62
QERALD L. YOUNQ
of organization imply a functional relationship, a state, a manner or a
process of interrelating. Most definitions of structure imply some type of
integrated whole, a pattern or arrangement or position. Organization
generally refers to the connections and interrelationships among the
living elements to maintain that whole. As Hawley notes, “when we
speak of community structure, we refer not to the attributes of individuals but to a property of the aggregate”.
The impression, then, is that organization is dynamic, evolving, alive,
an on-going process, while structure implies maintenance, stability, an
entity that transcends organization. Understanding of both is necessary
to understanding of ecological groupings. Analysis of structure and
organization (of the parts, their interaction, and the pattern of their
collectivity) become a prerequisite to understanding of the total group
community or system.
c. FUNCTIONALISM
Much of the text of this essay so far could appear to be groundwork
toward ready acceptance of functionalism as one of the essential commonalities of interdisciplinary human ecology. Its presence in so much
of the discussion, while not an intentional lead, does serve to underline
its ubiquity. Certainly, the sections immediately preceding this one
provide direct leads to the necessity of considering function from whatever direction human ecology is approached. Eugene Odum (1962) has
provided an acceptable definition of ecology in functional terms:
ecology is “the study of the structure and function of e~osystems~’, with
function defined as the rate and flow of energy through the system, the
rate of nutrient or material flow, and the interacting regulatory effect of
organism on environment and environment on organism.
A different dehition of functional is required in human ecology: the
functional environment can also be defined as operational, but only to
the extent that it is so perceived by an individual or group. The
environment in this sense is defined on the basis of information and
functional interaction: the world and the people in it are only real to the
extent that they are known about and to the extent that this knowledge
can be translated into functional experience. Obviously, this is a highly
variable condition, one dependent on such factors as communications
technology, well-being and security, experience, level of education and
other factors of varying degrees of importance. The significance of this,
ecologically, in the rapidly shrinking world of the twentieth century is
hinted at by Niebuhr’s (1965) statement that “the chief source of man’s
inhumanity to man seems to be the tribal limits of his sense of obligation
to other men”. Paraphrased somewhat, this statement may be said to
QERALD L. YOUNQ
of organization imply a functional relationship, a state, a manner or a
process of interrelating. Most definitions of structure imply some type of
integrated whole, a pattern or arrangement or position. Organization
generally refers to the connections and interrelationships among the
living elements to maintain that whole. As Hawley notes, “when we
speak of community structure, we refer not to the attributes of individuals but to a property of the aggregate”.
The impression, then, is that organization is dynamic, evolving, alive,
an on-going process, while structure implies maintenance, stability, an
entity that transcends organization. Understanding of both is necessary
to understanding of ecological groupings. Analysis of structure and
organization (of the parts, their interaction, and the pattern of their
collectivity) become a prerequisite to understanding of the total group
community or system.
c. FUNCTIONALISM
Much of the text of this essay so far could appear to be groundwork
toward ready acceptance of functionalism as one of the essential commonalities of interdisciplinary human ecology. Its presence in so much
of the discussion, while not an intentional lead, does serve to underline
its ubiquity. Certainly, the sections immediately preceding this one
provide direct leads to the necessity of considering function from whatever direction human ecology is approached. Eugene Odum (1962) has
provided an acceptable definition of ecology in functional terms:
ecology is “the study of the structure and function of e~osystems~’, with
function defined as the rate and flow of energy through the system, the
rate of nutrient or material flow, and the interacting regulatory effect of
organism on environment and environment on organism.
A different dehition of functional is required in human ecology: the
functional environment can also be defined as operational, but only to
the extent that it is so perceived by an individual or group. The
environment in this sense is defined on the basis of information and
functional interaction: the world and the people in it are only real to the
extent that they are known about and to the extent that this knowledge
can be translated into functional experience. Obviously, this is a highly
variable condition, one dependent on such factors as communications
technology, well-being and security, experience, level of education and
other factors of varying degrees of importance. The significance of this,
ecologically, in the rapidly shrinking world of the twentieth century is
hinted at by Niebuhr’s (1965) statement that “the chief source of man’s
inhumanity to man seems to be the tribal limits of his sense of obligation
to other men”. Paraphrased somewhat, this statement may be said to