HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
19
2. Cultural ecology in anthropology
The groups which generally have been studied most closely by
anthropologists are those least buffered from the environment by technology and material artifacts. Anthropologists have been interested in
those people living in an environment that has not been institutionalized,
societies so “little institutionalized” (Herskovits, 1948) that the
individual is the whole organism of survival; no specialized institutions
are carried outside the individual. Anthropologists as a result have long
been concerned with the more direct interrelationships between man and
his natural environment and with the means that such groups use to
cope with their environment (Taylor, 1934). As Helm (1962) notes, “it
was those ethnologists who concentrated on the primitive cultures in
harsh and especially limiting environments who [first] developed a
pragmatic ecological outlook”. Kroeber (I 939) admitted early that “no
culture is wholly intelligible without reference to the noncultural or socalled environmental factors with which it is in relation and which
conditions it”. Much of his book was spent in documenting the relationship. Herskovits (1948) gave attention to “the problems that arise out
of the interaction between ways of life of a people and the scene in
which these ways are brought into being”, and specifically asked the
question “how does man react to habitat”, noting in partial answer that
“man cannot exist unless he meets the challenge of his habitat”. Forde
(1934) asserted that “between the physical environment and human
activity there is always a middle term, a collection of specific objectives
and values, a body of knowledge and belief: in other words, a cultural
pattern”. These three, along with Wissler (1923, 1926) and Mason
(1905), are commonly mentioned as attempting to “use the environment
for explanation of cultural phenomena” (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968).
Helm (1962) describes early studies by Porde (1934) and Kroeber (1939)
as “emphatically ecological”, and Vayda and Rappaport (1968)
described the same two books as “fruitful examinations of the relation
between specific cultural and environmental variables”.
Other anthropologists commented early on the potential of the ecological approach in anthropology, among them Sayce (1938) who
suggested that anthropologists should “give more attention to the ecological aspects of culture”. By this he meant a better understanding of
the “natural background to human activities”, supporting this with the
claim that “our knowledge of culture in any country is inadequate until
we can see it as a whole and can describe the distribution of each
[cultural] element, with all its variations and its adaptations to local
conditions”.
Such an approach was generally acceptable in anthropology but was
19
2. Cultural ecology in anthropology
The groups which generally have been studied most closely by
anthropologists are those least buffered from the environment by technology and material artifacts. Anthropologists have been interested in
those people living in an environment that has not been institutionalized,
societies so “little institutionalized” (Herskovits, 1948) that the
individual is the whole organism of survival; no specialized institutions
are carried outside the individual. Anthropologists as a result have long
been concerned with the more direct interrelationships between man and
his natural environment and with the means that such groups use to
cope with their environment (Taylor, 1934). As Helm (1962) notes, “it
was those ethnologists who concentrated on the primitive cultures in
harsh and especially limiting environments who [first] developed a
pragmatic ecological outlook”. Kroeber (I 939) admitted early that “no
culture is wholly intelligible without reference to the noncultural or socalled environmental factors with which it is in relation and which
conditions it”. Much of his book was spent in documenting the relationship. Herskovits (1948) gave attention to “the problems that arise out
of the interaction between ways of life of a people and the scene in
which these ways are brought into being”, and specifically asked the
question “how does man react to habitat”, noting in partial answer that
“man cannot exist unless he meets the challenge of his habitat”. Forde
(1934) asserted that “between the physical environment and human
activity there is always a middle term, a collection of specific objectives
and values, a body of knowledge and belief: in other words, a cultural
pattern”. These three, along with Wissler (1923, 1926) and Mason
(1905), are commonly mentioned as attempting to “use the environment
for explanation of cultural phenomena” (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968).
Helm (1962) describes early studies by Porde (1934) and Kroeber (1939)
as “emphatically ecological”, and Vayda and Rappaport (1968)
described the same two books as “fruitful examinations of the relation
between specific cultural and environmental variables”.
Other anthropologists commented early on the potential of the ecological approach in anthropology, among them Sayce (1938) who
suggested that anthropologists should “give more attention to the ecological aspects of culture”. By this he meant a better understanding of
the “natural background to human activities”, supporting this with the
claim that “our knowledge of culture in any country is inadequate until
we can see it as a whole and can describe the distribution of each
[cultural] element, with all its variations and its adaptations to local
conditions”.
Such an approach was generally acceptable in anthropology but was