![]() |
Geistes-, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Anzeiger
|
![]() |
Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Austrian Academy of Sciences Press
A-1011 Wien, Dr. Ignaz Seipel-Platz 2
Tel. +43-1-515 81/DW 3420, Fax +43-1-515 81/DW 3400 https://verlag.oeaw.ac.at, e-mail: verlag@oeaw.ac.at |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
DATUM, UNTERSCHRIFT / DATE, SIGNATURE
BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT, WIEN (IBAN AT04 1100 0006 2280 0100, BIC BKAUATWW), DEUTSCHE BANK MÜNCHEN (IBAN DE16 7007 0024 0238 8270 00, BIC DEUTDEDBMUC)
|

Geistes-, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftlicher Anzeiger, 160. Jahrgang 2025, pp. 161-182, 2025/11/25
In line with its self-image as a social crisis science, sociology has long ignored nature, i.e., social relations with nature. However, in the wake of the ecological crisis, it has become clear that nature and society interact. This presents sociology with the challenge of theoriz-ing this interaction in such a way that the project of critical reflection can be continued in a contemporary form while at the same time providing guidance for times of crisis. For this reason, we compare three influential social theories with regard to their concepts of nature: critical theory, Beck’s risk society, and Bruno Latour’s late work on climate change. Our central thesis is that social relations with nature have been increasingly criticized from a decidedly epistemological perspective over time. This critique no longer focuses on the connection between the domination of nature and social domination. However, the strong focus on the epistemic aspects of social relations with nature makes the politicization of ecological issues extremely difficult.
Keywords: ecological crisis; sociology of nature; critical theory; risk society; epistemization