Development of science-environmental movement relationships: The case of Russia

  • Oleg Yanitsky Institute of Sociology RAS
Keywords: alternative, environmental movement, globalization, civil activism, nature, paradigm, science, scientist-turned-activist, social movement, time


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. 


1. Beck U. (1999). World Risk Society. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
2. Beck U. (2007). Cosmopolitan Version. Cambridge: Polity Press.
3. Butcher S.I. (2005). The Origins of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. Available at:
4. Castells M. (1996).The Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
5. Castells M. (2000). Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society. British Journal of Sociology, 51 (1). Jan/March: 5—24.
6. Chizhevsky A.L. (1924). Fizicheskie faktoryistoricheskogo processa [Phisycal Factors of a Historical Process]. Kaluga: Pervaya Tipolitigraphiya.
7. Chizhevsky A.L. (1976). Zemnoe eho solnechnykh bur’ [The Earth Echo of Sun Storms]. Moskva: Mysl’.
8. Della Porta D. and M. Diani. (2006). Social Movements. 2nd.ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell.
9. Diani M. and D. McAdam, eds. (2003). Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approach to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Fisher F. (2003). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
11. Haberl H., Fisher-Kowalski M., Krausmann F. and Winiwater V., eds. (2016). Society-Nature Relations across Time and Space. ISBN (on-line): 978-3-319-33326-7. Available at:
13. Howard E. (1902). The Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London.
14. Irwin A. (2001). Sociology and Environment. A Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge. Malden, MA: Polity.
15. Irwin A. and Wynne B., eds. (1996). Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
16. Khun T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The Chicago University Press (First Ed.).
17. Klandermans B., Kriesi H., Tarrow S. (1988). From structure to action: comparing social movement research across cultures. London: JAI Press, Inc.
18. Kotkin St. (1991). Steeltown, USSR: Soviet Society in Gorbachev Era. California: University of California Press.
19. Kriesi H.P., Koopmans R., Dyuendak J. and Giugni M. (1995). New Social Movements in Western Europe. A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
20. Lemeshev M., ed. (1990). Ekologicheskaya Al’ternativa [An Ecological Alternative]. Moskwa: Progress.
21. Sassen S. (2000). Territory and Territoriality in the Global Economy, International Sociology, Vol. 15 (2): 372-393.
22. Robertson R. (1994). Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture. London: SAGE Publications.
23. Schwab K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
24. Seligman A. (1992). The Idea of Civil Society. N.Y.: The Free Press.
25. Vernadsky V. (1995). Zadachi nauki v sviyazi s gosudarstvennoi politikoi Rossii [The aims of sciences in connection with the state policy in Russia], in: Vl. Vernadsky. Publicistics / Volkov V.P. ed. Moscow: Nauka publishing House, pp. 240-241.
26. Vernadsky V. (1995a). Ob osnovakh agrarnoi politiki v Rossii [On the foundations of agrarian politics in Russia] in: Vl. Vernadsky. Publicistics / Volkov V.P. ed. Moscow: Nauka publishing House, pp. 241-251.
27. Weiner D. (1999). A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev, Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California Press.
28. Yanitsky O. (1996). The Ecological Movement in Post-Totalitarian Russia: Some Conceptual Issues, Society and Natural Resources, 9, pp. 65–76.
29. Yanitsky O. (2009). The Shift of Environmental Debates in Russia, Current Sociology 57 (6): 747–766.
30. Yanitsky, O. (2012). From Nature Protection to Politics: The Russian Environmental Movement 1960-2010. Environmental Politics. 21 (6): 922-940.
31. Yanitsky O. (2016). Sotsiobiotechnical systems: A new Approach to Man-Nature Interactions, in: On Globalization and its Environmental Consequences. The Yanitsky Reader II Available at: pp. 123-135.