The social production of soil.
The social production of soil.
复制标题
土壤的社会生产。
DOI：
10.1097/ss.0b013e318194274d
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eva
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eva
土壤社会史的跨学科分析的理论基础被检查。一个例子是，土壤史是任何和所有环境史的基础，而不仅仅是农业史，这类研究经常被降级。相反，对土壤系统历史的理解被认为是理解土壤当前状态的必要条件。然而，回顾科学家可以获得的历史文献的现状，得出的结论是，迄今为止，环境史对土壤历史的考虑少得惊人。所写的内容，包括最近的几卷，主要集中在土壤科学的历史上，而不是土壤本身的历史上，并倾向于对社会和土壤之间的关系采取一种机械的解释，往往侧重于用简单的加法术语定义的肥力和退化。在历史领域中，一些现在被科学界认为是过时的观点的持续存在，使将社会和土壤的相互作用概念化的可能性最小化，并导致历史学家对土壤研究的缺乏。在这些经久不衰的观念中，有认为土壤是一种地质上的给定物，而不是历史上的产物的观念；一般认为自然是自我平衡和循环的，而不是线性的和历史的；土壤是一种惰性的矿物物质而不是生命体。其他社会科学，如考古学和地质学，已经在写土壤的社会生产历史的道路上取得了重大进展。环境历史学家应该熟悉当代土壤科学，并以历史学家可以提供的特殊专业知识和方法参与这个被忽视但重要的领域。同样，对了解土壤是如何以现在的方式形成的以及对土壤可能的未来感兴趣的土壤科学家将从熟悉历史方法中受益
The theoretical basis for an interdisciplinary analysis of the social history of soil is examined. A case is made that soil history is fundamental to any and all environmental history, not just to agricultural history, where such studies are often relegated. Conversely, an understanding of soil system history is argued to be essential for the understanding of the current state of a soil. Reviewing the state of the historical literature that is available to scientists, however, leads to the conclusion that environmental history has thus far included strikingly little consideration of the history of soil. That which has been written, including several recent volumes, has been concentrated heavily on the history of soil science rather than on the history of soil itself and tends to adopt a mechanistic interpretation of the relationship between societies and soil, often with a focus on fertility and degradation defined in simple additive terms. The persistence within the field of history of several ideas now considered outmoded in the world of science has minimized possible ways of conceptualizing the interactions of society and soil and contributed to the lack of historians’ study of soil. Among these persistent concepts are the idea of soil as a geological given rather than as a historical product; conceptions of nature in general as homeostatic and cyclic rather than linear and historical; and conceptions of soil as an inert mineral material rather than as a living body. Other social sciences, such as archaeology and geology, have already progressed significantly along the path of writing a history of the social production of soil. Environmental historians should become conversant in contemporary soil science and engage this neglected but essential field with the particular expertise and approach that historians can provide. Equally, soil scientists interested in understanding both how the soil comes to be formed in the way that it is and in the possible futures of soils will benefit from becoming conversant with historical approaches