Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:40:08.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soviet Images of the Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Charles E. Ziegler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to outline some of the more important ‘images’ of the environment held in the Soviet Union. By ‘images’ of the environment I refer to the manner in which people utilize the natural environment in order to meet their biological, social or aesthetic needs, and their perception of the means for fulfilling these needs. The environment may be perceived as infinitely renewable, and thus as a resource to be exploited with minimal attention to future consequences. Or the natural environment may be perceived as a scarce commodity, a unique gift in danger of being destroyed by humankind's productive activities. Furthermore, attitudes toward the environment may vary across cultures, or within the same culture depending on age, socio-economic status, political ideology, occupation or area of residence. The environmental image maintained by a group, culture or individual has implications far beyond any immediate impact on nature. Fundamental ideas about the structuring of society, the economy and the political system are involved. Positive attitudes towards environmental protection may clash with deeply held values – faith in science and technology, a commitment to quantitative economic growth and confidence in the existing hierarchical structure of social and political power. One's environmental image, therefore, may either support the established order, or may support fundamental change.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 365 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a brief review of the relationship of these variables to environmental protection attitudes, see Liere, Kent D. Van and Dunlap, Riley E., ‘The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence’, Public Opinion Quarterly, XLIV (1980), 181–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Ziegler, Charles E., ‘Economic Alternatives and Administrative Solutions in Soviet Environmental Protection’, Policy Studies Journal, XI (1982), 175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Report to the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets, 22–9 December 1920, in Lenin, V. I., Collected Works (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), Vol. 31. p. 516 (emphasis in the original).Google Scholar

4 Laptev, I., The Planet of Reason (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1977), p. 72.Google Scholar

5 Klesova, E. V., Priroda i chelovek (Minski: BGU, 1979), pp. 94–5.Google Scholar

6 See Komarov, V. D., Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revolutsiia i sotsial'naia ekologiia (Leningrad: Leningrad University, 1977).Google Scholar

7 See Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I., The Gulag Archipelago II (New York: Harper and Row, 1975). pp. 86–102Google Scholar; and Komarov, Boris (pseud.), The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union (White Plains, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1980), pp. 59–80.Google Scholar

8 The debate between ‘pluralists’ and ‘nonpluralists’ in the Soviet field continues to rage. The most insightful works include Skilling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds. Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Odom, William E., ‘A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics’, World Politics, XXVIII (1976), 542–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Groth, Alexander J., ‘USSR: Pluralist Monolith?’ British Journal of Political Science, IX (1979), 445–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Solomon, Susan, ed., Pluralism in the Soviet Union (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. As suggested in the body of this article, the concept of state corporatism appears to be more useful than the pluralist framework. For a more complete elaboration see Ziegler, Charles E., ‘Issue Creation and Interest Groups in Soviet Environmental Policy: The Applicability of the State Corporatist Model’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

9 On corporatism, see Schmitter, Phillipe C., ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’ in Pike, Frederick B. and Stritch, Thomas, eds, The New Corporatism (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1974)Google Scholar. Recent attempts at applying the corporatist model to the Soviet Union include Bunce, Valerie, ‘The Political Economy of the Brezhnev Era: The Rise and Fall of Corporatism’, British Journal of Political Science, XIII (1983), 129–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and McCain, Morris A. Jr., ‘Soviet Jurists Divided: A Case for Corporatism in the USSR?’ Comparative Politics, XV (1983), 443–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Tucker, Robert C., The Soviet Political Mind, revised edn (New York: W. W. Norton, 1971), p. 146.Google Scholar

11 Sovetskaia rossiia (13 06 1982).Google Scholar

12 See Brown, Bess, ‘Turkmen Aviators Express Concern about Siberian Rivers Diversion Project’, Radio Liberty Research (RL 4/81), 2 01 1981Google Scholar; Voronitsyn, Sergei, ‘Will the Efforts (cont.) of the Uzbek “Lobby” Speed up the Diversion of Siberia's Rivers?’ Radio Liberty Research (RL 76/81). 20 02 1981Google Scholar; Voronitsyn, Sergei, ‘Renewed Polemics over Siberian Water Diversion Scheme’. Radio Liberty Research (RL 154/82). 6 04 1982Google Scholar; Brown, Bess, ‘Criticism of Siberian River Diversion Scheme Gets Hot Retort from Uzbekistan’. Radio Liberty Research (RL 167/82). 20 04 1982Google Scholar; Melnikov, N., ‘On Diverting Part of the Flow of Northern Rivers and Lakes to the South’. Ogonek. No. 28 (07 1982)Google Scholar. trans, in Current Digest of the Soviet Press (hereafter CDSP). XXXIV. No. 36 (6 10 1982). pp. 14–15.Google Scholar

13 Voronitsyn, Sergei, ‘Go-Ahead about to be Given for Siberian River Diversion Project?’ Radio Liberty Research (RL 184/83), 4 05 1983.Google Scholar

14 Trud (7 04 1983), p. 4.Google Scholar

15 On the Christian concept of time as linear and its relation to the environment, see Ittelson, William H. et al. , An Introduction to Environmental Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1974), p. 24.Google Scholar

16 Survey research in Western systems has suggested that fiscal conservatism is negatively, and fairly strongly, correlated with concern for environmental protection. See Lowe, George D. and Pinhey, Thomas K., ‘Rural-Urban Differences in Support for Environmental Protection’, Rural Sociology, XLVII (1982), 114–28Google Scholar; and Van Liere, and Dunlap, , ‘The Social Bases of Environmental Concern’.Google Scholar

17 Originally published as Unichtozhenie Prirody (Frankfurt: Possev, 1978).Google Scholar

18 Komarov, , The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union, p. 44.Google Scholar

19 Izrael, Iu. A., ‘Toward a Strategy for the Protection of the Environment and Rational Use of Nature in the USSR’, Soviet Sociology, XVIII (1979–1980). pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

20 Izrael, , ‘Toward a Strategy for the Protection of the Environment’, p. 76.Google Scholar

21 Komarov, , The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union, pp. 29–31.Google Scholar

22 Itogi nauki i tekhniki: okhrana prirody i vosproizvodstvo prirodnykh resursov, Vol. 8 (Moscow: VINITI, 1980), p. 29.Google Scholar

23 On the Virgin Lands project, see Dando, William A., ‘Grain or Dust: A Study of the Soviet New Lands Program. 1954–1963’ (doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, 1969), especially pp. 205–36.Google Scholar

24 See Hollis, G. E., ‘The Falling Levels of the Caspian and Aral Seas’, Geographical Journal, CXLIV (1978), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Brown, Bess, ‘Cries of Alarm Over the Effects of the Kara-Bogaz Dam’, Radio Liberty Research (RL 105/83), 7 03 1983.Google Scholar

26 For an excellent discussion of administrative values and symbols in the Soviet Union and the United States, see Urban, Michael E., The Ideology of Administration: American and Soviet Cases (Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 1982).Google Scholar

27 Brown, Bess, ‘Cries of Alarm’.Google Scholar

28 Goldman, Marshall I., The Spoils of Progress (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1972).Google Scholar

29 Zagladin, V. V., ‘Global'nye problemy o sotsial'nyi progress chelovechestva’, Voprosy filosofii, No. 4 (1983), p. 94.Google Scholar

30 Timekin, Iu. I., Priroda obshchestva, zakon (Kishinev: Shtiintsa, 1976), p. 49.Google Scholar

31 Laptev, I. D., ‘Soznatel'noe i stikhiinoe vo vzaimodeistvii obshchestva i priorody’. Voprosy filosofii, No. 7 (1976), pp. 82–92.Google Scholar

32 ‘Krugly stol Voprosy filosofii: Chelovek i sreda ego obitaniia’, Voprosy filosofii. No. 1 (1973). p. 53.Google Scholar

33 ‘The Economy, Ecology and Ethics – An EKO and Novy Mir Round-Table Discussion Among Writers and Scientists’, EKO, No. 3 (03 1982)Google Scholar, trans, in CDSP, XXXIV, No. 3.Google Scholar

34 Although Soviet innovativeness in the use of natural resources has lagged considerably behind that of its East European neighbours. See DeBardeleben, Joan, ‘Marxism-Leninism and Economic Policy: Natural Resource Pricing in the USSR and the GDR’, Soviet Studies, XXXV (1983), 36–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 An article in Zhurnalist, No. 6 (06 1975), p. 53Google Scholar described how the Party and soviet committees in a Russian Republic district directed the local newspaper to conduct a ‘discussion’ on resource use and protection.

36 Sharlet, Robert, The New Soviet Constitution (Brunswick, Ohio: King's Court, 1978).Google Scholar

37 Dollezhal', N. and Koriakin, Iu., ‘Iadernaia elektroenergetika: dostizheniia i problemy’, Kommunist, No. 14 (1979), pp. 19–28.Google Scholar

38 Voronitsyn, Sergei, ‘How Great is Soviet Citizen's Fear of Nuclear Radiation?’ Radio Liberty Research (RL 468/82), 22 11 1982.Google Scholar

39 Sadri, Roostam, ‘Concern in Tatar ASSR about Nuclear Power Station to be Built on Kama River’, Radio Liberty Research (RL 222/83), 7 06 1983.Google Scholar

40 See Shteinberg, V. A., ‘Ekologischeskie i sotsial'nye posledstviia primeneniia soveremennogo oruzhiia’, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, No. 4 (1981), pp. 66–73.Google Scholar

41 Medvedev, Zhores, Nuclear Disaster in the Urals (New York: Vintage, 1980).Google Scholar

42 Komsomolskaia pravda (16 04 1982).Google Scholar

43 Pravda (13 05 1982).Google Scholar

44 This paradigm is based on ideas contained in Milbrath, Lester W., ‘Environmental Beliefs and Values’Google Scholar, draft chapter prepared for Hermann, Margaret, ed., Handbook of Political Psychology (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming).Google Scholar

45 See. for example, the letter by four officials in Sovetskaia rossiia (11 01 1984). p. 3.Google Scholar

46 See Leksin, V. N., ‘Narodnokhoziaistvennaia effektivnost' i interesy otrasli’. Ekonomika i organizatsiia promyshlennogo proizvodstva No. 4 (1977). pp. 56–63Google Scholar. For a harsh appraisal of the efficacy of Soviet central planning, see Komarov, , The Destruction of Nature in the Soviet Union.Google Scholar

47 Shkatov, V., ‘Tseny na prirodnye bogatstva i sovershenstvovanie planovogo tsenohrazovaniia’. Voprosy ekonomiki No. 9 (09 1968). pp. 67–77Google Scholar: Feitelman, N. G., ‘Sotsiol'noekonomicheskie problemy ekologicheskogo ravnovessia v zapadnoi sibiri’. Voprosy ekonomiki. No. 10 (10 1978). pp. 11–18.Google Scholar

48 Zagladin, V. V., ‘Global'nye problemy o sotsial'nyi progress chelovechestva’.Google Scholar