This study examines the complex problems associated with the allocation and management of mobile salmon resources passing through politically partitioned land and sea space in southeastern Alaska and northern British Columbia. While the salmon fishing industry was found to be relatively important at the local level, it is suggested that the salmon of Canadian origin removed off Noyes Island "by Alaskan fishermen are not of critical importance to the economies of either Alaska or British Columbia when considered as a whole. Therefore, it is concluded that the Noyes Island conflict should not be allowed to jeopardize the salmon conservation programs of Canada and the United States by provoking a de facto abrogation of a mutually advantageous treaty designed to prevent the massive oceanic capture of salmon. From this case study in political geography it was determined that salmon fishing conflicts can best be understood by examining: (1) The peculiar nature of the salmon resource. (2) The state of knowledge concerning its origins and movements and the spatial implications of these movements. (3) The evolution of opposing national fisheries, (4) Interrelated political considerations. It was also found that salmon fishing conflicts could be classified into two categories based upon quantitative and ideological differences. Finally, a tentative geographic model was constructed that could serve as the basis for organizing future enquiry into salmon fishing disputes by clearly illustrating the spatial problems common to such conflicts. The model particularly emphasizes the lack of congruency between biotic and political units and the effects this has on competing, nationally organized exploitation of the salmon resource. / Arts, Faculty of / Geography, Department of / Graduate

John Humphrey Noyes was the founder of the Oneida Community, one of the most successful utopian ventures in nineteenth-century America. Early in his life, Noyes was a deep religious thinker, but he founded Oneida as an ideal society based on extending the family unit, and not as a church. Noyes's social theories eventually overwhelmed his former religious concentration. The purpose of this thesis is to locate in Noyes's religiously-oriented youth the sources of his social interests. Few scholars have studied in depth the childhood and young manhood of John Humphrey Noyes, but that is where the roots of his social theories are to be found. Noyes did write his religious autobiography, but completely passed over his formative years. Further, he never wrote the analysis of his social ideas and experiences that he had once promised. However, many of his early letters and journals have been compiled and edited by his relatives; and his immediate family left reminiscences of his youth. These works provide most of the available information on the childhood of Noyes. Large gaps in his history do exist, however. Therefore, the modern psychological theories of Erik Erikson are used to illuminate the otherwise shadowy areas of Noyes's early life.

This study examines the functions of the term “community” in American social and political rhetoric. I contend that community serves as a god-term, or expression of value and order, which rhetors use to motivate actions, endorse values, include/exclude persons, and compensate for modern losses. Informed by the philosophy of Kenneth Burke, I explore the general features of “rhetorics of community,” including community’s ambiguity and status as an automatic good, the relationship between community and modernity, the myth of communal loss, and the uses of community as a site of political unity and contest. I analyze the writings of John Humphrey Noyes, Jane Addams, and the Southern Agrarians as paradigm cases of utopian, progressive, and traditionalist rhetorics respectively, and I discuss how community is constructed in order to navigate the tension between self and society, correct for the failures of modern individualism, and propose competing visions of the social order.