68
GERALD L. YOUNG
Central to this question, of course, is once again the problem of human
uniqueness. If human ecologists are to make a contribution beyond that
of ecology in general, then the problems of such differentiation must be
kept uppermost in their minds. The history of science and social science
has been tended by a cyclic acknowledgement of this problem: sometimes man is considered an integral part of nature, sometimes something
apart from nature.
Both Durkheim and Freud worked on this problem. Parsons (1968)
finds their ideas converging at three essential points: (1) the social object
world as distinct from the physical and organic world, (2) the imposition
of social norms on the individual with associated sanctions for compliance
or lack of compliance, and (3) the internalization of the social structure
into the individual personality. Durkheim particularly, worked toward
an understanding of culture as a network of interacting “codified
symbolic systems”. Such views are, of course, focused on human uniqueness in the interaction process and on operation of the process within an
institutionalized framework.
To paraphrase Adams (1935), the most distinguishing feature of
human ecology is a major emphasis on process, particularly the process
of interaction. The major orientation of each social science or applied
discipline provides the reference point for that discipline in its application of the ecological method: sociological human ecology is concerned
with the interactions between a social grouping or organization with
some kind of environment. Anthropology is also interested in the interactions between a group and its environment but here the focus is on the
role of culture as a shaper and an intermediary in the interaction process.
Psychology is interested in the interactions between individual human
beings and their environment, whether external, internalized, natural or
man-made. Geography focuses on the environment, particularly the
spatial dimension, but is still primarily interested in it ecologically as
an interaction field shaped and manipulated by human actions and
interests. I n a way, economics and political science are also primarily
interested in interacting (economic and political) systems as environments and their inclusion of and interaction with man. Similarly, the
applied fields, pazticularly architecture, landscape architecture, and
engineering are interested in the interaction process as a manipulative
device in terms of how men modify and order their environments
toward the greatest adaptive success, however this may be defined
operationally.
Interaction has the potential to be a basic human ecological concept.
It seems possible to use the extent (in terms of involvement and in terms
of space) of interaction as a measure of other ecological essentials, such
as community and ecosystem. To achieve this, however, interaction
GERALD L. YOUNG
Central to this question, of course, is once again the problem of human
uniqueness. If human ecologists are to make a contribution beyond that
of ecology in general, then the problems of such differentiation must be
kept uppermost in their minds. The history of science and social science
has been tended by a cyclic acknowledgement of this problem: sometimes man is considered an integral part of nature, sometimes something
apart from nature.
Both Durkheim and Freud worked on this problem. Parsons (1968)
finds their ideas converging at three essential points: (1) the social object
world as distinct from the physical and organic world, (2) the imposition
of social norms on the individual with associated sanctions for compliance
or lack of compliance, and (3) the internalization of the social structure
into the individual personality. Durkheim particularly, worked toward
an understanding of culture as a network of interacting “codified
symbolic systems”. Such views are, of course, focused on human uniqueness in the interaction process and on operation of the process within an
institutionalized framework.
To paraphrase Adams (1935), the most distinguishing feature of
human ecology is a major emphasis on process, particularly the process
of interaction. The major orientation of each social science or applied
discipline provides the reference point for that discipline in its application of the ecological method: sociological human ecology is concerned
with the interactions between a social grouping or organization with
some kind of environment. Anthropology is also interested in the interactions between a group and its environment but here the focus is on the
role of culture as a shaper and an intermediary in the interaction process.
Psychology is interested in the interactions between individual human
beings and their environment, whether external, internalized, natural or
man-made. Geography focuses on the environment, particularly the
spatial dimension, but is still primarily interested in it ecologically as
an interaction field shaped and manipulated by human actions and
interests. I n a way, economics and political science are also primarily
interested in interacting (economic and political) systems as environments and their inclusion of and interaction with man. Similarly, the
applied fields, pazticularly architecture, landscape architecture, and
engineering are interested in the interaction process as a manipulative
device in terms of how men modify and order their environments
toward the greatest adaptive success, however this may be defined
operationally.
Interaction has the potential to be a basic human ecological concept.
It seems possible to use the extent (in terms of involvement and in terms
of space) of interaction as a measure of other ecological essentials, such
as community and ecosystem. To achieve this, however, interaction