Beyond biophilia: exploring the social roots of nature protection CSA (Kris) van Koppen Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University The Netherlands builds on previous paper on a nature-inclusive sociology theoretical proposal (1) vital importance of including nature; (2) how to do so in epistemology and methods of sociology, building on Moscovici, Foucault, and practice theories, among others. here, applied to biophilia, but first a short intro

The sociological theatre of nature classic view: nature is the stage, and sociology is concerned with the actors; to find out about the stage, ask natural science; to understand what the actors do, ask sociologies. and yes, even the actors are partly nature - their bodies - but they also have something else, say agency or social interaction, which is key in understanding their behaviour - and there's the domain of sociologists this is no longer a valid and useful approach, for several reasons, one of them; evolutionary biologists and neuroscientists make claims on all aspects of social behaviour, and many of these claims are substantial and potentially valid.

Redefining the scene of the play Sociology and natural science do NOT (principally) differ in empirical domains: they both can (and will) study phenomena of society and nature Natural science and sociology differ because of method: the underlying logic (Foucault: episteme) of sociology is different from that of natural science so, should be become neurobiologists? no; there is a very important role to play but to fully play that role, we have to redefine the scene of the play: say it most radically: slide underlying logic or episteme: NOT the actual laws or facts, but the way in which phenomena are sort of ‘preprocessed’ before they become actual scientific knowledge. In other words: it is the general sort of logic that we expect to find before we have found an actual explanation.

Different underlying logics Natural science: effective causation; exact (mathematical) relationships; continuity from physics to human evolution and neurobiology Sociology: systematization and refinement of facts and explanations that are shared by and meaningful to human actors in society (improving 'lifeworld knowledge') sociology: not imitating natural science by making an alternative formal and abstract system of explanation, or a sort of overarching system theory approach, but: example??

How do children develop an interest in nature? Issue receiving growing attention of nature conservation organizations "Widespread evidence suggests that the strongest environmental sensibilities in adulthood stem from childhood experiences of unstructured play in natural environments" (Moss, 2012, in a report for the UK National Trust) fear for declining support base

Natural science: Biophilia Edward O. Wilson: "innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes" (animals, trees, landscapes) Acknowledging cultural diversity, so: "Genetically prepared", "Learning rules" not determinist

Sociological meaning of 'being genetically prepared' Fascination, emotional satisfaction, being attracted to (or repelled by) animals, landscapes Possibly, developing within a 'critical period' of life (cf. language acquisition) Parallel with Collins': interaction ritual chains, symbols, emotional energy

Understanding learning processes Collins cultural & symbolic others material world me Wilson

Issues for (sociological) investigation Is there a critical period? What is the role of repetition, rituals, and symbols? What is the role of others (how social is our love for nature?) Does love for nature feed into environmental concern (and how)? Some tentative conclusions: Yes, Role is significant It is, particularly in childhood Potentially yes, but only within a proper context