Social ecology studies the relationships between. The problem of developing a unified approach to understanding the subject of social ecology. Concept of social ecology

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.

Danilo J. Markovic (1996) notes that “social ecology can be defined as a branch sociology, the subject of study of which is the specific connections between humanity and the environment; the influence of the latter as a set of natural and social factors on man, as well as his influence on the environment with position of its preservation for his life as a natural social being."

Social ecology is a scientific discipline that empirically studies and theoretically generalizes the specific connections between society, nature, man and his living environment (environment) in the context of global problems of humanity with the aim of not only preserving, but also improving the environment of man as a natural and social being.

Social ecology explains and predicts the main directions of development of interaction between society and the natural environment: historical ecology, cultural ecology, ecology and economics, ecology and politics, ecology and morality, ecology and law, environmental informatics, etc.

The subject of the study of social ecology is to identify patterns of development of this system, value-ideological, sociocultural, legal and other prerequisites and conditions for its sustainable development. That is the subject of social ecology is a relationship in the system “society-man-technology-natural environment”.

In this system, all elements and subsystems are homogeneous, and the connections between them determine its immutability and structure. The object of social ecology is the “society-nature” system.

In addition, scientists have proposed that, within the framework of social ecology, a relatively independent (territorial) level of research should be identified: the population of urbanized zones, individual regions, regions, and the planetary level of the planet Earth should be investigated.

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;

Exacerbation of the 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.

Social ecology is a branch of science that studies the interaction between human society and nature. At the moment, this science is being formed into an independent discipline, has its own field of research, subject and object of study. It should be said that social ecology studies various population groups that are engaged in activities that directly affect the state of nature, using the resources of the planet. In addition, various measures to solve environmental problems are being studied. Environmental protection methods, which are used by different segments of the population, occupy a significant place.

In turn, social ecology has the following subtypes and sections:

• — economic;
• — legal;
• — urbanistic;
• — demographic ecology.

Main problems of social ecology

This discipline primarily examines what mechanisms people use to influence the environment and the world around them. The main problems include the following:

• — global forecasting of the use of natural resources by people;
• — study of certain ecosystems at the level of small locations;
• — study of urban ecology and people’s lives in various localities;
• — ways of development of human civilization.

Subject of social ecology

Today, social ecology is only gaining momentum in popularity. Vernadsky’s work “Biosphere,” which the world saw in 1928, has a significant influence on the development and establishment of this scientific field. This monograph outlines the problems of social ecology. Further research by scientists considers such problems as the cycle of chemical elements and human use of the planet’s natural resources.

Human ecology occupies a special place in this scientific specialization. In this context, the direct relationship between people and the environment is studied. This scientific direction considers humans as a biological species.

Development of social ecology

Thus, social Ecology is developing and becoming the most important field of knowledge that studies man against the backdrop of the environment. This helps to understand not only the development of nature, but also of man in general. By conveying the values ​​of this discipline to the general public, people will be able to understand what place they occupy on earth, what harm they cause to nature and what needs to be done to preserve it.

The term “social ecology” itself contains a certain duality, this duality is also characteristic of man himself: on the one hand, man as a living biological being is part of natural nature, and as a social being - part of society, the social environment.

Which sciences should social ecology be classified as, humanitarian or natural, social or environmental? What is more natural or social in social ecology? Some scientists, mainly representing the natural sciences (anthropologists, geographers, biologists), believe that social ecology is a section of ecology, namely a section of human ecology. Others, mainly sociologists, talk about the humanitarian orientation of social ecology and present it as a branch of sociology. Philosophers, historians, and physicians made a huge contribution to the development of social ecology.

The initial interpretation of the term “Human ecology” given by Roderick Mackenzie in 1924, who defined “Human ecology” as the science of those spatial and temporal forms of human existence that are determined by selective (promoting selection), distributive (predetermining distribution) and adaptive environmental forces. That is, we were talking about the natural environment as an arena for the life of social groups and societies and about the characteristics of these social groups and societies that depend on the properties of this arena. It is interesting that this interpretation of the term “Human ecology” is surprisingly consistent with the conclusions of the ancient historian Herodotus (484-425 BC), who connected the process of character formation in people and the establishment of a particular political system with the action of natural factors (climate, landscape features, etc.). As can be seen from this example, the history of social ecology, which took shape as a separate science in the twentieth century, has its roots in ancient times. Problems of the relationship between nature and society have occupied the minds of scientists since the emergence of science. Not only Herodotus, but also Hippocrates, Plato, Eratosthenes, Aristotle, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus studied various aspects of these interactions. Diodorus Siculus was the first to formulate the idea of ​​the dependence between the productive power of labor and natural conditions. He noted the natural advantages of agriculture among the Egyptians over other peoples of the Mediterranean. He directly connected the height and obesity of the Indians (which he knew about from stories) with the abundance of fruits, and he also explained the characteristics of the Scythians with natural factors. Eratosthenes established in science an approach to the study of the Earth in which it is considered as a human home, and called this area of ​​knowledge geography3. The physician Hippocrates was primarily concerned with the question of the impact of nature on each individual human being, and not on society. Therefore, Hippocrates is rightfully considered the father of medical geography. The idea of ​​the predominant influence of nature on man and society through geographical factors became stronger in science even more in the Middle Ages, and later, it received its most complete development in the works of Montesquieu (1689-1755), Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862), L.I. . Mechnikov (1838-1888), F. Ratzel (1844-1904). According to the ideas of these scientists, the geographical environment and natural conditions determine not only the social organization, but also the character of the people, and man can only adapt to nature. As noted by the Swiss geographer, sociologist and publicist of Russian origin L.I. Mechnikov’s role of the natural environment is to teach people solidarity and mutual assistance, first by the force of fear and coercion (river civilizations), then on the basis of benefit (sea civilizations) and, finally, on the basis of free choice (global oceanic civilization). At the same time, the evolution of civilization and the Environment occurs in parallel. The English historian Henry Thomas Buckle came up with the aphorism “In ancient times, the richest countries were those whose nature was most abundant; Nowadays, the richest countries are those in which people are most active.” The American scientist J. Byus notes that the line “human geography - human ecology - society” originated in the works of O. Comte and was later developed by other sociologists.

Below are some of the most well-known definitions of social ecology by leading scientists in the field.

According to E.V. Girusov, social ecology is the science of the environment, considered within the framework of the theory of interaction between society and nature in order to find out the patterns of development of these relations and find ways to optimize them.

According to N.F. Reimers, social ecology is devoted to relationships in the “society-nature” system at different structural levels of the anthroposphere, from humanity to the individual, and is included in anthropology.

Social ecology (socioecology) is a science that was formed in the 70-80s of the 20th century, its subject being the relationship between society and nature, with the goal of bringing these relationships into a state of harmony, relying on the power of the human mind (Yu.G. Markov).

Social ecology is a separate sociological science, the subject of which is the specific connections between humanity and the environment; the influence of the latter as a set of natural and social factors on a person, as well as his influence on the environment from the position of its preservation for his life as a natural social being (Danilo Zh. Markovich).

I.K. Bystryakov, T.N. Karyakin and E.A. Meyerson, believe that social ecology can be defined as “industrial sociology, the subject of study of which is the specific connections between man and the environment, the influence of the latter as a set of natural and social factors on man, as well as his influence on the environment from the standpoint of its conservation for his life as a natural social being” Bystryakov I.K., Meyerson E.A., Karyakina T.N. Social ecology: Course of lectures. / under general Ed. E.A. Meyerson. Volgograd. VolSU Publishing House, 1999. - P. 27..

Social ecology is a union of scientific branches that study the connection of social structures (starting with the family and other small social groups) with the natural and social environment of their habitat (T.A. Akimova, V.V. Haskin).

Social ecology is the science of the development and functioning of social communities, social structures and institutions under the influence of environmental factors of an anthropological nature on their livelihoods, leading to socio-ecological tensions and conflicts, as well as mechanisms for their reduction or resolution; about the patterns of social actions and mass behavior in conditions of socio-ecological tension or conflict against the backdrop of an environmental crisis (Sosunova I. A.).

Social ecology is a scientific discipline that empirically studies and theoretically generalizes the specific connections between society, nature, man and his living environment (environment) in the context of global problems of humanity with the aim of not only preserving, but also improving the environment of man as a natural and social being ( A.V. Losev, G.G. Provadkin).

V.A. Elk defines social ecology as a science focused on identifying the basic patterns and forms of human interaction with his environment, studying the diverse connections and changes occurring in the biosphere under the influence of the production, economic and socio-cultural activities of society.

The analysis of the history of the development of socioecological knowledge and the analysis of definitions of social ecology indicates that the concept of “social ecology” is evolving. And, despite its deep roots, social ecology is a young science: like other young sciences, social ecology does not have a single definition of the subject of scientific research Los V.A. Ecology: textbook / V.A. Elk. - M.: Publishing house "Exam", 2006. - P. 34..

The object of social ecology as an integrative science is the diverse connections of the “society - nature” system, which in a more specific form appears as the “society - man - technology - natural environment” system.

The subject of social ecology is the laws of development of the “society-nature” system and the resulting principles and methods for optimizing and harmonizing relations between man and nature. The first part of the subject represents its epistemological side and is associated with the knowledge of laws, which in terms of generality are lower than philosophical ones, but higher than the laws of special and complex sciences. The second side of the subject reflects the practical orientation of social ecology and is associated with the study and formulation of principles and methods for optimizing and harmonizing human relations with nature, preserving and improving the quality of the human natural environment and, above all, its core - the biosphere. The subject of social ecology is the patterns of emergence, formation and development of the noosphere.

Self-determination and identification of any science are associated with the definition of their specific subject and methods. The difficulty of defining specific methods of social ecology (as well as the subject) is associated with a number of circumstances: the youth of social ecology as a science - it is one of the youngest sciences; the specificity of the subject of social ecology itself, which has a complex nature and includes biotic, abiotic, sociocultural and technical phenomena; the integrative nature of science, associated with the need for interdisciplinary synthesis of environmental knowledge and ensuring the connection of science with practice; representation within the framework of social ecology of not only descriptive, but also normative knowledge.

Social ecology widely uses such general scientific methods as observation, comparison, generalization, classification, idealization, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis; methods of causal, structural and functional explanation; methods of unity of the historical and logical, ascent from the abstract to the concrete, modeling, etc.

Since social ecology is an integrative science, it uses methods of sociological analysis, mathematical and statistical methods, positive and interpretive methods of scientific knowledge.

Among the fundamental methods of social ecology a number of authors (V.D. Komarov, D.Zh. Markovich) attribute methods of systematic and integrated approaches, system analysis, modeling and forecasting, connecting them with the systemic nature of the biosphere and socio-natural interaction, the integrative nature of science itself, the need for systemic actions of all humanity in nature and the prevention of their negative consequences.

Applied methods of social ecology include methods for creating geographic information systems, recording and assessing the state of the environment, certification and standardization, comprehensive environmental and economic analysis and environmental diagnostics, engineering and environmental surveys, assessing the impact of man-made pollution, environmental observation and control (monitoring, examination) , environmental design.

Social ecology is a scientific discipline about harmonizing the relationship between nature and society. This branch of knowledge analyzes human relations (taking into account the correspondence of the humanistic side) with development needs. At the same time, comprehension of the world in its general concepts is used, expressing the degree of historical unity of nature and man.

The conceptual-categorical structure of science is in constant development and improvement. This process of change is quite diverse and permeates all ecologies, both objectively and subjectively. In this unique way, scientific creativity is reflected and influences the evolution of scientific research methods and interests not only of individual scientists, but also of various teams as a whole.

The approach to nature and society that social ecology proposes to take can, to a certain extent, seem intellectually demanding. At the same time, he avoids some of the simplification of dualism and reductionism. Social ecology seeks to show the slow and multiphase process of transformation of nature into society, taking into account all the differences on the one hand and the degree of interpenetration on the other.

One of the primary tasks facing researchers at the stage of modern science is the determination of a general approach to understanding the subject of the discipline. Despite some progress that has been made in the study of various areas of interaction between man, nature and society, a large amount of material published over the past decades, there is still a lot of controversy regarding the question of what exactly social ecology studies.

An increasing number of researchers prefer an expanded interpretation of the subject of the discipline. For example, Markovic (a Serbian scientist) believed that social ecology, which he considered as a private sociology, studies the specific connections that are established between a person and his environment. Based on this, the objectives of the discipline may be to study the influence of the totality of social and natural factors that make up the environmental conditions on a person, as well as the impact of the individual on external conditions perceived as the boundaries of human life.

There is also, to some extent, another interpretation of the concept of the subject of discipline that does not contradict the above explanation. Thus, Haskin and Akimova consider social ecology as a complex of individuals that explore the connection between social structures (starting with the family itself and other small social groups and groups), as well as between humans and the natural, social environment. Using this interpretation, it becomes possible to more fully study. In this case, the approach to understanding the subject of the discipline is not limited to the framework of one. At the same time, attention is focused on the interdisciplinary nature of the discipline.

When defining the subject of social ecology, some researchers are inclined to especially note the significance with which it is endowed. The role of discipline, in their opinion, is very significant in the matter of harmonizing the interaction of humanity and its environment. A number of authors believe that the task of social ecology, first of all, is to study the laws of nature and society. In this case, these laws are understood as the principles of self-regulation in the biosphere, applied by man in his life.

SOCIAL ECOLOGY IN THE GLOBAL WORLD

“The childhood of humanity is over, when Mother Nature walked around and cleaned up after us. The period of maturity has arrived. Now we need to clean up ourselves, or rather, learn to live in such a way as not to litter. From now on, full responsibility for preserving life on Earth falls on us” (Oldak, 1979).

Currently, humanity is experiencing perhaps the most critical moment in the entire history of its existence. Modern society is in a deep crisis, although this cannot be said if we limit ourselves to some external manifestations. We see that the economies of developed countries continue to grow, even if not at such a rapid pace as it was quite recently. Accordingly, mining volumes continue to increase, which is stimulated by growing consumer demand. This is again most noticeable in developed countries. At the same time, social contrasts in the modern world between economically developed and developing countries are becoming more and more pronounced and in some cases reach a 60-fold gap in the income of the population of these countries.

Rapid industrialization and urbanization, a sharp increase in the planet's population, intensive chemicalization of agriculture, and other types of anthropogenic pressure on nature significantly disrupted the cycle of substances and natural energy processes in the biosphere, damaged its mechanisms self-healing . This jeopardized the health and life of modern and future generations of people and, in general, the continued existence of civilization.

Analyzing the current situation, many experts come to the conclusion that humanity is currently threatened two mortal dangers:

1) comparatively fast death in the fire of a global nuclear missile war and

2) slow extinction due to deterioration in the quality of the living environment, which is caused by the destruction of the biosphere due to irrational economic activities.

The second danger is apparently more real and more formidable, since diplomatic efforts alone are not enough to prevent it. There is a need for a revision of all traditional principles of environmental management and a radical restructuring of the entire economic mechanism in most countries of the world.

Therefore, speaking about the current situation, everyone should understand that the modern crisis has affected not only the economy and nature. What is in crisis, first of all, is the person himself with his centuries-old way of thinking, needs, habits, way of life and behavior. The crisis situation of man lies in the fact that his entire way of life opposes nature. We can get out of this crisis only if man is transformed into a being friendly with nature who understands it and knows how to be in agreement with it. But for this, people must learn to live in harmony with each other and take care of future generations. Every person must learn all this, no matter where he has to work and no matter what tasks he has to solve.

So, in the conditions of the progressive destruction of the Earth's biosphere, in order to resolve the contradictions between society and nature, it is necessary to transform human activity on new principles. These principles provide achieving a reasonable compromise between the social and economic needs of society and the ability of the biosphere to satisfy them without threatening its normal functioning. Thus, the time has come for a critical review of all areas of human activity, as well as areas of knowledge and spiritual culture that shape a person’s worldview.

Humanity is now being tested for authenticity reasonableness . It will be able to pass this exam only if it fulfills the requirements that the biosphere places on it. These requirements are:

1) biosphere compatibility based on knowledge and use of the laws of conservation of the biosphere;

2) moderation in the consumption of natural resources, overcoming the wastefulness of the consumer structure of society;

3) mutual tolerance and peacefulness of the peoples of the planet in relations with each other;

4) adherence to generally significant, environmentally thoughtful and consciously set global goals of social development.

All these requirements presuppose the movement of humanity towards a single global integrity based on the joint formation and maintenance of a new planetary shell, which Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky called noosphere .

The scientific basis of such activities should be a new branch of knowledge - social ecology .

Prehistory of social ecology. Reasons for the emergence of social ecology as an independent scientific discipline

Problems associated with the interaction of society and its environment are called ecological problems. Ecology was originally a branch of biology (the term was introduced by Ernst Haeckel in 1866). Biological ecologists study the relationships of animals, plants and entire communities with their environment. Ecological view of the world– such a ranking of values ​​and priorities of human activity, when the most important thing is to preserve a human-friendly living environment.

The prehistory of social ecology begins with the appearance of man on Earth. The English theologian Thomas Malthus is considered the herald of the new science. He was one of the first to point out that there are natural limits to economic growth and demanded that population growth be limited: “The law in question is the constant desire inherent in all living beings to multiply faster than is allowed by the quantity at their disposal.” food" (Malthus, 1868, p. 96); “... to improve the situation of the poor, a reduction in the relative number of births is necessary” (Malthus, 1868, p. 378). This idea is not new. In Plato's "ideal republic" the number of families should be regulated by the government. Aristotle went further and proposed determining the number of children for each family.

Another precursor to social ecology is geographical school in sociology: adherents of this scientific school pointed out that the mental characteristics of people and their way of life are directly dependent on the natural conditions of a given area. Let us remember that C. Montesquieu argued that “the power of climate is the first power in the world.” Our compatriot L.I. Mechnikov pointed out that world civilizations developed in the basins of great rivers, on the shores of seas and oceans. K. Marx believed that a temperate climate is most suitable for the development of capitalism. K. Marx and F. Engels developed the concept of the unity of man and nature, the main idea of ​​which was: to know the laws of nature and apply them correctly.

The emergence and subsequent development of social ecology was a natural consequence of the growing interest of representatives of various humanitarian disciplines (such as sociology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.) in the problem of harmonizing the relationship between society and nature, man and the environment. And this is possible only when the basis for the socio-economic development of society becomes rational environmental management .

Initially, many existing sciences tried to develop scientific principles of rational environmental management - biology, geography, medicine, economics. Recently, ecology has become increasingly involved in these issues. Medical-biological and medical-demographic aspects of the relationship between society and nature were considered in medical geography, environmental hygiene and later in the new field of ecology - human ecology. In general, many new sections have arisen in traditional sciences. For example, engineering geology began to deal with the protection and rational use of the geological environment. Socio-ecological law began to take shape in jurisprudence. In economic science, such a section as environmental economics has emerged.

Representatives of various scientific disciplines began to argue that the problem of rational environmental management was theirs alone. But it turned out that each science, when studying the problem of rational environmental management, focused attention on those points that were closer to it. Chemists, for example, were not concerned with studying a problem from a social or economic point of view and vice versa.

It has become obvious that an isolated study of all aspects of this problem - medical, biological, social, economic, etc., does not allow creating a general theory of balanced interaction between society and nature and effectively solving practical problems of rational environmental management. For this we needed a new one interdisciplinary science .

Such a science began to take shape almost simultaneously in many countries of the world. In our country, different names were used to designate it - natural sociology, sozology, environmental science, applied ecology, global ecology, socio-economic ecology, modern ecology, big ecology, etc. However, these terms are not widely used.

1.2. Stages of development of social ecology.
Subject of social ecology

The term “social ecology” itself appeared thanks to social psychologists - American researchers R. Park and E. Burgess. They first used this term in 1921 in their work on the theory of population behavior in an urban environment. Using the concept of “social ecology”, they wanted to emphasize that in this context we are not talking about a biological, but about a social phenomenon, which, however, also has biological characteristics. Thus, in America, social ecology was originally more of a sociology of the city or urban sociology.

In 1922 H. Burroughs addressed the American Association of Geographers with the presidential address, which was called "Geography as Human Ecology" » . The main idea of ​​this appeal is to bring ecology closer to people. The Chicago school of human ecology has gained worldwide fame: the study of the mutual relations of man as an integral organism with his entire environment. It was then that ecology and sociology first came into close interaction. Ecological methods began to be used to analyze the social system.

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 (distribution) 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 area 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 D. Z. Markovich notes, 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 D. Z. Markovich notes, 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 social ecology 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 it develops 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.

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” by A.P. Oshmarin and V.I. Oshmarina, two options for the definition of social ecology are given: in a narrow sense, it is understood as the science “about the interaction of human society with the natural environment,” and in a broad sense, the science “about the interaction the individual and human society with 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: “I) 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 social-hygienic and medical-genetic aspects of the relationship between man, society and nature. V.A. Bukhvalov, L.V. Bogdanova and some other researchers agree with this interpretation of the subject of human ecology, but N.A. Agadzhanyan, V.P. Kaznacheev and N.F. Reimers strongly disagree, according to whom, this The discipline covers a much wider range of issues of interaction between 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 currently there has been a steady trend towards the 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, 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. Akimova and V.V. Khaskin. 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.Girusova, social ecology must study, first of all, the laws of society and nature, by which he understands the laws of self-regulation of the biosphere, realized by man in his life.

Like any other scientific discipline, social ecology developed gradually. Three main stages in the development of this science can be distinguished.

The initial stage is empirical, associated with the accumulation of various data on the negative environmental consequences of the scientific and technological revolution. The result of this direction of environmental research was the formation of a network of global environmental monitoring of all components of the biosphere.

The second stage is “model”. In 1972, the book by D. Meadows et al. “The Limits to Growth” was published. She was a huge success. For the first time, data on various aspects of human activity were included in a mathematical model and studied using a computer. For the first time, a complex dynamic model of interaction between society and nature was explored at the global level.

The criticism of The Limits to Growth was comprehensive and thorough. The results of criticism can be reduced to two points:

1) modeling on computers of socio-economic systems at the global and regional levels promising;

2) "models of the world" Meadows is still far from adequate to reality.

Currently, there is a significant variety of global models: the Meadows model is a lace of loops of direct and feedback connections, the Mesarovich and Pestel model is a pyramid dissected into many relatively independent parts, the J. Tinbergen model is a “tree” of organic growth, the V. Leontiev model - also a “tree”.

The beginning of the third - global-political - stage of social ecology is considered to be 1992, when the International Conference on Environment and Development took place in Rio de Janeiro. Heads of 179 states adopted a coordinated strategy based on the concept of sustainable development.

1.3. The place of social ecology in the system of sciences.
Social ecology is a complex scientific discipline

Social ecology arose at the intersection of sociology, ecology, philosophy and other branches of science, with each of which it closely interacts. In order to determine the position of social ecology in the system of sciences, it is necessary to keep in mind that the word “ecology” means in some cases one of the environmental scientific disciplines, in others – all scientific environmental disciplines. Environmental sciences should be approached in a differentiated manner (Fig. 1).

Social ecology is a link between technical sciences (hydraulic engineering, etc.) and social sciences (history, jurisprudence, etc.).

The following arguments are given in favor of the proposed system. There is an urgent need for the idea of ​​a circle of sciences to replace the idea of ​​a hierarchy of sciences. The classification of sciences is usually based on the principle of hierarchy (subordination of some sciences to others) and sequential fragmentation (division, not combination of sciences). It is better to build the classification according to the type of circle (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. The place of environmental disciplines in the holistic system of sciences (Gorelov, 2002)

This diagram does not claim to be complete. It does not include transitional sciences (geochemistry, geophysics, biophysics, biochemistry, etc.), whose role in solving the environmental problem is extremely important. These sciences contribute to the differentiation of knowledge, cement the entire system, embodying the contradictory processes of “differentiation - integration” of knowledge. The diagram shows the importance of “connecting” sciences, including social ecology. Unlike sciences of the centrifugal type (physics, etc.), they can be called centripetal. These sciences have not yet reached the appropriate level of development, because in the past not enough attention was paid to the connections between the sciences, and it is very difficult to study them.

When a knowledge system is built on the principle of hierarchy, there is a danger that some sciences will hinder the development of others, and this is dangerous from an environmental point of view. It is important that the prestige of the sciences about the natural environment is not lower than the prestige of the sciences of the physical, chemical and technical cycle. Biologists and ecologists have accumulated a lot of data that indicate the need for a much more careful, caring attitude towards the biosphere than is currently the case. But such an argument has weight only from the standpoint of a separate consideration of branches of knowledge. Science is a connected mechanism; the use of data from some sciences depends on others. If the data of sciences conflict with each other, preference is given to sciences that enjoy greater prestige, i.e. currently the sciences of the physicochemical cycle.

Science must approach the degree of a harmonious system. Such science will help create a harmonious system of relationships between man and nature and ensure the harmonious development of man himself. Science contributes to the progress of society not in isolation, but together with other branches of culture. Such a synthesis is no less important than the greening of science. Value reorientation is an integral part of the reorientation of the entire society. The attitude towards the natural environment as an integrity presupposes the integrity of culture, a harmonious connection between science and art, philosophy, etc. Moving in this direction, science will move away from focusing solely on technical progress, responding to the deep needs of society - ethical, aesthetic, as well as those that affect the definition of the meaning of life and the goals of social development (Gorelov, 2000).

The place of social ecology among the sciences of the ecological cycle is shown in Fig. 2.

Rice. 2. The relationship of social ecology with other sciences (Gorelov, 2002)