(the Inaugural Essay is below).

 

 

 

This posting of the

Inaugural Essay

remains in its original released form to the sociological community

(and the burgeoning astrosociological community).

 

       This essay as a whole, considering Part One and Part Two together, provides a small

glimpse of the potential of astrosociology as a new subfield of sociology.  As the first

comprehensive treatment of this subfield, it is not possible to foresee all topics or predict

which directions it will take in the future.  This essay can only offer cursory treatments of

areas predicted to be important under the purview of astrosociology.  Therefore, while the

areas covered here do not represent an entire listing of all possible issues, they do

indicate a good initial overview of the types of issues argued to be astrosociological.

       Before moving on to address the various issues supportive of the basic argument

that astrosociology is indeed a relevant new subfield, it is important to restate (1) the

meaning of a fundamental concept and (2) the importance of an organized sociological

approach.  The following section presents moderately brief introductions to specific

astrosociological areas of concentration.  Three areas receive the greatest attention while

several others merit reference as additional important elements of a list.  The final

section offers a concluding argument in favor of the relevancy of astrosociology in the

twenty-first century and the consequential need to develop it as a new subdiscipline.

 

       Further Clarification of a Vital Definition.  It is important to clarify the meaning of a

fundamental concept due to its vital role in placing boundaries around the types of social

and cultural patterns appropriately falling under the purview of astrosociology.  A proper

definition of this concept remains vital for a basic understanding of how astrosociology

ties all similar social phenomena together.  Currently, the discipline of sociology tends to

consider the various elements covered by this proposed single substantive area as dis-

connected topics of study; certainly not viewed as elements of a single subfield.

       The concept in question is astrosocial phenomena. It relates to all types of asso-

ciations, either direct or indirect, between social or cultural patterns and space (beyond

Earth).  The link between space and society is the key to the definition of astrosocial

phenomena.  Any other expression associated with the root term, astrosocial, refines the

focus of an astrosocial phenomenon in a specific way; and it thereby reflects a more

precise topic or issue.  Examples include astrosocial group, astrosocial education, and

astrosocial sector.

       Astrosocial phenomena comprise a subset of all social phenomena that embody the

very heart of sociological inquiry.  Again, astrosocial phenomena relate to human social

patterns characterized by some type of a relationship to space.  Examples include con-

ducting space science (e.g., astronomy, SETI, astrobiology), spaceflight operations,

planetary geology, and robotic missions to other bodies in space.  Astrosocial phenomena

also include engineers and scholars working on projects related to the space program

within the aerospace industry. In contrast, non-astrosocial phenomena consist of social

phenomena unrelated to the space within a particular society.

       No reason exists to redefine other well-accepted terms associated with space.

Examples include space law, space policy, space program, spaceflight, and space science.

As explained above, however, all such social phenomena represent astrosocial pheno-

mena; and therefore, they fall within the proposed scope of astrosociology.

       The distinction between non-astrosocial and astrosocial phenomena is vital to give

astrosociology its unique focus.  Moreover, the two subcategories of social phenomena

possess a relationship to one another.  Indeed, recognition of the connection between

these two dimensions of social life remains an ongoing concern in order to determine the

effects of astrosocial phenomena on parts of a given society not related to space.  Other-

wise, how is it possible to determine the specific effects of astrosocial phenomena?  In

the reverse direction, it remains important to understand how non-astrosocial phenomena

affect various aspects of the space program, including its focus, direction, and relevance

in society.  The overall astrosociological approach includes both considerations.

        The significance of astrosocial phenomena is further demonstrated when comparing

it to non-astrosocial phenomenon, such as what may be termed space phenomena.

When considering space phenomena, the focus is on characteristics of the physical

properties of objects and processes in space without human interaction.  As such, space

phenomena are not inherently social phenomena and thus not astrosocial phenomena.

Space phenomena remain important, of course. However, they are not the specific focus of

astrosociology unless a particular space phenomenon becomes linked to human beings in

some way.  For example, an asteroid on a collision course with Earth is, by itself, a space

phenomenon.  However, when discovered by human beings, studied, and perhaps even

redirected off its collision course, each of these social patterns represents an astrosocial

phenomenon.  Astrosocial phenomena, in this context, refer to humans interacting with

one another as they relate in some way with space phenomena.  Thus, there is an impor-

tant relationship between astrosocial phenomena and non-social phenomena reflecting, in

part, how humans conduct space sciences and where their efforts fit in the overall social

structure and culture of a particular society.

       Thus, astrosociology places a strong emphasis upon the scrutiny of human involve-

ment in space and the effects this involvement has on society.  Furthermore, astrosoci-

ology is only partially interested in space scientists making discoveries, sending robotic

probes to the planets, or astronauts going into space.  It is also dedicated to under-

standing how these behaviors impact upon society in terms of social change and cultural

change, and how such changes transform social systems into the future.  The overall

character of a particular society represents an important focus, then – but so do its

various components including the attributes of social interactions, subcultures, social

groups, and institutions (analyzed from both a cross-sectional and a longitudinal

perspective).

 

       Bringing Sociology In.  The rationale for this two-part essay is to demonstrate the

overdue nature of applying the sociological perspective to the examination of (1) astro-

social phenomena and (2) the interrelationships between astrosocial phenomena and

other facets of a specific society.  Bringing sociology into this area of inquiry is largely

unrealized despite the irrefutably significant effects of astrosocial phenomena.  Therefore,

the application of the sociological imagination (Mills, 1959) to understanding the rela-

tionship between the typical citizen and astrosocial phenomena remains vital due to its

ongoing, and arguably increasing, relevance.  Presently, the implications of astrosocial

phenomena for the individual at the micro and middle levels of social reality are largely

unexplored even as they remain critical to understand.

       The promise of sociology resides in its potential capacity to recognize the connec-

tions between individuals and both the social structures and the cultural communities

comprising their society (Mills, 1959).  This fundamental application of the sociological

imagination seems obvious when considering the historical development of the discipline,

and its attention to “normal” social phenomena.  However, the ongoing failure to apply

the sociological imagination to an understanding of astrosocial phenomena demands

special consideration of astrosociological issues.  Modern human activities in space and

related to space, characterizing the space age, have been taking place since the 1950s,

yet their impact on society over the years is largely unknown due to a significant level of

sociological indifference and perhaps even a certain level of contempt.  The establishment

of astrosociology serves to end this failure.

        Typical members of space capable societies know of the existence of their space

program, remain updated about many of its successes and failures, and even support it on

a general level.  However, most of them do not see how it affects their everyday lives or

living conditions, or what they can do to contribute to changes in space policy.  Sociolo-

gists are only modestly more enlightened.  Thus, even most sociologists are not in strong

possession of the sociological imagination as it relates to astrosocial phenomena.

       How else can one explain the absence of astrosociology or something like it? As an

adjunct, where is the astrosociological literature?  The “selected bibliography” section of

Part Two of this essay includes references that analyze space issues from the perspec-

tives of other disciplines and occupations, though very few from the sociological perspec-

tive.  However, this indifference is not a universal attribute characteristic of all sociolo-

gists.  B.J. Bluth (1983), for example, advocated the study of space issues from a socio-

logical perspective long ago.  Bainbridge (1991) made an important observation about

sociology’s indifference.  Part of his argument involved the recognition that in the face of

a substantial interest in space on a societal scale (among citizens and space scientists),

sociologists are less well prepared to deal with it compared to the scientists in the so-

called “hard sciences.”  Rudoff (1996:75), in considering the importance of astrosocial

issues, asked a simple though very revealing question: “And where is sociology?”  A sim-

ple conclusion thus presents itself.  Bluth, Bainbridge, Rudoff, along with Tough (1998)

and many others, have long recognized the potential value of the “sociology of space” to

the discipline and to society. Proponents of astrosociology continue to marvel at its

absence in the face of this untapped potential.

       In one attempt to change these circumstances, a group of ASA members attempted

to create a new section on “exo-sociology” a few years ago without success.3  While this

subdiscipline is renamed based on reasons explained in Part One of this essay (Pass

2004), the focus of astrosociology is much the same as called for by others in the past.

Indeed, while success for the current effort represents a difficult challenge, the rationale

for it is well established.

       Historically, many areas of social life benefitted from the application of the socio-

logical imagination.  However, a central theme of this essay relates to the ongoing failure

of applying the sociological imagination to astrosocial (social) structures, or to the ideas

and values constituting the astrosocial subcultures, which exist within the astrosocial

sector.  While sociology possesses a strong tradition of studying social space, the same

remains untrue about studying human behavior in outer space.  In summary, then, the

issues falling under the purview of astrosociology have not benefited from the invocation

of the sociological imagination in a consistent, systematic manner.  As such, the influ-

ences of astrosocial phenomena on individuals, subcultures, and social structures – as

well as influences in the reverse direction – remain largely unknown despite the fact that

they have influenced industrial and post-industrial societies since the beginning of the

space age.

       It is best to view sociological inattention to astrosociological issues in relative

terms.  Individual studies do indeed focus on NASA’s subculture, safety, or on various

elements of the space program.  In fact, however, these efforts are uncommon in main-

stream sociology.  Moreover, sociological works touching on various astrosociological

issues become lost, not only among the ever-growing volume of sociological works, but

also among the greater quantity of non-sociological and unscientific approaches.  In con-

trast, the other social sciences, particularly social anthropology and psychology, remain

far ahead of sociology in terms of their focus on interpersonal relationships related to

space (Harrison 2001).  History and journalism address astrosociological issues much

more frequently as well.

     

       The issues related directly to astrosociology constitute a wide-ranging set of areas

of concentration purely by themselves (Pass 2004).  This recognition is necessary to allow

for the possibility of organizing all of these areas in a purposeful manner as various

aspects of a single sociological subfield called astrosociology, rather than allowing the

status quo to continue in which they remain as “unrelated” approaches.  As there is no

obvious coordinated effort to build a single unified literature, this essay represents a

starting point intended to emphasize an area of social life historically ignored, or at least

undervalued, by sociology for far too long.

       The fact that sociologists have yet to establish a specific astrosociological literature

comprising a single subfield is unlikely a reflection upon the importance or relevance of

astrosociological issues.  Arguably, the absence of astrosociology is due in large measure

to the momentum of indifference carried forth within the discipline year after year.

Whether biases exist against the study of astrosocial phenomena, or it does reflect a

simple historical indifference, or even some sort of combination of both, such conditions

serve to counteract the establishment of astrosociology.  Overcoming such a social reality

requires challenging the status quo in an overt and forceful manner.  To do so, one must

demonstrate its merits as a substantive area and its positive impact on the discipline in

order to ensure its acceptance and allow for progress thereafter.

       Because so little research exists from a sociological perspective, the number of

possible topics of study, including historical analyses of the space age itself, remains

wide open.  As such, those who choose to pursue astrosociology can follow their interests

with the certainty of providing unique contributions to the subfield as well as to the

discipline that continues to ignore it.  Meanwhile, this potential to produce unpredictable,

yet groundbreaking findings awaits fulfillment.

 

Astrosociology:  Reviewing Major Areas of Concentration

       Astrosociology, as proposed here, is the sociological study of astrosocial phenomena

at its core.  An understanding of astrosocial phenomena, while vitally important in itself,

also provides the capability of comparing them to other social phenomena as well as

allowing recognition of their interactive effects.  Figure One found in Part One of this

essay (Pass, 2004), depicting what may be considered the first iteration of the General

Model, reflects this as one of the two important elements that tie this discussion to-

gether.  The other major element, related to the general model, consists of the five

themes of astrosociology.  The five themes, when considered together, comprise the

initial astrosociological framework in conjunction with the General Model.

       It is important to reiterate that the discussions of critical astrosociological issues to

follow serve to demonstrate their relevance to human societies and consequently to the

discipline of sociology.  The overall discussion represents more of a framework than any-

thing approaching a comprehensive treatment of this proposed substantive area.  The

purpose is to provide a general orientation from which astrosociological theory and re-

search can proceed in the future.

 

       Astrosocial Phenomena and Culture.  In the General Model, the culture plays a

crucial part in determining overall change in a particular society.  The culture reflects the

relative importance of astrosocial phenomena at any given point in time, and thus shifting

cultural patterns contribute to re-shape the character of astrosocial phenomena into the

future.  Cultural patterns at all levels of social reality command ongoing attention as they

all contribute to this change.

       The organization of this brief discussion revolves around Bierstedt’s (1970) three

major dimensions of culture (i.e., values and other types of ideas, norms, and material

culture) as they directly relate to astrosocial phenomena.  Together, these elements

strongly influence the character and direction of a particular society in conjunction with its

social structures.  In this context, the culture consists of social patterns that both favor

and disfavor astrosocial phenomena.  Accordingly, an ongoing assessment of how various

subcultures, as well as the public at large, regard space issues contributes to the deter-

mination if a particular society is moving toward a greater or lesser level of integration of

astrosocial phenomena into everyday social life.

       In general, ideas expressing the lure of, and a connection to, the cosmos become

important components of the cultures of all societies.  Upon looking into the night sky,

certain questions inevitably arise.  Who are we?  Where did we come from?  How do we

fit in the overall scheme of things?  What is out there?  Is there life beyond Earth?

Should we go into space to find out?  How much risk is acceptable versus intolerable?  Is

there a limit to “acceptable” loses of equipment and especially human lives?  How much

of a priority is the exploration of space?  The answers to such questions define whether a

culture is closer to an Earthcentric or what may be termed spacecentric.  In the United

States, for example, a potentially tenuous foundation of public support (68%) currently

exists in a strongly Earthcentric environment as demonstrated once again in the July 2004

Gallup Poll (Carlson 2004).  An important focus of astrosociological research involves the

continual assessment of where a society falls along this continuum between these two

extremes.  A particular society answers these questions in its own unique ways as it

moves through history.

       Astrosociologists should focus on the types of values and general ideas that both

favor and disfavor astrosocial phenomena, in addition to the value conflict generated.  As

one example, how do the distinctive values of various religious groups influence a soci-

ety’s movement toward, or away from, greater adoption of space activities?  What is the

nature of value conflict among religious groups?  How would the various religious groups

react to the discovery of extraterrestrial life and how would this affect their dogmas?  As

a second example, how strongly do economic values contribute to the level of astrosocial

phenomena as corporations pursue profits?  Third, should we solve Earth-bound social

problems, such as poverty and terrorism, before spending resources devoted to pursuing

the exploration of space?  Value conflict is inevitable in any complex society, and conse-

quently its changing dynamics require an ongoing assessment of both endogenous and

exogenous forces that contribute to it.

       A society’s norms support and protect values.  If astrosocial phenomena are unim-

portant or underdeveloped, the norms regulating them tend to be absent or weak.  Resis-

tive rules may even exist.  Supportive policies and even laws develop as astrosocial phen-

omena become more widespread.  For example, when corporations determine that space

operations can increase their dwindling levels of profits, they will lobby for the formali-

zation of social norms consistent with this pursuit.  A contemporary example of this may

soon play out in the area of space tourism with Virgin Galactic suborbital flights.4  Con-

sequently, the development of health and safety regulations for the infant space tourism

industry becomes a new priority as this new set of astrosocial phenomena begin to affect

other institutions and groups.

        When considering the culture of a particular society, its material culture should

demand substantial attention.  Indeed, its importance lies in the fact that it reflects the

culture in physical form.  In the context of astrosociology, the material culture consists of

the physical manifestations of the social patterns related to human involvement in space,

currently mostly a reflection of the state’s space program.  Current examples include

spaceports, rockets, space shuttles, a space station, robotic probes, space laws and for-

mal space policies, and spacesuits.  In the future, new examples will likely include Moon

and Mars bases, a truly private commercialization of space, space tourism including space

hotels, and long-duration spacecraft.  Based on relevant social values, the rules for the

use of these various physical cultural elements regulate behavior in the astrosocial sector.

An ongoing evaluation of the material culture specifically dedicated to astrosocial pheno-

mena represents an important measure of its relative importance and influence within a

particular society.  Astrosociologists should watch for the growth and influence of space

law and space policy, as well as the construction of new space infrastructure in the

material culture.

       If a society is to move to the spacefaring phase of subsistence, cultural elements

must support it.  Commonly shared norms and values strongly supporting astrosocial

phenomena, within both the astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors, can forge strong

connections to various subcultures and social structures that encourage the establishment

of a higher level of commitment to space.  On the other hand, an absence of strong norms

and values favorable to astrosocial phenomena, or indifference, result in a space program

and future in space characterized by much less integration within the overall social sys-

tem.  Astrosociological research dedicated to the relationship between a society’s culture

and the relative extent of human activities in space represents an important area of con-

centration on a longitudinal basis.  In any society, culture, in conjunction with its social

structures, combine in a complex interactive manner to shape a society’s future direction

and character.

       Finally, two areas related to culture require attention. The first is science fiction and

its impact on culture and other aspects of a society.  Science fiction is a literature of

change (Landon 1995) and thus affects ideas in the general culture as well as in the

sciences.  Its relationship to astrosocial phenomena continues to represent an important

consideration.  The second area is the more controversial category of cultural ideas rela-

ted to alien life allegedly already on Earth (including UFOs, and topics such as alien

abductions, cattle mutilations, and crop circles).5  A critical distinction exists between

astrobiology (including SETI) and present-day claims of alien detection on Earth, as only

the former belong to the mainstream space sciences.  Determining the authenticity of

claims of contact with alien life on Earth lies outside the scope of astrosociological

research.  However, these ideas exist in the culture to an extensive extent.  Conse-

quently, their connection to astrosocial phenomena on that basis may be cause for

further exploration.

 

       Considering a Spacefaring Future.  While the General Model does not directly pre-

dict a spacefaring future, the model does imply such an outcome as a strong possibility

based on the growth and influence of the astrosocial sector. As a contrast, a space

capable society is defined here as one that can reach space on its own accord (e.g., the

United States, Russia, Japan, France, China, and the ESA as a consortium of nations).

However, a space capable society is not necessarily a spacefaring society.  The latter

represents a significant hypothetical outcome worthy as a major area of concentration

under the scope of this new subfield.

       Astrosociologists should be careful in their use of the concept spacefaring society,

refraining from the further application of this term to space capable societies.  This

distinction has no bearing on the terms spacefaring and spacefarer when used to reflect

going into space in general terms and humans exploring space (e.g., astronauts, cosmo-

nauts), respectively.  However, if a high level of confusion is generated, it should

trigger a reassessment of this position.  In contrast, all social scientists should reserve

the label of spacefaring society for properly characterizing the transformation of an entire

social system that reaches a threshold in which a specific set of social and cultural

conditions exist.

       Why recommend this approach?  Consider the rough comparison of a contemporary

space-capable nation’s level of space exploration to that of a European nation at a similar

stage of sea exploration (long preceding its glory days of discovery).  Such a nation would

be floating in slow leaky boats near the shoreline where it is relatively safe and assis-

tance remains readily available.6  It is not a seafaring society because its crude technol-

ogies, inadequate resources, and underdeveloped sailing skills make it extremely hazard-

ous to move further out into the vast unknown oceans.  Until substantially improving such

conditions, land-based social phenomena dominate everyday life.  Similarly, space capa-

ble societies possess only a rudimentary space exploration capability.  Earth-based social

phenomena dominate as the hazards of space travel currently overwhelm our abilities to

move very far away from our shores (i.e., the Earth).

     

        If a spacefaring society is one of the possible outcomes of socioeconomic organiza-

tion for a particular post-industrial, then it is important to understand the social forces

and conditions that both contribute to this outcome and those that provide countervailing

pressures against it.  Benefits of astrosocial phenomena to space capable societies are

well documented elsewhere as spinoffs,7 technology transfers, and applicable findings

from NASA research programs (see, for example, Harrison 2001; Hardersen 1997; Lewis

1997). Although not currently recognized perhaps by most citizens, leaders of post-

industrial societies will potentially recognize such advantages, especially as the Earth’s

finite resources become exhausted.

       Conversely, countervailing pressures include numerous possibilities such as political

turmoil, simple neglect of space issues, anthropocentrism resulting in deliberate isolation,

and chaos due to a variety of social forces.  A space capable society would have to avoid

tragic negative trends that could result in a dystopia in which all major areas of social life

became harsh and spacefaring objectives became unimportant compared to survival objec-

tives.8  Overwhelming social problems could escalate to levels capable of derailing a

society’s course toward a spacefaring future.  Astrosocial phenomena would become rela-

tively unimportant under these circumstances.  Astrosociologists must study the social

conditions and forces contributing to a spacefaring future as well as those delaying or

even denying such a future.

       Despite various social forces that may operate against its development, the space-

faring mode of production (Marx and Engels 1976) – or more generally, the spacefaring

mode of subsistence – remains a serious possibility for the moderate to distant future.

Hence, construction of a new model is required to characterize the stages of development

along a continuum starting from the simplest societies (Earthcentric forms) to an end

point characterized by one or more categories of spacefaring societies (spacecentric

forms).  Additionally, potential alternative outcomes deserve strong consideration.  Such a

model could also focus mainly on the dimension of astrosocial phenomena in single soci-

ety over time in terms of its own changing characteristics in addition to its relationships

to other cultural and social structures.  This type of exercise not only allows for the deter-

mination of astrosocial development in the past and during the present (on a short scale),

but it also permits an extrapolation of changes into the future.

       Of more immediate concern, however, is the development of the definition of space-

faring society as a concept that is acceptable within the astrosociological community.

Such a task deserves greater attention than can be provided here.  Even so, general para-

meters provide an initial insight that a spacefaring society possesses a fundamental

character different from anything witnessed in the past.  That is, a unique set of social

conditions typify a spacefaring society.  Every major institution is highly involved in some

way with carrying out space policy as a high priority, and thus space law is well devel-

oped.  A space-based economy flourishes, for example.  Astrosocial phenomena are highly

pervasive and vital for the society’s survival.  Space issues are intertwined in a multitude

of ways into the everyday social interactions taking place in subcultures, social groups,

organizations, and institutions.  The larger culture reflects the importance of astrosocial

phenomena through their incorporation as highly important values, strong norms protect-

ing them, and their omnipresence in a space-dominated material culture.  With that said,

it is important to emphasize that a spacefaring society is not equivalent to a utopian

society.  For example, military or corporate authoritarian regimes are potentially compat-

ible with a spacefaring infrastructure.

       Even the most sophisticated contemporary space programs, capable of sending its

spacefarers only to low Earth orbit on a sustained basis, possess only the crudest social

conditions necessary for their long-term transformation into a spacefaring society.  Such a

space program remains characterized by too much compartmentalization within its society

to consider it a spacefaring infrastructure.  A spacefaring society consists of a much

broader expansion of this infrastructure in the private sector; and, in fact, all parts of that

society and its culture.

       Still, the establishment of a spacefaring society is indeed one of the likely hypothet-

ical outcomes that may occur.  Any particular post-industrial society has the seeds of its

transformation into a spacefaring society embedded into its overall social structure.  Much

has to occur for this transformation to develop as described.  Moreover, the long course

toward a spacefaring society is unlikely to be smooth or straightforward; or even certain.

       One final question deserves contemplation when addressing a possible spacefaring

future.  Is it likely that human activities in space will increase in terms of importance and

scope?  Although it is a simple question, the answer to it has important ramifications for

both society and sociology.  An affirmative reply to this question alone speaks to the

relevance of astrosociology and its necessity as a new subfield.  Even a negative reply

would merit more sociological attention than is currently the case.  It is important to

study the decline of human involvement in space and the probable cyclical patterns, just

as it is important to study its increase.  Although a spacefaring future remains only a

distant possibility, and by no means a certainty, it warrants study so recognition of

changing social patterns related to astrosocial phenomena are neither missed nor mis-

interpreted.

       A large measure of astrosociology’s relevance lies in the understanding of the chang-

ing nature of societies and how part of that change is traceable to astrosocial pheno-

mena. Working in space and exploring its properties remain unarguably expensive. How-

ever, the benefits of knowledge, inspiration, and economic returns are difficult to dupli-

cate by other means in the long term.  Thus, the possibility of a spacefaring future exem-

plifies a rational extrapolation of past and current conditions rather than a “far out”

dream.

 

       The Social Impact of the Space Sciences.  Fundamental to the general astrosocio-

logical approach is the direct examination of how the space sciences affect a particular

society.  The study of space phenomena, including the Earth from space, represents

something greater than simply the immediate focus on the findings of a given project.

That is, while seemingly non-sociological on the surface, incorporated into the study of

space phenomena are social (including cultural) implications for human beings, their social

groups, and their societies.  Thus, human scientific activities related to space, an impor-

tant category of astrosocial phenomena, are of central importance and worthy of deliber-

ate scrutiny.  Scientific discoveries do not represent primary concerns in themselves.

Astrosociology does involve the study of how space scientists make discoveries in the

course of conducting their research and developing their theories, but more important is

how these very efforts affect the various elements of human societies and contribute to

change.

       In fact, however, the relationship between astrosociology and the space sciences is

twofold based on the two-way interactions between astrosocial and non-astrosocial phen-

omena on a more general level.  The reciprocal influences involve: (1) the impact of the

space sciences on society based both on their promises and their deliveries of scientific

findings and technical innovations and (2) the effects in the reverse direction in which

private and public support (and other non-astrosocial forces) shape the character and

direction of the space sciences.  Anything relevant to any particular society, perhaps

especially to a space capable society, is relevant to sociology as well, even as the dis-

cipline currently fails to recognize it.  As such, the growing significance of the space

sciences is yet another indication of astrosociology’s increasing relevance as we venture

further into the twenty-first century.

       Science and technology are necessary for the development of industrial and post-

industrial societies into more sophisticated socioeconomic forms.  This reality continues

when moving beyond the post-industrial mode of production, potentially toward a space-

faring future.  In such a scenario, the focus of scientific and technological efforts turns

increasingly away from the Earth and toward the cosmos.  The branch of space medicine is

an example of a traditional discipline expanding to incorporate space issues.  An in-

creased shift from the terrestrial sciences to the space sciences is due in part to the vari-

ous types of incentives that space promises.

       The wonders of science and the comforts of technology provide important additional

reasons to continue along this course.  Moreover, the discoveries of astronomical research

can be inspiring to the public as well as to the scientific community.  Positive public re-

sponses to Mars missions such as Pathfinder and the Mars Rovers, quantifiable as huge

increases of visitors to NASA websites, attest to the public’s perception of the space

sciences as significant contributions to their disciplines and to their society.  Consider the

public outcry when NASA announced its plan to decommission the Hubble Space Tele-

scope.  Based on the public’s reaction (along with advocacy groups and space scientists),

NASA was pressured into considering a robotic rescue mission.

       Two related branches of science serve as good examples of how the astrosociological

perspective is relevant in the twenty-first century.  The relatively new branch of astro-

biology focuses on the search for life beyond the Earth.  The discovery of alien life, whe-

ther intelligent or not, would represent a great scientific accomplishment from biological

and astronomical standpoints. Furthermore, it would also exhibit extremely important

social ramifications (Tough 1998).  Even the potential of finding evidence of past life on

Mars continues to fascinate the public.  The MER rovers are simply searching for evidence

of past surface water on Mars, and not directly for life, yet public interest remains high

due to the relationship between water and even the possibility of life.

       The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), essentially on its own until adop-

ted by astrobiology, also receives considerable support from the public.  The fact that

over five million users participate in SETI@home9 demonstrates a solid level of public

interest in astrosociological issues.  SETI research has also resulted in collaboration be-

tween space scientists and humanists (including many social scientists), which is an

important development considering neither category of scientists traditionally trusts the

other (Harrison 1997).  Such interdisciplinary collaboration is vital for a greater under-

standing of SETI and all astrosociological issues.  Accordingly, Harrison et al. (1998)

provide encouragement and strategies for social scientists to develop a larger role in

SETI research.

       Recognition of the social implications of the successful detection of a signal by a

SETI project resulted in the creation of a Declaration of Principles (Acta Astronautica

1990) to verify and react to a claim of detection in an organized manner.  Its organized

approach partially seeks to avoid monumental announcement errors due to false detec-

tions and even potential panics among populations around the world.  A successful de-

tection of ET life, especially intelligent life, would undoubtedly transform human societies

(see, for example, Vakoch and Lee 2000; Tough 1998; Harrison 1997).  Discovering that

we are not alone in the universe is one thing; but learning that we are not the most

intelligent creatures is something else.  The latter situation shatters any justification of

anthropocentrism, indeed Earthcentrism, and requires innumerable psychological and

social adaptations. Thus, sociology must place itself in the position to study such an

event based on familiarity and not simply as a blind reaction.

       Therefore, beyond the obvious biological and astronomical implications, additional

consequences exist that are of a social, and thus astrosocial, nature.  Astrosocial pheno-

mena related to the possible discovery of extraterrestrial life bring sociology even more

firmly into realm of space.  Among other concerns, there are cultural (Tough 1998) and

religious (Vakoch 2000) issues related to finding life in the cosmos.  The search itself,

even without success, possesses astrosociological relevance due to its ongoing effects on

social patterns.  The fact that so many people believe that extraterrestrial life exists, in

itself, creates social consequences.  While this example deals specifically with extrater-

restrial life, all work conducted by space scientists involves social repercussions beyond

its specific focus on the study of space phenomena.

     

       The long-term possibility of the establishment of a spacefaring society can only

come about by contending with contemporary societal realities.  That is, the transform-

ation into a spacefaring society, while certainly possible, remains dependent to a signif-

icant extent upon the success of the space sciences to solve Earth-based social problems

and inspire the population to support their advancement.  Therefore, incentives exist for

social groups within the astrosocial sector to strongly publicize their contributions to their

societies. Astrosociologists should study such efforts (of astrosocial education) and their

various effects.

       The space sciences can offer unique solutions to many social problems, and that

assists their cause.  (This argument bears repeating in the current context because it

remains generally unrecognized).  As one example, the finite resources on Earth make it

attractive to consider the mining of space-based resources (Hardersen 1997; Lewis 1996).

Space represents a new economic frontier with untapped potential that inevitably draws

greater attention.  As Earth-bound natural resources decline, the shift to