Human Ecology and Interactional Ecology

Abstract

IF VARIETY is spice, human ecology should be highly seasoned, for ecological literature contains an amazing variety of opinions. Biologists,' geographers,2 and sociologists3 have each claimed the field as their own. H. G. Wells identifies this ecological branch of study either with history4 or with a general synthesis of social studies centering in man's economic struggle for subsistence.5 Sociologists have variously pictured human ecology as bionomics,6 human geography,7 regional sociology,8 the study of cultural and social phenomena associated with certain urban areas,9 the study of community as contrasted with society,'0 analyses of the subsocial aspects of communal structure and process, and studies of the spatial distribution of human phenomenal Truly, variety rather than uniformity characterizes the literature of human ecology. Obviously not all of these varied conceptions of human ecology can be correct within a single universe of discourse. Certain of them, it is true, differ only in emphasis, but others flatly contradict one another. In order to avoid the confusion that may arise from this terminological Babel, each sociologist should critically examine the varied conceptions of human ecology and select that one which offers greatest promise for future research. Contrasting Conceptions of Human Ecology. The following pages present four contrasting conceptions of the nature of human ecology and its relations to established academic disciplines: (I) as an inclusive synthesis of several traditional fields of study; (2) as identical with human geography; (3) as a branch of sociology; and (4) as a specialized marginal field that cuts across various traditional disciplines. Three of these conceptions have been