Sign in with Facebook
Anna's Reviews > Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit
Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit (Ishmael, #1)
by
by
My biggest problem with primitivism as a philosophy is its inherent hypocrisy. Notice how it's always highly educated white dudes insulated from the world who clamor for a return to some idealized "simpler" life? In the case of this book, it's a distinguished professor haughtily preaching about how we should learn some lessons from hunter-gatherer people, channeling his philosophy through a gorilla character who converses with an "everyman" character. Ishmael the gorilla makes a passing derogatory mention of the "noble savage" idea, then spends the rest of the book romanticizing and idealizing the hunter-gatherer cultures, trying to get across the idea that modern Western people have trouble seeing merit in such cultures because we've been brainwashed by our industrialized society.
But the thing is, going back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would mean a goodbye to literacy, to book publishing, to all the things without which Daniel Quinn and others like him would have no more literary soapbox to stand on. Instead, he'd be busy carrying his life on his back as he trudged across the plains looking for food and trying to not get eaten by lions. He'd die before the age of 40 of some perfectly treatable disease -- that is, if he hadn't died while being born or during childhood.
The extreme utopianism and naivete pissed me off so much that I did some research on the anarcho-primitivist philosophy behind it. Turns out my views on this matter match those of Noam Chomsky, who wrote the following in "Chomsky on Anarchism":
I do not think they are realizing that what they are calling for is the mass genocide of millions of people because of the way society is now structured and organized, urban life and so forth. If you eliminate these structures, everybody dies. For example, I can't grow my own food. It's a nice idea, but it's not going to work, not in this world. And in fact, none of us want to live a hunter-gatherer life. There are just too many things in life that the modern world offers us. In just plain terms of survival, what they are calling for is the worst mass genocide in human history. And unless one thinks through these things, it's not really serious.
Indeed, mass genocide is exactly what Quinn advocates in "Ishmael." One of his arguments is that the world's population is growing and draining the Earth's resources, and to control the population we must reduce the food supply, specifically to the parts of the world that are already experiencing famine. To put it another way, he's in favor of starving a million people in Africa and India whose only crime was being born in the wrong time and the wrong place. Nice, Dr. Quinn. Why not just make it simpler and kill off the poorest 10 percent of the world's population? That part of the book smelled a lot like Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" to me, except unfortunately Quinn is not an intentional satirist.
Another issue was the deeply rooted sexism in both the language and the thought process. Here's a quote about why "Mother Culture" is always feminine in the text: "Culture is a mother everywhere and at every time, because culture is inherently a nurturer..." Because of course, a woman's role is always as mother and nurturer and not much else.
The starting premise of this book is that the human race is quickly destroying the Earth, and we will kill ourselves and take the planet with us if we don't stop. This is a premise with actual scientific proof behind it. Humans believe that they are the end-all be-all of evolution, and therefore the planet belongs to them to do as they please with no regard for other species or life forms, and that's what's going to kill us, sooner than later. Nothing to disagree with, there. But Quinn's "solution" is a bunch of hypocritical and unrealistic drivel.
All that being said, I know that for some people (including my boyfriend, who loves this book and is the reason I read it in the first place), "Ishmael" is what opened their eyes to the dire need to protect the environment. That's great. I just hope that no one ends their search for a solution with this book and this philosophy.
But the thing is, going back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would mean a goodbye to literacy, to book publishing, to all the things without which Daniel Quinn and others like him would have no more literary soapbox to stand on. Instead, he'd be busy carrying his life on his back as he trudged across the plains looking for food and trying to not get eaten by lions. He'd die before the age of 40 of some perfectly treatable disease -- that is, if he hadn't died while being born or during childhood.
The extreme utopianism and naivete pissed me off so much that I did some research on the anarcho-primitivist philosophy behind it. Turns out my views on this matter match those of Noam Chomsky, who wrote the following in "Chomsky on Anarchism":
I do not think they are realizing that what they are calling for is the mass genocide of millions of people because of the way society is now structured and organized, urban life and so forth. If you eliminate these structures, everybody dies. For example, I can't grow my own food. It's a nice idea, but it's not going to work, not in this world. And in fact, none of us want to live a hunter-gatherer life. There are just too many things in life that the modern world offers us. In just plain terms of survival, what they are calling for is the worst mass genocide in human history. And unless one thinks through these things, it's not really serious.
Indeed, mass genocide is exactly what Quinn advocates in "Ishmael." One of his arguments is that the world's population is growing and draining the Earth's resources, and to control the population we must reduce the food supply, specifically to the parts of the world that are already experiencing famine. To put it another way, he's in favor of starving a million people in Africa and India whose only crime was being born in the wrong time and the wrong place. Nice, Dr. Quinn. Why not just make it simpler and kill off the poorest 10 percent of the world's population? That part of the book smelled a lot like Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" to me, except unfortunately Quinn is not an intentional satirist.
Another issue was the deeply rooted sexism in both the language and the thought process. Here's a quote about why "Mother Culture" is always feminine in the text: "Culture is a mother everywhere and at every time, because culture is inherently a nurturer..." Because of course, a woman's role is always as mother and nurturer and not much else.
The starting premise of this book is that the human race is quickly destroying the Earth, and we will kill ourselves and take the planet with us if we don't stop. This is a premise with actual scientific proof behind it. Humans believe that they are the end-all be-all of evolution, and therefore the planet belongs to them to do as they please with no regard for other species or life forms, and that's what's going to kill us, sooner than later. Nothing to disagree with, there. But Quinn's "solution" is a bunch of hypocritical and unrealistic drivel.
All that being said, I know that for some people (including my boyfriend, who loves this book and is the reason I read it in the first place), "Ishmael" is what opened their eyes to the dire need to protect the environment. That's great. I just hope that no one ends their search for a solution with this book and this philosophy.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Ishmael.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Comments Showing 1-50 of 50 (50 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Quinn doesn't state that we have to go back to the lifestyle of the hunter gatherer. On page 248 he states, "Your task is not to reach back(to the hunter gatherer life), but to reach forward." When the narrator responds by saying that they can't walk away from their civilization Ishmael says, "That's certainly true...you must be inventive..." Quinn challenges his readers, and the taker culture in general to invent a new way of life. We don't have to give up our agricultural way of life, the point is to "let the rest of the community live."
I'm a white guy who is only fairly educated and poor as heck, yet I love this book. Should we look at something beautiful and find small flaws to crack with the whip of our sharp tongues? Look at the message again. Ignorance must afford us seemingly great victories while we ,truthfully, stomp on a flower of exquisite design.
i never saw any references or allusions to 'primitivism' the several times i read this book.
@isabella: right on. @Ben Vanroy: unfortunate non-sequitur of racialness in a discussion that is universal.
Very true about the 'every-man' aspect of Ishmael's student (I can't recall his name). Quinn's habit of having his character repeatedly give the wrong answer is absolutely exruciating. Either the answer is obvious and this idiot just doesn't get it, or the question is so nebulous it's impossible to guess what answer Ishmael's look for. The dialogue is shallow and contrived, and thus far (pg. 150) I haven't found any real revelations. So far, Ishmael = a major flop.
I agree with most of what you had to say, but looking at the book from this perspective:
I think it actually helps opening doors to new questions, which could lead to new answers, by bringing attention to places previously ignored as "premises" --such as civilization.
I think it actually helps opening doors to new questions, which could lead to new answers, by bringing attention to places previously ignored as "premises" --such as civilization.
All I have to contribute is that YOU CAN really easily, grow your own food. I hate it when people say they can't. Do you have a balcony? A window? A backyard? There is always a way, if you really want to.
Actually I also had similar thoughts, but I think you missed a key (albeit small) part of the dialogue, where Ishmael says that going back to hunting and gathering is not what he is preaching. He just says that the current situation has to change. "How?" "Well, you pride yourselves on your inventiveness. Invent, then!"
I don't think the point was to get us to return back to being hunter-gatherers, but does accurately point out (if you believe the science) that we are consuming too much for long term sustainability of ourselves and the health of the planet. Ishmael did state that humans were the ones to go through this first and if it wasn't us it would have been another people and put the onus on us to fix it, which I think is reasonable (again, if you believe the science.
While obvious I appreciated the symbolism of the "800 hundred pound gorilla in the room" and the fact that the guy even in holding good intentions didn't really even realize that Ishmael was sick and dying.
I assume the use of 'mother culture' is used because women represent life. Mother Earth. A man cannot enter this world except through a woman. There is something beautiful about that sentiment.This book is about mythology, why can't we see it as such.
You got me at "highly educated".
Regardless of your philosophical opinions, the book was still extremely boring and a chore to get through.
good remark, on the hypocrisy in glorifying anarcho-primitivism as the catch all remedy for human avarice
If you thing that this book is a call for anarcho-primitivism then you have completely misinterpreted the book. It tries to tell us that there are other ways of life out there that hold much wisdom which we can integrate in our culture. It is also telling is that we do not possess the best culture and that we are not the boss of nature (this might be hard for americans to believe). Almost all bad reviews of this book are made by people who read white/black but cannot place the book in context. Sad.
Considering he based this book on the works of a (female) feminist you might rethink your swat at white men. Her version was much drier and more technical. Quite an interesting read
You miss the point entirely. Primitivism abhors and avoids genocide. Mass genocide of lesser or more primitive peoplses were the stepping stones to your "structured and organized" urban centers.
Anyone named Woof, pricks up my ears. I will read it and consider a new name. Thank you.
Goddamn Anna, you obviously weren't paying attention.
That's completely beside the point, although I disagree with the entire concept he sets up in the novel, I disagree with why you disagree with his idea. The concept should be divorced from the person. Whether his actions are in line with his idea, or not, it takes absolutely nothing from what he proposes. Beside, he might be a highly educated white dude, but the only reason he managed to get these "insights" were probably his education. He might be too fearful, or unwilling, to turn into his envisioned savage, who could blame him? But that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to think that it's a good idea, in fact I don't think he proposes this something for individuals to do, but for a society.
Thomas wrote: "You miss the point entirely. Primitivism abhors and avoids genocide. Mass genocide of lesser or more primitive peoples were the stepping stones to your "structured and organized" urban centers."Indeed, well said. The author promotes an idea that sustains human cultural diversity and even promotes the differences between the different peoples. And this is where we have to evolve to: a world where every 'people' has his place and freedom (which is limited by the freedom of its neighbors).
The over-organized world we live in cannot cope with such diversity of ideas and cultures. Instead it promotes conformism so that it can control the masses more efficiently on a large scale.
You're projecting so much on to this book and over simplifying much of what it's positing. It's not meant to be taken as literally as you clearly read it. Foucault, Bourdieu, Gramsci, Marx and Hegel, and many other highly esteemed cultural studies theorists. You might replace the phrase "Mother Culture" with Hegemony and "myth/story" with "ideology."
that was meant to say; and many other cultural theorists discuss the same ideas with greater complexity.
Maybe if you removed your own sexist lense you would see more clearly.
I agree with the impracticality of the premise of the romanticism on practices of old; however, I didn't take this as the premise of the book (at least in its entirety). The book explores various areas of the modern society and its own very apparent hypocrisy, such as our "battle" against world hunger and poverty, which it draws very logical distinctions to its folly when we contend with the population increases that agricultural advances are a strong factor to this result. It doesn't claim to pose a solution per say, but draws attention to. It seems in this case you would be better to be less of a critic and allow more food for thought.
Your review was very well written, and you seem to truly have a handle on what was addressed in the book. After reading your review I am actually interested in reading the book purely to see what you are talking about. I can tell that you are passionate about the subject, and liked your statement, "Notice how it's always highly educated white dudes insulated from the world who clamor for a return to some idealized "simpler" life." Probably one of the best arguments against nostalgia for a time we only know from historical documents or archeological digs. Really thorough review, and I hope if I get to read it I can understand what you were seeing.
You sound very smart and I like your deconstruction of Quinn's thoughts. Great review.
While I appreciate your thoughtful comments and note there are some potentially problematic statements (like woman as nurturer), I also agree with some others that you may have missed the point. I encourage others to read it with an open mind.
I read this as a young teen and absolutely loved it, it moved me deeply. I'm in my thirties now and am avoiding rereading it because I suspect I would disagree with so much now.
The point is this, miss: we, as humans, have been living out of balance with nature. How can it be that all other life on this planet abides by limited competition and we can live beyond it without suffering consequences? This culture is described as an airplane in free fall and to many this free fall will only be obvious in retrospect.
If you read the book, it offers the idea that the only thing we are actually losing is our comfort: comfort that we are independent from the whim of nature. Also Daniel Quinn does not argue that we should revert to hunter gathering, but rather learn the lessons from these self sufficient societies to restructure our society.
I think you've missed the premise of this book.
The best I could gather is that Quinn believes populations in any area shouldn't be larger than what is possible for them to sustain themselves without steamrolling over the local ecology, and that it is acceptable to use force to keep people from upsetting the balance. The problem is that the horse has left the barn in terms of where population centers are. It makes far more sense to encourage people to live in well designed, dense urban centres and leave more of nature unspoiled.
I can’t believe it’s possible to have missed the point of the book THIS MUCH hahaha didn’t he explicitly state something about NOT mistaking his lectures as preaching hunter-gatherer lifestyles?
Saharra wrote: "The best I could gather is that Quinn believes populations in any area shouldn't be larger than what is possible for them to sustain themselves without steamrolling over the local ecology, and that..."Encouraging people into urban centers is in contradiction to the wish to have a more hospitable world for humans. I would limit urban centers to 100,000 inhabitants, like proposed by Kirkpatrick Sale in his 'Human Scale' book, and put not more than 1/3 or 1/2 of world populaton in urban centers. This means a population decrease to +- 1,5 billion.
Urban centers are not inhospitable. San Francisco and New York have some of the highest real estate prices in the world for a reason. The ecological damage to the Earth is also greatly increased by sprawl and larger rural numbers. If all those people you're kicking out of the city have to live in the country they'll be encroaching on agricultural land and wildlife areas.
I think you missed the point of the entire message, also he never says to go back to tribal days, it's up to us to create a system better than we have now (modern with tribal practices maybe like growing food and sharing). Unless you absolutely adore our system right now but I think if you do, it's just survival bias. There is no way anyone can 100% feel like the system we currently have is sustainable with climate change and greed tearing us apart. I think you should give the book another chance and maybe watch Avatar by James Cameron or something too.
Tell me you missed the whole point of the book without telling me you missed the whole point of the book
Your review is brilliant, and there's a lot of to unpack from feminist perspective in this book. This book is focused only on getting food. People need food to survive, but they also need cooking, making dishes, washing clothes, treating illnesses, raising kids, and so on. I'd very much like to know how all this activities would look like in ideal society that Quinn describes.
@Fons urban centers don't currently have homogeneous density capacity, nor are homogeneous in density, nor are optimized to capacity- so Urban living needs to be optimized and that capacity per area will be a lot larger
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR REVIEW!!!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE SEXISM AND MISOGYNY BEHIND THE TERM MOTHER CULTURE - JESUS!!!! I have also been so frusturated by this book. I validate your feelings!!!
Nitpicking on the words Mother Culture was unnecessary. Culture nurtures the way we think and act in a community, at least till one decides to consciously wean it off, but hardly are there those who wean it off completely. No need to wage war against patriarchy by twisting metaphors
You missed the point. He doesn’t say to go back to living as hunters and gathers. He is promoted that when we moved out of that and started planting food we didn’t take certain values and beliefs that was could integrate into out culture that could stop us from destroying the earth.
He addresses all your arguments and concerns in his other book "Beyond Civilization."
I dont know much, but I don’t think he’s calling for mass genocide. Quinn’s saying we produce enough food for more than our population - since this is the case, we’ll continue to grow our population. He says this is wrong, we should not do this, because our current unrestrained growth in population comes at the deficit of other populations (plants, animals, etc. going extinct). Extinctions are bad things. Continuing on our trajectory leads to future extinctions. So, let’s stop how we currently live. Let’s redistribute our resources,feed the people who need to be fed, and stop ourselves from producing more than we need. As you point out, Chomsky thinks that this would lead to a genocide of humans - I’m a huge fan of Chomsky on anticapitalism, but I think his remark misses the point of Quinn’s argument. Chomsky says we shouldn’t do this because this will lead to a mass genocide of humans - I think Quinn would maybe respond with “there have been genocides going on for thousands of years, we just don’t consider them genocides because we don’t consider them part of ‘us�, and ‘us� refers to the humans and animals we care about. But all these mass extinctions are genocide in a different name; are we really that special that we shouldn’t do anything because this proposed method leads to a loss of human life, despite an increase in overall diversity?�
Nice deconstruction of the novel and where anarcho-primitivism comes from, rich white men, but I think there is something in the fact that these rich white men advocate leaving the system they prosper from. It always makes me wonder if being addicted to the system, consumerism for example, shopping is associated with women, by associated I mean as a main stream view, nothing intrinsic but actually pushed on women by society. This shopoholic trend attributed to women exaggerates dependency, women needing things and not just things but things with a lot of import and labor behind them, the more import and labor the better. What I really mean is that maybe the rich white men who sit on soap boxes and preach about ending a system they preach in, is that maybe they are the only ones who can see that this is all a game. While the non-rich white men can't see that its all just a game because they are still trying to get to the top... Maybe Quinn is authentically interested in putting an end to publishers and his ability to speak to the masses and getting this message out there, this being what he thinks is a best attempt. Maybe like, Derrick Jensen, Quinn thinks lowering the population could be a slow gradual process over the course of several generations where we as a species acknowledge what we are doing and consciously lower the birth rate, not necessarily raise the death rate. Or else as you've pointed out there will be mass genocide anyways, because we are killing the planet we live on. So you'd really be suggesting mass genocide, and I don't think you meant that from an intentionally satirical pov.
I don't think the book even suggests anarcho-primitivism as Kirill pointed out.
You're right about the feminist perspective. I think it should be Civil Culture instead of Mother Culture. w/o-men certainly have other roles and representations, not represented in this book. From a feminist perspective this book doesn't stand up very well. Written by a man, with a male narrator, with no female roles except mother culture and eve.
But I think it stands up against your deconstructionist view, and that you might be putting assumptions onto the book in that regard. Or at least justify why it is anarcho-primitivist?
I do think this book does a great job of pointing out some of the assumptions we live behind as a civilized culture. And I think this is all the book is really trying to do. Not promote anarchy or primitivism.
also, I do identify myself as an intentional satirist.