HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
69
exceptions to both these cases. Even the implication that human
ecology might with justification be confined within the bounds of a
single discipline is a fundamental error. The ecological method or point
of view appears to have validity in almost all of the social and behavioral
sciences and in many of those considered here as applied or technical.
The origins of human ecology as a concept were explored in each
separate discipline at the beginning of this essay. The approach began in
a similar way in all of the various fields: especially as an attempt to
adapt bio-ecological concepts to the study of man. The section following
this will attempt to illustrate that each has adopted a number of
concepts common to all, with these commonalities laying the foundations for a realistic interdisciplinary concept of human ecology.
IV. TOWARD A N ECOLOGICAL ANLAGE:
SOME COMMONALITIES
Adoption of the ecological perspective toward a field of study implies
acceptance of the need for conceptual integration; extraction and
isolation of appropriate unifying principles in such an approach would
appear somewhat paradoxical. But we cannot as yet provide a synthesis
of human ecology that need not be fragmented for clarity and better
understanding. The whole is assumed: for convenience in comprehension, we still must examine the working parts. Reading of this
section should be undertaken with an appreciation of the difficulty in
separating the various concepts one from the others: community and
ecosystem are defined by interaction; the nature of the interaction
process is dependent on the actors’ functional perception of the real
world; the real world is dependent in part on the structure and organization of the system or systems of which it is a part; and so around we go.
Not everyone will agree with the common points of reference isolated
here. There are admittedly others. The need for sustenance, for example,
might be reckoned as a motivating force common to all levels of human
interaction with environment. In trying to classify and examine human
ecosystems, Bates (1967) could isolate onlyone “fairly clear” category“food. Eating and being eaten”. Darling (1961) claimed that “the
human ecologist will never neglect the belly of the people”, though I
have neglected it here. Gibbs and Martin (1969) constructed a theoretical
system based on the “variability in the characteristics of sustenance
organization”, claiming that this is the “fundamental problem” in
human ecology. Such an example may be slightly tongue-in-cheek but it
clearly illustrates the lengths to which a search for common ground in
human ecology might be carried.
The material following, then, is a response to the need to make order
69
exceptions to both these cases. Even the implication that human
ecology might with justification be confined within the bounds of a
single discipline is a fundamental error. The ecological method or point
of view appears to have validity in almost all of the social and behavioral
sciences and in many of those considered here as applied or technical.
The origins of human ecology as a concept were explored in each
separate discipline at the beginning of this essay. The approach began in
a similar way in all of the various fields: especially as an attempt to
adapt bio-ecological concepts to the study of man. The section following
this will attempt to illustrate that each has adopted a number of
concepts common to all, with these commonalities laying the foundations for a realistic interdisciplinary concept of human ecology.
IV. TOWARD A N ECOLOGICAL ANLAGE:
SOME COMMONALITIES
Adoption of the ecological perspective toward a field of study implies
acceptance of the need for conceptual integration; extraction and
isolation of appropriate unifying principles in such an approach would
appear somewhat paradoxical. But we cannot as yet provide a synthesis
of human ecology that need not be fragmented for clarity and better
understanding. The whole is assumed: for convenience in comprehension, we still must examine the working parts. Reading of this
section should be undertaken with an appreciation of the difficulty in
separating the various concepts one from the others: community and
ecosystem are defined by interaction; the nature of the interaction
process is dependent on the actors’ functional perception of the real
world; the real world is dependent in part on the structure and organization of the system or systems of which it is a part; and so around we go.
Not everyone will agree with the common points of reference isolated
here. There are admittedly others. The need for sustenance, for example,
might be reckoned as a motivating force common to all levels of human
interaction with environment. In trying to classify and examine human
ecosystems, Bates (1967) could isolate onlyone “fairly clear” category“food. Eating and being eaten”. Darling (1961) claimed that “the
human ecologist will never neglect the belly of the people”, though I
have neglected it here. Gibbs and Martin (1969) constructed a theoretical
system based on the “variability in the characteristics of sustenance
organization”, claiming that this is the “fundamental problem” in
human ecology. Such an example may be slightly tongue-in-cheek but it
clearly illustrates the lengths to which a search for common ground in
human ecology might be carried.
The material following, then, is a response to the need to make order