Daniel Quinn's interpretation of history in Ishmael

Daniel Quinn's Vision Of History

Beauty is often described as being in the eye of the beholder. In this sense beauty is viewed as a subjective consideration and so its appreciation is a matter of taste and perspective. Likewise, events that take place in the history of the world can often be subject to interpretation depending on the viewpoint of the observer or researcher. But what about the idea of the "world's history?" Not any specific event or series of events that took place at a given time in history but the actual history of the world in the most general sense (Interview). Is this subject to interpretation?

The View According to Man

According to Daniel Quinn in the book Ishmael, the answer is a resounding 'yes.' There are, indeed, different ways to view the "world's history." On the one hand is the dominant Taker view represented by modern society in the 'person' of Mother Culture who "has given [us] an explanation of how things came to be this way." (40). Mother Culture represents, essentially, the indoctrination that all members of modern industrial society receive as members of this dominant Taker culture. Of course, indoctrination may be too harsh a word for this concept. In reality, the story told by Mother Culture is simply there. No one sits children down at an early age to inculcate them in any way. Instead, the ideas are "ambient in [our] culture. Everyone knows it and everyone accepts it without question." (40).

The story according to Mother Culture indicates that human history began approximately ten thousand years ago with the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Before this Neolithic revolution "The limitation of the hunting-gathering life had kept man in check for three million years. With agriculture, those limitations vanished... Settlement gave rise to division of labor. Division of labor gave rise to technology." And so forth. (69).

By implication, all time before this Neolithic revolution is considered pre-history - in effect, pre-man. This much is clear when Ishmael asks his student to relate for him the story of creation as he sees it. From man's point-of-view, the story of creation ends with the words "and finally man appeared." (56). Specifically:

t]he pinnacle was reached in man. Man is the climax of the whole cosmic drama of creation... When man finally appeared, creation came to an end, because its objective had been reached. There was nothing left to create... Man is the end product of creation. Man is the creature for whom all the rest was made: this world, this solar system, this galaxy, the universe itself (57).

So, in a nutshell, the Taker view is that the "world was made for man, and man was made to rule it..." (72). In fact, Mother Culture describes this time before history: "human life was devoid of meaning, was stupid, empty and worthless. Pre-Revolutionary life was ugly. Detestable." (216).

Taker vs. Leaver Culture - Ishmael's Analysis

Ishmael makes clear very early on the dire situation that man now finds himself in. "You're captives of a civilzational system that more or less compels you to go on destroying the world in order to live... This world is not going to survive for very much longer as humanity's captive." (25-6). The fact that he compares the story told by Mother Culture (man is the "pinnacle" of creation) to the story told by Hitler in Nazi Germany (Aryans are the "master race") shows just how dire that situation is for the Taker culture (34-5).

The essence of the problem in the Taker viewpoint is their premise that "the birth of man was...the central event - in the history of the cosmos" because this means that the world is "a sort of human life support system... A machine designed to produce and sustain human life." (59). If this premise is true then the world belongs to us and we can do anything with it that we want. So for the past 10,000 years we have been doing just this. But our conquest of the world has actually ended up destroying it. And despite all of our advances we don't have the technology to either stop the devastation or even repair it. "We've poured our poisons into the world as though it were a bottomless pit - and we go on pouring our poisons into the world." (80).

It turns out that man's flaw is that he does not know how to live correctly. One would think that man could learn how to live by studying human behavior but Mother Culture says that there are no absolute laws that can ever tell us how to live (89). So Taker culture has acted like that airman who, ignoring the laws of aerodynamics, alights from the cliff confident that he is making the correct choice. For a short time all is well - but in reality, a crash is all but certain. The law of aerodynamics, gravity and nature are unforgiving. Like the airman who thinks that faster and more efficient pedaling will solve his problems, the Taker culture says more technology, birth control and more efficient agriculture will solve their problem (107-9).

Leaver culture exists with the understanding that evolution and natural selection must continue their course. The Taker culture has stepped outside of this natural course and this cannot continue. Not just because of the obvious destruction of the environment. More importantly, the short-circuiting of the natural law has stopped the progression of evolution of all of the other creatures around us. They too are meant to become self-aware. Man is simply the first to attain higher awareness. "He's the trailblazer, the pathfinder. His destiny is to be the first to learn that creatures like man have a choice." (242). Our place in the world is to help other creatures reach our level. Millions of years from now these other creatures that have reached awareness will say of us: "What a wonderful creature [man] was! It was within his grasp to destroy the entire world and to trample all our futures into the dust - but he saw the light before it was too late and pulled back. He pulled back and gave the rest of us our chance." (242).

Ishmael's Relevance in Today's World

Ishmael is attempting to get the reader to realize that the problem is a fundamental one. He makes abundantly clear that the Taker way of thinking is ingrained in the minds of all members of modern society. And his methodical (although somewhat repetitive) question and answer approach draws forth the realization that Mother Culture really has been speaking quietly in our ears since birth. Readers seem to respond to this realization as if they experienced a revelation of some sort. Take the reaction of Jim Saveland who reviewed Ishmael back in 1995. The book was recommended to him and was compared to other similar books. He writes: "Yet, to compare Ishmael to any other book does not do it justice... While I was reading the last several pages, I could not contain my enthusiasm."

This "enthusiasm" can also be found on the Ishmael.com web site. There are numerous questions from readers who are so impressed by the story that they ask what they can possibly do now to carry forth the worldview of the book (Now What?). The obvious answer would be to join some environmental group. But Quinn makes it very clear that joining environmental groups is not going to help all that much: "EarthFirst! And GreenPeace are fine programs, but they're fundamentally reactive...We don't need more people who will fight, we need more people who don't need to be fought against..." Quinn means by this that if readers can convince others to either read the book or to appreciate the point-of-view expressed therein (and then these people do the same) eventually the war will be won without a fight

So clearly Quinn is a realist. First, he acknowledges that following the activist line of thinking is not the solution to the problem because "a few environmental laws, a few scientific studies, and a few people recycling their newspapers...[will]... do little to allay" damage being wrought on the environment (Wood). And second, he also realizes that people cannot just walk away from civilization and expect that this is the answer to the Taker problem. "To his credit, Quinn has stated that Ishmael is intended as a starting point for the discussion of these issues, not the plan for a new society." (Wicker). Instead, the ideas introduced in Ishmael and then developed in later novels will serve as a springboard to the introduction of a new worldview. The arrogant anthropocentric worldview will wither away to be replaced by one that places man in his proper place in the world (Wood).

Final Comments/Criticism

Quinn's world-view is both compelling and fresh. The power and reach of his message is also undeniable. Look no further than the comparisons made between Ayn Rand's novels and those of Quinn. Kristopher K. puts Ishmael "[i]n the tradition of many life-altering books (like those of Ayn Rand...)." Another comparison (Excerpts) suggests that "[b]oth authors have decisive worldviews and take a strong position on the relation between humankind and nature... Rand's Objectivism defines morality as self-interest, while Quinn criticizes humankind for being self-interested in a short-sighted way."

Internet discussion threads along these same lines can also be found at the 2 Think.org web site. Here the errors made by both of these authors are discussed in some detail. The conclusion drawn from the comparison of these two authors is a compelling one, as rigid adherence to any one particular worldview smacks of dogma. One would do well to follow the advice given: "[t]he only thing I'm convinced of is that no one is perfect, and no one has all the answers. I prefer to pluck what I find true and useful out of both author's works and go from there."