Ishmael

In Ishmael; An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit, Daniel Quinn vividly depicts the interconnection between the past, present, and future. Quinn not only pinpoints the source of the problems associated with humans’ views of progress but also attempts to rectify the problem and set a foundation for the solution to the problem.

Danniel Quinn immediately dispels the reader’s traditional way of thinking by having the protagonist, Alex Lomax, as the student and his teacher as a gorilla. When a teacher comes to mind the traditional association is a person of reverence who has greater wisdom and knowledge. Alex states that, “I thought there had to be someone out there with an unknown wisdom who could dispel my disillusionment and bewilderment: a teacher” only to find that the teacher is not a “someone” but a gorilla (5). This animal, although associated with intelligence, is not usually perceived as having greater intellect than a human. However, reflecting back on the novel and its content, it seems entirely appropriate that Ishmael is a gorilla and the only teacher who knows how to save the human race, and subsequently the entire world. Ishmael is a “Leaver” and understands what changes are necessary of the human population. This untraditional power structure between the gorilla and the human immediately dismantles the traditional way of thinking. It further establishes the need to set aside our perceived superiority and dominance and see that we need to listen and learn from everything and everyone. I also believe that this relationship illuminates that fact that sometimes an impartial viewer who is not part of the problem is the only one who is able to clearly see the problem.

The problem, Ishmael notes is that the “Takers” or the non-indigenous humans are egotistical in their thinking and ideology. He explains how the premise of the “Taker” story is “the world was made for man.” I agree that the majority of people wholeheartedly believe that the world was made for humans and it belongs to us. This is most evident by the fact that we buy and sell land and animals as though we have the ability and right to possess these things. I read an article in the Press Democrat a week ago about how two undersea cables were broken in the Mediterranean Sea which caused reduced internet services in India and Europe and hindered many U.S. businesses that rely on communication overseas (Pressdemo.com). The article’s entirety consisted of the consequences of this break in technology. I was shocked that there was no mention of the impact that this broken cable had on the environment anywhere in the article. Moreover, before I read the article I had no idea there were even cables under the sea. This article and my naivety about the topic further solidifies that fact that our pursuit for technology and technological advancement is extremely narrow minded. Humans are hailed intelligent for these great advancements and as a consumer I use these resources for their ease and efficiency without even considering the impact it causes on everything else. This instance further illuminated that fact that humans are destroying the world with little concern or caution.

Ishmael explains this disillusionment of humans through the analogy of man taking flight on the “Taker Thunderbolt.” Initially everything looks like a success and even when the ground begins to rise up, “Takers” have the false sense of security that everything is going well. However, conditions become worse. Ishmael contributes this degenerated condition through the paradox that states that “intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population” (109). At first I was confused when Ishmael explained that increased food production for the starving people in the Third World would not ensure population stability. My immediate reaction was that it was unjust to allow individuals to starve to death just to keep the population down. However, upon more careful consideration, I realized that was not what the book was trying to convey. Instead, it is society that wants individuals in developed countries to feel pity of those in their deprived situation. It unjustly illustrates that we are doing people a favor by aiding and providing food to underdeveloped countries. But in reality, developed countries control of food production creates this unequal distribution of resources and food and instigates this unbalanced power. Ultimately, it is this control of resources and the ideology that there is a need and a right to control resources that is problematic and ensures the novel’s claim that society will not continue forever this way.

Daniel Quinn also illustrates how the dominant society’s cultural values are in desperate need of revision and improvement. In the novel, Ishmael explains how most dominant cultures “esteem the values and traditions of wiser, nobler ancestors and deplore their disappearance, but they have no interest in living the way those wiser, nobler ancestors lived. In short, ancient customs are nice for institutions, ceremonies, and holidays, but Takers don’t want to adopt them for everyday living” (202). This statement incorporates the idea that technological progress and cultural advancements take precedence over historical traditions. Typically, dominant cultures only take what is wanted and what is thought as useful to include in the present. It is a very tunnel-vision mentality where the past and the future are mostly forgotten, while the present is valued as supremely important. Therefore, it seems that our reverence to our ancestors is only partial. Furthermore, our concern for the future is only partial as well. There is knowledge that the icecaps are melting and species are disappearing and there is a general consensus that something needs to be changed. And small changes have been occurring. For example, San Francisco City Board of Supervisors passed a law that banned plastic bags in large supermarkets due to environmental concerns that are associated with these plastic bags (SFGate.com). These are positive steps; however the novel’s environmental concerns are much greater than these small steps. One of the novel’s grand claims is that creation has stopped. This is most evident when Ishmael concludes that “those who live in the hands of gods evolve and those who don’t cease to evolve” (237). The implication being that the human race will eventually be destroyed if we continue this way.

But what to do? The novel suggests that awareness and education of the masses through publication and print is the first step to changing the current system (248). It also dispels the idea that we need to revert back to hunter-gatherers to be a successful culture (250). Furthermore, it reiterates the prevalent idea that control and power needs to be redistributed out of the hands of white males (253). All these suggestions are valid and make complete sense. As a reader I was in awe of Quinn’s capability to understandably illustrate the falsehood of history and the past and convincingly show how the present is in desperate need of change. I also was moved by the idea that change must occur with a change in the foundation of the “Taker” ideology (that we are only a part of the world, not owners of the world). But when Alex asks Ishmael what can be done, Ishmael’s only response is to “invent.” (250). As a reader, I wanted a suggestion for change – a suggestion for an invention because it is difficult to fully comprehend and imagine a system that is different from the present. I was left wondering what this change that Ishmael advocates would look like. How would the invention “save the world” as it states in the ad in the beginning of the novel? I longed for some tangible solution that I could hold on to. But again, after I digested the novel I realized that Ishmael had left me with many questions answered and those questions that were unanswerable were for me to ponder for myself. Essentially, Ishmael illustrated through the past, present, and the future the genuine necessity that change must occur.