Ishmael I: Takers and Reductionism

I found the opening passages of Ishmael difficult to read. While the content of the dialogue between Ishmael and the protagonist is full of thought-provoking ideas, problems with literary execution detracted from the overall presentation. The premise of the book relies on many clichés developed by Daniel Quinn. These problems start with the introduction of the narrator, who plays the role of the typical politically disillusioned victim of suburban America. The failure of counterculture movements of previous decades has left the narrator feeling politically empty-handed. This is understandable, considering counterculture politics “has been one of the primary forces during consumer capitalism for the past forty years” (Heath and Potter 2). However, this one-dimensional narrative seems to have been replayed in almost every American fiction since Fukuyama proclaimed the end of history. The narrative of suburban isolationism is too vague for me to develop a particularly intimate connection with the narrator’s intellectual explorations.

Counterculture depicted

Ishmael’s proposals hinge upon his critical analysis of the status quo. He arrives at the conclusion that the social order is organized around a Taker/Leaver distinction that borders on an overly deterministic account of the ‘Taker’ class. However, when Ishmael engages in his critique of the development of society, he presumes that civilization is an inherently negative force. Moreover, he presumes that the Takers are “captives of a civilizational system that more or less compels you to go on destroying the world in order to live” (Quinn 25). This reductionist position ignorantly homogenizes all Takers into a nebulous oppressive class. Two problems arise from this methodology. First, it functions to limit the radical potentiality of Ishmael’s critique of consumerist society. George Pavlich argues that by grounding the consumerist critique upon the normative assumption that Takers are wholly negative, “normative yardsticks for critical judgement are deemed reasonable by virtue of the rational” which causes Ishmael’s criticism to become a “slave to the disciplinary ethos that its revolutions seek to transgress” (Pavlich 363-364). Ishmael’s critique of consumerism falls short of questioning the presumption that a single monolithic category of humans can even be isolated as the sole cause of consumerism. Ishmael risks becoming enslaved to the same normalized practices that propagate the ignorance that he is trying to combat. Second, Ishmael’s position on the Takers creates an indefensible demonization of the West. The narrator even notes that Ishmael’s characterization is an oversimplification. However, Ishmael justifies his position by claiming an equally hegemonic account of the social order is necessary to combat dominant practices. This logical fallacy greatly hinders Ishmael’s ability to provide a valid account of domination. The fact that his opponent adopts simplistic and homogenizing discursive tactics does not justify the blatant lie that every single member of Western culture is inevitably complicit in resource depletion and environmental destruction. Certain institutions and economic actors are more culpable than others, and the failure to make such distinctions only risks the failure of Ishmael’s own personal project.

George Pavlich knows the secret to critique

George Pavlich. “Nietzsche, Critique and the Promise of Not Being Thus…”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. Volume 13. 2000. Pages 363-364.

Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter. Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. Page 2.