Abstract
This reader by the leading Russian environmental sociologist contains articles published in international and Russian journals over a period of 40 years. They summarize the key theoretical ideas and the main research findings of the author. The book comprises a preface written by Professor Nikita Pokrovsky, member of the Executive Committee of the ISA, and articles divided into five sections.
The first part raises the question of the relationship between Russian society and nature. Starting with a general theoretical analysis based on works of American and European scholars, both historians and sociologists (Bauman, Beck, Diani, Giddens, Castells, Wiener and others), Yanitsky expounds his concept of ‘all-encompassing risk society’. In this society ‘the production and dissemination of risk become omnipresent and ex-territorial’ (p. 61). Moreover, ‘in this society the difference between norm and pathology is effaced’, and ‘risk becomes a “normal” dimension of everyday life. Hence, safety and not development, becomes the major reference-point of activity of any unit of the society.’ The author insists that such a ‘society is unable to reflect adequately upon its economic and social transformations’ (p. 62). He analyses the dynamics of the relationship between industrialism and environmentalism in an ‘all-encompassing risk society’ and offers his version of a multidisciplinary socio-ecological concept of a city. He then lays down his concept of two types of risk-solidarities, that is, the division of Russian society into risk-producers and risk-consumers. The latter are the victims of risk production (pp. 87–9). The author shows that under the above conditions the eco-activists revitalize the old Russian tradition of going to the people (khozdenie v narod) to publicize their cause, and depicts the five types of scientists-turned-advocates: ‘neutral’, ‘aware’, ‘involved’, ‘partner’ and ‘fully integrated’ (pp. 108, 199–200). This section ends with two articles on how this advocacy is implemented: ‘Dialogue between science and society’ (2005) and ‘The ecological paradigm as an element of culture’ (2007).
The second section deals with the history, theory and current issues of the Russian environmental movement (EM). First, basing his ideas on works of US and European theorists of social movements (Castells, Dunlap and Mertig, Klandermans, Tarrow, Tilly, Touraine), the author analyses the degree of applicability of this theoretical capital to the Russian condition. Second, Yanitsky shows that the natural socioeconomic and cultural diversity of Russia generates a variety of groups within the EM. The author has distinguished at least seven groups, namely conservationists, traditionalists, eco-anarchists, alternativists, grassroots, eco-technocrats and eco-politicians (pp. 11, 166–169). By and large, as noted by Yanitsky, under the pressure of globalization and the shaping of Big Business in Russia, this diversity has been compressed into two large groups: ‘transnationals’ and ‘locals’. Third, the author analyses in sequence the EM’s relationships with power structures, business, other social movements and the local population one by one. It is indicative that in Soviet times the common stand of the EM leaders was ‘We, professionals, know better’, whereas since the turn of the century, their position sounds quite different: ‘We, the Greens, are the defenders of the basic human right to a clean and safe environment’. Finally, the detailed analysis of the evolution of the environmental debates in Russia from 1910 to 2006 is of particular interest (pp. 184–205).
In the third section, Yanitsky chronicles a detailed historical and sociological analysis of six case studies of a variety of scale and character. As the author shows, the Russian EM, depending on the ad hoc and compartmentalized environmental policy of the Russian state, has split into a set of regional and local movements and NGOs dealing with specific issues. This transformation increases the possibilist character of the EM. But at any rate, today the basic problems of the Russian EM are goals and values, and not protection of nature as such. That is why the author adheres to the epistemological stand of a sociology of social knowledge: ‘follow the actor’ and ‘keep in mind the context’ of an EM’s activity. The author shows that in all cases the common underlying theoretical base and political context has been a conflict, the socio-ecological conflict. Unravelling a chronicle of events the author reveals three main phases of the evolution of the conflict: a normal (preparatory) phase; the phase of mobilization and discussion; decision-making as a turning point, and the phase of after-effects and follow-up actions (pp. 265–73).
Titled ‘Leaders and activists’, the fourth section contains 20 short life stories of typical Russian eco-activists who hold various sets of values and political attitudes ranging from the traditional conservationists and local lore activists to the left and right radicals including eco-anarchists, recorded in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Basing himself on this set of interviews and on interviews recorded 25 years later with some of the original interviewees and with other activists, the author concludes that: (1) ‘All groups have been marginalized politically and removed largely from the political arena. Nevertheless, despite the unifying pressure exerted by the power structures, the Russian Greens turned out to be able to preserve their value and ideological diversity. To some degree all groups [of the EM] have become less proactive and more reactive and dependent on the social and political context’ (p. 11); (2) ‘As a community, activists have consolidated and kept reproducing themselves, with 60 to 70 per cent of the leaders still operating in the same capacity now as before’; (3) ‘psychologically, eco-activists are under permanent stress because, as one of them put it, “Society needs us but the authorities do not”. Another typical slogan is “We believe in success of our hopeless cause!”.’ ‘Personally, many of them have achieved the maximum possible: they became recognized leaders of the EM, members of respected public organizations, they are known and renowned specialists’. But they ‘never succeeded in achieving their ideal goals’ (p. 319); (4) from the cultural viewpoint, the EM ‘leaders no longer dominate the shaping of environmental discourse. This discourse has been pre-empted and appropriated by the movement’s opponents. Besides, there are so many voices in the media that it is difficult to be heard. “Russian” media are dominated by the language of consumer society with its absence of shared values and “obtrusive” symbols of quick success. All things “environmental” have a market price and ought to be sold’ (p. 320).
The fifth section, ‘On training and tutorship’, is devoted to the author’s experience as a tutor of a group of advanced students of the Sociological Faculty of the State University for the Humanities (Moscow). The author’s aim in tutoring was to transform the education process from subject to problem-oriented, that is, to organize it around a set of research projects headed by the author. Yanitsky counted the resources he had at hand: ‘(a) long-standing experience in interdisciplinary communication as a town-planner . . . ; (b) belonging to and switching between different occupational and cultural milieus, including work within the framework of UNESCO projects and participation in comparative multi-national research projects; (c) public activity experience, especially in perestroika times; (d) a wide range of interpersonal contacts with urban planners, leaders and activists of social movements in Russia and other countries, eco-politicians and others’. As Yanitsky notes, ‘Last but not least, since my school years I have had the habit of rendering content in visual form’ (p. 345). Yanitsky concludes that ‘Tutorship means more than “additional consultations” or participation in a research project. The very logic of tutorship leads to individualization of every student’s learning process, to a dialogue between the tutor and his or her tutees on issues that are of interest for each of them’ (p. 359, my italics).
The main message of The Yanitsky Reader, as well as of all other works written by Oleg Yanitsky on Russian environmentalism is that the Russian environmental sociologist should be ‘universal’, that is, multidisciplinary, skilled, capable of interpreting data of the natural sciences sociologically, of carrying out macro- and microanalysis, and of being alternately insider and outsider. The Russian environmental sociologist has been and still is in-between the state and civil society; therefore, a socio-ecological conflict is the focal point of his/her theoretical and political interest.