On the borders of post-war ecology: Struggles over the ecological society of America's preservation committee, 1917–1946

Abstract

Should ecologists advocate for the protection of natural ecosystems? What is the appropri-ate relationship between ecology and activism? These questions have been raised by ecol-ogists and observers of the discipline since at least the early 1900s, and present discussionsshow no sign of a forthcoming resolution. Historian Stephen Bocking (1997) recentlyobserved that ‘Among ecologists there evidently is no consensus concerning their placein environmental politics. Indeed, the debate is nearly as old as the discipline, and ithas helped shape the history and structure of the discipline’. The boundaries ofecology—the limits of the acceptable range of activities for ecologists acting as ecolo-gists—seem always to be contested and shifting. One of the most revealing sites atwhich to observe these boundary struggles is the Ecological Society of America (ESA),the main professional society for ecologists in the United States. The ESA has, throughoutits history, debated the extent to which it ought to advocate for public policy, and oncertain occasions has taken action to officially delineate which activities are acceptable,and which activities fall beyond the scope of a professional scientific society. In sodoing, the ESA has transformed its relationship with the state, shifting from agitationand opposition to advice and assistance.One of the most important instances in which the ESA renegotiated its position on advo-cacy and relationship to the state occurred just prior to the end of World War II. On 20 July1945, the ESA voted to amend its by-laws, excluding from its activities direct action toinfluence legislation. Until that time, the ESA’s Committee for the Preservation ofNatural Conditions had been actively involved in promoting legislation to protect and pre-serve natural areas, particularly in the form of national parks and monuments. The 1945decision, passed by a majority vote, caused a rift in the organization. Those who favoureda strategy of direct involvement in legislative affairs formed a separate organization calledScience as CultureVol. 15, No. 1, 23–44, March 2006