12
QERALD L. Yoma
sociology; the present focus on the principles of organization would
suggest a Durkheimian framework for analysis. Certainly, Durkheim’s
statement defining the subject matter of sociology (“social phenomena
are the principles of behavior-ways of doing and ways of being-that
characterize a group”) could be taken as a beginning statement on
behavioral interaction as an organizing principle toward defining the
boundaries of an interacting group. Such could be taken as a primitive
statement of human ecology.
Curiously left out of most discussions on early work in sociological
human ecology are the numerous papers of Mukerjee (1930, 1932a, b, c,
1938, 1939, 1942, 1950), who joined enthusiastically in the classical
approach, helping to adapt such bio-ecological concepts as balance,
distribution and succession to the ecological study of man.
One point from the above should be made clear: it is evident that the
early sociologists attempting to define an ecological approach to their
discipline utilized concepts from biological ecology. But it is just as
evident that early plant and animal ecologists adapted social concepts
from an infant discipline of sociology. The spin-off has been the establishment of the creative mix we call “ecology” and, when applied to man,
human ecology.
Hawley (1968) has summarized briefly the history of human ecology
in sociology as progressing since its inception through three stages: first
an effort to apply the concepts of bio-ecology to human aggregates;
second, preoccupation with spatial “configurations” to, third, an
“increasing concern with the form and development of territorially based
social systems”. Theodorson (1961) specifies three main sources of
development in human ecology : “plant and animal ecology, geography,
and studies of the spatial distribution of social phenomena”. He submits
that a “body of ecological theory was developed in the twenties and
thirties [succeeding from the Park-Burgess book?] to form what has
been called the classical position”. Theodorson then goes on to develop a
four-fold historical structure for the development of human ecology:
classical human ecology; the neo-orthodox approach; social area analysis; and the socio-cultural approach.
Each of these should be here summarized briefly. The classical position
assumes that the basic process in human relationships is competition,
largely involving a struggle for space (Park, 1936b): “all or most of the
fundamental processes seem to be functionally related and dependent
upon competition”. The second distinguishing feature of the classical
position was the belief that “human society, as distinguished from plant
and animal society, is organized on two levels, the biotic and the
cultural . . . human ecology [being] fundamentally an attempt to
investigate the processes by which the biotic balance and the social
QERALD L. Yoma
sociology; the present focus on the principles of organization would
suggest a Durkheimian framework for analysis. Certainly, Durkheim’s
statement defining the subject matter of sociology (“social phenomena
are the principles of behavior-ways of doing and ways of being-that
characterize a group”) could be taken as a beginning statement on
behavioral interaction as an organizing principle toward defining the
boundaries of an interacting group. Such could be taken as a primitive
statement of human ecology.
Curiously left out of most discussions on early work in sociological
human ecology are the numerous papers of Mukerjee (1930, 1932a, b, c,
1938, 1939, 1942, 1950), who joined enthusiastically in the classical
approach, helping to adapt such bio-ecological concepts as balance,
distribution and succession to the ecological study of man.
One point from the above should be made clear: it is evident that the
early sociologists attempting to define an ecological approach to their
discipline utilized concepts from biological ecology. But it is just as
evident that early plant and animal ecologists adapted social concepts
from an infant discipline of sociology. The spin-off has been the establishment of the creative mix we call “ecology” and, when applied to man,
human ecology.
Hawley (1968) has summarized briefly the history of human ecology
in sociology as progressing since its inception through three stages: first
an effort to apply the concepts of bio-ecology to human aggregates;
second, preoccupation with spatial “configurations” to, third, an
“increasing concern with the form and development of territorially based
social systems”. Theodorson (1961) specifies three main sources of
development in human ecology : “plant and animal ecology, geography,
and studies of the spatial distribution of social phenomena”. He submits
that a “body of ecological theory was developed in the twenties and
thirties [succeeding from the Park-Burgess book?] to form what has
been called the classical position”. Theodorson then goes on to develop a
four-fold historical structure for the development of human ecology:
classical human ecology; the neo-orthodox approach; social area analysis; and the socio-cultural approach.
Each of these should be here summarized briefly. The classical position
assumes that the basic process in human relationships is competition,
largely involving a struggle for space (Park, 1936b): “all or most of the
fundamental processes seem to be functionally related and dependent
upon competition”. The second distinguishing feature of the classical
position was the belief that “human society, as distinguished from plant
and animal society, is organized on two levels, the biotic and the
cultural . . . human ecology [being] fundamentally an attempt to
investigate the processes by which the biotic balance and the social