• صفحه اصلی
  • محیط‌زیست در نگرش جامعه‌شناختی امیل دورکیم

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : 14246 بازدید : 97 صفحه: 145 - 152

20.1001.1.15625532.1398.17.1.12.0

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

محیط‌زیست در نگرش جامعه‌شناختی امیل دورکیم

محورهای موضوعی : آب و محیط زیست

سعید کشاورزی 1 ( دکتری جامعه شناسی، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات) )
مریم کریمی 2 ( کارشناسی ارشد جامعه شناسی، دانشکده اقتصاد، مدیریت و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران. )

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/04/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1395/10/15 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/01/01

کلید واژه: جامعه‌شناسی محیط‌زیست, علوم اجتماعی, امیل دورکیم, عدم توجه به محیط‌زیست,

چکیده مقاله :

چکیده طی سال‌های اخیر، محیط‌زیست و مسایل و مشکلات مرتبط با آن توجه علوم مختلف را به خود جلب نموده است. تعداد تحقیقات جامعه‌شناسی و روان‌شناسی در این زمینه نشان‌دهنده توجه محققان علوم انسانی به محیط‌زیست می‌باشد. بااین‌حال جامعه‌شناسی محیط‌زیست به‌عنوان شاخه‌ای از رشته‌ی جامعه‌شناسی، بسیار دیر، پا به عرصه نهاد. عده‌ای دلیل این امر را در اندیشه‌های پیش‌روان علوم‌اجتماعی جست‌وجو نموده‌اند و بر همین اساس انگشت اتهام را به سمت آن‌ها نشانه رفته‌اند. یکی از این عالمان اجتماعی که مسئول عدم‌توجه جامعه‌شناسی به محیط‌زیست شناخته‌شده، دورکیم، جامعه‌شناس فرانسوی می‌باشد. در این مطالعه تلاش شده است ضمن بررسی مسأله محیط‌زیست در اندیشه‌های دورکیم، به این سؤال پاسخ داده شود که اندیشه‌های وی چه نقشی در ورود دیرهنگام محیط‌زیست به جامعه‌شناسی داشته است. نتایج این مطالعه نشان می‌دهد که تعریف مفهوم واقعیات اجتماعی در تفکر دورکیمی و دیدگاه ضد تقلیل‌گرای او، از مهم‌ترین عوامل نادیده گرفته شدن تأثیرات متغیرهای محیطی بر جامعه بوده است. هم‌چنین بر اساس نتایج این مطالعه، بااین‌که دیدگاه دورکیم، تأثیرات نسبتاً گسترده‌ای بر جریان اصلی جامعه‌شناسی داشته است، از جامعیتی که منتقدین او ادعا کرده‌اند، برخوردار نبوده و مرزبندی دورکیم با متغیرهای محیطی، پس از او در موارد بسیاری از بین رفته است.

چکیده انگلیسی:

In recent years, the environment and arising challenges have attracted the attention ofvarious sciences.Number of sociology/psychological research in this field demonstrates this scholar’s attention to the environment. However, environmental sociology as a branch of sociology discipline was established too late. Some sought the reason in the leading Social Scientists pioneer’s thoughts and accordingly condemned them. One of these social scientists known responsible for the lack of attention to environment is Durkheim, the French leading sociologist. In this study, we tried to examine the concept of environment in the Durkheim thoughts and answer to the question that how his thoughts resulted in the late entering of environment to the sociology. The results of this study suggest that the notion of social realities and anti-reductionist view of Durkheim mind are influential important factors ignoring the effects of environmental variables on society. In addition, according to the result of this study, even though, the impact of Durkheim's view on mainstream of sociology has been relatively wide, but the inclusiveness of these thoughts was to doubt and Durkheim boundaries with environmental variables, after him have been gone in many cases.

منابع و مأخذ:


 

  1. Hannigan, J., 2006. Environmental Sociology. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
    2.
  2. Buttel, F. H., 1986. Sociology and the environment: the winding road toward human ecology, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 38(3). Pp. 56-337.
    3.
  3. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D., 1978. Environmental Concern: A Bibliography of Empirical Studies and Brief Appraisal of the Literature. Vance Bibliographies, Monticello, III.
    4.
  4. Dunlap, R. E., 2010. The maturation and diversifi cation of environmental sociology: from constructivism and realism to agnosticism and pragmatism, In the International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by M. Redclift and G. Woodgate, 15–32. 2nd ed. London: Edward Elgar.
    5.
  5. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., & van der Werff, E., 2015. Understanding the Human Dimensions of a Sustainable Energy Transition. Front Psychol, Vol. 6(805). Pp. 1-15. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805.
    6.
  6. Foster, J. B., 1999. Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 105 (2), pp. 366-405. Online Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/210315
    7.
  7. Rosa, E. A. & Richter, L., 2008. Durkheim on the Environment: Ex Libris or Ex Cathedra? Introduction to Inaugural Lecture to a Course in Social Science 1887-1888. Organization Environment, Vol. 21,  pp. 182-187. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/21/2/182
    8.
  8. Dunlap, R. E., 2002. Environmental Sociology: A Personal Perspective on Its First Quarter Century. Organization & Environment, Vol. 15(1), pp. 10-29. Online Available at:
    9.

http://oae.sagepub.com/content/15/1/10

  1. Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R., Jr., 1979. Environmental Sociology: A Framework for Analysis. In T. O’Riordan & R. C. d’Arge (Eds.), Progress in resource management and environmental planning, Vol. 1, pp. 57-85.
    2.
  2. Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E., 1980. A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 24, pp. 15-47. Online Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/24/1/15
    3.
  3. Ladd, A. E., 2003. Sociology, Humanism, and the Environmental Crossroads: Bringing Nature Back In. Humanity & Society, Vol. 27, pp. 516-528. Online. Available at: http://has.sagepub.com/content/27/4/516
    4.
  4. Järvikoski, T., 1996. The Relation of Nature and Society in Marx and Durkheim. Acta Sociologica. Vol. 39, pp. 73-86. Online Available at: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/39/1/73
    5.
  5. Gross, M., 2000. Classical Sociology and the Restoration of Nature: The Relevance of Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Organization & Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 277-291. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/13/3/277
    6.
  6. Durkheim, E., 1893. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    7.
  7. Durkheim, É., 1895. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. New York: Free Press. (Original work published in 1895)
    8.
  8. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T., 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, pp. 279-300. Online Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519769
    9.
  9. Benton, T., & Redclift M., 1994. Introduction in Social Theory and the Global Environment. edited by Michael Redclift and Ted Benton. NewYork: Routledge.
    10.
  10. Buttel, F. H., 1987. New Directions in Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 465-488. Online Available at:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083257
    11.
  11. Dunlap, R. E., 2009. Promoting a Paradigm Change: Reflections on Early Contributions to Environmental Sociology. Organization Environment, Vol. 21, pp. 478-488. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/21/4/478
    12.
  12. Alexandrescu, F. M., 2009. Not As Natural As It Seems: The Social History of Environment in American Sociology. History of the Human sciences. Vol. 22(5), pp. 47-80. Online Available at:  http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/22/5/47
    13.

 

 

 

 

_||_

 

  1. Hannigan, J., 2006. Environmental Sociology. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.
    2.
  2. Buttel, F. H., 1986. Sociology and the environment: the winding road toward human ecology, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 38(3). Pp. 56-337.
    3.
  3. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D., 1978. Environmental Concern: A Bibliography of Empirical Studies and Brief Appraisal of the Literature. Vance Bibliographies, Monticello, III.
    4.
  4. Dunlap, R. E., 2010. The maturation and diversifi cation of environmental sociology: from constructivism and realism to agnosticism and pragmatism, In the International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by M. Redclift and G. Woodgate, 15–32. 2nd ed. London: Edward Elgar.
    5.
  5. Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., & van der Werff, E., 2015. Understanding the Human Dimensions of a Sustainable Energy Transition. Front Psychol, Vol. 6(805). Pp. 1-15. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00805.
    6.
  6. Foster, J. B., 1999. Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, The University of Chicago Press. Vol. 105 (2), pp. 366-405. Online Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/210315
    7.
  7. Rosa, E. A. & Richter, L., 2008. Durkheim on the Environment: Ex Libris or Ex Cathedra? Introduction to Inaugural Lecture to a Course in Social Science 1887-1888. Organization Environment, Vol. 21,  pp. 182-187. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/21/2/182
    8.
  8. Dunlap, R. E., 2002. Environmental Sociology: A Personal Perspective on Its First Quarter Century. Organization & Environment, Vol. 15(1), pp. 10-29. Online Available at:
    9.

http://oae.sagepub.com/content/15/1/10

  1. Dunlap, R. E., & Catton, W. R., Jr., 1979. Environmental Sociology: A Framework for Analysis. In T. O’Riordan & R. C. d’Arge (Eds.), Progress in resource management and environmental planning, Vol. 1, pp. 57-85.
    2.
  2. Catton, W. R., Jr., & Dunlap, R. E., 1980. A New Ecological Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 24, pp. 15-47. Online Available at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/24/1/15
    3.
  3. Ladd, A. E., 2003. Sociology, Humanism, and the Environmental Crossroads: Bringing Nature Back In. Humanity & Society, Vol. 27, pp. 516-528. Online. Available at: http://has.sagepub.com/content/27/4/516
    4.
  4. Järvikoski, T., 1996. The Relation of Nature and Society in Marx and Durkheim. Acta Sociologica. Vol. 39, pp. 73-86. Online Available at: http://asj.sagepub.com/content/39/1/73
    5.
  5. Gross, M., 2000. Classical Sociology and the Restoration of Nature: The Relevance of Emile Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Organization & Environment, Vol. 13, pp. 277-291. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/13/3/277
    6.
  6. Durkheim, E., 1893. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    7.
  7. Durkheim, É., 1895. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and Its Method. New York: Free Press. (Original work published in 1895)
    8.
  8. York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T., 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, pp. 279-300. Online Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1519769
    9.
  9. Benton, T., & Redclift M., 1994. Introduction in Social Theory and the Global Environment. edited by Michael Redclift and Ted Benton. NewYork: Routledge.
    10.
  10. Buttel, F. H., 1987. New Directions in Environmental Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13, pp. 465-488. Online Available at:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2083257
    11.
  11. Dunlap, R. E., 2009. Promoting a Paradigm Change: Reflections on Early Contributions to Environmental Sociology. Organization Environment, Vol. 21, pp. 478-488. Online Available at: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/21/4/478
    12.
  12. Alexandrescu, F. M., 2009. Not As Natural As It Seems: The Social History of Environment in American Sociology. History of the Human sciences. Vol. 22(5), pp. 47-80. Online Available at:  http://hhs.sagepub.com/content/22/5/47
    13.

 

 

 

 

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]