Human ecology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The human ecology is an interdisciplinary field of research that the relationships between people and their (natural) environmental treated. It investigates how people and societies interact with nature or the environment.

Development of human ecology

Human ecology goes back to preliminary work in the early years of the 20th century by the chemist Ellen Swallow Richards (1842–1911) and the geographer J. Paul Goode (1862–1932); further lines of tradition can be named. Human ecology emerged as a separate field of research in the USA since the 1920s, building on the work of sociologists from the Chicago School , such as Louis Wirth , Robert Ezra Park , Ernest Burgess and Roderick McKenzie . Other important authors of this time were Howard Washington Odum and the Indian sociologist Radhakamal Mukerjee (1889–1968). Deliberately differentiating it from other subjects, the geographer Harlan H. Barrows (1877–1960) tried to define human ecology as the very own field of activity of geographical research; By human ecology he understood the analysis of the mutual relationships between humans and their natural environment.

Since the 1930s it was recognized that humans, as animal creatures, are subject to ecological laws. GP Wells, Julian Huxley and HG Wells also discussed the relationships between general and human ecology in their book Science of Life ; the focus was particularly on adjustment processes.

After human-ecological ideas were rarely represented in sociology in the 1950s (exception, for example, Amos Hawley ), human-ecological topics in sociology, in particular by William R. Catton (* 1926) and Riley E. Dunlap, became more prominent again in the 1970s picked up. The core idea of ​​Catton and Dunlap was to move away from the Durkheim paradigm of explaining social facts only through other social facts. Instead, they wanted to introduce physical and biological factors into sociology as independent variables influencing social structure and other social phenomena. This paradigm shift can be described as a shift away from the classical sociological human exemptionalism paradigm (HEP) to a new ecological paradigm or new environmental paradigm (NEP). What is meant by this is that humans are no longer regarded as exceptional species that are culturally capable and thus also adaptable outside of genetic evolution and are more influenced by social than biological requirements. Instead, humans are viewed in the context of human ecology as one of many species that is in an interrelationship with the limited natural environment. In the eyes of many critics, a line of conflict between this new paradigm and the classic sociological approach was that it devalued society and culture .

Since the 1970s, the initially more sociological and geographical human ecology has developed into a multidisciplinary approach. In most European countries, human ecology did not emerge until the 1970s.

Scientific foundation

In German-speaking countries, too, human ecology is often interpreted scientifically , as a countercurrent to a sociological interpretation. This is based, among other things, on the influence of Eugene P. Odum , who in 1959 in the USA  also explicitly included humans with one of the first comprehensive textbooks for (scientific) ecology - Fundamentals of Ecology . Although humans play a special role for the earth's ecosystem due to their large number and special possibilities, the flows of information, energy and matter through human society are in a way that is comparable to those through the populations of other species, so that a natural scientific View is justified. In the scientific approach to economics, commodity theory and bioeconomics therefore also follow this approach . Wolfgang Nentwig , for example , wrote a modern textbook on human ecology .

Classification of human ecology

Human ecology is at the interface between social and natural sciences . Accordingly, human-ecological approaches are pursued by representatives from many different specialist areas, and the following are essentially involved:

Depending on the issue, neighboring disciplines such as agricultural sociology , urban and landscape planning , economics and history are also involved .

The human-ecological approach is particularly important in geography (geography), which is itself at the interface between social and natural sciences: It helps to overcome the polarity of human geography and physical geography , and thus makes a fundamental contribution a holistic human-environment research.

Sustainable development is an increasingly important research topic in the field of human ecology .

Definition from the German Society for Human Ecology

The German Society for Human Ecology was founded in 1975. It was initially geared towards social medicine . Today it defines human ecology as follows:

“Human ecology is a new type of scientific discipline, the subject of research is the causal relationships and interactions between society, people and the environment. Its core is a holistic approach that includes physical, cultural, economic and political aspects. The term human ecology originally comes from the sociological work of the Chicago School around 1920 and has since spread as a research perspective in the natural, social and planning sciences as well as in medicine. "

"New Human Ecology"

The German Catholic theologian and political philosopher Jürgen Manemann pleads for a “new human ecology” in view of global climate change . At its center is the conviction that a further homininization of the world, its driven appropriation by humans, as it is demanded by the proponents of the idea of ​​the Anthropocene , will lead the world into a disaster. Manemann therefore aims at a new understanding of human ecology beyond anthropocentrism and biocentrism . The new human ecology stands for the project of a deeper humanization (compare humanism ).

In the face of climate-related disasters is think more deeply about what the human element distinguishing and what it was, a human to lead life. Humanity is essential for humanity . By this, Manemann understands the ability to feel suffering and to allow oneself to be affected by the suffering of others, i.e. other people, animals and the rest of nature. This humanity is the prerequisite for "affected" ( Johann Baptist Metz ) that are not in a passive sympathy actively exhausted but Empower against the causes of suffering of others resistance to make. What is important is not a further hominization of the world, but a deeper humanization of humans. Manemann designs a new human ecology that aims to transform civil society into a “cultural society” ( Adrienne Goehler ).

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Karl Bruckmeier The Unknown History of Human Ecology . In: Wolfgang Serbser Humanökologie Münster 2003, pp. 45–120.
  2. ^ Eugene Cittadino The Failed Promise of Human Ecology in: Michael Shortland (ed.) Science and Nature: Essays in the History of the Environmental Sciences London 1993, pp. 252f.
  3. Harlan H. Barrows: Geography as Human Ecology . In: Annals of the Association of American Geographers . tape 13 , no. 1 , 1923, pp. 1-14 , doi : 10.1080 / 00045602309356882 .
  4. ^ Karl Bruckmeier The Unknown History of Human Ecology . In: Wolfgang Serbser Human Ecology , here p. 47.
  5. ^ Charles C. Adams The Relation of General Ecology to Human Ecology, Ecology 16 (1935): 316-35.
  6. This was viewed by some sociologists as an attack, but has now become a matter of course, also in other sub-disciplines such as the actor-network theory within the sociology of science.
  7. ^ Karl Bruckmeier The Unknown History of Human Ecology . In: Wolfgang Serbser Human Ecology , here p. 46.
  8. Wolfgang Nentwig : Human Ecology. Facts - arguments - prospects. 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-540-21160-8 .
  9. German Society for Human Ecology: Organization. ( Memento of December 11, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Berlin, accessed on September 24, 2014.
  10. Jürgen Manemann: Critique of the Anthropocene. Plea for a new human ecology. transcript, Bielefeld 2014.