HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
3
and technique which frames an ecology of man. It must be therefore a
scope or a way of seeing”. If no claim can be made for a theoretical base
for human ecology (at present), there is all the more need for identification of a unifying conceptual base (Treichel, 1966).
The task is to examine the success of the concept as scholarly effort,
to bring together from the separate disciplines the advances that have
been made in the ecological study of man and critically to evaluate this
progress toward an ultimately interdisciplinary concept of human
ecology.
Such a task is essentially two-fold. First, the development of the
ecological concept as it has been focused on man in the various
disciplines must be traced and then the present status of the concept in
each of these disciplines established. The second part is to find a
common ground, to identify a common point of view, common definitions and a common methodology, to the extent that such exist. Where
common factors seem dim, an attempt will be made to formulate
syntheses of relevant possibilities.
Despite its seeming attractiveness in the popular press, academic
human ecology remains closeted in a relatively few disciplines, the
domain of a small number of scholars in biology, sociology, anthropology, geography and, to a lesser extent, other social and applied
disciplines. Even in these few disciplines, however, the concept is studied
in depth by a distinct minority of those working in each field. Despite
Schnore’s (1961b) attempt to dispel the myth that ecology is marginal
as an academic focus, its breadth and importance are still widely misunderstood. Shepard’s (1967) question, “whatever happened to human
ecology?” remains valid and will be part of the emphasis here.
There have been a few previous attempts to construct a synthesis in
human ecology. These fall easily within two broad categories. First are
wide-scope statements on the general application of ecological concepts
to man, statements such as those by Lindeman (1940), Darling (1951,
1955), Bates (1953), Sears (1954), Kendeigh (1965), Cain (1967) and
Ripley and Buechner (1967). The major shortcoming of each is that
they are too brief to allow the scope dictated by the topic. Second are a
variety of attempts a t synthesis within the framework of a single
discipline (e.g. those by Quinn, 1939; Hollingshead, 1939, 1940, 1947;
Hawley, 1944, 1968; Wirth 1945; Schnore, 1958; Gibbs and Martin,
1959; and Duncan, 1961, 1964, in Sociology; representative of those in
Anthropology are those by Sayce, 1938; Steward, 1955, 1968; Baker,
1962; Helm, 1962; Freilich, 1963, 1967; Sahlins, 1964; or Vayda, 1969a,
1969b). There are one or more such syntheses in each of the major
disciplines utilizing the ecological approach to the study of man. In a
few cases, comparative analyses have been attempted between two or
3
and technique which frames an ecology of man. It must be therefore a
scope or a way of seeing”. If no claim can be made for a theoretical base
for human ecology (at present), there is all the more need for identification of a unifying conceptual base (Treichel, 1966).
The task is to examine the success of the concept as scholarly effort,
to bring together from the separate disciplines the advances that have
been made in the ecological study of man and critically to evaluate this
progress toward an ultimately interdisciplinary concept of human
ecology.
Such a task is essentially two-fold. First, the development of the
ecological concept as it has been focused on man in the various
disciplines must be traced and then the present status of the concept in
each of these disciplines established. The second part is to find a
common ground, to identify a common point of view, common definitions and a common methodology, to the extent that such exist. Where
common factors seem dim, an attempt will be made to formulate
syntheses of relevant possibilities.
Despite its seeming attractiveness in the popular press, academic
human ecology remains closeted in a relatively few disciplines, the
domain of a small number of scholars in biology, sociology, anthropology, geography and, to a lesser extent, other social and applied
disciplines. Even in these few disciplines, however, the concept is studied
in depth by a distinct minority of those working in each field. Despite
Schnore’s (1961b) attempt to dispel the myth that ecology is marginal
as an academic focus, its breadth and importance are still widely misunderstood. Shepard’s (1967) question, “whatever happened to human
ecology?” remains valid and will be part of the emphasis here.
There have been a few previous attempts to construct a synthesis in
human ecology. These fall easily within two broad categories. First are
wide-scope statements on the general application of ecological concepts
to man, statements such as those by Lindeman (1940), Darling (1951,
1955), Bates (1953), Sears (1954), Kendeigh (1965), Cain (1967) and
Ripley and Buechner (1967). The major shortcoming of each is that
they are too brief to allow the scope dictated by the topic. Second are a
variety of attempts a t synthesis within the framework of a single
discipline (e.g. those by Quinn, 1939; Hollingshead, 1939, 1940, 1947;
Hawley, 1944, 1968; Wirth 1945; Schnore, 1958; Gibbs and Martin,
1959; and Duncan, 1961, 1964, in Sociology; representative of those in
Anthropology are those by Sayce, 1938; Steward, 1955, 1968; Baker,
1962; Helm, 1962; Freilich, 1963, 1967; Sahlins, 1964; or Vayda, 1969a,
1969b). There are one or more such syntheses in each of the major
disciplines utilizing the ecological approach to the study of man. In a
few cases, comparative analyses have been attempted between two or