The Case of Russian Phytosociology

 
PIIS013216250007109-2-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250007109-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Senior researcher
Affiliation: Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 10
Pages157-166
Abstract

The article gives a historical overview of the formation and development of Russian phytosociology and its explicit and implicit relationships with sociology.  The reasons for the using by the plant science the conceptual apparatus of sociology are considered. Both sociology and botany deal with systems that are characterized by the discrete-summative principle of organization, the activity of elements of the system and the limited resources of the external environment. These parameters condition such features of the functioning of systems as mutual influences, competition for resources (struggle for existence), selection in accordance with the criteria of fitness, development to the direction of increasing complexity (differentiation of positions, structuring the relationships in the system, etc.), active interaction with the environment and changing the latter for the needs of the system. It is shown that the sociological metaphors used by phytosociologists were inherently tools of systemic generalizations, and have in this regard an interdisciplinary sound. The article examines the interest of P. Sorokin's in phytosociology, for whom it served as an argumentative basis in the dispute with nominalism and a source of conceptual ideas.  It is justified the assumption that the notion of “interaction”, which is central for Sorokin's sociology, was developed by him under the influence of reading the phytosociological works of V.N. Sukachev and G.F.  Morozov. Possible theoretical connotations between phytosociological issues and research interests of modern sociology are considered.

Keywordsphytosociology, metaphor, plant community, interaction, social environment, dilemma of realism / nominalism, discreteness / continuity, P. Sorokin, interdisciplinary
Received12.10.2019
Publication date13.10.2019
Number of characters32138
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1305

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Bespamiatnykh N.N. (2012) The concept of boundary in sociological theory. Vestnik Grodnenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni Y. Kupaly. Seriya 5. Ekonomika. Sociologiya. Biologiya [Herald of Y. Kupala Grodno State University. Series 5. Economics. Sociology. Biology] No. 1 (125): 43–48. (In Russ.)

2. Dronov A.M. (2017) Interdisciplinary practice of studying borders and boundaries. Istoricheskaya ekspertiza [Historical memory]. No. 3 (12): 128–143. (In Russ.)

3. Espinas A.V. (2012) Social Life of Animals: The Experience of Comparative Psychology. Moscow: LIBROKOM. (In Russ.)

4. Korchagin A.A. (1975) The role of V.N. Sukachev in the development of Russian, Soviet phytocenology. In: Sukachev V.N. Selected Works in 3 vol. Vol. III. Problems of Phytocenology. Leningrad: Nauka: 5–40. (In Russ.)

5. Linnik Yu.V. (2013) Russian phytosociology. Eko-Potencial [Eco-Potential]. No. 3-4: 54 – 94. (In Russ.)

6. Mirkin B.M., Naumova L.G. (2012) The Current State of the Basic Concepts of the Science of Vegetation. Ufa: AN RB, Gilem. (In Russ.)

7. Morozov G.F. (1922) Forest as a Plant Community. 2nd ed. M.: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo. (In Russ.)

8. Morozov G.F. (1949) The Doctrine of the Forest. 7th ed. Moscow-Leningrad: Goslesbumizdat. (In Russ.)

9. Rabotnov T.A. (1995) History of Phytocenology. M: Argus. (In Russ.)

10. Shmerlina I.A. (2013) Biological Aspects of Sociality. Essays on the Natural Background of Human Social Behavior. Moscow: Librokom. (In Russ.)

11. Shmerlina I.A. (2018) The Theme of Animal Sociality in Russian Pre-Revolutionary Sociology: A.V. Espinas and the Failure of Interdisciplinary. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal [Sociological Journal] Vol. 24. No. 4: 132–153. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2018.24.4.6101

12. Simmel' G. (2006) Picture frame. Aesthetic experience Rama kartiny. In: V. Vahshtajn V. (ed.) Sociology of Things. Collection of articles. Moscow: Territoriya budushchego: 48–53. (In Russ.)

13. Sorokin P.A. (1920) The system of sociology. Vol. 1. P. 1. Petrograd: izdat. t-vo «KOLOS». (In Russ.)

14. Sukachev V.N. (1928) Plant Communities (Introduction to Phytosociology). 4th add. ed. Moscow-Leningrad: Kniga. (In Russ.)

15. Sukachev V.N. (1975) Selected Works in 3 vol. Vol. III. Problems of Phytocenology. Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)

16. Trass H.H. (1976) Geobotany. History and Current Development Trends. Leningrad: Nauka. (In Russ.)

17. Vagner V.A. (1912) “Sociology” in botany (phytosociology). Priroda [Nature]. September: 1059–1080. (In Russ.)

18. Vasilevich V.I. (2018) Establishment of Russian phytocoenology. Botanicheskii zhurnal [Botanical journal]. No. 103 (9): 1075–1092. (In Russ.)

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up