HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
81
but the second is greatly elaborated. Group specialization exists in a
highly complex set of self-perpetuating institutional structures. In the
first sense of the institution concept, there is significant overlap between
man, the environment, and the mediator or institution; the physical
environment is much more real to individuals so involved with it. With
highly grouped or aggregated institutionalized societies, the mediation
imposes a much larger gap (and with much less overlap) between the
individual and a directly manipulatable physical environment.
Park (1936a), McKenzie (1936) and Hughes (1936) all gave credence
the same year to the importance of the institution as “a fundamental
unit of symbiotic activity” (McKenzie), and as a “communal structure
. . . reinforced by custom and assuming an institutional character”
(Park), and as “an order of social phenomena in which the feature of
establishment and that of collective behavior meet in a particular way”
(Hughes). Arensberg and Kimball (1965) underline the present-day
importance of institutions by defining their notion of community as a
sort of “master system encompassing social forms and cultural behavior
in interdependent subsidiary systems (institutions)”. The human community is thereby characterized essentially as a “system of institutions”.
Parsons (1951) provides us with a very strong image of the importance
of the institution: “A concrete action system is an integrated structure
of action elements in relation to a situation. This means essentially
integration of motivational and cultural or symbolic elements, brought
together in a certain kind of order system.” This permeating ordered
system is the institution. Transfer of the concept of functional interaction by externalizing it from the individual to his shared institutions
might, as Stacey (1969) suggests, make it theoretically “possible to list
systematically the institutions which might be present and all the
interconnections”. Simplification of variables would be a virtue and man
does increasingly interact through his institutions.
Ecologically, therefore, institutions may be considered social aggregates, as cultural extensions (realities), often as political entities, as a
dominating influence in the definition of a functional level-of-integration
in human systems.
I. S P A T I A L A N A L Y S I S
The necessity to include consideration of spatial concepts of some
form or another is well established in ecology. A colleague, George
Spomer (a biological ecologist), in fact suggests that “all ecologic
inquiry basically is directed toward explaining distributional patterns
of organisms”. Distribution is a spatial concept. Others include “natural
81
but the second is greatly elaborated. Group specialization exists in a
highly complex set of self-perpetuating institutional structures. In the
first sense of the institution concept, there is significant overlap between
man, the environment, and the mediator or institution; the physical
environment is much more real to individuals so involved with it. With
highly grouped or aggregated institutionalized societies, the mediation
imposes a much larger gap (and with much less overlap) between the
individual and a directly manipulatable physical environment.
Park (1936a), McKenzie (1936) and Hughes (1936) all gave credence
the same year to the importance of the institution as “a fundamental
unit of symbiotic activity” (McKenzie), and as a “communal structure
. . . reinforced by custom and assuming an institutional character”
(Park), and as “an order of social phenomena in which the feature of
establishment and that of collective behavior meet in a particular way”
(Hughes). Arensberg and Kimball (1965) underline the present-day
importance of institutions by defining their notion of community as a
sort of “master system encompassing social forms and cultural behavior
in interdependent subsidiary systems (institutions)”. The human community is thereby characterized essentially as a “system of institutions”.
Parsons (1951) provides us with a very strong image of the importance
of the institution: “A concrete action system is an integrated structure
of action elements in relation to a situation. This means essentially
integration of motivational and cultural or symbolic elements, brought
together in a certain kind of order system.” This permeating ordered
system is the institution. Transfer of the concept of functional interaction by externalizing it from the individual to his shared institutions
might, as Stacey (1969) suggests, make it theoretically “possible to list
systematically the institutions which might be present and all the
interconnections”. Simplification of variables would be a virtue and man
does increasingly interact through his institutions.
Ecologically, therefore, institutions may be considered social aggregates, as cultural extensions (realities), often as political entities, as a
dominating influence in the definition of a functional level-of-integration
in human systems.
I. S P A T I A L A N A L Y S I S
The necessity to include consideration of spatial concepts of some
form or another is well established in ecology. A colleague, George
Spomer (a biological ecologist), in fact suggests that “all ecologic
inquiry basically is directed toward explaining distributional patterns
of organisms”. Distribution is a spatial concept. Others include “natural