HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
17
emphasized the “natural area” as an important “ecological frame of
reference” with later work (1950, 1960) utilizing the census tract for
comparative study of urban areas. Schmid’s approach comes closest in
sociology to fitting Shepard’s claim for it as urban geography rather
than human ecology, keeping in mind the relevance of distributional and
locational factors in explaining ecological phenomena.
Contemporary human ecology in sociology is largely derived from the
work of Hawley (1950, 1968, 1971); Duncan (1959, 1961, 1964), whose
latter work was intended as “primarily an extension of some of the
elements in Hawley’s work”; Schnore (1958, 1961b, 1965, 1970); and
Duncan and Schnore (1959). Sociological human ecology is, however,
still struggling toward a usable theory; the best minds in the field have
been unable to create an adequate theoretical structure. Much of the
thinking in this regard has been of a negative nature, what human
ecology is not rather than what it is. It is not sub-social, it is not limited
to the effect of physical environmental features, it is not defined by
materialism, etc.
Leo Schnore (1961b) has stated that, in his opinion, the “prevailing
myth of human ecology is that ecology is somehow marginal to
sociology”. At various times, it is true, advocates as well as critics of the
ecological approach in sociology have regarded human ecology as
marginal to the discipline. Schnore has been among the recent leaders in
arguing that “human ecology-rather than being marginal to sociology
-represents one effort to deal with the central problem of sociological
analysis”, and that further, its “real potential lies in its contributions to
a macro-sociology”.
It may be argued that the heterogeneity that possibly prevents a
unified theoretical structure in human ecology is its greatest strength,
though there is some evidence that a unified structure does exist if only
the multitude of disciplines employing the concept would stop trying to
fragment and destroy it. Such unification will be discussed later in this
paper.
A few positive suggestions within sociology can be isolated. There is,
for example, widespread acceptance of the idea that a theoretical
structure must begin with one of the central precepts of sociology, that
of some form of aggregate social organization. There is some agreement
that the “functional” environment must be a consideration in the
relationship of functionalism to human ecology. There is theoretical
work in these areas that may at least provide an indication of the
future.
Mulkay ( 197 1) has provided sociology with an interesting book-length
essay on functionalism and exchange theory; these may prove adaptable
to human ecology, though that is not one of the concerns in Mulkay’s
17
emphasized the “natural area” as an important “ecological frame of
reference” with later work (1950, 1960) utilizing the census tract for
comparative study of urban areas. Schmid’s approach comes closest in
sociology to fitting Shepard’s claim for it as urban geography rather
than human ecology, keeping in mind the relevance of distributional and
locational factors in explaining ecological phenomena.
Contemporary human ecology in sociology is largely derived from the
work of Hawley (1950, 1968, 1971); Duncan (1959, 1961, 1964), whose
latter work was intended as “primarily an extension of some of the
elements in Hawley’s work”; Schnore (1958, 1961b, 1965, 1970); and
Duncan and Schnore (1959). Sociological human ecology is, however,
still struggling toward a usable theory; the best minds in the field have
been unable to create an adequate theoretical structure. Much of the
thinking in this regard has been of a negative nature, what human
ecology is not rather than what it is. It is not sub-social, it is not limited
to the effect of physical environmental features, it is not defined by
materialism, etc.
Leo Schnore (1961b) has stated that, in his opinion, the “prevailing
myth of human ecology is that ecology is somehow marginal to
sociology”. At various times, it is true, advocates as well as critics of the
ecological approach in sociology have regarded human ecology as
marginal to the discipline. Schnore has been among the recent leaders in
arguing that “human ecology-rather than being marginal to sociology
-represents one effort to deal with the central problem of sociological
analysis”, and that further, its “real potential lies in its contributions to
a macro-sociology”.
It may be argued that the heterogeneity that possibly prevents a
unified theoretical structure in human ecology is its greatest strength,
though there is some evidence that a unified structure does exist if only
the multitude of disciplines employing the concept would stop trying to
fragment and destroy it. Such unification will be discussed later in this
paper.
A few positive suggestions within sociology can be isolated. There is,
for example, widespread acceptance of the idea that a theoretical
structure must begin with one of the central precepts of sociology, that
of some form of aggregate social organization. There is some agreement
that the “functional” environment must be a consideration in the
relationship of functionalism to human ecology. There is theoretical
work in these areas that may at least provide an indication of the
future.
Mulkay ( 197 1) has provided sociology with an interesting book-length
essay on functionalism and exchange theory; these may prove adaptable
to human ecology, though that is not one of the concerns in Mulkay’s