Search

Expanding traditional sociological conceptions of community to include environmental considerations in community research, this paper stresses the importance of documenting both subjective and objective environmental concerns, as well as reconciling such differences as are presented and details precedence. Some recent data on the nature of social contact in high-rise ‘communities’ illustrate this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the intention of the author to publish issues in the journal "Sociological Inquiry," which was of importance to sociology in the 1980s. One of these topics was environmental sociology. The author hopes that the material contained in the special issue of the journal will bring its greater visibility and contribute to its future maturity. To the best of his knowledge this is the first time a major journal has featured an issue on environmental sociology. This is true despite the fact that the American Sociological Society has recognized a Section on Environmental Sociology since 1976. For the most part, what the author knows about environmental sociology he has gleaned from editing this special issue. For the special issue 9 of the 54 authors were female. For the general issues 31 of the 121 authors were female. The bulk of the articles submitted for the special issue were review and position papers. In contrast over 80 percent of those submitted for general issues were theoretical pieces and reports of empirical research. Less than one-quarter of the manuscripts submitted for the special issue were research reports.

A number of environmental scholars have argued Jürgen Habermas' communicative theories contain important insights for developing discourse-based models for making decisions about environmental risks and problems. Others have criticized Habermas for his anthropocentrism and split with the first-generation Frankfurt School's social ecology. By repositioning these assessments into Habermas' theories and their development, I argue the dissimilar interpretations and applications of Habermasian theory in the environmental social sciences and humanities can be explained by the theme of Habermas' work highlighted by both groups. Environmental critics of Habermas tend to emphasize his substantive claims about human-nature relations, whereas his environmental supporters tend to emphasize how his procedural theories of fair and inclusive discourse provide democratic alternatives to technocratic environmental decision-making. Environmental scholars and sociologists can continue this fruitful 'greening' of Habermasian theory by (1) merging the social ecology of the first-generation Frankfurt School with Habermas' communicative theories and (2) continuing the development of discourse-based environmental decision-making models while attending to the concerns raised by Habermas' environmental critics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]