HUMAN ECOLOCIY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
39
This is true despite disclaimers that their early (1956) work represented
anything new in a theoretical approach to the study of politics. They
recognize that those who are concerned with politics “generally take for
granted that . . . politics is meaningfully related to the setting or
environment . . . in which political decisions are taken and executed”
(1957) and readily admit that “theorists [in] politics frequently deploy
environmental terms and ideas” (1965). Both of these statements can be
readily accepted without detracting from the fact that their work is the
first consciously to attempt integration of basic ecological ideas into the
framework of international politics. They have made several attempts
to accomplish this goal and, though their comments have become somewhat repetitive, they (and Caldwell) should be encouraged to keep
trying until the “ecological perspective” is more than “taken for
granted” and becomes an integral theoretical base for the study of
political science.
The need for an ecological perspective as “a distinctive way of seeing
and comprehending” (Sprout and Sprout, 1971) is implicit in their
statement that “interrelatedness has become the predominant characteristic of our era”. The world has become too small for nations to act
unilaterally: “the deeper the analysis of the ‘web of life’ is pushed, the
more meaningless becomes the word independence” (Benarde, 1970).
Pfaltzgraff (1968) reaffirms this idea with his comments that “at any
given time the environment of a political system consists of all external
systems”, and that “there is consensus that communication is the
cement of the system”.
The strength of Pfaltzgraff’s (1968) paper is two-fold: &st, he presents
a viable case for a tradition of the integration of ecology into the study
of the political system but emphasizes that this must become more
important to “a generation of political scientists dissatisfied with much
of the conventional wisdom of the past”. This emphasis is retained
despite his belief that “whatever their estimate of earlier writings,
present-day students of politics retain as a major focal point of analysis
the interaction between man and his environment”. His certainty
should, however, be qualified by keeping in mind that to the extent that
this has been true, it has been maintained largely without specific
recognition of the ecological framework. Concepts when applied were
not specifically so identified. Second, he carefully (though briefly) traces
the adoption of a systems approach in political science. Recognition of
the relations among nations as a system is advanced by McClelland
(1965): “A nation’s international behavior, in the system perspective, is
a two-way activity of taking from and giving to the international
environment. All the giving and taking, when considered together,
and/or all the national actors, is called the international system.”
39
This is true despite disclaimers that their early (1956) work represented
anything new in a theoretical approach to the study of politics. They
recognize that those who are concerned with politics “generally take for
granted that . . . politics is meaningfully related to the setting or
environment . . . in which political decisions are taken and executed”
(1957) and readily admit that “theorists [in] politics frequently deploy
environmental terms and ideas” (1965). Both of these statements can be
readily accepted without detracting from the fact that their work is the
first consciously to attempt integration of basic ecological ideas into the
framework of international politics. They have made several attempts
to accomplish this goal and, though their comments have become somewhat repetitive, they (and Caldwell) should be encouraged to keep
trying until the “ecological perspective” is more than “taken for
granted” and becomes an integral theoretical base for the study of
political science.
The need for an ecological perspective as “a distinctive way of seeing
and comprehending” (Sprout and Sprout, 1971) is implicit in their
statement that “interrelatedness has become the predominant characteristic of our era”. The world has become too small for nations to act
unilaterally: “the deeper the analysis of the ‘web of life’ is pushed, the
more meaningless becomes the word independence” (Benarde, 1970).
Pfaltzgraff (1968) reaffirms this idea with his comments that “at any
given time the environment of a political system consists of all external
systems”, and that “there is consensus that communication is the
cement of the system”.
The strength of Pfaltzgraff’s (1968) paper is two-fold: &st, he presents
a viable case for a tradition of the integration of ecology into the study
of the political system but emphasizes that this must become more
important to “a generation of political scientists dissatisfied with much
of the conventional wisdom of the past”. This emphasis is retained
despite his belief that “whatever their estimate of earlier writings,
present-day students of politics retain as a major focal point of analysis
the interaction between man and his environment”. His certainty
should, however, be qualified by keeping in mind that to the extent that
this has been true, it has been maintained largely without specific
recognition of the ecological framework. Concepts when applied were
not specifically so identified. Second, he carefully (though briefly) traces
the adoption of a systems approach in political science. Recognition of
the relations among nations as a system is advanced by McClelland
(1965): “A nation’s international behavior, in the system perspective, is
a two-way activity of taking from and giving to the international
environment. All the giving and taking, when considered together,
and/or all the national actors, is called the international system.”