HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
7
comment on the general than on the human. He did, however, provide
several comments of interest, and observations with utility even today.
For example, he pointed out that “the development of the emotions and
of greater intelligence . . . in man introduces certain qualitative differences in responses that influence all ecological relation”. He declared
that “physiological and mental limitations” needed further study and
indicated “some of the application” of social ecology to human relations.
In this context, he felt that the “greatest illumination” on broad human
social relations could be had from the study of “the ecological community”, claiming that “it is the social community aspect that is of
supreme importance”. He made a case for the application of general
ecological ideas “to the distinctly human aspects of the general
problem”.
Throughout his paper, Adams was concerned with the “specific
application of the process [viewpoint] to general human ecology” and
claimed that a number of the ideas and generalizations of general ecology
were “broadly applicable to man. . . although to a different degree”. He
foresaw part of the present problem of lack of integration of ecological
concepts to man in his statement that “advance in general ecology is
now a limiting factor retarding the advance of human ecology”, and he
anticipated present environmental concern with his acknowledgement
that “part of the pressure exerted upon man is a reflex, due to his own
influence upon his environment”.
I n 1951, Darling asserted that he could not “in these early days of
human ecology” set down a sound statement of what human ecology
was, but that, following Adams’ advice, “human ecology deals essentially with process”, that human ecology dare not neglect history, origins,
and successions, i.e. again process. Sears, as with Darling and Adams,
focuses on the analysis of process as the “constructive procedure”
(1954), the “essential business” (1959) in the study of ecological
problems; “what we all have in common is an interest in process
[‘particularly the process wherein life and environment interact’] and,
thus, in the past as a key to the present”. I n his 1951 article, Darling
also notes the difficulty in separating social and economic problems
from the biological background. I n 1955, Darling again advances groping
into the “unexplored country of human ecology”, failing to note at least
thirty years, in the social sciences, of human ecological literature. Sears
(1959) also described human ecology as in a “tentative state”, with the
ultimate goal a “general ecology, embracing all forms of life”. Darling
does note a special problem for human ecologists since man’s “sense of
community is entirely different from the unconscious mutualism and
cooperation of an ecological community”. Note the unacceptable
assumption (then and now), in human ecological terms, of “ecological
7
comment on the general than on the human. He did, however, provide
several comments of interest, and observations with utility even today.
For example, he pointed out that “the development of the emotions and
of greater intelligence . . . in man introduces certain qualitative differences in responses that influence all ecological relation”. He declared
that “physiological and mental limitations” needed further study and
indicated “some of the application” of social ecology to human relations.
In this context, he felt that the “greatest illumination” on broad human
social relations could be had from the study of “the ecological community”, claiming that “it is the social community aspect that is of
supreme importance”. He made a case for the application of general
ecological ideas “to the distinctly human aspects of the general
problem”.
Throughout his paper, Adams was concerned with the “specific
application of the process [viewpoint] to general human ecology” and
claimed that a number of the ideas and generalizations of general ecology
were “broadly applicable to man. . . although to a different degree”. He
foresaw part of the present problem of lack of integration of ecological
concepts to man in his statement that “advance in general ecology is
now a limiting factor retarding the advance of human ecology”, and he
anticipated present environmental concern with his acknowledgement
that “part of the pressure exerted upon man is a reflex, due to his own
influence upon his environment”.
I n 1951, Darling asserted that he could not “in these early days of
human ecology” set down a sound statement of what human ecology
was, but that, following Adams’ advice, “human ecology deals essentially with process”, that human ecology dare not neglect history, origins,
and successions, i.e. again process. Sears, as with Darling and Adams,
focuses on the analysis of process as the “constructive procedure”
(1954), the “essential business” (1959) in the study of ecological
problems; “what we all have in common is an interest in process
[‘particularly the process wherein life and environment interact’] and,
thus, in the past as a key to the present”. I n his 1951 article, Darling
also notes the difficulty in separating social and economic problems
from the biological background. I n 1955, Darling again advances groping
into the “unexplored country of human ecology”, failing to note at least
thirty years, in the social sciences, of human ecological literature. Sears
(1959) also described human ecology as in a “tentative state”, with the
ultimate goal a “general ecology, embracing all forms of life”. Darling
does note a special problem for human ecologists since man’s “sense of
community is entirely different from the unconscious mutualism and
cooperation of an ecological community”. Note the unacceptable
assumption (then and now), in human ecological terms, of “ecological