Sources ecosociology. Series: «Ecosociology». I. P. Kulyasov

were more optimistic. A considerable part of the United States environmentalists was hoping that ecological problems could be addressed via improvements in technology and management techniques, distribution of benefits, conservation and accumulation of the national natural wealth.

      The intellectual breakthrough occurred in the 1980s when Josef Huber proposed his ecological modernization concept38, which in the 1990s evolved into a scientific theory supported by business and the government. The theory of ecological modernization became quite popular among the European environmentalists, which allowed moving from confrontation to dialog and partnership with the state and business.

      The ideas of ecological modernization are now largely accepted by the global environmentalist movement and implemented practically from the individual to state level. Because of scientific debate and hands-on experience, the theory of ecological modernization has gone through several stages of development and received both recognition and criticism. Several authors have proposed a number of development classifications. Historical and modern application examples have been studied, and a number of methodological approaches, allowing identification of independent lines of research, elaborated. This we will consider in more detail in the chapter “Modernist theories”.

      Russian authors of environmental theories

      In Russia, just like in the West, environmental theories were used by authors who included the natural context into their studies of social phenomena, who spoke of the mutual influence between humans and the natural environment and made interesting unusual conclusions. In doing so, they made a significant contribution in the development of sociology and the rise and development of ecosociology.

      The specifics of Russian history make possible to split this scientific reflection into three periods – pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet. All Russian authors could be classified into those who represented the organic (sociological naturalism) and geographic school (social evolutionism), as it was done for non-Russian authors. However, for Russian authors, a division between these schools and principles would be quite notional.

      Nikolay Dmitrievich Nozhin (1841—1866) had a considerable influence on his contemporaries, including sociologists. His views and publications are a good example showing the notional character of classification into scientific schools. As a biologist and a sociologist, he recognized Darwin’s biological evolution; however, he opposed Malthusianism and racism typical for some social-Darwinists. He was the first to propose an organic approach and formulated its main principles. The main postulate goes that biological laws apply to human communities just as they do in animal species communities. Therefore, known biological laws could be used for explaining social phenomena and processes. A good example would be collective organizations – free associations of people based on the principles of solidarity and mutual assistance39.

      He criticized political experts and economists for seeing contradiction where, from the biology’s point of view, they did not exist. In biology, multi-functionality does more for survival of specie than functional development within the specie. This provision is analogous to the multi-functionality of peasants and artisans and division of labor in the course of industrial production. Therefore, crises and creative regress of participants are inevitable for industrial production. He believed that his conclusions and their propagation would serve the practical purpose of science – helping people to avoid mistakes in choosing their path of development. In his opinion, dividing science into social and natural disciplines was one of these mistakes.

      Aleksandr Ivanovich Stronin (1826—1889) in 1869—1885, published a three-volume edition titled “History and method” (on evolution of research methods and approaches taken by social sciences), “Politics as a science” (on social structures – groups, statuses) and “History of the public” (on evolution of society). His works show the desire to link the methodology for social and natural sciences. He believed that, as the natural and social environments are a whole, analogy could become the basic unifying method. The laws discovered in natural sciences can apply to social sciences. Realizing that scientific experiments cannot and should not be made on humans, he used the philosophic method of separating particulars from universals to construct an ideal particular model of a social phenomenon40.

      This ideal social model, that was analogous to reality, could already be used for experimenting, theoretically placed in a modified environment, to obtain new knowledge, which could be subsequently verified in another analogous place and situation. This method, in different variations, was widely used at that time and is still used in sociology as Max Weber’s method for forming ideal types.

      Pavel Feodorovich Lilienfeld-Toal’ (1829—1903) conducted sociological research adhering to the position that society is a real organism. In his works “Thoughts on the social science of the future” and “La pathologiе sociale” he maintained that social interactions and interrelations are in essence physiological. Just as any organism consisting of cells, intercellular substance and the nervous system, society consists of people, the natural environment and a system that manages the social processes41.

      Lilienfeld believed that human society is a biological organism, living by the same laws and in the same ways as the other biological organisms. He assumed that society and nature are no different. Society is alive and thus is a direct extension of nature. Preferring such general scientific methods as comparison and analogy, he suggested an original socio-embryological law, under which society and the individual, just as any specific living organism, go through the phases of birth, maturity, senility and death (transition into a non-organic form).

      The social structure suggested by Lilienfeld is similar to Stronin’s, with the addition to the natural environment, which plays the roles of an intercellular substance, of implements and spiritual achievements. He provided several historical examples of societies that were born, flourished, got old and died in various locations over time. In his opinion, a younger society could absorb some civility from an old or dead society. This indicates that he proposed a scheme of multi-vector social development long before the neo-evolutionists.

      Structurally, the three laws of progress govern social development:

      1) Greater political freedom strengthens the government;

      2) Greater economic freedom leads to larger possessions;

      3) Greater legal freedom leads to improvement in laws. As for revolutions, riots and struggle, he viewed them as a social pathology. Another social pathology is a political, economic and legal parasitism. Parasites are social structures that became detached from the social organism and act to its detriment.

      In today’s encyclopedias and sociology textbooks, Russian sociologists of the organic school are mentioned only cursorily. It is normally said that their ideas are part of the history and can be interesting only for focused experts.

      At present, the organic school in sociology is studied and developed by Galina Pavlovna Kuzmina. She has published more than a hundred works on the subject, prepared a training course and, one can say, revived the Russian organic school42.

      Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky (1822—1885), due to his work “On migration of population in Russia”, is viewed by historians of sociology as a founding father of Russian sociology and a representative of the geographic school. Studying the Russian society in the historical perspective, he compared it with Europe and interpreted within the framework of sociology43.

      He did extensive research on the influence of climatic factors on local communities and urban population of the Vologda region

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

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

42

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

43

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