the pre-Soviet period. It relates to national cultural traditions of environmental friendliness and nature conservation. These traditions are absorbed with “mother’s milk” via nurturing and education in the skills of a traditional natural resource use within the family and the local community. Methods for transmission include linguistic terms, folklore, and lifestyle. Our Russian predecessors, apart from giving birth to us, did preserve the natural wealth in its entirety for us to use.

The third line is tourism, sport, medicine, maternity and everything else associated with health and human reproductivity because, in the Soviet period, unpolluted environment was perceived as a healthy environment. Individuals and society in general have always shown great concern for nature conservation and for being able to use its healing power.

The firth is arts – poetry, painting, sculpture and music. The pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet poets, painters, sculptors and composers have made an invaluable contribution to propagation of love for nature. Their perception of nature’s beauty, power and importance indicates a special sense of beauty that complements the five senses.

However, this love for nature was somewhat ambiguous because, ideologically, the state cultivated the notion of humans as conquerors of nature on the planetary and, in the long term, on the galactic scale. As an example, scientists, engineers and politicians earnestly discussed projects, which were to divert great Siberian Rivers to the south. As a result, the Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, initiated by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and giving momentum for specialized training of Russian experts and lecturers, took place only in 1977 in Tbilisi. The First All-Union Conference on environmental education, held in Minsk in 1979, prepared recommendations for the ministries of education, culture, justice, nature protection societies and “nature protection squads”, thus shifting the focus of attention from love for nature to its protection.

The significance and relevance of the public environmental initiatives of the 1980s and 1990s was so high that some authors deny the existence of the ecological movement until the emergence of college-based “nature protection squads” in the early 1970s. The All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation, which began its activities in 1924, and local eco-groups are discarded as they never opposed the idea of extensive economic development. However, if we recall the structure and history of Western environmentalism described above, we will see that the nature conservation initiative is only a part of the ecological movement.

The Third All-Union Conference on Environmental Education, held in Kazan’ in 1990, formulated the task of establishing a system of continuous ecological education. The conference prepared the document titled “Environmental program for the 13th five year period and until the year 2005”, elaborated pursuant to the USSR Supreme Soviet resolution “On urgent measures relating to the country’s ecological recovery” (№829—1 of 27.11.1989). It provided for introduction of universal ecological training, organization of systematic environmental education for various population categories, establishing environmental information-support centers at universities and research institutes. That marked the end of the Soviet period of the ecological movement.

A strong momentum for further development of Russian ecosociology in the 1980s was given by the Chernobyl’ accident and the increasingly frequent local ecological disasters, which intensified ecological concern and then grew into protests staged by the environmental movement with the support of the public. The greatest concern was voiced by experts who were able to draw the authority’s attention to the discovered ecological problems and risks via ecological councils, simultaneously raising public awareness through publications in the media.

The population and all other participants of the process, satisfying themselves, though direct perception of ecological problems, that the experts were right, were then trying to influence decision-makers to change the situation for the better. In this, they were hampered by the state system and social institutes. In response, they initiated a program of collective action comprising protest rallies, demonstrations, actions of resistance, protest letters, denunciatory publications and public speeches, establishing of new parties and eco-political movements. In parallel with that, another part of the environmental movement was peacefully clearing streets from garbage in spring, planting trees and flowers and teaching children to love nature. A study of the ideas, values, discourse and practices promulgated by these movements provides a good opportunity for extending the understanding of the ecosocial reality.

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

Примечания

1

Spencer H. Social statics. 1851.; The study of sociology. 1872.; Descriptive sociology. 1873—1881.

2

Schaffle A.E.F. Bau und leben des sozialen körpers. 1875—1878. (in German)

3

Worms R. De natura et methodo sociologiae. Lutetiae Parisiorum: V. Giard et E. Brière. 1896. 102 p.; Organisme et société. Paris: V. Giard et E. Brière. 1896. 412 p. (all in Latin)

4

Malthus T.R. Essay on the principle of population. 1798.

5

Darwin Ch. R. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 1859.

6

Spencer H. Progress: Its law and cause. Chapman’s Westminster Review. 1857.

7

Buckle H.T. History of civilization in England. 1857—1861.

8

In the early 2000s, Sierra Club and its local branches unite more than half a million members and enjoy the support of an even greater number of volunteers, the media, experts and lawyers, as well as of municipalities, the government and its bodies in charge of environment protection.

9

Kulyasov I.P. Environmental movement. Series “Ecosociology”. Russia: Publishing Solution. 2016. 286 p. (in Russian)

10

Clements F.E. Nature and structure of the climax // Journal of Ecology. 1936. Vol. 24. №1. p. 252—284.

11

Leopold A. A sand county almanach and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press. 1949. Vol. 13. 240 p.

12

Mead G.H. Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. 1934.; The philosophy of the act. Ed. C. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1938.

13

Dewey J. Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. 1916.; Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Holt. 1922.; Experience and nature. Chicago. 1925.; Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 1938.

14

McKenzie R.D., Park R.E., Burgess E.W. The city. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1967.

15

Park R.E. Human nature and collective behavior // American Journal Sociology. 1927. Vol. 32. №5. p. 695—703.; Human ecology // American Journal Sociology. 1936. Vol. 42. №1. p. 1—15.

16

Park R.E. Society: Collective behavior, news and opinion, sociology and modern society. Glencoe: Free. 1955.

17

Wirth L. Social interaction: The problem of the individual and the group. 1939. Vol. 44. p. 965—979.; Human ecology. 1945. Vol. 50. №6. p. 483—488.; Community life and the social policy. Chicago. 1956.

18

McKenzie R.D. Social ecology // Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, Collier. 1937. Vol. 5. p. 314—315.

19

Alihan M.A. Social ecology: A critical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. 1935.

20

Huwley A. Human ecology: A theory of community structure. New York: Ronald Press Company. 1950.

21

Duncan O.D. From social system to ecosystem // Sociological Inquiry. 1961. Vol. 31. p. 140—149.; Social organization and the ecosystem // Modern Sociology. Ed. R. Faris. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1964. p. 36—82.; Duncan O.D., Schnore L.F. Cultural, behavioral and ecological perspectives in the study of social organisation // American Journal Sociology. 1969. Vol. 65. №2. p. 132—136.

22

Mukerjee R.K. The regional balance of man // American Journal Sociology. 1930. №36. p. 455—460.; The ecological outlook in sociology // American Journal Sociology.1932. №38. p. 349—355.

23

Sorokin P.A. Man and society in calamity. New York: Dutton. 1942.

24

Landis P.H. Man in environment: An introduction to sociology. New York: T.Y. Crowell Company. 1949.

25

Cottrell F. Energy and society: The relation between energy, social change, and economic development. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1955.

26

Catton W.R., Dunlop R.E. Environmental sociology and new paradigms // The American Sociologist. 1978. №13. p. 41—49.

27

Dunlap R.E., Catton W.R. Environmental sociology // Annual Review of Sociology. Eds. A. Inkeles, J. Coleman, R. Turner. California: Annual Reviews Inc. 1979. Vol. 5. p. 243—273.; Environmental sociology: a framework for analysis // In progress in resource management and environmental planning. Eds. T. O’Riordan, R. Chichester. England: Wiley. 1979. Vol. 1. p. 57—85.

28

Daly H.E. Steady-state economics. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1977.

29

Ophuls W. Ecology and the politics of scarcity. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. 1977.

30

Hardestry D.L. Ecological anthropology. New York: Wiley. 1977.

31

Schnaiberg A. Environmental sociology and the division of labor. Evanston, Illinois: Department of Sociology, Northwestern University. 1972.

32

Zeisel J. Sociology and architectural design. New York: Russel Sage Foundation. 1975.

33

Wilson F.D. Urban ecology: Urbanization and systems of cities // Annual Reviews Sociology. 1984. №10. p. 283—307.

34

Bookchin M. Ecology and revolutionary thought // Anarchy69. 1966. Vol. 6. p. 18—29.; Post scarcity anarchism. London: Wildwood House. 1971.; The ecology of freedom. The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Palo Alto CA, Cheshire Books. 1982.; Remaking society. Pathways to a green future. Boston: South end Press. 1990.

35

Pepper D. The roots of modern environmentalism. Croom Helm Australia. 1984.; Eco-socialism. From deep ecology to social justice. London: Rosefledge. 1993.

36

Naess A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary // Inquiry. 1973. №16 (1). p. 95—100.

37

Gore A. Earth in the balance. Forging a new common purpose. London: Earthcan Publications. 1992.

38

Huber J. Die veriorene unschuld der okologie: Neue technologien und susperindustrielle entwicklung. Frangfurt-Main: Fisher Verlag. 1982.; Die regenbogengesellschaft: Okologie und sozialpolotic. Frankfurt am Main: Fisher Verlag. 1985. (all in German)

39

Nozhin N.D. Our science and scientists: books and publications // Bulletin of Books. St. Petersburg.1866. №1—3, 7. (in Russian)

40

Stronin A.I. History and method. St. Petersburg. 1869.; Politics as a science. St. Petersburg. 1872.; History of the public. St. Petersburg. 1885. (all in Russian)

41

Lilienfeld-Toal’ P.F. Thoughts about the social science of the future. St. Petersburg. 1872. (in Russian); La pathologiе sociale. Paris. 1896. (in French)

42

Kuzmina G.P. Pavel Feodorovich Lilienfeld-Toal’ about the similarities and differences between society and organism // Actual Problems of Social Cognition. Moscow. 1982. p. 76—83.; The organic trend in Russian social philosophy. Cheboksary: Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University. 1998. 210 p.; The organic theory of society of the “disease” of the social organism // Philosophy and Society. Moscow. 2007. №1. p. 98—117.; The organic theory of society: study guide. Moscow: Terevinf. 2009. 186 p. (all in Russian)

43

Danilevsky N.Y. About migration of population in Russia. St. Petersburg. 1851. (in Russian)

44

Danilevsky N.Y. The climate of Vologda province. St. Petersburg. 1853. (in Russian)

45

Danilevsky N.Y. Darwinism. St. Petersburg. 1885. (in Russian)

46

Mechnikov L.I. La civilisation et les grands fleuves historiques, 1889. (in French)

47

Sechenov I.M. Physiology of the sensory organs. St. Petersburg. 1867.; Psychological studies. St. Petersburg. 1873.; Impressions and reality. St. Petersburg. 1890.; Physiology of the nerve centers. St. Petersburg. 1891.; About the subject thinking from a physiological point of view. St. Petersburg. 1894. (all in Russian)