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

of them being women. Structurally, the institute consisted of the main faculty, with classes being compulsory for all students for two years, after which they were to choose a major discipline. Aside from sociology, during the first year at the main faculty students were lectured in physics, non-organic chemistry, geology, general biology, anatomy, physiology, general and experimental psychology, logics, history of philosophy, general history, history of Russian literature and theology. At the second year, the curriculum comprised higher mathematics, statistics, physical geography, organic chemistry, general biology, anatomy and histology of the nervous system, physiology, psychophysiology of sensory organs, comparative psychology, history of philosophy, history of economic theories, general history, history of world literature, history of arts and history of culture.

      It should be noted that Kovalevsky and De Roberti were high-ranking masons. Accordingly, those familiar with the subject might assume that their efforts were aiming to develop physiology and psychology, establish the corresponding institutions and, on that base, organize regular training of sociologists. These sociologists, who were quite competent, now regularly and reflectively generated a lot of specialized knowledge about interaction of humans, social groups, organizations, structures and institutes, which were easily understandable by corresponding experts. Followers of the historical approach would say that this event was inspired by the course of history. Other people would offer another opinion, for example, saying that this was the result of a public, non-commercial effort of Russian intellectuals. One way or another, it was obvious that this was a key event in the history of Russian sociology.

      In Kovalevsky’s view, population growth is the main biosocial factor that directly impacts the economy as it results in economic change that brings about changes in politics, which, in turn, change social and private life. His theory of genetic (evolutionary) sociology describes and emphasizes the simultaneous interaction of individuals, groups and society in the natural physical environment and in the spiritual, cultural-historic and symbolic domains. He believed that prominent individuals had a mystical ability to control nature, resulting in recognition of power brokers by the general public. He examined and compared specific cases of historical development of nations and activities of social groups within these nations, trying to identify the reasons for the resulting social progress or for failure to achieve such progress52. This method can be used in sociological analysis of ecological and anti-ecological practices, sustainable and non-sustainable economic development, ecological and anti-ecological polities, etc.

      Believing that social change was now identified purely with psychological processes, De Roberti combined biology, sociology and psychology. He maintained that mental activity was manifested in the four basic methods of obtaining knowledge about oneself and the world, namely, science, philosophy, religion and arts, which determine practical activities, including productive ones. While admitting the importance of economic relations at a certain historical stage, he believed that psychological interaction played a key role.

      Paying special attention to social progress and social evolution, interaction in small groups, and influence of social factors on the personality, he advocated the idea that all social interaction is a consequence of interactions between personalities, and therefore it is basically psychological. Hence, biology, or, more precisely, physiology and psychology are capable of explaining all social phenomena. At the same time, an individual’s activities are not dominated by biological characteristics. De Roberti’s biosocial theory emphasizes that human society has evolved from three forms of universal energy – non-organic, organic and supra-organic or psychic.

      Paying special attention to social progress and social evolution, interaction in small groups, and influence of social factors on the personality, he advocated the idea that all social interaction is a consequence of interactions between personalities, and therefore it is basically psychological. Hence, biology, or, more precisely, physiology and psychology are capable of explaining all social phenomena. At the same time, an individual’s activities are not dominated by biological characteristics. De Roberti’s biosocial theory emphasizes that human society has evolved from three forms of universal energy – non-organic, organic and supra-organic or psychic53.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Aleksandr Nikolaevich

52

Kovalevsky M.M. Ethnography and sociology. Moscow. 1904.; Modern sociologists. Moscow. 1905.; Sociology. St. Petersburg. 1910. Vol. 1—2. (all in Russian)

53

De Roberti E.V. Sociology. The main objective and its methodological features, place among the Sciences, the separation and the relationship with biology and psychology. St. Petersburg. 1880.; A new formulation of basic questions of sociology. Moscow. 1909.; Energy and sociology // Bulletin of Europe. St. Petersburg. 1910.; The concepts of mind and the laws of the universe. St. Petersburg. 1914. (all in Russian)

54

Kirillov I.K. Flourishing condition of the all-Russian state… 1727.; Atlas of the Russian Empire. St. Petersburg. 1724—1731. (all in Russian)

55

Tatishchev V.N. Introduction to the historical and geographical description of great Russian Empire. St. Petersburg. Part 1. 1950 (1744 manuscript).; The reasoning for the audit of the polls… St. Petersburg. Part 2. 1861 (1747 manuscript). (all in Russian)

56

L’Isle J.-N., Euler L., Von Winsheim C.N., Heinsius G., Miller F.I. Atlas of the Russian. Saint-Petersburg Academy of Sciences. 1745. (in Russian, Latin, German and French).

57

Lomonosov M.V. About preservation and reproduction of the Russian people. St. Petersburg. 1761. (in Russian)

58

Miller F.I. A description of the Tomsk uyezd of the Tobolsk province in Siberia to its present position. St. Petersburg. 1734.; Description of the Siberian Kingdom and all occurred in it from beginning, and especially from its conquest by the Russian state at these times. St. Petersburg. 1750.; Description living in Kazan province pagan Nations, like the Cheremis, Chuvash and Votyaks. St. Petersburg. 1791.; Historical writings on the MaloRussian and the MaloRussians. Moscow. 1846.; History of Siberia. Moscow-Leningrad. 1939—1941. Vol. 1—2. 1999.; Moscow. 2000—2005. Vol. 1—3. (all in Russian)