by Mary McCarthy
John Muir’s love of Yosemite was not solely based upon ephemeral experiences of the sublime; he also sought to understand the minute intricacies and relationships between the flora, fauna, and geology of the future National Park. Muir’s first published work, “Yosemite Glaciers”, compiles his careful observations of Yosemite Valley’s geology to support his hypothesis that glaciers were a powerful force in Yosemite’s past and that the beautiful valleys and rock faces were “ the magnificent work of its hands” (Muir, “Yosemite Glaciers,” New York Tribune, December 5, 1871). Muir writes: “I have been drifting about among the rocks of this region for several years, anxious to spell out some of the mountain truths which are written here…I have become anxious for more exact knowledge regarding [glaciers]; I climbed out of the Yosemite by Indian Cañon, and am now searching the upper rocks and moraines for readable glacier manuscript” (Muir). The historical context of this work is important to understanding its present-day significance. When it was published in 1871, there was a considerable debate over the Yosemite’s geologic origins. Muir, a wandering naturalist and lover of nature, offered his own semi-scientific analysis (based on observation rather than academic knowledge) that argued against the origin theories of several professional scientists. Thus historical analysis of this document, and its context, provide insights not only into Muir’s personal relationship with Yosemite but also illustrate an important period in the history of science, a time when the rise of professional scientists began to clash with the findings of nonprofessional naturalists.
Muir’s ‘Yosemite Glacier” resonates with present-day readers in part because the chasm between professional and ‘citizen’ scientists has only grown larger in recent decades. The top-down approach of imperial science has greatly replaced the more inclusive arcadian science of Gilbert White, where non-scientifically trained naturalists still had a chance to be heard and respected in the scientific community (see Donald Worster, Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas). It seems that today’s science revolves around hugely expensive projects that limit the involvement of lay-scientists; the academic degree has become vastly more valuable than personal experiences and observations. Muir’s “Yosemite Valley” serves as a good reminder that, even without a degree in geology, it is possible for someone to immerse themselves in the environment, observe carefully, and generate their own theories with supporting evidence. Perhaps the infusion of non-academic knowledge of the natural world would result in a scientific renewal, making it more accessible and applicable to today’s environmental problems.
