Abolition of Man Reflections

The Abolition of Man, written almost 80 years ago, is a sobering work, the arguments in which clearly reflect our current postmodern age, especially our public educational system. It is as if C.S. Lewis took a brief journey into the future, sat in some public university classrooms, visited some culturally-influenced churches, listened in on some heated discussions on Capitol Hill, and then wrote his book.

The Abolition of Man is a deeply intellectual work and, as such, could be read multiple times with unique takeaways each time. Among many of Lewis’ thoughts, I appreciate his insights regarding the work of “Gaius” and “Titius” in “The Green Book”, human emotions and how, when properly trained, work in conjunction with objective value, and what it means to be truly human.

There are some notable parts in “Men Without Chests” that paint a very accurate picture of public-school classrooms, especially university classrooms.  In one section, Lewis explains the conclusion that Gaius and Titius draw from the value statement given about the waterfall and highlights the sway of their wording (2). Lewis points out that while “The schoolboy who reads this passage in the The Green Book” may not be explicitly told that value judgements are invalid or insignificant, the power and influence of the teachers is such that only a few words carefully, subtly, and yet deliberately spoken cause the student to infer exactly that conclusion (5). This seems to be the current condition of public education, especially in university classrooms, the professors in which hold advanced degrees, and as a result, have the potential to easily intimidate and influence students.

But the problem is much deeper. The public education system, starting with the progressive education movement in the early 20th century, initiated largely by John Dewey, birthed a system that gave rise to secular humanism and utilitarianism as its foundational philosophies. Teacher preparation programs aligning with these philosophies had to then be established in order to “properly” prepare educators to bring these ideologies into the classrooms. I would say the strategies within the teacher-preparation courses when Lewis was alive were just as subtle as the methods used in the classes of Gaius and Titius, and the current methods in some university classes today have that same discreet tone. For example, in a philosophy class I attended in the education program at Southern Oregon University, the professor came across as very loving and accepting towards his students and said many good things, and yet there was the clear absence of objective truth partnered with distinct flavors of eastern religion, which is indicative of a system agenda promoting religious pluralism and moral relativism. In his book, Lewis suggests that neither the teachers or the students even realize what they are doing or accepting (5). It seems that Lewis is implying that the public education system is hopelessly broken and neither the educators or students have the capacity to discern that reality. It is no doubt difficult and painful to admit metaphorical blindness when one is immersed in the darkness of moral relativism.

Lewis goes on to reference another calculated strategy of Gaius and Titius in a later chapter of their book when they, in an English composition class, present to their students a sappy and poorly written advertisement as an example of the foolishness of human emotion (6). He argues that it was the duty of the teachers, for the sake of contrast, to also put before the students great works of literature in which emotion is properly and beautifully expressed by the writer (Lewis 6). This method would give the students an opportunity to determine the differences between the works without discrediting the expression of emotion (Lewis 6). This strategy is an example of the very easy and yet dangerous trap many educators fall into (perhaps many unknowingly) when they present only one side of an argument and in doing so, teach the students what to think instead of how to think. This reminds me of another professor of mine who would openly attack Christianity in his lectures using only deplorable examples of “so called” Christians as basis for his arguments against the biblical worldview. For example, he shared a story of a gay student who was brutally attacked and murdered by professing Christians because of his sexual orientation. Of course, the professor shared no examples of genuine Christians who have demonstrated Christ-like love over the centuries by sacrificing their resources and lives for others. While this professor's actions may be an extreme example, I think it's worth noting the ways in which a one-sided lecture can lead astray vulnerable listeners. Thankfully this professor's methods were more detectable than some, so perhaps he was dismissed because he didn’t use the level of discretion that was expected.

Considering Lewis’ thoughts on human emotions and how, when properly trained, work in conjunction with objective value, | return to Gauis and Titius and the advertisement they used to attempt to show the futility of human emotion (6). Lewis critiques their methods explaining that the only thing students will learn from this technique is “...the belief that all emotions aroused by local association are in themselves contrary to reason and contemptible” (9). When students are persuaded by their professors of the “truth” of something through seemingly intellectual thought and fallacy-based argument, true education is lost and students are denied the opportunity to form logical conclusions grounded in truth. Lewis goes on to explain that Gaius and Titius view their current age as being largely influenced by emotionally charged propaganda and youth as overly emotional, so they think the best conclusion is to “…fortify the minds of young people against emotion” (13). If vulnerable minds are not given virtuous examples of properly displayed emotion, it would indeed result in a distorted view of emotion. Then the tendency would be to fall into the trap of dismissing emotion altogether. But Lawis warns that "By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes. For famished nature will be avenged and a hard heart is no infallible protection against a soft head” (Lewis 14). This is a brilliant statement and underscores how human sentiment is necessary—even vital—and the dangers and irreversible damage of negating it. "A cold heart devoid of emotion is a useless defense against the wiles of carefully crafted deception. Lewis explains the problem is not human emotion itself but human emotion improperly trained, and in doing so uses Augustine's words to elaborate on the importance of rightly ordered affections (16). “St. Augustine defines virtue as ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind of degree of love which is appropriate to it,” and “the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought” (Lewis 16). This is when the training of the sentiments and objective moral values begin to converge. This moral code, referenced by Lewis as the Tao, is what Lewis explains as “...the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of things the universe is and the kind of things we are” (18). This makes me truly appreciate the vision of our school—to train students to love what is objectively true, good, and beautiful—qualities assigned to our Creator Himself. Our focus on timeless Scripture and its principles, quality literature, rich music, meaningful poetry, and beautiful artwork gives students and staff frequent opportunities to cultivate properly trained affections and a deeper understanding of how they are interwoven with objective value.

Finally, I deeply appreciate Lewis’ thoughts on what it means to be truly human, which he describes as the culmination of remaining and participating within the Tao (74-75). In living, in light of objective value, our ability to discern truth from falsehood, good from evil, and beauty from ugliness is the highest blessing of being human and of bearing God's image. In contrast, when objective moral value is exchanged for moral relativism, as we see in our culture, lies become truth, evil becomes good, ugliness becomes beauty, and the dignity of humanity is lost or distorted. This is especially seen in gender confusion and the LGBTQ+ movement. We can only retain our humanity when we hold tightly to natural law and objective value.

In conclusion, The Abolition of Man is a timeless book appropriate for our current cultural dilemmas and a stark reminder of the importance of retaining our heritage as human beings made in God's image.

Works Cited

Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York City, HarperCollins, 1944.