Human Ecology Today

Abstract

This paper argues on following problems. 1. Is human ecology able to be dealt with as if it were an study concerning only with pollusion problems (Kogai) ? No, it is not. An orthodox human ecology is a study established by Park and Burgess. Owing to the following human ecologists, this study has completed itself to be a “general theory of environments”. The general study involves special study of environments such as “Kogai” problems, but “Kogai” study cannot cover all the fields of human ecology as a general study. 2. “Kogai” study is of cours a special but important branch of human ecology. But, to our regret, considerable parts of “Kogai” study are not so satisfactory at the sociological consideration. How insatisfactory their explanations are is easily pointed out when we examine their conclusions on the adaptation of “modified in-put out-put analysis”. 3. Recent technologists and geographers make habitual use of “analog method”, but even half century ago, Burgess already adopted this methodology ; that is, he analyzed metropolitan regional structure on the analogy with ecological succession process of bio-community. Analog method is a very useful methodology, but it has a danger of leading “noises”. So, analogical explanations on urban societies are often misleading. It is effective to avoid the adoption of analog method as far as possible. For Burgess, there were not any other methodology left without adopting analog method, because the population growth of metropolis were unknown a phenomenon at the days. Today, we have much scientific date with this concern left by proceeding students. We can make a -research for the urban sociology without using analogs or without so called “ecological” method. And it is also possible that human ecology today ceases to be a mere analog method of urban sociology, and intends to become itself a concrete science. 4. Earlier human ecologists, owing to their adoption of analog method, introduced theoretical misunderstandings into their work seen in “Introduction to the Science of Sociology”. For example, they confused human competition or highly economical human relationships with biological “struggle for existence”. So, to modify their theoretical structure of sociology is among the purposes of this paper. 5. The relation between a man and his environment is essentially an interation process. But, viewed from the human being, this process means his activity process ; an activity for the creation of his own better environment. To clear out the interaction between a man and his environment is to clear out a process of human behaviour. Human ecology, a general study of environment, is in other words a general study of human behaviour. So, it is natural that the recently built “science of behaviour” has particular similarity with human ecology. Human ecologists must work in concert with students of behavioural science. 5. Needless to say, human ecology is in intimate relation with students of all the fields of sociology. But the general study of environments necessarily has much concern with many sciences developed outside the scope of sociology, such as, geograph, psycology, pedagogy, and so on. If it were so, a question should arise ; “is it possible to classify human ecology as a sociological field of sciences ?” From certain points of view the answer is in the affirmative, and from other standpoints it is not. Not only the sociological elements but also the sociological part of human ecology itself constitute human ecology as a whole, so that it is possible from the point of view of sociology to classify human ecology as a proper field of sociology. Human ecology as a proper sociology is, according to R. Takeda, a very important study for the adequate understanding of another fields of sociology.