Part One of the Inaugural Essay (see below) was presented in August as an exclusive part of an Informal Discussion Roundtable at the 2004 American Sociological Association (ASA) Conference.

(posted 05/13/2004; modified 10/12/2004)

Part Two of the Inaugural Essay (see below) was presented on October 16, 2004 as part of a special dedicated session, entitled Astrosociology: The Establishment of a New Subfield, as part of the California Sociological Association (CSA) conference in Riverside, CA .

(posted 11/10/2004)

This page contains the Inaugural Essay which provides a theoretical foundation for astrosociology.  Those interested in contributing to the growth of astrosociology as a single body of knowledge and literature can send materials to Astrosociology.com.  Based on perceived merit, and contribution to the diversity of astrosociological materials received, papers will be posted on the Virtual Library page.  They will be available for all to read.  And, hopefully, they will provoke reaction and development of this new subdiscipline!

Upon reading the Inaugural Essay, readers are encouraged to provide feedback to Astrosociology.com at the email addresses cited below.  Reactions and other constructive materials will be posted on the Inaugural Essay Feedback page (see the button below).  In addition to direct feedback, those interested in assisting with the promotion of astrosociology are encouraged to submit references that are believed to be astrosociological in nature.  This will help with the assembly of the List of Astrosociological References found on the Virtual Library page.  Your participation at this early stage is vital for astrosociology to flourish as a sociological subfield.  Please contribute to this effort in any manner of your choice.

You can read the Inaugural Essay below on this page,
or you can open a PDF version of Part 1 or Part 2,
or you can review Jim Pass' background:

(All contents of this page may be quoted elsewhere if credit is given to author (Jim Pass)
   and website's URL (http://www.Astrosociology.com) in the form of a footnote).

Inaugural Essay:

The Definition and Relevance of Astrosociology

in the Twenty-First Century

(Part One:  Definition, Theory and Scope)

by

Jim Pass, Ph.D.

(© copyright 2004 by Jim Pass)

[Part One posted 01/04/2004]

Introduction

       The purpose of this essay is to articulate a preliminary understanding of 

astrosociology in terms of its definition, scope, and its relevance as a new subfield of

sociology.  As an introduction to astrosociology, this essay represents a foundation on

which interested scientists can build a new focused body of astrosociological knowledge

and literature.  It is crucial to generate interest in this subfield of sociology precisely

because it does not yet exist on any mainstream or coherent level.  Beyond that, there is

currently no concentrated effort to consolidate the subject matter at this time; although

the elements of astrosociology exist as parts of many sciences in an unorganized and

dispersed form.  The astrobiological literature, for example, makes frequent references to

sociological concepts.  A search on the World Wide Web for “astrosociology” results in

very few legitimate resources.  As such, there is currently no astrosociological scientific

community.  Astrosociology is unknown to most sociologists and other scientists.

       The goal of Astrosociology.com is to alter this state of affairs into one in which 

sociologists and others deliberately contribute to a single body of knowledge called 

astrosociology.  This website was created to serve as (1) a forum for the collaborative 

construction of a new body of sociological knowledge and (2) a depository for the 

astrosociological literature focusing on issues such as those presented here.  This

website exists because astrosociology is not yet a widely recognized subfield of

sociology, and therefore it can benefit from a centralized approach.  It is intended to

serve as a catalyst for the growth of astrosociology from a general state of

nonexistence.  As such, the consolidation of this knowledge and future collaboration

focusing on a single, widely-recognized sociological subfield is overdue.

        The intention here is to promote astrosociology so that it becomes recognized by

(1) astrosociologists who contribute to it and (2) sociology departments that offer

courses at some point in the future.  An early objective involves the recruitment of

sociologists (and others) to “become” astrosociologists.  Currently, this means that

social scientists in other areas will have to change their area of concentration and

recognize astrosociology as their preferred subfield of sociology.  Of course, students

may declare their area of concentration as astrosociology from the outset (when this

becomes an option).  For the most part, however, training in astrosociology must

initially exist “in the field” and as part of a virtual community since no departments

offer it in their existing programs.  Astrosociology should be acknowledged in sociology

introduction courses and later on as entire courses and areas of concentration (i.e.,

majors).  It is expected to be a slow process, but its importance is undeniable as this

essay attempts to demonstrate.

       Consider the following argument which illustrates the necessity of understanding

astrosociological issues.  Astrosociology is not only a relevant focus of the sociological

study of past and contemporary social systems, but an absolutely vital one for

understanding social conditions and social forces that will characterize societies in the

future.  One area serves as a good example of this. Societies become more dependent on

science and technology as they become more complex.  And indeed, very little is known

with very much precision about the interactive effects between science and technology, on

the one hand, and society on the other hand.  Even less is known about the impact of

astrosocial phenomena on a particular society.  Another complication involves the

increasing cooperative interactions among nations as all human societies mature.  These

types of issues make astrosociology both interesting and invaluable.  Before exploring

such issues further, however, a precise definition of astrosociology is the first step for

moving toward a greater understanding of this unexplored area of sociology.

Defining the Conceptualization and Scope of Astrosociology

       The term astrosociology is adopted here over such phrases as “sociology of 

astronomy,” “socio-astronomy,” or “social astronomy” for at least three reasons.  First,

and most importantly, the term astrosociology is much more broadly inclusive than a

focus only on astronomy.  It focuses on astrosocial phenomena, as will be explained

shortly.  Astronomy comprises only one subset of the astrosocial phenomena falling

under the wide-ranging scope of astrosociology.  It is not limited to the study of

astronomical phenomena.  That is, astrosociology is not narrowly focused on how

astronomy is carried out by astronomers and their societies, or on the details of their

findings.  This is included under the purview of astrosociology, but it is just one

component of the overall scope.  Any particular astrosociologist could concentrate on a

specific set of astronomical phenomena, as a subset of astrosocial phenomena, just

as a narrow focus is advisable in any other major subfield of sociology such as

criminology or medical sociology.  Thus, astrosociology is not specifically concerned

with astronomical discoveries or technological innovations themselves, but it is

concerned about how such discoveries and innovations affect various elements of a

particular society.

       Second, the currently growing field of astrobiology is of a similar scientific 

approach.  It therefore makes logical sense to use similar terms. If each word is 

dissected, “astro” for both refers to “star;” and the second part, “biology” or “sociology,”

indicates the scientific discipline.  Astrobiology has been adopted by NASA and other

scientific communities around the world.  It is anticipated that a similar positive future

awaits astrosociology.  The two fields have much to offer and, in several ways, are

complementary to one another.  For example, astrosociology would study how

astrobiology is conducted, its impact on society, and the ways in which it is important

to various social groups and institutions.  Astrobiologists have already indicated

interest in such matters.  The astrobiological literature already touches on the impact

of discovering extraterrestrial life.  (Ideas related to astrobiology and SETI will be

considered in more detail at later points in this essay).  Finally, the use of terminology

similar to astrobiology also helps to give the uninitiated a general idea of the subject

matter which can only be helpful to a new sociological subfield.  This term has the

potential to attract both sociologists and astronomy-related scientists based solely on

its construction.

       Third, the term astrosociology is more simple and concise.  This attribute may

seem trivial, but a good “catch phrase” can help a new field to grow more easily in

popularity in the scientific and lay communities.  A single agreed-upon term is needed

so that interested parties can contribute to the same dynamically-evolving body of

knowledge.  Although this term provides a good indication of its general focus, which

is a good start, no single term can characterize the complexity and scope of this new

sociological subfield, as will soon become evident to the reader.

       There is no claim that term “astrosociology” is coined here.  For example, a passing

reference is made in Allen Tough’s (1995) discussion about the positive consequences

of SETI even before the detection of extraterrestrial life.  Tough also mentions “social

astronomy” as a possibility, but this term suffers from the implied focus on only

astronomical matters rather than the more inclusive astrosociological ones.  There are

other references to astrosociology as well.  For an example, see Helmut Abt’s (2000)

discussion concerning “bibiometric” studies focusing on the study of astronomical

publications and accomplishments.  (Another term in this area is “socio-astronomy.”  

For a good example, see André Heck’s Updated Bibliography of Socio-Astronomy web

page). Astrosociology, it is argued here, is the best term for the proposed subfield of

sociology.  Additionally, this essay calls for a decided shift away from a definition such

as these types of approaches and to one more in line with the approach of

mainstream sociology.

       So, astrosociology is not a new term unknown to the world.  That is not the

contention here.  Rather, it is contended that astrosociology is undefined in the

context described here and the effort initiated by Astrosociology.com is necessary to

promote it to its proper state of understanding and acceptance.  It is time to study the

connections between space-related activities (science, technology, and human

activities) and human societies.  Efforts focusing on the sociology of science and

technology exist, of course, but they are not dedicated exclusively to astrosociological

issues.  This reality is unacceptable since human efforts are increasingly focusing on

the mysteries and challenges of space.  Activities related to outer space are becoming

more relevant to the lives of ordinary citizens.

       A central theme in this essay is that societies tend to incorporate more and more

characteristics of a spacefaring nation as they become more complex.  However, the

ways in which astrosocial forces are shaping societies (overall, as well as their

institutions, social groups, and cultures) are currently not the focus of a dedicated

effort of scientific understanding.  The definition of astrosociology, and the pursuit of

it as a social science, changes that reality.  The definition of astrosociology that

follows is the first step to launching astrosociology as a viable subfield of sociology.

       A Working Definition.  Astrosociology is defined as the sociological study of the

two-way relationship between astrosocial phenomena and other aspects of society

(i.e., non-astrosocial phenomena or other social phenomena) at the various levels of

social reality and organization (i.e., the micro, middle, and macro levels of analysis).  

The concept of astrosocial phenomena (have I coined a new concept?!) pertains to all

social conditions, social forces, organized activities, objectives and goals, and social

behaviors directly or indirectly related to (1) spaceflight and exploration or (2) any of

the space sciences (e.g., astronomy, cosmology, astrobiology, astrophysics).  It

includes all outcomes of these phenomena in the form of scientific discoveries and

technological applications, new paradigms of thought in the astrosocial and non-

astrosocial sectors of society, as well as any resulting changes of social norms and

values in any of the social structures of a particular society.

       Another component of the concept of astrosocial phenomena is that it includes all 

the norms, values, roles, and statuses that characterize social structures in the

astrosocial sector (which is introduced in the next section).  The concept of social

phenomena is thus broken down into two major parts:  astrosocial phenomena (as

defined above) and non-astrosocial phenomena (a category which includes all types of

social phenomena not considered to be astrosocial in nature).  Astrosocial phenomena

are thus a form of social phenomena which describe all the characteristics of social

structures, social groups, and societies created through human interactions and

activities.

       The Astrosocial and Non-Astrosocial Sectors.  As depicted in Figure One,

astrosocial phenomena originate in the astrosocial sector of a given society, while

non-astrosocial phenomena originate in the non-astrosocial sector.  Interactions and

overlaps exist where the two sectors meet.  The separation of a particular society into

two sectors interacting at the macro-level of complexity represents a dimension of

social life previously unexplored as an important element of cultural character and an

instigator of social change.

      A major part of early astrosociological thought must address where to draw the

conceptual line between astrosocial and non-astrosocial phenomena.  Indeed, as soon

becomes clear upon thinking about the relationship between astrosocial and non-

astrosocial phenomena, the two are connected and routinely interacting with one

another.  The separation of a society into astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors is an

artificial academic exercise, but it forces attention upon the conception of a separate

astrosocial sector.  This is important because the conception of an astrosocial sector is

not found in the sociological literature.  Figure One represents only an approximation 

without the complexities of the astrosocial sector, the non-astrosocial sector, and the 

interaction between the two.  As will soon become clear, the relationship between the 

two sectors is both dynamic and ever-changing.  Cooperative efforts between government

agencies (e.g., NASA) and private companies (e.g., Boeing), or educational organizations,

are commonplace in contract work and research efforts.  Connections also involve the

funding of efforts that benefit astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors.

       The distinction between the astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors is further

complicated by the fact that many organizations possess elements of social structure

that are parts of both astrosocial and non-astrosocial segments of society.  Examples

include universities, branches of government (and their agencies), and corporations. 

Universities have astronomy departments in addition to non-astrosocial departments such

as Spanish and agriculture.  The federal government includes agencies such as the IRS in

addition to NASA.  And a single corporation may have one division that manufactures

rockets and another that manufactures commercial jets.  Again, the line between the

astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors of a single society is often difficult to draw

precisely; but it is necessary in formulating an astrosociological theoretical framework.

       The interaction between the astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors is but just one

social dimension generating social change.  The separation of society into only two

sectors serves to focus attention on this type of interaction; it does not imply that a

particular society is divided only along this dimensional line.  Thus, it represents an

astrosociologically-centric approach aimed at placing the focus of the sociological

imagination squarely on a new area of sociological inquiry.

       Other Definitional and Theoretical Issues.  This essay focuses mostly on developed

(industrial and post-industrial) societies.  Developing societies, in contrast, possess

weakly defined astrosocial structures as a rule, but they may increase their cohesion and

influence with the assistance of astrosocial structures in developed societies.  For

example, the astrosocial sector of a developing society may be bolstered by the United

States space agency (i.e., NASA) providing a contract for construction of a piece of space-

related equipment or the training of an astronaut to fly in space as part of one of its

missions.  For all societies, then, the development of the astrosocial sector is part of the

general modernization process.  Each society is assumed to be characterized by a unique

astrosocial sector.  This assumption is thus built into the very definition of astrosociology.

       Astrosociologists must look at all levels of social reality or complexity. The macro-

level model offered in Figure One is of central importance, but it in no way represents all

the considerations of astrosociology.  This implies that the major perspectives of

sociology (i.e., functionalism, conflict theory, interactionism) should be applied when

appropriate to the study of space and society as defined by astrosociology.  A diverse

approach is vital as all perspectives and levels of complexity provide additional insights

into any understanding any sociological phenomenon.

       As with sociology in general, this multidimensional approach yields the best well-

rounded understanding of astrosocial phenomena and their interactions with non-

astrosocial elements of society.  Figure Two provides examples of issues of interest to

astrosociologists in the four most prominent sociological perspectives.  Undeniably, other

perspectives also have important contributions to make as well.  The reader should keep

these examples in mind as various aspects of astrosociology are discussed throughout

this essay.

       Before moving on, it is important to note that this essay does not offer a “theory of

astrosociology.”  Its purpose is to provide an initial working definition and briefly discuss

some of the important issues.  This essay sets the parameters and scope for

understanding astrosociology as a sociological subfield, but it is much too early to

completely shape this body of knowledge.  Theoretical models will be offered by many of

those who join the astrosociological community and research will contribute in the

formulation and refinement of theories to follow.  On the other hand, this essay does

offer several research hypotheses which may serve as starting points for astrosociological

inquiry, and thus the creation of one or more major theoretical models.

       At this early stage of development, however, even the definition of astrosociology is

subject to minor refinement at one end of the continuum to total reformulation at the

other extreme.  Thus, this essay represents a serious starting point from which the

meaning and scope of astrosociology can move toward a greater consensus as the

astrosociological community forms and contributes to the growth of this new body of

knowledge and literature.  At the outset, one fact is immutably clear, however: 

astrosociology must take a sociological approach in terms of theoretical orientation. 

That is, the development of the sociological imagination is vital and astrosociology must

be approached as a sociological subfield at heart.

       The Scope of Astrosociology.  This definition clearly implies a focus on a wide-

ranging collection of certain types of social phenomena.  Below, the five central themes

of astrosociology summarize important points of focus.  Other issues are added as this

discussion proceeds, but they are all based on the following areas of focus as they are

fundamental to an astrosociological approach:

       (1) the nature of the line separating astrosocial and non-astrosocial phenomena
            (including how each can directly interact with, and influence, the other) which is
            the basis for the four following themes of astrosociology [society separated into
            two sectors, as shown in Figure One];

       (2) the impact of astrosocial phenomena (e.g., discoveries and new technologies,
            space policies, astrosocial activities of all types) on social/cultural change in
            other parts of society [impact of astrosocial sector on non-astrosocial sector];

       (3) how the various non-astrosocial forces (including norms and values) combine to
            influence astrosocial forces in terms of direction, priority, and other aspects of
            astrosocial change [impact of non-astrosocial sector on astrosocial sector];

       (4) how astrosocial activities are organized and pursued by people, organizations,
            social institutions, entire societies, and global consortiums [middle and
            microsociology in the astrosocial sector]; and:

       (5) how the interactions between the astrosocial and non-astrosocial sectors --
            including cooperation, accommodation, and conflict -- contribute to the various
            forces of social change generated by society to shape larger cultural norms and
            values, and thereby future activities and priorities/policies [interactions between
            the two sectors].

Social and cultural change is thus driven by activities in the astrosocial sector, the non-

astrosocial sector, and interactions between the two sectors.  The scope of

astrosociology is indeed vast in many ways.  The themes above serve to organize the

discussion in this section.  Again, an initial understanding of astrosociology, and this

entire essay, is fundamentally tied to these five themes.

       Regarding the first theme, the separation of a particular society into the astrosocial

and non-astrosocial sectors is a central component of the astrosociological framework. 

This point was already discussed with the presentation of Figure One.  It is important to

point out that this general approach, as presented in this essay, leads to the study of

astrosocial phenomena in a new and more organized manner.  In this context,

astrosociology is an area of study currently neglected by sociologists in a systematic and

focused manner.

       The second theme focuses on the astrosocial sector’s impact on the non-astrosocial

sector, and society as a whole, as activities within it are carried out.  This theme includes

a focus on astrosocial phenomena and takes into account the current level of

development of the astrosocial sector.  The growing importance and scope of astrosocial

forces extends from the time humans first sought to understand the cosmos; and

elements of the astrosocial sector form at that historical point in a particular society’s

development.  From that time on, astrosocial phenomena are generated by human

activities within astrosocial groups.  Astrosocial phenomena tend to increasingly influence

all parts of a particular society as science and technology become more sophisticated and

entrenched in the overall societal social structure and larger culture.  Social structures

dedicated to science and technology will increasingly concentrate on astrosocial

phenomena.

       The second theme also implies the scope of astrosociology includes the study of the

impact of astrosocial science and technology on the non-astrosocial sector.  An obvious

example is how the outcomes of research and technologies created by NASA are

transferred to the non-astrosocial sector, including how larger culture and social

structures are affected.  The level of astrosocial influence on overall society will increase

in significance and scope as a particular society becomes increasingly dependent on

science and technology.  The second theme is therefore critical to the astrosociological

approach because it characterizes the general shift in such a society’s emphasis toward

astrosocial priorities and influences.  Astrosocial forces become increasingly important.

       The third theme must be emphasized because the non-astrosocial sector is still the

most influential as it includes all social phenomena and social structures not related to

those considered to be astrosocial in nature.  These aspects of society are historically

dominant, especially before space-related activities (and, of course, flight itself) became

possible.  The hypothesized increasing influence of the astrosocial sector must be seen in

relative historical terms.  Much of the control of astrosocial activities, such as the

pursuits of various objectives, is controlled by elements of the non-astrosocial sector. 

For example, when the House Science Committee decides on future funding for NASA

programs, a non-astrosocial institution of society is having a clear and direct influence on

the astrosocial parts of that society.  This relationship not only affects NASA, but also all

the contractors and their workers involved in any program under consideration.

       Thus, the non-astrosocial sector will lose some of its importance in relative terms,

but it will still represent the dominant sector.  There are many non-astrosocial

institutions serving important social functions.  Such non-astrosocial needs will remain

and require fulfillment.  Examples include meeting the needs for food, shelter, defense,

education, religion, and community.

       The fourth theme relates to the study of astrosocial organizations and the middle

and micro levels of complexity.  It is important to study how astrosocial groups carry out

their functions within an organizational subculture.  This essay focuses most strongly on

the interactive effects between the two societal sectors, but the study of astrosocial

organizations is no less important.  Astrosocial subcultures function in way that often

impact on the a