Including animals in sociology

How do we include animals in sociology? Although sociology’s initial avoidance of the nonhuman world may have been necessary to the field’s development, recent scholarship – within mainstream sociology, environmental sociology and animal-centred research – is helping expand the field’s horizons. With a focus on variety, this article reviews four key paths that researchers are taking to include animals in their research: (1) studying interspecies relations, (2) theorizing animals as an oppressed group, (3) investigating the social and ecological impacts of animal agriculture and (4) analysing social-ecological networks. This review shows how applying – and innovating – existing social theories and research methods allows researchers to include animals in their analyses and will be relevant to a variety of scholars, including mainstream and environmental sociologists, animal-focused researchers and social network analysts, to name a few.

The philosophy of populism in the work of a sociologist: in memory of Irina Albertovna Khaliy (1950–2020)

In memory of the Russian sociologist I. A. Khaliy, known for her research in the field of civil society, environmental sociology, local communities, social movements and non-profit organisations, the article analyses the philosophy of populism, which was actively used by the sociologist in her research. The analysis is built in two stages. The first one is based on highlighting the main views of the populists and their subsequent criticism, with access to a number of areas that were affected by populist thought, such as man and his nature, the question of solidarity and signs of social life, the doctrine of human needs, methods and methodology of social sciences, philosophy of action as a research position. The second stage is a comparative analysis, as a result of which it is considered how the views of the populists were reflected in the work of I. A. Khaliy, what refraction and sound they acquired a century later from the point of view of practical application. The work is all the more interesting because it gives an idea of the philosophy of populism not as an obsolete phenomenon of the past, but as a phenomenon of the present, which turns out to be especially relevant in a situation of systemic crises and their assessment, including by intellectuals and representatives of the intelligentsia.

An Invitation to Sociology of Climate Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: Concealing the Intersections of Environmental Justice, Inequality, and the Nation State

This paper provides a synopsis of the critical debates in environmental sociology vis-à-vis climate governance and evokes the intersections of environmental justice, equality and the nation state. The nation state, which in this study refers to the government of the day is regarded as an important factor in determining the state of environmental justice and equality. This is because the government has the mandate to formulate and implement policies such as environmental policy. Issues of injustice and inequality are clearly spelt out in the discipline of sociology which provide insights on ways through which humans in societies respond to environmental crises. The paper places considerable emphasis on the political economy of environmental sociology which lies on the effects of modernity and capitalism in relation to socio-ecological well-being of communities. This is significantly linked to Karl Marx’s contribution on class struggles over the means of production which favours the bourgeoisie who are responsible for the greater ecological damage.

Development, Responsibility, and the Creation of Urban Hazard Risk

Scholarly attention has recently shifted to the creation and redevelopment of urban hazardscapes. This body of work demonstrates how housing is deployed in close proximity to hazards, and how the attendant risks have been communicated—or not—to potential residents. Utilizing the case of Calgary, Alberta, this article uses interview data collected from flood-impacted residents, and looks at their perceptions of development and risk creation. The analyses focus on how people attribute responsibility for development in flood-prone areas, and their views on future development in these areas. Results reveal that many residents argued for more government regulations preventing new development in floodplains. Moreover, they viewed developers as narrow-interested capitalists who fail to protect public safety and work to conceal risk from the public. Others wished to see large structural mitigation projects—dams, levees, or floodwalls—or insisted that homebuyers be informed of flood risk prior to purchase. The article concludes by addressing the implications for scholarly work in urban sociology, environmental sociology, and the sociology of disaster—all of which grapple with tensions between place-making and risk creation.

Building Social Resilience after the 2014 Flood Disaster

The 2014 flood disaster has brought physical destruction, damage as well as social disruption that caused normal life to become less stable. A state of social equilibrium needs to be restored through effective restoration solutions to normalise life after the disaster. This qualitative research aims to identify two main issues, namely social disruption and social resilience, by utilising a case study of the 2014 flood disaster in Hulu Dungun, Terengganu. A total of 15 victims were selected using the purposive sampling method based on a set of defined criteria–the data collection method comprised of in-depth interviews and non-participant observation. The data were analysed through thematic analysis techniques. The results showed that the disruption suffered by the victims included disruption of social roles, the uncertainty of employment, instability of social routine, and collective trauma. However, the availability of social resilience had enabled the victims to rebuild their lives after flood disasters and restore the ‘normal’ or ‘stable’ situations of social equilibrium. The research is expected to contribute to environmental sociology that has yet to receive widespread attention from sociological researchers in Malaysia. This research is a meaningful effort towards promoting and increasing the environmental sociology study, which to date, remains disoriented.

Capitalism and Sustainability: An Exploratory Content Analysis of Frameworks in Environmental Political Economy

A critical divide within environmental sociology concerns the relationship between capitalism and the environment. Risk society and ecological modernization scholars advance a concept of reflexive political economy, arguing that capitalism will transition from a dirty, industrial stage to a green, eco-friendly stage. In contrast, critical political economy scholars suggest that the core imperatives of capitalist accumulation are fundamentally unsustainable. We conduct a content analysis of 136 journal articles to assess how these frameworks have been implemented in empirical studies. Our analysis provides important commentary about the mechanisms, agents, magnitude, scale, temporality, and outcomes these frameworks analyze and employ, and the development of a hybrid perspective that borrows from both these perspectives. In addition, we reflect on how and why reflexive political economy has not answered key challenges leveled in the early 21st century, mainly the disconnect between greening values and the ongoing coupling of economic growth and environmental destruction. We also reflect on the significance of critical political economy, as the only framework we study that provides analysis of the roots of ecological crisis. Finally, we comment on the emergent hybrid perspective as a framework that attempts to reconcile new socioecological configurations in an era of increasing environmental instability.

Public attitudes toward economic growth versus environmental sustainability dilemma: Evidence from Europe

As global warming and other environmental threats intensify and become more visible, scientists are increasingly questioning the desirability of economic growth as an overarching national and global policy imperative. Several theories in environmental sociology and economics—degrowth, steady-state economy, and “agrowth”—offer compelling arguments that environmental sustainability and continuous economic growth are incompatible. However, there is a shortage of empirical evidence about public opinion on the growth versus environment dilemma, despite its great relevance for the social legitimacy of governments’ approach to the issue. In this article, we aim to narrow this research gap by applying multilevel models to data from the 2017 European Values Study (EVS). We find that the idea of sacrificing a certain level of growth for the sake of the environment receives high levels of support in most European countries. Nevertheless, within countries, we find clear indications of social divides in opinions regarding the growth versus environment dilemma: post-materialists, politically left-leaning people, the better-off, and the higher-educated are in favor of reduced growth, whereas materialists, right-wing individuals, and disadvantaged groups prioritize the economy over ecological concerns. At the country level, economic affluence is associated with greater support for reduced growth, irrespective of the differences in post-materialist values and the ecological situation. In practical terms, our results suggest that politicians can be bolder in promoting substantive environmental measures, even those that reduce growth.