Man in the Arctic something more than a biological or military concept. Man is essentially and uniquely a political animal. It is in this sense that I wish to draw attention to him in connection with the North.
Start with the general picture, the Arctic as one of the almost vacant regions of the earth. In view of the world's ever-increasing populations we might look northward for the living space man so badly needs and will need even more acutely. But there must be a good reason for these northern regions being virtually uninhabited, and there is. It's a most uncomfortable place, much too cold for what we consider civilized living. In order to survive through most of the year, man must become a primitive astronaut, somehow creating for himself a new outer body to make up for the shortcomings of the one he posses naturally, and creating indoors the elements which the natural climate does not adequately provide. In saying this I speak from personal experience, not as an explorer or a scientific investigator, but as a transplanted exurbanite living in the suburbs of Fairbanks, one of the northernmost outposts of Suburbia, USA.
In this Arctic environment, we act like the proverbial Englishman dressing for dinner in the depths of the jungle. We attempt to be true to all the detailed rituals of our culture while living in this gigantic deep freeze. Daily we gallantly battle the perils of ice and snow in our non-compact American automobiles with automatic transmission. Nightly we worry and fret over our head bolt heaters which are essential if our beloved monsters are to go on living and dominating our lives. We are kept in a perpetual state of genteel poverty trying to pay the heating and other utility bills for our ranch-type houses. With due apologies to Dr. Stefansson, this "friendly Arctic" business can be overdone.
Attempts to settle the Arctic and subarctic in these terms is indeed a daft notion. At most we could take up seasonal residence during the warm period, take care of our business and get out before freeze-up. This has been the pattern of the past development of the North. But somehow in Alaska we have been given a public conscience which tells us that this is wrong. In Alaska political aspirations toward full statehood were based upon the idea that not only were permanent year-round settlements desirable, but even possible. It is, but at a cost. Public investment must be diverted to making it possible through costly community facilities. Private investment must pay a subsidy in the form of extra wages and fringe benefits, and the individual pays a heavy cost in inconvenience and added living expenses.
There are other social motivations causing some of us to continue on in our deep-freeze environment, of course. Whenever I begin to berate myself for continuing this struggle, it only takes a trip outside to bring me back to my senses. The frustrating struggle from congested air terminals into congested cities, the hair-raising drives at top speed along crowded freeways (an ironic label), the polluted air, the social violence and sudden death screaming from the morning paper does, indeed, make the Arctic and the subarctic seem friendly in contrast. And where else can such a relatively small collection of American citizens enjoy and realize so fully its political destiny?
From a talk by George W. Rogers, of the Arctic Institute of North America, at the Natick (Mass.) Conference on Man Living in the Arctic. His book Alaska in Transition: The Southeast Region was published in 1960 for Resources for the Future by The Johns Hopkins Press. He has now completed a study of the whole state of Alaska, also with the support of an RFF grant to The Arctic Institute.
A version of this article appeared in print in the June 1962 issue of Resources magazine.
