Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005    Tam Metin (PDF)

Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel

Çağrı Eryılmaz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Durkheim’ın sosyolojik yaklaşımını toplum-çevre etkileşimi çerçevesinde incelemektir. Döneminin ilerlemeci endüstriyel toplumunun bir üyesi olan Durkheim’ın toplumsal olguların ancak diğer toplumsal olgular ile açıklanabileceği yönündeki yaklaşımı, sosyoloji disiplininin kuruluş sürecinde çevresel etkenleri dışlamıştır. Durkheim evrim sürecindeki toplumu, tarih boyunca değişmediğini vurguladığı doğal çevreden ayrı bir gerçeklik olarak ortaya koymuştur. Diğer yandan, Durkheim sosyolojiyi ayrı bir disiplin olarak kurarken döneminin güçlü ve meşru doğa bilimlerinin yöntemlerini kullanmıştır. Ayrıca çevrenin topluma etkisini; mekanik dayanışmadan organik dayanışmaya geçişte ekolojik kaynakların rolü örneğindeki gibi vurgulamıştır. Toplumsal gerçekliği açıklayan çalışmalarında sıklıkla nüfus, denge, organizma ve kaynak kıtlığı gibi doğa metaforları kullanmıştır. Dahası, toplumsal işbölümünün tüm canlı organizmalarda olup doğadan topluma geçtiğine dikkat çekmiştir. En önemlisi ise toplumu doğanın karmaşık bir parçası olarak tanımlamasıdır. Durkheim çevre sorunlarının ciddiyetinin ve yaygınlığının kabul edildiği; biyoloji ile ekoloji bilimlerinin çok geliştiği günümüzde yaşasaydı, toplum-çevre etkileşimi içeren sosyolojik bir yaklaşım geliştirme potansiyeline sahip olabilecekti. Zira vurguladığı dayanışma, kolektif bilinç ve işbölümü kavramlarının yeniden yorumlanmasının, küresel ölçekteki çevre sorunlarına karşı uluslararası bir işbirliği zemini oluşturması mümkündür.

DOI :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005    Tam Metin (PDF)

Society-Environment Interaction in Durkheim: Exclusion of Social Facts versus Environmental Potential

Çağrı Eryılmaz

This paper aims to examine Durkheim’s sociological approach in terms of society-environment interaction. Durkheim’s methodological dictum indicates that social facts can only be explained by other social facts. This notion excludes environmental parameters in the early years of sociology. Hence, he kept separated evolving society from environment that hardly changed historically. On the other hand, Durkheim used the methodology of natural sciences in the establishment of sociology as a discipline. Moreover, he implied the role of natural resources in the transformation of mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. In fact, he often used metaphors from nature in his studies like population, balance, organism, and resource scarcity to explain social reality. The division of labor, one of his most important concepts, is taken from organisms. Above all, Durkheim defines society as a complex part of nature. If Durkheim lived in the modern world, where the severity of environmental problems is accepted and biology and ecology disciplines are highly developed, he would have a potential to develop a sociological approach that includes society-environment relations. In fact, the redefinition and reuse of concepts like solidarity, collective consciousness, and division of labor provide a base for international cooperation to solve global environmental problems.


GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


Since the 1950s, environmental sociology is hardly accepted despite existing social-environmental issues. These problems have been generated by the rapid industrialization and urbanization causing pollution in the post-war era. Environmental sociology was established in the 1970s when environmental problems gained public attention and the environmental movement emerged. The theories of sociologists Durkheim, Weber, who introduced the rationalization concept, and Marx, who introduced the theory of metabolic rift, were welcomed in environmental sociology. However, Durkheim was criticized that his methodological dictum was excluding society-environment interaction. There are two explanations for the association between Durkheim and societyenvironment interaction. On the one hand, the industrialism of his era caused the exclusion of environment from sociology. On the other hand, Durkheim’s works have significant references to environment that indicate a potential for environmental sociology. This paper aims to examine Durkheim’s sociological approach in terms of society-environment interaction. First, the foundation of environmental sociology is summarized. Then, both examples showing the exclusion of environment and societyenvironment interactions in Durkheim’s studies are shown. The paper concludes with the assessment of Durkheim’s contribution to current environmental sociology challenging ecological crisis that threatens society. Although the first years of sociology were marked by geographical and biological determinism, sociologists favoring a “world view” of development, progress, and modernism in later years ignored environment as an issue (Hannigan, 2006). After a century, when environmental problems had surfaced and threatened industrialized Western societies, environmental concerns and movement were accepted in society and from the cultural perspective. Two pioneers of environmental sociology, Dunlap and Catton (1978) criticized human exceptionalism paradigm of causing the exploitation of nature and Durkheim’s methodological dictum (Madappalli, 2016). The paradigm assumes nature as an endless resource and that the human progress is limitless, while human existence is unique as a result of its developed culture (Catton & Dunlap, 1978) that “covers the dependence of human societies to biophysical environment” (Rice, 2013, p. 238). However, environmental problems and restrictions in the 1960s shook this paradigm and Durkheim’s methodological dictum that reportedly ignored society-environment interaction. Hence, environmental parameters were included in sociological researches. In fact, the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale, developed by environmental sociologists, introduced “environmental facts” against the social facts of Durkheim. The paradigm aims to consider the effects of environmental problems like resource scarcity on main sociological research issues like stratification (Catton & Dunlap, 1978). Hence, environmental sociologists, by using the New Ecological Paradigm, challenge Durkheim’s methodological dictum by accepting the effect of environment on society (Dunlap & Catton, 1979). Durkheim was criticized for excluding the impact of the environment on sociology with his methodological dictum. Sociology, a social discipline excluding environment (Foster, 1999, p. 367), was positioned out of “psychology, biology, economics, and geography” by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the three fathers of sociology (Buttel, Dickens, Dunlap, & Gijswijt, 2002, p. 5). However, Marx and Weber were applauded for their concepts, the metabolic rift and rationality, in environmental sociology, unlike Durkheim who was criticized for his methodological dictum that was believed to be against the use of biophysical parameters in sociology (Lidskog, Mol, & Oosterveer, 2015). Durkheim defined social facts only with other social facts, ignoring the biophysical environment (Dunlap, 2016), and implied examination of social systems without using environmental parameters (Norgaard, 1997, p. 159). Durkheim developed a social reductionism to resist biological reductionism (Benton, 1991, as cited in Konak, 2010). Hence, traditional sociology following Durkheim’s approach excluded biophysical environment (Hoyen, 2013). To objectify society within a scientific discipline (Durkheim, 2016, pp. 58, 59, 168), Durkheim defended the use of social facts and collective consciousness against biology and psychology (Hannigan, 2006, p. 5), that social facts can only be explained by social facts (Buttel, 2002) that have power over individuals and are different from non-human and organic facts (Durkheim, 2016). As a result, the methodological dictum made Durkheim and sociologists ignore biological and physical parameters (Dunlap, 1997; Dunlap & Catton, 2007). The exclusion of physical reality by Weberian and Durkheimian authors (Ritzer 1975; Choldin 1978, as cited in Dunlap & Catton, 2007) should be seen as a constructive approach in the early years of sociology (Buttel, 2002). The exclusion of environment was dominant and environmental parameters were ignored in other subdisciplines like rural sociology until the 1970s; these subdisciplines are the foundation of environmental sociology (Dunlap & Martin 1983, as cited in Dunlap, 2002). Durkheim implied the static position of nature throughout history while society changes and evolves (Durkheim, 2010; Gross, 2000; Jarvikoski, 1996). Durkheim separated the concept of evolution, originated from ecology and biology, from nature and integrated it into the social sphere (Durkheim, 2014). Furthermore, he put a sharp distinction between human society and animals, as they lack of morality and collective consciousness (Durkheim, 2010) and they are static unlike human societies (Durkheim, 2014). Although sociological theorists Durkheim, Weber, and Marx did not directly examine society-environment interaction; their studies indirectly included this issue (Hannigan, 2006, p. 5). Hence, Durkheim should be comprehended through the extensive framework of human-nature systems instead of narrow anthropocentricism (Rosa & Richter, 2008). In fact, Durkheim did not deny the importance of biological and physical parameters in sociology (Jarvikoski, 1996). Moreover, Durkheim followed the example of natural science during the exploration of social reality (Durkheim, 2016). Despite a strong and common prejudice in traditional sociology, Durkheim’s studies involve many references to the environment. However, the methodological dictum of Durkheimian scholars reinstructed sociology (Catton, 2002), resulting in Dunlap and Catton, two founders of environmental sociology, strongly criticizing the Durkheimian theory. Contrarily, the limited prevalence of social facts and the emphasis on the environmental parameters in Durkheim’s studies are important objections to their critique (Rosa & Richter, 2008). Çelebi (2007, p. 159) highlighted the importance of the balance between population and land as social facts that affect society. Durkheim considered the effects of the position of sun and the condition of the atmosphere to people, and his social morphology notion had other environmental insights like the use of land (Gross, 2000). He also implied the coevolution of nature and society in his work of Pragmatism and Sociology (Foster, 1999). According to him, nature is not the reverse of society, but a part, the highest representation, and complex form of nature (Durkheim 2010; Jarvikoski, 1996). Moreover, Durkheim (2016) implied similarities between “physical environment” and society and defined society as part of nature. Durkheim often referred to nature in his classical study of totemism. Tribe members lean toward plants, animals, and rocks in understanding their society. They imitate animals in their religious rituals. Safety and domination of nature make up their religion (Durkheim, 2010). Durkheim often used biological terms like species, population density, and resource scarcity in his explanation of social evolution and solidarity concepts (Buttel, 2002). He implied that division of labor exists in all living organisms, and transfers society from nature (Durkheim, 2014). On the other hand, his notion of competition and division of labor undermined environmental concerns like pollution and resource scarcity in urbanization (Lenski, 1984, as cited in Buttel & Humprey, 2002). This paper aims to examine Durkheim’s sociological approach in terms of societyenvironment interaction. The construction process of sociology as a distinct discipline excluded environmental parameters. However, urbanization and industrialization in the 1950s have caused environmental concerns and movements in Western societies. The foundation of environmental sociology was challenged in the 1970s by the methodological dictum of Durkheim. Although some of his studies strongly separate society from environment like social facts, he often referred to environmental concepts like population, balance, organism, and resource scarcity. Durkheim also implied metabolic interaction between society and environment, and that society is a complex part of nature.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • American Sociological Association. (2017). Environmental sociology. Retrieved November 12, 2017 from https://www.asanet.org/asa-communities/sections/environmental-sociology google scholar
  • Buttel, F. H. (2002). Environmental sociology and the classical sociological tradition: Some observations on current controversies. In R. E. Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswijt (Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment – classical foundations, contemporary insights (pp. 35–50). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. google scholar
  • Buttel, F. H., & Humphrey, C. (2002). Sociological theory and natural environment. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 33–69). London, UK: Greenwood Press. google scholar
  • Buttel, F. H, Dickens, P., Dunlap R. E., & Gijswijt, A. (2002). Sociological theory and the environment: An overview and introduction. In R. E. Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswift (Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment – classical foundations, contemporary insights (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. google scholar
  • Catton, W. R. Jr. (2002). Has the Durkheim legacy misled sociology? In R. E. Dunlap, F. H. Buttel, P. Dickens, & A. Gijswift (Eds.), Sociological theory and the environment: Classical foundations, contemporary insights (pp. 91–115). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. google scholar
  • Catton, W. R., & Dunlap, R. A. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American Sociologist, 13, 41‒49. Çelebi, N. (2007). Sosyoloji notları. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. google scholar
  • Dunlap, R. E. (1997). The evolution of environmental sociology: A brief history and assessment of the American experience. In M. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 21–39). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. google scholar
  • Dunlap, R. (2002). Environmental sociology – a personal perspective on its first quarter century. Organization & Environment, 15(1), 10‒29. google scholar
  • Dunlap, R. (2016, January). Sociology’s engagement with the environment. In Immersion distinguished scholar workshop: Sociology. Workshop conducted at the meeting of National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, Annapolis, Maryland. Retrieved from http://www. sesync.org/sites/default/files/education/sociology-5.pdf google scholar
  • Dunlap, R., & Catton, W. R. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 5, 243‒273. google scholar
  • Dunlap, R., & Catton, W. R. (2007). What environmental sociologists have in common (whether concerned with “built” or “natural” environments). Sociological Inquiry, 53(2), 113‒135. google scholar
  • Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York, NY: The Free Press. google scholar
  • Durkheim, E. (2010). Dinsel yaşamın ilk biçimleri (Ö. Ozankaya, Çev.). İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi. google scholar
  • Durkheim, E. (2014). Toplumsal işbölümü (Ö. Ozankaya, Çev.). İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi. Durkheim, E. (2016). Sosyolojik yöntemin kuralları (Ö. Doğan, Çev.). Ankara: Doğu Batı. google scholar
  • Foster, J. B. (1999). Marx’s theory of metabolic rift: Classical foundations for environmental sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 366‒405. google scholar
  • Gross, M. (2000). Classical sociology and the restoration of nature: the relevance of Émile Durkheim and Georg Simmel. Organization & Environment, 13(3), 277‒291. google scholar
  • Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology. London, UK: Routledge. google scholar
  • Hoyen, M. (2013, August). View on nature – a field? In F. Alexandrescu (Chair), ESA 11th Conference – Crisis, Critique and Change. Conference conducted at the meeting of European Sociological Association, Turin, Italy. google scholar
  • Jarvikoski, T. (1996). The relation of nature and society in Marx and Durkheim. Acta Sociologica, 39(1), 73‒86. google scholar
  • Konak, N. (2010). Çevre sosyolojisi: Kavramsal ve teorik gelişmeler. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 24, 271‒283. google scholar
  • Lidskog, R., Mol, A. P. J., & Oosterveer, P. (2015). Towards a global environmental sociology? Legacies, trends and future directions. Current Sociology, 63(3), 339‒368. Madappalli, M. (2016). Interrogating environmental sociology: Revisiting academic importance of Durkheimian ideas. Man in India, 96(4), 1019‒1027. google scholar
  • Norgaard, R. B. (1997). A coevolutionary environmental sociology. In M. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 151–168). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. google scholar
  • Rice, J. (2013). Further beyond the Durkheimian problematic: Environmental sociology and the co-construction of the social and the natural. Sociological Forum, 28(2), 236‒260. google scholar
  • 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, 21(2), 182‒187. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Eryılmaz, Ç. (2019). Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 39(1), 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


AMA

Eryılmaz Ç. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 2019;39(1):135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


ABNT

Eryılmaz, Ç. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 39, n. 1, p. 135-157, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Eryılmaz, Çağrı,. 2019. “Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39, no. 1: 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


Chicago: Humanities Style

Eryılmaz, Çağrı,. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39, no. 1 (Jul. 2021): 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


Harvard: Australian Style

Eryılmaz, Ç 2019, 'Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 135-157, viewed 25 Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Eryılmaz, Ç. (2019) ‘Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 39(1), pp. 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005 (25 Jul. 2021).


MLA

Eryılmaz, Çağrı,. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 1, 2019, pp. 135-157. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


Vancouver

Eryılmaz Ç. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 25 Jul. 2021 [cited 25 Jul. 2021];39(1):135-157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005


ISNAD

Eryılmaz, Çağrı. Durkheim’da Toplum-Çevre Etkileşimi: Dışlayıcı Toplumsal Olgulara Karşı Çevreci Potansiyel”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39/1 (Jul. 2021): 135-157. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0005



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim29.03.2018
Son Revizyon14.11.2018
Kabul01.12.2018

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.