82
GERALD L. YOUNG
area” (a concept adopted in early sociological and anthropological
human ecology), location, and interactional field.
It seems apparent that the concepts of community and ecosystem
have spatial dimensions, that they are in fact interactional fields, with
space an important consideration in study of their structure and
organization. Margalef (1969), for example, constructed a model of
interdependence and then contended that it would “remain inoperative
if it is not able to encompass the fact that ecosystems are spatial
structures as well as temporal ones”. He further submits that “knowledge of spatial gradients on the different magnitudes are essential to the
understanding of the structure and workings of ecosystems”. “Spatial
attributes” are considered by Holling (1969) as one of four significant
properties common to both “ecological and social systems”, identical
determinants of complexity in both systems.
The concept of interactional field has great utility. It may be used to
establish the territory of an animal or in the case of humans, for
example, may be applied to identify and measure the extent of “neighboring”. A person’s conceptualization of belonging to a neighborhood
does not normally extend beyond his ability personally to interact in a
meaningful way with others; a neighborhood (as a subset of community)
is in essence an interactional field. This useful abstraction can be made
more concrete by mapping the daily interactions of people within a
particular locality. (Though this is being made complicated in some
communities because there is an inverse relationship between level of
education and tendency toward neighboring; as education increases,
people tend to be less tied to locality and local group, and their contacts
extend further and further from home.)
Distance is a spatial concept of relevance because interaction is often
a function of distance and involvement is a function of interaction. A
colleague, A. N. Maris van Blaaderen, a sociologist, has proposed a
simple classification of environment (as man perceives it) on the basis
of the ratio of involvement with distance: the direct environment (the
immediately knowable, experiential environment); the intermediate
environment (still may know it but not as well); and the distant
environment (know it’s there, vaguely perhaps vicariously experienced,
if a t all). Many of the problems of the relationships between man and
environment and between man and man appear to be a function of such
limitations as imposed by man’s inability to transcend his own distanceoriented provincialism.
There are implications in the above examples for most of the fields
concerned with human ecology. And, most of them have recognized the
necessity of a spatial dimension, though it is most obvious in geography
and sociology. Park’s (1926) early comment that “ecology . . . seeks to
GERALD L. YOUNG
area” (a concept adopted in early sociological and anthropological
human ecology), location, and interactional field.
It seems apparent that the concepts of community and ecosystem
have spatial dimensions, that they are in fact interactional fields, with
space an important consideration in study of their structure and
organization. Margalef (1969), for example, constructed a model of
interdependence and then contended that it would “remain inoperative
if it is not able to encompass the fact that ecosystems are spatial
structures as well as temporal ones”. He further submits that “knowledge of spatial gradients on the different magnitudes are essential to the
understanding of the structure and workings of ecosystems”. “Spatial
attributes” are considered by Holling (1969) as one of four significant
properties common to both “ecological and social systems”, identical
determinants of complexity in both systems.
The concept of interactional field has great utility. It may be used to
establish the territory of an animal or in the case of humans, for
example, may be applied to identify and measure the extent of “neighboring”. A person’s conceptualization of belonging to a neighborhood
does not normally extend beyond his ability personally to interact in a
meaningful way with others; a neighborhood (as a subset of community)
is in essence an interactional field. This useful abstraction can be made
more concrete by mapping the daily interactions of people within a
particular locality. (Though this is being made complicated in some
communities because there is an inverse relationship between level of
education and tendency toward neighboring; as education increases,
people tend to be less tied to locality and local group, and their contacts
extend further and further from home.)
Distance is a spatial concept of relevance because interaction is often
a function of distance and involvement is a function of interaction. A
colleague, A. N. Maris van Blaaderen, a sociologist, has proposed a
simple classification of environment (as man perceives it) on the basis
of the ratio of involvement with distance: the direct environment (the
immediately knowable, experiential environment); the intermediate
environment (still may know it but not as well); and the distant
environment (know it’s there, vaguely perhaps vicariously experienced,
if a t all). Many of the problems of the relationships between man and
environment and between man and man appear to be a function of such
limitations as imposed by man’s inability to transcend his own distanceoriented provincialism.
There are implications in the above examples for most of the fields
concerned with human ecology. And, most of them have recognized the
necessity of a spatial dimension, though it is most obvious in geography
and sociology. Park’s (1926) early comment that “ecology . . . seeks to