Jeremy's Reviews > The Abolition of Man

Check out this guide by Michael Ward.

Assigned in Ralph Wood's Oxford Christians class at Baylor (Fall 2014). Assigned for CAS faculty at Regent (2019–20).

Excellent. Lewis said that this was his favorite book of his non-fiction writings (see Collected Letters 812, 897, 941, 1040, 1148, 1181,1214, 1419). "The Green Book" is Lewis's way of referring to Alex King and Martin Ketley's The Control of Language: A Critical Approach to Reading and Writing. Abolition is the nonfiction version of That Hideous Strength (see here for some connections). See Plodcast, Episode #6, where Wilson recommends reading Lewis's Discarded Image (or the condensed article in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature) and Planet Narnia.

Here's a helpful link for quotes and allusions in this book; see the summary and brief summary here. See here for Latin uses in AoM. See Mark Ward's review here. TGC has some helpful drawings (Doodles no longer available on YouTube). Audio available here.

Alternate title: Reflections on education with special reference to the teaching of English in the upper forms of schools

Book epigraph from Confucius (Analects II.16): "The Master said, He who sets to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric."

Ch. 1: Men without Chests
epigraph [from the 14/15c medieval poem/carol "Unto us is born a son"]: "So he [Herod] sent the word to slay / And slew the little childer" [—> interesting to ask who is Herod, and who are the children, and what is being done to them]
1: issue of elementary textbooks; charitable reading (also pp. 4–5, 11-13)—authors didn't intend harm (but CSL doesn't have anything good to say about them)
2: "Gaius" and "Titius" [G&T] and The Green Book
2: quotation of Coleridge (waterfall is "sublime" or "pretty") —> G&T say comments about the waterfall's sublimity are only statements of personal feelings/emotions (but not objective, fitting comments on reality)
3–4: This practice leads to absurdities (If someone says, "You are contemptible," should we take such a comment as reflective of reality, or only that the person feels that way?).
4–5: Young readers are taught two things: 1) predicates of value convey the emotional state of the speaker, and 2) such statements are not important. 1': Students will extend such a lesson to other predicates of value (whether or not the authors of such predicates desire their comments to be indicative of their personal emotional state). 2': The use of only emphasizes the unimportance of the feeling/emotion.
4–5: The G&T lesson isn't stated explicitly, but it's teaching (conditioning) students nonetheless.
6–7: example of bad advertisement writing; missed opportunity to put bad writing next to good writing (e.g., Johnson, Wordsworth) and show why bad writing is bad (hard to do p. 13)
8–9: The effect is that students are taught to debunk lofty emotions evoked by nature ("debunking" language continues throughout the chapter). Such emotions are "contrary to reason and contemptible."
9: two ways to avoid the effect of such bad travel ads: 1) have real sensibility, or 2) be a "trousered ape" (cf. political ad: those immune are true patriots and cowards [cf. a Joel Osteen book: those immune are solid Christians and atheists]); G&T are cutting out the student's soul
10–11: similar debunking example with horses (by "Orbilius"); those immune are lovers of horses and the "urban blockhead"
11–12: G&T probably weren't trying to completely sweep away traditional values.
12–13: propagation vs. propaganda (see p. 23)
12–14: G&T have unintentionally slipped into propaganda because 1) explaining why bad writing is bad is difficult; 2) they think the world is too swayed by "emotional propaganda" (Lewis: people need to be rescued from emotional propaganda and rescued from "cold vulgarity" [not being awakened to noble emotions]; don't starve students of good emotions); and 3) they don't believe that sentiments are reasonable (see pp. 19–20).
13-14: "The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles but to irrigate deserts. The right defence against false sentiments is to inculcate just sentiments. . . . [A] hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head." [Lewis believes that the debunking of G&T's textbook hardens students' hearts. See the Herod epigraph.]
14–19: digression on how G&T (and their "educational predicament") are different from earlier educators; earlier educators believed that emotional reactions could be consonant with reality (other words Lewis uses are congruous, merit, just, ordinate, appropriate, due, according to, participation, harmony, conform, reasonable, fits, agreement, in accord [thru p. 21])
16–17: Augustine on virtue as ordered loves (ordo amoris); Aristotle on education (liking what one ought to like); Plato's Republic (training is necessary to hate the ugly and love the beautiful)
17: Hinduism's (India) Rta: the order revealed in the cosmos, morality, and temple ceremonies; connect with satya/truth (correspondence to reality)
18: The Law is true (Ps. 119:151; see note 19 on pp. 104–05: "emeth").
18-19: Chinese Tao ("the Way"—Ch. 2); Lewis takes all talk of objective values (Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism) and calls it "the Tao"; emotional responses should be in accord with nature (the heart should obey the head)
19–21: For G&T, feelings and facts [heart and head] "confront one another, and no rapprochement is possible." The educational predicament/problem is that G&T stand without the Tao instead of within it.
21: The task of education (from within the Tao) is to train students to have appropriate responses. Those "without" (on the outside of) the Tao must either debunk the sentiments or else make up another reason for the response (see the following example).
21-22: example of a Roman father teaching his son that it's objectively sweet and fitting (dulce et decorum) to die for one's country (also p. 30)—G&T can't agree in principle (either they debunk the emotion, or else they must say that the emotion is useful but not objectively true—see p. 21)
23: old/traditional education initiates students to reality (propagation); new/modern education conditions students (propaganda); G&T actually fit more with the debunking (they don't like propaganda)
24–26: training in virtue; even if G&T could justify virtues theoretically, the virtues need to be integrated (by training) into the intellect and emotions so that in real-life situations, virtue is just what comes out by instinct; Plato's Republic deals with the reason-spirit-appetite relationship (The head rules the belly through the chest); just head = mere spirit, and just belly = mere animal—humans have the middle/chest part, which makes them distinct from spirits and animals; G&T produce Men without Chests (the humanizing part)
26: famous gelding quote (we demand virtues from adults in society, yet we let G&T teach our kids)

Ch. 2: The Way
epigraph: Confucius highlights the importance of the "Trunk" (chest/emotions) for a "gentleman."
27: Accepting G&T's education will practically result in the destruction of society, although this in itself isn't iron-clad proof that it's wrong. But there are theoretical difficulties with G&T too. (Ajax prayer to Zeus in Iliad, Book 17)
27-28: As subjective at G&T seem, they still (ironically) want to produce a certain thinking in their pupils (at least for practical purposes, if not transcendent/objective ones).
28–29: G&T clearly want their readers to agree with them, not simply to conclude that the book is a collection of G&T's subjective emotions. G&T clearly approve and disapprove of certain values (see n1 on pp. 105–06). Their skepticism of values, therefore, is shallow, because they hold to values "in the background." (See pp. 105–06n1 for lists of what G&T approve/disapprove of.)
29ff.: Lewis will speculate about what would happen if emotion and religion really were stripped away. [CSL's method is very presuppositional in that he pushes the presuppositions (what's "in the background") to their logical conclusions. See p. 72 where's he's explicit about this process.]
30–32: Lewis keeps the "death for a good cause" topic to make his point [remember that AoM was published in 1943 during WWII], and he supposes that an "Innovator" [sarcastic] strips away emotions/sentiments to get to the "ground" of particular values. But when you strip away the sentiments, no motivation is left; it's no more or less rational to resist sacrificing oneself than to consent to sacrifice oneself. You can't move from a factual proposition to a conclusion without a mediating ought; the indicative/is doesn't automatically imply the imperative/do (see p. 37).
32: The only way around this problem (for all of us) is to acknowledge that "oughts" can be rational; the only alternative is to abandon the search for a rational motivation (the Innovator has set out to destroy the first option, so he is likely to choose this second option).
33ff.: Instinct
33: The Innovator rejects a rational core in favor of "Instinct" (as a basis for ethical "oughts"). This, along with contraceptives, paves the way for a new sexual morality.
34: Instinct doesn't really explain anything. If it's innate and widely felt, we don't need The Green Book to tell us to do what's inevitable (see pp. 106–09 for Lewis's objections to I. A. Richards's argument that we can construct a value system based on satisfying impulses).
35–36: The same problem exists with Instinct: There's no ought. Even the Innovator has to agree that some impulses (ones destructive to society) should be controlled. We should obey each instinct just as we should obey each person—that is to say, we have no reason to. Additionally, we can't follow each instinct, because some of them conflict. So how do we choose without an arbitrator distinct from Instinct? (See pp. 106–09n2 for objections to I. A. Richards's theory of value based on satisfying impulses.)
37: If our "deepest" instincts are actually something external that gives instincts value, then the project to discover value that is derived from itself has failed. If our "deepest" instincts are just the ones we feel strongly about, then it's just a feeling that has little significance. We're at the same dilemma (p. 32): either there's an outside imperative, or we're stuck with the indicative. (See pp. 109–11 for Lewis's application of his argument to Waddington's attempt to base value on fact [whatever occurs is valuable; "existence is its own justification"]. Basically, Waddington would have to approve of traitors [quislings] and Nazi puppets [men of Vichy]. Lewis references Johnson's Rasselas.)
37–39: Lewis questions whether we even have an instinct to care for posterity or preserve the species. Most of us are concerned with self-preservation or immediate family preservation (species preservation is too abstract).
39: repeated statement that neither factual propositions (see p. 31) nor Instinct (see p. 33) provide a basis for a system of values
39: Confucius, Jesus, and Locke all say things consistent with the Tao
39–40 (analogy): practical principles (re: posterity, society) within the Tao : the world of action :: axioms : the world of theory
40: "If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all."
41: Ironically, any attack of the Tao (objective truths) requires some reliance on it (or else the attack is baseless). [See Wilson's debate with Hitchens. An atheist can't complain that religion is evil, because an atheist has no basis for evil. By what standard does an atheist call anything evil?]
41–43: The Innovator (outside the Tao) has no warrant for picking and choosing some values (feeding and clothing people) while debunking others (justice, honor).
43: Other names for the Tao include Natural Law, Traditional Morality, etc.
43–44: The Tao is the only source of value judgments, and any attempt to raise a new system (ideology) is simply borrowing from the Tao. Ideological rebellion against the Tao is like branches rebelling against the tree: to succeed is to fail.
44–46: Not all traditional morality is correct, but criticism and confronting contradictions must occur from within the system (organic/advance), not from without (surgical/innovation).
46–47: Moving from a Confucian teaching to a Christian one is appropriate. Discarding everything for Nietzschean nihilism is absurd. "From within the Tao itself comes the only authority to modify the Tao."
48: An open mind is useful only for non-ultimate things. "Outside the Tao there is no ground for criticizing either the Tao or anything else."
48–49: No one can demand that the Tao provide credentials. Foundational things don't have foundations.
49–50: CSL isn't trying to prove theism; he's making a logical point that ultimate values are absolute—there's nothing below them that provide more of a foundation.
50–51: The penultimate paragraph is a question CSL poses from a modern perspective (it's not Lewis proposing this). The proposition is that the human conscience may be like anything else: useful to a point in human history, but eventually bypass-able.
51: CSL will address this position in the final lecture (Ch. 3).

See the rest of the review here.