HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
35
These commonly profess an unacceptable separation of human geography from human ecology, stressing the synonymy of human ecology
with sociology. Typical is the comment by Hawley (1950) that “human
ecology is . . . something different from human geography”, since it
“emerged as and remains primarily a sociological concern”. Theodorson
(1958) repeats the error, dismissing human geography after the first few
paragraphs and stressing the “distinction between the two fields, with
sociologists concentrating their attention on human ecology”. Schnore
(1961a) expresses regret at the “outmoded conception of the field of
geography” held by both Hawley and Theodorson, then repeats essentially the same mistake, equating human ecology with sociology and
assuming geography as something different (though with “contact
points”).
Fried (1952) defined ecology as “the action aspect of geography”,
describing this as the study of how an indigenous group “combines . . .
resources with a specific cultural inventory of exploitative techniques,
making possible a certain distribution of human population over a
particular region”. His definition of both geography and ecology are
unacceptable, then as now, because he defines both as “factors” of
importance “in the determination of the nature of cultural contacts . . .”
Such a factor definition suggests inadequate understanding of the
meaning of either geography or ecology.
The origin of the present reorientation of geography toward ecology
is hard to date. Wagner (1960) provided an early statement; though
without a specifically intentional statement of ecological goals, it must
be considered a worthy synthesis. Eyre’s (1964) essay contributed
directly to a response paper by Stoddart (1965) and was followed by a
book on geography as human ecology (Eyre and Jones, 1966). Eyre’s
early essay was not, however, human ecology. He concentrated on
climatic determinism in relation to the causes of certain vegetation and
soil types, i.e. his was an essay in physical geography. Stoddart (1965)
responded to this by expanding the concept to include man and to
emphasize “the ecosystem as a geographic principle and method”.
During this same period, two essays appeared by Morgan and Moss
(1965, 1967) that also emphasized the application of ecological concepts,
particularly the community, in the study of physical or biological
geography. There is a marked inclination in the Morgan and Moss work
to confuse ecology with biogeography despite a weak attempt at
differentiation.
This was then followed by an essay that is perhaps the most complete
contemporary review available of the contribution of ecology and the
ecosystem concept to geographical thought (Stoddart, 1967). He tends
to discount most of the recent attempts to revive a human ecology based
35
These commonly profess an unacceptable separation of human geography from human ecology, stressing the synonymy of human ecology
with sociology. Typical is the comment by Hawley (1950) that “human
ecology is . . . something different from human geography”, since it
“emerged as and remains primarily a sociological concern”. Theodorson
(1958) repeats the error, dismissing human geography after the first few
paragraphs and stressing the “distinction between the two fields, with
sociologists concentrating their attention on human ecology”. Schnore
(1961a) expresses regret at the “outmoded conception of the field of
geography” held by both Hawley and Theodorson, then repeats essentially the same mistake, equating human ecology with sociology and
assuming geography as something different (though with “contact
points”).
Fried (1952) defined ecology as “the action aspect of geography”,
describing this as the study of how an indigenous group “combines . . .
resources with a specific cultural inventory of exploitative techniques,
making possible a certain distribution of human population over a
particular region”. His definition of both geography and ecology are
unacceptable, then as now, because he defines both as “factors” of
importance “in the determination of the nature of cultural contacts . . .”
Such a factor definition suggests inadequate understanding of the
meaning of either geography or ecology.
The origin of the present reorientation of geography toward ecology
is hard to date. Wagner (1960) provided an early statement; though
without a specifically intentional statement of ecological goals, it must
be considered a worthy synthesis. Eyre’s (1964) essay contributed
directly to a response paper by Stoddart (1965) and was followed by a
book on geography as human ecology (Eyre and Jones, 1966). Eyre’s
early essay was not, however, human ecology. He concentrated on
climatic determinism in relation to the causes of certain vegetation and
soil types, i.e. his was an essay in physical geography. Stoddart (1965)
responded to this by expanding the concept to include man and to
emphasize “the ecosystem as a geographic principle and method”.
During this same period, two essays appeared by Morgan and Moss
(1965, 1967) that also emphasized the application of ecological concepts,
particularly the community, in the study of physical or biological
geography. There is a marked inclination in the Morgan and Moss work
to confuse ecology with biogeography despite a weak attempt at
differentiation.
This was then followed by an essay that is perhaps the most complete
contemporary review available of the contribution of ecology and the
ecosystem concept to geographical thought (Stoddart, 1967). He tends
to discount most of the recent attempts to revive a human ecology based