The Frontier Mind

In The Frontier Mind, Arthur K. Moore shows that he is an admirerer of neither the American frontier nor Turner's frontier thesis. In this book, Moore both "rejects and contradicts the frontier hypothesis enunciated by Frederick Jackson Turner,"¹ and he "attributes the general acceptance of the Turner thesis to a blatant, boastful national patriotism."² Although Moore agrees with Turner concerning the fact that the lack of civilization and the influence of nature on the frontier often overwhelmed and mutated pioneers, he sees this influential impact as disastrous rather than beneficial. He refuses to credit the frontier with the development of any uniquely significant "American" traits, and he attempts to prove that America's "greatest cultural possession is not the legacy of the frontier mind but the heritage of great ideas....[it shares] with the rest of the Western world."³ Moore states: "The American frontier, while creating nothing, functioned as a catalyst to precipitate such barbaric modes of behavior as highly developed societies suppress."⁴

Moore argues that the frontier theory of Turner is too exclusive. He believes it is absurd to assert that America "produced her own intellectual capital and accordingly developed with little debt to Europe."⁵ Moore states that the development of American culture was "largely forecast, if not ordained,"⁶ because European customs, standards, biases, and beliefs continued to subconsciously influence pioneers long after their initial exposure to the frontier was complete. Moore presents the the belief of a "Lost Eden" as evidence for the continuing influence of Old World thought patterns. He traces the common cultural belief of a lost paradise through several societies spanning hundreds of years. Moore sees the romantic belief that the virgin American forest was the true "Lost Garden" as influencing European pioneers more than the frontier itself. "What the pioneer became in Kentucky was to an appreciable extent a result of his expectation of a paradisiacal situation, that is, an unrestrained existence."⁷ Moore believes that the continued push westward was not due to overbearing earthly desires of liberty or religious and economic freedom; rather he sees the continued drive wes ward as the perpetual spiritual desire to find a land where little labor is needed to secure a bountiful existence. The commonly mistaken belief that they were living in paradise caused the frontiersmen to develop their unique set of characteristics: foolishness, irrationality, greed, irresponsibility, etc. It was not the frontier that caused these changes; it was the frontiersman's perception of the frontier that caused these changes, and the frontiersman's perception of the frontier was a direct cultural legacy handed down from Europe.

Moore not only accuses the pioneer of imbibing too much romantic illusion; he also accuses Turner and his supporters of letting their personal beliefs of a frontier utopia prejudice their research and writings. Moore asserts that Turner's thesis was a theory devised to support "certain pleasant but none too helpful illusions."⁸ Moore sees the acceptance of Turner's thesis as a powerful subconscious desire for Americans to avow and magnify what they believe to be their own unique, independent culture. "Founded in the garden myth and motivated by nationalism, Turnerism provided a superficially rational basis for shifting the world's center westward and for conceiving the distinctive American culture as western, indigenous, and above all valid."⁹

In conclusion, Moore does not deny that the rugged frontiersman did make certain contributions to the growth of the country. However, Moore qualifies these contributions as being mostly physical, rather than mental. The pioneers cleared the forest, removed the Indians, and did various other "dirty jobs;" but any presumption that these people made a lasting, beneficial, contribution to the philosophical outlook of the nation is, in Moore's eyes, absurd. Much of what Turner found praiseworthy in the frontiersman -- materialism, emotionalism, and an anti- philosophical outlook -- Moore found disastrous.¹⁰ Moore attempts to disavow the belief that all characteristics developed on the frontier were intrinsically good. He sees this belief as culturally dangerous, for it leads one to the same erroneous conclusion that the West reached: that "the experience of settling a garden provides better answers to the great questions about life and death and eternity than the collective wisdom of the founders of Western civilization."¹¹

I was personally disappointed by Moore's The Frontier Mind. Moore raises some intriguing possible alternatives to Turner's hypothesis in the first third of the book, but when he attempts to prove what he has asserted, his entire case seems to fall apart. At this critical juncture of the book, Moore begins an extremely technical discussion on the literary differences between an epic hero and a romantic hero. He then makes the statement that the pioneer is portrayed as a romantic hero, but in all actuality the pioneer belongs in the epic hero class. As he continues, Moore begins to evaluate a great number of nineteenth-century writers and poets to prove his point. At one point, the reader may feel as though he has put down a book on frontier history, and has replaced it with a book concerned with the critical interpretations of the literary works of James Fenimore Cooper. What this incredibly long-winded discussion has to do with proving or disclaiming Turner's thesis is beyond me. I feel that Moore goes way off the mark in his next hundred pages, and that he loses any momentum or credibility he had amassed. Moore offers no concrete evidence to back his argument. He attempts to base all his conclusions on characters found in works of literary fiction. I found this "evidence" highly unsatisfactory. It appears to me that Moore confuses reality and illusion (he is guilty of the sin he accused Turner of), and he does not set his feet back on firm acedemic grounds until he reaches the last two chapters of the book. I found Moore's diversion into nineteenth-century frontier fiction confusing, over-indulgent, unnecessary, and ultimately pointless. The book ceased to progress in a rational fashion during this discussion. By criticsizing the frontiersman as portrayed by romantic writers, Moore "sets up a straw man who can easily be knocked down. He himself never analyzes the frontier mind but merely criticsizes the analyses made by others."¹²

Other problems also exist in the work. First, Moore never clearly defines what he means by the term "frontier." Secondly, Moore deals only with pioneers in Kentucky, yet he applies his findings to the entire western section of the country. Next, he never deals with the real pioneer, as he dwells excessively on the pioneer as portrayed in fiction. Finally, Moore's style is sometimes "difficult," repetitive," and "overintellectual."¹³

Although Moore's attempt at placing a greater emphasis on the cultural contributions of Europe is provocative and valid, I found his approach confusing and his proofs unsatisfying. The questions raised by Moore are extremely important to any analysis of Turnerian theory, and they deserve a more concise, more detailed, more fact-based study than that which is presented by Arthur Moore in The Frontier Mind.

Green, Fletcher M. Review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore. American Historical Review 63 (July 1958):1071.

Lamar, H.R. Review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore. Yale Review 47 (March 1958):472-476.

Moore, Arthur K. The Frontier Mind: A Cultural Analysis of the Kentucky Frontiersman. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1957.

Morgan, E.S. Review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore. Christian Science Monitor, 7 October 1957, p.7.

Riegal, R.E. Review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore. New York Times, 29 December 1957, p.10.

¹Fletcher M. Green, review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore, American Historical Review 63 (July 1958): 1071.

²Ibid.

³E.S. Morgan, review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore, Christian Science Monitor, 7 October 1957, p.7.

⁴Arthur K. Moore, The Frontier Mind: A Cultural Analysis of the Kentucky Frontiersman (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1957), p.193.

⁵Ibid., p.ix.

⁶Ibid., p.2.

⁷Ibid., p.67.

⁸Ibid., p.ix.

⁹Ibid., p.244.

¹⁰H.R. Lamar, review of The Frontier Mind, by Arthur Moore, Yale Review 47 (March 1958): 476.

¹¹Moore, p.247.

¹²Green, p.1071.

¹³Lamar, p.476.