HUMAN ECOLOUY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
61
(1968) presents an interesting variation with his identification of four
“cultural-level” systems of action: the organism, the social system, the
cultural system, and an abstract analytical personality level explainable
only in terms of the first three. Schnore (1970) described an “occupational pyramid” arising through “operation of ecological interaction”.
Cartwright (1969) adopts the concept, for use in urban ecology, as
conceptualization of “three-dimensional layered space”, and as an
“impression of concentric zones [springing] directly from the gestalt”.
In political ecology, the Sprouts (1971) affirm that “the interrelated
whole is expressed at rising levels of abstraction by community . . .
complex . . . and ecosystem”.
B. S T R U C T U R E A N D ORCIANIZATION
References to both structure and organization are spotted liberally
throughout the literature of human ecology. It was pointed out earlier
that social organization was a unifying theme in the sociological
approach to human ecology. Hawley (1960) subtitled his book on human
ecology “a theory of community structure”; the two terms are clearly
closely related with meanings that are obviously not so clearly differentiated. But they are different. Every reader has, I am sure, urged
more than one group to “let’s get organized”; one would never say
“let’s get structured”.
Hawley defines the two as follows: “by organization we mean an
arrangement of differentiated parts suited to the performance of a given
function or set of functions”. He defines structure also as “some sort of
orderly arrangement of discrete or . . . distinguishable parts”, but notes
that with respect to community, the term relates “to all the essential
functions and their interrelations by which a local population maintains
itself”. Without the refining concept of community, it would be difficult
to distinguish his definitions. This inattention to a careful differentiation
of two cardinal principles of ecological method is quite common in the
literature, at least where these two terms are widely used.
But there exists in Hawley’s definition a differentiation quite usable
whether applied to a community or to any kind of living system, a
differentiation also found in Webster’s (although unclear there as well).
Every grouping of living beings exists to satisfy a function or group of
functions, whether that is for leisure, to earn money, for protection, or
whatever.
The aggregate, the pattern of the grouping gathered to perform or
satisfy the function or functions is the structure of the group. The way
in which these parts connect, relate and interact to perform the function
or functions is the organization of the group. Most acceptable definitions
61
(1968) presents an interesting variation with his identification of four
“cultural-level” systems of action: the organism, the social system, the
cultural system, and an abstract analytical personality level explainable
only in terms of the first three. Schnore (1970) described an “occupational pyramid” arising through “operation of ecological interaction”.
Cartwright (1969) adopts the concept, for use in urban ecology, as
conceptualization of “three-dimensional layered space”, and as an
“impression of concentric zones [springing] directly from the gestalt”.
In political ecology, the Sprouts (1971) affirm that “the interrelated
whole is expressed at rising levels of abstraction by community . . .
complex . . . and ecosystem”.
B. S T R U C T U R E A N D ORCIANIZATION
References to both structure and organization are spotted liberally
throughout the literature of human ecology. It was pointed out earlier
that social organization was a unifying theme in the sociological
approach to human ecology. Hawley (1960) subtitled his book on human
ecology “a theory of community structure”; the two terms are clearly
closely related with meanings that are obviously not so clearly differentiated. But they are different. Every reader has, I am sure, urged
more than one group to “let’s get organized”; one would never say
“let’s get structured”.
Hawley defines the two as follows: “by organization we mean an
arrangement of differentiated parts suited to the performance of a given
function or set of functions”. He defines structure also as “some sort of
orderly arrangement of discrete or . . . distinguishable parts”, but notes
that with respect to community, the term relates “to all the essential
functions and their interrelations by which a local population maintains
itself”. Without the refining concept of community, it would be difficult
to distinguish his definitions. This inattention to a careful differentiation
of two cardinal principles of ecological method is quite common in the
literature, at least where these two terms are widely used.
But there exists in Hawley’s definition a differentiation quite usable
whether applied to a community or to any kind of living system, a
differentiation also found in Webster’s (although unclear there as well).
Every grouping of living beings exists to satisfy a function or group of
functions, whether that is for leisure, to earn money, for protection, or
whatever.
The aggregate, the pattern of the grouping gathered to perform or
satisfy the function or functions is the structure of the group. The way
in which these parts connect, relate and interact to perform the function
or functions is the organization of the group. Most acceptable definitions