72
GERALD L. YOUBff
To what extent is the interaction concept one of applied human
ecology? For example, related to the earlier discussion of acceleration of
human contacts is the notion of density-dependent factors in the interaction process. Such interaction factors as predation, parasitism, and
competition in organisms other than man operate to decrease density,
to reduce the frequency of encounters when populations grow too large;
a balance is achieved and maintained exclusive of outside influences.
Some of the same influences threaten to affect human interaction.
Disease (parasitism) is a density-dependent factor; despite our modern
medical technology it may be a bigger threat than in the past because of
the increasing density of host (human) populations. Intra-specific
competition may ultimately be a factor affecting human densities and
interaction processes: one such is war, another is the competition for
scarce resources, e.g. food. These could become more operable as
numbers grow.
Social ills of all kinds may increasingly be a by-product of the nature
(complexity, superficiality etc.) of human interaction; such things as
the scale of human institutions and groupings, the isolation of one
from another via technology in communications, the invasion of privacy
as control factors become more necessary as a result of the increasing
frequency of negative interactions. Answers to such problems may
become the essence of the interactional method in human ecology.
F. C O M M U N I T Y
The community concept is vague, poorly defined, indeterminateand, I feel, absolutely essential in ecology and specifically in human
ecology. Some kind of understanding of the role of “community” in
human welfare is “one of the most critical [issues] of our times” (Nisbet,
1953). There are, according to Hillery (1955), at least 94 different
definitions with this number not including “all of the definitions”
possible. Of Hillery’s list, Freilich (1964) claims “not one permits the
isolation of a unit with fixed boundaries [that can be called] a ‘community’ ”. Muller (1958) has criticized the community concept as
referring to no consistent object. He claims in fact that community does
not exist, that “the social phenomena we are examining are purely
processes and not entities”. More recently, Stacey (1969) has labeled the
“community” concept as referring to no “useful abstraction”, and that,
further, “as a concept ‘community’ is not useful for serious sociological
analysis”.
Despite these objections, some conceptualization of community
comes closer to being a universal in the literature of human ecology
than perhaps any other abstraction (Gutkind, 1953). And even its
GERALD L. YOUBff
To what extent is the interaction concept one of applied human
ecology? For example, related to the earlier discussion of acceleration of
human contacts is the notion of density-dependent factors in the interaction process. Such interaction factors as predation, parasitism, and
competition in organisms other than man operate to decrease density,
to reduce the frequency of encounters when populations grow too large;
a balance is achieved and maintained exclusive of outside influences.
Some of the same influences threaten to affect human interaction.
Disease (parasitism) is a density-dependent factor; despite our modern
medical technology it may be a bigger threat than in the past because of
the increasing density of host (human) populations. Intra-specific
competition may ultimately be a factor affecting human densities and
interaction processes: one such is war, another is the competition for
scarce resources, e.g. food. These could become more operable as
numbers grow.
Social ills of all kinds may increasingly be a by-product of the nature
(complexity, superficiality etc.) of human interaction; such things as
the scale of human institutions and groupings, the isolation of one
from another via technology in communications, the invasion of privacy
as control factors become more necessary as a result of the increasing
frequency of negative interactions. Answers to such problems may
become the essence of the interactional method in human ecology.
F. C O M M U N I T Y
The community concept is vague, poorly defined, indeterminateand, I feel, absolutely essential in ecology and specifically in human
ecology. Some kind of understanding of the role of “community” in
human welfare is “one of the most critical [issues] of our times” (Nisbet,
1953). There are, according to Hillery (1955), at least 94 different
definitions with this number not including “all of the definitions”
possible. Of Hillery’s list, Freilich (1964) claims “not one permits the
isolation of a unit with fixed boundaries [that can be called] a ‘community’ ”. Muller (1958) has criticized the community concept as
referring to no consistent object. He claims in fact that community does
not exist, that “the social phenomena we are examining are purely
processes and not entities”. More recently, Stacey (1969) has labeled the
“community” concept as referring to no “useful abstraction”, and that,
further, “as a concept ‘community’ is not useful for serious sociological
analysis”.
Despite these objections, some conceptualization of community
comes closer to being a universal in the literature of human ecology
than perhaps any other abstraction (Gutkind, 1953). And even its