What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure
In Beyond Civilization , Daniel Quinn thinks the unthinkable. We all know there's no one right way to build a bicycle, no one right way to design an automobile, no one right way to make a pair of shoes, but we're convinced that there must be only one right way to live -- and the one we have is it, no matter what.
Beyond Civilization makes practical sense of the vision of Daniel Quinn's best-selling novel Ishmael . Examining ancient civilizations such as the Maya and the Olmec, as well as modern-day microcosms of alternative living like circus societies, Quinn guides us on a quest for a new model for society, one that is forward-thinking and encourages diversity instead of suppressing it. Beyond Civilization is not about a "New World Order" but a "New Personal World Order" that would allow people to assert control over their own destiny and grant them the freedom to create their own way of life right now -- not in some distant utopian future.
Beyond Civilization makes practical sense of the vision of Daniel Quinn's best-selling novel Ishmael . Examining ancient civilizations such as the Maya and the Olmec, as well as modern-day microcosms of alternative living like circus societies, Quinn guides us on a quest for a new model for society, one that is forward-thinking and encourages diversity instead of suppressing it. Beyond Civilization is not about a "New World Order" but a "New Personal World Order" that would allow people to assert control over their own destiny and grant them the freedom to create their own way of life right now -- not in some distant utopian future.
202 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
126 people are currently reading
3527 people want to read
About the author
Daniel Quinn
53 books1,894 followersI had and did the usual things -- childhood, schools, universities (St. Louis, Vienna, Loyola of Chicago), then embarked on a career in publishing in Chicago. Within a few years I was the head of the Biography & Fine Arts Department of the American Peoples Encyclopedia; when that was subsumed by a larger outfit and moved to New York, I stayed behind and moved into educational publishing, beginning at Science Research Associates (a division of IBM) and ending as Editorial Director of The Society for Vision Education (a division of the Singer Corporation).
In 1977 I walked away from SVE and this very successful career when it became clear that I was not going to able to do there what I really wanted to do...which was not entirely clear. A few months later I set my feet on a path that would change my life completely. It was a path made up of books -- or rather versions of a book that, after twelve years, would turn out to be ISHMAEL.
The first version, written in 1977-78, called MAN AND ALIEN, didn't turn out to be quite what I wanted, so wrote a second, called THE GENESIS TRANSCRIPT. Like the first version, this didn't satisfy me, so I wrote a third with the same title. THE BOOK OF NAHASH, abandoned unfinished, was the fourth version.
When I started writing version five, THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED in 1981, I was sure I'd found the book I was born to write. The versions that came before had been like rainy days with moments of sunshine. THIS was a thunderstorm, and the lines crossed my pages like flashes of lightning. When, after a few thousand words I came to a clear climax, I said, "This MUST be seen," so I put Part One into print. Parts Two and Three followed, and I began searching for the switch that would turn on Part Four... but it just wasn't there. What I'd done was terrific -- and complete in its own way -- but at last I faced the fact that the whole thing just couldn't be done in lightning strikes.
And so, on to versions six and seven (both called ANOTHER STORY TO BE IN). I knew I was close, and version eight was it -- the first and only version to be a novel and the first and only version inhabited by a telepathic gorilla named Ishmael.
ISHMAEL was a life-changing book. It began by winning the Turner Tomorrow Award, the largest prize ever given to a single literary work. It would come to be read in some 25 languages and used in classrooms from mid-school to graduate school in courses as varied as history philosophy, geography, archaeology, religion, biology, zoology, ecology, anthropology, political science, economics, and sociology.
But in 1992, when ISHMAEL was published, I had no idea what I might do next. My readers decided this for me. In letters that arrived by the bushel they demanded to know where this strange book came from, what "made" me write it. To answer these questions I wrote PROVIDENCE: THE STORY OF A FIFTY-YEAR VISION QUEST (1995).
But there were even more urgently important questions to be answered, particularly this one: "With ISHMAEL you've undermined the religious beliefs of a lifetime. What am I supposed to replace them with?" I replied to this with THE STORY OF B (1996).
The questions (and books) kept coming: Why did Ishmael have to die? This gave rise to MY ISHMAEL: A SEQUEL (1997), in which it's revealed that Ishmael was not only far from being dead but far from being finished with his work as a teacher. The question "Where do we go from here?" was the inspiration for BEYOND CIVILIZATION: HUMANITY'S NEXT GREAT ADVENTURE (1999), a very different kind of book.
With these questions answered (and 500 more on my website), I felt I was fundamentally finished with what might be called my teachings and ready to move on.
I had always taken as my guiding principle these words from André Gide: "What another would have done as well as you, do not do it. What another would have said as well as you, do not say it, written as well as you, do not write it.
In 1977 I walked away from SVE and this very successful career when it became clear that I was not going to able to do there what I really wanted to do...which was not entirely clear. A few months later I set my feet on a path that would change my life completely. It was a path made up of books -- or rather versions of a book that, after twelve years, would turn out to be ISHMAEL.
The first version, written in 1977-78, called MAN AND ALIEN, didn't turn out to be quite what I wanted, so wrote a second, called THE GENESIS TRANSCRIPT. Like the first version, this didn't satisfy me, so I wrote a third with the same title. THE BOOK OF NAHASH, abandoned unfinished, was the fourth version.
When I started writing version five, THE BOOK OF THE DAMNED in 1981, I was sure I'd found the book I was born to write. The versions that came before had been like rainy days with moments of sunshine. THIS was a thunderstorm, and the lines crossed my pages like flashes of lightning. When, after a few thousand words I came to a clear climax, I said, "This MUST be seen," so I put Part One into print. Parts Two and Three followed, and I began searching for the switch that would turn on Part Four... but it just wasn't there. What I'd done was terrific -- and complete in its own way -- but at last I faced the fact that the whole thing just couldn't be done in lightning strikes.
And so, on to versions six and seven (both called ANOTHER STORY TO BE IN). I knew I was close, and version eight was it -- the first and only version to be a novel and the first and only version inhabited by a telepathic gorilla named Ishmael.
ISHMAEL was a life-changing book. It began by winning the Turner Tomorrow Award, the largest prize ever given to a single literary work. It would come to be read in some 25 languages and used in classrooms from mid-school to graduate school in courses as varied as history philosophy, geography, archaeology, religion, biology, zoology, ecology, anthropology, political science, economics, and sociology.
But in 1992, when ISHMAEL was published, I had no idea what I might do next. My readers decided this for me. In letters that arrived by the bushel they demanded to know where this strange book came from, what "made" me write it. To answer these questions I wrote PROVIDENCE: THE STORY OF A FIFTY-YEAR VISION QUEST (1995).
But there were even more urgently important questions to be answered, particularly this one: "With ISHMAEL you've undermined the religious beliefs of a lifetime. What am I supposed to replace them with?" I replied to this with THE STORY OF B (1996).
The questions (and books) kept coming: Why did Ishmael have to die? This gave rise to MY ISHMAEL: A SEQUEL (1997), in which it's revealed that Ishmael was not only far from being dead but far from being finished with his work as a teacher. The question "Where do we go from here?" was the inspiration for BEYOND CIVILIZATION: HUMANITY'S NEXT GREAT ADVENTURE (1999), a very different kind of book.
With these questions answered (and 500 more on my website), I felt I was fundamentally finished with what might be called my teachings and ready to move on.
I had always taken as my guiding principle these words from André Gide: "What another would have done as well as you, do not do it. What another would have said as well as you, do not say it, written as well as you, do not write it.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews
April 4, 2008
I know I gave the book five stars, but that's a very conflicted five stars. Let me explain.
First of all, Quinn's premise (which he sets out in his other books such as Ishmael, Story of B, and My Ishmael {all fiction}) is that our culture's destruction of the Earth is based on our adherence to our belief system (called cultural 'memes') and lifestyle. We may try to limit the harm we cause through gov't programs, until our culture changes, we're going downhill fast. Now, to really understand his premise you're going to have to read the book yourself (actually, Ishmael is a better precursor), but our essential faulty lifestyle/beliefs are mass globalization and over-stretching of resources.
What does Quinn suggest instead? Well, for me, the answer to this question was like opening a present.... except one that's been wrapped in several layers of paper with copper wire in Matryoshka-doll style. That was fine, considering an adequate solution is really a step-by-step, problem-solution process and not just a quick fix, but I think that lead greatly to my mixed feelings. I was caught in my own anticipation for the 'great answer' that, when it turned out to be similar to '42', I was a little dissapointed. The premise is, essentially, simplistic. BUt it's enaction, not it's premise, that is the hard part.
So my reaction goes as follows- Anticipation, shock, anger and near abandonment, newfound hope, and humility (Quinn directs a few pages to people with my type of thinking, so I had to swallow my pride a little bit). The whole switch from a hierarchal society to a tribal one (and before you groan in protest, I'm talking tribal as in a group of people work together and share the profit. No loin-cloths, crude spears, or witch doctors included) will be more difficult to enact that Quinn describes. I find it difficult to imagine some professions being made tribal (but hey, Quinn openly admits his suggestions are open to renovation) but my main complaint was that it forced many to be entreupaneurs, which will be difficult. By the end of the book, however, I felt better about this.
What did I like about the book? Number one best thing- he doesn't make this sunshine-and-rainbow speech about people being less selfish and how we should all join hands and sing kumbaya. He accepts that people have good and bad within them, and this premise requires our vision to change, not our natures. Quinn also has a quite a knack for showing solutions/problems with great accuracy in metaphors/allegories. He's quite the original thinker, and gives us less-than-philosophical-types the tools to deal with the problems with our 'civilization' in a new way that, hopefully, won't perpetuate the problem. Lastly, our action doesn't need to involve everyone and doesn't rely on us converting the masses to this new way of living. It just involves a few quietly doing things another way.
Overall, I still need some time to completely absorb the material, but I really like the book and the way Quinn presents his premise as the beginning of a new way of thinking. I like the idea of our culture moving forward into a completely new way of thinking, living, and working. I just have to figure out how this is going to work for me.
First of all, Quinn's premise (which he sets out in his other books such as Ishmael, Story of B, and My Ishmael {all fiction}) is that our culture's destruction of the Earth is based on our adherence to our belief system (called cultural 'memes') and lifestyle. We may try to limit the harm we cause through gov't programs, until our culture changes, we're going downhill fast. Now, to really understand his premise you're going to have to read the book yourself (actually, Ishmael is a better precursor), but our essential faulty lifestyle/beliefs are mass globalization and over-stretching of resources.
What does Quinn suggest instead? Well, for me, the answer to this question was like opening a present.... except one that's been wrapped in several layers of paper with copper wire in Matryoshka-doll style. That was fine, considering an adequate solution is really a step-by-step, problem-solution process and not just a quick fix, but I think that lead greatly to my mixed feelings. I was caught in my own anticipation for the 'great answer' that, when it turned out to be similar to '42', I was a little dissapointed. The premise is, essentially, simplistic. BUt it's enaction, not it's premise, that is the hard part.
So my reaction goes as follows- Anticipation, shock, anger and near abandonment, newfound hope, and humility (Quinn directs a few pages to people with my type of thinking, so I had to swallow my pride a little bit). The whole switch from a hierarchal society to a tribal one (and before you groan in protest, I'm talking tribal as in a group of people work together and share the profit. No loin-cloths, crude spears, or witch doctors included) will be more difficult to enact that Quinn describes. I find it difficult to imagine some professions being made tribal (but hey, Quinn openly admits his suggestions are open to renovation) but my main complaint was that it forced many to be entreupaneurs, which will be difficult. By the end of the book, however, I felt better about this.
What did I like about the book? Number one best thing- he doesn't make this sunshine-and-rainbow speech about people being less selfish and how we should all join hands and sing kumbaya. He accepts that people have good and bad within them, and this premise requires our vision to change, not our natures. Quinn also has a quite a knack for showing solutions/problems with great accuracy in metaphors/allegories. He's quite the original thinker, and gives us less-than-philosophical-types the tools to deal with the problems with our 'civilization' in a new way that, hopefully, won't perpetuate the problem. Lastly, our action doesn't need to involve everyone and doesn't rely on us converting the masses to this new way of living. It just involves a few quietly doing things another way.
Overall, I still need some time to completely absorb the material, but I really like the book and the way Quinn presents his premise as the beginning of a new way of thinking. I like the idea of our culture moving forward into a completely new way of thinking, living, and working. I just have to figure out how this is going to work for me.
April 2, 2019
Three Stars For The Topic Covered
It's a harsh title, but I display it for a reason. This is the second book I've read this year (and in general) regarding a potential post-civilisation based society, the first being Endgame by Derrick Jensen. While the just mentioned title had some issues - very lengthy in subject being one of them - I was ultimately impressed with the authors proposals and reasoning.
This collection of thought is far shorter (192 pages) than Endgame, and is my first reading of anything by Daniel Quinn. My first impression is that I should of perhaps read his other work first - and I should probably recommend you do to - as even he advises the reader to do so. However, this doesn't render the ideas this book presents incomprehensible; there's other reasons at play as to why this still happens (at least in my reading experience).
Let's keep this short. A review should inform you, the potential reader, of what you're getting into if you choose to pick this book up. So I'll make certain to be clear in my opinion. The premise of this text is interesting enough to bother reading, simply because there's not enough layman style books out there on new ways of conducting human affairs - collectively - via mainstream sources. So if you're reading this, and haven't even thought of post-capitalism as something that exists (or simply haven't realised socialism, communism and capitalism can be superseded by something new), then I recommend you pick this up, and also start looking for other titles; the subject in question is way more important than any nitpickings a reviewer like myself may have.
If you're already aware of the above, and you're looking for new material to digest (because let's face it, this is an interesting, and, not to mention, defining subject of our time), then I can't recommend this title. Stylistically, I found this a jarring read to it's core. The body is divided into six short parts, with a sub-heading on every page, which gives the book an almost self-help / lifestyle guide style for the reader. The problem with choosing this particular way of conveying the topic, is that each page needs to wrap up the microtopic it's covering before the next page begins (and, as such, a new topic). There is some overlap across pages in subject, but it overwhelmingly sticks to this formula throughout.
This wouldn't be a problem by itself, but combined with the next factor, it becomes an prominent issue. Starting out, Quinn had me thoroughly engaged. He presents interesting points and topics for the reader to ponder. However, about mid-way through, Beyond Civilisation starts to collapse in on itself. Which, quite frankly, is incredible, considering how short it is.
Quinn flits between subjects regularly; presenting new ideas without having previously wrapped up on former ones in any kind of neat fashion. For such a strong title, I was expecting something in the style of a manifesto. Robust and clear, with a strong underpinning theme (or message) to hold the expansive sub-topics touched upon together. Instead, I felt like I was reading a diary, or notes made by the author in prelude to a larger, more comprehensible topic. There's good messages conveyed here and there, and Quinn had me looking at certain aspects of our society in a new way at times, but I was overwhelmingly irritated at how little structure there was in this book.
Fingers crossed there's better out there.
It's a harsh title, but I display it for a reason. This is the second book I've read this year (and in general) regarding a potential post-civilisation based society, the first being Endgame by Derrick Jensen. While the just mentioned title had some issues - very lengthy in subject being one of them - I was ultimately impressed with the authors proposals and reasoning.
This collection of thought is far shorter (192 pages) than Endgame, and is my first reading of anything by Daniel Quinn. My first impression is that I should of perhaps read his other work first - and I should probably recommend you do to - as even he advises the reader to do so. However, this doesn't render the ideas this book presents incomprehensible; there's other reasons at play as to why this still happens (at least in my reading experience).
Let's keep this short. A review should inform you, the potential reader, of what you're getting into if you choose to pick this book up. So I'll make certain to be clear in my opinion. The premise of this text is interesting enough to bother reading, simply because there's not enough layman style books out there on new ways of conducting human affairs - collectively - via mainstream sources. So if you're reading this, and haven't even thought of post-capitalism as something that exists (or simply haven't realised socialism, communism and capitalism can be superseded by something new), then I recommend you pick this up, and also start looking for other titles; the subject in question is way more important than any nitpickings a reviewer like myself may have.
If you're already aware of the above, and you're looking for new material to digest (because let's face it, this is an interesting, and, not to mention, defining subject of our time), then I can't recommend this title. Stylistically, I found this a jarring read to it's core. The body is divided into six short parts, with a sub-heading on every page, which gives the book an almost self-help / lifestyle guide style for the reader. The problem with choosing this particular way of conveying the topic, is that each page needs to wrap up the microtopic it's covering before the next page begins (and, as such, a new topic). There is some overlap across pages in subject, but it overwhelmingly sticks to this formula throughout.
This wouldn't be a problem by itself, but combined with the next factor, it becomes an prominent issue. Starting out, Quinn had me thoroughly engaged. He presents interesting points and topics for the reader to ponder. However, about mid-way through, Beyond Civilisation starts to collapse in on itself. Which, quite frankly, is incredible, considering how short it is.
Quinn flits between subjects regularly; presenting new ideas without having previously wrapped up on former ones in any kind of neat fashion. For such a strong title, I was expecting something in the style of a manifesto. Robust and clear, with a strong underpinning theme (or message) to hold the expansive sub-topics touched upon together. Instead, I felt like I was reading a diary, or notes made by the author in prelude to a larger, more comprehensible topic. There's good messages conveyed here and there, and Quinn had me looking at certain aspects of our society in a new way at times, but I was overwhelmingly irritated at how little structure there was in this book.
Fingers crossed there's better out there.
December 15, 2013
Daniel Quinn has got to be one of the most innovative and insightful thinkers in the world today. His trio of novels that led up to this non-fiction treatise - "Ishmael", "The Story of B", and "My Ishmael" - were mind blowing in their own right, using metaphor, historical example and downright good research to explain how mankind, instead of creating the best civilization ever, has programmed himself to self destruct in the not-too-distant future. We are the only living beings on earth that are, as he describes, Takers. That is, every other species kills only what they need to eat and survive. We, on the other have, can never seem to get enough. And the more we desire and take, the more we harm the earth and other living things in the process.
All too many scientist now agree that the life of mankind on this earth is finite, and that our end has been hurried recklessly toward a near-future oblivion. And all because of our own actions, our own greed. We consider ourselves superior to all other life, and yet we will be survived by thousands of species of animals, birds, insects and other life forms. We have created what Quinn calls "the culture of maximum harm."
"Beyond Civilization" first explains, fairly plainly, how so many in our societies have become frantic, and would do anything to get out. We cannot seem to be treated fairly - the rich get richer and continue to take even more, while the middle class slides into poverty and the poor get even poorer. Quinn then shows the pathway out, including how that path worked for centuries in the past. The answer is in tribalism, our ability and willingness to gather together in smaller groups and communities designed to work together, all for the benefit of the whole.
This can be done within the confines of our society as a whole, but the more people find that this solution works, the more will want to join, and the more irrelevant will become the hierarchical society which we have built up over centuries. Real life examples are presented, and a lot is explained about what tribalism is not - communal living, for example.
Quinn's insight and foresight, combined with his lifelong study of other cultures, presents a viable answer that so many are seeking. This book was published in 1999, shortly after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. And he points out several other school shootings that occurred in that recent past. An example of his prescience rests in this offering: "Make a graph of these numbers and watch them go exponential in years to come - unless we start giving our kids a new way to go and some real hope for the future." History is now replete incidents of this sort, and society has found no answers as to how to stop the violence.
I suggest it's time to listen to Quinn. If you haven't yet read the Ishmael trilogy, I strongly suggest you do. It will help you understand. But you can read "Beyond Civilization" without that background and still finish emotionally charged for the future. It's a book to be returned to, perhaps several times, but then, hopefully, turned into action before it's too late.
All too many scientist now agree that the life of mankind on this earth is finite, and that our end has been hurried recklessly toward a near-future oblivion. And all because of our own actions, our own greed. We consider ourselves superior to all other life, and yet we will be survived by thousands of species of animals, birds, insects and other life forms. We have created what Quinn calls "the culture of maximum harm."
"Beyond Civilization" first explains, fairly plainly, how so many in our societies have become frantic, and would do anything to get out. We cannot seem to be treated fairly - the rich get richer and continue to take even more, while the middle class slides into poverty and the poor get even poorer. Quinn then shows the pathway out, including how that path worked for centuries in the past. The answer is in tribalism, our ability and willingness to gather together in smaller groups and communities designed to work together, all for the benefit of the whole.
This can be done within the confines of our society as a whole, but the more people find that this solution works, the more will want to join, and the more irrelevant will become the hierarchical society which we have built up over centuries. Real life examples are presented, and a lot is explained about what tribalism is not - communal living, for example.
Quinn's insight and foresight, combined with his lifelong study of other cultures, presents a viable answer that so many are seeking. This book was published in 1999, shortly after the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. And he points out several other school shootings that occurred in that recent past. An example of his prescience rests in this offering: "Make a graph of these numbers and watch them go exponential in years to come - unless we start giving our kids a new way to go and some real hope for the future." History is now replete incidents of this sort, and society has found no answers as to how to stop the violence.
I suggest it's time to listen to Quinn. If you haven't yet read the Ishmael trilogy, I strongly suggest you do. It will help you understand. But you can read "Beyond Civilization" without that background and still finish emotionally charged for the future. It's a book to be returned to, perhaps several times, but then, hopefully, turned into action before it's too late.
June 21, 2020
While the title implies further instruction we never really get it. Still I have to rate this book quite highly as it shows what a crap culture the world has; and yes the world has one culture and it is all crap. Civilization, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau famously said, is merely something that aims to cure the diseases it creates. Totalitarian agriculture can do nothing but destroy the eco-systems we rely on. Food under lock and key, overpopulation, mass incarceration, obscene wealth inequality, drug addiction, depression, despair, suicide; and murder, slavery, and genocide. Maybe the fact that the book gives no real solution is actually a strength and not a weakness. For we are all doomed. We are here to witness our little section of humanity's great decline.
June 18, 2015
To be fair, I was biased before beginning this book. I had previously tried to read Quinn's "Story of B," which my friends made me put down because I wouldn't stop complaining about it.
Primarily because in that book, Quinn creates a sage character that is constantly blowing the mind of the other character in the book - to the point where they feel like their whole world view is being destroyed. The voice of this sage character is very obviously Quinn's and the whole premise is profoundly masturbatory.
If I'm biased, why would I read "Beyond Civilization" then?
Because I felt I shouldn't hate any book and because I hate not finishing them. This is Danial Quinn's second shot with me and because this book is devoid of the worshiping characters and is more a reduction of his ideas than anything, it's ok.
But beyond that, the book still doesn't offer much. As a short collection of little paragraphs in which he propounds his view, it's often redundant, and sometimes even unnecessary. What's more, the format seems to indicate that a lot of the space given to the little entries isn't worth it.
These are single points. They're not maxims to chew on and they're not profound aphorisms either. They're just paragraphs (of his summed up ideas, details of the popularizations of other's ideas, and anecdotes) that feel stretched out to increase the pages and to lower the reading level.
All in all, "Beyond Civilization" better and less wanky than his novels, but doesn't really offer much more. Fans of his style should probably stick to the novels. People who dislike it will find that the number of major points is dwarfed by the amount of times Quinn references his own work - and may therefore be just as turned off. This may, however, be the perfect book for people who wish to debate his points as they do come prepackaged.
Primarily because in that book, Quinn creates a sage character that is constantly blowing the mind of the other character in the book - to the point where they feel like their whole world view is being destroyed. The voice of this sage character is very obviously Quinn's and the whole premise is profoundly masturbatory.
If I'm biased, why would I read "Beyond Civilization" then?
Because I felt I shouldn't hate any book and because I hate not finishing them. This is Danial Quinn's second shot with me and because this book is devoid of the worshiping characters and is more a reduction of his ideas than anything, it's ok.
But beyond that, the book still doesn't offer much. As a short collection of little paragraphs in which he propounds his view, it's often redundant, and sometimes even unnecessary. What's more, the format seems to indicate that a lot of the space given to the little entries isn't worth it.
These are single points. They're not maxims to chew on and they're not profound aphorisms either. They're just paragraphs (of his summed up ideas, details of the popularizations of other's ideas, and anecdotes) that feel stretched out to increase the pages and to lower the reading level.
All in all, "Beyond Civilization" better and less wanky than his novels, but doesn't really offer much more. Fans of his style should probably stick to the novels. People who dislike it will find that the number of major points is dwarfed by the amount of times Quinn references his own work - and may therefore be just as turned off. This may, however, be the perfect book for people who wish to debate his points as they do come prepackaged.
February 3, 2009
3.5, really, but I rounded down for several reasons.
Those familiar with Quinn's thinking will find little in here that is unique or new, however it is probably the most concise manifesto representing his beliefs to date. It is mostly a rephrased and fictionless abridgment of his previous works. This works in some ways, but it underdeveloped at many points, begging the reader to look elsewhere for depth in philosophy. That said, the facts themselves, as he presents them, are equally profound and pertinent as anything else he has done.
To those reviewers who claim that his ideas are nonviable, 'hippie' solutions are members of the hopelessly indoctrinated hegemony whom he is attempting to displace, discredit and reeducate. His words have been wasted on them and I suggest looking to his novels for 'proofs' of his theories that are somewhat more irrefutably arrived upon (this book is comparatively more conclusion than proof, which is perhaps the source of their confusion). To reviewers who claim he offers no 'solutions' to the problems of the world, you have simply misunderstood the meaning of the word solution. There is no such thing as an activity we can engage that will fix our problems, and Quinn says as much in every book he has written ("If the world can be saved, it will not be by people with the old vision and new programs, but by people with new vision and no programs"). Programs are what this reviewer is looking for, and his vision is still flawed.
Rather, Quinn implores us to 'invent.' He does not provide a specific 'solution' because specificity first implies that we only have one, or some small handful of related problems. In fact there are many things we must overcome if the species is to survive. Second, overly specific solutions are more than likely some form of program, which is the very thing he means to avoid. The actual solution he presents here is simply to recognize as a species the consequences of our actions and to start making different choices about what the story of humanity is all about. He does not claim to know what those choices must be, or what form they will take. This is another of his points: "There is no one right way for humans to live."
Basically, my point is that there are certain reviewers who clearly did not understand the text. I'm not claiming it to be a new bible or the blueprint for the success of humanity, but it does at least set out to accomplish its intentions. Using 'hippie' as an epithet is not a reasonable condemnation of his intent or execution.
So why did I round down? That choice is from an avoidable and recurring hypocrisy in Quinn's books. The formatting and editorial choices of his works seem universally to waste a huge amount of white paper space. I tend to write lots of notes for myself in these kinds of books and still found this to be obnoxiously wastefulGiven his ethical stance, the waste of paper undermines the influence and respectability of his arguments.
Those familiar with Quinn's thinking will find little in here that is unique or new, however it is probably the most concise manifesto representing his beliefs to date. It is mostly a rephrased and fictionless abridgment of his previous works. This works in some ways, but it underdeveloped at many points, begging the reader to look elsewhere for depth in philosophy. That said, the facts themselves, as he presents them, are equally profound and pertinent as anything else he has done.
To those reviewers who claim that his ideas are nonviable, 'hippie' solutions are members of the hopelessly indoctrinated hegemony whom he is attempting to displace, discredit and reeducate. His words have been wasted on them and I suggest looking to his novels for 'proofs' of his theories that are somewhat more irrefutably arrived upon (this book is comparatively more conclusion than proof, which is perhaps the source of their confusion). To reviewers who claim he offers no 'solutions' to the problems of the world, you have simply misunderstood the meaning of the word solution. There is no such thing as an activity we can engage that will fix our problems, and Quinn says as much in every book he has written ("If the world can be saved, it will not be by people with the old vision and new programs, but by people with new vision and no programs"). Programs are what this reviewer is looking for, and his vision is still flawed.
Rather, Quinn implores us to 'invent.' He does not provide a specific 'solution' because specificity first implies that we only have one, or some small handful of related problems. In fact there are many things we must overcome if the species is to survive. Second, overly specific solutions are more than likely some form of program, which is the very thing he means to avoid. The actual solution he presents here is simply to recognize as a species the consequences of our actions and to start making different choices about what the story of humanity is all about. He does not claim to know what those choices must be, or what form they will take. This is another of his points: "There is no one right way for humans to live."
Basically, my point is that there are certain reviewers who clearly did not understand the text. I'm not claiming it to be a new bible or the blueprint for the success of humanity, but it does at least set out to accomplish its intentions. Using 'hippie' as an epithet is not a reasonable condemnation of his intent or execution.
So why did I round down? That choice is from an avoidable and recurring hypocrisy in Quinn's books. The formatting and editorial choices of his works seem universally to waste a huge amount of white paper space. I tend to write lots of notes for myself in these kinds of books and still found this to be obnoxiously wastefulGiven his ethical stance, the waste of paper undermines the influence and respectability of his arguments.
February 20, 2010
I've read some of Daniel Quinn's other books, Ismael and started Life Of B. I liked the ideas, but was kind of turned off by the talking gorilla. This book's a more concise manifesto. There's some brilliant observations and analogies, which make it worth reading, but as I find with all these dystopian books, the solutions seem totally overshadowed by the problems. I actually wish they'd just leave that stuff out. It's always like the last two chapters, and I guess they throw it in to wash their hands clean of any suicides that might occur after reading their books. But I really have no interest in some cutesy theater group no one's ever heard of or a coffee shop in Portland, Oregon, where they function as a tribe. They're not paving the way to a better world, sorry. Daniel Quin reminds me a lot of another author I've read a lot by, James Howard Kunstler. They're both gifted at pointing out society's flaws; I think that should be enough. We shouldn't look to them for answers, and they shouldn't pretend to provide them. But aside from that, I think the ideas both authors present deserve acknowledgment, and their books aught to be read. I think if more people were exposed to these ideas and information, humanity would certainly stand a better chance.
August 28, 2021
normally an 'anarchist' type perspective would appeal to me. I appreciated each component (essay) fit on a page. I didn't buy into people became farmers because they wanted to live in one place, particularily when they could get their 2000 calories with two hours effort as hunter-gathers vs 5 hours as cultivatators (as pointed out by the author).
Page 90 gave a sense of what the book was about "I don't regard civilization as a curse but a blessing that people should be free to walk away from - for something better."
Page 163 "A commune "can be" a tribe, just as a lighthouse "can be" a grain silo and a prom gowg " can be" a nurse uniform.
Page 90 gave a sense of what the book was about "I don't regard civilization as a curse but a blessing that people should be free to walk away from - for something better."
Page 163 "A commune "can be" a tribe, just as a lighthouse "can be" a grain silo and a prom gowg " can be" a nurse uniform.
August 18, 2020
Tribalism worked for millions of years and was replaced by civilization which introduced the idea of hierarchy and putting food under lock and key. Today, thinking of a time before hierarchy or putting things under lock and key is unthinkable; to think beyond civilization is unthinkable. At their height, the Maya took up less land than Arizona. The Mayans had ample time to conquer others if they had wanted to; they could have brought “civilization” to others at spear point but they didn’t. They were missing the insane wetiko “this is the one way to live” mantra that put civilization on the map. It’s also the same mantra that historically created “the map” (Chellis Glendinning, Off the Map). Tribal cultures lived for sufficiency, recoiled at waste and respected nature. Many of us were taught to revere white boys John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt for their respect for nature, theoretically tribal, while never shown their intentionally exclusionary and hierarchical “civilized” racism. Hit the books: Notice how the Maya, the Olmec, those of Teotihuacan, the Hohakam, and the Anasazi all found tribalism worked best – it could be sustained. Modern day tribe? Think the Circus, think Bread and Puppet Theatre. All jobs needed, all jobs respected. Think civilization? Think hierarchy. Did you notice that ‘hierarchy’ sounds a bit like ‘malarkey’? Just sayin’.
Daniel discusses the threat of looming extinction on page 86 and says we don’t see that civilization took from us these pre-state positives: “Security, hope, lightheartedness, and freedom from anxiety, fear and guilt.” The US Military, Media, Advertising, PR, and Beauty industries know these positives from tribal culture would put them out of business. We were instead taught that poverty is “a social status” – but instead, we should see it as a product of civilization. When Daniel Quinn once lived in a poor area, he saw it was vibrant with dreams and activity, their carbon footprint was down but the people did what they wanted to do (diversity as tribal). Simply put, civilization is not more “advanced” than tribalism. Daniel says hierarchy “can imagine revolution, but it can’t imagine abandonment. So, remove your support for it – remove its oxygen. While, the tribal solution is celebration of diversity, our Taker culture might “celebrate” the diverse background of a Rihanna and Cardi B on “Extra”, but will gun down anyone who looks like they could be their boyfriend if behind the wheels of a car in the US.
Daniel recounts how reading Ishmael led Ray C. Anderson to make the huge change in the way carpets are made today (not talking about those cheap acrylic nightmares). “Takers had conquered every continent on the planet and dominated the world completely”. Doctors are supposed to do no harm, yet our culture (to grow) relies on maximum harm to maximize profits. Seeking maximum affluence soon will, in a few years, conjure looks of shock and anger when tribal ways permanently return. Hierarchy can be a bitch – patriarchy can be a bastard. Moving away from civilization is moving away from harm (or as Derrick Jensen says, towards a sense of place and protecting your land base). In fact, it’s what successful touring bands have done for decades: doing stuff for fun with others as equals to make a living. Tribes, like adherents of Bob Marley, prefer an easy living for all, to the hierarchy and violence of civilization. In conclusion, the flaw on this planet isn’t in the people, it’s in the system. Think beyond the system, think beyond civilization.
Daniel discusses the threat of looming extinction on page 86 and says we don’t see that civilization took from us these pre-state positives: “Security, hope, lightheartedness, and freedom from anxiety, fear and guilt.” The US Military, Media, Advertising, PR, and Beauty industries know these positives from tribal culture would put them out of business. We were instead taught that poverty is “a social status” – but instead, we should see it as a product of civilization. When Daniel Quinn once lived in a poor area, he saw it was vibrant with dreams and activity, their carbon footprint was down but the people did what they wanted to do (diversity as tribal). Simply put, civilization is not more “advanced” than tribalism. Daniel says hierarchy “can imagine revolution, but it can’t imagine abandonment. So, remove your support for it – remove its oxygen. While, the tribal solution is celebration of diversity, our Taker culture might “celebrate” the diverse background of a Rihanna and Cardi B on “Extra”, but will gun down anyone who looks like they could be their boyfriend if behind the wheels of a car in the US.
Daniel recounts how reading Ishmael led Ray C. Anderson to make the huge change in the way carpets are made today (not talking about those cheap acrylic nightmares). “Takers had conquered every continent on the planet and dominated the world completely”. Doctors are supposed to do no harm, yet our culture (to grow) relies on maximum harm to maximize profits. Seeking maximum affluence soon will, in a few years, conjure looks of shock and anger when tribal ways permanently return. Hierarchy can be a bitch – patriarchy can be a bastard. Moving away from civilization is moving away from harm (or as Derrick Jensen says, towards a sense of place and protecting your land base). In fact, it’s what successful touring bands have done for decades: doing stuff for fun with others as equals to make a living. Tribes, like adherents of Bob Marley, prefer an easy living for all, to the hierarchy and violence of civilization. In conclusion, the flaw on this planet isn’t in the people, it’s in the system. Think beyond the system, think beyond civilization.
January 31, 2013
I read Ishmael probably fifteen years ago. I remember being fascinated by the impact of agriculture on civilization, and enjoyng the story, even if it does fall into the category of stories that beat you over the head with their message. I'm pretty sure I read at least the sequel to that, if not both of the follow ups. But as you can see, they added nothing to my impression of Ishmael and faded away themselves. It's entirely possible I read this one years ago as well and have forgotten it. Because I got nothing out of it. It was fairly patronizing, even though he occasionally mentions he's spoon feeding us these concepts because clearly based on questions he's gotten, he didn't explain himself and his ideas well enough. Thing is, he didn't do much better this time. Yeah, there's no one right way to live. I didn't need thirty thousand words to understand that. Then he states that tribal societies worked for a long time, but unlike those, you can create occupational tribes as an alternative to civilization. But his examples are a failed newspaper and the circus. Apparently, the way to step out of civilization is to work for no profit, only what you need. Fine, but are there really that many niche opportunities out there for people to create this life for themselves? And for that kid that he called Jeffrey, who couldn't find something he was passionate about...what occupational tribe would have helped him? I think he should have stuck to the premise that we cannot predict what changes the future holds, that the Dark Ages couldn't concieve of and plan for the Renaissance. Because if he didn't want to draw us a roadmap to his envisioned future, he shouldn't have made it sound like that was what this book would be doing. I still appreciated some of his ideas and sentiments, but this didn't really advance upon what he had already written.
December 21, 2017
This book didn’t quite land with me. I understand the concept Quinn is trying to introduce but I’m not sure how it can be done or why it’s a good idea. I’m sure he would then say I’m an “Old Thinker,” which is how he disregards anyone who challenges his ideas. For someone who is promoting free thought, I feel like he’s also stifling those who disagree.
May 5, 2022
J'ai passé la majorité de ma lecture à froncer les yeux.
J'ai mal à la face.
J'ai mal à la face.
November 15, 2025
I found this book in someone’s booth in an antiques mall and was curious… Ishmael (and the sequels) in a nonfiction form? $3 and it was mine.
Daniel Quinn actually has some good points. It’s just that he does his damnedest to fuzz them with heavy handed preaching and belaboring. See, Quinn has identified the problem, and he has the answer. Except he says he doesn’t. Or at least, “You don’t have to have all the answers. Certainly I don’t have them.” (He also says “It’s better to say ‘I don’t know’ than to fake it and get into hot water.”)
He’s big on the concepts of “tribe” here. He says “A tribe isn’t a particular occupation: it’s a,social organization that facilitates making a living.” Now, this was published in 1999. Pre-“social” media. What we see today in the cults of the conspiracists, the fright wing, etc is tribalism and it is not something for making a living. Rather, it’s definitely “these are my people and they think like me”. Language changes. Concepts don’t, but applying them does.
He says, “I'm not a Luddite or a Unabomber. I don't regard civilization as a curse but as a blessing that people (including me) should be free to walk away from-for something better. And something better is what I'm after, and nothing less.” So, people walked away from the best life (tribalism) to “civilization”, he wants something better, and yet keeps talking about the wonders of tribalism. So many philosophers think of unanswerable questions that no one but them really cares about, and then think they have the answers to those questions (and a lot of them dress up their aha! Triumphs in obfuscatory language). Quinn isn’t quite that kind of philosopher because what he waxes on about is something we should (and do, some of us) care about. And Quinn’s language isn’t difficult, but the presentation can be tedious.
Lots of flagged pages. BTW, every page is a separate short essay with a topic header. Odd, and it does present as a little ADHD with the punctuated sub-sub-stories in each, sometimes not quite finishing. Here’s a thought, brief, and here’s the next, sometimes rehashing what was said in the last. It is repetitive. Anyway, along with some of the points I do agree with, he does make sweeping generalizations that I don’t agree with. I did like this:
“French philosopher Simone Weil disagreed with Marx, saying that revolution, not religion, is the opium of the masses. Shame on them both for not understanding people and their drugs better. Religion is a barbiturate, dulling the pain and putting you to sleep. Revolution is an amphetamine, revving you up and making you feel powerful. When people have nothing else going for them, they'll grab either one- or both. Neither drug is going away. Far from it.”
“Consulting any dictionary reveals that the word civilization signifies to us something that is socially ‘advanced.’ There is, of course, only one thing for it to be socially advanced over, and that's tribalism.” I agree that we’re all taught about “civilization” as if it is an end achievement. And I agree that civilization is destructive. We used to have a book Endangered Peoples, a profile of cultures in danger of extinction. It’s disheartening. Quinn doesn’t monger doom-predictions that well.
I am not sure who this book is for. The perpetrators won’t read, or get it. Libertarians might like it a lot. A hormonally, emotionally turmoiled teen looking for a “nobody understands me��� collective individualist banner to wave? (Yes, collective individualist… the Tumblr generation - we didn’t have that when I was going through it so I flirted briefly with Ayn Rand. And then grew up.)
Underwhelmed. But for only $3, so it’s okay.
Daniel Quinn actually has some good points. It’s just that he does his damnedest to fuzz them with heavy handed preaching and belaboring. See, Quinn has identified the problem, and he has the answer. Except he says he doesn’t. Or at least, “You don’t have to have all the answers. Certainly I don’t have them.” (He also says “It’s better to say ‘I don’t know’ than to fake it and get into hot water.”)
He’s big on the concepts of “tribe” here. He says “A tribe isn’t a particular occupation: it’s a,social organization that facilitates making a living.” Now, this was published in 1999. Pre-“social” media. What we see today in the cults of the conspiracists, the fright wing, etc is tribalism and it is not something for making a living. Rather, it’s definitely “these are my people and they think like me”. Language changes. Concepts don’t, but applying them does.
He says, “I'm not a Luddite or a Unabomber. I don't regard civilization as a curse but as a blessing that people (including me) should be free to walk away from-for something better. And something better is what I'm after, and nothing less.” So, people walked away from the best life (tribalism) to “civilization”, he wants something better, and yet keeps talking about the wonders of tribalism. So many philosophers think of unanswerable questions that no one but them really cares about, and then think they have the answers to those questions (and a lot of them dress up their aha! Triumphs in obfuscatory language). Quinn isn’t quite that kind of philosopher because what he waxes on about is something we should (and do, some of us) care about. And Quinn’s language isn’t difficult, but the presentation can be tedious.
Lots of flagged pages. BTW, every page is a separate short essay with a topic header. Odd, and it does present as a little ADHD with the punctuated sub-sub-stories in each, sometimes not quite finishing. Here’s a thought, brief, and here’s the next, sometimes rehashing what was said in the last. It is repetitive. Anyway, along with some of the points I do agree with, he does make sweeping generalizations that I don’t agree with. I did like this:
“French philosopher Simone Weil disagreed with Marx, saying that revolution, not religion, is the opium of the masses. Shame on them both for not understanding people and their drugs better. Religion is a barbiturate, dulling the pain and putting you to sleep. Revolution is an amphetamine, revving you up and making you feel powerful. When people have nothing else going for them, they'll grab either one- or both. Neither drug is going away. Far from it.”
“Consulting any dictionary reveals that the word civilization signifies to us something that is socially ‘advanced.’ There is, of course, only one thing for it to be socially advanced over, and that's tribalism.” I agree that we’re all taught about “civilization” as if it is an end achievement. And I agree that civilization is destructive. We used to have a book Endangered Peoples, a profile of cultures in danger of extinction. It’s disheartening. Quinn doesn’t monger doom-predictions that well.
I am not sure who this book is for. The perpetrators won’t read, or get it. Libertarians might like it a lot. A hormonally, emotionally turmoiled teen looking for a “nobody understands me��� collective individualist banner to wave? (Yes, collective individualist… the Tumblr generation - we didn’t have that when I was going through it so I flirted briefly with Ayn Rand. And then grew up.)
Underwhelmed. But for only $3, so it’s okay.
July 27, 2013
Still some good ideas, and a neat way of putting them, that help with a perspective on ourselves and our hell bent society. But Mr. Quinn's answer to the powerful questions he raises are still less than satisfying. How do we get back to the sanity and satisfactoriness of a non-destructive tribal way of life from within this modern context? His answer still seems sketchy and undeveloped - since all his proposed examples of neo-modern tribal living seem to live, not separate from "mother culture" but in a parasitical relationship with it. Without it's continuous existence, people who have "dropped out" from it in his scenarios would not survive. How ever would you live happily ever after with your circus if customers with cash in hand from their mainstream jobs did not come to see you? That final vision is, alas, the main point to keep reading his series. Not faulting Mr. Quinn here. He has done a remarkable job of helping vast numbers of people see our civilization and its destructive patterns with fresh eyes. And certainly no one else has many answers either. I can only praise him for trying so hard to find them.
August 3, 2008
I read this at the suggestion of someone I regard very highly. So, when I started reading the book and thinking to myself "the author is crazy", I felt the book must have been beyond my comprehension.
Each page has its own title, and it is in the form of an ongoing monologue. This put me off, as did some passages that the author offers as why his point of view(found in the book) were shaped in that way.
Throughout the book the authors "craziness" waxed and waned. I read the entire thing, and ultimately still feel like I must have missed something.
The societal view expressed by the author seemed to be anarcho-syndaclist in nature, which I am fascinated by, however, the lack of sophistication in which Mr. Quinn presents it leaves much to be desired. To be fair, it would be a challenge to out present Mr. Chomsky.
Each page has its own title, and it is in the form of an ongoing monologue. This put me off, as did some passages that the author offers as why his point of view(found in the book) were shaped in that way.
Throughout the book the authors "craziness" waxed and waned. I read the entire thing, and ultimately still feel like I must have missed something.
The societal view expressed by the author seemed to be anarcho-syndaclist in nature, which I am fascinated by, however, the lack of sophistication in which Mr. Quinn presents it leaves much to be desired. To be fair, it would be a challenge to out present Mr. Chomsky.
June 9, 2015
In order to produce good theory one has to familiarize oneself with what others have said before on the same issues. It's painfully obvious that Quinn as never read any anarchist literature. The result? He ends up suggesting some of the most tired anarchist projects (worker's cooperatives and dumpster-diving) as a "New Tribal Revolution"!
January 6, 2008
I was very excited to see what solutions Quinn would present for our "taker society" after expertly pointing out it's flaws in his first three books, sadly he presents essentially none. Very lame. The first three books in the series are amazing though.
June 13, 2017
shit sandwich
January 10, 2022
It was like the diary of a 14 year old libertarian on acid who thinks his thoughts are true because he thought them.
June 28, 2024
Medeniyetlerin yok olması veya çökmesini özellikle sınıf farkına ve bu farkın sürekli açılmasına bağlıyor yazar. En üsttekiler ile alttakiler arasındaki fark açılınca ve uzun süre böyle kalınca, en alttakiler bu toplumu niye daha fazla destekleyeyim düşüncesine giriyorlar. Toplum desteksiz kalıyor ve dağılıyor. Kabileciliğin medeniyetten daha iyi olduğunu savunmamakla beraber medeniyetlerin hiyerarşi olmadan gelişmesinin mümkün olmadığını ve bu hiyerarşinin de medeniyetlerin sonunu getirdiğini düşünüyor. Şimdiki gibi yaşamayı sürdürürsek, dünya üzerindeki varlığımız pek de uzun sürmeyecek. Bundan bin yıl sonra hala buralarda olursak, bunun yolu şimdiki gibi yaşamayı bırakmak olacaktır. Uzak gelecekteki nesillerin giyim tarzları, cihazları, teknolojileri, müzikleri bizden çok farklı olacağını biliriz ama zihniyetlerinin bizimle aynı olacağını zannederiz. Her şeyin her zaman merkezinde biz varız diye düşünürüz. Mesela genlerimizin nesiller boyu varlığımızı sürdürmemizi sağlayan unsurlar olarak görürüz. Aslında genlerin nesiller boyu varlıklarını sürdürmelerini sağlayan unsurlar biziz. Birey olarak bizler varlıklarımızı sürdüremeyiz aslında; ancak genler ise bizim vücutlarımız ve ürememiz sayesinde varlıklarını uzun nesiller boyunca sürdürürler. Genlerimiz ölümsüzlüğe doğru yol alırken bizler bir kereliğine kullanıp elden çıkarılan taşıyıcılarız veya makineleriz.
Kabile düzeninde ise her bir birey kabile ile organin ilişki içerisinde, sürekli bir alış veriş içerisinde olduğundan kabile düzeni daha yaşanabilir bulşmakta yazar. Esas özgürlüğün orada olduğunu düşünmekte. Ancak kabile deyince de eski zamanlar gelmesi şart değil; mesela sirk gibi bir kabile düşünebilirsiniz. Hiyerarşide ise alttakiler sürekli çalışır ve pastadan hak ettikleri payı alamazlar. Firavun zamanında taş taşıyan kölelerin günümüzdeki versiyonu Exxon'da, Coca Cola'da McDonalds'ta çalışan kişilerdir.
Giderek daha fazla insan, gerçekten istedikleri (hepsi de kabile yaşamına özgü olan güvence, kendilerine anlamlı gelen bir amaç uğruna çalışmak, daha fazla boş zaman ve toplumsal eşitlik) uğruna, aslında o kadar istemedikleri şeylerin (güç, toplumsal statü ve sözde kolaylıklar, konfor ve lüks) bolluğundan vazgeçebileceklerini fark edecektir. Ekonomi artık durmadan genişleyen bir piyasaya bağlı olmayacağı için, giderek daha fazla yerel ilişki halini alırken, küresel ve ulusal şirketler yavaş yavaş varoluş amaçlarını yitirecekler.
Hiç bir şeye sahip olmadıkları için, avcı toplayıcıların yoksul olduklarını düşünmek yerine onların tam özgür olduklarını düşünmeliyiz.
Kabile düzeninde ise her bir birey kabile ile organin ilişki içerisinde, sürekli bir alış veriş içerisinde olduğundan kabile düzeni daha yaşanabilir bulşmakta yazar. Esas özgürlüğün orada olduğunu düşünmekte. Ancak kabile deyince de eski zamanlar gelmesi şart değil; mesela sirk gibi bir kabile düşünebilirsiniz. Hiyerarşide ise alttakiler sürekli çalışır ve pastadan hak ettikleri payı alamazlar. Firavun zamanında taş taşıyan kölelerin günümüzdeki versiyonu Exxon'da, Coca Cola'da McDonalds'ta çalışan kişilerdir.
Giderek daha fazla insan, gerçekten istedikleri (hepsi de kabile yaşamına özgü olan güvence, kendilerine anlamlı gelen bir amaç uğruna çalışmak, daha fazla boş zaman ve toplumsal eşitlik) uğruna, aslında o kadar istemedikleri şeylerin (güç, toplumsal statü ve sözde kolaylıklar, konfor ve lüks) bolluğundan vazgeçebileceklerini fark edecektir. Ekonomi artık durmadan genişleyen bir piyasaya bağlı olmayacağı için, giderek daha fazla yerel ilişki halini alırken, küresel ve ulusal şirketler yavaş yavaş varoluş amaçlarını yitirecekler.
Hiç bir şeye sahip olmadıkları için, avcı toplayıcıların yoksul olduklarını düşünmek yerine onların tam özgür olduklarını düşünmeliyiz.
February 28, 2025
i think that’s it’s interesting, but the way the information is presented is a bit strange.
for every page there’s a new or continuing concept, and sometimes it’s hard to hold the threads together in my mind. Quinn communicates through stories and theories, which i can wrap my head around, but he doesn’t deliver on them.
he’ll talk about how the Mayans abandoned civilization but won’t talk about where they went, and he’ll discuss this new way of thinking but gives half-hearted examples that are hard to follow.
he says that with this new structure, technically it’s possible to do whatever you want, which is why he doesn’t go into much detail. i know that in his other works he does discuss this more, but i wish that there was more structure in this i could think on.
for every page there’s a new or continuing concept, and sometimes it’s hard to hold the threads together in my mind. Quinn communicates through stories and theories, which i can wrap my head around, but he doesn’t deliver on them.
he’ll talk about how the Mayans abandoned civilization but won’t talk about where they went, and he’ll discuss this new way of thinking but gives half-hearted examples that are hard to follow.
he says that with this new structure, technically it’s possible to do whatever you want, which is why he doesn’t go into much detail. i know that in his other works he does discuss this more, but i wish that there was more structure in this i could think on.
January 4, 2020
My slowest read of Quinn's books, and not as full of aha moments or mind shifting ideas, but it was just as valuable as I basically nodded throughout the entire book. A clear and concise collection of Quinn's ideas that are formatted in a way that you can pick it up here and there and just think about it for a few days. Another winner for sure.
January 7, 2024
Beyond Civilization is visionary but it is written in 1999 by an old white man who uses dated language and some of his ideas are on track but cringy because of the change in culture since he wrote it and passed away. I wish I had read it 20 years ago instead of now. It might have been more meaningful for me.
June 29, 2022
Ah, Quinn... the green Ayn Rand: fond of wrapping up a shallowly conceived philosophy in stories borne out through just as shallowly developed characters. I finally read this after going through Story of B a while back, because I really wanted to believe he had a coherent philosophy behind his writing. A lot of my friends gush over ideas he expresses in his books. I have not been similarly impressed.
Throughout Beyond Civilization, Quinn builds up a strawman of what he considers to be civilization: something wholly designed by humanity as opposed to an emergent structure that evolved out of relations on a scale larger than a society. In this way he is able to attack it as something humanity can just abandon due to being explicitly created by individuals as opposed to implicitly developed through complex interactions.
That said, his main gripe with the structure of civilization seems to be that it utilizes centralization, specialization, and hierarchy in developing ways to make a living. His belief is that if we find other ways of structuring our work-life, we can simply walk away from civilization. The large-scale, emergent social structure known as civilization is quite robust and very likely here to continue for as long as people maintain social relations more complex than those of a small village, and desire things produced through complex means.
In place of civilization he proffers (neo-)tribalism: a structure with a completely flat hierarchy where all involved contribute what they view as important to a mutually understood goal... or as most people would call it: a cooperative. Co-ops are really great actually. I wish it weren't weighted with tribalist baggage & the shallow desire to "walk away" from civ that Quinn is so fond of. I really think the kind of shallow thought Quinn offers is horribly susceptible to "Abilene Paradox"-style problems and charismatic leaders emerging to take hold of movements driven more by emotional resonance than consistent principles.
(There's a bit more he touches on, but I chose to stick with the kernel of what the book was after. I could have gone after all the other things he misrepresents in this book as well, but they aren't really essential to his argument and are mostly used as aides to build up his misconception of civilization)
Throughout Beyond Civilization, Quinn builds up a strawman of what he considers to be civilization: something wholly designed by humanity as opposed to an emergent structure that evolved out of relations on a scale larger than a society. In this way he is able to attack it as something humanity can just abandon due to being explicitly created by individuals as opposed to implicitly developed through complex interactions.
That said, his main gripe with the structure of civilization seems to be that it utilizes centralization, specialization, and hierarchy in developing ways to make a living. His belief is that if we find other ways of structuring our work-life, we can simply walk away from civilization. The large-scale, emergent social structure known as civilization is quite robust and very likely here to continue for as long as people maintain social relations more complex than those of a small village, and desire things produced through complex means.
In place of civilization he proffers (neo-)tribalism: a structure with a completely flat hierarchy where all involved contribute what they view as important to a mutually understood goal... or as most people would call it: a cooperative. Co-ops are really great actually. I wish it weren't weighted with tribalist baggage & the shallow desire to "walk away" from civ that Quinn is so fond of. I really think the kind of shallow thought Quinn offers is horribly susceptible to "Abilene Paradox"-style problems and charismatic leaders emerging to take hold of movements driven more by emotional resonance than consistent principles.
(There's a bit more he touches on, but I chose to stick with the kernel of what the book was after. I could have gone after all the other things he misrepresents in this book as well, but they aren't really essential to his argument and are mostly used as aides to build up his misconception of civilization)
May 8, 2011
Reviewed by Jared
Excerpted from an e-mail to my sister:
Each page is individually themed. It'll include either his thoughts or a short parable, as you know he's prone to use! But more accurately, it comes across as a lecture. And the lecture he's giving is the Vision he suggested our civilization would need to continue forward. Whereas in Ishmael, etc. he showed the memes we follow, and told us we'd need to break those memes, he never gave his ideas on the big question: what's next? Beyond Civilization is his own vision, and if I had to come up with one criticism, it's that he said in Ishmael, etc. that he was merely the messenger, and the world needed a prophet. So Beyond Civilization is either an implicit suggestion that he's the prophet, or an acceptance that his is only one version of the vision, and we can all be prophets if we break these memes.
*SPOILER* (kinda) He does explain in a later chapter that there is NOT only one version of the vision. Rather, "There is no ONE right way to live."
But I digress. If you still have some affinity for Daniel Quinn's theories, and if you have not done so already, I HIGHLY recommend checking out Beyond Civilization.
Excerpted from an e-mail to my sister:
Each page is individually themed. It'll include either his thoughts or a short parable, as you know he's prone to use! But more accurately, it comes across as a lecture. And the lecture he's giving is the Vision he suggested our civilization would need to continue forward. Whereas in Ishmael, etc. he showed the memes we follow, and told us we'd need to break those memes, he never gave his ideas on the big question: what's next? Beyond Civilization is his own vision, and if I had to come up with one criticism, it's that he said in Ishmael, etc. that he was merely the messenger, and the world needed a prophet. So Beyond Civilization is either an implicit suggestion that he's the prophet, or an acceptance that his is only one version of the vision, and we can all be prophets if we break these memes.
*SPOILER* (kinda) He does explain in a later chapter that there is NOT only one version of the vision. Rather, "There is no ONE right way to live."
But I digress. If you still have some affinity for Daniel Quinn's theories, and if you have not done so already, I HIGHLY recommend checking out Beyond Civilization.
July 31, 2012
I liked this book. I liked that he finally expanded on some ideas he had left floating in the air for years. I don't know if I am sold completely on his definition of "beyond" or how we go about getting there, but I appreciate the hand holding and the glimpse of a different type of future.
However, I also found the book to be very scattered and not entirely cohesive. This, combined with some mild condescension of reader, may prove to alienate some. It is also very built on all previous books ("Ishmael", "Story of B", "My Ishmael", and others) and it seemed that it may be helpful to be familiar with some Richard Dawkins as he draws from "Selfish Gene" as well.
Regardless, I like the subject matter. I like the author. I like the ideas. (And I especially liked the section regarding homelessness.)
However, I also found the book to be very scattered and not entirely cohesive. This, combined with some mild condescension of reader, may prove to alienate some. It is also very built on all previous books ("Ishmael", "Story of B", "My Ishmael", and others) and it seemed that it may be helpful to be familiar with some Richard Dawkins as he draws from "Selfish Gene" as well.
Regardless, I like the subject matter. I like the author. I like the ideas. (And I especially liked the section regarding homelessness.)
September 26, 2016
I think the biggest problem here, as mentioned already, is the redundancy. Quinn talks and talks and talks, but what he really had to say could have been limited to 40 pages.
Another problem I had was that while he had definitions for different subjects, he had nothing for tribalism, which was his biggest point. You could get the gist, of course, but the way Quinn talks, you need his specific definition.
I wonder what an update of this book would be like, with the knowledge that the ozone has actually started to make improvements. Would he reevaluate programs and their usefulness? Would he attribute it to tribalism? Who knows. He's a bit too self-congratulatory here, so I'd be curious to know what he thinks.
Another problem I had was that while he had definitions for different subjects, he had nothing for tribalism, which was his biggest point. You could get the gist, of course, but the way Quinn talks, you need his specific definition.
I wonder what an update of this book would be like, with the knowledge that the ozone has actually started to make improvements. Would he reevaluate programs and their usefulness? Would he attribute it to tribalism? Who knows. He's a bit too self-congratulatory here, so I'd be curious to know what he thinks.
February 12, 2009
Haven't read any other Daniel Quinn books, but this was something of a revelatory experience. There's comfort in the idea that running the rat race (or as Quinn says, "building pyramids") may not necessarily be the best way for humans to live/work and could, one day, be a thing of the past. It's rare that a book makes me feel so optimistic about the future (although maybe this just means I should lay off the dystopian novels).
February 4, 2009
I love this book! I believe that we need to concede to the fact that we will not end homelessness, and by conceding we will then be free to actually do something to help.
November 4, 2010
Horrible. Illogical, inaccurate, over-simplified pseudo-philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews