Environment in the Emile Durkheim’s Sociological Perspective

Subject Areas : Water and Environment

Saeed Keshavarzi ¹ , Maryam Karimi ²

1 - PhD in Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran.* (Corresponding Author)
2 - Master in Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Shiraz University, Iran.

Received: 2016-07-01 Accepted : 2017-01-04 Published : 2019-03-21

Keywords: Environmental Sociology, Social Sciences, Emile Durkheim, Lack of Attention to the Envir,

Abstract :

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.

References:

 

1. Hannigan, J., 2006. Environmental Sociology. 2nd edition. New York: Routledge.


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. 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. 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. 2^nd ed. London: Edward Elgar.


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. 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. 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. 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:

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

9. 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.


10. 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


11. 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


12. 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


13. 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


14. Durkheim, E., 1893. (1984). The Division of Labour in Society. Basingstoke: Macmillan.


15. 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)


16. 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


17. Benton, T., & Redclift M., 1994. Introduction in Social Theory and the Global Environment. edited by Michael Redclift and Ted Benton. NewYork: Routledge.


18. 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


19. 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


20. 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