F1.3. The formation of the subject of social ecology, its place in the structure of environmental knowledge. Subject, tasks, history of social ecology 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. - in the problems of interaction between humans and 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 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 not talking about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics.[ ...]

It should be noted, however, that the term “social ecology,” which seems best suited to designate a specific direction of research into the relationship of man 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”. This created certain difficulties for the establishment of social ecology as an independent discipline, humanitarian in its main focus. The fact is that, in parallel with the development of socio-ecological issues proper within the framework of human ecology, bio-ecological aspects of human life were developed. Human biological ecology, which had by this time undergone a long period of formation and therefore had greater weight in science and had a more developed categorical and methodological apparatus, “overshadowed” humanitarian social ecology from the eyes of the advanced scientific community for a long time. And yet, 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 liberate social ecology from the “yoke” of bioecology, it continued to be significantly influenced by the latter for many decades. As a result, social ecology borrowed most of the concepts and its categorical apparatus from the ecology of plants and animals, as well as from general ecology. At the same time, as noted by D. Zh. Markovich, 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 was gradually gaining independence expanded significantly. If at the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers were mainly limited to searching in the behavior of a territorially localized human population for analogues of the 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 , developing ways to determine the optimal conditions for its life and development, harmonizing relationships with other components of the biosphere. The process of its humanitarization that has embraced social ecology in the last two decades has led to the fact that in addition to the above-mentioned tasks, the range of issues developed by it included the problems of identifying general laws of 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 70s, conditions had also developed for the separation of socio-ecological 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 [...]

V.V.Haskin. From their point of view, social ecology, as part of human ecology, is a complex of scientific branches that study the connection of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the connection of humans 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 especially emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.[...]

Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to especially note the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of humanity with its environment. According to E.V. Girusov, social ecology should study, first of all, 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., Haskin V. V. Ecology. - M., 1998.[...]

Agadzhanyan N.A., Torshin V.I. Human ecology. Selected lectures. -M., 1994.

Topic: Subject, tasks, history of social ecology

Plan

1. Concepts of “social ecology”

1.1. Subject, tasks of ecology.

2. The formation of social ecology as a science

2.1. Human evolution and ecology

3. The place of social ecology in the system of sciences

4. Methods of social ecology

Social ecology is a scientific discipline that examines relationships in the “society-nature” system, studying the interaction and relationships of human society with the natural environment (Nikolai Reimers).

But such a definition does not reflect the specifics of this science. Social ecology is currently being formed as a private independent science with a specific subject of research, namely:

composition and characteristics of the interests of social strata and groups exploiting Natural resources;

perception by different social strata and groups of environmental problems and measures to regulate environmental management;

taking into account and using the characteristics and interests of social strata and groups in the practice of environmental protection measures

Thus, social ecology is the science of the interests of social groups in the field of environmental management.

Problems of social ecology

The goal of social ecology is to create a theory of the evolution of the relationship between man and nature, a logic and methodology for transforming the natural environment. Social ecology is intended to understand and help bridge the gap between man and nature, between humanities and natural sciences.

Social ecology as a science must establish scientific laws, evidence of objectively existing necessary and significant connections between phenomena, the signs of which are general character, constancy and the possibility of their prediction, it is necessary to formulate the basic patterns of interaction of elements in the “society - nature” system in such a way that this makes it possible to establish a model of optimal interaction of elements in this system.

When establishing the laws of social ecology, one should first of all point out those that were based on an understanding of society as an ecological subsystem. First of all, these are the laws that were formulated in the thirties by Bauer and Vernadsky.

First Law suggests that the geochemical energy of living matter in the biosphere (including humanity as the highest manifestation of living matter, endowed with intelligence) strives for maximum expression.

Second Law contains a statement that in the course of evolution, those species of living beings remain which, through their vital activity, maximize biogenic geochemical energy.

Social ecology reveals patterns of relationships between nature and society, which are as fundamental as physical patterns. But the complexity of the subject of research itself, which includes three qualitatively different subsystems - inanimate and Live nature both human society and the short existence of this discipline lead to the fact that social ecology, at least at the present time, is predominantly an empirical science, and the laws it formulates are extremely general aphoristic statements (such as, for example, Commoner’s “laws”).

Law 1. Everything is connected to everything. This law postulates the unity of the World, it tells us about the need to search and study the natural sources of events and phenomena, the emergence of chains connecting them, the stability and variability of these connections, the appearance of breaks and new links in them, stimulates us to learn to heal these gaps, as well as predict the course of events .

Law 2. Everything has to go somewhere. It is easy to see that this is essentially just a paraphrase of the well-known conservation laws. In its most primitive form, this formula can be interpreted as follows: matter does not disappear. The law should be extended to both information and the spiritual. This law directs us to study the ecological trajectories of the movement of elements of nature.

Law 3. Nature knows best. Any major human intervention in natural systems is harmful to it. This law seems to separate man from nature. Its essence is that everything that was created before man and without man is the product of long trial and error, the result of a complex process based on factors such as abundance, ingenuity, indifference to individuals with an all-encompassing desire for unity. In its formation and development, nature developed the principle: what is assembled is disassembled. In nature, the essence of this principle is that not a single substance can be synthesized naturally if there is no means to destroy it. The entire cyclical mechanism is based on this. A person does not always provide for this in his activities.

Law 4. Nothing is given for free. In other words, you have to pay for everything. Essentially, this is the second law of thermodynamics, which speaks of the presence of fundamental asymmetry in nature, that is, the unidirectionality of all spontaneous processes occurring in it. When thermodynamic systems interact with the environment, there are only two ways to transfer energy: heat release and work. The law says that to increase their internal energy, natural systems create the most favorable conditions - they do not take “duties”. All work done can be converted into heat without any loss and replenish the internal energy reserves of the system. But, if we do the opposite, i.e., we want to do work using the internal energy reserves of the system, i.e., do work through heat, we must pay. All heat cannot be converted into work. Any heat engine ( technical device or natural mechanism) has a refrigerator, which, like a tax inspector, collects taxes. Thus, the law states that you can't live for free. Even the most general analysis of this truth shows that we live in debt, since we pay less than the real cost of the goods. But, as you know, increasing debt leads to bankruptcy.

The concept of law is interpreted by most methodologists in the sense of an unambiguous cause-and-effect relationship. Cybernetics gives a broader interpretation of the concept of law as a limitation on diversity, and it is more suitable for social ecology, which reveals the fundamental limitations of human activity. It would be absurd to put forward as a gravitational imperative that a person should not jump from a great height, since death in this case would inevitably await. But the adaptive capabilities of the biosphere, which make it possible to compensate for violations of environmental patterns before reaching a certain threshold, make environmental imperatives necessary. The main one can be formulated as follows: the transformation of nature must correspond to its adaptation capabilities.

One of the ways to formulate socio-ecological patterns is to transfer them from sociology and ecology. For example, the law of correspondence of productive forces and production relations to the state of the natural environment, which is a modification of one of the laws of political economy, is proposed as the basic law of social ecology. We will consider the patterns of social ecology proposed based on the study of ecosystems after familiarization with ecology.

The formation of social ecology as a science

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. - in the problems of interaction between man and the environment.

The topic “social ecology” owes its appearance to American researchers, representatives of the Chicago School of Social Psychologists ¾ R. Parku And E. Burgess, 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 not talking about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics.

In our country, by the end of the 70s, conditions had also developed for the separation of socio-ecological issues into an independent area of ​​interdisciplinary research. A significant contribution to the development of domestic social ecology was made by , and etc.

One of the most important problems facing researchers in modern stage the formation of social ecology is the development of a unified approach to understanding its subject. Despite the obvious progress achieved in studying various aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature, as well as a significant number of publications on socio-ecological issues that have appeared in the last two or three decades in our country and abroad, on the issue of There are still different opinions about what exactly this branch of scientific knowledge studies. The school reference book “Ecology” gives two options for the definition of social ecology: in a narrow sense, it is understood as the science “about the interaction of human society with the natural environment”,

and in a broad ¾ science “about the interaction of an individual and human society with the 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 a comparison of 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) 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 actual identification of these two branches of scientific knowledge is indeed still characteristic of foreign science, but it is quite often subject to reasoned criticism by domestic scientists. , in particular, pointing out the expediency of dividing 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. Some other researchers agree with this interpretation of the subject of human ecology, but categorically disagree, and, in their opinion, this discipline covers a much wider range of issues of interaction of the anthroposystem (considered at all levels of its organization, from the individual to humanity as a whole) with 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 to 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 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 are inclined to an expanded interpretation of the subject of social ecology. Thus, in his opinion, the subject of study of modern social ecology, understood by him as private sociology, are specific connections between a person and his environment. Based on this, the main tasks of social ecology can be defined as follows: the study of the influence of the habitat as a set 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 slightly different, but not contradictory, interpretation of the subject of social ecology is given by I. From their point of view, social ecology as part of human ecology is a complex of scientific branches that study the connection of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the connection of humans 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 especially emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.

Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to especially note the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of humanity with its environment. In his opinion, social ecology should study, first of all, 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 history of the emergence and development of people's ecological ideas goes back to ancient times. Knowledge about the environment and the nature of relationships with it acquired practical significance at the dawn of the development of the human species.

The process of formation of the labor and social organization of primitive people, the development of their mental and collective activity created the basis for awareness not only of the very fact of their existence, but also for an increasing understanding of the dependence of this existence both on conditions within their social organization and on external ones. natural conditions. The experience of our distant ancestors was constantly enriched and passed on from generation to generation, helping man in his daily struggle for life.

Approximately 750 thousand years ago people themselves learned to make fire, equip primitive dwellings, and mastered ways to protect themselves from bad weather and enemies. Thanks to this knowledge, man was able to significantly expand the areas of his habitat.

Beginning with 8th millennium BC e. In Western Asia, various methods of cultivating land and growing crops began to be practiced. In the countries of Central Europe, this kind of agricultural revolution occurred in 6 ¾ 2nd millennium BC e. As a result, a large number of people switched to a sedentary lifestyle, in which there was an urgent need for deeper observations of the climate, the ability to predict the seasons and weather changes. The discovery by people of the dependence of weather phenomena on astronomical cycles also dates back to this time.

Special interest thinkers Ancient Greece and Rome were interested in questions of the origin and development of life on Earth, as well as in identifying connections between objects and phenomena of the surrounding world. Thus, the ancient Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer Anaxagoras (500¾428 BC e.) put forward one of the first theories of the origin of the world known at that time and the living creatures inhabiting it.

Ancient Greek philosopher and physician Empedocles (c. 487¾ approx. 424 BC e.) paid more attention to the description of the very process of the emergence and subsequent development of earthly life.

Aristotle (384 ¾322 BC e.) created the first known classification of animals, and also laid the foundations of descriptive and comparative anatomy. Defending the idea of ​​the unity of nature, he argued that all more advanced species of animals and plants originated from less perfect ones, and those, in turn, trace their ancestry to the most primitive organisms that once arose through spontaneous generation. Aristotle considered the complication of organisms to be a consequence of their internal desire for self-improvement.

One of the main problems that occupied the minds of ancient thinkers was the problem of the relationship between nature and man. The study of various aspects of their interaction was the subject of scientific interest of ancient Greek researchers Herodotus, Hippocrates, Plato, Eratosthenes and others.

Peru German philosopher and theologian Albert of Bolstedt (Albert the Great)(1206¾1280) belongs to several natural science treatises. The essays “On Alchemy” and “On Metals and Minerals” contain statements about the dependence of climate on the geographical latitude of a place and its position above sea level, as well as on the connection between the slope sun rays and heating of the soil.

English philosopher and naturalist Roger Bacon(1214¾1294) argued that all organic bodies are in their composition different combinations of the same elements and liquids from which inorganic bodies are composed.

The advent of the Renaissance is inextricably linked with the name of the famous Italian painter, sculptor, architect, scientist and engineer Leonardo yes Vinci(1452¾1519). He considered the main task of science to be the establishment of patterns of natural phenomena, based on the principle of their causal, necessary connection.

End XV ¾ beginning of XVI V. rightfully bears the name of the Age of Great Geographical Discoveries. In 1492, the Italian navigator Christopher Columbus discovered America. In 1498 the Portuguese Vasco da Gama circumnavigated Africa and reached India by sea. In 1516(17?) Portuguese travelers first reached China by sea. And in 1521, Spanish sailors led by Ferdinand Magellan made the first trip around the world. Having circumnavigated South America, they reached East Asia, after which they returned to Spain. These journeys were important stage in expanding knowledge about the Earth.

Giordano Bruno(1548¾1600) made a significant contribution to the development of the teachings of Copernicus, as well as to freeing it from shortcomings and limitations.

The onset of a fundamentally new stage in the development of science is traditionally associated with the name of the philosopher and logician Francis Bacon(1561¾1626), who developed inductive and experimental methods scientific research. He declared the main goal of science to be increasing human power over nature.

IN late XVI V. Dutch inventor Zachary Jansen(lived in the 16th century) created the first microscope, which made it possible to obtain images of small objects magnified using glass lenses. English naturalist Robert Hooke(1635¾1703) significantly improved the microscope (his device provided a 40-fold magnification), with the help of which he observed plant cells for the first time, and also studied the structure of some minerals.

French naturalist Georges Buffon(1707¾1788), author of the 36-volume “Natural History”, expressed thoughts about the unity of the animal and plant worlds, their life activity, distribution and connection with the environment, defended the idea of ​​mutability of species under the influence of environmental conditions.

A major event of the 18th century. was the emergence of the evolutionary concept of the French naturalist Jean Baptiste Lamarck(1744¾1829), according to which the main reason for the development of organisms from lower to higher forms is the inherent desire in living nature to improve organization, as well as the influence of various external conditions on them.

The works of the English naturalist played a special role in the development of ecology Charles Darwin(1809¾1882), who created the theory of the origin of species through natural selection.

In 1866, a German evolutionary zoologist Ernst Haeckel(1834¾1919) in his work “General Morphology of Organisms” proposed to call the entire range of issues related to the problem of the struggle for existence and the influence of a complex of physical and biotic conditions on living beings the term “ecology”.

Human evolution and ecology

Long before individual areas of environmental research gained independence, there was an obvious tendency towards a gradual enlargement of objects of environmental study. If initially these were single individuals, their groups, specific biological species, etc., then over time they began to be supplemented by large natural complexes, such as “biocenosis,” the concept of which was formulated by a German zoologist and hydrobiologist

K. Mobius back in 1877 (the new term was intended to denote a set of plants, animals and microorganisms inhabiting a relatively homogeneous living space). Shortly before this, in 1875, the Austrian geologist E. Suess To designate the “film of life” on the surface of the Earth, he proposed the concept of “biosphere”. This concept was significantly expanded and concretized by a Russian and Soviet scientist in his book “Biosphere,” which was published in 1926. In 1935, an English botanist A. Tansley introduced the concept of “ecological system” (ecosystem). And in 1940, a Soviet botanist and geographer introduced the term “biogeocenosis,” which he proposed to designate an elementary unit of the biosphere. Naturally, the study of such large-scale complex formations required the unification of the research efforts of representatives of different “special” ecologies, which, in turn, would have been practically impossible without the coordination of their scientific categorical apparatus, as well as without the development of common approaches to organizing the research process itself. Actually, it is precisely this necessity that ecology owes its emergence as a unified science, integrating private subject ecologies that previously developed relatively independently of each other. The result of their reunification was the formation of “big ecology” (according to the expression) or “macroecology” (according to i), which today includes the following main sections in its structure:

General ecology;

Human ecology (including social ecology);

Applied ecology.

The structure of each of these sections and the range of problems considered in each of them are shown in Fig. 1. It well illustrates the fact that modern ecology is a complex science that solves an extremely wide range of problems that are extremely relevant at the present stage of social development. According to the capacious definition of one of the largest modern ecologists Eugene Odum, "ecology¾ “This is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge, the science of the structure of multi-level systems in nature, society, and their interconnection.”

The place of social ecology in the system of sciences

Social ecology is a new scientific direction at the intersection of sociology, ecology, philosophy, science, technology and other branches of culture, with each of which it comes into very close contact. Schematically this can be expressed as follows:

Many new names of sciences have been proposed, the subject of which is the study of the relationship between man and the natural environment in its entirety: natural sociology, noology, noogenics, global ecology, social ecology, human ecology, socio-economic ecology, modern ecology. Greater ecology, etc. Currently, we can more or less confidently talk about three directions.

Firstly, we are talking about the study of the relationship between society and the natural environment at the global level, on a planetary scale, in other words, about the relationship of humanity as a whole with the Earth’s biosphere. The specific scientific basis for research in this area is Vernadsky’s doctrine of the biosphere. This direction can be called global ecology. In 1977, the monograph " Global ecology". It should be noted that, in accordance with his scientific interests, Budyko paid primary attention to the climatic aspects of the global environmental problem, although no less important are such topics as the amount of resources on our planet, global indicators of environmental pollution, global circulation chemical elements in their interaction, the influence of space on the Earth, the state of the ozone shield in the atmosphere, the functioning of the Earth as a whole, etc. Research in this direction requires, of course, intensive international cooperation.

The second direction of research into the relationship between society and the natural environment will be research from the point of view of understanding man as a social being. Human relations to the social and natural environment correlate with each other. “The limited attitude of people towards nature determines their limited attitude towards each other” and their limited attitude towards each other determines their limited attitude towards nature” (K. Marx, F. Engels. Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 29) In order to separate this direction, which studies the attitude of various social groups and classes to the natural environment and the structure of their relationships, determined by their attitude to the natural environment, from the subject of global ecology, we can call it social ecology in the narrow sense. In this case, social ecology, in contrast to global ecology, turns out to be closer to the humanities than to natural sciences.The need for such research is enormous, but it is still being carried out on a very limited scale.

Finally, human ecology can be considered the third scientific direction. Its subject, which does not coincide with the subjects of global ecology and social ecology in the narrow sense, would be the system of relationships with the natural environment of man as an individual. This direction is closer to medicine than social and global ecology. By definition, “human ecology is a scientific direction that studies patterns of interaction, problems of targeted management of the preservation and development of population health, improvement of the species Homo sapiens. The task of human ecology is to develop forecasts of possible changes in the characteristics of human (population) health under the influence of changes in the external environment and development of scientifically based standards for correction in the relevant components of life support systems... Most Western authors also distinguish between the concepts of social or human ecology (ecology of human society) and ecology of man (ecology of man).The first terms denote the science that considers issues of management, forecasting, planning of everything the process of "entry" of the natural environment into interrelation with society as a dependent and controllable subsystem within the framework of the "nature - society" system. The second term is used to name a science that focuses on man himself as a "biological unit" (Questions of Socioecology. Lvov, 1987. p. 32-33).

“Human ecology includes genetic-anatomical-physiological and medical-biological blocks that are absent in social ecology. In the latter, according to historical traditions, it is necessary to include significant sections of sociology and social psychology, not included in the narrow understanding of human ecology" (ibid., p. 195).

Of course, the three mentioned scientific directions are far from enough. The approach to the natural environment as a whole, necessary for the successful solution of an environmental problem, involves a synthesis of knowledge, which is seen in the formation of directions in various existing sciences, transitional from them to ecology.

Environmental issues are increasingly included in the social sciences. The development of social ecology is closely connected with the trends of sociologization and humanization of science (natural science, first of all), just as the integration of rapidly differentiating disciplines of the ecological cycle with each other and with other sciences is carried out in line with the general trends towards synthesis in the development of modern science.

Practice has a dual impact on the scientific understanding of environmental problems. The point here, on the one hand, is that transformative activity requires increasing the theoretical level of research into the “man - natural environment” system and strengthening the predictive power of these studies. On the other hand, it is Practical activities person provides direct assistance to scientific research. Knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships in nature can advance as it transforms. The larger environmental reconstruction projects are carried out, the more data penetrates the natural sciences, the deeper the cause-and-effect relationships in the natural environment can be identified, and the ultimately higher the theoretical level research into the relationship between society and the natural environment.

The theoretical potential of sciences studying the natural environment in last years has grown noticeably, which leads to the fact that “now all sciences about the Earth are in one way or another moving from descriptions and simple qualitative analysis
observational materials for the development of quantitative theories built on a physical and mathematical basis" (E.K. Fedorov. Interaction of society and nature. L., 1972, p. 63).

A formerly descriptive science - geography - based on establishing closer contact between its individual branches (climatology, geomorphology, soil science, etc.) and improving its methodological arsenal (mathematization, use of the methodology of physical and chemical sciences, etc.) becomes constructive geography, focusing not only and not so much on the study of the functioning of the geographical environment independently of humans, but on the theoretical understanding of the prospects for the transformation of our planet. Similar changes are occurring in other sciences that study certain aspects, aspects, etc. of the relationship between man and the natural environment.

Since social ecology is a new emerging discipline that is in the process of rapid development, its subject can only be outlined, but not clearly defined. This is typical for every emerging field of knowledge; social ecology is no exception. We will understand social ecology as a scientific direction that combines what is included in social ecology in the narrow sense, in global ecology and in human ecology. In other words, we will understand social ecology as a scientific discipline that studies the relationship between man and nature in their complex. This will be a subject of social ecology, although it may not be conclusively established.

Methods of social ecology

A more complex situation occurs with the definition of the method of social ecology. Since social ecology is a transitional science between the natural sciences and the humanities, in its methodology it must use the methods of both the natural and human sciences, as well as those methodologies that represent the unity of the natural science and humanitarian approaches (the first is called pomological, the second - ideographic).

As for general scientific methods, familiarization with the history of social ecology shows that at the first stage the observation method (monitoring) was used predominantly; at the second stage the modeling method came to the fore. Modeling is a way of long-term and comprehensive vision of the world. In its modern understanding, this is a universal procedure for comprehending and transforming the world. Generally speaking, each person, based on his life experience and knowledge, builds certain models of reality. Subsequent experience and knowledge confirm this model or contribute to its modification and refinement. A model is simply an ordered set of assumptions about a complex system. It is an attempt to understand some complex aspect of an infinitely varied world by selecting from accumulated ideas and experience a set of observations that apply to the problem at hand.

The authors of The Limits to Growth describe the global modeling methodology as follows. First, we compiled a list of important causal connections between variables and outlined the structure of feedback relationships. We then reviewed the literature and consulted experts in many fields related to these studies - demographers, economists, agronomists, nutritionists, geologists, ecologists, etc. Our goal at this stage was to find the most general structure, which would reflect the main relationships between the five levels. Further development of this basic structure based on other more detailed data can be carried out after the system itself is understood in its elementary form. We then quantified each relationship as accurately as possible, using global data if available and representative local data if no global measurements were taken. Using a computer, we determined the time dependence of the simultaneous action of all these connections. We then tested the impact of quantitative changes in our basic assumptions to find the most critical determinants of system behavior. There is no one “rigid” world model. A model, once it emerges, is constantly criticized and updated with data as we begin to understand it better. This model uses the most important relationships between population, food, investment, depreciation, resources and output. These dependencies are the same all over the world. Our technique is to make several assumptions about the relationships between parameters and then test them on a computer. The model contains dynamic statements only about the physical aspects of human activity. It proceeds from the assumption that the nature of social variables - income distribution, regulation of family size, choice between industrial goods, services and food - will remain in the future the same as it has been throughout modern history world development. Because it is difficult to predict what new forms of human behavior to expect, we did not attempt to account for these changes in the model. The value of our model is determined only by the point on each of the graphs that corresponds to the cessation of growth and the beginning of a catastrophe.

Within general method global modeling, various private techniques were used. Thus, the Meadows group applied the principles of system dynamics, which assume that the state of a system is completely described by a small set of quantities characterizing different levels of consideration, and its evolution in time - by differential equations of the 1st order containing the rates of change of these quantities, called fluxes, which depend only on time and the level values ​​themselves, but not on the speed of their changes. System dynamics deals only with exponential growth and equilibrium states.

The methodological potential of the theory of hierarchical systems applied by Mesarovic and Pestel is much wider, allowing the creation of multi-level models. The input-output method, developed and used in global modeling by B. Leontiev, involves the study of structural relationships in the economy in conditions where “many seemingly unrelated, in fact interdependent flows of production, distribution, consumption and capital investment constantly influence each other , and, ultimately, are determined by a number of basic characteristics of the system" (V. Leontiev. Studies of the structure of the American economy.

The input-output method represents reality in the form of a chessboard (matrix), reflecting the structure of intersectoral flows, the field of production, exchange and consumption. The method itself is already a certain idea of ​​reality, and, thus, the chosen methodology turns out to be significantly related to the substantive aspect.

A real system can also be used as a model. Thus, agrocenoses can be considered as an experimental model of biocenosis. In more in general terms all nature-transforming human activity is a modeling that accelerates the formation of a theory, but it should be treated as a model, taking into account the risk that this activity entails. In the transformative aspect, modeling contributes to optimization, i.e., choosing the best ways to transform the natural environment/

Social ecology is a young scientific discipline. In fact, the emergence and development of social ecology reflected
There is a growing interest of sociology in environmental problems, 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 the leading modern ecologists, Yu. Odum, “ecology is an interdisciplinary field of knowledge, the science of the structure of multi-level systems in nature, society, and their interrelationships.”
Researchers have been interested in issues of environmental well-being for quite a long time. Already in the early stages of the formation of human society, connections were discovered between the conditions in which people live and the characteristics of their health. The works of the great ancient physician Hippocrates (ca. 460-370 BC) contain numerous evidence that environmental factors and lifestyle have a decisive influence on the formation of a person’s physical (constitution) and mental (temperament) properties.
In the 17th century medical geography appeared - a science that studies the influence of natural and social conditions of various territories on the health of the people inhabiting them. Its founder was the Italian doctor Bernardino Ramazzini (1633-1714).
This indicates that ecological approach existed before human life. According to N.F. Reimers (1992), almost simultaneously with classical biological ecology, although under a different name, human ecology arose. 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. Byus 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 later 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 comprehensive scientific and scientific-practical direction of research into the interaction of 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.
current cosmoplanetary environment, problems of population development, preservation of its health and performance, improvement of human physical and mental capabilities.
Ecologist N.F. Reimers gave following definition: “human socio-economic ecology is a scientific field that studies 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 all 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 to protect nature from destruction, that is, to maintain ecological balance, it is necessary to create socio-economic mechanisms that protect this equilibrium.
The development of social ecology began after the First World War, at which time the first attempts to define its subject appeared. One of the first to do this was Mac Kenzie, a well-known representative of classical human ecology. He defined human ecology as the science of the spatial and temporal relationships of people affected by selective, distributive and accommodative forces of the environment. This definition of the subject of human ecology has formed the basis for extensive studies of the spatial distribution of population and other phenomena within urban agglomerations. Meanwhile, interest in studying spatial parameters public life over time led to a simplified understanding of the interdependence between population and other spatial phenomena, and this led to the crisis of classical human ecology.
Demand to improve the environment in the 50s. caused increased interest in the study of environmental problems.
Social ecology arose and developed under the influence of bioecology. Thus, if the relationship of a person to the environment is identical with the relationship of any living organism, then there is no
significant differences in the action of general environmental patterns. For example, a disease is only a violation of the level of human biological adaptation, a violation of adaptive reactions in the system of elements of the biological ecosystem. Since technological progress constantly disrupts the biotic and abiotic environment of humans, it inevitably leads to an imbalance in the biological ecosystem. Therefore, along with the development of civilization, it is fatally inevitably accompanied by an increase in the number of diseases. All sorts of things further development society becomes fatal for a person and calls into question the existence of civilization. That is why in modern society they talk about “diseases of civilization.”
This understanding of the relationship between man and his environment is unacceptable.
The development of social ecology accelerates after the World Sociological Congress (Evian, 1966), which made it possible to create a research committee of the International Sociological Association on social ecology at the next World Sociological Congress (Varna, 1970). Thus, the existence of social ecology as a branch of sociology was recognized, and 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 disruption arise as a result of the complex relationship between three sets of systems: natural, technical and social.
The technical system is essentially a social system that arises in the process of human labor activity, as well as in society, therefore it preserves the creative abilities of man, as well as the attitude of society to nature, where something is created or used.

Social ecology is a relatively young scientific discipline.

Its emergence should be considered in the context of the development of biology, which gradually rose to the level of broad theoretical concepts, and in the process of its development, attempts appeared to create a unified science that studies the relationship between nature and society.

Thus, the emergence and development of social ecology is closely related to the widespread approach according to which the natural and social world cannot be considered in isolation from each other.

The term “social ecology” was first used by American scientists R. Park and E. Burgess in 1921 to define the internal mechanism of development of the “capitalist city”. By the term “social ecology” they understood primarily the process of planning and development of urbanization of large cities as the epicenter of interaction between society and nature.

Most researchers are inclined to believe that the development of social ecology begins after the First World War, and at the same time attempts to define its subject appear.

What factors influenced the emergence and development of social ecology?

Let's name some of them.

Firstly, new concepts have appeared in the study of man as a social being.

Secondly, with the introduction of new concepts in ecology (biocenosis, ecosystem, biosphere), the need to study patterns in nature, taking into account data from not only natural but also social sciences, became obvious.

Thirdly, research by scientists has led to the conclusion about the possibility of human existence in conditions of deteriorating environmental conditions caused by a violation of ecological balance.

Fourthly, the emergence and formation of social ecology was also influenced by the fact that the threat to ecological balance and its disruption arise not only as a conflict between an individual or group and their natural environment, but also as a result of the complex relationship between three sets of systems: natural, technical and social. The desire of scientists to understand these systems in order to coordinate them in the name of protection and conservation

human environment (as a natural and social being)

led to the emergence and development of social ecology.

Thus, the relationships between the three systems - natural, technical and social - are variable, they depend on many factors, and this one way or another is reflected in the preservation or disruption of ecological balance.

The emergence of social ecology should be considered in the context of its development and transformation of ecology into a social science that seeks to cover a wide range of problems in the field of environmental management.

As a result, “ecology” also became a social science, while continuing to remain a natural science.

But this created an essential prerequisite for the emergence and construction of social ecology as a science, which, based on its research and theoretical analysis, should show how social indicators should change in order to exploit nature less, that is, to maintain ecological balance in it.

Consequently, in order to maintain ecological balance, the creation of socio-economic mechanisms that protect this balance is required. Therefore, not only biologists, chemists, mathematicians, but also scientists involved in social sciences.

The protection of nature must be linked to the protection of the social environment. Social ecology must examine the industrial system, “its connecting role between man and nature, while taking into account trends in the modern division of labor.”

Famous representative classical ecology, MacKenzie (1925) defined human ecology as the science of the spatial and temporal relationships of people affected by selective (selective), distributive (environmental factors) and accommodative (adaptation factors) environmental forces. However, this led to a simplified understanding of the interdependence between population and other spatial phenomena, which led to a crisis in classical human ecology.

After the Second World War, in the 50s, there was rapid economic growth in the industrialized countries of Germany, Austria, Italy, which required deforestation, mining and development of huge amounts of land resources (ores, coal, oil...), construction of new roads, villages, cities. This, in turn, influenced the emergence of environmental problems.

Oil refineries and chemical plants, metallurgical and cement plants violate environmental protection and emit huge amounts of smoke, soot and dusty waste into the atmosphere. It was impossible not to take these factors into account, as a crisis situation could arise.

Scientists are beginning to look for ways out of this situation. As a result, they come to the conclusion about the connection between environmental problems and social relations, about the connection between the environmental and the social. That is, all environmental violations must be analyzed from the point of view

audit of social problems in industrialized countries.

Developing countries are experiencing a demographic boom (India, Indonesia, etc.). In 1946-1950 their exit from the colony begins. At the same time, the peoples of these countries were used as political demands, and an environmental program with social consequences was developed. Countries liberated from the colonial yoke put forward claims to the colonialists for the destruction of forests and natural resources, i.e., disruption of the ecological balance (India, China, Indonesia and other countries).

This approach to environmental problems was already emphasized from biological and natural issues to social ones, i.e., the main attention was paid to the connections “between environmental and social issues.” This also played a role in the emergence of social ecology.

Due to the fact that social ecology is a relatively young science, and it is closely related to general ecology, it is natural that many scientists, when defining the subject of social ecology, leaned towards one science or another.

Thus, in the first interpretations of the subject of social ecology, which were made by McKenzie (1925), traces of animal ecology and plant ecology were easily noticeable, i.e., the subject of social ecology was considered in the context of the development of biology.

In Russian philosophy and sociological literature, the subject of social ecology is the noosphere, that is, the system of socio-natural relations, where the main attention is paid to the processes of human influence on nature and the impact on their relationships.

Social ecology studies the relationship between man and his environment, analyzes social processes (and relationships) in context, taking into account the characteristics of man as a natural-social being, which affects both the elements of his environment and his relationship to them. Social ecology is based on the knowledge of humane ecology.

In other words, social ecology begins to study the basic patterns of interaction in the “society-nature-human” system and determines the possibilities of creating a model of optimal interaction of elements in it. She aims to contribute to scientific forecasting in this area.

Social ecology, exploring the influence of man through his work on the natural environment, also examines the influence of the industrial system not only on the complex system of relationships in which man lives, but also on the natural conditions necessary for the development of the industrial system.

Social ecology also analyzes modern urbanized societies, the relationships of people in such a society, the influence of the urbanized environment and the environment created by industry, the various restrictions it imposes on family and local relationships, the various types

social connections caused by industrial technologies, etc. Consequently, the creation of the Institute of Social Ecology and the definition of its subject of research were influenced primarily by:

Complex relationships between humans and the environment;

worsening environmental crisis;

Standards of necessary wealth and organization of life, which should be taken into account when planning methods of exploiting nature;

Knowledge of the possibilities (study of mechanisms) of social control in order to limit pollution and preserve the natural environment;

Identification and analysis of public goals, including new ways of life, new concepts of ownership and responsibility for preserving the environment;

The influence of population density on human behavior, etc.

Thus, social ecology studies not only the direct and immediate influence of the environment (where technology is not developed) on humans, but also the composition of groups exploiting natural resources, human influence on the biosphere, and the latter moves into a new evolutionary state - the noosphere, which is a unity the mutual influence of nature and society, which is based on society.

Let's consider the definitions of the subject of social ecology. When studying the historical process of the formation of social ecology, one should take into account the various semantic connotations (definitions) of the term “social ecology” that appeared in different periods of its development, which makes it possible to form a correct objective idea of ​​science.

So, E. V. Girusov(1981) believes that the laws that form the subject of the study of social ecology cannot be defined only as natural or social, since these are laws of interaction between society and nature, which allows us to apply the new concept of “social-ecological laws” to them. The basis of the socio-ecological law, according to E.V. Girusov, is the optimal correspondence between the nature of social development and the state of the natural environment.

S. N. Solomina(1982) indicates that the subject of social ecology is the study of global problems of the general development of mankind, such as: problems of energy resources, environmental protection, problems of eliminating mass hunger and dangerous diseases, and development of the wealth of the ocean.

N. M. Mamedov(1983) notes that social ecology studies the interaction between society and the natural environment.

Yu. F. Markov(1987), tracing the connection between social ecology and

the doctrine of the noosphere by V.I. Vernadsky, gives the following definition of social ecology: the object of social ecology is a system of socio-natural relations, formed and functioning as a result of the conscious, purposeful activity of people.

A. S. Mamzin and V. V. Smirnov(1988) note that “the subject of social ecology is not nature and not society in themselves, but the system “society-nature-human” as a single developing whole.”

N. U. Tikhonovich(1990) distinguishes between global ecology, social ecology and human ecology. "Global ecology", in his opinion,

“includes in its scope of research the biosphere as a whole... anthropogenic changes and its evolution.”

The emergence of social ecology was preceded by the emergence of human ecology, and therefore the terms “social ecology” and

“Human ecology” are used in the same meaning, i.e. they denote the same discipline.

The human environment (environment) in social ecology is understood as a set of natural and socio-ecological conditions in which people live and in which they can realize themselves,

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Essay
in the discipline “Social ecology and economics of environmental management”
on the topic of:
“Social ecology. History of formation and current state"

Performed:

3rd year student

Konovalova Maria

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. History of the formation of the subject of social ecology
4. The importance of social ecology and its role in the modern world

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 increasingly growing interest of representatives of various humanitarian disciplines? sociology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.,? to 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. Parku And E. Burgess, 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 not talking 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. R. McKenziel, who characterized it as the science of the territorial and temporal relations of people, which are influenced by selective (elective), distributive (distributive) and accommodative (adaptive) forces of the environment. This 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 best suited to designate a specific direction of research into the relationship of man 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”. This created certain difficulties for the establishment of social ecology as an independent discipline, humanitarian in its main focus. The fact is that, in parallel with the development of socio-ecological issues proper within the framework of human ecology, bioecological aspects of human life were developed. Human biological ecology, which had by this time undergone a long period of formation and therefore had greater weight in science and had a more developed categorical and methodological apparatus, “overshadowed” humanitarian social ecology from the eyes of the advanced scientific community for a long time. And yet, 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 liberate social ecology from the “yoke” of bioecology, it continued to be significantly influenced by the latter for many decades. As a result, social ecology borrowed most of the concepts and its categorical apparatus from the ecology of plants and animals, as well as from general ecology. At the same time, as noted by D.Zh. Markovich, 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 World Congress of Sociologists that took place in 1966 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 the Research Committee of the World Association of Sociologists on Problems of Social Ecology. Thus, as noted by D.Zh. Markovich, the existence of social ecology as an independent scientific branch was, in fact, recognized and an impetus was given to its more rapid development and more precise definition of its subject.
During the period under review, the list of tasks that this branch of scientific knowledge was gradually gaining independence expanded significantly. If at the dawn of the formation of social ecology, the efforts of researchers were mainly limited to searching in the behavior of a territorially localized human population for analogues of the 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 , developing ways to determine the optimal conditions for its life and development, harmonizing relationships with other components of the biosphere. The process of its humanitarization that has embraced social ecology in the last two decades has led to the fact that in addition to the above-mentioned tasks, the range of issues developed by it included the problems of identifying general laws of 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 70s, conditions had also developed for the separation of socio-ecological 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 etc.
One of the most important problems facing researchers at the present stage of development of social ecology is the development of a unified approach to understanding its subject. Despite the obvious progress achieved in studying various aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature, as well as a significant number of publications on socio-ecological issues that have appeared in the last two or three decades in our country and abroad, on the issue of There are still different opinions about what exactly this branch of scientific knowledge studies. 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 “about the interaction of human society with the natural environment”,
and in the wide? the science “of the interaction of the individual and human society with the 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 a comparison of 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) 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 actual identification of these two branches of scientific knowledge is indeed still characteristic of foreign science, but it is quite often subject to reasoned criticism by domestic scientists. S. N. Solomina, in particular, pointing out the advisability of dividing 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. agrees with this interpretation of the subject of human ecology. Bukhvalov, L.V. Bogdanova and some other researchers, but N.A. categorically disagree. Agadzhanyan, V.P. Kaznacheev and N.F. Reimers, according to whom, this discipline covers a much wider range of issues of 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 to 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 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 are inclined to an expanded interpretation of the subject of social ecology. So, according to D.Zh. Markovich, the subject of study of modern social ecology, which he understands as private sociology, are specific connections between a person and his environment. Based on this, the main tasks of social ecology can be defined as follows: the study of the influence of the habitat as a set 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 slightly 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 connection of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups), as well as the connection of humans 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 especially emphasizes its interdisciplinary nature.
Some researchers, when defining the subject of social ecology, tend to especially note the role that this young science is called upon to play in harmonizing the relationship of humanity with its environment. According to E.V. Girusov, social ecology should study, first of all, 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 importance of social ecology and its role in the modern world