HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
73
critics often support a parallel concept, some abstraction that approximates the idea of community. Stacey (1969), for example, tries
to refute the whole idea and then replaces the community with “the
concept of a local social system”. The implication is that there is need
for some kind of a useful abstraction of human interaction at the “local”
level.
The need can also be identified as going well beyond that of the
scholar for some sort of handle on which to hang his data during studies
of social behavior in a local setting. There is emerging evidence that a
“sense of community” is important to mankind, perhaps even necessary
for a sense of identity, for a feeling of well-being and security. It ‘may
well be that many of the social ills of contemporary society can be
traced in part to the apparent destruction of such local community
groupings through mobility, mass society, anonymity, suburban housing,
and a host of other considerations. Recognition of such needs would
place me in Stacey’s category of those “who use [community] in some
feeling sense” while still recognizing a “geographical” or spatial context
for the concept.
In the sense of community outlined above, there is no real need to
identify it as a concrete entity; closer is the Arensberg and Kimball
(1 965) definition of it as an abstraction, “as a master system encompassing social forms and cultural behavior in interdependent subsidiary
systems (institutions)”. Here the concept does not have to take real
form to be assigned very real impact on people’s lives: it is acceptable to
start with “the assumption that community [may be] viewed as a
process”, concentrating on “social form as interactional patterns,
behavior . . . and the relations between them”. Nisbet (1966) claims that
contemporary scholars (at least in sociology) are “rediscovering community”, that community is an ambient concept. He describes it as a
“fusion of feeling and thought, of tradition and commitment, of
membership and volition”. He contends that it “may be found in, or be
given symbolic expression by, locality, religion, nation, race, occupation,
or crusade”.
Some writers do, of course, provide community with more reality,
especially with a spatial dimension. Kaufman (1959), for example,
accepts three elements of consensus as existent in the definition of
community: ( 1 ) community as a place, a “social unit of which space is an
integral part”; (2) community as an indicator of “way of life” including
institutions and the way people make a living; and (3) community as
“collective action”. Parsons (1960) defines it spatially m “that aspect of
the structure of social systems which is referrable to the territorial
location of persons and their activities”. Hawley (1950) also used
structure, defining community as “the structure of relationships
73
critics often support a parallel concept, some abstraction that approximates the idea of community. Stacey (1969), for example, tries
to refute the whole idea and then replaces the community with “the
concept of a local social system”. The implication is that there is need
for some kind of a useful abstraction of human interaction at the “local”
level.
The need can also be identified as going well beyond that of the
scholar for some sort of handle on which to hang his data during studies
of social behavior in a local setting. There is emerging evidence that a
“sense of community” is important to mankind, perhaps even necessary
for a sense of identity, for a feeling of well-being and security. It ‘may
well be that many of the social ills of contemporary society can be
traced in part to the apparent destruction of such local community
groupings through mobility, mass society, anonymity, suburban housing,
and a host of other considerations. Recognition of such needs would
place me in Stacey’s category of those “who use [community] in some
feeling sense” while still recognizing a “geographical” or spatial context
for the concept.
In the sense of community outlined above, there is no real need to
identify it as a concrete entity; closer is the Arensberg and Kimball
(1 965) definition of it as an abstraction, “as a master system encompassing social forms and cultural behavior in interdependent subsidiary
systems (institutions)”. Here the concept does not have to take real
form to be assigned very real impact on people’s lives: it is acceptable to
start with “the assumption that community [may be] viewed as a
process”, concentrating on “social form as interactional patterns,
behavior . . . and the relations between them”. Nisbet (1966) claims that
contemporary scholars (at least in sociology) are “rediscovering community”, that community is an ambient concept. He describes it as a
“fusion of feeling and thought, of tradition and commitment, of
membership and volition”. He contends that it “may be found in, or be
given symbolic expression by, locality, religion, nation, race, occupation,
or crusade”.
Some writers do, of course, provide community with more reality,
especially with a spatial dimension. Kaufman (1959), for example,
accepts three elements of consensus as existent in the definition of
community: ( 1 ) community as a place, a “social unit of which space is an
integral part”; (2) community as an indicator of “way of life” including
institutions and the way people make a living; and (3) community as
“collective action”. Parsons (1960) defines it spatially m “that aspect of
the structure of social systems which is referrable to the territorial
location of persons and their activities”. Hawley (1950) also used
structure, defining community as “the structure of relationships