Development of general ecology and formation of social ecology. Subject, tasks, history of social ecology
Social ecology is a young scientific discipline. In fact, the emergence and development of social ecology reflects
reaps the growing interest of sociology in the problems environment, that is, a sociological approach to human ecology is born, which first led to the emergence of human ecology, or humane ecology, and later - social ecology.
According to the definition of one of today's leading ecologists, Yu. Odum, "ecology is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge, the science of the structure of multi-level systems in nature, society, and their interconnection."
Researchers have been interested in environmental issues for a long time. Already in the early stages of the formation of human society, links were found between the conditions in which people live and the characteristics of their health. The writings of the great physician of antiquity Hippocrates (c. 460-370 BC) contain numerous evidence that factors external environment, lifestyle have a decisive influence on the formation of bodily (constitution) and mental (temperament) properties of a person.
In the 17th century medical geography appeared - a science that studies the influence of the natural and social conditions of various territories on the health of the people inhabiting them. Its founder was the Italian physician Bernardino Ramazzini (1633-1714).
This indicates that an ecological approach to human life existed before. According to N.F. Reimers (1992), human ecology arose almost simultaneously with classical biological ecology, although under a different name. Over the years, it has been formed in two directions: the actual ecology of man as an organism and social ecology. The American scientist J. Buce notes that the line "human geography - human ecology - sociology" originated in the works of the French philosopher and sociologist Auguste Comte (1798-1857) in 1837 and was further developed by D.-S. Mill (1806-1873) and G. Spencer (1820-1903).
According to the definition of Academician A.L. Yanshin and Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences V.P. Kaznacheeva, human ecology is a complex scientific and scientific-practical direction of research into the interaction of the population (populations) with the surrounding social and natural environment. It studies the social and natural patterns of interaction between man and humanity as a whole with the environment.
living cosmic planetary environment, problems of population development, preservation of its health and working capacity, improvement of the physical and mental capabilities of a person.
Ecologist N.F. Reimers gave the following definition: “the socio-economic ecology of man is scientific field, exploring the general structural-spatial, functional and temporal laws of the relationship between the planet's biosphere and the anthroposystem (its structural levels from all of humanity to the individual), as well as the integral patterns of the internal biosocial organization of human society. That is, everything comes down to the same classical formula “organism and environment”, the only difference is that the “organism” is the whole of humanity as a whole, and the environment is all natural and social processes.
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, and in order to protect nature from destruction, that is, to maintain ecological balance, it is necessary to create socioeconomic mechanisms that protect it. equilibrium.
The development of social ecology begins after the First World War, at the same time the first attempts to define its subject appear. McKenzie was one of the first to do this. famous representative 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. aroused interest in the study of environmental problems.
Social ecology arose and developed under the influence of bioecology. So, if the relation of a person to the environment is identical with the relation of any living organism, then there is no existence
significant differences in the action of general ecological patterns. For example, a disease is only a violation of the level of biological adaptation of a person, a violation of adaptive reactions in the system of elements of a biological ecosystem. Since technological progress constantly disrupts the biotic and abiotic environment of a person, it inevitably leads to an imbalance in the biological ecosystem. Therefore, along with the development of civilization with fatal inevitability, it is accompanied by an increase in the number of diseases. Anything further development society becomes fatal for a person and calls into question the existence of civilization. That is why in modern society talk about the "diseases of civilization".
Such an understanding of the relationship between man and his environment is unacceptable.
The development of social ecology accelerated after the World Sociological Congress (Evian, 1966), which made it possible at the next World Sociological Congress (Varna, 1970) to create a research committee of the International Sociological Association 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.
Factors that influenced the emergence and formation of social ecology:
The emergence of new concepts in ecology (biocenosis, ecosystem, biosphere) and the study of man as a social being.
The threat to ecological balance and its violation arise as a result of a complex relationship between three sets of systems: natural, technical and social.
The technical system is essentially a social system that arises in the process labor activity person, as well as in society, so it preserves Creative skills a person, as well as the attitude of society to nature, where something is created or used.
CONTROL QUESTIONS FOR HUMAN ECOLOGY
TO PREPARE FOR RESULTS
The development of ecological ideas of people from ancient times to the present day. The emergence and development of ecology as a science.
The term "ecology" was proposed in 1866 by the German zoologist and philosopher E. Haeckel, who, while developing a classification system for biological sciences, discovered that there is no special name for the field of biology that studies the relationship of organisms with the environment. Haeckel also defined ecology as "the physiology of relationships", although "physiology" was understood very broadly - as the study of a variety of processes occurring in wildlife.
IN scientific literature new term came in rather slowly and came into use more or less regularly only from the 1900s. As a scientific discipline, ecology was formed in the 20th century, but its prehistory dates back to the 19th, and even to the 18th century. So, already in the works of K. Linnaeus, who laid the foundations of the systematics of organisms, there was an idea of \u200b\u200bthe "economy of nature" - a strict ordering of various natural processes aimed at maintaining some natural balance.
In the second half of the 19th century, research that was essentially ecological began to be carried out in many countries, both by botanists and zoologists. So, in Germany, in 1872, the capital work of August Grisebach (1814-1879) was published, who for the first time gave a description of the main plant communities of the entire globe (these works were also published in Russian), and in 1898 - a major summary of Franz Schimper (1856-1901) "Geography of Plants on a Physiological Basis", which provides a lot of detailed information about the dependence of plants on various environmental factors. Another German researcher - Karl Möbius, studying the reproduction of oysters in shallows (the so-called oyster banks) North Sea, proposed the term "biocenosis", which denoted the totality of various living creatures living in the same territory and closely interconnected.
The 1920-1940s were very important for the transformation of ecology into an independent science. At this time, a number of books on various aspects of ecology were published, specialized journals began to appear (some of them still exist), and ecological societies arose. But most importantly - gradually formed theoretical basis new science, the first mathematical models are proposed and its own methodology is developed, which allows one to set and solve certain problems.
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 the environment.
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 particular sociology, is the specific relationship between a person and his environment. Based on this, the main tasks of social ecology can be determined in the following way: 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 a framework 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 scientific branches who study the relationship of social structures (starting with the family and other small community groups), as well as the relationship of man 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.
As a result of mastering the content of module F 1.3, the student must:
know
- o the history of the formation of the subject of social ecology;
- o the definition of social ecology used as the main one in this manual;
be able to
- o analyze various definitions of social ecology and its subject matter;
- o understand the grounds for different interpretations of the subject of social ecology;
- o develop and formulate (orally and in writing) their own interpretation of the subject of social ecology;
own
o different approaches to the interpretation 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. Burgess, who first used it in his work on the theory of behavior of the population 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, who characterized it as the science of the 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", which seems to be best suited to designate a specific direction in the study of the relationship of a person as a social being with the environment of his 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 discipline in its main focus. 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 obscured 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 most concepts, social ecology borrowed 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, economic theory distribution, etc.
Significant progress in the development of social ecology and in the process of its separation from bioecology occurred in the 1960s. 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 all 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. At the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers were mainly limited to searching for analogues of laws and laws in the behavior of a territorially localized human population. environmental relations characteristic of biological communities. Since the second half of the 1960s. The range of issues under consideration was supplemented by the problems of determining the place and role of man in the biosphere, developing ways to determine the optimal conditions for his life and development, and harmonizing relationships with other components of the biosphere. engulfed in recent decades social ecology, the process of its humanitarization led to the fact that, in addition to the above tasks, the range of issues developed by it included the problems of identifying common principles of the functioning and development of social systems, studying the influence natural factors on the processes of socio-economic development and the search for ways to control the action of these factors.
In our country by the end of the 1970s. conditions have also developed for separating socio-environmental issues into an independent area of interdisciplinary research. A significant contribution to the development of social ecology in our country was made by N. A. Agadzhanyan, E. V. Girusov, V. P. Kaznacheev, A. N. Kochergin, Η. F. Reimers, V. S. Preobrazhensky, B. B. Prokhorov, E. L. Reich and others.
One of critical issues facing researchers on 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. Along with this "stumbling block", the question of the relationship between the subject of social ecology and human ecology continues to remain unresolved.
A number of researchers and authors teaching aids tend to interpret the subject of social ecology, in fact, identifying it with human ecology. So, according to D. Zh. Markovich, the subject of study of modern social ecology is the specific relationship between a person and his environment. Based on this, the main objectives of the discipline can be defined as 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. A. Gorelov adheres to a similar point of view, who proposes to understand social ecology as a scientific discipline that studies the relationship between man and nature in their complex.
Another example of a "broad" interpretation of the subject of social ecology is the approach of Yu. G. Markov, who proposed to consider human ecology as part of social ecology. In his opinion, the subject of social ecology is the natural conditions for the existence of human communities ( social systems), capable of in turn influencing the natural environment by organizing production activities and creating, as it were, a "second nature", while human ecology studies, first of all, the natural conditions for the existence of a person as a biological species (although having a special social nature).
Taking into account the well-known variety of points of view on the subject of social ecology, it should be noted that at present the approach that positions social ecology as a part (section) of human ecology has received the greatest recognition. B. B. Prokhorov rightly points out that at present there is a fairly clearly defined scientific discipline - human ecology (anthropoecology), the internal structure of which consists of several sections, among which social ecology occupies an important place.
In the dictionary H. F. Reimers and A. V. Yablokov (1982) said that "social ecology is a section of human ecology that considers the relationship social groups society with nature". Developing this position, N. F. Reimers in 1992 wrote that social ecology, along with ethnoecology and population ecology, is a section of human ecology. As noted by B. B. Prokhorov, this line is drawn very clearly in textbook by T. A. Akimova and V. V. Khaskin (1998), according to which human ecology is a complex of disciplines that study the interaction of a person as an individual (biological individual) and personality ( social subject) with its natural and social environment. "Social ecology as part of human ecology is an association of scientific branches that study the relationship of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups) with the natural and social environment of their environment". Thus, notes B. B. Prokhorov, we can say that in research on human ecology there is a section that develops the social aspects of human ecology, and between social ecology and social aspects human ecology can be put equal.
According to the authors of this textbook, the relationship of human communities with the environment, as well as the relationship of various social groups regarding their relationship with the environment, animate and inanimate nature, can be attributed to the conduct of social ecology. At the same time, we consider it appropriate to consider the issues of the relationship of the human individual, the individual with society and its institutions, the technosphere and the natural environment in the context of anthropoecology.
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. Key Features 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 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 humanity and ways to solve them (4 hours).
Population growth, population explosion. Resource crisis: land resources (soil, mineral resources), energetic resources. Increasing aggressiveness of the environment: water pollution and atmospheric air, 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. Nonviolence as a form of attitude towards nature and how 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.
Ecological education of the individual. Development of environmental education in Russia. Modern content of environmental education. School as the main link 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.
Topic 2. Modern environmental crisis and ways to overcome it (4 hours).
Ecological crisis: myth or reality?
Prerequisites for the emergence 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. Ethical aspect 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.
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 environmental 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 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 interaction of man, society and the universe, in geography - the structure and functioning natural complexes and natural economic systems. Social ecology is also called human ecology or modern ecology. IN last years began to actively develop scientific direction, called "globalistics", developing 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 on which in question, consists in the constant desire, characteristic of all living beings, to multiply faster than is allowed by the amount of food at their disposal ”(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 natural conditions this locality. 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 of the great rivers, on the shores of the seas and oceans. K. Marx believed that temperate climate 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 advanced 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 the 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 "about the interaction of an 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 mankind 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 there are still ecosystems on Earth that are not subject to direct anthropogenic pressure. 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 followed. 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 a society should provide the possibility not only of reliable long-term forecasting of the satisfaction of the needs of each member of a given society, but also of 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 the 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 harmonious development human in the biosphere, it is necessary, first of all, an effective system of education and enlightenment. It is education based on culture that forms the basis of human spirituality and morality. An 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 the 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.................