Formation of social ecology as an independent science. The formation of social ecology and its subject
In order to better present the subject of social ecology, one should consider the process of its emergence and formation as an independent branch of scientific knowledge. In fact, the emergence and subsequent development of social ecology were a natural consequence of the ever-increasing interest of representatives of various humanitarian disciplines - sociology, economics, political science, psychology, etc. - to the problems of interaction between man and environment.
The term "social ecology" owes its appearance to American researchers, representatives of the Chicago School of Social Psychologists - R. Park and E. Burges, who first used it in his work on the theory of population behavior in an urban environment in 1921. The authors used it as a synonym for the concept of "human ecology". The concept of “social ecology” was intended to emphasize that in this context we are talking not about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics.
One of the first definitions of social ecology was given in his work in 1927 by Dr. R. McKenzil, characterizing it as a science of territorial and temporal relations of people, which are influenced by selective (selective), distributive (distributive) and accommodative (adaptive) forces of the environment. Such a definition of the subject of social ecology was intended to become the basis for the study of the territorial division of the population within urban agglomerations.
It should be noted, however, that the term "social ecology" seems to be best suited to designate a specific area of research. human relationships as a social being with an environment of its existence, has not taken root in Western science, within which preference from the very beginning began to be given to the concept of "human ecology" (human ecology). This created certain difficulties for the formation of social ecology as an independent, humanitarian in its main focus, discipline. The fact is that in parallel with the development of the socio-ecological problems proper, within the framework of human ecology, bioecological aspects of human life were developed in it. Having passed by this time a long period of formation and, due to this, having more weight in science, having a more developed categorical and methodological apparatus, human biological ecology for a long time “shielded” humanitarian social ecology from the eyes of the progressive scientific community. Nevertheless, social ecology existed for some time and developed relatively independently as the ecology (sociology) of the city.
Despite the obvious desire of representatives of the humanitarian branches of knowledge to free social ecology from the "yoke" of bioecology, it continued to experience a significant influence from the latter for many decades. As a result, social ecology borrowed most of the concepts, its categorical apparatus from the ecology of plants and animals, as well as from general ecology. At the same time, as D. Zh. Markovich notes, social ecology gradually improved its methodological apparatus with the development of the spatio-temporal approach of social geography, the economic theory of distribution, etc.
Significant progress in the development of social ecology and the process of its separation from bioecology occurred in the 60s of the current century. The 1966 World Congress of Sociologists played a special role in this. The rapid development of social ecology in subsequent years led to the fact that at the next congress of sociologists, held in Varna in 1970, it was decided to create a Research Committee of the World Association of Sociologists on Problems of Social Ecology. Thus, as noted by D. Zh. exact definition her subject.
During the period under review, the list of tasks that this branch of scientific knowledge, which was gradually gaining independence, was called upon to solve, significantly expanded. If at the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers mainly boiled down to searching in the behavior of a territorially localized human population for analogues of laws and ecological relations characteristic of biological communities, then from the second half of the 60s, the range of issues under consideration was supplemented by the problems of determining the place and role of man in the biosphere. , working out ways to determine the optimal conditions for its life and development, harmonization of relationships with other components of the biosphere. The process of its humanitarization that has engulfed social ecology in the last two decades has led to the fact that, in addition to the above tasks, the range of issues it develops includes the problems of identifying the general laws of the functioning and development of social systems, studying the influence of natural factors on the processes of socio-economic development and finding ways to control the action. these factors.
In our country, by the end of the 1970s, conditions had also developed for separating social and environmental issues into an independent area of interdisciplinary research. A significant contribution to the development of domestic social ecology was made by E.V. Girusov, A. N. Kochergin, Yu. G. Markov, N. F. Reimers, S. N. Solomina and others.
One of the most important problems facing researchers in present stage formation of social ecology is the development of a unified approach to understanding its subject. Despite the obvious progress made in the study of various aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature, as well as a significant number of publications on social and environmental issues that have appeared in the last two or three decades in our country and abroad, on the issue of what exactly this branch of scientific knowledge studies, there are still different opinions. In the school reference book "Ecology" by A.P. Oshmarin and V.I. Oshmarina, two options for defining social ecology are given: in the narrow sense, it is understood as the science of "the interaction of human society with the natural environment", and in the broad sense - the science of "the interaction individual and human society with natural, social and cultural environments”. It is quite obvious that in each of the presented cases of interpretation we are talking about different sciences that claim the right to be called “social ecology”. Equally significant is the comparison between the definitions of social ecology and human ecology. According to the same source, the latter is defined as: “I) the science of the interaction of human society with nature; 2) ecology of the human personality; 3) the ecology of human populations, including the doctrine of ethnic groups. The almost complete identity of the definition of social ecology, understood "in the narrow sense", and the first version of the interpretation of human ecology is clearly visible. The desire for the actual identification of these two branches of scientific knowledge, indeed, is still characteristic of foreign science, but it is quite often subjected to well-reasoned criticism by domestic scientists. S.N. Solomina, in particular, pointing out the expediency of breeding social ecology and human ecology, limits the subject of the latter to consideration of the socio-hygienic and medical-genetic aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature. V.A. Bukhvalov, L.V. Bogdanova and some other researchers agree with such an interpretation of the subject of human ecology, but N.A. Agadzhanyan, V.P. Kaznacheev and N.F. the discipline covers a much wider range of issues of the interaction of the anthroposystem (considered at all levels of its organization - from the individual to humanity as a whole) with the biosphere, as well as with the internal biosocial organization of human society. It is easy to see that such an interpretation of the subject of human ecology actually equates it with social ecology, understood in a broad sense. This situation is largely due to the fact that the current steady trend the convergence of these two disciplines, when there is an interpenetration of the subjects of the two sciences and their mutual enrichment through the joint use of the empirical material accumulated in each of them, as well as the methods and technologies of socio-ecological and anthropoecological research.
Everything today more researchers tend to broaden the interpretation of the subject of social ecology. So, according to D.Zh.Markovich, the subject of study of modern social ecology, understood by him as a private sociology, are specific links between man and his environment. Based on this, the main tasks of social ecology can be defined as follows: the study of the influence of the environment as a combination of natural and social factors on a person, as well as the influence of a person on the environment, perceived as the framework of human life.
A somewhat different, but not contradictory to the previous, interpretation of the subject of social ecology is given by T.A. Akimova and V.V. Khaskin. From their point of view, social ecology as part of human ecology is a complex of scientific branches that study the relationship of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the relationship of man with the natural and social environment their habitats. This approach seems to us more correct, because it does not limit the subject of social ecology to the framework of sociology or any other separate humanitarian discipline, but emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.
Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to emphasize the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of mankind with its environment. According to E.V. Girusova, social ecology must first of all study the laws of society and nature, by which he understands the laws of self-regulation of the biosphere, implemented by man in his life.
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
abstract
in the discipline "Social ecology and economics of environmental management"
on the topic:
“Social ecology. History of formation and current state»
- Performed:
- 3rd year student
- Maria Konovalova
- Checked:
- Girusov E.V.
Plan:
1. The subject of social ecology, environmental problems, ecological view of the world
2. The place of social ecology in the system of sciences
3. The history of the formation of the subject of social ecology
4. The value of social ecology, and its role in the modern world
|
| social ecology
- the science of harmonizing the interactions between society and nature. Subject
Social ecology is the noosphere, that is, the system of socio-natural relations, which is formed and functions as a result of conscious human activity. In other words, the subject of social ecology is the processes of formation and functioning of the noosphere.
The problems associated with the interaction of society and its environment are called ecological problems. Initially, ecology was a branch of biology (the term was introduced by Ernst Haeckel in 1866). Environmental biologists study the relationship of animals, plants, and entire communities with their environment. Ecological view of the world- such a ranking of the values and priorities of human activity, when the most important is the preservation of a human-friendly environment. For social ecology, the term "ecology" means a special point of view, a special worldview, a special system of values and priorities. human activity focused on harmonizing the relationship between society and nature. In other sciences, "ecology" means something else: in biology, a section biological research about the relationship between organisms and the environment, in philosophy - the most general patterns of interaction between man, society and the universe, in geography - the structure and functioning of natural complexes and natural economic systems. Social ecology is also called human ecology or modern ecology. AT last years began to actively develop a scientific direction, called "globalistics", which develops models of a controlled, scientifically and spiritually organized world in order to preserve earthly civilization. The prehistory of social ecology begins with the appearance of man on Earth. The English theologian Thomas Malthus is considered the herald of the new science. He was one of the first to point out that there are natural limits to economic growth, and demanded that population growth be limited: “The law in question consists in the constant desire, inherent in all living beings, to multiply faster than is allowed by the number at their disposal. food” (Malthus, 1868, p. 96); "... to improve the situation of the poor, it is necessary to reduce the relative number of births" (Malthus, 1868, p. 378). This idea is not new. In Plato's "ideal republic", the number of families should be regulated by the government. Aristotle went further and proposed to determine the number of children for each family. Another forerunner of social ecology is geographical school in sociology: adherents of this scientific school pointed out that the mental characteristics of people, their way of life are directly dependent on the natural conditions of the area. Let's remember that S. Montesquieu claimed that "the power of the climate is the first power in the world." Our compatriot L.I. Mechnikov pointed out that world civilizations developed in the basins great rivers, on the shores of the seas and oceans. K. Marx believed that a temperate climate is most suitable for the development of capitalism. K. Marx and F. Engels developed the concept of the unity of man and nature, the main idea of which was: to know the laws of nature and apply them correctly. |
|
| social ecology – complex scientific discipline |
| Social ecology arose at the intersection of sociology, ecology, philosophy and other branches of science, with each of which it closely interacts. In order to determine the position of social ecology in the system of sciences, it must be borne in mind that the word "ecology" means in some cases one of the ecological scientific disciplines, in others - all scientific ecological disciplines. Ecological sciences should be approached in a differentiated way (Fig. 1).
Social ecology is a link between the technical sciences (hydraulic engineering, etc.) and the social sciences (history, jurisprudence, etc.). The following argumentation is given in favor of the proposed system. There is an urgent need to replace the concept of the hierarchy of sciences with the idea of a circle of sciences. The classification of sciences is usually built on the principle of hierarchy (subordination of some sciences to others) and successive fragmentation (separation, not combination of sciences). Classification is best built according to the type of circle (Fig. 1). Rice. 1. Place of ecological disciplines in the integral system of sciences This diagram does not claim to be complete. Transitional sciences (geochemistry, geophysics, biophysics, biochemistry, etc.) are not marked on it, the role of which is extremely important for solving the environmental problem. These sciences contribute to the differentiation of knowledge, cement the entire system, embodying the inconsistency of the processes of "differentiation - integration" of knowledge. The scheme shows the importance of the "connecting" sciences, including social ecology. In contrast to the sciences of the centrifugal type (physics, etc.), they can be called centripetal. These sciences have not yet reached the proper level of development, because in the past insufficient attention was paid to the connections between the sciences, and it is very difficult to study them.
|
3. The history of the formation of the subject of social ecology
In order to better present the subject of social ecology, one should consider the process of its emergence and formation as an independent branch of scientific knowledge. In fact, the emergence and subsequent development of social ecology was a natural consequence of the ever-increasing interest of representatives of various humanitarian disciplines.?
sociology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.,?
to the problems of interaction between man and the environment.
The term "social ecology" owes its appearance to American researchers, representatives of the Chicago School of Social Psychologists.?
R. Park and E. Burges, who first used it in his work on the theory of population behavior in an urban environment in 1921. The authors used it as a synonym for the concept of "human ecology". The concept of “social ecology” was intended to emphasize that in this context we are talking not about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics.
One of the first definitions of social ecology was given in his work in 1927 by Dr. R. McKenzil, characterizing it as a science of territorial and temporal relations of people, which are influenced by selective (selective), distributive (distributive) and accommodative (adaptive) forces of the environment. Such a definition of the subject of social ecology was intended to become the basis for the study of the territorial division of the population within urban agglomerations.
It should be noted, however, that the term "social ecology", apparently best suited to designate a specific direction of research into the relationship of a person as a social being with the environment of his existence, has not taken root in Western science, in which preference from the very beginning began to be given to the concept of "human ecology" (human ecology). This created certain difficulties for the formation of social ecology as an independent, humanitarian in its main focus, discipline. The fact is that in parallel with the development of the socio-ecological problems proper, within the framework of human ecology, bioecological aspects of human life were developed in it. Having passed by this time a long period of formation and, due to this, having more weight in science, having a more developed categorical and methodological apparatus, human biological ecology for a long time “shielded” humanitarian social ecology from the eyes of the progressive scientific community. Nevertheless, social ecology existed for some time and developed relatively independently as the ecology (sociology) of the city.
Despite the obvious desire of representatives of the humanitarian branches of knowledge to free social ecology from the "yoke" of bioecology, it continued to experience a significant influence from the latter for many decades. As a result, social ecology borrowed most of the concepts, its categorical apparatus from the ecology of plants and animals, as well as from general ecology. At the same time, as D.Zh. Markovich, social ecology gradually improved its methodological apparatus with the development of the space-time approach of social geography, the economic theory of distribution, etc.
Significant progress in the development of social ecology and the process of its separation from bioecology occurred in the 60s of the current century. The 1966 World Congress of Sociologists played a special role in this. The rapid development of social ecology in subsequent years led to the fact that at the next congress of sociologists, held in Varna in 1970, it was decided to create a Research Committee of the World Association of Sociologists on Problems of Social Ecology. Thus, as D.Zh. Markovich, in fact, the existence of social ecology as an independent scientific branch was recognized and an impetus was given to its faster development and a more accurate definition of its subject.
During the period under review, the list of tasks that this branch of scientific knowledge, which was gradually gaining independence, was called upon to solve, significantly expanded. If at the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers mainly boiled down to searching in the behavior of a territorially localized human population for analogues of laws and ecological relations characteristic of biological communities, then from the second half of the 60s, the range of issues under consideration was supplemented by the problems of determining the place and role of man in the biosphere. , working out ways to determine the optimal conditions for its life and development, harmonization of relationships with other components of the biosphere. The process of its humanitarization that has engulfed social ecology in the last two decades has led to the fact that, in addition to the above tasks, the range of issues it develops includes the problems of identifying the general laws of the functioning and development of social systems, studying the influence of natural factors on the processes of socio-economic development and finding ways to control action. these factors.
In our country, by the end of the 1970s, conditions had also developed for separating socio-environmental problems into an independent area of interdisciplinary research. A significant contribution to the development of domestic social ecology was made by E.V. Girusov, A.N. Kochergin, Yu.G. Markov, N.F. Reimers, S. N. Solomina and etc.
One of the most important problems facing researchers at the present stage of the formation of social ecology is the development of a unified approach to understanding its subject. Despite the obvious progress made in the study of various aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature, as well as a significant number of publications on social and environmental issues that have appeared in the last two or three decades in our country and abroad, on the issue of what exactly this branch of scientific knowledge studies, there are still different opinions. In the school reference book "Ecology" A.P. Oshmarin and V.I. Oshmarina gives two options for defining social ecology: in a narrow sense, it is understood as the science of “the interaction of human society with the natural environment”,
and in wide? the science of "the interaction of the individual and human society with natural, social and cultural environments." It is quite obvious that in each of the presented cases of interpretation we are talking about different sciences that claim the right to be called “social ecology”. No less revealing is the comparison between the definitions of social ecology and human ecology. According to the same source, the latter is defined as: “1) the science of the interaction of human society with nature; 2) ecology of the human personality; 3) the ecology of human populations, including the doctrine of ethnic groups. The almost complete identity of the definition of social ecology, understood "in the narrow sense", and the first version of the interpretation of human ecology is clearly visible. The desire for the actual identification of these two branches of scientific knowledge, indeed, is still characteristic of foreign science, but it is quite often subjected to well-reasoned criticism by domestic scientists. S. N. Solomina, in particular, pointing out the expediency of breeding social ecology and human ecology, limits the subject of the latter to consideration of the socio-hygienic and medical-genetic aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature. With a similar interpretation of the subject of human ecology, V.A. Bukhvalov, L.V. Bogdanova and some other researchers, but strongly disagree with N.A. Agadzhanyan, V.P. Kaznacheev and N.F. Reimers, according to whom this discipline covers a much wider range of issues of the interaction of the anthroposystem (considered at all levels of its organization?
from the individual to humanity as a whole) with the biosphere, as well as with the internal biosocial organization of human society. It is easy to see that such an interpretation of the subject of human ecology actually equates it with social ecology, understood in a broad sense. This situation is largely due to the fact that at present there has been a steady trend of convergence of these two disciplines, when there is an interpenetration of the subjects of the two sciences and their mutual enrichment through the joint use of the empirical material accumulated in each of them, as well as methods and technologies of socio-ecological and anthropoecological research.
Today, an increasing number of researchers tend to broaden the interpretation of the subject of social ecology. So, according to D.Zh. Markovich, the subject of study of modern social ecology, understood by him as a private sociology, are specific links between man and his environment. Based on this, the main tasks of social ecology can be defined as follows: the study of the influence of the environment as a combination of natural and social factors on a person, as well as the influence of a person on the environment, perceived as the framework of human life.
A somewhat different, but not contradictory, interpretation of the subject of social ecology is given by T.A. Akimov and V.V. Haskin. From their point of view, social ecology as part of human ecology is a complex of scientific branches that study the relationship of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the relationship of a person with the natural and social environment of their habitat. This approach seems to us more correct, because it does not limit the subject of social ecology to the framework of sociology or any other separate humanitarian discipline, but emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.
Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to emphasize the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of mankind with its environment. According to E. V. Girusov, social ecology should first of all study the laws of society and nature, by which he understands the laws of self-regulation of the biosphere, implemented by man in his life.
- The value of social ecology and its role in the modern world
In recent years, two points of view on overcoming the ecological crisis have been actively discussed. The first is the idea of biological stabilization of the environment (a significant contribution to its development was made by Russian scientists V.G. Gorshkov, K.Ya. Kondratiev, K.S. Losev), the essence of which is that the biota of the planet, being the most important factor in the formation and stabilization natural environment provided that it is preserved in a volume sufficient to ensure stability, it is able to restore its stability to the biosphere. It is assumed that the main mechanism of stabilization is the closure of biospheric cycles by preserved ecosystems, since the main principle of ecosystem stability is the circulation of substances supported by the flow of energy. The basis for the existence of this idea is the assertion that ecosystems that are not subject to direct anthropogenic pressure are still preserved on Earth. Thus, in a number of states, territories that have not been disturbed by economic activity have been preserved: in Russia these are plots with a total area of 700-800 million hectares (41-47%), in Canada - 640.6 (65%), in Australia - 251.6 (33 %), in Brazil - 237.3 (28%), in China - 182.2 (20%), in Algeria - 152.6 (64%). In other words, the biota has reserves to save life. The task of man is to prevent the destruction of these centers of stability under any circumstances, to preserve and restore natural communities of organisms on such a scale as to return to the limits of the economic capacity of the biosphere as a whole, and also to make the transition to the use of exclusively renewable resources.
The second point of view is the idea of "fitting" humanity into natural cycles. The basis for it is the opposite statement that the planet's biota has no reserves, all ecosystems have degraded to one degree or another (biodiversity has decreased, the species composition of ecosystems has changed, their physicochemical parameters, water and soil regime, climatic conditions, etc.). etc.) if not directly, then indirectly. Modern science and technology draw new types of objects into the orbit of human activity - complex self-developing systems, which include man-machine (production) systems, local natural ecosystems and socio-cultural environment that accepts new technology. Since it is impossible to unambiguously calculate how and which path the system will develop, then in the activities of a person who works with such a self-developing system, and in which he himself is included, prohibitions on certain types of interaction begin to play a special role, potentially containing catastrophic consequences. And these restrictions are imposed not only by objective knowledge about the possible ways of the development of the biosphere, but also by the system of values formed in society.
What drives a person when he makes this or that decision, performs this or that act? New information (knowledge), response to it (emotions) or what is hidden in the depths of the human "I" (his needs)? From the standpoint of the need-information theory, the human personality is determined by the needs that turn into goals and deeds. The transition process is accompanied by an emotion that arises in response to information coming to a person from the outside, from the inside, from the past or throughout life. Consequently, actions are dictated not by information, not by emotions, but by needs that are not always even conscious of a person. In order to understand this world, to understand its problems, to try to solve them, you first need to understand yourself. Melody Beatty very aptly said, "We cannot change others, but when we change ourselves, we end up changing the world."
The society of the future, focused on noospheric thinking and on a different way of life, in which the perception and understanding of the world are based on developed ethics, and spiritual needs dominate over material ones, is possible only if each member of it accepts the idea of self-improvement as a way to achieve the goal, and if spiritual needs will be inherent in most people and demanded by social norms. To do this, two rules must be observed. First: the material, social, ideal needs of each member of society must be linked to the needs of the development of a given social production. Second: the system of production relations of society should provide the possibility of not only reliable long-term forecasting of the satisfaction of the needs of each member this society, but also his personal influence on this forecast.
If some decisions on which the success or failure of a business depends are made apart from the individual, if she is not able to clearly imagine how these decisions will affect the satisfaction of her needs, then the forecasting mechanism does not work, emotions do not turn on, things do not move, knowledge does not become belief.
Based on what determines a personality - a unique, unique for each person composition of needs (vital, social, ideal - the main group, ethnic and ideological - intermediate, will and competence - auxiliary group) - we can assume the following scheme for the development of socio-historical norms. A person, driven by the dominant need inherent in him, is looking for ways to satisfy it. Increasing his competence through knowledge and skills, he achieves the goal. His successful experience serves as an example for others. Others cultivate this experience in the social environment as a kind of new normal. A new personality appears, which, driven by its needs, exceeds this norm. A new successful way to meet the needs of this person enters into the experience of others. A new socio-historical norm is emerging. Within a given environment, this norm determines the value system of each individual.
The social need for development "for oneself" is manifested in the desire to improve one's own position, and the social need for development "for others" requires the improvement of the norms themselves or the improvement of the norms of any social group.
The ideal need for preservation is satisfied by the simple assimilation of a body of knowledge, and the ideal need for development forces one to strive for the unknown, previously unknown to anyone.
The needs of social development begin to work only when they become the needs of the majority of people who make up society.
In order to "put things in order in the minds" of people in the field of environmental problems, the laws of existence and the harmonious development of man in the biosphere, an effective system of education and enlightenment is necessary, first of all. It is education based on culture that forms the basis of human spirituality and morality. Educated person can understand the essence of what he did, assess the consequences, sort out options for getting out of an unfavorable situation and offer his point of view. A spiritual and moral person is a free person, able to renounce the satisfaction of pragmatic needs, able to show "civil courage, thanks to which values that have become dubious will be rejected and liberation from the dictates of consumption will come" (W. Hesle).
Today, a change in ethical paradigms is needed. A person can learn well and even realize that some things are bad, but this does not mean at all that he will act in accordance with his knowledge. Doing is much more difficult than understanding. Therefore, in motivational and psychological education, it is more important to focus on love for the world and people, the beauty of nature, truth and goodness, the inherent value of human and other life, and not only on the problems of environmental destruction. Then the formed moral and ethical norm of a person, having entered into agreement with his conscience, will cause in him the need for active action.
Thus, the strategic goal of education should be an ecological worldview, which is based on scientific knowledge, ecological culture and ethics. The goal becomes identical to values - world, life. Without a spiritual and moral foundation in a person, knowledge is either dead or can become a huge destructive force.
The tactical goal of education can be considered the formation of precisely spiritual needs - ideal needs for cognition and social needs "for others."
It follows from the foregoing that modern environmental education should be aimed at the future, based on the ideas of co-evolution of nature and society, sustainable development of the biosphere, should be aimed at overcoming stereotypes that have developed in society through the formation of a spiritual and moral, environmentally literate personality and creating conditions for its development. become a factor of social stability.
The idea of self-development of the individual is brought to the fore, for which moral and ethical principles and laws of spiritual development become decisive.
The main moral and ethical principles include the principle of harmony, the principle of love, the principle of the golden mean, the principle of optimism.
The principle of harmony is manifested at all levels of being: spirit, soul and body. The harmony of thought, word and deed (Good Thought, Good Word, Good Deed) determines the three universal principles that underlie our world, according to its theological understanding. In Chinese philosophy, they correspond to the beginnings: YANG (active, bestowing, masculine, centrifugal, generative), DENG (unifying beginning, middle, bundle, transmutation, qualitative transition) and YIN (passive, accepting, feminine, centripetal, shaping, preserving). These same three principles are reflected in the Christian concept of the Divine Trinity. In Hinduism, they correspond to Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as active and creativity, as well as the transforming and transforming beginning. In Zoroastrianism - three forms of the world: the world of the spirit Menog, the world of the soul Ritag, the world of physical bodies Getig. According to the commandments of Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), the task of a person is to strive to restore harmony in each of these worlds.
Any deed, any act is born under the influence of the original thought, which is a manifestation of the spirit, the active creative principle in a person. The word is associated with the embodiment of thought in concrete deeds. It is a conductor, a connection. Finally, business is something that is born under the influence of thought, something that accumulates and is preserved. That is, first there is a plan, an idea, a desire to do something. Then it is clearly stated what needs to be done. An action plan is being drawn up. And only then the idea can be realized in a specific case, action, product. At all three stages of this process, a person needs to measure his actions with the laws of our world, to serve good and creation, and not evil and destruction. Only when this is done can the result be considered good, moving us forward along the path of our evolution. Thoughts, words and deeds must be pure and in harmony with each other.
In environmental education, following this principle is absolutely mandatory. First of all, this concerns the teacher himself, since for many children, especially the younger school age, it is the teacher, not the parents, who becomes the role model. Imitation is a direct path to the subconscious, where the innate needs of the individual are laid. This means that if a child in his immediate environment sees highly moral examples, then, armed with knowledge, skills, through imitation, play, curiosity, and then education, he can correct his innate needs. It is important for a teacher to remember that you can educate others only through yourself. Therefore, the question of upbringing comes down to only one thing - how to live on your own? By introducing children to the world of nature, introducing them to the problems of the environment, the teacher can discover and strengthen in each child such qualities as truth, kindness, love, chastity, patience, mercy, responsiveness, initiative, courage, care.
In the words of Gregory Batson, "The biggest problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and how (people) think." The principle of harmony is the reconciliation of individual, public and environmental interests, which is the task of environmental education.
The principle of love is fundamental. This is the highest value of the world, which gives rise to life, nourishes it and serves as a "beacon" on the path of human self-improvement. The highest level of manifestation of love is unconditional, selfless love. Such love accepts everything that exists on Earth as it is, recognizing each of its self-worth and uniqueness, the unconditional right to exist "just like that." A derivative of love is compassion. The consequence of love and compassion is creation and development. In love, a person does not move away from the world, but takes a step towards it. And strength appears, creative energy flows, something new is born, development takes place.
If you try to build a hierarchy of priorities in a person's life associated with the manifestation of love, then a sequence arises: love for God (for believers) - spirituality - love for the world and people - morality - "the blessings of civilization".
The main commandment of a teacher is to love children. The main task of the teacher is to teach the child to love the Creator, life, nature, people, himself, actively learning the world into which he came.
The principle of optimism means bringing harmony into life through joy, the creative realization of oneself by a person, understanding the duality of the world, the essence of good and evil, and the fact that evil is finite. In environmental education, the principle of optimism is manifested through the priority of positive ideas, facts and actions in the field of solving environmental problems, as well as the awareness of each person of the need (as a measure of responsibility) and the real possibility of active participation in the conservation of the natural environment.
The principle of the golden mean is that which corresponds to the integrity of the system. Both excess and deficiency of any property or quality is bad. In ecology, this principle is fully consistent with the law of optimum (the Liebig-Shelford law). In all areas of life there is an optimal path, and deviating from this path, either one way or the other, violates the law. It is somewhat more difficult to realize the golden mean in this or that issue than to absolutize the value of this or that concept, but it is precisely this mean that corresponds to the correct, harmonious, holistic world. The task of a person is to realize this golden mean and follow it in all his affairs. Reliance on this principle is especially important in environmental education, where any extremes are harmful: in the choice of ideology, and in content, and in teaching strategies, and in evaluating activities. This principle allows the development of the child both spiritually, morally and intellectually, without infringing on his individuality.
Qualitative changes have been outlined in environmental education:
etc.................
The development of ecological ideas of people from ancient times to the present day. The emergence and development of ecology as a science.
The emergence of social ecology. Her subject. Relationship of social ecology to other sciences: biology, geography, sociology.
Topic 2. Socio-ecological interaction and its subjects (4 hours).
Man and society as subjects of socio-ecological interaction. Mankind as a multi-level hierarchical system. The most important characteristics of a person as a subject of socio-ecological interaction: needs, adaptability, adaptation mechanisms and adaptability.
The human environment and its elements as subjects of socio-ecological interaction. Classification of the components of the human environment.
Socio-ecological interaction and its main characteristics. The impact of environmental factors on humans. Human adaptation to the environment and its changes.
Topic 3. The relationship between society and nature in the history of civilization (4 hours).
The relationship between nature and society: a historical aspect. Stages of the formation of the relationship between nature and society: hunting-gathering culture, agrarian culture, industrial society, post-industrial society. Their characteristic.
Prospects for the development of relationships between nature and society: the ideal of the noosphere and the concept of sustainable development.
Topic 4. Global problems of mankind and ways to solve them (4 hours).
Population growth, population explosion. Resource crisis: land resources (soil, mineral resources), energy resources. The increase in the aggressiveness of the environment: pollution of water and atmospheric air, the growth of pathogenicity of microorganisms. Changing the gene pool: factors of mutagenesis, genetic drift, natural selection.
Topic 5. Human behavior in the natural and social environment (4 hours).
Human behavior. Levels of behavior regulation: biochemical, biophysical, informational, psychological. Activity and reactivity as fundamental components of behavior.
Needs as a source of personality activity. Groups and types of needs and their characteristics. Characteristics of human ecological needs.
Human adaptation in the natural and social environment. Types of adaptation. The peculiarity of human behavior in the natural and social environment.
Human behavior in the natural environment. Characteristics of scientific theories of the influence of the environment on a person.
Human behavior in the social environment. organizational behavior. Human behavior in critical and extreme situations.
Topic 6. Ecology of the living environment (4 hours).
Elements of the human living environment: social and living environment (urban and residential environments), labor (industrial) environment, recreational environment. Their characteristic. The relationship of a person with the elements of his living environment.
Topic 7. Elements of environmental ethics (4 hours).
The moral aspect of the relationship between man, society and nature. The subject of environmental ethics.
Nature as a value. Anthropocentrism and Naturocentrism. Subject-ethical type of attitude to nature. Non-violence as a form of attitude towards nature and as a moral principle. The problem of non-violent interaction between man, society and nature in various religious concepts (Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity).
Topic 8. Elements of environmental psychology (4 hours).
Formation and development of environmental psychology and its subject. Characteristics of psychological ecology and environmental ecology.
Subjective attitude to nature and its varieties. Basic parameters of subjective attitude to nature. Modality and intensity of subjective attitude to nature. Typology of subjective attitude to nature.
Subjective perception of the world nature. Forms and methods of giving subjectivity to natural objects (animism, anthropomorphism, personification, subjectification).
Ecological consciousness and its structure. Structure of anthropocentric and ecocentric ecological consciousness. The problem of formation of ecological consciousness in the younger generation.
Topic 9. Elements of environmental pedagogy (4 hours).
The concept of ecological culture of personality. Types of ecological culture. Pedagogical conditions of its formation.
environmental education personality. Development of environmental education in Russia. Modern content of environmental education. School as the main link in environmental education. The structure of environmental education of the future teacher.
Ecologization of education. Characteristics of the greening of education abroad.
EXAMPLE TOPICS OF SEMINAR LESSONS
Topic 1. The formation of the relationship between man and nature at the dawn of the history of civilization (2 hours).
Man's exploration of nature.
Features of the perception of nature by primitive people.
The formation of ecological consciousness.
Tylor B.D. Primitive culture. - M., 1989. - S. 355-388.
Levy-Bruhl L. Supernatural in primitive thinking. -M., 1994.-S. 177-283.
Theme 2. Modern ecological crisis and ways to overcome it (4 hours).
Ecological crisis: myth or reality?
Prerequisites for the emergence of an ecological crisis.
Ways to overcome the ecological crisis.
Literature to prepare for the lesson
White L. Historical roots of our ecological crisis // Global problems and universal values. - M., 1990. -S. 188-202.
Atfield R. Ethics of ecological responsibility // Global problems and universal values. - M., 1990. - S. 203-257.
Schweitzer A. Reverence for life. - M., 1992. - S. 44-79.
Topic 3. The ethical aspect of the relationship between man and nature (4 hours).
What is environmental ethics?
The main ethical and ecological doctrines of the relationship between man and nature: anthropocentrism and naturocentrism.
The essence of anthropocentrism and its general characteristics.
The essence of naturocentrism and its general characteristics.
Literature to prepare for the lesson
Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of freedom. The meaning of creativity. - M., 1989.-S. 293-325.
Rolston X. Is there an environmental ethics? // Global problems and universal values. - M., 1990. - S. 258-288.
Schweitzer A. Reverence for life. - M., 1992. - S. 216-229.
Topic 4. Ecology and ethnogenesis (2 hours).
The essence of the process of ethnogenesis.
The influence of landscape features on ethnogenesis.
Ethnogenesis and evolution of the Earth's biosphere.
Literature to prepare for the lesson
Gumilyov L. N. Biosphere and impulses of consciousness // The end and the beginning again. - M., 1997. - S. 385-398.
Topic 5. Man and the noosphere (2 hours).
The idea of the noosphere and its creators.
What is the noosphere?
The formation of the noosphere and the prospects of mankind.
Literature to prepare for the lesson
Vernadsky V.I. A few words about the noosphere // Russian cosmism: an anthology of philosophical thought. -M., 1993. -S. 303-311.
Teilhard de Chardin. The human phenomenon. -M., 1987.-S. 133-186.
Men A. History of religion: In search of the Way, Truth and Life: In 7 vols.-M., 1991.-T. 1.-S. 85-104; pp. 121-130.
Chapter 1. Emergence and development of the subject of social ecology
The emergence and development of social ecology reflect the growing interest of sociology in environmental problems, which first led to the emergence of human ecology, or humane ecology, and later - social ecology. Humane ecology (human ecology) was defined as a branch of general ecology and was in fact a biological concept of social phenomena. As the development progressed, the circle of her research expanded and she began to deal with the place and role of man in the biosphere, methods for determining the optimal conditions for human life and development, and human interaction with other components of the biosphere. The consideration of these issues within the framework of humane ecology has led to the emergence of social
ecology.
The emergence of social ecology should be viewed in the context of the development of biology, the development of ecology into a social science (although it remained a natural science) and the desire to cover a wide range of problems in the field of environmental management. Thanks to this, biology gradually rose to the level of broad theoretical concepts, and in the process of its development there are attempts to create a unified science that studies the relationship between nature and society. So there is an attempt to create "sozology" as a complex science, which would natural sciences studied complex social phenomena. At the same time, ecologists, in contrast to biologists who study the relationship between living things and their organic and inorganic environment, began to explore both social structure and relationships between people as a condition for maintaining balance in nature. As a result, ecology has become a social science, while at the same time remaining a natural science. Thus, an essential prerequisite was created for the emergence and development of social ecology as a science, a special sociology, which, based on its empirical research and theoretical analysis, should show, among other things, how social indicators should change in order to exploit nature less, to preserve the ecological
equilibrium.
The emergence and development of social ecology is closely related to the widespread approach, according to which the physical (natural) and social world cannot be considered in isolation from each other, but to protect nature from destruction, i.e. to maintain ecological balance, it is necessary to create socio-economic mechanisms that protect this balance. In order to formulate socioeconomic mechanisms and master environmental issues, it is necessary to rely on the data of not only natural but also social sciences. This will make it possible to influence industrial systems, which must maintain the maximum permissible level of pollution of the environment, the human body and society and not disturb the ecological balance. This means that the protection of nature must be linked to the protection of the social environment. Social ecology must investigate the industrial system, "its linking role between man and nature, while taking into account the trends in the modern division of labor" .
The development of social ecology begins after the First World War, at the same time the first attempts to define its subject appear. One of the first to do this was McKenzie, a well-known representative of classical human ecology. He defined human ecology as the science of the spatial and temporal relations of people, which are affected by the selective, distributive and accommodative forces of the environment. Such a definition of the subject of human ecology formed the basis for extensive studies of the spatial distribution of the population and other phenomena within urban agglomerations. Meanwhile, interest in the study of the spatial parameters of social life eventually led to a simplified understanding of the interdependence between the population and other spatial phenomena, and this led to the crisis of classical human ecology.
The demand to improve the state of the environment in the 50s. has generated increased interest in the study environmental issues. “Firstly, Amos Hawley laid out his unorthodox concept, in which the emphasis was on the study of the forms and changes of (territorial) communities of people. Instead of spatial parameters, he put to the fore the commonality and functional relationships that arise in the process of collective adaptation of the population to the environment. Later, another concept of human ecology was created. Its creators L. Schuor and D. Duncan called it the concept of the so-called "ecological complex", consisting, in their opinion, from variables: populations, environments, technologies and organizations(structures), which are interdependent, causally and functionally interdependent.“Any change in any variable or factor moves away from classical human ecology, oriented primarily at the micro level, in contrast to the latest socio-ecological studies, which seek to simultaneously take into account several interrelated levels (for example, the individual characteristics of voters and the structural characteristics of their environment and etc.). Here we are talking only about one (macro) level of analysis”.
The fifties were not only a period of economic growth in highly industrialized countries, but also a period of environmental problems. It became obvious that economic growth in industrialized countries is limited by environmental conditions, and if this is not taken into account, if environmental restrictions are ignored, then a crisis situation may arise. Scientists are beginning to actively explore the relationship of variables in the ecological complex and come to the conclusion that environmental problems are related to social relations, i.e. about the connection between ecological and social. The study of environmental problems has revealed the need to analyze the social parameters of environmental violations and their prevalence in industrialized countries. Around the same time, economically backward countries began to experience a population boom as an environmental problem with social consequences. A similar approach to environmental issues meant a turn from biological and natural problems to social and a shift in emphasis to the links “between environmental and social issues”. It played a crucial role in the emergence of social ecology.
Social ecology arose and developed under the influence of bioecology. At first, she took most of her concepts from the ecology of plants and animals. Social ecologists (ecological sociologists) have also used the spatiotemporal approach of social geography and distributional economics. The emergence and development of social ecology under such circumstances was also reflected in the definition of its subject. However, the approach of social ecology, which ignored the difference between the relationship of man and the relationship of animals (or plants) to the environment and emphasized the conditionality of the distribution of human populations and the geography of society by competitive cooperation, was justifiably criticized. Indeed, if the relation of a person to the environment is identical to the relation of any living organism, then there are no significant differences in the operation of general ecological laws. So, for example, a disease is only a violation of the level of biological adaptation of a person, adaptive reactions in the system of elements of a biological ecosystem. Since, according to researchers in the field of social ecology, technological progress constantly disrupts the biotic and abiotic environment of a person, it inevitably leads to an imbalance in the biological ecosystem and is accompanied by an increase in the number of diseases.
The development of human ecology as a science and its development into social ecology (1960) also had positive results for observing and explaining the situation and attitude of man to his environment. Ecological interpretation, with the well-known psychologization of Western sociology and in spite of fair sharp criticism of it, created the prerequisites in the 60s. for new attempts to analyze social phenomena in a general context. A more fundamental study of differences, for example in “political behavior,” required taking into account not only the characteristics of individuals, but also taking into account the characteristics of those territorial units where they live and work (urban microdistrict, village, etc.). Thus, a number of theoretical and methodological problems were outlined depending on the level of analysis (individual and collective), which at the same time can be local, regional, national, etc. Thus, biological determinants were pushed aside, and the analysis of the relationship between the micro- and macrolevels in the processes of structural changes in territorial units» . As a result, conditions appear for the formation and development of social ecology as a social science.
The emergence (and development) of social ecology meant the interest of sociology in environmental problems, i.e. those problems that human ecology dealt with, trying to determine its place in the ecosystem and their interdependence.
Social ecology receives "citizenship rights" within the sociological sciences in the 60s. Its development accelerated after the World Congress of Sociology (Evian, 1966). The development of social ecology after this congress made it possible at the next World Sociological Congress (Varna, 1970) establish an International Sociological Association research committee on social ecology. Thus, the existence of social ecology as a branch of sociology was recognized, the prerequisites were created for its faster development and a clearer definition of its subject. Today, social ecology is also recognized as an academic discipline, and its development is stimulated by the need to develop environmental awareness and scientific management of the development of the environment and its protection from destruction. Undoubtedly, its development is closely connected with the turning point in society's attitude to the natural environment in the 1970s. At this time, people began to realize their responsibility for the state of the natural environment, more precisely, for the preservation of their habitat, and, consequently, the need to establish harmony between nature and society. This approach to harmony between society and nature required scientific research, theoretical analysis and practical solutions to environmental problems such as global problems humanity. This required a sociological approach, and the result was a social ecology.
Of course, several factors influenced the emergence and development of social ecology. We note only the most significant. Of decisive importance was the emergence of new concepts in ecology and the study of man as a social being. With the introduction of new concepts in ecology (biocenosis, ecosystem, biosphere), it became obvious that in the study of patterns in nature, to proceed from the connection between nature and society, i.e. take into account the data of not only natural but also social sciences. The study of man as a social being led not only to the study of social communities (groups), but also to the study of individual types of society in their historical development and the organization of human society on a planetary scale. These studies coincided with the trend of studying the possibility of human existence in a deteriorating state of the environment caused by a violation of the ecological balance.
The emergence and formation of social ecology was influenced by the understanding that the threat to ecological balance and its violation arise not only as a conflict of an individual or group with its natural environment, but also as a result of a complex relationship between three sets of systems: natural, technical and social. The relationships of these systems are difficult to understand, and even more difficult to coordinate only on the basis of the data of the natural sciences, including on the basis of the knowledge that ecology as a biological science has (and still has). The desire to more fully and deeply understand the relationship of these systems prompted scientists to study and theoretically analyze them from the standpoint of the global relationship between nature and society. So there was a need for the emergence and development of social ecology.
Focusing on the study of the relationship between natural, technical and social systems in order to coordinate them and in the name of protecting the human environment (as a natural and social being), social ecology must take into account the development of the technical and technological basis of human labor, with positive (in the growth of labor productivity before total), as well as the negative consequences of this development, which may endanger the human environment, i.e. human life as a natural and social being. In the conditions of the scientific and technological revolution, the exchange of matter between man and nature is increasingly mediated by technical means, as a result of which the process of man's estrangement from nature intensifies, but at the same time there are opposite processes that connect society and nature. Of course, society creates new resources that are included in the process of development of nature, and thereby affects the composition of the biosphere, changes it, including its environment. This interference of society into the composition of the biosphere, with all the ensuing consequences for the natural and social conditions of human life, should become the subject of study of social ecology. In this aspect, in social ecology, the problems of the scientific and technological revolution are also considered from the point of view of maintaining ecological balance and social problems.
The ratio of the three systems: natural, technical and social - is changeable, and their relations are also changeable, which depends on many circumstances, and this, one way or another, is reflected in the preservation or violation of the ecological balance. The technical system, in essence, is a social system that arises in the process of human labor activity in society, therefore it preserves the creative abilities of a person, as well as the attitude of society to nature, where something is created or used. In this context, environmental problems may be different depending on the immediate causes that cause them, as well as their consequences. This complexity of relationships must be taken into account not only when striving to preserve and improve the environment, but also when defining the subject of social ecology.
For the development of social ecology, like any other science, a more precise definition of its subject is necessary. However, here we encounter many difficulties. The biggest one is a consequence of the insufficient development of sociological studies of environmental problems, or, more precisely, their "youth". But nevertheless, the difficulties that are caused by various philosophical and theoretical approaches to the definition of its subject matter are also important. Therefore, before defining the subject of social ecology, it is necessary to make a brief review of the main ideas about its subject.
For the first time the definition of social ecology was given by McKenzie (1925). In his interpretation, it is easy to notice traces of animal ecology and plant ecology, which later disappear, especially after the Second World War. Increasingly, the subject of social ecology includes studies of types of human communities and their development. Thus, some believe (Weigman) that social ecology studies the primary connections and structure of settlements from an anthropogeographical point of view. With such a definition, the role of human influence on the nature of ecosystems falls out, so we can say that it is incomplete. A more complete definition of social ecology is, according to which its subject matter is “the spatio-temporal specific relationships of living beings as a condition for the joint life of people, as well as the reverse influence of already existing social structures on the development and formation of the natural environment” . The definition of social ecology is close to it, according to which the subject of research is the explanation of the place and interaction of a person with the environment in terms of the influence of the place of residence on political behavior and political statements.
In Russian philosophical and sociological literature, numerous attempts are made to define the subject of social ecology. According to one fairly common approach the subject of social ecology is the noosphere, those. a system of socio-natural relations that is formed and functions as a result of the conscious activity of people, i.e. the subject of social ecology is the processes of formation and functioning of the noosphere. The noosphere is created in the process of human impact on the biosphere, and the latter, as a result of this, passes into a new evolutionary state - the noosphere, which is a unity, mutual influence of nature and society, which is based on society, since the conscious activity of people acts as a decisive factor in the emergence of the noosphere . Social ecology approaches the study of the processes of the emergence and functioning of the noosphere from a disciplinary position, as a complex science that uses the knowledge of other sciences about the noosphere.
In the 80s. in Russia there was a lot of discussion about the subject of social ecology and its relation to other sciences in order to determine its place and significance in the process of optimizing the relationship between society and nature. It was most often noted that social ecology should study complex and multi-valued relationships in the system "society - man - technology - natural environment", discover the general laws of interaction and ways to optimize and harmonize relations in the system "society - nature" .
In Russia, social ecology is a young science, so more attention is paid to the possibilities and needs of its justification, the definition of the subject of its research. It is noted that all approaches in ecology and social ecology to the study of environmental problems can be combined into two groups: a) focusing on problems; b) focusing on the pragmatic aspect. In the first group, approaches have a natural-science orientation, and in the other, they have a social-scientific orientation. However, it is difficult to agree with such a division. Any study, including the study of environmental problems, includes problems as a starting point and practical application of the results obtained. Therefore, it is not clear how one can separate the natural science and social science orientations. True, in this way the initial positions are laid for explaining and solving environmental problems. What should social ecology contribute to. According to the supporters of these orientations, the subject of social ecology is very complex. This is primary nature with its own laws and human creations (with value and purpose), i.e. cultivated nature, which is difficult to reproduce itself, and for the reproduction of which human activity is necessary in order to preserve oneself and the social community. Social ecology should contribute to the creation of a concept for the development of society. In fact it should contribute to the implementation of both practical measures in solving environmental problems, and the development of the concept of society as a socio-ecological productive community in which types of production will be developed and implemented taking into account environmental requirements. This refutes the possible opinion that social ecology is conservative, trying to preserve the existing reality in spite of the historical trend towards development and progress. Its value system deeply intrudes into social relations, although many do not realize this and reduce ecology to a classical biological discipline, i.e. social formation of nature.
Definition of the subject of social ecology First of all, it reflects the philosophical and theoretical approach of the authors to relations in the system "man - society - nature", their understanding of the environment and the position that ecology is not only a natural, but also a social science. However, without going into a critical analysis of these definitions, we consider them incomplete or inaccurate, confusion appears in the definition of the subject of social ecology, and even the possibility of its existence as an independent science is called into question. Therefore, it is necessary to give a more complete definition of it. It should be noted that social ecology arises when environmental problems begin to be studied from a philosophical point of view and when it becomes obvious that they are the result of a mismatch between human, natural and industrial systems, i.e. mismatches of the biosphere, technosphere and sociosphere. In the context of this approach, social ecology acts as a branch of sociology, the subject of which should be the interaction of man and the environment, and the latter is understood as the unity of natural and social environments (which follows from the definition of man as a natural and social being), which cannot be strictly separated from each other. friend.
Social ecology, examining the influence of man through his labor activity on the natural environment, should also investigate the impact of the industrial system not only on the complex system of relations in which a person lives, but also on the natural conditions necessary for the development of the industrial system, not only as a technical one, acting as an intermediary between the relationship between man and nature, but also as public. When studying the industrial system in this context, one should not overemphasize it as the most important link between society and nature. Mixing environmental issues to social issues caused by the industrial system, shifts the criticism of the industrial society into the plane of criticism of the industrial system, as a result of which social basis industrial society is removed from criticism. Social ecology, along with criticism of the industrial system, should also analyze industrial society, based on the fact that the social community is a natural medium between industrial and natural systems. In fact, although the industrial system is a link between man and nature, its main characteristic features and relations in it have been developed and continue to develop. certain type society. It is the social community that should be the focus of criticism and analysis in the process of studying the relationship between industrial and natural systems and the basis for finding a way out of the crisis. The essence of the future must be derived from its essence. The relations of production cannot be ignored, since they play an important historical role in the development and operation of an industrial system within a natural system.
The subject of the study of social ecology is not only the influence of the environment on a person in a society with undeveloped technology, but also social relations in an industrialized, urbanized society that affects a person through family, neighborhood and local relationships. From this position, the specific territorial environment is important in social ecology. As rightly noted, the process of formation of the environment, one way or another, is “tied” to a certain territory and manifests itself as a territorial integrity. Therefore, it is advisable that, within the framework of social ecology, a relatively independent (territorial) level of research be singled out: settlements, urbanized zones, individual regions, regions, and the global level of the Earth. Social ecology at all these levels of research should strive to maintain ecological balance, take into account the interconnection of all levels in accordance with the motto: we think globally, we act concretely.
Although social ecology should and does contribute to the solution of complex environmental problems (i.e., environmental problems), it cannot be reduced to only an applied discipline. Furthermore, theoretical generalizations should be made and, on this basis, solutions to environmental problems should be proposed.“This means that social ecology must retain its theoretical claims in terms of the socio-ecological goals of industrial activity, but at the same time it must not abandon a practical social role. It can be interpreted both as a predictive scientific study aimed at solving specific problems, and also as a comprehensive vision of possible alternatives for future historical development.
In industrialized (and rich) countries in the 50s, where the negative consequences of industrial and technological development became more and more noticeable, the study of the quality of life, i.e. it happens at the time when Negative consequences technological development called into question its positive results (development of productive forces, growth in consumption, increase in free time, development of communications, etc.). When it became clear that the increase in power over nature calls into question the humanization of individual life, social and environmental criticism intensified. This was a stage in the emergence of social ecology, so it is natural that its appearance led to an increase in interest in the study of the quality of life. In turn, this has led to increased interest in research environmental factors quality of life. The quality of life is most often defined as "the totality of relationships that bind the individual, society and the natural environment, and each of these elements has its own character and needs" . Based on this understanding of the quality of life, research results have confirmed that there is no healthy quality life without a clean, safe and aesthetic environment. It turned out that a high quality of life cannot be achieved if one does not take care of the state of the human ecosystem, where this quality is achieved, and the socio-economic relations in which he is included and which he himself forms, coordinating his behavior with other members of society. It also turned out that the problem of the quality of life and the protection of the human environment is not of equal importance in all countries. In industrialized countries, where the scientific and technological revolution causes changes in the biosphere, it manifests itself differently than in developing countries, where it often becomes very important to ensure the basic conditions for the existence of people. “There are regions where the environment is not polluted and where starving masses roam without a roof over their heads. As for the quality of their life, the word “improve” is inadequate... If you look at a certain population of migrants building their huts on the periphery of large cities, without water, without sewerage, heating, ... it is hardly appropriate to talk about the quality of the environment” . To what extent is this issue relevant to modern world, according to the latest data, according to which about 30 million people die annually from hunger, of which 18 million are children, and life expectancy in developed countries is 16 years longer than in developing countries.
The knowledge that social ecology has about the relationship between man and his environment should ensure not only the protection and improvement of the natural environment, but also the improvement of the social environment. The fact is that there is not only a close relationship between the elements of the natural and social environment, but also the protection and improvement of the natural environment. Even if we assume that the latter is possible without taking into account the state of the social environment, this cannot have a significant impact on the position of a person and the protection of his integrity as a natural and social being. True, it is difficult to say what affects a person more - pollution of his natural or social environment. Therefore, social ecology should explore the natural and social environment of a person in their totality as the “framework of life” of a person, contribute to the improvement of the conditions of his life in the natural and social environment, in the specific conditions of individual societies.
But in order for the data provided by social ecology to become a scientific and theoretical basis for social actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment, it is necessary to have a certain ecological consciousness, i.e. understanding of the threat to the balance in the natural environment and the impact of this violation on the position and existence of man. There must also be awareness of the inclusion of the natural and social environment in the environment, awareness of the causes of violation and pollution of both environments, their impact on humans. In the formation of consciousness an important role is played by the dissemination of knowledge about the protection and improvement of the environment. Today, humanity "needs a highly developed consciousness of the expediency of a greater correspondence between the creative activity of people aimed at improving social development and the necessary need for the optimal conservation and improvement of nature" . Therefore, social ecology contributes not only to the development of this consciousness, but should also explore its main problems, primarily the role of the education system.
The results of previous studies show that the knowledge about environmental problems obtained in the education system is insufficient in terms of the development of environmental consciousness. Social ecology, among other things, should analyze whether the education system at the appropriate levels provides necessary knowledge about environmental problems that form environmental consciousness. Special attention should be given to the study and critical reflection of education from this point of view in universities, since it is these institutions that are called upon to play a special role in the development of environmental consciousness and social development. However, “educational elements related to this area are exclusively within a monodisciplinary framework”, “there is no integrity and integrity of knowledge about environmental problems”, “not a single profile of highly qualified personnel has ... a minimum scientific basis for an analytical integral approach to environmental issues ... ". Social ecology, exploring and theoretically analyzing environmental problems from a sociological point of view, should contribute to overcoming such a state, i.e. include environmental issues in the educational programs of higher educational institutions. This will contribute not only to the formation of environmental consciousness, but also to the improvement of professional education.
Social ecology is a relatively young science, its method has not yet been fully developed. We can talk about the main direction of its development. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that one can talk about the specifics of the method of social ecology, due to the fact that the subject of social ecology borders between nature and society, i.e. she as a special sociology as a subject of study has a system of "society - nature" from a sociological point of view. Therefore, it must use the methods of the natural and social sciences. With this approach to her method, it should be borne in mind that in modern science two opposite but interrelated processes are observed: the process of differentiation and the process of integration of sciences, when new (specialized) sciences arise, which is also reflected in the creation of new methods. But at the same time there is a need for the integration of sciences, and this leads to the intersection of their methods and influences the creation of separate methods. This trend is especially evident in the development of the method of social ecology, which "borrows material" for its method from the social (primarily sociological) and natural sciences.
In the process of scientific knowledge of the subject of social ecology, there are certain stages, common to the process of any scientific knowledge. However, each stage has features due to the specifics of both the subject of social ecology itself and the specifics of its method as a whole. We can agree with the point of view that the specificity of the subject of social ecology lies in the fact that it studies both the general patterns of the relationship between nature and society, and the attitude of society (its individual parts) to it, which affects the creation of its categorical and logical apparatus, including number and method. If we keep in mind that the method of science is determined by its subject matter, then we can say that the method of social ecology is also determined by the objective laws that make up the essence of its subject matter. In the context of this approach to the specifics of the method of social ecology, one can also point to the main directions of its development. The method of social ecology should be a set of cognitive operations corresponding to the purpose of its study as a science.
But if social ecology is understood as a sectoral sociology and from this position we approach the development of its method (as a method of sectoral sociology), then it is necessary to determine which method is most consistent with sociology, including sectoral sociology, which adapts the general sociological method to its specifics. And as you know, there are two opposing opinions on this issue in sociology: some believe that the positivist method corresponds to sociology, others - the historical one. It is believed that the methods, tools and models used in the natural sciences and which have given positive results can become a model for research in the social sciences. In the positivist method, the emphasis is on an inductive approach that ensures reliability, accuracy of intention, and simplicity of scientific statements. historicism(axiology), i.e. The historical method is based on the principle that social phenomena differ from natural ones, therefore social sciences (and hence sociological ones) have other tasks compared to natural ones. The social sciences, through explanation and understanding, must reveal the inner meaning that people attach to their creative results, i.e. social phenomena. Based on the method of understanding, according to a number of researchers, it is possible to cognize wider social phenomena, although at its core this method is subjective and underestimates their causal and functional explanation. It seems to us that when developing a method of social ecology, elements of both one and the other methods should be used.
From the positivist method, one must borrow the desire to identify causal and functional relationships between phenomena and the use of an inductive approach in conclusions. From the historical method, it is necessary to take an approach to explaining social phenomena: using the method of understanding, one can reveal the inner meaning that creators attach to created objects, which will allow one to explore and cognize the inner meaning communicated by individuals (or) and members social groups their attitude to the living environment, their activities and nature.
Defining the attitude towards positivism and historicism as methodological orientations in the development of the method of social ecology, one should abandon the naturalistic understanding of society. But, based on the difference between nature and society, it is necessary to take into account the constant and inextricable relationship between nature and society and the impossibility of the existence of society (and man) outside of nature. Taking into account the possibility of knowing scientific laws, researchers should develop a methodological approach to identifying the patterns of the relationship between nature and society, as well as the relationship of individuals and social groups to nature and the environment from the standpoint of the significance of this relationship in terms of preserving nature and developing the civilizational process. In this case, it is necessary to use not only induction, but also synthesis, i.e. apply both inductive-deductive and empirical-rational methods.
When developing a method of social ecology, defining its main parts (preliminary knowledge about the subject of its study; approach to acquiring new knowledge and tools that are used in this case), one should proceed from the specifics of its subject of study. In the scientific study of the subject of social ecology, one should proceed from certain previous data and knowledge contained in a certain system of knowledge that is not directly related to and not related to the subject of social ecology. It is enough if these data and knowledge are indirectly related to it. In fact, social ecology in this sense can (and should) use existing theories from other sciences that are in contact with it, relevant to the elements of its subject matter.
Based on this, it can be said that lower level theories can be used at a higher (global) level of research. But these theories are not the method of social ecology, but only serve as a basis or contribution to the development of its method. They turn into elements of its method (a theoretical element as preliminary knowledge about the subject) only when they are included in a certain system of knowledge about the subject of social ecology and as such serve to develop and select means for a more complete study of its subject. In fact, the use of acquired knowledge, formalized in theory as an element of the method, ensures the adequacy of the method by which the subject is studied.
The ecological outlook is the most important starting point in determining not only the subject, but also the method of social ecology. This worldview, distinguished by its theoretical principles, is of particular importance. in developing that element of the method of social ecology, which represents (and should represent) initial knowledge about her subject. When using various ecological approaches in the development of the method of social ecology, one should be based on the fact that its subject, theory of knowledge and method are only somewhat similar, but not necessarily identical in their content and goals. In the same way, it should be taken into account that some ecological approaches to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent, approach theory in its narrower sense (as relatively genuine knowledge), and social ecology should be based on the latter. Of particular importance for the development of the method of social ecology are: a systematic understanding of the world, the ecological crisis, the crisis of human existence in the modern world, profit-oriented industrialism - the cause of the ecological crisis, the solution of the ecological crisis - a prerequisite for humanistic development, the global nature of environmental problems and universal responsibility for them. decision.
The basis of the modern scientific worldview is the biology of systems, according to which the world is characterized by organic, complex and dynamic relationships. With such knowledge of the world at any level of organization, there is a dynamic balance between self-sufficient (independent) and integrative (dependent) tendencies. The human race, human society and nature are closely interconnected, so we can agree with the thesis: what is useful for social stability, cultural development, supports economic relations, is useful for the existence of the entire planet and the happiness of the individual. In this sense, one should also understand the statement that "human beings are not rulers, but members of the Earth family."
It is impossible to agree with the point of view, one way or another casting doubt on the existence of an ecological crisis. In the modern world, it exists as a global problem, manifested in the crisis of human existence, human communication with the world, and its solution requires and involves an understanding of the world around and the formation of such an idea of a person’s place in it, which would make it possible for a person to permanently stay in the world. The ecological crisis is the alienation of man from what he draws his strength from. “A person becomes a nobody because he does not live in harmony with his world. The ecological crisis is both "cause and effect". Infinite expansion in a very limited world necessarily leads to disaster. It cannot be prevented only by the development of technology and technology, but only by rethinking and changing people's attitude to nature as an environment from which not only the origins of human existence originate, but which is the condition for the very existence of man.
The idea that nature can endure endless expansion, be used without restraint (as far as the productive forces permit), was most fully manifested in the period of industrial production, the aim of which is not to satisfy genuine human needs, but to achieve the greatest possible profit on the basis of the free use of natural resources. In this sense, it has already been concluded, albeit belatedly, that the ecological crisis is the result of industrialism chasing profit. It is the result of “the expansion of production power, the purpose of which is not to satisfy genuine human needs, but to achieve profit or state accumulation ... Its most important principle is “profitable profitability”, achieved in a competitive struggle in such a way that available natural raw materials are unceremoniously used. , while they do not care about its restoration, they do not care about the side effects of the impact of technologies that destroy nature. The pollution of nature concerns the entire heritage of mankind, and if not prevented, it demonstrates "an unprecedented example of irresponsible attitude towards future generations" . Therefore, to eliminate the causes of the ecological crisis, it is not enough just to improve the means of production, techniques and technologies. It is necessary to change the attitude of people, society to nature and, on the basis of knowledge and awareness of the limitations of natural resources, introduce an environmental criterion into the assessment of production, stimulate the development of technologies that conserve natural resources and do not pollute nature. The principle of profitability should be replaced by the principle of environmental profitability, i.e. the desire to preserve the ecological balance that ensures the existence of the human race on Earth.
Preservation of ecological balance, i.e. the solution of the problems caused by the ecological crisis should contribute to humane social development. In the process of this development, conditions must be created in which all individuals will have the same opportunities to manifest their potential creativity. There is a correspondence between active ethics and a way of perceiving the world. In the context of this approach to the consideration of environmental problems, it is necessary to abandon the ill-conceived (or insufficiently thought-out) orientation towards development along the path of quantitative growth. "Genuine progress should not be understood as an accelerated and endless accumulation of material wealth and services, but as the improvement of people's lives by satisfying reasonable and true needs."
With quantitative progress, people come into confrontation with the natural environment. This progress presupposes unlimited sources of material wealth, and we know that they are limited, small and mostly irreplaceable. A qualitative way of life and activity is less dependent on the availability of limited sources of material wealth. However, the desire to limit the quantitative approach does not mean the desire to abandon the industrial civilization. Moreover, the principle of eco-development implies the development of technology, which should contribute to the strengthening of human and natural society, which is in the interests of the individual. For modern economic and social development, complex (integral) human development is also necessary.
With a global perception of environmental problems, universalization of responsibility for the solution is also required. With the development of technology, not only the ability of man to intervene indefinitely in nature has increased, but also the need has arisen for man to be responsible for the consequences caused by this intervention. The responsibility of people for the ecological balance in nature and the solution of environmental problems caused by its violation becomes a matter of survival for both man and mankind, i.e. human race on earth. Irresponsibility has led to an ecological crisis and will cause new environmental and social problems. A free person who does not bear responsibility becomes "a monster that destroys ... destroys irresponsibly and unconsciously, because that is how he understands freedom, completely forgetting about responsibility." That is why education should contribute both to the development of environmental consciousness and a sense of responsibility for the freedom that people experience in the use of natural resources due to the development of productive forces and, first of all, the development associated with the scientific and technological revolution. This education, based on scientific knowledge, must also be humanistic at its core. It should prevent the misuse of scientific knowledge when using it in the development of new technologies. This means ignoring possible harmful environmental consequences, using new technologies to design development policies that are both environmentally sound and implemented in a democratic atmosphere and by democratic means.
Based on the ecological approaches listed above and similar to them, and from its subject as industrial sociology, social ecology must develop a method for obtaining new knowledge about its subject and determine the methodology for collecting data and the method of generalization. With this approach, the subject of research should be defined both at the global and at the “local” levels. Determining the subject of research, interrelated phenomena and relationships that exist in real life, should aim to form a scientific basis for conscious social actions aimed at maintaining ecological balance, i.e. improving the quality of the environment. However, at the stage of determining the subject of a particular study and formulating hypotheses, social ecology also proceeds from certain categories and concepts used in the study and analysis of such ecological categories, as a system, complex, system "society - man - technology - natural environment". In this regard, there is a need for a more rigorous explanation of their use in the development of the method of social ecology. This is all the more necessary since the terms "system" and "complex" are often used as synonyms.
The term "system" is most often used in two senses: as a set of elements connected into some complex or unified whole; as a coherent and methodologically adjusted (according to logical criteria) set or enumeration of facts, data, laws, knowledge, theses, etc., related to a particular branch of knowledge or science. In modern methodological literature, primarily related to the study of environmental issues, the concept of a system is specified. In particular, it is noted the possibility of including homogeneous objects into the system, which are assigned various functions, various properties making them heterogeneous. In this sense, it is emphasized that in a system there can only be elements and subsystems of the same type, which in a broad sense means: there cannot be systemic connections between the material and the spiritual, that which exists objectively, and that which is ideal. Consequently, with this approach, the elements of one system can be either only material or only ideal.
concept "complex"(in a broad sense) means a certain integrity of elements (parts). Essentially the concept "complex" means the interconnection of various parts in a single whole, in which there is a central carrier of communication. In modern methodological literature, compared with the concept of "system" the integrity of the complex is ensured by functional connections common to all its parts, and direct connections between them are not necessary. While the system requires the leveling of a set of objects, the similarities or differences between which are not necessary, for the complex the internal set does not matter, since it differs in the variety of elements it covers.
When studying the subject of social ecology, one should not abandon either a systematic or an integrated approach. Vice versa, for scientific research and knowledge of its subject requires the ratio of these approaches. The use of systematic and integrated approaches will make it possible to discover the patterns of the complex relationship "man - society - nature". The environment - natural, material - with all the variety of elements as a complex represents a mass that cannot be combined into a whole outside general attitude to a person as a factor of existence, it differs in functional integrity only in this aspect. But society and nature are two poles of the system, contradicting each other, since society belongs to the highest social form of the movement of matter, and nature - to the pre-social, where there are chemical, geological and biological forms of the movement of matter. To a certain extent, society is precisely (in relation to man) a product of the development of nature, a specific part of the material world. In fact, society and nature are dialectical systems penetrating and excluding each other (but their elements can form complexes), which, in particular, is also manifested in how the natural environment, being a dynamic supersystem, from the inside is an ordered whole; therefore, it acts in relation to society as a partner system.
The subject of social ecology is relations in the system "society - man - technology - natural environment". In this system, all elements and subsystems are homogeneous, and the connections between them determine its immutability and structure.
Society cannot be considered as the broadest subsystem of socio-natural relations, since it includes, in addition to material elements (material production), forms of social consciousness. In this system, “connective tissue” is the labor of people, which establishes practical relations between society and nature (with the help of tools), while nature is the material basis and condition for the development of society. That is why the basis for existence is the technological process of material production and the connections established by people in it. In fact, all elements of the relationship "society - man - technology - nature" are closely interconnected and the development of one element is conditioned by the functioning of another, therefore the relationship between them is a system.
In this regard (system), man and technology stand out as special elements due to their social and natural specificity. Man stands out not only because it belongs to both nature and society, but also because its protection as a biological (but not only biological) being, the protection of its health is the main criterion for optimizing the relationship (historically developed and conditioned) between nature and society. Technique, understood as the sum of artificially created material means in order to enhance the efficiency of human activity, primarily in relation to nature, also has its own social and natural specifics. Its specificity is expressed in the fact that technology, influencing nature, only changes the form of matter, while relying on the power of nature. Although technology owes its origin to nature, it was created by human labor, therefore it functions expediently, according to the plan of people and with social consequences.
The material (natural) objectivity of technology is manifested in its development in accordance with the laws of nature, its genetic connection with society is manifested in the expedient functioning of technical means in accordance with the laws of social life. In essence, technology, in its social and natural specifics, is a product of human nature, and therefore one of the main means of society's influence on the natural environment. The relationship "society - man - technology - natural environment" is a system. First of all, because between its elements-components there is a strong connection, due to the laws of interaction between society and nature. Secondly, it is characterized by integrity, which is manifested in the presence of a single process of development and functioning of its elements, subordinated to expediency. In this system, there are objective, specific laws that can be investigated and established. If such laws do not exist, then this means that there are no systemic links between the elements of this system, primarily between nature and society. And in this case, these connections could not be the subject of research in social ecology. Social ecology takes as a subject of study the elements of nature not by themselves, but in the context of their relationship with man, i.e. as elements of its environment. In the same way, it studies man and society in their relationship with nature. In fact, as a science, its focus is on the relationship between nature and society - socio-natural relations, which are based on essential connections that have the character of regularities.
When formulating the first element of its scientific method - preliminary knowledge about the subject of research - social ecology must proceed (and proceeds) not only from the ecological worldview, but also from theories about environmental protection, which, one way or another, at their core contain some ecological worldview. Theoretical developments of environmental protection appear in the second half of the 19th century. In Great Britain there are significant changes not only in production (with the development of the machine system of production), but also in society, and in the relation "society - nature", as a result of a strong, hitherto unknown human intervention in nature. The most famous theories are: the theory of benthamists; the theory of Malthusianism; the "silent spring" theory; theory of the cost of economic growth; theory of growth boundaries (global equilibrium of scientific growth); theory of transformation of the international order; constant state theory; the theory of the standard of living; theory of economic optimism; vicious circle theory; theory of the post-industrial period; theory of geographical space; theory of decentralization of the social system. When using these theories to develop a method of social ecology, they must be critically analyzed both from the point of view of scientific validity and from the point of view of the subject.
The procedure for summing up new knowledge (as an element of the scientific method) in social ecology must be adapted to its subject matter. This adaptation should proceed both from the specifics of its subject, and from the formulation of hypotheses (on the basis of a developed theoretical approach - prior knowledge). Data collection methods should also be adapted to the subject of social ecology. Particular attention should be paid to the stage of data classification and the way they are presented. In this regard, it is necessary to critically comprehend and further theoretically and practically improve the existing mathematical and statistical methods, as well as the modeling method used in the study of the living environment. However, the elements of the method in social ecology (as in any science) must meet the requirements of the general scientific method, the same applies to the stage of generalization, i.e. establishing and formulating scientific laws. But at the same time, in social ecology, a scientist should keep in mind that his conclusions about the relations in the "society - nature" system should contribute to the preservation and improvement of the quality of the living environment as a moral requirement of modern society and initiate the necessary "great steps" in environmental policy at the international level. and local level.
At the stage of scientific explanation, social ecology (as, indeed, any science) must explain the phenomena related to its subject, showing that they necessarily arise from the previous factual situation. Any explanation offered by it must contain not only a description of the phenomenon being explained, but also one or more facts preceding it, and in the context of such an analysis, formulate a strong and necessary connection between two phenomena or their group. Since the subject of social ecology is very complex and specific, the scientific explanation offered by it requires a theoretical understanding of the information collected. Similarly, one scientific explanation (conclusions) should be linked to other scientific explanations. At the same time, it should be possible to verify the accuracy of scientific conclusions and the reliability of the methods used.
However, the stage of verifying the validity of scientific conclusions in social ecology has its own specifics. Taking into account this specificity, one should decide which method of scientific verification to use: verification in a narrower sense (collection of new data and their theoretical understanding immediately after obtaining scientific conclusions) or in a broader sense (verification of the truth of scientific conclusions by the development of science) . Which of these types of verification of the truth of scientific conclusions will be used depends on the specific subject of research. In any case, verification should determine the reliability and truth of scientific conclusions and contribute to the identification of key relationships in the "society - nature" system in such a way that "a critical explanation and understanding of the existing and the study of rational forms of social life of the desired and possible future become a decisive factor in the great transformations of civilization placed on the agenda by history.
The problems of social ecology cannot be studied with the help of the mere collection and description of phenomena and factors. It is necessary to give their explanation through the establishment of links between elements in separate phenomena and through the interconnection of phenomena. In other words, social ecology as a science should establish scientific laws, evidence of objectively existing necessary and essential connections between phenomena, the signs of which are the general nature, constancy and the possibility of their foresight. In formulating the scientific laws understood in this way, the requirement for the universality of their action should be reconciled with the empirical facts that indicate that almost all scientific laws operate only within more or less strict limits, going beyond them quite often. From the foregoing, it follows that when establishing the scientific laws of social ecology, it is necessary to formulate the main patterns of interaction of elements in the "society - nature" system in such a way that it would allow establishing a model for the optimal interaction of elements in this system. With this approach, social ecology will meet all the requirements for science, the theoretical understanding of the subject of which is still being carried out, and on the basis of this understanding, a solution to environmental problems is proposed both globally and locally.
Meanwhile, given the youth of social ecology as a science, its specific connections with other sciences, one can ask the question (in fact, this question is already being asked) whether social ecologists can (and should) at this stage in the development of science begin to formulate scientific laws, since this may be fraught with greater deviations from their universality than is permissible for science, and, moreover, is there not a danger that the regularities that are revealed will turn out to be arbitrary empirical generalizations. In the same way, the question arises whether the currently available empirical knowledge about the system "nature - society - man" has the necessary quality and whether it is sufficient for it to be a real "critical mass" necessary for formulating scientific laws from the standpoint of definitions of the subject of social ecology. It is all the more important to answer this question, since in social ecology the formulations related to the “society-nature” relationship are based on empirical material (facts) from other, primarily natural, sciences. Finally, there are still discussions about the definition of the subject of social ecology, i.e. there is no single generally accepted opinion about its place in the system of sciences, and its own system of categories has not yet been fully developed. Because of this, its researchers are forced to use borrowed concepts and categories (as was done in the process of the emergence of other sciences and is sometimes done in already formed sciences), and for precise definitions of scientific laws, which should be universal, science should have a developed system to a certain extent. their concepts and categories.
The efforts already made and attempts to formulate definitions of the laws of social ecology testify to the complexity of their establishment and to the facts that are restrictive for them, which we pointed out. So, for example, even before the definition of the laws of (possible) social ecology, the general laws of the "man - nature" system are usually called, and only after that they approach the formulation of the laws of social ecology, which, in relation to the "general" laws, have the character of particular ones. So does, for example, N.F. Reimers, who, on the basis of private laws established by such scientists as B. Commonera, P. Danero, A. Turgot and T. Malthus, points to ten laws of the "man - nature" system. These laws in accordance with the way he systematized and brought them, the following: the rule of historical development of production due to the consistent rejuvenation of ecosystems; boomerang law, or feedback of interaction between man and the biosphere; the law of irreplaceability of the biosphere; the law of renewal of the biosphere; the law of irreversibility of interaction between man and the biosphere; rule of measure (degree of possibilities) of natural systems; the principle of naturalness; the law of diminishing returns (of nature); the rule of demographic (technical-socio-economic) saturation and the rule of accelerated historical development. Reimers, yes, by the way, and others, when formulating the laws of social ecology, one way or another, proceeds from these "general laws" and, thus, the laws of social ecology, on which we dwell here, to one degree or another contain expressions of these laws..
Analyzing attempts to establish the laws of social ecology, one should first of all point to those that proceeded from the understanding of society as an ecological subsystem. In this approach, one should first of all name two principles (laws), which in the thirties were formulated by Bauer and Vernadsky. The first law says that the geochemical energy of living matter in the biosphere (including humanity as the highest manifestation of living matter, endowed with reason) tends to maximum expression. The second law contains a statement that in the course of evolution those species of living beings remain that, by their vital activity, maximize the biogenic geochemical energy. G. Odum and E. Odum indicate that, in accordance with the law of maximalism, in the struggle for existence, those systems survive that intensively exploit energy sources and supply the system with a large energy force. Life on Earth, of course, develops only under conditions of a constant influx of new energy, since the entire circulation cycle of living matter is carried out in the same mass of living substance with a small recovery factor. The human race penetrated into this system due to the fact that it violated the system of consumption and accumulation of the energy of living nature. The impact of man on the energy system of the planet disrupts this system, since the "extensibility" of the biosphere is small, and human society, its population and the power of appropriation are developing rapidly. In particular, society's needs for energy are constantly increasing, they require a greater structural reorganization of the biosphere, and the production of new energy becomes energetically unfavorable. However, these patterns should also be comprehended from the standpoint of the specificity of society, understood as a community of people, and its relationship to nature. Society is indeed subject to a number of unified ecological laws of the natural environment, but it also has a number of properties that are not subject to these laws. So when formulating the laws of social ecology, one should proceed from the expression of these laws as laws of "theoretical ecological influence", while, however, they should not be understood as laws of social ecology.
B. Commoner's work "The Closing Circle" (L., 1974) outlines four basic, global environmental laws, which, in the author's opinion, operate not only in the biosphere, but also in the sphere of relations between the social and biological environment, due to which they can considered the laws of social ecology. These laws are: "Everything is connected to everything", "Nothing can disappear without a trace", "Nature knows best" and "Nothing can be obtained for free". First law contains a thought, regarding which it can be said that it originates from the principle of general determination and indicates that the aspirations of the human environment arise as a result of a violation of relations in the ecological system within its cause-and-effect relationships. From this it follows that the influence on any natural system on Earth causes a number of effects, the optimal development of which is difficult to foresee. Second law B. Commoner contains the proposition that the human race lives in a world whose space is closed, as a result of which everything that is created due to what is taken from nature returns to it in a certain way. Therefore, the appearance of any new matter in the chemical-ecological system is a re-formation of this system with all the ensuing consequences. The third the law indicates the connectedness of our knowledge of nature and our influence on it. In particular, if we are not fully aware of all the possibilities of reshaping nature, we will not be able to “improve” it with our actions, and therefore humanity should return to those forms of life that represent ecological harmony with nature. Fourth the law contains the idea that global ecological systems are an indivisible whole and everything that a person extracts from them must be compensated. Therefore, the consumption of natural resources cannot be unlimited, and humanity must ensure that through the consumption of natural resources it does not call into question the basis of its development and existence.
Much attention was paid to the formulation of the laws of social ecology by V.D. Komarov in his books "What is social ecology" (L., 1978) and "Social ecology - philosophical aspects" (L., 1990). He understands (and formulates) the laws of social ecology as stable periodic connections between social and natural phenomena, which are relatively static in nature and manifest themselves in the relations of the natural-social continuum. V.D. Komarov also identifies a number of conditions that he understands and considers as natural laws based on the laws of social development. By such states, he understands: the leading role of the social system in determining the nature of the use of natural resources, the continuous production mastery of the forms of movement of matter, the optimal coordination of the states of the natural environment with the nature and pace of development of production, the natural-scientific expansion of the ecumene and the "wave-like" progress of the noosphere. Formulated by V.D. Komarov, the laws of social ecology are an indicator of both its development and the social context of the time when they were formulated. Later, it was pointed out both as contradictory and unacceptable, especially with regard to the fact that both socialist and privately owned social systems are more or less able to maintain ecological balance, because, as noted, the socio-political structure does not affect the use of natural resources. resources to such an extent as the development of productive forces and the ecological consciousness of a certain society. Five the laws of social ecology were formulated by N.F. Reimers. These laws are as follows: the rule of social and ecological balance; the principle of cultural development management; the rule of socio-ecological replacement; the law of historical (socio-ecological) irreversibility and the law of the noosphere V.I. Vernadsky. First the law (rule) contains the idea that society develops then and to the extent that the balance between its “pressure” on the environment and the possibility of restoring this environment in a natural or artificial way is maintained. Second The law (principle) of cultural management of development speaks of the limitation of economic development by ecological frameworks and indicates the need to manage development taking into account the deep processes of interaction taking place between society, nature and man and those social groups in which man lives. The third the law (rule) contains the idea of the need to understand the possible change in the socio-ecological needs of a person in different ways, which are due to the specific characteristics of the natural environment and which influence it. Fourth the law contains the idea of the historical irreversibility of the process of development of society. As fifth of the law is the law of V.I. Vernadsky, according to which the biosphere inevitably passes into the noosphere, i.e. into a sphere in which the human mind plays a predominant role in the development of the "man - nature" system. Thus, the chaotic self-development of nature in the process of natural self-regulation is replaced by a reasonable strategy, which is based on the principles of forecasting and planned regulation of the process of nature development.
This brief review suggests the following. First of all, just as social ecology in its formation and development uses the categories of ecology, so the formulation of its laws is based on the laws of ecology with a pronounced desire to emphasize the specificity of the manifestation of these laws in the relations "society - nature". Secondly, in the process of development of social ecology, as it becomes more and more independent (with the clarification of the subject of its study as a science), while formulating its laws as the laws of a separate, private science, it is more and more freed from the biological approach when establishing patterns in sphere "society - nature" with the expression of the attitude of society or individual social groups to the need to protect and preserve the environment, human environment.
Thirdly, the formulated laws of social ecology to a greater extent establish in which direction one should look for and identify its patterns, and to a lesser extent, they represent ideas about the relationships between phenomena that have become the subject of social ecology in the sense of scientific laws and their conceptual definition.
Understanding the limitations that stem from the youth of social ecology as a science, and the difficulties resulting from the specificity of the subject of its study, we believe that there is a need and an opportunity to determine its basic laws. The need to formulate them stems from the need for social ecology to be able to declare itself (and assert itself) as a science. The goal of any science (including social ecology) is to establish scientific laws. Their establishment in social ecology is also the need of society to base its actions on scientific knowledge both globally and locally to preserve and protect the environment. The opportunity to formulate these laws gives the already accumulated material on understanding the human environment, relations in it, the attitude of society to the environment and the currently formulated laws of social ecology, which can be criticized, but cannot be ignored. With this approach to formulating the laws of social ecology, based on the definition of its subject, understanding it as a branch of sociology (which studies the specific relationships between man and his environment), and from the conceptual definition of scientific laws, we consider it possible to formulate its ten basic laws. These laws are:
* Man as a natural-social being lives in nature, created in such a way that could not be the result of human consciousness. In nature, all forms of the organic and inorganic world constitute an indestructible unity, and man is a part of this unity.
* The living environment of a person consists of previously set natural conditions and circumstances that have arisen in addition to human activity, as well as conditions and circumstances created by human activity.
* The possibilities for the development of socio-technical systems, which arise as a result of the human ability to comprehend and create, are unlimited, while natural resources are limited, and some of them are irreplaceable.
* The use of nature by man is limited by the need to maintain ecological balance in a given space and time, and environmental problems arise due to the lack of harmony between the biosphere, technosphere and sociosphere.
* Rapid and comprehensive technological development is accompanied by an increase in the possibility of disturbing the ecological balance, and nature itself cannot be freed from its negative impact through self-regulation; this requires society's actions to preserve and protect the natural environment.
* There is a relationship between the state of the human ecosystem, the concept and goals of social development and the quality of life of human communities and humans.
* Environmental problems are global in nature, all societies that are components of humanity as a whole, existing on Earth, face the danger caused by the violation of the ecological balance, therefore, the conquest and development of nature by man, both locally and globally, must correspond to environmental opportunities. .
* To overcome the unreasonable development of nature (which is becoming stronger with the development of human productive forces), it is necessary to develop ecological consciousness and understanding that neglect of the ecological laws of nature leads to the destruction of the biological system on which human life on Earth depends.
* There is a connection between the human natural environment of life and his working environment, which manifests itself through the possibility of disturbing the ecological balance and which should be supported by the development of the concept of a system for protecting both the natural and working environment.
* There is a connection between the concept of protecting the human living environment in individual societies and their socio-economic systems, and not only them, but also systems of value and cultural spiritual development.
We characterized the listed laws of social ecology as the main ones, which means that they can be further comprehended and critically revised on the basis of new research. In critical reflection, it should be taken into account that they are formulated from the standpoint of social ecology as a private branch of sociology that studies the specific relationships between a person and his living environment from the positions of its survival as a natural and social being, and the relationship of society in its institutional and non-institutional forms of organization to the analysis and solution of environmental problems.
Although social ecology was (and is) based "on various and even divergent interpretations, it has long existed at least as the backbone of the sociology of the city." Its concepts, models and "theories" have become a popular model for the conceptualization and interpretation of territorial social structure and processes, especially in the context of large urban agglomerations (Mlinar 3. Ekoloshke concept, spacious and friendly promenade and development. -"Revija for sociology". Zagreb, 1978, no. 1-2, p. 75).
More about humane ecology as a scientific discipline between plant and animal ecology and social ecology. see Mattel Dogan. Stein Rokkan (Ed.). social ecology. Cambridge. 1974
p. 3-4.
The term "sozology" comes from the Greek words soso- protect and logos- the science. Sometimes sozology is defined as “the science of the social exchange of matter and energy, establishing its laws, knowing its impact on nature and the impact of changed nature on society, developing ways to control the exchange of matter in the interests of mankind. Sozology is a complex science that studies a number of aspects of complex social phenomena using the methods of natural sciences - the exchange of matter and energy between nature and society ”(Markov Yu.G. social ecology. Novosibirsk, 1986, p. 50-51).
“Ecology, from a form of positive feedback in relation to“ man - nature ”, a connection that results in the creation of more and more complex types of relationships, has turned into an ideology of negative feedback, the main criterion of which is the desire to return the relationship“ man - nature ”to those forms in which nature will be depreciated to a small extent” (Stambuk V. Kuchevi divorce. - Human and nature. M., 1978, p. 65).
The study of the process of formation and functioning of the noosphere and the corresponding processes of environmental management is carried out at two levels: disciplinary and interdisciplinary. The first level includes disciplines that are in the stage of intensive development. This is, first of all, the biology of nature protection, ecology, constructive geography and human ecology, focused on the study of the possibilities of managing the environment based on one's own knowledge. The interdisciplinary level is realized by social ecology as a complex science associated with other lower-level disciplines (Markov Yu.G. Social ecology. Cit. work., p. 66).
So, for example, V.D. Komarov in the subject of social ecology includes the identification of patterns and methods for optimizing the interaction between society and nature, i.e. optimal conditions for human life as a biological and social being. (For more details, see: Girusov E.V. Social ecology: specifics and problems, its main tasks of development. -"Issues of socioecology". Lvov, 1987, p. 11-23.)
For example, Tsifrich I. believes that social ecology can neither be narrow nor exclusively a sociological discipline, and, on the other hand, cannot be postulated as the pinnacle of complex disciplines that would combine the knowledge of other disciplines (Social ecology. Zagreb, 1989, p. 317-318).
“Here we are talking about a complex subject, consisting, on the one hand, of nature (primary nature) with its own laws, and on the other hand, of human activity (with a value II target definition), i.e. we are talking about "cultivated nature", "secondary nature", or, in other words, about socially constituted nature - about nature, which is increasingly difficult to reproduce or must be reproduced (with the help of man). Therefore, ecology becomes a social ecology, a science with value norms and as such contains “strategic elements for a possible concept of the development of the future. It is a realized science with "alternative" social goals, except for one that has no alternative: the social reproduction of nature" ( Social ecology.
Some researchers believe that when developing the historical method, firstly, the causal and functional explanation is underestimated, since it is limited to describing phenomena and identifying individual relationships between them. Secondly, the possibility of checking the results of the study is not provided. Nevertheless, this method is used in sociology in various ways in order to overcome the shortcomings of positivism and functionalism.
One way or another, the system of socio-natural relations that arises and functions as a result of conscious rational activity of people or as a unity and interaction of nature and society acts as the subject of social ecology (see: Markov Yu.G. Social ecology. Novosibirsk, 1986. p. 65; Afanasiev V.G. System and unity. M., 1980, p. 163).
At all times, truly great scientists who left their mark on science used inductive-deductive and empirical-rational methods (Marković M. Philosophical foundations of science. Cit. work., p. 24).
The concept of theory has many meanings. It is often used as a synonym for any knowledge. However, in a narrow sense, theory means a body of knowledge, more or less verified, that explains a phenomenon or field of phenomena.
“Therefore, the boundary between theory and method is often arbitrary. At the empirical level of cognition, from the sensory-concrete to the abstract, theoretical generalizations are created, which can be formalized into a theory that generalizes (describes) patterns at this level. And on the relation from the abstract to the mentally concrete, such theoretical formulations are used as a method ”(Komarov V.D. Social ecology - philosophical aspects. L., 1990,
with. 82).
“The unit of measurement of existence is not only the organism, but also its environment (the greater whole). If the biosphere evolves in the direction of the corresponding natural system, then this accordingly increases the degree of cooperation and mutual support, which, in turn, is accompanied by a lesser degree of freedom for the constituent parts of the system. This was most convincingly shown by Lovelock in his theory, which considers the planet as a new organism, optimizing the conditions for its existence" (Sterling Stephen R. Towards an ecological world view. -"Ethics of Environment and Development". London, 1990, p. 81).
Therefore, people should treat the "Earth family" as something that is greater than their surroundings; this "Earth family" is a necessary and indispensable condition for their existence, their life. For more details see: Kothary Rajni. Environment, technology and ethics.- ibid., p. 32.
“Alienation as the root of evil is the main motive that modern ecological philosophy accepts even when it rejects the whole Christian worldview. Since the source of evil is alienation from one's own foundations, and its solution is a return to these foundations, the ecological crisis at its deepest foundation is man's alienation from that from which he draws his strength ”(Erazim Konak. Filosoficka ekologie pо dvacati letech. -"Filosoficky časopis", Praha, 1993, p. 938).
“The expression “quantitative” is used when it comes to the satisfaction of one side of life - the achievement of ever greater material well-being. The expression "qualitative" is used for a changed person in relation to many aspects and aspects of life ... These two opposite principles underlie two opposite concepts of progress: the dominant force and consumption, on the one hand, and creative force and self-knowledge, on the other" ( Markovic M. The development vision of socialist humanism. -"Ethics of Environment and Development". Cit. work., p.129).
“Those ecologists who propose a rejection of industrial civilization and a return to an agricultural and pastoral society lose their sense of history and seek a compromise in their criticism of the ecology of modern society. Humanity cannot return to the past, to suffering and poverty. It can and should strive to use the increased production for purposes other than the accumulation of material wealth” (ibid., p. 133).
“To be free means, first, to be aware of the existing pluralism of possibilities; secondly, to choose one of them and behave in accordance with this choice, and thirdly, to be able to control the situation and prevent unexpected consequences” (Markoviћ M. The development vision of socialist humanism. Cit. work., p. 132).
“Humanism and science are a single cultural movement united in man as a source and goal, the most important feature of which is scientific character: a firm desire to subordinate the current and past wealth of nature and history to the laws of nature; the demand for rationality and the right to control one's own destiny and nature" (Majop F. Sutra je uvek kasno. Cit. work., p. 219).
In solving environmental problems, one can proceed from the following principle: “Let science explore and discover, and public bodies make decisions about what to produce and consume; public opinion helps governments, informs them and warns them; professional "advisers on the future" protect the present from rash changes; democracy controls governments; sociology must warn science and technology and inspire politics (Jovanov D. Vedrina, glad and old, faith and know. Etichki problems of science. - In: Problems of science in the future. Beograd, 1991, p. 143).
“Small steps are taken by small people, crushed by the methods from the handbook. Big steps are characteristic of great people who know how to combine courage and a dream with insight” (Major F. Sutra je uvek kasno. Beograd, 1991, p. 223).
For more information about scientific verification, see: Markovich D. General sociology. Rostov-on-Don. 1993
with. 84-86.
| Previous |
In order to better present the subject of social ecology, one should consider the process of its emergence and formation as an independent branch of scientific knowledge. In fact, the emergence and subsequent development of social ecology was a natural consequence of the ever-increasing interest of representatives of various humanitarian disciplines - sociology, economics, political science, psychology, etc. - to the problems of interaction between man and the environment.[ ...]
The term "social ecology" owes its appearance to American researchers, representatives of the Chicago School of Social Psychologists - R. Park and E. Burges, who first used it in their work on the theory of population behavior in an urban environment in 1921. The authors used it as a synonym for the concept " human ecology. The concept of "social ecology" was intended to emphasize that in this context we are talking not about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics.[ ...]
It should be noted, however, that the term "social ecology", apparently best suited to designate a specific direction of research into the relationship of a person as a social being with the environment of his existence, has not taken root in Western science, in which preference from the very beginning began to be given to the concept of "human ecology" (human ecology). This created certain difficulties for the formation of social ecology as an independent, humanitarian in its main focus, discipline. The fact is that in parallel with the development of the socio-ecological problems proper within the framework of human ecology, bio-ecological aspects of human life were developed in it. Having passed by this time a long period of formation and, due to this, having more weight in science, having a more developed categorical and methodological apparatus, human biological ecology for a long time “shielded” humanitarian social ecology from the eyes of the progressive scientific community. Nevertheless, social ecology existed for some time and developed relatively independently as the ecology (sociology) of the city.[ ...]
Despite the obvious desire of representatives of the humanitarian branches of knowledge to free social ecology from the "yoke" of bioecology, it continued to experience a significant influence from the latter for many decades. As a result, social ecology borrowed most of the concepts, its categorical apparatus from the ecology of plants and animals, as well as from general ecology. At the same time, as D. Zh. Markovich notes, social ecology gradually improved its methodological apparatus with the development of the spatio-temporal approach of social geography, the economic theory of distribution, etc.[ ...]
During the period under review, the list of tasks that this branch of scientific knowledge, which was gradually gaining independence, was called upon to solve, significantly expanded. If at the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers mainly boiled down to searching in the behavior of a territorially localized human population for analogues of laws and ecological relations characteristic of biological communities, then from the second half of the 60s, the range of issues under consideration was supplemented by the problems of determining the place and role of man in the biosphere. , working out ways to determine the optimal conditions for its life and development, harmonization of relationships with other components of the biosphere. The process of its humanitarization that has engulfed social ecology in the last two decades has led to the fact that, in addition to the above tasks, the range of issues it develops includes the problems of identifying the general laws of the functioning and development of social systems, studying the influence of natural factors on the processes of socio-economic development and finding ways to control action. these factors.[ ...]
In our country, by the end of the 1970s, conditions had also developed for separating social and environmental problems into an independent area of interdisciplinary research. A significant contribution to the development of domestic social ecology was made by E. V. Girusov, A. N. Kochergin, Yu. G. Markov, N. F. Reimers, S. N. Solomina and others.
V.V.Haskin. From their point of view, social ecology as part of human ecology is a complex of scientific branches that study the relationship public structures(starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the connection of a person with the natural and social environment of their habitat. This approach seems to us more correct, because it does not limit the subject of social ecology to the framework of sociology or any other separate humanitarian discipline, but emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.[ ...]
Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to emphasize the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of mankind with its environment. According to E.V. Girusov, social ecology should first of all study the laws of society and nature, by which he understands the laws of self-regulation of the biosphere, implemented by man in his life.[ ...]
Akimova T. A., Khaskin V. V. Ecology. - M., 1998.[ ...]
Agadzhanyan H.A., Torshin V.I. Human ecology. Selected lectures. -M., 1994.