|
MacKaye went on
to outline the possibilities of his proposal:
"Let's put up now to the wise and
trained observer the particular question before us. What are the
possibilities in the new approach to the problem of living? Would the
development of the outdoor community life - as an offset and relief from the
various shackles of commercial civilization - be practicable and worth
while? From the experience of observations and thoughts along the sky-line
here is a possible answer:
There are several possible gains
from such an approach.
First
there would be the "oxygen" that makes for a sensible optimism. Two
weeks spent in the real open - right now, this year and next - would be a
little real living for thousands of people which they would be sure of
getting before they died. They would get a little fun as they went along
regardless of problems being "solved." This would not damage the problems
and it would help the folks.
Next
there would be perspective. Life for two weeks on the mountain top would
show up many things about life during the other fifty weeks down below. The
latter could be viewed as a whole - away from its heat, and sweat, and
irritations. There would be a chance to catch a breath, to study the dynamic
forces of nature and the possibilities of shifting to them the burdens now
carried on the backs of men. The reposeful study of these forces should
provide a broad gauged enlightened approach to the problems of industry.
Industry would come to be seen in its true perspective - as a means in life
and not as an end in itself. The actual partaking of the recreative and
non-industrial life - systematically by the people and not spasmodically by
a few - should emphasize the distinction between it and the industrial life.
It should stimulate the quest for enlarging the one and reducing the other.
It should put new zest in the labor movement. Life and study of this kind
should emphasize the need of going to the roots of industrial questions and
of avoiding superficial thinking and rash action. The problems of the
farmer, the coal miner, and the lumberjack could be studied intimately and
with minimum partiality. Such an approach should bring the poise that goes
with understanding.
Finally these would be new clues to constructive solutions. The
organization of the cooperative camping life would tend to draw people out
of the cities. Coming as visitors they would be loath to return. They would
become desirous of settling down in the country - to work in the open
as well as play. The various camps would require food. Why not raise
food, as well as consume it, on the cooperative plan? Food and farm camps
should come about as a natural sequence. Timber also is required. Permanent
small scale operations should be encouraged in the various Appalachian
National Forests. The government now claims this as a part of its forest
policy. The camping life would stimulate forestry as well as a better
agriculture. Employment in both would tend to become enlarged.
Finally, MacKaye outlines four
component features for his proposal. In this article, MacKaye is
careful not to suggest any particular political or organizational mechanisms
by which to get the work underway, but there is sufficient detail in here to
suggest that MacKaye certainly did have ideas about how to proceed.
Nevertheless, it is his poetic energy which seeks to engage the reader in
his compelling vision about what might be possible that seems most striking.
King (2000) described it as "class early 20th century American
utopianism - half-pragmatic and half-philosophical, fully in keeping with
the intellectual climate of the urban East after World War I…A close reading
reveals an ambitious social and political agenda for an America on the
post-war American move, not just a trail" (King, 2000, p.3)
|
