HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
85
It may not be wise to consider advantages of a holistic approach in
terms of method, at least not at the present level of sophistication. But
if eoology were to give up the holistic nature of its point of view, science
would lose one of the contemporary world’s most valuable commentaries
on the integration of life and environment, especially in terms of how
man’s effects are transmuted throughout environmental systems (see
Smuts, 1926).
V. CHANGES SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER
CLARIFICATION O F T H E O O N C E P T
It may be hoped that most gaps and weaknesses have become
apparent in the c o m e of this essay. But some are probably more
evident than others, so brief summaries and suggestions are offered
here.
The most obvious need is for a unified body of theory, one acceptable
to each and transcending all. It would be nice if the seeds were present
in this offering but I am not so presumptuous. A unified theory of
human ecology will have to be the product of many willing hands (and
communicating heads), the product of interdisciplinary effort. This does
underline the need for the concept to be recognized as interdisciplinary,
not as synonymous with some particular field of inquiry. It also underlines the necessity to examine the adequacy of existing methodology.
Particularly required is careful scrutiny of the assumption that methods
used to study plant and animal populations can be simply and uncritically transposed into a satisfactory methodology for the ecological study
of man. A good example is the often poorly adapted or, more frequently,
unadapted use of the ecosystem and of systems theory.
One way of reaching this goal would be to support institutions that
exist to advance the cause of interdisciplinary ecological research. The
most obvious is well-warranted support of George Happ and the Human
Ecological Society in Elsah, Illinois, which could, with increased
support, become a most effective clearing house for the exchange of ideas
about human ecology (Happ, 1971). Alternatively would be the creation
of a strong and effective human ecology section of the Ecological
Society of America. Another possibility is the funding of a major
national or international conference, similar to the 1964 Wenner-Gren
symposium or the 1972 Stockholm conference, but specifically on
human ecology. A useful by-product of such a conference could be a
unified reader or text on the theoretical base for an interdisciplinary
human ecology.
Confusion over terminology is a major problem. The term “human
ecology” is not even generally accepted, with different disciplinary
D
85
It may not be wise to consider advantages of a holistic approach in
terms of method, at least not at the present level of sophistication. But
if eoology were to give up the holistic nature of its point of view, science
would lose one of the contemporary world’s most valuable commentaries
on the integration of life and environment, especially in terms of how
man’s effects are transmuted throughout environmental systems (see
Smuts, 1926).
V. CHANGES SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER
CLARIFICATION O F T H E O O N C E P T
It may be hoped that most gaps and weaknesses have become
apparent in the c o m e of this essay. But some are probably more
evident than others, so brief summaries and suggestions are offered
here.
The most obvious need is for a unified body of theory, one acceptable
to each and transcending all. It would be nice if the seeds were present
in this offering but I am not so presumptuous. A unified theory of
human ecology will have to be the product of many willing hands (and
communicating heads), the product of interdisciplinary effort. This does
underline the need for the concept to be recognized as interdisciplinary,
not as synonymous with some particular field of inquiry. It also underlines the necessity to examine the adequacy of existing methodology.
Particularly required is careful scrutiny of the assumption that methods
used to study plant and animal populations can be simply and uncritically transposed into a satisfactory methodology for the ecological study
of man. A good example is the often poorly adapted or, more frequently,
unadapted use of the ecosystem and of systems theory.
One way of reaching this goal would be to support institutions that
exist to advance the cause of interdisciplinary ecological research. The
most obvious is well-warranted support of George Happ and the Human
Ecological Society in Elsah, Illinois, which could, with increased
support, become a most effective clearing house for the exchange of ideas
about human ecology (Happ, 1971). Alternatively would be the creation
of a strong and effective human ecology section of the Ecological
Society of America. Another possibility is the funding of a major
national or international conference, similar to the 1964 Wenner-Gren
symposium or the 1972 Stockholm conference, but specifically on
human ecology. A useful by-product of such a conference could be a
unified reader or text on the theoretical base for an interdisciplinary
human ecology.
Confusion over terminology is a major problem. The term “human
ecology” is not even generally accepted, with different disciplinary
D