The project mentioned below is aimed at the study of a possibility and forms of the civic volunteers’ participation in a mitigation or prediction of modern natural and environmental disasters in Russia. Such participation is necessary taking into account the huge size of its territory and variety of natural and built landscape as well as of types of small settlements including the nomadic ones. In spite of very shaky Russian history of the XX century there were a diversity of types of the state and civil society’s voluntary organizations. From the 1960s and up to now the environmental movement and its local grassroots and NGOs existed throughout the USSR/Russia’s territory. Nowadays, the interest of lay people to the state and prospects of their living environment？is？rapidly growing especially due to the emergence of a global network structure.？The global world is becoming more unstable, unpredictable and therefore more risky, be it natural, social or artificially-constructed. The process of a gradual transformation of the biosphere into a sociobiotechnical sphere is rapidly going on. As social and natural sciences continue to develop separately, the？citizen’s social science？began quickly developing both in many parts of Russia and across the world, and the volunteer’s units took an active part in that process. The standard modes of rescuers’ activity came into contradiction with our movable and unpredictable world. Under such conditions the volunteers should be not only well-experienced but interdisciplinary specialists able to translate from one language, say local nomad people into two-three scientific languages.
References
[1]
Achiezer, A., Kogan, L., & Yanitsky, O. (1969). Urbanization, Society, and the Scientific and Technological Revolution. Voprosy Philisofii, 2, 43-53 (In Russ.)
[2]
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society. Toward a New Modernity (260 p.). London: SAGE.
[3]
Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society (184 p.). Malden, MA: Polity Press.
[4]
Castells, M. (2004). The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society (292 p.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[5]
Gamson, W. (1990). The Strategy of Social Protest (2nd ed., 185 p.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
[6]
Howard, E. (1902). The Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co.
[7]
Kopp, A. (1967). Ville et Revolution. Architecture et Urbanisme Sovietique des Annees Vingt. Paris: Edition Anthropos.
[8]
Kotkin, St. (1991). Steeltown, USSR: Soviet Society in Gorbachev Era (269 p.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[9]
Laqueur, W. (1993). Black Hundred: The Rise of the Extreme Right in Russia (318 p.). Broadway,? NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
[10]
Lauristin, M., & Vihalemm, P. (1997). Return to the Western World. Cultural and Political Perspectives on the Post-Communist Transition (387 p.). Tartu: Estonian Science Foundation.
[11]
Lidskog, R. (2008). Scientised Citizens and Democratized Science. Re-Assessing the Expert-Lay Divide. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 69-86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701521636
[12]
Lisichkin, G. (1966). Plan and Market Economy (96 p.). Moscow: Ekonomika. (In Russ.)
[13]
Lupton, D. (1999). Risk and Sociological Theory: New Directions and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511520778
[14]
Murphy, R. (2009). Leadership in Disaster. Learning for a Future with Global Climate Change (406 p.). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
[15]
Perrow, Ch. (1984). The Normal Accidents. Living with High-Risk Technologies (168 p.). New York: Basic Books.
[16]
Pinnoniemi, K. (2012). Russian Critical Infrastructures. Vulnerabilities and Policies (119 p.). Tampere: The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
[17]
Purdam, K. (2014). Citizen Social Science and Citizen Data? Methodological and Ethical Challenges for Social Research. Current Sociology, 62, 374-392.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114527997
[18]
Riesman, D., Glazer, N., & Denney, R. (1965). The Lonely Crowd. The Study of the Changing American Character (315 p.). New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.
[19]
Sagan, S. (1993). The Limits of Safety. Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons (286 p.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[20]
Weiner, D. (1988). Models of Nature: Ecology, Conservation, and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (312 p.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
[21]
Weiner, D. (1999). A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev (556 p.). Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
[22]
Yanitsky, O. (1991). Social Movements. One Hundred Interviews with Its Leaders (273 p.). Moscow: Moskowski Rabotchyi. (In Russ.)
[23]
Yanitsky, O. (1996). The Ecological Movement in Post-Totalitarian Russia: Some Conceptual Issues. Society and Natural Resources, 9, 65-76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929609380952
[24]
Yanitsky, O. (1999). The Environmental Movement in a Hostile Context. The Case of Russia. International Sociology, 14, 157-172.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580999014002003
[25]
Yanitsky, O. (2005). Dialogue between Science and Society. Social Sciences. A Quarterly Journal of the Russian Acad. of Sciences, 36, 78-90.
[26]
Yanitsky, O. (2008). Modernization in Russia: Challenges to Research and Education. Moscow: Institute of Sociology.
[27]
Yanitsky, O. (2009). The Shift of Environmental Debates in Russia. Current Sociology, 57, 747-766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392109342202
[28]
Yanitsky, O. (2010). Russia’s Changing World: Resources, Networks, Localities. Social Sciences. A Quarterly Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 4, 103-122.
[29]
Yanitsky, O. (2013). Metabolicheskaya konseptsyia sovremennogo goroda [A Metabolic Concept of Modern City]. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsial’naya praktika, 2, 16-32.
[30]
Yanitsky, O. (2014a). Sociology of Critical Areas. Open Journal of Social Science Research, 2, 112-118.
http://manuscript.sciknow.org/uploads/ojssr/pub/ojssr_140963345.pdf
[31]
Yanitsky, O. (2014b). Volunteers: Civil and State. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsial’naya praktika, 1, 71-89.
