Radical Conservation and the Politics of Planning: a Historical Study, 1917-1945
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Oregon Scholars' Bank RADICAL CONSERVATION AND THE POLITICS OF PLANNING: A HISTORICAL STUDY, 1917-1945 by CADE A. JAMESON A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Sociology and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2017 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Cade A. Jameson Title: Radical Conservation and the Politics of Planning: A Historical Study, 1917-1945 This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Sociology by: John Bellamy Foster Chairperson Vallon Burris Core Member Richard York Core Member Joseph Fracchia Institutional Representative and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2017 ii c 2017 Cade A. Jameson iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Cade A. Jameson Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology June 2017 Title: Radical Conservation and the Politics of Planning: A Historical Study, 1917-1945 This thesis is a historical, sociological case-study of the movement for public control and land-use planning prior to WWII. The impetus for this movement came from a radicalized faction of the forestry profession. Radicalism in forestry centered around a group of professional foresters who were followers of Gifford Pinchot, the nation’s Chief Forester from 1898-1910. Pinchot commenced the movement for public control over cutting on private forestlands in in the nineteen-teens. The emphasis in this case-study is on identifying social factors responsible for giving impetus to a movement for collective environmental planning, and the social and environmental possibilities of this subject. Three specific areas are studied: first radicalism in the forestry profession; second the vision of sustainability that emerged from radical forestry; and finally the relationship between the radical foresters and organized currents of the political Left. Findings: The understanding of the scientific conservation and land-use planning movement that has developed in scholarly literature does not provide an accurate characterization of this movement. The neglected vision of sustainability through public ownership and planning associated with radical forestry might be reconsidered in light of the present environmental problems. Despite the fact there was a radical presence iv in the forestry profession, norms of professional behavior are significant obstacles to radicalization, hence why Pinchotist conservation is anomalous in environmental history. Even though leading personalities in forestry took up the cause of public control, the institutional environmental movement remained aloof, giving indication that there are barriers to the development of an organized movement for environmental planning. Various radical political currents, however, demonstrated signs of receptivity to the scientific conservation movement. v CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Cade A. Jameson GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene, OR New School University, New York, NY DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Sociology, 2017, University of Oregon Bachelor of Arts, Liberal Arts, 2007, New School University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Environmental Sociology Sociological Theory Political Economy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Teaching Fellow, University of Oregon, Fall 2007-Winter 2015 GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS: Sociology Department Graduate School Research Award for Data Collection and Presentation, 2013 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I began work on this dissertation, I encountered some skepticism. The topic, the historical conservation movement, is atypical for a sociology dissertation, and people with some cursory knowledge of the historical literature on this subject, doubted my perspective—that there was something radical about land-use planning—had validity. This was understandable, because until I actually got into the archives and started piecing things together, I, myself, didn’t know how this project would unfold. It is the nature of real historical research that you don’t entirely know what you are examining during the initial stage of work. For this reason, I want to thank my committee—John Bellamy Foster, Val Burris, Richard York, and Joe Fracchia—for their understanding and for having confidence in my ability to undertake this project. With another committee, I am not sure I would have gotten off the ground floor. In particular, I thank John for providing encouragement, guidance, and suggestions on how to approach the topic. Val also deserves special thanks for his helpful support, and for giving me practical advice on how to work with archival material—something I was completely ignorant of when I began. I regard what follows as somewhat incomplete. I did not have the resources to visit all the archives I wanted to visit. One of the shortcomings of this dissertation is that, while it deals largely with Pinchotist conservation, I did not have the opportunity of to examine Gifford Pinchot’s papers in the Library of Congress. This was because I initially accepted the conventional historical perspective on Pinchot’s approach to conservation (disputed herein), and decided to focus my attention elsewhere. By the time I had examined the Robert Marshall Papers at the Bancroft Library, in the University of California, Berkeley (the last archive I visited), I realized that this was a serious error. vii This is not to say that I am not confident in my conclusions. I mention this, to point out that this would be better study, if I had had the resources to properly carry it out. With the exception of a small grant from the Department of Sociology, this research was self- funded by my own household. So it is my immediate family that deserves thanks for what I accomplished. I wish to thank Eva Brill (my partner) and Ryan Wishart (my class-mate and close comrade). Both helped in a variety of ways, including reading over my work, and being available when I was stumped and needed feedback. My parents, Fred and Susan, were also very helpful. Finally I wish to identify some of my classmates—Brian Rosenberg, Intan Suwandi, Evan Shenkin, Martha Camargo, Chris Hardnack, and Mathew Clement. To the extent that the Department of Sociology provided an intellectually stimulating environment, or even a pleasant community, it was because of you. viii “Conservation was universally accepted until it began to be applied.” —Gifford Pinchot, Breaking New Ground ix TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 II. PINCHOTIST FORESTRY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY, 1919-1945 ............... 10 The Emergence of the Private Land Controversy ................................................. 24 The Fate of Pinchotism ......................................................................................... 39 Summing Up ......................................................................................................... 54 III. PERMANENT FORESTS AND A RURAL CIVILIZATION ............................. 59 Critique of Development ....................................................................................... 69 Beyond Sustained Yield Management .................................................................. 76 Permanent Communities and Regional Balance ................................................... 84 A Sustainable Social Order? ................................................................................. 93 IV. THE RADICAL UNDERCURRENT IN CONSERVATION ............................. 98 Richard Pettigrew and the Establishment of Forest Reserves .............................. 108 John Wesley Powell and Henry George ............................................................... 125 American Socialism and Conservation .................................................................. 146 Radical Foresters and the Radical Undercurrent ................................................... 178 What Type of Radicalism? .................................................................................... 186 V. CONCLUSION: LAND-USE AND DEMOCRACY ............................................ 192 APPENDIX: A NOTE ON SOURCES ....................................................................... 199 REFERENCES CITED ............................................................................................... 200 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Advertisement for Public Ownership League ....................................................... 107 2. Whitnall’s 1923 Greenway Park Plan ................................................................... 171 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the Spring of 1868 Karl Marx wrote Frederich Engels—half seriously—that he had discovered “an unconscious socialist tendency” in a book of a German botanist and agronomist. The book, Climate and the Plantworld by Carl Nikolaus Fraas, was an important contribution to an emerging scientific awareness of humanity’s capability of inflicting lasting environmental damage upon the planet (Foster 2011). Marx (1981 [1867]:638) at the time was familiarizing himself with soil science in order to develop a critical understanding of the “destructive side of modern agriculture”—an undertaking that made him