6
GERALD L. YOUNG
Park (1936a) organized his excerpts from the ideas of plant and animal
ecology to lead up to the observation that
the fact seems to be, then, that human society, as distinguished from
plant and animal society, is organized on two levels, the biotic and the
cultural. There is a symbiotic society based on competition and a cultural
society based on communication and consensus.
Park implies that the proper study of human ecology is the biological
level, though he includes human ecology in the social sciences. He
supports such an implication by noting that “society is everywhere a
control organization . . . its function . . . to restrict competition”. But
he noted that all of the “fundamental processes [in ecology] seem to be
functionally related and dependent upon competition”. Human ecology,
by definition through such division, would seem to be the study of such
a symbiotic society based on competition and the larger problem of
sociology in general to examine how a cultural society suppresses such
competition through communication, cooperation, and consensus. Such
a focus would have to rest on the assumption that the more human man
becomes, the less applicable become the basic notions of ecology.
Several decades have been needed to clarify the status of human
ecology and move from this early rather simplistic view of the dualism
of human behavior. The process is still going on.
Biological ecologists, in addition to their contribution of basic
concepts, have, especially in recent years, increasingly commented on
the human condition from an ecological perspective and on the idea of a
“human” ecology (Weiner, 1964; Sargent and Shimkin, 1965). Most of
these contributions have not, however, contributed much directly to
human ecology in the way of conceptual, methodological, or theoretical
constructs. Contemporary comments by biological ecologists on human
ecology or, more commonly, the “ecology of man”, tend to be quite
surficial, even superficial. Most of them focus on the “environmental
crisis”.
Notable, however, are a few attempts by biologists to provide a
synthesis of human ecology; most noteworthy are those by Darling
(1951, 1955), Sears (1954, 1959) and Cain (1967). Most of these proclaim a need for, rather than attempt a contribution to, human
ecology. These broadly based writings do, however, provide two
essentials: they comment on the inadequacy of ecological methods in
the study of human communities and they provide, though weakly, a
beginning framework for interdisciplinary work in human ecology-not
an adequate methodological or theoretical framework, but a beginning.
Adams (1935) attempted an early synthesis of human ecology with
“general” ecology. His report, like most of those to follow, was a better
GERALD L. YOUNG
Park (1936a) organized his excerpts from the ideas of plant and animal
ecology to lead up to the observation that
the fact seems to be, then, that human society, as distinguished from
plant and animal society, is organized on two levels, the biotic and the
cultural. There is a symbiotic society based on competition and a cultural
society based on communication and consensus.
Park implies that the proper study of human ecology is the biological
level, though he includes human ecology in the social sciences. He
supports such an implication by noting that “society is everywhere a
control organization . . . its function . . . to restrict competition”. But
he noted that all of the “fundamental processes [in ecology] seem to be
functionally related and dependent upon competition”. Human ecology,
by definition through such division, would seem to be the study of such
a symbiotic society based on competition and the larger problem of
sociology in general to examine how a cultural society suppresses such
competition through communication, cooperation, and consensus. Such
a focus would have to rest on the assumption that the more human man
becomes, the less applicable become the basic notions of ecology.
Several decades have been needed to clarify the status of human
ecology and move from this early rather simplistic view of the dualism
of human behavior. The process is still going on.
Biological ecologists, in addition to their contribution of basic
concepts, have, especially in recent years, increasingly commented on
the human condition from an ecological perspective and on the idea of a
“human” ecology (Weiner, 1964; Sargent and Shimkin, 1965). Most of
these contributions have not, however, contributed much directly to
human ecology in the way of conceptual, methodological, or theoretical
constructs. Contemporary comments by biological ecologists on human
ecology or, more commonly, the “ecology of man”, tend to be quite
surficial, even superficial. Most of them focus on the “environmental
crisis”.
Notable, however, are a few attempts by biologists to provide a
synthesis of human ecology; most noteworthy are those by Darling
(1951, 1955), Sears (1954, 1959) and Cain (1967). Most of these proclaim a need for, rather than attempt a contribution to, human
ecology. These broadly based writings do, however, provide two
essentials: they comment on the inadequacy of ecological methods in
the study of human communities and they provide, though weakly, a
beginning framework for interdisciplinary work in human ecology-not
an adequate methodological or theoretical framework, but a beginning.
Adams (1935) attempted an early synthesis of human ecology with
“general” ecology. His report, like most of those to follow, was a better