![]() |
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. 5-64, 2025/11/25
The article examines how the concept of “nature” has been understood and contested throughout the history of sociology, showing that the discipline’s approach to nature has evolved through multiple distinct discursive strands. Employing a historical perspective commencing in the 19th century, the article identifies a typology of sociological positions in connection with the nature–society/culture relationship. These range from early nature-reductive theories – such as positivist or organicist approaches that likened society to a biological organism or sought natural laws of the social order – to materialist-dialectical frameworks that foregrounded material conditions and a dynamic dialectical interplay be-tween humans, the social, and the natural environments. Other strands include the social-morphological and body-centered perspectives of Durkheim and his followers, which integrated environmental factors and physicality into analyses of social order, as well as vitalist approaches influenced by life philosophy (e. g., Nietzsche, Bergson, and Simmel) that emphasized life forces in social processes. In the mid-20th century, integrative positions (exemplified by philosophical anthropology, US-American pragmatism, and actor-network theory) attempted to bridge or reconfigure the nature–culture divide, acknowledging both natural foundations and the emergent autonomy of culture. Finally, knowledge-sociological (reflexive) perspectives problematize “nature” as a socio-historically mediated concept, arguing that what counts as “nature” is always shaped by cultural discourse and power. Through this broad survey, the article historicizes and examines critically sociology’s shift-ing relationship with “nature”, highlighting how debates over the nature–culture distinction have shaped the discipline’s theoretical development and identity.
Keywords: organicist sociology; materialism; vitalism; pragmatism; sociology of knowledge approach