Prospects of the Interdisciplinary & Systemic Approaches
- 1 Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
Drawing on the long-term studies of the relationships between the natural, social and technical sciences, on my participation in the three international projects and the own empirical investigations of natural and technological disasters, I came to the following conclusions. First, a mono-disciplinary approach to modern multisided transformations has become outdated. Second, all modern events including critical situations have systemic character. Third, any systemic events or processes should be studied by the interdisciplinary approach. Four, the modern world has nonlinear, uncertain and unpredictable character. Five, any environment has double i.e. passive-active nature, therefore when its carrying capacity is overcoming it usually transforming into a multisided actor. Six, recently the situation has aggravated by the still ill-studied process of transformation of the Biosphere into the sociobiotechnosphere (hereafter the SBT-system). Seven, its feedback in relation of humanity is ill-studied as well. Eight, this SBT-system may have various degrees of integrity, from the chaotic, over complex and hybrid till a full systemic character. Nine, various metabolic processes are the main “ integrator ” of natural and social sciences. Ten, any environment has its own carrying capacity. In sum, if one takes into account the above considerations, the systemic and interdisciplinary approaches are the best way to making the models of future SBT-systems. But at the same time, in our tightly integrated world , the systemic and interdisciplinary approaches have their limits because these approaches are only the scientific but not the political instruments.
- (2018). Global Risk Report. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
- Bauman, Z. (2017). A Chronicle of Crisis: 2011-2016 (163 p.). London: Social Europe Edition.
- Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society (184 p.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
- Brundtland, G., & Khalid, M. (1987). Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environment and Development (383 p.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Castells, M. (2004). The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (292 p.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Commoner, B. (1971). The Closing Circle. New York: Knopf.
- Deelstra, T., & Yanitsky, O. (1991). Cities of Europe: The Public’s Role in Shaping the Urban Environment (393 p.). Moscow: Mezhdunarudnye Otnosheniya.
- Fisher-Kowalski, M. (1997). Society’s Metabolism: On the Childhood and Adolescence of a Rising Conceptual Star. In M. Redklift, & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (pp. 119-137). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
- Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. W. (1989). The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind (2nd ed.). New York: Universe Books.
- Meadows, D. L., & Meadows, D. H. (1973). Toward Global Equilibrium. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press.
- Park, R. (1928). Migration and the Marginal Man. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 882-893. https://doi.org/10.1086/214592
- Park, R. (1952). Human Communities: The City and Human Ecology (256 p.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
- Park, R., Burgess, R., & McKenzie, R. (1926). The City. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
- Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
- Simonov, E. (2020). Lessons of the Sardoba: To Learn But Not to Forget. Living Asia.
- Stokols, D. (2018). Social Ecology in the Digital Age. Solving Complex Problems in a Globalized World (399 p.). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
- Urry, J. (2003). Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Urry, J. (2008). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Vernadsky, V. L. (1977). The Thoughts of a Naturalist. The Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon (191 p.). Moscow: Nauka Publishers.