266 Apologist for the Social Sciences, and an Arbiter of Methodology

266 BOOK REVIEWS apologist for the social sciences, and an arbiter of methodology. Unfortunately, this section is ponderous and cumbersome, reflecting a curious combination of the banal and the academic. The pervading theme is the search for "truth", but not in terms of media or of the art of conversation. Nor, for that matter, does the annotated bibliography, interesting as it may be, relate in any logical way to the title or the pro- claimed theme. One does, indeed, feel a certain contraint in either dismissing or denigrating a work by a scholar of international dimensions, and a work published under the subscript, "Contributions in Sociology, Number 71." There are, of course, occasional bursts of interests, of insight, even of passion. But we must be bothered by laments such as: "We live in an age of uncertainty, disintegration, and violence." Alas, history is hardly quiet in its constant repetition of these qualities. True enough, mass media have had and are having their own impact. But thus is Ferrarotti's work a mixture of the academic and the obvious. University of Pittsburgh ROBERT NOSSEN Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA Donald R. Field and William R. Burch, Jr., Rural Sociology and the Environment. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1988, 155 pp., $ 33.95 (cloth). Science is pluralistic, and this is quite so regarding the science of humans and their environment wherein each domain is of unlimited complexity and depth. The subject has given birth to a tremendous diversity of concepts, views, and approaches. This book, dedicated to one of the most crucial points of coherence between humankind and nature, exemplifies this notion. The topic which these authors enlighten in their overview is relatively new; although rooted deep in rural sociology, the essence of the book is the new branch of knowledge: environmental sociology. Though the book is the new branch of knowledge: environmental from sociologists and based on principles and paradigms derived within conventional sociology, it is significantly influenced by the current winds of the ecological imperative. The authors emphasize their approach is to highlight how ideas of environmental awareness have penetrated into an understanding of human adapta- tion to natural resource systems, into what creates a specific social-biological system, and into other vital issues of rural communities. The natural resource sociologists who bear these ideas are called "an eclectic group of scholars representing a variety of theoretical perspectives" (p. xiv), and are subdivided by the authors into three categories: mavericks, explorers, and hybrids, united by their focus on the rural community / natural environment interrelation. Therefore, environmental sociology itself is called "a problem focus, not a theoretical orientation" (p. 120). Rural sociology originally was natural resources oriented. The shift from a view of the earlier sociologists on nature as only a subject of rural development toward "emergence of nature as a partner" is traced historically through different perspectives and even sciences. Thus, a holistic treatment of the subject is combined with a synthetic overview of the many sources of environmental sociology. (References offer a valuable guide in this area). Three periods of historical development are presented: the first (1900-1950) is the period of "domination over nature for food and fiber" by rural communities strictly dependent on natural resources themselves. The second period (1950-1975) was called "Expanding the domain of nature", and was character- 267 ized by declining rural communities due to increasing concentration of farm ownership and the industrial organization of farm work in the USA within a background of the dramatic rise of the world ecological crisis. During this period, non-human environmental variables were defined and incorporated into social analysis. The third and final group of visions the authors call "nature as a partner," a period of renewed ecological thought within rural sociology, stressing the point that "resource manage- ment will be considered at a minimum in an ecological system context, where the totality of resource development, conservation and protection is considered simulta- neously" (p. 8). Attributed to the chronology of rural sociological studies, this scheme reflects a more general maturation of humankind's understanding of its place in nature. Interweaving their particular fields of research into a broad range of environmental studies, rural sociologists not only enrich sociology but move into unexplored areas where they can help solve urgent environmental problems. The authors suggest several such future directions: the influence between resource development and community stability; environmentalism as a social movement; and changes of theoretical perceptions. For me, especially interesting is the emphasis on the role of agroecology, biotechnology and biosphere reserves in a strategy for sustaining diverse rural communities. The role of biological diversity in sustainable development of the biosphere is apparent and well-known. But the fact that rural communities overlay natural eco- systems they depend upon, and therefore reflect ecological disturbances by changes in their structure, has scarcely been enlightened and urgently needs to be explored. The need for social research is equally large in the traditionally pure ecological field of nature preservation. One simple example of the authors uncovers this essential necessity: "western solutions such as national parks and wildlife preserves, often have protected world survival values ... at the expense of local rural peoples" (p. 107). Unfortunately, an inescapable chain of difficulties in seeking ways to incorporate development with conservation has never been overcome. One way of integration might be reached through combining these two issues within the concept of the biosphere reserves. As the authors point out, strong sociological research in this field will be very productive (p. 115). Also important are the issues of sustainable biotechnology, by which is meant, in this book, mainly agriculture and forestry. Here the stability of the natural environment and the rural community are equally dependent upon such social factors as land ownership (p. 117-119). This point of view, though attributed to the western-type land privacy, is relevant for current processes in socialist countries where the removal of land ownership from government to farmers now is considered a key factor in creating incentives for land resource conservation. But the environmental red line of this book, I think, is expressed in its final words: "the impact on rural communities of toxic waste disposal, agricultural chemicals, or acid rain will be seen as central issues for rural sociologists" -my underlining, but I further suggest: "... of ... on ...!" As in every book, there are shortcomings. The authors sometimes use incorrect or cloudy definitions. For instance, what is termed "the ecological system" in Figure 3 (p. 26) is, rather, a socio-economic system, and we read on p. 99: "Our recommended ecological approach would examine how stability and change in the shape, size, and scope of social hierarchies are affected by resources access, modification, and supply," but this is not ecological; it is, rather, just a resource approach. Further, it seems unnecessary to create new terms such as "biophysical system", "biophysical environment", and "biological-physical environment" (pp. 22, 101, 108) to oppose social environment, and "biophysical compatibility" (p. 115) may be more appropriately .

Load more