HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
21
environment for survival. The word exploit is peppered freely throughout even theoretical or methodological statements on cultural ecology,
with reference to the fundamental procedures by Steward noted above.
According to Geertz (1966), Steward is attempting to “isolate in the
culture he analyzes certain aspects in which functional ties with the
natural setting are most explicit”. Netting (1965) makes a similar claim
that Steward selects only for “functionally interrelated features” ;
Netting expands this idea into a functionally defined “effective environment”.
Among anthropologists, the assertion is commonly found that
“climatic, edaphic, and biotic factors become useful for man only in
terms of his ability to exploit them” (Netting, 1965). Technology,
material culture, the “mode of production . . . the material requirements”
of a culture are of “major interest to cultural ecologists” (Sahlins,
1964). Harris (1968) commenting on this emphasis, defines cultural
ecology as “a subcase of cultural materialism”, noting that Steward and
his followers (who include most if not all of the cultural ecologists in
anthropology) have “sought to identify the material condition of sociocultural life in terms of the articulation between production processes
and habitat”, an “ecological version of cultural materialism”. Sahlins
(1961) broadens this to include “the evolution of culture . . . viewed as a
movement in the direction of increasing utilization [per capita] of the
earth’s resources or, alternatively, of increasing transformation of
available energy into cultural systems”.
Helm (1962) suggests an empirical definition of cultural ecology as
“concerned with the adaptive ordering of the relations of human groups
to the natural environment and with the demographic and sociocultural
conditions and consequences thereof”. She further stresses that when
“the touchstone of ‘adaptation to environment’ is lost from view, the
anthropologist ceases to speak of his concerns as ‘ecological’ ”. Adaptation as an ecological process, with its cultural origins and manifestations,
must be recognized as a pivotal concept in cultural ecology as that
phrase is defined in anthropology (cf. the two volumes edited by Cohen,
1968).
It would appear to be acceptable, then, that central to cultural
ecology is a notion of functional interaction, or in Sahlins’ (1964) phrase,
“functional interdependence”. Helm (1 962) contends that “a functionalist spirit pervades the formulation and pursuit of problems in
contemporary cultural anthropology [sic. cultural ecology]”. This
pervasive spirit can be identified quite specifically in most definitive or
methodological statements on the cultural ecology approach to anthropology. Such a central concern was noted above in Steward (1955),
Netting (1965), Geertz (1966), Sahlins (1964) and Helm (1962); in
B
21
environment for survival. The word exploit is peppered freely throughout even theoretical or methodological statements on cultural ecology,
with reference to the fundamental procedures by Steward noted above.
According to Geertz (1966), Steward is attempting to “isolate in the
culture he analyzes certain aspects in which functional ties with the
natural setting are most explicit”. Netting (1965) makes a similar claim
that Steward selects only for “functionally interrelated features” ;
Netting expands this idea into a functionally defined “effective environment”.
Among anthropologists, the assertion is commonly found that
“climatic, edaphic, and biotic factors become useful for man only in
terms of his ability to exploit them” (Netting, 1965). Technology,
material culture, the “mode of production . . . the material requirements”
of a culture are of “major interest to cultural ecologists” (Sahlins,
1964). Harris (1968) commenting on this emphasis, defines cultural
ecology as “a subcase of cultural materialism”, noting that Steward and
his followers (who include most if not all of the cultural ecologists in
anthropology) have “sought to identify the material condition of sociocultural life in terms of the articulation between production processes
and habitat”, an “ecological version of cultural materialism”. Sahlins
(1961) broadens this to include “the evolution of culture . . . viewed as a
movement in the direction of increasing utilization [per capita] of the
earth’s resources or, alternatively, of increasing transformation of
available energy into cultural systems”.
Helm (1962) suggests an empirical definition of cultural ecology as
“concerned with the adaptive ordering of the relations of human groups
to the natural environment and with the demographic and sociocultural
conditions and consequences thereof”. She further stresses that when
“the touchstone of ‘adaptation to environment’ is lost from view, the
anthropologist ceases to speak of his concerns as ‘ecological’ ”. Adaptation as an ecological process, with its cultural origins and manifestations,
must be recognized as a pivotal concept in cultural ecology as that
phrase is defined in anthropology (cf. the two volumes edited by Cohen,
1968).
It would appear to be acceptable, then, that central to cultural
ecology is a notion of functional interaction, or in Sahlins’ (1964) phrase,
“functional interdependence”. Helm (1 962) contends that “a functionalist spirit pervades the formulation and pursuit of problems in
contemporary cultural anthropology [sic. cultural ecology]”. This
pervasive spirit can be identified quite specifically in most definitive or
methodological statements on the cultural ecology approach to anthropology. Such a central concern was noted above in Steward (1955),
Netting (1965), Geertz (1966), Sahlins (1964) and Helm (1962); in
B