HUMAN ECOLOQY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
71
where 0 stands for organism and E for environment. The fact that these
remain abstractions does not lessen their importance: Parsons (1968)
noted that “the concept of interaction is the first-order step beyond the
action concept itself toward formulating the concept of social system”.
Kaufman (1959) has claimed that “making explicit the criteria of
community action which set off community from noncommunity
activities is a crucial problem in interactional theory”.
Kaufman has also noted what he calls the “community field”; perhaps
more appropriate to this discussion, and more commonly used, is the
concept of “interaction field”. Such a field defines the spatial relationships between an organism or group of organisms (such as some form of
center or community) and its environment or other organisms in terms
of functional interaction.
Interaction fields may be defined by their mean boundaries. In
general ecology, this can be defined in terms of the range or territory of
an organism; for human beings, it may be recognized as the local place,
the neighborhood or community. These can be mapped for an individual
or a group of individuals, though they seldom are. A number of generalizations are valid for mean interaction fields: first, the size of the field
varies, depending on the complexity introduced by raising the distance
factor to a variable exponent. The variability is a function of the
mobility of an individual or group. Second, the size of the field may vary
through time. Innovations in technology, especially communication and
transportation techniques, may change the range of interaction; level of
education of the individual or group has an important bearing and this
may change through time. Third, the intensity of interaction increases
over time. This is expected, for example, in models of human migration.
It has been long understood that human interaction is a function of
scale: it must also be a function of complexity and diversity-but in
which direction? Is there more or less interaction as complexity grows?
At what point in the bombardment of accelerating stimuli does effectiveness of the interaction process start to diminish and the frustration of an
identity crisis begin? Relevant here is the concept of anomie as the
antithesis of community, possibly a function of increasing interaction
but decreasing meaning and identity (which is itself a function of
gratification derived from interaction and an incentive to further interaction).
Thirty years ago, Erich Fromm (1941) noted that
Modern man’s feeling of isolation [anomie] and powerlessness is increased still further by the character which all his human relationships
have assumed. The concrete relationship of one individual to another
has lost its direct and human character and has assumed a spirit of
manipulation and instrumentality.
71
where 0 stands for organism and E for environment. The fact that these
remain abstractions does not lessen their importance: Parsons (1968)
noted that “the concept of interaction is the first-order step beyond the
action concept itself toward formulating the concept of social system”.
Kaufman (1959) has claimed that “making explicit the criteria of
community action which set off community from noncommunity
activities is a crucial problem in interactional theory”.
Kaufman has also noted what he calls the “community field”; perhaps
more appropriate to this discussion, and more commonly used, is the
concept of “interaction field”. Such a field defines the spatial relationships between an organism or group of organisms (such as some form of
center or community) and its environment or other organisms in terms
of functional interaction.
Interaction fields may be defined by their mean boundaries. In
general ecology, this can be defined in terms of the range or territory of
an organism; for human beings, it may be recognized as the local place,
the neighborhood or community. These can be mapped for an individual
or a group of individuals, though they seldom are. A number of generalizations are valid for mean interaction fields: first, the size of the field
varies, depending on the complexity introduced by raising the distance
factor to a variable exponent. The variability is a function of the
mobility of an individual or group. Second, the size of the field may vary
through time. Innovations in technology, especially communication and
transportation techniques, may change the range of interaction; level of
education of the individual or group has an important bearing and this
may change through time. Third, the intensity of interaction increases
over time. This is expected, for example, in models of human migration.
It has been long understood that human interaction is a function of
scale: it must also be a function of complexity and diversity-but in
which direction? Is there more or less interaction as complexity grows?
At what point in the bombardment of accelerating stimuli does effectiveness of the interaction process start to diminish and the frustration of an
identity crisis begin? Relevant here is the concept of anomie as the
antithesis of community, possibly a function of increasing interaction
but decreasing meaning and identity (which is itself a function of
gratification derived from interaction and an incentive to further interaction).
Thirty years ago, Erich Fromm (1941) noted that
Modern man’s feeling of isolation [anomie] and powerlessness is increased still further by the character which all his human relationships
have assumed. The concrete relationship of one individual to another
has lost its direct and human character and has assumed a spirit of
manipulation and instrumentality.