80
GERALD L. YOUNG
accomplish this, the work must be undertaken within an accompanying
systems orientation.
Each of the social science fields mentioned admits to an ecosystem
orientation, but none has really utilized the approach to come even close
to incorporating fully the complexities of variables requisite to such an
analysis-each concentrates on some segment of the total system (see
Turney-High, 1968, Ch. 8). A totally integrated, interdisciplinary,
holistic understanding of a complete and complex ecosystem (on whatever scale) has yet to be achieved. I cannot predict when such an
achievement may be realized; Maelzer (1965) suggests that it cannot be
accomplished even “for descriptions of nature” and that we “must be
content with a lower order of approximation”. As Gates (1968) implied,
we are working “toward understanding ecosystems” but we are not yet
there. That is most definitely true of human ecosystems, the most
complex of all.
The fact that we have a long way to go is not intended to be discouraging. It is significant that ecologists are making headway in their
attempts at understanding natural systems; it is significant that human
ecologists are beginning to think about man’s relationship to his
environment in a systems framework (cf. Forrester, 1971, who has
presented an initial approximation of a world system). Perhaps it is
enough for now to accept Rapoport’s (1968) contention that “systems
theory is not, strictly speaking, a scientific theory but, rather, an
outlook”. Acceptance of the guiding ecological principles implicit
in “looking” at man in this manner may have to suffice for the
present.
H. I N S T I T U T I O N S
Every human society creates adaptive institutions in one form or
another: structures helping to provide the means for subsistence,
reproduction, education or belief systems, and bodily protection. One
of the main thrusts of the ecological study of man is to identify and
understand the nature of the institutions created to cope with basic and
not so basic human needs.
A colleague in anthropology at Washington State University, Robert
Littlewood, has shown me that the term institution (as used here) has
two meanings: first, an organized, recurrent, regular behavior set,
behavior appropriate to individuals; second, an aggregation of people
carrying out certain functions, behavior appropriate to groups. In the
world’s less technological societies, these are often internalized in the
individual, thus the first definition above. In the developed or technical
nations or societies, institutions are present in both senses of the word,
GERALD L. YOUNG
accomplish this, the work must be undertaken within an accompanying
systems orientation.
Each of the social science fields mentioned admits to an ecosystem
orientation, but none has really utilized the approach to come even close
to incorporating fully the complexities of variables requisite to such an
analysis-each concentrates on some segment of the total system (see
Turney-High, 1968, Ch. 8). A totally integrated, interdisciplinary,
holistic understanding of a complete and complex ecosystem (on whatever scale) has yet to be achieved. I cannot predict when such an
achievement may be realized; Maelzer (1965) suggests that it cannot be
accomplished even “for descriptions of nature” and that we “must be
content with a lower order of approximation”. As Gates (1968) implied,
we are working “toward understanding ecosystems” but we are not yet
there. That is most definitely true of human ecosystems, the most
complex of all.
The fact that we have a long way to go is not intended to be discouraging. It is significant that ecologists are making headway in their
attempts at understanding natural systems; it is significant that human
ecologists are beginning to think about man’s relationship to his
environment in a systems framework (cf. Forrester, 1971, who has
presented an initial approximation of a world system). Perhaps it is
enough for now to accept Rapoport’s (1968) contention that “systems
theory is not, strictly speaking, a scientific theory but, rather, an
outlook”. Acceptance of the guiding ecological principles implicit
in “looking” at man in this manner may have to suffice for the
present.
H. I N S T I T U T I O N S
Every human society creates adaptive institutions in one form or
another: structures helping to provide the means for subsistence,
reproduction, education or belief systems, and bodily protection. One
of the main thrusts of the ecological study of man is to identify and
understand the nature of the institutions created to cope with basic and
not so basic human needs.
A colleague in anthropology at Washington State University, Robert
Littlewood, has shown me that the term institution (as used here) has
two meanings: first, an organized, recurrent, regular behavior set,
behavior appropriate to individuals; second, an aggregation of people
carrying out certain functions, behavior appropriate to groups. In the
world’s less technological societies, these are often internalized in the
individual, thus the first definition above. In the developed or technical
nations or societies, institutions are present in both senses of the word,