Grossman Man Environment Relationships in Anthro and Geography

MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS IN ANTHROPOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY* LARRY GROSSMAN ABSTRACT. Historically, the viewpoints of geographers and anthropologists concerning man-environment relationships exhibit many similarities as well as certain differences, In response to environmental determinism, practitioners in the two disciplines developed inductive, relativistic programs in which culture was viewed as the dominant element in the culture-environment relationshi . Developments in cultural ecology have been mainly divergent; geographers have stressed the theme adaptation of nature, whereas anthropologists have investigated man’s adaptation to nature. Concomitant with the rise in popularity of General Systems Theory and the ecosystem approach, ecological thinking in the two disciplines again began to converge, with emphasis on ecological and systemic frameworks, The tradition of convergent developments has continued in hazards research, as anthropologists and geographers both emphasize the continuous nature of processes. A synthesis of the disparate research of geographers and anthropologists in man- environment relationships cannot but be productive. CULTURAL geographers and anthropoto- gists are like brothers separated in infancy and taught to speak different languages.” Ge- ography and anthropology have many common problems and interests, but effective communi cation between the practitioners of the two disciplines has been hindered by their insularity and traditional disciplinary concerns. A pre- requisite for more effective communication and cooperation between the two fields is the analysis and comparison of their respective approaches to particular spheres of mutual concern. One such sphere of overlapping interest is the field of man-environment relationships. This paper will examine the similarities and differences in the anthropological and geographical approaches to man-environment relationships since 1900. The main emphasis is on developments since the downfall of deductive and Mr. Grossman is a Research Scholar in the Depart ment of Human Geography at The Australian Na- tional University in Canberra, A. C. T. * I wish to thank William C. Clarke, Diana How: lett, Terry McGee, and R. Gerard Ward for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. 1M. W. Mikesell, “The Borderlands of Geography as a Social Science,” in M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif, eds., Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences (Chicago: Aldine, 1969), p. 232. a by the ‘Association of ‘American Geographers. LS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS Vol. 67 environmental deterministic approaches to sociocultural phenomena.? Similarities and differences between the two disciplines are examined with respect to the following perspectives 1) inductive, relativistic reactions to deductive and environmental deterministic approaches; 2) cultural ecology; 3) ecological and systemic perspectives; 4) the reaction to ecological perspectives; and 5) environmental perception, hazards, and responses, Recent assessments of the environmental perspectives in anthropology, geography, soci- ology, and psychology stress the differences in these disciplines while ignoring their similarities. A notable exception is Mikesell’s exami- 2 The environmental determinism/possibilism de- will not be examined here because it has already received adequate treatment elsewhere. See H. Sprout and M. Sprout, The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965); and G. R. Lewthwaite, “Environmentalism and De- terminism: A Scarch for Clarification,” Annals, As- sociation of American Geographers, Vol. 56 (1966). pp. 1-23. 3 For example, see J. G. Brubn, “Human Ecology ‘A Unifying Science?” Human Ecology, Vol. 2 (1974), pp. 105-25; and G. L. Young, “Human Ecology as an No. 1, Mare 1977 1261977 nation of anthropological research of interest to geographers." He suggested that many developments in anthropology and geography show convergence and overlap in substantive research whereas philosophical and methodological writings have developed along independent but parallel lines, This paper will demonstrate that this is especially true in the field of man-environment relationships. Many important substantive and theoretical works have been published since Mikesell’s analysis, and these will also be examined. Unfortunately, many ecologically oriented anthropologists and geographers are not aware of each other's work. I hope that by demonstrating the similarities as well as the differences between the two disciplines’ approaches to man-environment relationships, greater interest in interdisciplinary cooperation will be stimu- lated, THE REACTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM The scientific milieu in the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated in part by Darwinian ideas, deductive approaches, and an acceptance of the concept of Newtonian cause and effect relationships, Fitting well into this intellectual environment, the theme of environmental determinism, developed mostly by geographers, was the pre- vailing view in American geography at the turn of the twentieth century. In the United States, geography developed mainly from physical science departments, and many early geographers were interested in applying their knowledge of the environment to human societies.* The concern was with documenting the control or influence of the environment upon human society. Davis, for example, stated that geography was primarily devoted to analyzing relationships between elements of inorganic control and Interdisciplinary Concept: A Critical Inquiry,” Ad- vances in Ecological Research, Vol. 8 (1974), pp. I~ 105. 4M, W. Mikesell, “Geographic Pespectives in An- thropology,” Annals, Association of American Geogra- phers, Vol. $7 (1967). pp. 617-34. M. W. Mikesell, “Geography as the Study of En- vironment: An Assessment of Some Old and New Commitments,” in I. R. Manners and M. W. Mikesell, eds., Perspectives on Environment, Commission on College Geography, Publication No. 13 (Washineton, D.C: Association of American Geographers, 1974), p.2. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 127 organic response. Similar views were held by Semple, who stated that “Man is a product of the earth’s surface,” and by Huntington who elaborated on the theme of the influence of weather and climate on human history and society.? The response of the anthropologists to the deterministic viewpoint came in the early 1900s, twenty years earlier than the response from American geographers, who, moreover, reacted only to their own environmental determinists. The more broadly based anthropologists ob- jected not only to geographic determinism but also to racial determinism and to the deductive, evolutionary approaches to sociocultural phenomena that had developed within anthropology.® The excesses of the environmental determinists and evolutionists were rejected by the environmental possibilists of the historical particularist school who were armed w' growing body of ethnographic data. In particular, the possibilists tended to emphasize the importance of history and diffusion in their explanations. This perspective, which viewed environmental features not as causative but simply as setting limits to and accounting for the absence of cultural traits, dominated the environmental orientation in anthropology until the 1950s, Among the most prominent of the possibilists who attempted to minimize the influence of the environment on culture were Boas, Kroeber, and Forde. Boas, in his famous attack on the comparative method of the evolutionists, rejected the possibility that the environment was a primary molder of culture.” This rejection of environmental determinism resulted from Boas’ (and many of his students’) cautious, inductive approach. To eschew determinism also fit well with the then current relativistic approach in American anthropology. The possibilist view- 8 W. M. Davis, “An Inductive Study of the Content of Geography,” Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, Vol. 38 (1906), pp. 67-84. TE. C. Semple, Influences of Geographic Environ- ment (New York: Henry Holt, 1911), p. 1; and E. Huntington, Civilization and Climate (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1915). For an example of evolutionist thinking in anthropology, see E. B. Tylor, Anthropology: An Introduc- tion (0 the Study of Man and Civilization (London: Macmillan, 1881). °F. Boas, “The tations of the Comparative ‘Method of Anthropology,” Science, New Series, Vol. 4 (1896), pp. 901-08.128 point found one of its strongest adherents in Kroeber who claimed that “the immediate causes of cultural phenomena are other cultural phenomena.” In his analysis of natural and cultural areas in North America, he noted that the interaction of culture and the environment was so complex as to make generalizations unprofitable. Although interest in the environment has been greater in American cultural anthropology than in British social anthropology, England contributed another prominent possibilist, Forde, He examined several societies in different parts of the world, but found no coi relations between the environment, econom: and society, noting that there was always a crucial intervening variable between the environment and human behavior, the unique cultural pattern of a society." Thus, interest in establishing direct relationships between aspects of sociocultural systems and their environments was for the most part negligible.!® The inability or unwillingness to pursue this relationship resulted in part from the use of a prominent methodological tool of the time, the culture area concept. Continents were divided into culture areas based on shared linguistic characteristics and other often unre- lated cultural traits. This emphasis on shared traits was not meant to demonstrate functional relationships but only to demonstrate that diffusion had occurred within the culture area. As Vayda and Rappaport note: “A bundle of what often were quite disparate traits (for instance, among other things, boxes, hats, solstitial calen- dars, and matrilineal clans in the North Pacific culture area) cannot be regarded as necessarily constituting a unit in interaction with anything at all or with the environment specifically.”!* It was not until the 1920s that the influence of the environmental determinists in American 1A. L, Kroeber, Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America, University of California Publi cations in American Archacology and Ethnology, Vol 38 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939), pel MC. D, Forde, Habitat, Economy, and Society (London: Methuen, 1934). suggested that the distribution of cultural traits may be related to ecological factors. See C. Wissler, The Relation of Nature to Man in Aboriginal America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1926) 15A. P. Vayda and R. A. Rappaport, “Ecology Cultural and Noncultural,” in J. A. Clifton, ed., In: troduction to Cultural Anthropology (Boston: Hough- ton Mifflin, 1968), pp. 481-82. Larry GRrossMAN March geography declined and several alternative viewpoints were put forward.' One alternative was offered by Barrows who attempted to define the field of geography as “human ecology,” the study of the mutual relationships between man and his environment. His stress on mutual relationships was intended to deny the a priori causal significance of environmental variables. However, Barrows’ conception of geography was too narrow to encompass the varied interests of the geographers of his time and his views were not followed by his contemporaries.!* The most influential reaction to environmental determinism was delivered by Sauer, who developed the landscape perspective in American geography.'? He believed that the proper focus of any science is not any particu- Jar causal relationship (as the environmental determinists believed) but certain phenomena. Geography is the study of areas or areal differentiation (chorology). The specific unit of study is the landscape, an “area made up of a distinct association of forms, both physical and cultural,” and this is to be comprehended as a whole."® The role of the geographer is to “grasp in all of its meaning and color the varied ter- restrial scene,” inductively group the abstracted features of the landscape into a pattern, and apply the genetic and comparative procedures of geomorphology in the study of landscape morphology.” Faced with the problem of integrating the human and physical aspects of the discipline, Sauer introduced the concepts of the “natural” M4 There were attacks elsewhere on environmental determinism before the reaction in American geogra phy. The leader of the French school of geography, Vidal de la Blache, stressed the mutual interrelation- ships between man and the environment in the small, homogeneous French regions, or pays, each of wl had a distinctive way of living or genre de vie 18H. H, Barrows, “Geography as Human Econ omy,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 13 (1923), pp. 1-14, 16. A. Ackerman, “Where is a Research Frontier, Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 53 (1963), pp. 429-40. 1C. O. Sauer, The Morphology of Landscape, University of California Publications in Geography, Vol. 2 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1925), pp. 19-53; reprinted in J. Leighly, ed., Land and Life: A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963), pp. 315-50. 18 Sauer, op. cit, footnote 17, p. 321 1 Sauer, op. cit., footnote 17, p. 320.1977 (or prehuman) and “cultural” landscapes. The role of the geographer is to investigate the transition from the natural landscape to the cultural landscape and the successive transformations of the latter to the present time, By examining landscapes in a developmental sequence, the geographer could reveal the modifications produced in the area by a succession of human cultures, Sauer’s original statement was soon modi- fied. The goal of analyzing the transition from the natural to the cultural landscape was aban- doned because it was impractical, and the defi- nition of the landscape was changed from an area to the appearance of an area or region. Nevertheless, an historically oriented geography focusing on the transformation of the landscape developed under the leadership of Sauer at Berkeley, The landscape approach mostly stressed form and content, the visible, concrete, mappable patterns revealing the human occupance of an area, The social and cultural processes produc- ing the features of the landscape were, however, usually ignored2” The “intense preoccupation with the visible material landscape, with form rather than process, led to an unfortunate neglect of the less obvious, invisible forces which in some cases form cornerstones in the explanation of spatial patterns of human behavior.”*! The aspects of the landscape that were usually studied related to the occupation and utilization of land.*? Studies of such phenomena as house types, settlement patterns, types of agricultural systems, human induced vegetation change, and the origin and diffusion of such cultural practices as the domestication of plants and animals were conducted. The reaction of anthropologists and geographers to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century intellectual environments was similar in several respects. Both represented shifts from deductive to inductive approaches and ex- 2 Sauer later did stress the importance of process. See C. O. Sauer, “Foreword to Historical Geography,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 31 (1941), pp. 1-24. 21 p, W. English and R. C. Mayfield, “The Cultural Landscape,” in P. W. English and R. C. Mayfield, eds. Man, Space, and Environment: Concepts in Contem- porary Human Geography (New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1972), p. 6. 22M. W. Mikesell, “Landscape,” in D. L. Sills, ed.. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol 8 (New York: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 575-80. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 129 hibited a wariness towards broad, encompassing generalizations. In addition, each approach was essentially relativistic, In anthropology, many subscribed to the view, based partly on a linguistic analogy, that cultures were unique combinations of traits.*® In geography, those adopting the landscape approach stressed areal differentiation; the latter, by its very nature, stresses differences.#* This relativistic concept is related to the more fundamental acceptance at that time of the Newtonian notion of abso- lute space which implied that the space of the earth was an independent reality which could be divided up into separate, unique regions. Another similarity was substantive and resulted from Sauer’s collaboration with anthropologists at Berkeley. Both employed the concept of culture area and were concerned with the diffusion and distribution in time and space of cultural traits. While both studied material traits, anthropologists gave more attention to such nonmaterial traits as myths and folktales. The two disciplines also shared a crucial weakness, that of scale, The culture area concept failed to generate useful generalizations about man-environment interactions in part because of the large size of the units investigated. Similarly, Brookfield has argued that the geographical commitment to the regional scale has prevented the investigation of process in man- environment systems.?* The study of process requires the analysis of values, beliefs, and social organization, and these can only be effectively analyzed at the micro-scale, a point he has reiterated elsewhere.?° 'D. F. Aberle, “The Influence of Linguistics on Early Culture and Personality Theory,” in G. E. Dole and R. Camiero, eds., Essays in the Science of Culture (New York: Thomas ¥. Crowell, 1960), pp. 1-29. 24 For example, see Sauer, op. cit, footnote 17; and Sauer, op. cit, footnote 20, 25H. C. Brookfield, “Questions on the Human Frontiers of Geography," Economic Geography, Vol 40 (1964), pp. 283-303. 20H. C, Brookfield, “Local Study and Comparative Method: An Example from Central New Guinea,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. $2 (1962), pp. 242-S4; H. C. Brookfield, “New Direc- tions in the Study of Agricultural Systems in Tropical Areas,” in E. T. Drake, ed., Evolution and Environ- ‘ment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp. 413-39; and H. C. Brookfield, “Explaining or Under- Standing? The Study of Adaption and Change,” in H. C. Brookfield, ed., The Pacific in Transition (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973), pp. 3-22130 Nevertheless, there were several differences in the perspectives of the two disciplines. These relate to contrasting notions about time, the role of sociocultural factors in explanations, and the environment. Many geographers accepted the Kantian division which viewed time as the sole province of history and space as the domain of geography Sauer, for example, stated: “The facts of geography are place facts... . the facts of history are time facts.”*" In Sauer’s early formulation, time was incorporated only as a series of spatial cross-sections through history. In contrast, anthropologists were not burdened by such a division. Since the period of the cultural evolutionists in the nineteenth century, time was an integral part of many anthropological explanations. Certainly the concept of time was basic to the historical particularists who were concerned with the diffusion and borrowing of traits through time. Another issue differentiating the two disci plines was the role of society and culture in the analysis of man-environment relations, Al- though the limiting potential of environmental variables was sometimes stressed, anthropologists gave prime consideration to social and cultural variables.?* This resulted in part from the conviction that culture was a “superorganic” phenomenon, to be understood only in terms of other cultural factors.®° In contrast, geographers neglected the analysis of culture and society and instead preferred to concentrate on the visible artifacts of societies. Brookfield noted the existence of a human frontier in the landscape school; “material culture and livelihood are fitting objects for inquiry, but the working of society and the reasons for human behavior are not.”*° Wagner and Mikesell, for example, disclaimed the neces for geographers to study the “inner workings of culture." Their view was certainly not unique, 27 Sauer, op. cit,, footnote 17, p. 32 28For example, see Kroeber’s analysis of the environmental limits to maize growing; Kroeber, op. cit. footnote 10, pp. 205-12. 29 The superorganic character of culture was s* essed by A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology: Race, Language Culture, Psychology, Prehistory (New York: Hart court, Brace and World, 1923), pp. 252-56. 80 Brookfield, op. cit., footnote 25, p. 284. a1p. L. Wagner and M. W. Mikesell, ‘General Introduction: The Themes of Cultural Geography,” in P. L. Wagner and M. W. Mikesell, eds., Readings in Cultural Geography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 5. Larry GROSSMAN March having a precedent in Sauer’s original formulation in which he stated that “we are not concerned in geography with the energy, customs, or beliefs of man but with man’s record upon the landscape.” Brookfield severely criticized the landscape school for this position and, as noted above, suggested that geographers could only uncover processes in man-environment studies if they analyzed values, beliefs, and social organization.** Another point of contrast between the two disciplines was the place of the environment in explanations. In anthropology, the environment became an inert configuration, at most setting limits to cultural development. Cultural similarities and differences between contiguous social groups in a culture area were explained in terms of history and diffusion. As social groups within culture areas were believed to exist in a relatively uniform environment, intercultural variations could not be explained in reference to the environment. Although the geographers who followed the landscape approach were not concerned with the causative influence of the environment upon culture and society, they did not consider the environment as an inert configuration. Giving more consideration to changes in environmental variables, geographers documented the impact of man on the environment.*® According to the landscape perspective, man was a distinct agent of environmental modification. Indeed, in Sauer’s original statement, the direction of causality from culture to nature was viewed as unilinear.** This view led to the theme of man’s adaptation of nature, a theme which did not develop in anthropology. These early differences between anthropologists and geographers in the treatment of so ety and culture and the environment have per- sisted to the present time. It has often been suggested that anthropologists have been pro- ficient in the analysis of sociocultural systems but somewhat naive in their understanding of 52 Sauer, op. cit., footnote 17, p. 342. 48 Brookfield, op. cit., footnote 25. 34 R. L. Bee, Patterns and Processes (New York Free Press, 1974), p. 79. ‘85 For examples of this theme, see W. L. Thomas, Jr., €d., Man's Role in Changing the Face of the Earth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956) ‘6 Sauer, op. cit., footnote 17, p. 343.1977 the physical environment; geographers are char- acterized as having the opposite attributes.” Although these differences between the viewpoints of the anthropologists and geographers did exist, they should not be overstressed. Both adhered to a more fundamental philosophical position. Whether the analysis was concerned with man’s impact on the environment or with explaining cultural traits by cultural processes and relegating the role of the environment to a limiting influence, culture, and not the environment, was always viewed as the independent, creative entity. CULTURAL ECOLOGY Several obstacles to further developments in man-environment studies arose in the two disciplines. In both, studies concerning the mutual relationships between man and environment were associated with environmental determinism. In geography, the human and physical approaches began to diverge in the 1930s and were almost totally separate in the 1940s and 1950s.* In addition, the spatial approaches became predominant in geography.*” In anthropology there were different obstacles. One was the acceptance in both American and British anthropology of the viewpoint that cultural and social factors were best explained by other cultural and social factors. Another was the existence of a dichotomy between mentalistic and materialistic approaches, the former being predominant in the historical particularist approach."” In anthropology it was not until the 1950s that an alternative was offered to the relativistic perspective of the environmental possibilists. This was cultural ecology. There were several sources for the rise of this approach. First, a materialistic strategy became more acceptable 81], M. Blaut, “The Ecology of Tropical Farming Systems," Revista Geogrdfica, Vol. 28 (1961), pp. 47-67; Mikesell, op. cit, footnote 4; and J. J. Parsons, “Ecological Problems and Approaches in Latin Ameri- can Geography,” in B. Lentnek, R. L. Carmin, and T. L. Martinson, eds., Geographic Research on Latin America: Benchmark 1970, Proceedings of the Con: ference of Latin Americanist Geographers, Vol. 1 (Muncie: Ball State University, 1971), pp. 13-32. 38 Mikesell, op. cit., footnote 5, p. 4. 30E, J. Taaffe, “The Spatial View in Context,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 64 (1974), pp. 1-16. 40M. Harris, The Rise of Anthropological Theory A History of Theories of Culture (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968). Man-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 131 sometime after the publication of Steward’s research on the adaptations of primitive bands and White’s work on energy and the evolution of culture.** Second, there was also a dissatis- faction with current approaches; there was a feeling “that studies of social structure and function alone {were] becoming sterile, that social facts may not always be best explained by other social facts.” Steward established the approach in anthropology known as cultural ecology.!* He explic- itly rejected the possibilists’ relativism and downplayed the significance of unique historical patterns and diffusion in his explanations. De- siring to demonstrate a more clear-cut relationship between the environment and culture, Ste- ward examined the process of adaptation. His basic hypothesis was that, given certain envi ronmental conditions, the utilization of certain forms of exploitative technology and organization causes or gives rise to certain institutional patterns in a group’s social organization known as the “culture core.” This, for Steward, was the actual process of adaptation. His method of multilinear evolution attempted to identify through cross-cultural comparison, the similar causal relationships in adaptive processes that gave rise to similar culture cores in a limited number of parallel cases in historically unre- lated cultures Steward made a number of substantial contributions. He emphasized that the sociocultural organization of a group should be viewed as an adaptive mechanism, an idea which is widely accepted in man-environment studies in anthropology today. In addition, his analysis of the relationship between the environment and culture was more sharply focused than previous approaches. Steward concentrated on only a limited number of specific environmental and sociocultural variables and thus did not analyze 41 J, H, Steward, "The Economic and Social Basis of Primitive Bands,” in R. Lowie, ed., Essays in Anthro- pology Presented to A. L. Kroeber (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1936), pp. 331-45; and L, White, “Energy and the Evolution of Culture,” Ameri- can Anthropologist, Vol. 45 (1943), pp. 335-56. 42R, McC. Netting, “Ecosystems in Process: A ‘Comparative Study of Change in Two West African Societies," in D. Damas, ed, Ecological Essays, Bul- letin No. 230 (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1969), p. 102. 43 For a collection of his works, sce J. H. Steward, Theory of Culture Change (Urbana: University of Ilinois Press, 1955).132 the relationship between the environment and a sociocultural system as if they were separate, opposing wholes. Such a “disaggregation of global variables” was a necessary step forward.“ There are, however, several weaknesses in his form of analysis. First although he was concerned about causality, his cross-cultural com- parisons at most demonstrated correlations; in any case, the validity of some of his data has been challenged.'® Second, although he stated that the culture core could consist of social, political, and religious institutions, in reality hhe concentrated mostly on technological and a limited number of social variables. Yet other institutions, such as religion, may have a pro- found effect on the variables within an ecosystem.® Third, because he was only interested in the effect that the adaptation to the environment had on social organization, he neglected to analyze how specific cultural practices helped either to maintain or degrade the environment. Thus, Steward’s analysis was not truly systemic, Other critics of Steward have focused on the utility of the concept of the culture core and the causal priority of certain types of variables.’ While Steward developed this perspective in anthropology, the geographers concerned with man-environment relationships were still oriented toward the landscape approach, The theme of man’s transformation of the landscape culminated in the symposium Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth.® Within this tradition, geographers attempted to formulate their own type of cultural ecology: “While culture history. . . deals with a sequence of 46C, Geertz, Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia (Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1963), p. 8. 4°R. B. Lee, “Work Effort, Group Structure and Land-Use in Contemporary “Hunter-Gatherers,” in R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby, eds., Man, Settle- ‘ment, and Urbanism (Hertfordshire: “Garden City Press, 1972). 46 The effects of religion in a local ecosystem have been examined by R. A. Rappaport, Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968). 47 For critiques of Steward’s work, see M. Freilich, “The Natural Experiment, Ecology and Culture,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 19 (1963), pp. 21-39; Geertz, op. cit, footnote 44, pp. 6 115 and Vayda and Rappaport, op. cit., footnote 13, pp. 483-89. 48 Thomas, ed., op. cit, footnote 35. Larry GRossMAN March events, cultural ecology . . . concerns the process implied in a sequence of events."*” In clarifying this rather ambiguous statement, ‘Wagner and Mikesell revealed that the type of process in which they were interested was quite different from that of interest to Steward. The former were mostly concerned with the processes of change that were produced by human activity; degradation of the soils and the impact of cutting and burning on the vegetation are a few of the processes mentioned that are involved in the geographical cultural ecology. Thus, Wagner's and Mikesell’s conception of cultural ecology was clearly subsidiary to their interest in the landscape. In contrast, Steward was interested in the process of adjustment between institutions and exploitative patterns and the environment; the ultimate focus was always on the culture of the group and how it was affected by the process of adaptation to the environment, Perhaps the difference in emphasis in the anthropological and geographical approaches to cultural ecology can be expressed as “adaptation to the environment” and “adaptation of the environment,” respectively. ECOLOGICAL AND SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVES In the mid-1960s, environmentally oriented anthropological and geographical research again began to develop along parallel lines. Two main trends influenced this development. One was the rise in popularity of General Sys- tems Theory. The possibility of applying concepts and generalizations to a wide range of interdisciplinary phenomena had much appeal. The other source was the growing acceptance of the ecosystem concept. In the symposium Man's Place in the Island Ecosystem, for example, in which both anthropologists and geographers participated, the ecosystem concept served as a conceptual framework.*t In addition, there were separate developments in the two disciplines. In geography, Chorley’s use of systems concepts in geomorphology and Acker- man’s call to recognize the earth-wide man- 4° Wagner and Mikesell, op. cit., footnote 31, p. 19. 5°For a review of some of the ideas in General ‘Systems Theory see L. von Bertalaniy, General Sys- tems Theory (New York: George Braziller, 1968). 51 F. R. Fosberg, ed., Man's Place in the Island Eco- system (Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1963).1977 environment system as geography's major prob- Jem were particularly influential.** These works set the background for what may be termed the human ecological approach in geography. In anthropology, Vayda, Leeds, and Smith's use of ecological concepts in the analysis of Melane- sian pig husbandry, Geert2’s utilization of the ecosystem concept in his study of agricultural involution in Java, and the ethologist Wynne- Edwards’ research on the density-dependent behavioral mechanisms regulating population size among animals were important developments as forerunners of the general ecological approach in anthropology.*® ‘The early geographical statements on human ecology were programmatic in nature. In his critique of the landscape approach, Brookfield suggested that geography should be viewed as the study of the human ecosystem rather than the areal differentiation of man’s works in order to place man at the center of analysis." He believed that this goal must be achieved before geographers could analyze process. Except for Brookfield’s work, most of the early statements on human ecology were by physical geographers and biogeographers.** As a consequence, none of these works was primarily concerned with bringing to the forefront of geographical research the analysis of social organization, be- 82 R. J. Chorley, "Geomorphology and General Sys- tems Theory,” Professional Paper, United States Geo- logical Survey, No. 500-B (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1962); and Acket= ‘man, op. cit, footnote 16. 5A. P. Vayda, A. Leeds, and D. B. Si he Place of Pigs in Melanesian Subsistence,” in 'V. F. Garfield, ed, Proceedings of the American Ethno- logical Society (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961), pp. 69-77; Geertz, op. cit, footnote 44 and V. C. Wynne-Edwards, Animal Dispersion in Re- lation to" Social Behaviour (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962). "Brookficld, op. cit, footnote 25, 88 See W. B. Morgan and R. P. Moss, “Geography and Ecology: The Concept of the Community and its Relationship to Environment,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 55 (1965), pp. 339-50; D. R. Stoddart, “Geography and the Ecological Ap- proach: The Ecosystem as a Geographic Principle and Method,” Geography, Vol. $0 (1965), pp. 242-51: D. R. Stoddart, “Organism and Ecosystem as Geo- graphical Models,” in R. J. Chorley and P. Haggett, teds,, Models in Geography (London: Methuen, 1967) pp. 511-48; I. G. Simmons, “Ecology and Land Us Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 38 (1966), pp. 59-72; and I. G. Simmons, “Land Use Ecology as a Theme in Biogeography,” Canadian Geographer, Vol. 14 (1970), pp. 309-22. ‘MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 133 havior, and values as Brookfield desired, In- stead, a common theme in these statements was to find a uniting framework for geography and to do away with various dichotomies within the discipline, such as human/physical geography and man/environment.*° ‘These statements on human ecology were primarily concerned with demonstrating the utility of employing ecological concepts such as community and ecosystem as well as a systems framework."* Stoddart’s statements were among the most important.®* He suggested that the basic contribution of ecology to geography is in providing a methodology. Specifically, Stod- dart noted the following uses and characteristics of the ecosystem concept: 1) it is monistic in that man and environment are analyzed within a single framework; 2) it directs our attention to structures within the ecosystem; 3) it focuses on the functioning of the system, em- phasizing the quantification of exchanges; 4) ecosystems are a type of general system, and they therefore possess the attributes of all general systems; and 5) the concept can be applied at any level. After lucidly presenting the ecosystem concept in his early article, Stoddart qualified his statement. At one point, he suggested that the practical value of ecosystem studies in geography may be demonstrated in agricultural and land use research.** However, he contradicted himself in stating that it is really not the ecosystem concept per se that is useful for geography, but rather the mental framework it sug~ gests: it has become apparent that its [the ecosystem] influence is seminal rather than definitive, and lies 6 For an attempt to resolve the split between human and physical geography, sce S. R. Eyre and G. R. J. Jones, “Introduction,” in S, R. Eyre and G. RJ. Jones, eds., Geography as Human Ecology (London: Edward Arnold, 1966), pp. 1-29. For analy ses stressing the undesirability of the man environment dichotomy, see Morgan and Moss, op. cit., footnote 55; Stoddart, Op. cit. footnote 55; and Simmons (1970), op. cit., footnote 55. 81 The concept of community was explored by Morgan and Moss, op. cit., footnote 55; the importance of the ecosystem concept was stressed by Stoddart (1965), op. cit., footnote 55; and Simmons, op. cit., footnote 55. The utility of a systems framework was emphasized by Stoddart, op. cit., footnote 55. 38 Stoddart, op. cit., footnote 55. 59 Stoddart (1967), op. cit., footnote 55, p. $30. 0 Stoddart (1967), op. cit., footnote 55, p. 537.134 not in the ecosystem concept as such, but in its general system properties. . . . the biological emphasis on energetic and trophic structure of ecosystems, for example, is clearly of peripheral geographic significance, but the fundamental concept of system in geography is central to the development of the subject as a nomothetic science. Stoddart’s claim that energetic studies are of peripheral interest to geographers is contrary to the beliefs of certain other geographers who noted the utility of such an emphasis." Others have found the ecosystem concept itself very useful, especially in those cases where Stoddart suggested that it would be most important, in land use situations." Thus, Stoddart’s abandon- ment of the ecosystem concept is one of the major faults in his statement. Another weakness is his failure to deal with what Brookfield has called the “human frontier.” Despite the fact that several pleas had been made to adopt the ecosystem point of view, Brookfield was able to state that no successful work in human geography was conducted within an ecosystem framework."® Later, Parsons pleaded for more geographers to concern themselves with ecological research, and in a sum- mary of the state of affairs of the human ecological perspective, Hewitt and Hare claimed that environmental studies in this field were at alow ebb. This situation was partly a result of the wide- spread view that geography is essentially spatial in orientation, and spatial forms of inquiry are 1 See D. C. Foote and B. Greer-Wooten, “An Ap- proach to Systems Analysis in Cultural Geography,” Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 86-91; and B. Nietschmann, Berween Land and Water: The Subsistence Ecology of the Miskito Indians, Eastern Nicaragua (New York: Seminar Press, 1973). Those who have stressed the utility of the eco system concept in land use studies are Simmons, op. cit., foomote 55; D, R. Harris, “The Ecology of Agri: cultural Systems,” in R. U. Cooke and H. J. Johnson, eds., Trends in Geography (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1969), pp. 133-42; and D. R. Harris, “Agricultural ‘Systems, Ecosystems and the Origins of Agriculture,” in P. J. Ucko and G, W. Dimbleby, eds., The Domesti- cation and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (Lon- don: Duckworth, 1969), pp. 3-15, 88 Brookfield (1968), op. cit, footnote 26, In addition to those noted in footnote 57, pleas to adopt the ‘ecosystem approach were made by Ackerman, op. cit, footnote 16; and Brookfield, op. cit., footnote 25. ° Parsons, op. cit., footnote 37; and K. Hewitt and F. K. Hare, Man’ and Environment: Conceptual Frameworks, Commission on College Geography Re- source Paper No. 20 (Washington, D.C.; Association of American Geographers, 1973). Larry Grossman March often contrasted with ecological analysis. Some researchers have viewed these two perspectives as either separate forms of inquiry or at two ends of a continuum Spatial analysis is concerned with the factors affect- ing the location of specific activities... . Ecologic analysis is concerned with the interaction of the factors which define the activity itself, rather than with how the factors affect the location of the activity. Ecologic analysis concerns itself with the ‘emergent system formed by the factors’ interaction and with analyzing how the system functions. Loca- tional analysis, in a sense, begins where ecologic analysis leaves off—it takes the system investigated in ecologic analysis as given and goes on to relate it to location, It has also been suggested that the contrasting sets of terms site/situation and vertical/hori- zontal links are implied in the ecological spatial dichotomy." These contrasting terms clearly suggest that the approaches are quite different in orientation. Clarkson noted that each approach implies the use of different theory, methodology, research design and techniques of investigation.®* The point is not that ecological and spatial analysis cannot be integrated into the same framework. Indeed, there has recently been a call for closer articulation between the two.®® Rather, any attempt to do so must clearly focus on the problems raised by this dichotomy. Per- haps the reason why the suggestion by Morgan and Moss that the community concept could be used to provide a unifying theme in geography has not been followed is because it implicitly attempts to link spatial and ecological perspec tives at all scales without trying to resolve this dichotomy. Another closely related issue that has continued to be relevant is that of scale. Although many geographers prefer to work at the macro ®5 The dominance of the spatial orientation in geography was stressed by E. J. Taaffe, ed., Geography, Re- port of the Geography Panel of the Behavioral’ and Social Sciences Survey, Social Science Research Coun- cil—Behavioral Science Division of the National Academy of Science—National Research Council (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970), #84. D. Clarkson, “Ecology and Spatial Analysis Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 700-16. *E, L, Ullman, “Commentary: Ecology and Spat Analysis,” Annals, Association of American Geogra- phers, Vol. 63 (1973), pp. 272-74. ® Clarkson, op. cit, footnote 66, © Taaffe, op. cit, footnote 39. 2 Morgan and Moss, op. cit, footnote 551977 scale, human ecological research is most fruit- fully conducted at the micro scale. It is perhaps no coincidence that the most successful recent substantive contributions to human ecology which have utilized the ecosystem research strategy have all been conducted at the micro- scale." The geographers working within this framework have been influenced by ecological research in anthropolos The general ecological approach in anthropology received its main impetus from Vayda and Rappaport.”? In their early formulation, they declared that ecological studies in anthropology have suffered from an overemphasis on cultural factors. Those who have advocated the view that culture is a superorganic phenomenon have tended to view man as unique in his adaptations, as a species apart from others."* In contrast, this new perspective hopes to understand the human and nonhuman components of the ecosystem within the same conceptual framework, While human behavior is certainly determined by cultural factors to a much greater degree than that of other animals, this does not mean that common concepts and principles cannot be used to understand the adaptive significance of the behavior of both. Instead of many of the traditional anthropological concepts, the terminology of animal ecology is sub- stituted.” In addition, Steward’s goal of seeking associations between the social organization, technology and environmental variables is rejected, and, instead, there is a search for the T1W. C. Clarke, Place and People: An Ecology of a New Guinea Community (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971); and E. Waddell, The Mound Builders: Agricultural ' Practices, Environment, and Society in the Central Highlands of New Guinea (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972); and Nietschmann, op. cit., footnote 61. %2 Vayda and Rappaport, op. cit., footnote 13, pp. 477-97. See also A. P, Vayda, “An Ecological Ap- proach in Cultural Anthropology,” Bucknell Review, Vol. 17 (1969), pp. 112-19; and R. A. Rappaport, “Nature, Culture, and Ecological Anthropology,” in H. L. Shapiro, ed., Man, Culture, and Society (Lon- don: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp. 237-67. 79 For an elaboration of this view in the cultural ecological approach, see Steward, op. cit., footnote 43, pp. 7-8 and 30-34. 74 Such terms as ecosystem, population (instead of society), and community are used. The purpose of em: ploying this terminology is to make the units studied in human societies comparable to those in other animal s, thus facilitating the measurement and ication of the existing links between them; Vayda and Rappaport, op. cit, footnote 13, p. 494 Man-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 135 general principles underlying the process of adaptation. The philosophical basis for this approach is General Systems Theory with its emphasis on the unity of nature and the understanding within the same conceptual framework phenomena that were previously analyzed sep- arately because of traditional disciplinary concerns. One of the major advances of the general ecological approach is its rejection of the linear cause and effect models of the cultural ecologi cal approach which forced the analyst to over- implify complex relationships. As in the human ecological approach in geography, the concept of the ecosystem, with the emphasis on the functioning of systems as systems, has been employed. Cybernetic models have been used in the analysis of both stable and changing systems." It is recognized that the relationships between the physical, biological, and sociocultural variables in an ecosystem are reciprocal and feedback processes are at work.” Thus, we can ask how human behavior affects biological and physical variables within the ecosystem and vice versa. Recognizing the interplay of these factors also enables us to examine the adaptive significance of human behavior, that is, whether the behavior of a particular population enables it to maintain a viable relationship with its environment. Like many biological ecologists, several researchers using the general ecological approach have examined the regulating mechanisms by which homeostasis is supposedly maintained.*” Certainly the most important work in this respect has been done by Rappaport, who suggested that the ritual of the Tsembaga of New Guinea functions like a homeostatic mechanism to regulate key environmental and social variables so that their values are maintained at levels that enable the human ecosystem to con- % For the use of cybernetic models in the analysis of stable and changing systems, see respectively Rappaport, op. cit., footnote 46; and K. V. Flannery, “Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Meso- america,” in B. J. Meggers, ed., Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas (Washington, D.C.: An- thropological Society of Washington), pp. 67-87. Vayda and Rappaport, op. cit,, footnote 13, pp. 477-91. TT For an explanation of the concept of homeostasis in biological ecology, see E. P. Odum, Ecology (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963), pp. 4 and 77-110,136 tinue as constituted.”* Although limited by some questionable assumptions concerning nutrition, his analysis was a crucial step forward in the use of systems concepts and was the first major anthropological work to incorporate the conceptual tools of animal ecology."® Another of Rappaport’s contributions was his recognition of the importance of information exchange, an essential component of the ecosystem; by con- sidering the role of ritual in the ecosystem, his work went beyond the previous limited techno- environmental analyses. Indeed, Flannery has criticized most of the traditional cultural ecological studies for ignoring the role of informa- mn exchange.®" An important issue in Rappaport’s work is the utility of the concept of homeostasis. As it was applied in his work, the concept was synon- ymous with equilibrium; unfailing feedback processes were supposedly at work. Indeed, this view of homeostasis was also held by some biological ecologists. The model focused our attention on cultural practices that helped to maintain human populations in stable, viable relationships with their ecosystems. Strict ad- herence to such a view has definite drawback First, one may overlook the maladaptive effects of behavior, but these must always be noted. Second, the emphasis is clearly on a static con- dition which does not enable us to understand the processes of change, For example, Rap- paport has defined “goal ranges” as “ranges of values that permit the perpetuation of a system, as constituted, through indefinite periods of time.”™' However, as Clarke noted: “No life system is stable in the sense that it is unchang- ing. Cultural behavior may act to counterbal- ance environmental changes, but there a net change in the system. Certainly tems as evolutionary entities are self-maintain- ing, but they are self-transforming, too.” Recently, however, the utility and accuracy of the equilibrium view in natural ecosystems has also been criticized. Vayda and McCay 18 Rappaport, op. cit., footnote 46. 7 For a critique of Rappaport’s assumptions concerning nutrition, see M. McArthur, “Pigs for the An- cestors: A Review Article,” Oceania, Vol. 45 (1974), pp. 87-123. 80K. V. Flannery, “The Cultural Evolution of Civi lizations," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 3 (1972), pp. 399-426. 51 Rappaport, op. cit, footnote 46, p. 224. #2 Clarke, op. cit, footnote 71, p. 202. Larry GRossMAN March summarized several of the critiques by biological ecologists and then redefined the concept of homeostasis for use in anthropology.** In keeping with the General Systems Theory philosophy that common principles underlie the adaptations by both human and nonhuman populations, the general ecological school has thus changed its conception of homeostasis to parallel new views in ecology. Old ideas about equilibrium are now discarded, but the concept of homeostasis is retained with a different meaning. The latter term is now used to refer to the maintenance of system properties essential to the continued existence of the system. An essential aspect of this is the maintenance of the capacity to respond to stresses: Rejection of an equilibrium centered view does not, however, imply abandoning the study of the pro: cesses by which some properties of systems. or organisms are kept unchanged even as other properties are changing. . . . Slobodkin in particular em- phasizes that some properties of homeostatic systems rust at times change so as to maintain other properties that are important for staying in the existential me—properties such as... remaining flexible enough to change in response to whatever hazards or perturbations come along. Their reformulation of the concept of homeostasis effectively refutes previous critiques cen- tering on the equilibrium concept. Questions are now directed to understanding the role of change in relation to homeostasis. Another important issue raised by the general ecological approach is the proper form of synthesis in the creation of generalizations, For those following the cultural ecological approach in anthropology, an example of synthesis would be to establish cross-culturally that a certain in- tensity of agriculture is associated with a speci- fied form of household.*® The synthesis is at the empirical level and is concerned with the relationship between discrete variables. The general ecological approach offers a synthesis on a more abstract level by analyzing the processes and mechanisms relating to stability and change among a wide range of phenomena. In a specu- 88 A. P. Vayda and B. J. McCay, “New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology,” Annual Re- view of Anthropology, Vol. 4 (1975), pp. 293-306. St Vayda and McCay, op. cit., footnote 83, pp. 298. 99, 59 For an attempt to link such variables as the in- tensity of agriculture, form of household, population density, type of land tenure, and settlement pattern, see Netting, op. cit., footnote 42.1977 lative analysis of the evolution of civilization, for example, Flannery suggested that certain stresses facilitate the emergence of the mechanisms of “linearization” and “promotion” which in turn produce the processes of “segregation” and “centralization.”° In keeping with the General Systems Theory philosophy, Flannery argued that these mechanisms and processes are common to both the evolution of civilizations and complex systems in general. Tn an article analyzing the process of warfare, Vayda clearly stated the reason for the re~ jection of the empirical form of synthesis: If one adopts a philosophical position from which the world is seen as composed of continuous processes and feedback systems, the generalizations {such as relating the existence of warfare to popu- Tation pressure] are objectionable on the grounds that they are based on the assumption that war may be usefully regarded as a discrete phenomenon for there must be specifiable, discrete causes. Rather than viewing warfare as a discrete variable, he suggested that warfare be viewed as ‘only one of a number of processes employed in peoples’ responses to particular types of perturbations. In formulating the generalizations of broad scope that Vayda prefers, such variables as ‘the magnitude and duration of perturbations, the magnitude and reversibility of responses to them, and the temporal order in which responses of different magnitudes occur” must be considered.** Lees followed the same perspective.** In an examination of the traditional issue of the relationship between political organization and hydraulic development, she rejected such traditional categories as irri- gation and the state and instead attempted to employ categories which are more widely applicable and at a higher level of generalization. ‘The categories used in formulating the generalizations concerned the relationship between the processes of centralization and decentralization and the temporal duration of environmental degradation. Any type of generalization must tread a care- ful path between the universal and the specific. As Boulding noted: “Somewhere however be- 86 Flannery, op. cit, footnote 80. 87 A. P, Vayda, “Warfare in Ecological Perspective,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 5 (1974), p. 183. 88 Vayda, op. cit. footnote 87, p. 191. 80S, H. Lees, “Hydraulic Development as a Process of Response,” Human Ecology, Vol. 2 (1974), pp. 159-75. ‘MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 137 tween the specific that has no meaning and the general that has no content there must be, for each purpose and at each level of abstraction, an optimum degree of generality.”®” The issue is whether concepts and generalization such as “linearization,” “perturbations,” or “environmental degradation” are too broad and vague to be useful. As Plog queried: “There comes a point when one leaps to say: if linearization and meddling are concepts that can be opera tionalized archeologically, can pasteurization and screwing-up be far behind?”* However, it would be too hasty to reject the form of synthesis offered by the general ecological approach, especially when one considers the dearth of use~ ful generalizations formulated by those in the cultural ecological approach. As in the other perspectives on man-environment relationships in the two disciplines, several similarities occur in the human ecological and general ecological approaches. The influence of General Systems Theory, systems concepts, and ecological concepts such as the ecosystem, regulation, and carrying capacity can be found in both. Although few generalizations have been formulated (due in part to the relatively few practitioners in the human ecological and general ecological approaches), nevertheless, similar types of broad generalizations have been offered. The works of Flannery and Vayda have already been cited."* Both the anthropologist Rappaport and the geographer Nietschmann have applied rather broad ecological-energetic generalizations in the analysis of the effects of contact by highly organized systems upon smaller, less organized systems.%° There are other similarities. By investigating aspects of society and culture more thoroughly than their predecessors, geographers such as Clarke, Nietschmann, and Waddell have come to share common ground with ecologically oriented anthropologists. There is also overlap in % K. E, Boulding, “General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science,” Management Science, Vol. 2 (1956), p. 197. 91 F. T. Plog, “Systems Theory in Archeological Re- search,” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 4 (1975), p. 215. 8 Flannery, op. cit, footnote 80; Vayda, op. cit., footnote 87. °8R. A. Rappaport, “The Flow of Energy in an Agricultural Society,” Scientific American, Vol. 224, No. 3 (September 1971), pp. 116-32; Nietschmann, op. cit,, footnote 61.138 the scale of research as well as substantive content; researchers in both disciplines have conducted studies of subsistence systems at the micro scal Indeed, it may appear that works by geographers and anthropologists in this perspective should not be considered as separate, but as sincere efforts at interdisciplinary work. Al- though in part this is true, differences nevertheless remain. Continuing a long established trend, geographers are still consistently more sophisticated in their analysis of the physical environment." Anthropologists usually fail to incorporate basic geographical concepts such as distance. In addition, unlike many early works by those in the general ecological approach, geographical research lacks a theoretical commitment to the concept of equilibrium. There is also a difference in the implications that the programmatic statements have for the unity of the two disciplines. Some geographers are attempting to find themes to unify the struc~ ture of the discipline by bringing together human and physical geography, whereas others hope to resolve such traditional dichotomies as regional/systematic geography.” The stress is on the unification of the discipline, and thus these statements act as a centripetal force. In contrast, those in the general ecological approach are attempting to legitimatize their own form of inquiry and form closer links with bio logical ecology. Here the programmatic statements act as a centrifugal force within the discipline. The problems that the two perspectives have had within their respective disciplines are also dissimilar. Geographers must resolve problems of spatial scale and the ecological/spatial dichotomy. As most anthropologists work at the micro scale, the scale problem does not arise. Anthropologists, however, have had to contend with the concept of culture as a superorganic phenomenon. The separation of the biological and cultural realms and the belief that the superorganic character of human culture dis- tinguishes humans from other animals have hindered the application of generalizations from biological sciences to anthropology. In addi- ®* Waddell’s analysis of the functions of agricultural mounding in a New Guinea society is an example of such sophistication by geographers; see Waddell, op. cit., footnote 71. 8 For an attempt to resolve the regional/systematic dichotomy, see Morgan and Moss, op. cit., footnote 55. Larry GRossMAN March tion, there are always the perennial debates concerning the relative merits of materialistic as opposed to mentalistic approaches and the difficulties in resolving the two in relation to different scales of time, REACTION TO ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES The use of ecological concepts in anthropology and geography has come under criticism, and again the reaction of both disciplines is similar, Both the anthropologist Bennett and the geographer Chorley have suggested that the elements of choice and human control over ecosystems invalidate the use of ecological models as analogues for social systems."° In particular, the two emphasize that the ecosystem concept implies a balanced state and equilibrium, a view clearly inapplicable to. many human societies which display stronger positive feedbacks and are constantly transforming their ecosystems.” This reaction has precedents in the many “man is unique” arguments that are pervasive in the social sciences. Such an outright rejection of ecological concepts signifies a failure to realize the great vari ation in the potential applications of ecological concepts to human populations. The following are a few such applications: 1) at one extreme, as a complete framework for the analysis of all facets of human existence; 2) for an emphasis on the similarities in the adaptive significance of much human and nonhuman behavior; 3) as a partial framework, employing only one or two ecological concepts, such as the niche concept; 4) for land use studies only, particularly em- phasizing the effects of human populations on their environments and the potential feedback that this may have; and 5) as a frame of reference only, stressing the concept of system per se.®* Undoubtedly this list could be greatly ex- 3. W. Bennett, Northern Plainsmen: Adaptive Strategy and Agrarian Life (Chicago: Aldine, 1969), pp. 23-24; J. W. Bennett, “Ecosystem Fffects of Ex tensive Agriculture,” Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 2 (1973), p. 37; and R. J. Chorley, “Geography as Human Ecology,” in R. J. Chorley, ed., Directions in Geography (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 155-69. ‘or an opposing view concerning the implications ‘of the ecosystem concept, see Vayda and McCay, op. Cit, footnote 83, #8 1) A complete framework was suggested by C. R Dryer, “Genetic Geography: The Development of the Geographic Sense and Concept,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 10 (1920), pp. 3-16. Dryer hoped to apply such concepts as sere, secession, and ecesis to human societies; 2) see Rappaport, op.1977 panded. Critics of the use of ecological concepts in the social sciences must be more specific about the forms of the ecological models to which they object. Nevertheless, the alternative that Bennett offered to the general ecological approach has considerable merit, especially because it focuses upon the problem of how individual and group strategies are articulated with the larger system. Those in the general ecological perspective have tended to focus at the level of the ongoing system and have ignored individual and group strategies. Although dealing with a different subject matter, Cowgill’s remarks are applicable here: “[There] has been a failure to distinguish clearly between ‘needs’ and ‘problems’ of a whole society, viewed as some sort of system transcending any individual persons, and the needs, problems, possibilities, incentives, information, and viewpoints of specific individuals or categories of individuals in different situations.”°* To resolve this difficulty, Bennett developed the “adaptive strategies” approach.” He suggested that a distinction be made between “adaptive strategies” and “adaptive processes.” The former focuses upon “the patterns formed by the many separate adjustments that people devise in order to obtain and use resources and to solve the immediate problems confronting them." This involves an emphasis on prob- Jem-solving and decision making in relation to the various social and environmental constraints confronting people. “Adaptive processes” are the observer's generalizations about the changes that have been introduced over relatively long periods by the repeated use of such strategies. Adaptive strategies are usually at the conscious level of the people employing them, whereas the latter are not. The distinction between adaptive strategies and adaptive processes is absolutely essential. By incorporating both clements we can better analyze the dia- cit,, footnote 46; 3) a partial framework, using only the niche concept, was employed by F. Barth, “Eco- logic Relationships of Ethnic Groups in Swat, North Pakistan,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 58 (1956). pp. 1079-89; 4) for those stressing the utility of ecological concepts in land use studies, see footnote 62; and 5) see Stoddart (1967), op. cit,, footnote 55, 9G. L. Cowgill, “On Causes and Consequences of ‘Ancient and Modern Population Changes,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 77 (1975), p. 506. 100 Bennett (1969), op. cit., footnote 96. 101 Bennett (1969), op. cit, footnote 96, p. 14. Man-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 139 lectic between individual strategies and the larger social, institutional, and environmental constraints in which they exist and how this, in turn, relates to the structure and functioning of the human dominated ecosystem. ‘Although Bennett did not formulate his re~ search strategy in a systemic perspective, concepts of choice and strategy can be assimilated into a systemic framework. °? One of the most fruitful prospects in man-environment studies will be to integrate into a systemic framework the strengths of the general ecological and human ecological perspectives with those of the adaptive strategies approach. ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION, HAZARDS, AND RESPONSES The field of environmental perception is the most recent perspective in geography concerning man-environment relationships. The first geographer to separate the perceived environment as a distinct surface was Kirk, who stressed the importance of examining the “Be- havioural Environment,” the field within which sensed data acquire values and meaning, decisions are made, and behavior begins." Kirk, however, did not have an immediate impact on his contemporaries, and not until the 1960s did the perception approach begin to have a significant impact on geographers. A major impetus was the phenomenologically oriented work of Lowenthal who explored the various aesthetic and subjective aspects of the personal and public geographies within our minds. Com- menting on the multifaceted nature of our perceptions, he stated: “Every image and idea about the world is compounded, then, of personal experience, learning, imagination, and memory. . .. We are all artists and landscape architects, creating order and organizing space, time, and causality in accordance with our ap- 102 J, Langton, “Potentialities and Problems of Adopting a Systems Approach to the Study of Change in Human Geography,” in C. Board et al., eds. Progress in Geography, Vol. 4 (London: Edward Arnold, 1972), pp. 127-79. 103 H, C. Brookfield, “On the Environment as Per- ived.” in C. Board et al., eds. Progress in Geogra- phy, Vol. 1 (London: Edward Amold, 1969), p. 57. W. Kirk, “Historical Geography and the Concept of the Behavioural Environment,” Indian Geographical Society, Silver Jubilee Souvenir and N. C. Subrab- manyan Memorial Volume, Vol. 25 (1951), pp. 152 60; and W. Kirk, “Problems in Geography,” Geogra- phy, Vol. 48 (1963), pp. 357-71.140 perceptions and predilections.” Geographers have since explored the complexity of this process and its implications for decision making and behavior in relation to the environment. The broad field of environmental perception is composed of several related orientations such as natural hazard studies, mental maps, ethnoscience, recreation research, humanistic, phenomenological perspectives, as well as many others.1° A common denominator of these varied approaches is interest in the relationship between the real environment, perception of the environment, decision making, and overt behavior. It is assumed that many environmental and spatial decisions are related to the way people perceive their surroundings and evalu- ate their environmental images. The approach has been applied at all scales, although the broad regional scale is the most common.'"* 14D. Lowenthal, “Geography, Experience, and Imagination: Towards a Geographical Epistemology,” Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 51 (1961), p. 260. 108 For reviews of the research on natural hazards, see G. F. White, “Natural Hazards Research,” in R. J Chorley, ed., Directions in Geography (London: Methuen, 1973), pp. 193-216; and J. K. Mitchel, “Natural Hazards Research,” in I. R. Manners and M. W. Mikesell, eds., Perspectives on Environment, Commission on College Geography, Publication No 13 (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1974), pp. 311-41. For a discussion of mental maps, see P. R. Gould, On Mental Maps Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathemati- cal Geographers, Discussion Paper No. 9 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Department of Geography. 1966). The importance of the ethnoscience approach has been stressed by C. G. Knight, “Ethnogeography and Change,” Journal of Geography, Vol. 70 (1971). pp. 47-51; and C. G. Knight, Ecology and Change. Rural Modernization in an African Community (New York: Academic Press, 1974). Perception in recreation has been examined by R. Lucas, “Wilderness Percep- tion and Use: The Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area,” Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 3 (1964), pp. 393-411. For humanistic, phenomenological perspectives, see Lowenthal, op. cit. footnote 104 pp. 241-60; and Yi-Fu Tuan, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, "Autiudes, and Values (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974). Useful re- Views of the entire field have been provided by Brook- field, op. cit. footnote 103, pp. 53-80; R. M. Downs, “Geographic Space Perception: Past Approaches and Future Prospects,” in C. Board et al, eds., Progress in Geography, Vol. 2 (London: Edward Arnold, 1970), pp. 65-108; and T. F. Saarinen, “Environmental Per- ception,” in I. R, Manners and M. W. Mikesell, eds., Perspectives on Environment, Commission on College Geography, Publication No. 13 (Washington, D.C Association of American Geographers), pp. 252-89. 108 Saarinen, op. cit, footnote 105, p. 285. Larry GRrossMAN March The environmental perception approach has had an important influence in geography. One of the most significant contributions has been to strengthen the behavioral approach in geography. In particular, it has helped to question the all too common assumption of “economic man” and has forced a reconsideration of some of the models based on this assumption. Some of the approaches have been phenomenological in orientation and therefore offer an alternative to the view that hypothesis testing and theory development are the only legitimate endeavors." It has also presented a very useful perspective on resource use and has helped to explore the complexity of the decision making process. To date, environmental per ception is geography’s main foray into the “human frontier.” This promising field faces certain difficulties. One is understanding the complex relationship between perceptions, values, verbalized attitudes, and actual behavior. Such a question has plagued social sciences such as anthropology. Another problem is how to measure perceptions and attitudes because of their intangible nature. Anthropologists have conducted research along lines roughly parallel to the environmental perception approach in geography. Al- though not concerned with environmental and spatial perception per se, there has been a long tradition in anthropology starting with Boas and Malinowski oriented toward understanding phenomena from the perspective of the people studied.1’* An excellent example Evans-Pritchard’s examination of the concept of time among the Nuer.1°° ‘An environmentally oriented research theme in anthropology known as ethnoccology became popular in the late 1950s and early 1960s with the rise of the broader development known as ethnoscience.'"” The aim of ethnoecological 107 B. Relph, “An Inquiry into the Relations between Phenomenology and Geography,” Canadian Geographer, Vol. 14 (1970), pp. 193-201 108 F. Boas, “The Mind of Primitive Man,” Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 14 (1901), pp. 1-11; and B. Malinowski, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (Lon: don: George Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922), Wo E, E. Evans-Pritehard, The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People (London: Oxford University Press, 1940), pp. 94-138. M0 For a general review of the ethnoscience approach in anthropology, see W. C. Sturtevant, “Studies in Ethnoscience,” American Anthropologist, Vol. 661977 research was to provide more rigorous and less ethnocentric ethnographic descriptions and to understand how people perceive their environments, The criterion for an adequate description is the specification of exactly what one must know in order to respond in a culturally appropriate manner in a socio-ecological situation." The emphasis was on the cognitive; what one must know are the principles by which people classify the phenomena in their environment. By uncovering these principles with the aid of concepts and techniques borrowed from linguistics, Frake claimed that it is possible to understand how others perceive the world." There are several weaknesses in the ethnoecological approach, Burling challenged the ‘view that the techniques used by ethnoecologists could reveal perceptions, noting that it was impossible to verify whether the model con- structed by the ethnographer actually mirrored the perceptions of the people.""* Nor do the principles behind terminological classifications reveal folk understanding of environmental processes.!"# Although an emic perspective is important in understanding a group's adaptation, people are often simply unaware of many ecological processes as well as the ramifications of their actions, Such aspects of the environment must also be taken into account in the analysis ‘of man-environment relationships. Because of these problems, as well as many methodological difficulties, there has been a significant decline in interest in ethnoscientific research in general Except for the superficial similarity in their interest in environmental perception, the ethnoecological approach in anthropology and the environmental perception approach in geography are quite different in orientation. Geog- raphers have been mainly concerned with the perception and evaluation of environmental images and how these images relate to decision (1964), pp. 99-131. An carly statement on ethno- ecology was provided by H. C. Conklin, “An Ethno- ecological Approach to Shifting Agriculture,” Trans- actions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series 2, Vol. 17 (1954), pp. 133-42. u1C, O, Frake, “Cultural Ecology and Ethnogra- phy.” American Anthropologist, Vol. 64 (1962). pp. 112 Frake, op. cit., footnote 111 418 R, Burling, “Cognition and Componential Anal- ysis: God's Truth or Hocus-Pocus?" American An- thropologist, Vol. 66 (1964), pp. 20-28. 14 Vayda and Rappaport, op. cit, footnote 13, pp. 489-92, Man-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 141 making and behavior. In contrast, the more narrowly focused anthropological ethnoecologists have emphasized the analysis of the semantic structure of linguistic domains. In addition, unlike the geographers, most of these anthropologists have failed to relate their cognitive analyses to actual behavior. One subfield of the environmental perception approach in geography is developing along lines parallel to new research in anthropology. This is natural hazards research. Under the initial leadership of White at the University of Chicago, several geographers have attempted to analyze how people cope with risk and un- certainty in the occurrence of extreme natural hazards such as flooding and drought. Some of the basic issues investigated concerning hazards, are: the nature of the hazards; the existence and reasons for variations in perception of hazards; the actual and perceived range of feasible adjustments; and how differences in perception affect decisions and behavior." Perception and consequent behavior relation to natural hazards are viewed as fundamental aspects of the process of adaptation to the environment. A basic problem in understanding the process of adaptation to natural hazards is understanding the hazards themselves. Early studies defined hazards in relation to their principal causal agents." Each type of hazard was viewed as a discrete entity and perception was treated as hazard-specific, Brookfield noted inconsisten- cies and problems in the interpretation of data dealing with perception and responses to haz~ ards and suggested that such problems might be remedied by the adoption of a systems approach."? The implication was that hazards should not be analyzed as discrete, isolable events, but rather attention should be focused ‘on how they function in relation to the overall man-environment system. Burton and Hewitt have offered a similar argument against treating hazards and the responses to them as separate, discrete phenomena." Instead, in their ecological and systemic 145 J, Burton and R, W. Kates, “The Perception of Natural Hazards in Resource Management,” Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 3 (1964), pp. 412-41; White, op. cit, footnote 105. 118 See Burton and Kates, op. cit. footnote 115. 117 Brookfield, op. cit., footnote 103, pp. 53-80. 418]. Burton and K. Hewitt, “Ecological Dimen- sions of Environmental Hazards,” in F. Sargent II, ed., Human Ecology (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974), pp. 253-84142 framework they have stressed the nature of processes as continuous phenomena. Thus, instead of treating just extreme events, the entire process of responding to all levels of hazard damage must be examined for an understanding of adjustments to hazards. What is important about hazards is not their principal causal agent, but their inherent characteristics which influence perception and the functioning of the man-environment system, From this perspective, the most significant characteristics of hazards are such continuous variables as their magnitude, frequency, duration, and temporal spacing.” In addition, hazards are viewed as the joint product of the systemic interaction of human societies and the environ ment, Integrating natural hazards research into an ecological and systemic perspective is an important development in the attempt to understand the process of adaptation to the environment. ‘Another problem in natural hazards research is the use of the term hazard itself. With its one-sided negative connotations, the term ap- pears to prejudge the issue of effects and perception from a Western oriented perspective. It is clear, however, that although hazards may be damaging for some individuals, they may be quite beneficial to others. It is within this overall framework that natural hazards must be examined. In a review of the geographic perspectives on natural hazards, Mitchell stated: “The possibility exists that models of human response to environmental threat may also function as ana- logs for research on man’s adjustment to more pervasive forms of social stress.”"*” This has now become a reality as anthropologists in the general ecological approach have suggested this theme as a new focus for their research.!2" The basic concern is how individuals and groups respond to environmental hazards which threaten the health and survival of human populations, The program outlined by Vayda and McCay has much potential. By focusing not only upon 310 Such variables have been stressed by both Burton and Hewitt, op. cit., footnote 118; and R. W. Kates, “Natural Hazard in Human Ecological Perspective: Hypotheses and Models,” Economic Geography, Vol. 47 (1971), pp. 438-51. 120 Mitchell, op. cit., footnote 105, p. 312. 421 Vayda and McCay, op. cit., footnote 83. The authors acknowledged the influence of natural hazards research in geography on their thinking Larry GrossMAN March groups but also upon individual responses, group actions are not viewed solely as a response to the operation of a transcendental system but partly as the result of the combina tion of the variable adaptive strategies of individuals. Thus, the potential exists for a synthesis between the adaptive strategies and the general ecological approaches. This outlined approach contains several problems, such as the methodological one of recognizing risks and hazards, Some hazards such as floods and warfare are obvious. Others, however, are not. The recognition and analysis of certain hazards may require more technical training than most anthropologists receive. For example, if one were interested in the hazard of water shortage for crops (which directly affects the health of the population) and how people respond, one would have to able to spe- cify such factors as the frequency, duration, and magnitude of the problem. Such factors as evapotranspiration, rainfall confidence limits, soil moisture tension, as well as a host of other edaphic and agronomic problems must be examined. My criticism is not that such work should therefore not be undertaken, but rather that ecologically oriented anthropologists must receive more interdisciplinary training. Two other objections are substantive in content. As the program has been set forth, it is too restrictive and rules out many problems of change today. While many changes may be related to environmental stresses, many others are facilitated by the prospects of new opportuni- ties. To disregard the latter would mean neglect- ing the problem of adaptation to new forms of relationships which have been created in the transformation of subsistence and peasant econ- omies. Further, if we are interested in processes of response, then limiting research to the responses to extreme hazards may be unduly arti- ficial. A similar problem in natural hazards research in geography was noted by Burton and Hewitt: The ways in which manageable levels of damage are dealt with by a society are quite as important to understanding hazards as the response to serious disruption. Monitoring the gains (resources) and losses (hazards) at particular levels of economic activity is a more powerful way of examining hazards than simply treating extreme events 422 Burton and Hewitt, op. cit., footnote 118, p. 2631977 Thus, the whole range of stresses and responses and not just the extremes should be examined. ‘A comparison of the anthropological and geographical perspectives on hazards is difficult because of the recency of anthropological interest in this field. Nevertheless, two differences in emphasis are already apparent. Whereas geographers have focused on natural hazards such as floods and drought, anthropologists have extended the concept of hazard to include non- geophysical events such as warfare, raiding, and religious persecution. In addition, the geographical approach is concerned with the relationship between perception and behavior, an issue not examined by Vayda and McCay. One area of convergence overshadows any differences. Traditional categories which char- acterize phenomena as discrete variables and traditional approaches which only examine relationships between discrete entities are now rejected; instead, emphasis is placed on the continuous nature of processes. In an analysis of the hazard of warfare, Vayda eschews attempts to find direct relationships between such discrete variables as warfare and population pressure.!25 What is important is not whether population pressure or warfare exist as such but rather the characteristics of hazards and responses to them in terms of such variables “as the magnitude, duration, and novelty of hazards, the magnitude and reversibility of responses to them, the temporal order in which responses of different magnitudes occur, and the persistence or nonpersistence of response processes.”! Thus, similar types of variables and processual approaches are now stressed in the two disciplines. Such rethinking of the nature of the categories employed in the analysis of hazards may force other researchers in the two disciplines to reject the classification and analysis of phenomena as discrete variables and instead emphasize the continuous nature of processes, for surely the latter conception is most important in understanding human ecological systems CONCLUSION There are certainly differences between the approaches to man-environment relationships in anthropology and geography. One of the most obvious is the place of this perspective 128 Vayda, op. cit, footnote 87. 12 Vayda and McCay, op. cit., footnote 83, p. 297. MAN-ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS 143 within the two disciplines. The environmental orientation in geography, often called man-land relationships, has always claimed a larger part of the discipline than in anthropology. Indeed, it is common to divide the discipline of geography into two themes, one environmental, the other spatial." Even when more subdivisions are created, the environmental orientation is still mentioned as one of the major traditions of the discipline.!2* The environmental perspective in anthropology has claimed the attention of fewer practitioners and is only one of many orientations in the field. There are also the fundamental issues particular to the two disciplines. In geography, issues of scale and the ecological/spatial dichotomy are paramount. In anthropology, the mentalist/materialist debate has been most significant. Finally, there are the respective strengths of the two disciplines; anthropologists have displayed sophistication in their analysis of social and cultural factors whereas geographers display expertise in the study of the physical environment. These differences should not be allowed to mask the more fundamental similarities in the development of man-environment perspectives in the two disciplines. In both fields the following developments have occurred: 1) reactions to deductive and environmental deterministic viewpoints were dominated by inductive, relativistic perspectives; 2) ecological and systemic approaches were influenced by General Systems Theory; 3) reactions against such ecological orientations have stressed the uniqueness of human societies; and 4) recent approaches to the study of hazards have emphasized the continuous nature of processes. Mikesell’s conclusion that much research in anthropology and geography shows convergence and overlap in substantive research whereas philosophical and methodological writings have developed along independent but par- 128 See Clarkson, op. cit, footnote 66; P. W. English and R. C. Mayfield, eds., Man, Space, and Environ- ‘ment: Concepts in Contemporary Human Geography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972); and P. Haggett, Geography: A Modern Synthesis (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). 126 See W. Pattison, “The Four Traditions of Geog- raphy,” Journal of Geography, Vol. 63 (1964), pp. 211-16; and Taaffe, op. cit., footnote 39.144 allel lines is especially true in the field of man-environment relationships during the last seventy-five years.12* Mikesell also briefly noted that intellectual developments in the two disciplines are not in phase. Again this is true in the development of the man-environment perspective. The reaction to deductive, deterministic viewpoints came twenty years earlier in anthropology than in geography. Whereas analyses of cultural and social factors have always been prominent in anthropology, only recently have environmentally oriented geographers been willing to pene- trate the “inner workings of culture.” Hazards research became popular in geography over fifteen years ago; it is only now developing in anthropology. An ethnoecologically oriented perspective became popular in anthropology in the early 1960s but is now relatively defunct; geographers are now beginning to develop their own ethnoecologically oriented approach. Better articulation between the two disciplines in the form of interdisciplinary exchanges will have several benefits.!% This will help to correct several of the false stereotypes that each discipline has of the other. For example, the anthropologist Bennett believed that geographers are mostly interested in description, thus ignoring the conceptual revolution in geography.**° Several geographers have incor- rectly stated that ecologically oriented anthropologists display a tendency towards environmental determinism.1° T Mikesell, op. cit., footnote 4. Although interdisciplinary contacts are _rela- ively rare between anthropology and geography in the field of man-environment relationships, there are some notable exceptions: H. C. Brookfield and P. Brown, Strugele for Land: Agriculture and Group Territories ‘Among the Chimbu of the New Guinea Highlands (Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1963); the col- Iaboration of the geographers Clarke and Street with Vayda and Rappaport in the Maring-speaking area of Papua New Guinea; and the research of P. W. Porter, “Environmental Potentials and Economic Opportuni- ties: A Background for Cultural Adaptation,” Ameri- can Anthropologist, Vol, 67 (1965), pp- 409-20, with anthropologists in East Africa. 120 Bennett (1969), op. cit., footnote 96, p. 5. For statements on the conceptual revolution in geography, see I. Burton, “The Quantitative Revolution and ‘Theoretical Geography,” Canadian Geographer, Vol. 7 (1963), pp. 151-62; P. Haggett, Locational Analysis in Human Geography (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966); and R. J. Chorley and P. Haggett, eds, Models Geography (London: Methuen, 1967). 180 See B. Nietschmann, “Cultural Ecology: Some Larry GROSSMAN March Itis also apparent that several issues debated in one field have already been debated in the other. For example, a recent debate in geography on the relative importance of values and attitudes as opposed to behavior in environ mental research has many similarities to previous anthropological debates on the nature of kinship explanation and on the utility of men- talistic_and materialistic interpretations." Analysis of such anthropological debates may help to clarify the issue in geography. Certainly the most important reason for closer cooperation between the two is to facilitate the formulation of hypotheses and generalizations concerning the processes involved in man-environment interactions. One prereq site for this is a balanced view of both sociocultural and ecological phenomena, and this can only be accomplished by interdisciplinary cooperation. Another is the cross-fertilization of the disparate research themes in anthropology and geography. Thus, we can ask what perspectives from the adaptive strategies approach may assist in understanding the process of adaptation to natural hazards or how the findings of natural hazards research can aid in the analysis of responses to more pervasive forms of social stress. Such contact can only lead to a more fruitful perspective on man-environment relationships. It is perhaps most appropriate to end with an ecological analogy. The productivity of various types of ecosystems, such as forests and grasslands, has been examined by many ecologists. One finding in this research is that an ecotone, the boundary between two communi- ties, tends to be the most productive. One can also expect those working at the interface or boundary between anthropology and geography to provide the most productive research in man- ynment relationships thing Old, Something New, Something Borrowed Something Blue,” Paper delivered at the 70th Annual Mecting of the Association of American Geographers, Seattle, Washington, 1974, p. 3; and F. J. Simons, “Contemporary Research Themes in the Cultural Ge: ography of Domesticated Animals," Geographical Re- view, Vol. 64 (1974), p. 567. 181 For a discussion of this controversy in geography, sce the contrasting views of T. O'Riordan, "Some Reflections on Environmental Attitudes and Environ mental Behaviour,” Area, Vol. 5 (1973), pp- 17-21; and L. Svart, “On the Priority of Behaviour in Be havioural Research: A Dissenting View,” rea, Vol. 6 (1974), pp. 301-06.Copyright of Annals of the Association of American Geographers is the property of Blackwell Publishing Limited and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Grossman Man Environment Relationships in Anthro and Geography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grossman Man Environment Relationships in Anthro and Geography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like