Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In this essay, I engage the distinction between “ritual” and “transmission” views of voting to clarify the poles of the debate over the first large-scale implementation of absentee voting in the United States. Absentee soldier voting serves as a historical case study of the rhetorical, administrative, and technical means by the “public” is disengaged from the physical limitations of the people comprising it. I seek to establish an empirical starting point for thinking more broadly about enduring tensions between notions of “public space” and “public sphere” in communication scholarship. Tentatively, I suggest that the topic of soldier voting illustrates one possible condition for civic nationalism: the transfer of the electorate from public space to public sphere through a process of reimagining the nature of the vote as a communicative act.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Scholars have long viewed the creation of public parks in the 19th century as a reflection of American democratic ideals. A commitment to egalitarianism on the one hand meant that natural wonders could be set aside for the use and enjoyment of all people, not just for the wealthy few, or for royalty. Meanwhile, institutions governed by popular sovereignty reminded lawmakers that growing public demands for forest preservation should be heeded. Yet according to some environmental historians (such as Roderick Nash), parks and democracy are more than compatible ideas; they connect in ways that are explicitly causal. This paper explores what might be called the “democracy thesis” through a narrative case study of the Adirondack Park. A content analysis of 19th century newspaper editorials published in New York between 1864 and 1894 reveals that democratic rhetoric was frequently invoked in support of the creation of a public park in the Adirondacks, but that argument ultimately had little influence on state legislators. Not only does Nash overemphasize consensus on democratic norms and traditions, he overlooks important class and regional conflicts that continue to shape the tension between conservation and preservation today.