34
GERALD L. YOUNG
direct arrow of influence flying from environment to man; the cultural
determinists simply reversed the direction of the arrow without reducing
its momentum”. A truly ecological approach must of course in some
sense depend on the double-darted arrow of the interaction process.
Such a simple indictment, of Sauer particularly, is far from wholly
acceptable. Sauer must be recognized, I believe, as one of the fundamental ecological thinkers in the contemporary social sciences, certainly
in geography. Clark Wissler (1924) once defined anthropology as “not
only trying to show what all the forms and forces of nature have done to
man, but even with more emphasis what man has done to nature”. I n
his classic “The Morphology of Landscape” (1925), Sauer credits
Wider’s statement as “also a good definition of geography”. Here, in
one of his fht statements to the discipline, Sauer recognized the need
for a two-headed arrow of interaction rather than English’s simplistic
pronouncement of the one-way relationship.
There have also been other statements in the apparent void between
the Barrow essay and the present resurgence, attempts to define the
manlenvironment relationship in ecological terms, as an ecological
approach to geography. Among these have been comments by Whittlesey
(1932), White and Renner (1935), Swinnerton (1938), Thornthwaite
(1940), Sorre (1943), Dickinson (1947), Carter (1950) and Sauer (1952,
1956). Some of these are ecological only in the title, but others deserve
additional mention. For example, Thornthwaite (1940) is not generally
known as a human ecologist, having spent most of his professional life
in purely physical geography, particularly climatology. His view of
human ecology is, however, very acceptable even after thirty years,
with its emphasis on the idea that human ecology “must involve
cooperation of geography, sociology, demography, anthropology, social
psychology, economics and many of the natural sciences as well”. His
article was a polemic against the claim of other disciplines to exclusive
title to human ecology. Thornthwaite argued that “human ecology can
[not] be a subdivision of sociology or anthropology . . ,” He emphasized
a number of times that “geography [involves] a higher order of integration” and that “human ecology similarly involves integration, but . . .
on a still higher plane”. Thornthwaite also included a definition of
human ecology based on the community: “the development of human
communities and the interrelations of these communities with the
totality of the environment is the concern of human ecology”.
Since geographers have been so erratic in their willingness to define
their discipline in ecological terms, workers in other fields have several
times provided definitions for them (most of them negative definitions).
A number of sociologists have tried their hand a t defining geography in
relation to human ecology, beginning as early as McKenzie (1934).
GERALD L. YOUNG
direct arrow of influence flying from environment to man; the cultural
determinists simply reversed the direction of the arrow without reducing
its momentum”. A truly ecological approach must of course in some
sense depend on the double-darted arrow of the interaction process.
Such a simple indictment, of Sauer particularly, is far from wholly
acceptable. Sauer must be recognized, I believe, as one of the fundamental ecological thinkers in the contemporary social sciences, certainly
in geography. Clark Wissler (1924) once defined anthropology as “not
only trying to show what all the forms and forces of nature have done to
man, but even with more emphasis what man has done to nature”. I n
his classic “The Morphology of Landscape” (1925), Sauer credits
Wider’s statement as “also a good definition of geography”. Here, in
one of his fht statements to the discipline, Sauer recognized the need
for a two-headed arrow of interaction rather than English’s simplistic
pronouncement of the one-way relationship.
There have also been other statements in the apparent void between
the Barrow essay and the present resurgence, attempts to define the
manlenvironment relationship in ecological terms, as an ecological
approach to geography. Among these have been comments by Whittlesey
(1932), White and Renner (1935), Swinnerton (1938), Thornthwaite
(1940), Sorre (1943), Dickinson (1947), Carter (1950) and Sauer (1952,
1956). Some of these are ecological only in the title, but others deserve
additional mention. For example, Thornthwaite (1940) is not generally
known as a human ecologist, having spent most of his professional life
in purely physical geography, particularly climatology. His view of
human ecology is, however, very acceptable even after thirty years,
with its emphasis on the idea that human ecology “must involve
cooperation of geography, sociology, demography, anthropology, social
psychology, economics and many of the natural sciences as well”. His
article was a polemic against the claim of other disciplines to exclusive
title to human ecology. Thornthwaite argued that “human ecology can
[not] be a subdivision of sociology or anthropology . . ,” He emphasized
a number of times that “geography [involves] a higher order of integration” and that “human ecology similarly involves integration, but . . .
on a still higher plane”. Thornthwaite also included a definition of
human ecology based on the community: “the development of human
communities and the interrelations of these communities with the
totality of the environment is the concern of human ecology”.
Since geographers have been so erratic in their willingness to define
their discipline in ecological terms, workers in other fields have several
times provided definitions for them (most of them negative definitions).
A number of sociologists have tried their hand a t defining geography in
relation to human ecology, beginning as early as McKenzie (1934).