This book advances a social-ecological theory aiming to generate knowledge for reconnecting nature and society. Social ecology develops as an interdisciplinary science, using knowledge from the social sciences, especially sociology and economics, and from natural-scientific ecology that connects to further knowledge from biology and physics. This theory described in seven chapters is a theory in progress that deals with the problems of connecting heterogeneous concepts and theories to form a new interdisciplinary theory. Inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge syntheses create new possibilities to understand global environmental change and problems resulting from that. Such knowledge syntheses are used in integrated analyses of global change of climate, land use, and biodiversity, for the purpose of identifying pathways of transformation to a future sustainable society.
The social-ecological theory develops in a situation where environmental research and the understanding of environmental problems change. Problems analysed earlier in environmental researchâpollution of air, water and soils from industrial production and urbanisation, deforestation, erosion, and desertificationâbecome in the global change perspective parts of more complex problems that interact in manifold ways. The problems can no longer be separated or kept separate for purposes of technical problem solution. The development of an interdisciplinary theory requires accompanying epistemological and methodological reflection. To study such complex problems, the new theory of nature and society needs to deal with various difficulties of knowledge synthesis described in the following seven points:
1.
Disciplinary knowledge is generated with incompatible epistemologies and methodologies that block interdisciplinary integration of social- and natural-scientific knowledge. Clashes between different disciplinary epistemologies often show in such prejudices as Weisz described. A social-scientific prejudice of a complex society and a less complex natural environment clashes with a prejudice of natural scientists to see natural systems as complex and man as a uniform actor disturbing nature (Weisz 2001: 11, 114). Weiszâs discussion of such âspecialisation syndromesâ shows the difficulty to reflect on these in an interdisciplinary language. The disciplinary cultures in which specialised scientific knowledge is produced seem to exclude each other. Sociological or economic knowledge cannot be reformulated in terms of biological or physical knowledge or vice versa. Knowledge from different disciplines needs to be connected by taking into account the epistemic differences between disciplines. Studies of social and ecological systems in sociology and ecology differ in their conceptualisation, in structures, functions, processes, and problems. The construction of an integrated framework of social-ecological systems requires further epistemological, theoretical, and methodological reflection and specific methodologies for the synthesis of knowledge from sociology, ecology, and other disciplines. Such a methodology of theory construction works with bridging concepts and frameworks that help to connect social- and natural-scientific research and knowledge. Many of the concepts and frameworks discussed in the construction of a social-ecological theory of natureâsociety integration are of this kind, for example, the interdisciplinary concepts of vulnerability, resilience, and sustainability in ecological research on the interaction between modern industrial society and nature. Bridging concepts that mediate between theoretical, disciplinary, and practical discourses and hybrid concepts (as âsocial-ecological systemsâ, âsocio-naturesâ, or âtechnological naturesâ) spread in the research on interactions between nature and society, but their epistemological status remains unclear.
2.
The possibilities of joint languages and terminologies for interdisciplinary communication and synthesis need to be clarified. When empirical knowledge from different disciplines is synthesised, conceptual structuring is necessary. A joint terminology for several disciplines, as for example in systems theory, does not yet generate joint explanations or interpretations and integration of disciplinary research as the applications of systems theory show. Interdisciplinary communication in discourses about nature and society is not always possible through simplification of theoretical arguments. The terminological problems need to be solved by methodologically clarifying the forms and scopes of social-ecological knowledge synthesis. Neither in empirical social-ecological research nor in the theory of interaction of nature and society, the aim is to replace specialised and disciplinary research. The synthesis makes other use of specialised knowledge for other than the original purposes. In the analysis of problems of global environmental change, it needs to be asked how much knowledge is to be synthesised to understand the phenomena studied. Impossible as the integration of all specialised knowledge is, it is still necessary to achieve broader syntheses to tackle the complex problems, systems, and processes of global change. Inadequate generalisations and explanations are widespread in environmental and ecological research, for example, in ascriptions of environmental problems to human nature, ignoring the significance of differences in cultures, societies, and modes of production. Also seems doubtful is the anthropological âovershoot and collapseâ hypothesis of Diamond (2005) which transfers knowledge about the collapse of small-scale societies in human history to a potential collapse of the present global society.
3.
The use of hybrid terminologies in interdisciplinary theories of nature and society is not always sufficiently developed in epistemological and methodological terms. Adopting a hybrid terminology by blending the terms of society and nature, in sociology, geography, and elsewhere, a hybrid concept of âsocio-naturesâ is constructed (Blok 2010). This concept evokes the question, which disciplines create adequate knowledge for interdisciplinary and theoretical syntheses on nature and society? Other examples are the concepts of âtechnonatureâ (White and Wilbert 2010) and the theory of âtechnological natureâ by Kahn (2011) who discusses in a human-ecological perspective the question of the consequences when actual nature is replaced by technological nature created by humans. Here the question is, whether technology is the variable sufficient to represent society in the theoretical construction of hybrids. Kahnâs synthesis builds on selected knowledge from studies of new information technology and from psychological theory to show the importance of nature for human life. In the discussion of a theory of social-ecological transformation, warnings have been articulated: conceptual shortcuts and visionary claims cannot supersede complicated theoretical and empirical analyses of societal dynamics and societal relations to nature (Brand 2015: 12). The broader the synthesis becomes across the boundaries of social and natural sciences, the more difficult is the choice of knowledge and concepts. In a broad theoretical synthesis, as in the theory of natureâsociety interaction, the relevant forms of knowledge and theories need to be reflected more carefully by working with several types of contrasting concepts, abstract concepts, connected concepts, and bridging concepts. The terms of society and nature should not be given up before research and theoretical analysis of the interaction of society and nature in modern society provides sufficient arguments for that. Ways to better interdisciplinary syntheses and concepts seem to analyse more systematically the complexity of societal systems and interactions of social and ecological systems, to synthesise more knowledge and theories, and to use currently ignored knowledge.
4.
The types and forms of theories that can be connected in a theory of society and nature need to be assessed. Combination and integration of theories seems possible only under special presuppositions, for example, that they deal with complementary phenomena, or that more specific theories can be integrated into more general ones. A theory of nature and society differs from conventional theories in social and environmental research that are limited through their disciplinary specialisation and as competing theories. Interdisciplinary approaches that support a theory of society and nature develop in human, cultural, social, and political ecology. The phenomena of global social and environmental change require new knowledge syntheses in a science of complexity that can deal with internally complex system types in society and nature. Such a science develops slowly, in interdisciplinary approaches, with examples as climate research or political and social ecology. Epistemological and methodological problems of analysing and reducing complexity are insufficiently discussed in environmental research. This research, justified through the analysis of problems and search for potential solutions, seems to approach limits of dealing with situations of risk, uncertainty, lack of scientific knowledge, and with contradicting diagnoses whether anthropogenic climate change exists or not. In the ecological discourses in science and politics, limits of knowledge are too quickly stated: they are often consequences of disciplinary specialisation, ignoring or selectively using knowledge from other disciplines but not showing the present limits of knowledge.
5.
An interdisciplinary theory of natureâsociety interaction requires integration of concepts and knowledge from different theories. Theories available for that purpose differ in forms and aspirations, levels of abstraction, generality, and explanation, as conceptual frameworks and as explanatory theories. The methods of theory construction and synthesis differ between social and natural sciences (for ecology see Ford 2000, for sociology: Ritsert 1988). The social-ecological theory of nature and society is an interdisciplinary theory connecting various social-scientific and ecological concepts and explanations. The expectation is that this theory helps to analyse and explain the global complexity of the interaction of society and nature in the phenomena of global environmental and social change. This theory is formulated so far only with three thematic components of societal relations with nature, societal metabolism, and colonisation of nature. In this book, further knowledge components to be used in this theory are described and discussed:
- The ontological components of worldviews and paradigms
- The epistemological questions of knowledge generation, synthesis, and application with the help of the theory
- The methods of theory construction, especially the differences between a holism ex ante, as in the case of systems theory, and a holism ex post, as in the kind of critical theories of society
- The normative criteria guiding the construction of the theory and its application, including ethical criteria of a theory connecting humans, society, and nature
6.
The separation between two contrasting knowledge cultures of social and natural sciences weakens with the differentiation and specialisation of knowledge production in both spheres and the many epistemologies within them. This brings further problems in working with universal concepts as society and nature, or abstract concepts as resources, production, and reproduction. Such concepts cannot easily be replaced in interdisciplinary theory; however, they can be critically reflected in search for an adequate theoretical terminology. Resource as overgeneralised notion for objects of consumption has been criticised for an anthropocentric perspective (Freese 1997: 232). The argument of Freese is: the view that resources serve humans, are consumable, are separate and distinct from the consumers becomes doubtful, when the connections of humans to nature are taken into account. Humans cannot be separated from nature insofar as they cannot survive without it. The soil, the air, the water, minerals, plants, and animals are not only resources which humans consume, but they are also parts of the ecosystems that need to be maintained to allow for the further existence of life and of all species. The concept of resources does not reflect the complexity of the functions required for the existence of life and the survival of living beings. This concept is, in spite of its differentiation and classification of many kinds of resources, a reductionist concept. Freese does not find another term, rather supporting a return to less abstract concepts with his preliminary description of resource functions. For other concepts as production and reproduction, there may emerge other problems, for example, that of incompatibility between the biological, ecological, economic, and sociological versions to connect in a theory of natureâsociety interaction. In the social-ecological theory, the clarification of theoretical concepts requires a systematic reconstruction of the interactions between humans, society, and nature at different levels of interacting social and ecological systems.
7.
A general epistemology for interdisciplinary synthesis of knowledge is presently not available and it can be doubted that it is meaningful to aim for such an epistemology. The epistemological discourses in philosophy and theory of science during the twentieth century resulted in many and competing approaches, but do not help much in the interdisciplinary synthesis of social- and natural-scientific knowledge, not even at lower levels of theoretical knowledge synthesis. Arnasonâs (2003: 64f) search for an explanatory model in social-scientific research ended in the recognition of differences. Whereas the deductive-nomological model of explanation for the natural sciences remains doubtful, functional analyses are seen as a step forward to interdisciplinary theorising, although functionalist explanations remain unclear in their relations to causal explanations and to social interpretations. Further ideas of explanation remain methodologically underdeveloped as well. Contextual explanations, useful because of the reflexive nature of knowledge production in interactions between social sciences and social practice, limit the possibilities of generalisation and explanation. The figurational model of explanation by Eli...