Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite National Park As an Emergent Sacred Symbol: an Interaction Ritual Analysis of a Camping Trip

University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Kinesiology Scholarship Kinesiology

2017

Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite National Park as an Emergent Sacred Symbol: An Interaction Ritual Analysis of a Camping Trip

Kiernan O. Gordon [email protected]

Timothy J. Curry Ohio State University - Main Campus, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/kinesiology_facpub

Part of the Environmental Policy Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Leisure Studies Commons, Place and Environment Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons

Recommended Citation Curry, T.J. & Gordon, K.O. (2017) Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite National Park as an emergent sacred symbol: An interaction ritual analysis of a camping trip. Symbolic Interaction, 40 (2), 247-262.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Kinesiology at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kinesiology Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite National Park as an Emergent Sacred Symbol: An Interaction Ritual Analysis of a Camping Trip

Timothy J. Curry Ohio State University

Kiernan O. Gordon University of New Hampshire

We argue that interaction ritual (IR) theory provides a temporal and interactional point of origin from which to trace an inﬂuential IR chain that became a deciding factor in the uniﬁcation of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove under federal control within present-day Yosemite National Park. The emotions generated by the rituals of Roosevelt’s and Muir’s camping trip in May, 1903 in the short term, however, failed to result in a lasting consensus on ideology. This is a point that Roo- sevelt’s lack of support for Muir in the subsequent controversy over the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley clearly documents. A video abstract is available at http://tinyurl.com/myv74yd Keywords: Yosemite, preservation, camping, interaction ritual, symbol

INTRODUCTION The famous encounter between John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt that took place in Yosemite Valley, May 15 to 17,1903, provides an opportunity for micro-sociologists to examine ritual outcomes. From an interactionist perspective, the meeting of Muir and Roosevelt has particular interest in that both men have become important symbols of their era, and an interaction ritual (IR) analysis of the rituals surrounding their camping trip would help explain a puzzling outcome of the trip—why did Muir believe that Roosevelt was converted to a preservationist view of the wilderness, only later to be disappointed when Roosevelt failed to save Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley from damming?

Direct all correspondence to Kiernan O. Gordon, University of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Hall, 124 Main Street, Durham, NH 03824; e-mail:[email protected]. Both authors contributed equally to this work. [Correction added on 17 April 2017, after ﬁrst online publication: the link of the video abstract has been updated to http://tinyurl.com/myv74yd]

Symbolic Interaction,Vol.40,Issue2,pp.247–262,ISSN:0195-6086print/1533-8665online. ©2017SocietyfortheStudyofSymbolicInteraction.Allrightsreserved. DOI: 10.1002/SYMB.279 248 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

This essay’s reexamination of the historical record centers on the ritual elements of the Muir-Roosevelt camping trip. Our argument unfolds in three parts. First, to provide context for Muir’s preservationist stance, we discuss the rhetorical tech- niques used by Muir in his written work prior to the camping trip. We include Robert Underwood Johnson’s long description of his camping trip with Muir, which took place before the Muir-Roosevelt trip. Johnson’s description gives weight to the assertion that Muir approached these excursions as rituals, with practiced routine designed to elicit a favorable outcome. Second, we describe the historical records used in this research to reconstruct the interaction in the three-day camping trip that Muir spent with Roosevelt. Third, we analyze the emotions generated by the camping trip by introducing Collins (2004) framework of ritual ingredients and show how corresponding ritual outcomes of group solidarity led to subsequent chains of interaction committed to the protection of Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove as sacred wild spaces, but failed to result in a consensus for preservationist ideology.

ABRIEFINTRODUCTIONTOYOSEMITE,CAMPING,AND PRESERVATION Most historians describe the Muir-Roosevelt camping trip as simply recreational, but the trip has a more complex ideological context than hitherto acknowledged. First as a guide, then later in tandem with other members of the Sierra Club, which Muir cofounded in 1892, Muir used such camping trips to Yosemite and the Sierra Nevada Mountains as opportunities to introduce people frst-hand to the wilderness experience (Gifford 1996). In fact, a camping trip to Yosemite in 1889 with Robert Underwood Johnson, then Associate Editor of Century magazine, gave Muir the idea for his writing campaign of 1890 to promote the area surrounding the state-owned Yosemite Valley as a national park. Johnson provides a description of his experiences with Muir, including the campfre at Soda Springs where they planned out two articles that Muir would write for Century.Whileweobviouslydonothaveaword-for-wordtranscriptionofwhatMuir spoke of during this camping trip, Johnson provided detailed recollections of his meeting with Muir and the camping trip (Johnson 1923:279–289). Christine Oravec (1981) has analyzed the rhetorical strategies that Muir deployed in those articles and other essays published prior to them. Oravec argues that we should look at the events that Johnson describes in his reminiscences of the camping trip in a broader context as a partly spontaneous, partly orchestrated ritual designed to “elicit public action for scenic preservation” (Oravec 1981:247). To illustrate, Oravec notes that while Muir began his career as a natural history essayist, he moved beyond focusing on pure description to create a “sensation of mountain grandeur.” In other words, Muir abandoned a strictly rational, descriptive approach and instead decided to evoke a “sublime response” to nature, one that featured a sense of “over-whelming personal insignifcance, akin to awe, and ultimately a kind of spiritual exaltation” (Oravec 1981:248). Johnson affrms Muir’s emphasis on the sublimity of nature when Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 249 he remarks that in observing the beauty of the valley with Muir: “One fnds himself continually in a state between awe and rapture, overwhelmed by impressions which I, at least, have never been able to express, even in verse” (Johnson 1923:280). Oravec notes that Muir appealed to the reader’s sense of ethical responsibility by arguing that humanity, left to its own greedy nature, would destroy the wilderness in search of profts. He urged his readers to actively support legislative measures that promoted the preservationist cause.1 By doing so, they would become members of a select group who not only are able to appreciate sublime wilderness, but also fght for its survival. Similarly, Johnson discusses Muir’s disdain for sheep as “hooved locusts,” and the importance of shielding Yosemite’s meadows from sheepherders grazing their herds (Johnson 1923:288). Muir developed in his writings a literary persona—the“truemountaineer.”Based on his own experiences as a guide and explorer of the mountains in California, Muir involved his readers in dramatic physical exertions in nature, some involving very close brushes with death through misadventure. The mountaineer persona thus provided his readers with a vicarious experience of encountering the wilderness as an unspoiled terrain, in all its glory and possible terrors. Muir occasionally used the same approach in guiding visitors to Yosemite. Johnson described both the strenuous hike Muir led him on high above the valley foor and Muir’s desire to fnd adventurous companions to take on such trips (Johnson 1923:285).

METHODS This research depends on primary and secondary sources supplemented by feld research and examined through IR theory (Collins 2004). While there is no single authoritative version of the camping trip, the trip was documented in a contemporary typewritten account by Charles Leidig, a ranger who accompanied Roosevelt and Muir. Leidig’s account has been supplemented with photographs taken on the trip (e.g., see Anderson 1951; Hartesveldt 1955; Johnston 1994, 2008; Koller 1959; Leidig 1903). Other sources include contemporary newspaper articles, journals and letters written by Muir, Roosevelt, and others knowledgeable about the history of Yosemite. Chief amongst these sources are William Frederic Badè (1924), who was appointed Muir’s “literary executor” by the family after Muir’s death and who interviewed Roosevelt about his experiences on the camping trip, and Linnie Marsh Wolfe (1945), who was given access to Muir’s papers and encouraged by Muir’s daughters to write an authorized biography of Muir (Turner 1985:355). The political campaign over Yosemite Valley has also been well-documented. Brinkley (2009) has written a lengthy account of Roosevelt’s life, political successes, and his “Great Loop” western political campaign of 1903, which provides a comprehensive context for the events that surrounded the camping trip. Likewise, Fox (1981), Jones (1965), and Turner (1985) provide an assessment of Muir’s role in the American preservation movement, and Righter (2005) provides an account of the battle over Hetch Hetchy. 250 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

These source materials frequently refer to specifc locations in and around Yosemite that have since become shrines to Muir and his colleagues in the preservation movement. The frst author of this paper visited several of these locations during the course of this research to verify accounts of their peculiar geography, spectacular scenery, and other aspects of the landmarks. Sites visited include Soda Springs, the Mariposa Grove, the Wawona Hotel, Glacier Point, Nevada Falls, Vernal Falls, the Bridalveil Falls meadow, and the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. In addition, Muir’s home in Martinez, California, and the collection of Muir and Roosevelt letters and other documents in the Holt-Atherton Special Collection housed at the University of the Pacifc, were explored for relevance to the camping trip.

THE CAMPING TRIP Theodore Roosevelt Initiated the idea for the camping trip in the spring of 1903. The President was familiar with many of John Muir’s writings, and he wanted to meet Muir and spend some time with him in Yosemite. Roosevelt corresponded with Muir about the trip, and made it clear that he wished to be alone with him—the camping trip was to be a special occasion, just between Roosevelt and Muir. Muir had planned to take an extended tour of the world’s forests with a friend, fellow tree expert C.S. Sargent, but postponed the trip, feeling: “I might be able to do some forest good in freely talking around the campsite” (Hartesveldt 1955:134).

Day 1 (May 15) The President boarded the train in Oakland, heading for the Raymond railroad station, the closest one to Yosemite. Muir was also on the train and met the Presi- dent after breakfast. At Raymond, two, eleven-person passenger stages were waiting to take the offcial party to the Mariposa Grove and the Wawona Hotel located at the south entrance to Yosemite Valley. Roosevelt and Muir boarded the lead stage. Roosevelt sat in the front row with Muir behind him (to point out places of interest). The Governor of California, George C. Pardee, was also in the coach along with other dignitaries. The second stage had four secret service agents, other personnel, and behind the two stages rode thirty U.S. Cavalrymen. The stages arrived without incident at Mariposa Grove, and photographs were taken at popular tourist sites, including two giant sequoia trees named the Wawona Tunnel Tree and the Grizzly Giant. After the photographs were taken, Roosevelt dismissed the troops, and sent away the press and photographers. Roosevelt and Muir remained at the grove along witha smallsupport staffthat would accompany them on their excursion, which consisted of two rangers, Archie Leonard and Charles Leidig, and an Army climber, Jackie Alder. The rest of the offcial party continued on to the Wawona Hotel (Johnston 1994). Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 251

The Mariposa Grove contained hundreds of sequoia trees, and Muir and Roo- sevelt camped near one called the “Sunset Tree.” Roosevelt was “‘happy as a boy out of school’ as he wandered amongst the giant sequoias, marveling at their size” (Wolfe 1945:291). As Roosevelt (1915) later recollected: “It was clear weather, and we lay in the open, the enormous cinnamon- colored trunks rising about us like the columns of a vaster and more beautiful cathedral than was ever conceived by any human architect.” Muir was well-versed in the natural history of Yosemite. According to Johnson, he never failed to give “more delightful information about the mountains than a professor of geology would put into a chapter” (1923:285). Roosevelt, in turn, was an expert on birds and birdcalls. Both were excellent storytellers, so the conversations were lengthy, and they talked well into the night. These exchanges are signifcant because they set a tone and established an emotional bond between Muir and Roosevelt. Throughout the camping trip, Muir used these opportunities to lobby Roosevelt for the need for federal protection of the forests and other public lands. As Muir later told a friend “I stuffed him pretty well regarding the timber thieves, the destructive work of the lumberman, and other spoil- ers of the forest” (Johnston 2008:236).

Day 2 (May 16) They traveled through the Yosemite wilderness all the next day. In the afternoon, they fought through snow drifts and a “blinding snowstorm” on horseback before making camp near Sentinel Dome, a few miles from Glacier Point, where they camped in a meadow under the branches of a silver fr. Roosevelt declined a tent, preferring to sleep under a pile of Army blankets. It was apparently the exact rustic, outdoor adventure the President had hoped for (Anderson 1951). That night Muir and Roosevelt again talked besides the campfre. Perhaps as a sign of their growing intimacy and companionship generated by the physical challenges of the snowstorm, Roosevelt shared his enthusiasm for hunting, while Muir chastised him for killing animals. Roosevelt loved animals, but he also liked to hunt big game. Fortunately for Muir, the President let the disagreement slide, tacitly agreeing by saying “Muir, I guess you are right” (Wolfe 1945:292). Later in the night, more snow fell, and by morning four to fve inches covered the President’s pile of blankets. Muir added some drama later in the evening:

Their supper done, they lay down on beds of fr and ferns to talk. When dark was well advanced, Muir rose quickly and set fre to a tall dead pine tree in the meadow. Soon the tree was a roaring tower of fame. “Hurrah!” yelled the President, “that’s a candle it took 500 years to make. Hurrah for Yosemite!” (Wolfe 1945:291)

Roosevelt loved the adventure, snow and all, declaring it to be a “bully” experience and saying “I wouldn’t miss this for anything” (Wolfe 1945:292). 252 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

Day 3 (May 17) At sunrise, Muir and Roosevelt rode horseback with their guides along the trail to Glacier Point. A photographer was waiting for them, and four photographs were taken at Glacier Point—two of Roosevelt and Muir together, and two of Roosevelt alone on Overhanging Rock. Roosevelt was so taken with the view from Glacier Point that he vowed to spend another night camping on the valley foor. According to Koller, “[i]t is said he cried from sheer emotional joy as he viewed the foor of the valley from Glacier Point” (Koller 1959:31). After the photosession, Roosevelt and Muir continued on their way to the valley foor along with the rangers. The fourteen-mile route to the valley took them through wilderness, but when they reached Nevada Falls, they were met by a small crowd waiting at the summit. The rangers sent the crowd away, but again, near the bridge at Happy Isles, another small party was waiting to see Roosevelt; they were also sent away. Roosevelt and Muir continued on to Yosemite Village, where members of the Yosemite State Commission had plans for a banquet, freworks, a light show, and public ceremonies at the Sentinel Hotel, in direct opposition to the Pres- ident’s own plans. A larger crowd had gathered there, but again, Roosevelt was in no mood to turn the camping trip into a political rally. While on horseback, Roo- sevelt declared in front of the Sentinel Hotel: “We will pitch camp at Bridalveil!” (Anderson 1951). Roosevelt’s and Muir’s campsite in the valley was in Bridalveil meadow, and provided a dramatic view of El Capitan across the Merced River with Ribbon Fall cascading down from the north rim of the valley (Anderson 1951). That night appears to have been particularly important for creating an agenda for political action and a melding of Roosevelt’s and Muir’s views on the preservation of “parks and forests, of fast disappearing natural habitats for wildlife” (Anderson 1951). While Roosevelt may have been sold on the idea of receding Yosemite Valley from the State of California to the federal government on the frst day of the trip, Muir wanted to plant other ideas. He “explained to Roosevelt … that he had an ulterior motive, an agenda item-saving Mount Shasta along the California-Oregon border and enlarging Yosemite National Park to include the Mariposa Grove at the Yosemite Valley” (Brinkley 2009:546).

Aftermath The stories around the campfres and the ride through the valley had been instructive. Demonstrating that he had embraced Muir’s preservationist ideals, Roosevelt was not impressed by the Yosemite Valley [State] Commissioners plans to set off freworks and illuminate the cliffs with a searchlight, disrupting and spoiling the natural environment. The camping trip had convinced Muir that he had persuaded Roosevelt that they not only had a shared interest in loving adventures in the outdoors, they Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 253 also had a shared understanding of the enemy—sheepherders and others who would destroy public lands for personal proft (Brinkley 2009:543). In other words, for Muir, as Brinkley indicates, the camping trip apparently “worked.” Roosevelt had been won over to Muir’s vision of a wild California and the importance of saving California redwoods into the national park system. In a speech given in Sacramento after his return from the camping trip, the President declared:

In California I am impressed by how great the State is, but I am even more impressed by the immensely greater greatness that lies in the future, and I ask you that your marvelous natural resources be handed on unimpaired to your posterity. We are not building this country of ours for a day. It is to last through the ages. (Brinkley 2009:546)

Also, while in Sacramento, and only a day after he left Muir in the Valley, the President telegraphed Secretary of Interior Hitchcock to extend the Sierra reserve along the boundaries desired by Muir (Fox 1981:126). He attached a copy of the telegraph to a letter he sent Muir. It is clear from the letter that Roosevelt was emotionally engaged with Muir and the wilderness experience. His language evokes the sacredness of the giant sequoias:

Ishallneverforgetourthreecamps;thefrstinthesolemntempleofthegiant sequoias; the next in the snowstorm among the silver frs near the brink of the cliff; and the third on the foor of the Yosemite, in the open valley, fronting the stupendous rocky mass of El Capitan, with the falls thundering in the distance on either hand. (Brinkley 2009:547)

By trip’s end, Muir realized that Roosevelt would support his legislative agenda of returning Yosemite Valley to federal control. Muir then galvanized his efforts for lobbying the California legislature, worked with the Sierra Club to create favorable public opinion, and contacted important and infuential people such as his friend, E. H. Harriman, President of the Union Pacifc railroad, to secure passage of the legislation. Even so, much political maneuvering was required to enact the legislation that would remove Yosemite Valley from state control. Likewise, Roosevelt also had to maneuver Congress to accept the valley. Roo- sevelt’s and Muir’s mutual awareness of their shared vision for Yosemite Valley established by the camping trip resulted in a new offcial public policy, when, on June 19, 1906, Roosevelt signed legislation that enlarged Yosemite National Park by 41.67 square miles—nearly 27,000 acres. With the enlargement, Muir fulflled his vision of a national park system, inaugurated when Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove came under federal control (Brinkley 2009:649). However, Roosevelt’s support for preserving the pristine environment of Yosemite National Park eroded after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. The destruction to the city was immense, and the city authorities were seeking to rebuild basic infrastructure, including water and power. They set their sights on constructing 254 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017 areservoirintheHetchHetchyValley,aprotectedareawithinYosemiteNational Park. John Muir wrote to Roosevelt in 1907 requesting his assistance to protect the Hetch Hetchy Valley from the city’s encroachment, and Roosevelt answered that he “would do all in his power to protect the Hetch Hetchy,” but acknowledged that “keeping a valley, which apparently hardly anyone wants to have kept, under federal control” was becoming a “disagreeable position” (Righter 2005:69). In another letter to Muir in 1908, Roosevelt wrote that: “I must see that San Francisco has an adequate water supply” (Righter 2005:70). Believing that the city of San Francisco needed a reservoir to supply water to its distressed residents, and that the governing principle of the use of natural resources ought to be delivering “the greatest good for the greatest number of people,” Roosevelt sided with his chief forester, Gifford Pinchot, to allow the city to obtain a permit for developing a hydropower system in Yosemite National Park by damming the Tuolumne River and fooding the Hetch Hetchy Valley. In other words, fve years after the camping trip, Roosevelt reluc- tantly shifted his political stance on the preservation of Yosemite away from Muir’s, bringing an end to the apparent solidarity the two men once enjoyed over the fate of Yosemite National Park. The eventual damming of the Tuolumne River and the fooding of the Hetch Hetchy galvanized the Sierra Club and other preservationists to pressure Congress to enact legislation to protect other national parks from similar encroachments. Years later, preservationists were successful in blocking a dam proposed for Dinosaur National Monument and two dams proposed for the Grand Canyon National Park. As environmental historians Ben A. Minteer and Stephen J. Pyne conclude, the quarrel between the Preservationists (Muir) and the Conservationists (Pinchot) that began over the Hetch Hetchy eventually grew into the modern environmental movement. For the preservationists, the Hetch Hetchy has become a sacred symbol of a “martyred landscape” and the camping trip itself an “anchor point” of the preservationist narrative stance toward wilderness (Minteer and Pyne 2012). For our purposes, we wish to conclude the description of the camping trip at this point, recognizing that there are adequate historical accounts of the rise of the environmental movement such as the one provided by Nash (2001). We do want to stress that from an interactionist point-of-view, though, the emotional ramifcations of the camping trip extend far beyond the three days Muir and Roosevelt spent in the valley and may well have contributed to decades of environmental protectionism and, some would say, a loss of pragmatic traditions that have been swept away by “doctrinaire preservationism” stemming from that trip (Minteer and Pyne 2012:10).

THEORETICAL FRAME We used IR theory (Collins 2004) as the lens through which to examine the Muir-Roosevelt camping trip. The theory is a synthesis of micro-oriented, sociological perspectives, containing elements from Durkheimian sociology, symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, the sociology of emotions, and exchange theory to aid Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 255 scholars in examining the emergence of key interactional ingredients that have lasting infuence on behavior. Collins argues that IR theory enables researchers to trace the emergence of larger social processes and structures to their interactional point(s) of origin. In IR theory, each interaction yields different outcomes for those individuals who participate within them. The extent to which individuals can orient their attention toward those objects or activities that are at the root of each interaction shapes these outcomes. According to Collins, four ingredients are inherent to every successful IR, which yield four ritual outcomes. The four ritual ingredients are bodily copresence, abarriertooutsiders,amutualfocusofattention,andasharedmood. Bodily copresence requires that two or more individuals need to be physically present with one another during the interaction. This provides the greatest potential for a variety of feedback mechanisms to intensify their interaction and yield ritual outcomes. Barriers to outsiders further enhance the potential for feedback mechanisms that facilitate interactional rhythm among those present by limiting both the opportunities for others to enter that IR as well as limiting the opportunities for current interactants to leave the group for other potential IRs. This IR exclusivity allows for the successful build-up of collective emotion required for an IR to have a lasting infuence on those involved through interactants’ joint focus on a common object or activity. This mutual focus on a common object or activity produces a shared mood for the IR’s participants. Of particular note is that a mutual focus of attention and a shared mood reinforce each other, which intensifes the IR’s outcomes. Here, the participants’ shared mood is heightened when they develop a mutual awareness of their shared focus; they become conscious of their joint attention towards the object or activity at the root of their interaction which intensifes their shared mood. Shared conversational rhythm, as an example, heightens the IR’s intensity. Non- verbal language, such as eye contact, and group member adherence to conversational structure, primarily through contextually appropriate “turn-taking,” also facilitate a shared rhythm among those engaged in such IRs (Collins 2004). An especially uplift- ing shared mood produces strong emotions among interactants. Bodily copresence, a barrier to outsiders, a mutual focus of attention, and a shared mood—the four ritual ingredients—must all be present in order to produce four ritual outcomes. Those outcomes are social solidarity, the sacralization of symbols, the creation of emotional energy, and standards of morality. Individuals develop feelings of membership in the group when the ingredients are present in the IR. This social solidarity is expressed through symbols, which emerge from the IR and both represent the larger group and signify membership within that group. They can be anything that represents the larger collective, such as words, ideas, objects, places, processes, or other persons. The extent to which these symbols are infused with situational emotion as a consequence of the interaction greatly infu- ences each interactant’s subsequent behavioral choices. 256 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

Group members experience social solidarity as each interaction yields varying levels of emotional energy (EE) for its participants. EE “is carried across situations by symbols that have been charged up by emotional situations” (Collins 2004:107); it is the primary arousal mechanism that catalyzes behavior by connecting one’s experience in a particular interactional setting to his or her decision to engage in another subsequent interaction oriented toward the same symbol(s). “Face-to-face” interactions have the greatest potential to yield group solidarity and high levels of EE for those present because of the opportunity for physical symbols to emerge through the course of interaction. Individuals present in such IRs develop clear standards of morality. The emergence of high EE-yielding symbols for any number of interactants as a consequence of their participation in an IR enables the development of a sharp distinction between “right” and “wrong,” insofar as these terms relate to the symbols at the root of their collective group experience. IRs that yield a high level of EE for those engaged with them, through collective effervescence, have a particularly strong infuence on future EE-seeking behavior and exemplify IR-rooted phenomena. Thus, all EE-seeking choices and behaviors create an interactional sequence with an IR point of origin. Collins (2004) refers to this sequence as an “IR chain,” IR theory applies equally well to analyses involving small or large groups. Correspondingly, scholars have utilized IR theory to examine interaction in a variety of settings. Examples demonstrating the breadth of IR theory include analyses of the ritualized process inherent to Sacred Harp singing (Heider and Warner 2010), the lasting effects of EE on those who attend a National Football League game (Cottingham 2012), and the relevance of ritual and emotion to the mobilization of consumers of Fair Trade coffee (Brown 2011). IR theory is particularly appropriate for the subject of this paper because it focuses attention on the camping trip as a ritual experience of great consequence. For IR theory to be an effective sociological tool, it requires researchers to estab- lish the locus of analysis for the IR under investigation. The emphasis in the present paper is on understanding how Yosemite National Park emerged as a sacred symbol as a consequence of Muir and Roosevelt’s camping trip. Collins (2004) urges that the research paradigm for the sociology of rituals include historical analyses to explain the origins of important, contemporary symbols. Moreover, he offers useful guidelines for unraveling contemporary symbols to ascertain the points at which they became signifcant through the IR theory framework. These guidelines are: judg- ing the intensity of the symbolism involved, reconstructing the IRs from which the symbolism emerged, tracing the secondary circulation of relevant symbols, and examining the use of these symbols by group members when they are outside of group IRs (see Collins 2004:97–99). These guidelines were followed in the current project. Heider and Warner (2010) also used Collins’ IR perspective to analyze the solidarity produced by physically intense rituals and offered an important addendum. Namely, that the social solidarity created as a consequence of physically intense rituals may occur prior to or in the absence of ideological consensus. We examine the Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 257 camping trip with this addendum in mind: does the camping trip itself provide evidence that Muir overestimated the degree of ideological consensus he shared with Roosevelt at the end of the trip because of the high level of social solidarity achieved during it?

IR THEORY APPLIED TO THE CAMPING TRIP Camping as an IR lends itself to the sacralization of a variety of environmental objects within nature, if not the entirety of nature itself. Campers generally engage in activities that enable them to experience a “oneness” with nature, if not to revere certain aspects of it. Given the fact that Muir and Roosevelt engaged with nature in avarietyofwaysduringthecampingtrip,Yosemite’semergenceasasacredsymbol through the course of the camping trip is to be expected. The two men developed an interactional rhythm, whereby they would traverse some portion of the Valley during the day and exchange stories around the campfre at night. The content of these stories—each man’s regard for and various past experiences with nature—and their temporal predictability enabled them to direct their attention toward nature and develop a shared mood, which was heightened through their mutual awareness of their joint attention towards nature. Yosemite, itself, served as a barrier to outsiders and facilitated this shared mood. Consequently, we believe that Muir’s guided camping trips to Yosemite ft the conditions of a ritual, as defned by Collins (2004:7): “ritual is a mechanism of mutually focused emotion and attention producing a momentarily shared reality, which thereby generates solidarity and symbols of group membership.” Muir’s camping trips had a purpose other than the sheer enjoyment of the outdoors. Through his guidance, the camper was initiated into a status group that shared a view of wilderness as a sacred space that needed defending. As we noted in the above study of his writing, Muir was skilled at emotional per- suasion. IR theory offers an appropriate vehicle for studying Muir’s camping ritual because it focuses on the role emotions play in generating social structure. More specifcally, the use of IR theory allows for a clear understanding as to how the three-day camping trip in the Yosemite Valley between Muir and Roosevelt became such a powerful point of initiation in the unifcation of both Yosemite Valley and in the greater preservationist movement. IR theory accounts more effectively for both the ingredients present in the Muir-Roosevelt camping trip and its corresponding preservation outcome than do other theories. Rational choice theory, for example, would appear to be an appropriate ft for the camping trip, given each man’s motiva- tions to join the other on the excursion. Both Muir and Roosevelt each had material interests. Each believed that the other man could assist him and they could work together to their mutual beneft. But, rationally-oriented, cost/beneft analyses, such as those at the heart of rational choice theory, do not effectively account for the ritual outcomes of Muir and Roosevelt’s interaction in this case nor its political consequence: the unifcation of Yosemite Valley under federal control. 258 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

The way in which Muir used nature to evoke a “sublime response” from those he wished to gain empathy for, if not identify with, his perspective involved prede- termined nature-based rituals. As Oravec (1981) noted, Muir had abandoned more rational, cost-beneft approaches to garner support for his preservationist interests in favor of those activities that could lead to predictably high emotional experiences for anyone whom he wished to infuence. Roosevelt’s response to Muir in his letter from Sacramento, which he wrote only a day after leaving Muir in Yosemite Valley, is exemplary of the emotionally laden, sublime response that Muir hoped to yield in Roosevelt. Roosevelt referenced the sacredness of Yosemite’s giant sequoias in recalling his presence within their “solemn temple.” This language marks an important shift from the unifcation of Yosemite Valley as a business decision to an emotionally laden, value-oriented action. Roosevelt uses this letter to explain to Muir that their experience together created a new appreciation of nature as a sacred space. Consequently, IR theory’s emphasis on the emergence of symbols and emotions as outcomes of subcultural indoctrination, and the value of those outcomes in fueling subsequent action, is particularly helpful for understanding how Yosemite Valley came to be unifed under federal control in contrast to more rational theoretical perspectives. Moreover, applying Collins (2004) four, requisite, ritual ingredients at the heart of IR theory to the camping trip—bodily copresence, barrier to outsiders, mutual focus of attention, and shared mood—enables a clear understanding of the context around which Yosemite emerged as a sacred symbol that prompted Roosevelt to initiate policy that was intended to preserve it. This further solidifes the value of IR theory for the current project. A few examples from the camping trip illustrate how that trip became such a high EE-yielding IR for both Muir and Roosevelt particularly well. The frst ingredient, bodily copresence was accomplished when Roosevelt separated from much of his entourage to join Muir in exploring the Valley. The fact that the two men separated from most of the others who traveled to Yosemite with them is signifcant. Roosevelt’s original plans for the trip were to go camping with Muir and he had to continually remind local politicians, who wanted to use this trip for their own purposes, that he intended to stick to his original plan. Yosemite Valley itself served as a physical barrier to outside interference and emerged as an important symbol through the course of the camping trip, one that catalyzed Muir and Roosevelt’s copresence and became the primary symbol around which they mutually focused their attention. Social action and the resonance of its various constituents make the physical environment a barrier to outsiders only if other interactional ingredients, such as shared rhythm and shared mood, are present. The two men engaged in a variety of types of interaction together within Yosemite through different camping rituals, such as freside chats and horseback rides, which reifed Yosemite as the primary symbol around which the two men interacted. This enabled the two men to enjoy a shared emotional experience as detailed in primary Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 259 and secondary historical accounts. Consequently, the outcome of this trip yielded EE for both Muir and Roosevelt, the latter of whom chose to ensure Yosemite’s preservation by unifying it under federal control. The importance of the four, requisite, IR ingredients in yielding social solidarity is further exemplifed by an exchange between the two men on the second day of their trip (May 16). As noted above, Roosevelt shared his enthusiasm for hunting during one of their campfre chats. Muir, however, criticized him for killing animals. This exchange could have jeop- ardized the IR for Roosevelt who quickly elected, however, to acquiesce to Muir’s strong show of emotion. Rather than feeling scorned by Muir for changing the focus of attention during the IR, Roosevelt agreed with him instead. Interestingly, Muir leveraged this IR, one which he had become quite skilled at executing, to socialize Roosevelt in the proper cultural capital of preservation. Roosevelt’s acquiescence exemplifes the effectiveness of this IR; despite having agreateroverallamountofEEbyvirtueofpowerandstatuscomparedtoMuir, Roosevelt was quick to yield both to Muir’s preservationist ethos in order to maintain the camping trip IR. The value of the two men’s shared mood in yielding ritual outcomes is illus- trated throughout the trip by the thematic importance of Yosemite Valley as an awe-inspiring, sacred space. As an example, on the third day (May 17) Roosevelt “cried from sheer emotional joy as he viewed the foor of the Valley from Glacier Point” (Koller 1959:31). Roosevelt’s emotional response in this moment is the nonverbal example par excellence of the sublime response to nature so sought-after by Muir in his camping rituals. In fact, this moment is exemplary of Muir’s ritual- istic camping practice: Muir led Roosevelt precisely to the spot where the sublime response was likely to be manifested. The end of the camping trip provides a useful example of social solidarity. A large crowd had gathered on site upon Roosevelt and Muir’s arrival at the Sentinel Hotel on May 17.Roosevelt, however, did not want to turn the camping trip into a political rally. This demonstrates that the camping trip IR still had resonance for Roosevelt, even upon arriving amidst members of the Yosemite State Commission who wished to celebrate his appearance. Roosevelt voluntarily maintained his barrier to outsiders and, in fact, exclaimed his preference for the camping trip IR while in front of the Sentinel. This infers that social solidarity was created as a consequence of Roosevelt’s and Muir’s camping trip IR and Roosevelt’s declaration to those present that they “will pitch camp at Bridalveil!” (Anderson 1951) illustrates his desire to impress others with his enthusiasm for camping with Muir. Muir’s understanding of the camping trip IR in particular and, by extension, his power to evoke the sublime response to nature through ritual needs to be under- stood and respected as a sophisticated political maneuver. His arguments for extend- ing federal protection to Yosemite Valley were not predicated on a strictly rational, 260 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017 economic basis. Indeed, placing the sequoia trees in the Mariposa Grove under federal control was a way of preserving this “solemn temple” from desecration. Muir took advantage of the last evening of the camping trip—one which involved Roo- sevelt crying while looking upon the Valley foor that morning and later rejecting the Yosemite State Commission’s party plans in favor of another night of camping—to capitalize on Roosevelt’s apparent passion for sequoias to get additional land protected at Mount Shasta and to expand the parameters of Yosemite Valley. Muir was masterful in his timing; he recognized that the two men had developed social solidarity after witnessing Roosevelt’s actions throughout the day and maximized that opportunity by asking for the protection of additional land. The value of examining the camping trip and its outcomes through the IR theory lens is made particularly evident when juxtaposing Roosevelt’s decision to unify Yosemite Valley against his willingness, if not outright support, to dam Hetch Hetchy. These two acts appear to run counter to each other; Roosevelt’s approach to Hetch Hetchy contradicts the preservationist ethos that informed his decision to unify Yosemite Valley under federal control. Roosevelt’s decision to dam Hetch Hetchy demonstrates just how emotionally laden his decision to unify the Valley actually must have been and provides further evidence of Heider and Warner’s (2010) assertion that social solidarity as a ritual outcome does not necessarily yield ideological consensus. This also appears to support Collins (2004) assertion that individuals must engage in IRs frequently if they wish to sustain social solidarity. While Muir was a master at evoking the sublime response throughout the camping trip IR, it appears as though he may have underestimated or been unaware of the long-term sustainability of that IR’s outcomes.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, the three-day camping trip that John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt shared in Yosemite, May 15 to 17,1903, initiated a national policy in favor of preservation. Reconstructing the events of the camping trip through both primary and secondary sources, then reinterpreting the trip through IR theory (Collins 2004), allows for a deep understanding as to what made the trip so signifcant in the lives of Muir and Roosevelt, as well as the unifcation of Yosemite Valley and the larger preservationist movement. In particular, IR theory’s four, requisite, ritual ingredients—bodily copresence, barrier to outsiders, mutual focus of attention, and shared mood—were applied to Muir and Roosevelt’s camping trip to understand how ritualized outcomes, specifcally social solidarity, emerged as a consequence of the trip. In doing so, we introduced the notion of Muir as a master of applied IR theory by examining his role in the camping trip as an orchestrator of emotions designed to elicit a favorable, political decision from Roosevelt. When other compelling needs surfaced, however, Roosevelt did not stop the damming of the Tuolumne River in Hetch Hetchy Valley. So, we fnd here an Muir, Roosevelt, and Yosemite 261 interesting application for future research. The powerful effects of ritual may smooth over underlying identity issues and substantial ideological differences, only to have those identities and issues reemerge at a later time. If Muir had under- stood this, perhaps he could have found some way to re-engage with Roosevelt to strengthen and further perpetuate the EE generated on the camping trip. If the two men had camped regularly during the fve years between the preservation of Yosemite and the damming of Hetch Hetchy, would the EE have been high enough within Roosevelt to preserve Hetch Hetchy? Five years was long enough for the EE from the camping trip to diminish within Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s credentials as a preservationist, though, cannot be denied. When competing needs arose, however, he abandoned Muir’s preservationist stance on the Hetch Hetchy in favor of Pinchot’s more practical, conservationist stance. Roosevelt’s rationality emerged in lieu of Muir’s ritual. The results of the subsequent competition between preservation and conservation have reverberated in the environmental movement ever since.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would also like to thank Rachel Trubowitz, Paula Page, and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and incredibly helpful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

NOTE 1. Building on Oravac, we focus on how Muir’s literary persona, the true mountaineer, helped him to give his readers an intense, frst-hand experience of the wilderness and to inspire their loyalty to the preservationist cause. While Oravec’s analysis of the rhetoric within Muir’s writings is thorough and convincing, she does not extend her analysis to the writing about his camping trips. However, it seems likely based on Johnson’s account that Muir used similar themes to those that Oravec identifes in his other writings. These themes include (1) combining a sense of wonder and awe at the grandeur of nature (the sublime response), (2) a proclivity for intense physical involvement with nature (the mountaineer), and (3) a moral obligation to defend these pristine locations from the deprivations of humanity (through preservationist legislation). We use these three themes as a lens for interpreting the interactions that took place on Muir’s and Roosevelt’s trip to Yosemite.

REFERENCES Anderson, Ralph H. 1951 “We Will Pitch Camp at Bridalveil!” Yosemite Nature News XXX, May, No. 5, pp. 43–46. Badè, William Frederic. 1924. The Life and Letters of John Muir,Vol.2.Boston,MA:Houghton Miffin Company. Brinkley, Douglass. 2009. The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Brown, K.R. 2011. “Interaction Ritual Chains and the Mobilization of Conscientious Consumers.” Qualitative Sociology 34:121–141. 262 Symbolic Interaction Volume 40, Number 2, 2017

Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress. Cottingham, M.D. 2012. “Interaction Ritual Theory and Sports Fans: Emotion, Symbols, and Soli- darity.” Sociology of Sport Journal 29:168–195. Fox, Stephen. 1981. John Muir and His Legacy: The American Conservation Movement.Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company. Gifford, Terry, (ed). 1996. John Muir: His Life and Letters and Other Writings.Seattle,WA:The Mountaineers. Hartesveldt, Richard J. 1955. “Roosevelt and Muir – Conservationists.” Yosemite Nature News XXXIV, November No. 11, pp. 133–136. Heider, Anne and R. Stephen Warner. 2010. “Bodies in Sync: Interaction Ritual Theory Applied to Sacred Harp Singing.” Sociology of Religion 71(1):76–97. Johnson, Robert Underwood. 1923. Remembered Yesterdays.Boston,MA:Little,BrownPublishing. Johnston, Hank. 1994. “A Camping Trip with Roosevelt and Muir.” Yosemite 56, No. 3 Summer, pp. 2–4. Johnston, Hank. 2008. The Yosemite Grant, 1864–1906: A Pictorial History. Yosemite National Park, CA: Yosemite Natural History Association. Jones, Holway R. 1965. John Muir and the Sierra Club: The Battle for Yosemite.SanFrancisco,CA: Sierra Club. Koller, Marvin R. 1959. “Presidential Visits to Yosemite (Part II).” Yosemite Nature News 38, March, No. 3, pp. 30–34. Leidig, Charles. 1903. Report of President Roosevelt’s Visit in May, 1903.Yosemite,CA:Yosemite National Park Archive. Minteer, Ben A. and Stephen J. Pyne. 2012. “Restoring the Narrative of American Environmental- ism.” Restoration Ecology 21(1):6–11. Nash, Roderick Frazier. 2001. Wilderness & The American Mind. 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oravec, Christine. 1981. “John Muir: Yosemite, and the Sublime Response: A Study in the Rhetoric of Preservationism.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 67(3):245–258. Righter, Robert W. 2005. The Battle Over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of the Modern Environmentalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1915. “John Muir: An Appreciation.” Outlook 109, January 16, pp. 27–28. Turner, Frederick. 1985. John Muir: Rediscovering America.Cambridge,MA:PerseusPublishing. Wolfe, Linnie March. 1945. Son of the Wilderness: The Life of John Muir. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTOR(S) Dr. Timothy J. Curry is Associate Professor Emeritus of Sociology at The Ohio State University. He has published articles on the subjects of social psychology, sport and society, racial and gender depictions in mass media, and men’s health issues, as well as four books: Sports: A Social Perspective; Introducing Visual Sociology; High Stakes: Big Time Sports and Downtown Redevelopment; and Sociology for the Twenty-First Century. Dr. Curry is a Past President of the International Visual Sociology Association, and the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport. He is currently working on a new introductory Sociology text designed for online reading on multiple platforms.

Dr. Kiernan O. Gordon is Assistant Professor of Sport Studies within the Department of Kinesiol- ogy at the University of New Hampshire. His research examines the relationship between sport and place, often through the use of visually-based methods. Dr. Gordon’s current projects focus on the intersection of emotion and memory relative to people’s engagement with sport places.