Deconstruction of the modernist myth in Ishmael When I read the works of Daniel Quinn, Ishmael, Providence, The Story of B and My Ishmael, I find a common theme woven throughout in which is to deconstruct the modernist myth that we are separate from nature and therefore not subject to natural laws. I don't find Quinn's ideas to be much different from what I read in David Orr's Earth in Mind or in David Ehrenfeld's books Beginning Again and The Arrogance of Humanism. I doubt Quinn, as a writer, would think for a moment that we are not human beings. different from other species that inhabit the Earth. Language separates us, and writers probably know this better than the rest of us. Maybe I shouldn't have taken his quotes out of context. Or maybe you had another reason for being so quick to criticize Quinn. If using the word “stewardship” truly “instills a healthy dose of love and responsibility for the natural world,” as you suggest, I don’t. I think Quinn, Ehrenfeld or Orr would have a lot of problems if we used this as a discussion platform moving forward. But I suspect that all three authors worry that most of us do not differentiate between "stewardship" and "dominion", and that our "stewardship" is probably not practiced with enough humility - for example by using “precautionary principles”. recognition of how little we actually know – to make it a useful starting point. If we stick to “responsible management,” it will be up to us to prove them wrong. Assuming, of course, that they agree with what I have asserted on their behalf. Does this mean we should reject science or management, or even abandon the word “stewardship”? No, at least “no” when it comes to science and management. I still wonder about our choice to use the word “stewardship”. Most of the time I'm fine with that, but only if we take the time to think about the baggage it's carrying. But above all we need to question theories and assumptions and try to make sure they are true. “Anchoring” theory and practice in a pluralistic reality is what my favorite postmodern writers seem to challenge us to do. But there lies a problem. My problem. Perhaps the authors I'm referring to – Anderson, Borgmann (Crossing the Postmodern Divide), Ehrenfeld, Merchant (The Death of Nature, Ecology: Key Concepts in Critical Theory), Orr, Quinn and others – don't fit to the label “postmodern”. deconstructionists.