60
GERALD L. YOUNG
out of chaos-to initiate the transformation from multi-disciplinary to
interdisciplinary human ecology through identification of some unifying
concepts. These will, it is hoped, help to provide a little sturdier
platform (or anlage) in the scramble for satisfactory theory.
A. T H E L E V E L - O F - I N T E O R A T I O N C O N C E P T
Rowe (1961) has claimed that “the idea of arranging and classifying
the sciences in an hierarchy according to level of inclusiveness or level
of integration of subject matter . . . has been common . . . since the
time of Comte”. Von Bertalanffy (1950) described reality in terms of a
“tremendous hierarchical order of organized entities”, the higher the
level-of-integration, the more complex the organizational structure.
Similarly, ecological understanding is predicated on the belief that
life is organized on a number of levels of integration, the highest being
that which is most integrated into a systems framework (that in which
behavior patterns can be explained only in relationship to place and
function within such a system). Most ecologists would agree that the
ecological approach to analysis is implicit once some such form of living
interactional level is reached.
A common hierarchy is that described by Rowe (1961), beginning
with the cell, then ascending to the organ, the organism, ecosystem,
ecosphere, and universe (for some reason, not including the community
at a level between organism and ecosystem).
Recognition of units such as community or ecosystem as essential
structures in ecological analysis presumes acceptance of the idea t h a t
such analysis begins only a t a certain level-that where organisms
interact with each other, other organisms and their environment (see
Weiss, 1971; and specifically Buechner, 1971). Recognition of some form
of levels of integration is, then, a prerequisite in ecology: first to
rationalize the ecological approach and, second, to accomplish understanding of the level of functional relationships achieved by the organism
or unit under study.
In human ecology, Quinn (1950a) early recognized “three levels of
relation between man and environment”. Duncan (1961) described the
“organization of data by levels” as “deeply ingrained” in the training of
social scientists. Bailey (1968) formulates his whole analysis on the basis
of “increasing organizational complexity”. A hierarchy of systems is
recognized as a biological or life concept by Rapoport (1968). Vayda and
Rappaport (1968) recognize the same concept as definitive in the
determination of “units important to ecologists . . . individual organisms . . . populations . . . communities . . . and ecosystems”. Steward
(1955, 1968) advocates “levels of sociocultural integration”. Parsons
GERALD L. YOUNG
out of chaos-to initiate the transformation from multi-disciplinary to
interdisciplinary human ecology through identification of some unifying
concepts. These will, it is hoped, help to provide a little sturdier
platform (or anlage) in the scramble for satisfactory theory.
A. T H E L E V E L - O F - I N T E O R A T I O N C O N C E P T
Rowe (1961) has claimed that “the idea of arranging and classifying
the sciences in an hierarchy according to level of inclusiveness or level
of integration of subject matter . . . has been common . . . since the
time of Comte”. Von Bertalanffy (1950) described reality in terms of a
“tremendous hierarchical order of organized entities”, the higher the
level-of-integration, the more complex the organizational structure.
Similarly, ecological understanding is predicated on the belief that
life is organized on a number of levels of integration, the highest being
that which is most integrated into a systems framework (that in which
behavior patterns can be explained only in relationship to place and
function within such a system). Most ecologists would agree that the
ecological approach to analysis is implicit once some such form of living
interactional level is reached.
A common hierarchy is that described by Rowe (1961), beginning
with the cell, then ascending to the organ, the organism, ecosystem,
ecosphere, and universe (for some reason, not including the community
at a level between organism and ecosystem).
Recognition of units such as community or ecosystem as essential
structures in ecological analysis presumes acceptance of the idea t h a t
such analysis begins only a t a certain level-that where organisms
interact with each other, other organisms and their environment (see
Weiss, 1971; and specifically Buechner, 1971). Recognition of some form
of levels of integration is, then, a prerequisite in ecology: first to
rationalize the ecological approach and, second, to accomplish understanding of the level of functional relationships achieved by the organism
or unit under study.
In human ecology, Quinn (1950a) early recognized “three levels of
relation between man and environment”. Duncan (1961) described the
“organization of data by levels” as “deeply ingrained” in the training of
social scientists. Bailey (1968) formulates his whole analysis on the basis
of “increasing organizational complexity”. A hierarchy of systems is
recognized as a biological or life concept by Rapoport (1968). Vayda and
Rappaport (1968) recognize the same concept as definitive in the
determination of “units important to ecologists . . . individual organisms . . . populations . . . communities . . . and ecosystems”. Steward
(1955, 1968) advocates “levels of sociocultural integration”. Parsons