Abstract
There is a paradoxical situation in the world: after the end of the WWII the science took leading position in all spheres of human activity but there was no any fundamental research on science-environmental movement relationships. Recently, Russian science in public life exists in two major forms. First in the form of manifestos like the Pugwash Manifesto in the year of 1955 (Butcher, 2005) which resulted in long-term numerous gatherings, discussions and appeals to world community and the second in the form of scientists-turned-civil activists who consciously left their positions in research institutes and entered an environmental and other social movements. The following text is based on the empirical study of the above relationships from the early 1900s till now in its widest sense (i.e. including charity, justice, peaceful and other forms of civil activism). The major forms of this activism were as follows: the writing the programs of alterative development of science, industry and agriculture; a work as the tutors of the students’ nature protection movement; the participation in the work of the committees on civil rights and freedoms; the establishment of alternative units of experts and advisers for public hearings, etc. In the run of this long-term period the situation is turned upside down: those who were students have become the scientifically-sound leaders of complex interdisciplinary movements without boundaries who actively participate in global transnational projects with global stakeholders on equal ground. It gives me the grounds to speak on the emergence of a new format of science-social movement relationships. The author suggests a hypothesis that the researchers of current environmental movements are needed in an integrated socio-bio-technical paradigm of actor-subject matter development.
Highlights
There is a paradoxical situation in the world: after the end of the WWII the science took leading position in all spheres of human activity but there was no any fundamental research on science-environmental movement relationships
There is a paradoxical situation in the world: after the end of the WWII the science took a leading position in all spheres of human activity but there was no any social movement of scientists
For a long time the paradigmatic approach was mainly applicable in natural sciences dealt with physical world
Summary
There is a paradoxical situation in the world: after the end of the WWII the science took a leading position in all spheres of human activity but there was no any social movement of scientists. It’s a result of permanent monitoring of implementation of such projects or of emerging of natural or man-made disasters. The former is a conceptually-built knowledge while the latter is an emergent one. This distinction of two types of knowledge is resulted in an existence of two institutions of knowledge production: an academic community and civil society with its organizational structure, networks, codes of behavior, etc. This distinction is relative because in practice they are interrelated and moved fourth each other. There are many other distinctions between the above two types of the knowledge production, i.e. between the scientific and the emergent ones
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.