Marx was an avid student of the natural sciences: Liebig and Darwin especially, but not only. See John Bellamy Foster's wonderful book, Marx's Ecology (2000).
The "first" sociologist -he did developed the term, but is usually not considered as one nowadays- Auguste Comte, does develop his way of thinking in a close relationship to the natural sciences of his time. To a lesser degree you can say the same thing about one of the first real sociologist, Émile Durkheim. By the way, I think it is quite radical to consider Quetelet a sociologist.
Marx was an avid student of the natural sciences: Liebig and Darwin especially, but not only. See John Bellamy Foster's wonderful book, Marx's Ecology (2000).
Thank you all of you such as valuable contributions.
Dear Moore, I got the book you adviced and it is really wonderful but it is very specific mostly attribute to natural selection traced to Darwin.
So, I need to know that the study related to environmental and ecological issue at general...
Dear Ugur, since sociology itself is a rather modern discipline I propose despite names like Durkheim, Tönnis, Simmel or Weber to also take into account (scottish) social philosophers such as Adam Smith or Thomas Hobbes.
Dr. Rense Nieuwenhuis is quite correct to suggest Quetelet. Unfortunately, many sociologists today still disagree, like Auguste Comte, with Quetelet's use of statistics as a tool for sociological discovery. Quetelet used statistical analysis extensively to establish fruitful relationships between climate, poverty, education etc. In his "Sur l'homme et le développement de ses facultés, essai d'une physique sociale", he showed conclusively a link between populational variation and artificial/natural selection. There are good English-language introductions to his work: (1) Piers Beirne (1987). "Adolphe Quetelet and the Origins of Positivist Criminology". In; American Journal of Sociology 92(5): pp. 1140–1169; (2) Garabed Eknoyan (2008). "Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) – the average man and indices of obesity". In: Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 23 (1): 47–51.
Patrick Geddes was an important influence on the early Sociology Department at the University of Chicago. Early W.I. Thomas was much impressed with physiology and biology, and the classical Chicago School with Park and his students was certainly much interested in ecology and other biological fields.
anche i classici con modalità diverse si sono posti il problema dei rapporti tra cultura e natura non soltanto la psicoanalisi ma lo stesso Simmel Quetèlet,Comte in parte Michels e Loria poi più tardi La scuola di Chicago e fino ai giorni ns Martinelli tra i primi-
Herbert Spencer...wrote books on sociology, psychology, ethics, and biology. His interests were broader than any other early sociologist.
Gentille Caterina,
Grazie per il vostro contributo. Quetelet stabilisce come la relazione tra cultura e natura?
Thank you Edward,
I just got the book written by Spencer in 1864 "The principles of biology". It is really wonderful book and I think it builds a relationship between the environment and whole human life cycle with the as biological as behavioural features.
Well, just be warned...Spencer was a LaMarchian rather than a Darwinist (although he is often--wrongly--accused of being a social darwinist). This false accusation is why he has been "read out" of sociology, but there are many profound theoretical ideas in Spencer if we'll only read him again. Still, his strict views on biology were incorrect, although this led to some really cool ideas like the co-evolution of man and society.
Thank you so much Dr. Edward for valuable words. It helps me a lot and I will take this into account...
I think, if you choose to follow up Edward M. Crenshaw's comment, that you'll do better looking up "Lamarckian" rather than "LaMarchian" ...
You'll also find that there is much merit in thinking of Spencer as a "social Darwinist." I
In any case, Spencer may have been "read out" of sociology, but his "profound theoretical ideas" have certainly not been abandoned in other domains - most obviously in some of the cruder versions of the neoliberalism that dominates contemporary political discourse.
As well, it's worth considering the fact that Spencer is echoed in E. O. Wilson's immensely popular paean to the principle of "survival of the fittest" in his book "Sociobiology" (1975) and the work of evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker, e.g., "Blank Slate" (2002). Less estimable constructions include Napoleon Chagnon's influential "Ya̧nomamö: The Fierce People" (1968), a stupendous celebration of violence as an essential human virtue.
Well, I guess that'll teach me to post this stuff quickly and without a proof-read. And Howard, the question was who, among early SOCIOLOGISTS, had the most interests in natural science...not who was the most politically correct. E.O. Wilson, Chagnon, etc. are NOT sociologists, nor are they "early."
And if Spencer was a social darwinist, he would have had to do that in contradiction to his own understanding of biology. Spencer made comments about the poor that could be interpreted that way UNLESS you've actually read the whole text (as I have). His notion that improving society could improve the genome rested on Lamarck, not Darwin. And of course I am not alone in thinking that Spencer has been unjustly maligned (e.g., Jonathan Turner...the best purveyor of classical theory in our business).
Like many sociologists, you seem dismissive of biological contributions to social science, which is too bad. Sociology is very gradually being dragged (kicking and screaming) into the modern era, and accepting the biological basis of much of social behavior is part and parcel of that updating process. Enjoy the ride if you can.
There is quite a lot of research on these matters now. Matthias Gross has written books (e.g. 2003. Inventing Nature, 2003) and articles, I myself have contributed a couple (see my page), etc.
I think most of "early sociologists" have shown at least a little interest in ecology and/or biology. Cf. also Journal of Classical Sociology.
I didn't mean to imply that Wilson (a biologist with sociological pretensions) and Chagnon (an anthropologist) were either "early" or "sociologists." In fact, I explicitly said that, although Spencer may have been "read out" of sociology (an assertion I'd question since he is commonly covered along with Durkheim, Weber and even Marx in the statutory opening chapters of large introductory textbooks), he still exerted influence in "other domains."
As for being "dismissive of biological contributions to social science," I plead "not guilty." At the risk of becoming embroiled in the hoary old "nature/nurture" (cf. mind/body) debate, I am quite happy to embrace the notion that biology - large brains, opposable thumbs, S-shaped spines and whatever links to the genome (Darwin?) and the epigenome (Lamarck?) can be provided - matters!
Deciding whether that means that biology determines 90%, 50% or 10% of our behavior and that socialization, acculturation and so on determine 10%, 50% or 90% is, in my view, a mug's game. The relationship between the allegedly opposing sides is complicated, possibly "dialectical" and more likely a kind of transgression of Russell's "Rule of Logical Types." Anyway, sorting that out is well above my pay grade; so, I am happy to take my cues from (the anthropologist) Marvin Harris and his notion of "cultural materialism" than either dogged "idealists" or remorseless "materialists."
And, as for sociology being dragged into "modernity" (defined as what or, rather, when?), I am not sure that succumbing to some sort of biological reductionism is inevitable or even notably modern. I also think that it is wise at all times to be careful of drawing overly rigid borders between disciplines. I am totally in agreement, for example, with Kurt Vonnegut who, during his MA studies at the University of Chicago, could never figure out why his classmates in Anthropology looked down on people in Sociology. Although he'd have to wait about 20 years for his novel "Cat's Cradle" to win him his degree, he at least knew in the 1940s that such divisions are intellectually unsustainable and probably useful only in the quest to define and therefore to defend academic turf that is just as green on one side of capricious and arbitrary fences as the other.
Incidentally, I studied some with Gregory Bateson who nicely conjoined anthropology with zoology (and much in between); so, I guess I come by my impatience with rigid disciplinarianism more-or-less honestly.
In general, Spencer is dismissively treated in so-called "theory texts." He is typically given half a page, libeled as a social darwinist, and then ignored...having been morally exterminated by PC orthodoxy. Ironically, I think Durkheim was more likely the social darwinist...some of his theory was predicated on Darwin, and his orientation was actually more conservative than Spencer's. Fortunately for Durkheim, much of his work is specifically foundational to sociology as a discipline, so he remains in the Trinity (Durkheim, Marx, Weber). And while it's true that libertarians today like some of Spencer's work, the question was about sociology specifically (I mean, do we want to talk about who likes Marx - it's just not relevant to this particular question).
As for disciplinary boundaries, I too believe that you go where the evidence points, and do your best to avoid Procrustean boundaries...one of the reasons I use evolutionary psychology and sociobiology in my published work (although it damages my career to some extent). But that's beside the point...when you impugn someone's competence on certain issues because of a typo and a bogus reading of text of course you get an argument.
I was with you up until the last sentence. I'm not sure, but it seems you may be saying that I impugned your competence because of a typo. I did not. I simply wanted to make sure that Uger Kezik didn't go off looking for "LaMarch" and find himself frustrated - a minor correction, not an assault on competence.
I am guessing that you are also implying that I was offering a "bogus reading of text." Maybe you weren't. In fact maybe the entire final sentence had nothing to do with me.
In any case, I am happy to leave the matter alone and assume that we have parted friends.
What about paying attention to the original question?
On Quetelet's view on the relations between culture and nature: François Ewald, Norms, discipline and the law, in Law and the Order of Culture, edited by Robert Post,
Thank you all of you such as invaluable contributions. Its really help me a lot AND
Than you Dear Howard Doughty for your interest. Whether Dear Edward imply "La March" or "Lamarckian" the most important thing is how he contribute and what we understood. So, "nobody wasn't born yesterday" :) Finally, both of you are precious Scholar. And you are really good at scientific cliffhanger...As a result, I am looking forward more golden comments and advices as I need...
Pareto ne parla come esempi,Mandeville utilizza le api, in senso lato se ne sono occupati anche loro
Grazie Gentile Caterina. Mandeville contribuisce anche alla letteratura e la condizione economica. Ad esempio: la sua "La favola delle api" studio...
Check out Gould and Lewis' Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. Particularly chapters 1: "The Social Construction of Nature: Of Computers, Butterflies, Dogs, and Trucks" and 2: "Theories in Environmental Sociology".
Also, Bellamy's 2007 publication "The Ecology of Destruction" and his 1999 article "Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology".
These may be helpful.
Another quick answer, of course, is Thomas Malthus, whose 1798 essay on population is foundational for people such as Donald Meadows, lead author of "The Limits to Growth" (1972).
In response to your initial question, Charles Horton Cooley applied ecological theory in his discussion of social organization and in dealing with topics like the"moral aspects of the organic view. See his books titled (1) Social Organization; (2) Human Nature and the Social Order. He was influenced by Herbert Spencer and admired Darwin. He believed that groups were organic wholes. His book was published in the early 1900s I believe, but there were papers reflecting the effects of the ecological sciences in the 18and early 1900s.
Your question needs to be detailled - there was no "sociologists" before the mid of the19th. Jason gave you the right answer - Marx was deeply interested with biology, chemistry and transformation of agriculture. Comte was obviously an important thinker of the relation between biology and sociology. You can take the example of older (almost) sociologists, like Ibn Khaldoun (14th century), who worked on the influence of physical matter on human societies, or Montesquieu (18th) in "L'esprit des lois" who analyses climate influence on social organization.
Then, did you read some papers about the social darwinism or Spencer's approach of organicism ? I dedicated a chapter of my PhD on the biological inspiration of sociology, studying the importance of the relation with biology, as a scientific pattern, but also as a wrong explanation of social phenomenon which created an opportunity to develop new explanations. - In french ! see : https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00293000/document or here in RG :
Book L'environnement, domaine sociologiqueLa sociologie française...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Urban/Rural Sociology
- Environmental Sociology