A Manipulation of the Mind and Spirit

Daniel Quinn's novel Ishmael does some interesting things, including use stories to raise awareness about climate change and provide a revisionist theory about the Bible that shows a new perspective on the interpretation of the Old Testament, and particularly Genesis.  The way that Quinn creates interest in his readers is so unethical, however, that once noticed it destroys the legitimacy of all of his arguments.

Aristotle had a system for ranking arguments known as Ethos (ethical), Logos (logical), and Pathos (emotional).  This is not to say that Aristotle didn't think arguments with emotional appeals were strong arguments, but rather his point was that any argument based on an emotional appeal can be outweighed by logic, which can in turn be outweighed by ethics and common morals.  By extending this rule, it becomes apparent that any emotionally based argument must be logically and ethically sound, or else the inherent flaws will cause it to render itself invalid.  Similar thinking shows that a logical argument may undermine itself emotionally, however if it holds up morally it will retain its validity.  And this thinking is where Daniel Quinn runs into trouble.

Ishmael is, predominantly, an emotional appeal, and a strong one at that.  Quinn is smart, and his story is meant to connect personally to every reader and invoke strong reactions.  However, once these strong emotional arguments are realized, it's critical to analyze how they create their connections.  Several of Quinn's points are based on such immoral manipulation of emotion that they render his argument almost, if not entirely, invalid.

There are several examples of these throughout the book, but I'm going to focus on the most drastic of them.  Daniel Quinn at first creates interest by introducing a talking and seemingly all-knowing gorilla, but he knows that this is a very artificial type of interest and so only 26 pages into the book he switches tactics completely and draws an emotional response from a Nazi reference.  This connection he creates early on in the novel between Hitler and the expansion of culture is something he rides all the way through to the end.  By instilling this image early, Quinn manipulates his readers purposefully by relating culture to a regime many consider pure evil, without allowing his readers the chance to view it in any positive light.  Not dies basing an argument off of manipulated and created emotions make it fairly weak, it forms an unethical basis.  The strong emotions are not a result of readers' new disapproval of modern culture, rather they are artificially formed out of the strong emotions people have against the genocides committed under Hitler's regime.

Frankly, it's disturbing how fast people are to relate political figures, issues, and movements to infamous dictators like Adolf Hitler and their ideals.  Trying to create an emotional response off of a false pretense is morally wrong in all instances.  This is true when people accuse Barack Obama of being like Hitler because his foreign policy isn't always favorable to Jews, however Obama's policy clearly is not to eliminate the Jewish race, nor does it involve any violence towards it.  Similarly, Quinn accuses society of being like Hitler and trying to reach a an era of human dominance the way Hitler tried to create a Thousand Year Reich.  This of course disregards the fact that while Hitler targeted other races with the express goal of annihilation, while society simply moves forward and expands without prejudice.  It also doesn't create an oppressive regime for the people within it the way Hitler did.  The constant references to the Nazi party from Daniel Quinn are ill founded.  They are a cheap way of gaining subconscious emotional sympathy for his arguments, and that emotional manipulation is inexcusably immoral.