Optic Barrel

Dear Followers,

This post needs more cowbell.

C.S. Lewis and I never really got along well. The start of our academic Cold War began years ago, in Mrs. Dorsey's 4th grade classroom. Back then, everybody had just started reading "The Chronicles Of Narina," C.S. Lewis' most famous children's series. A mixture of teacher coercion and youthful curiosity pushed me to pick up a copy of "The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe." I loved the fantasy feel of the novel, but there was something I couldn't get past: his writing style. I cannot stand the way that C.S. Lewis goes about when using descriptions and explanations. When I was reading through "The Inner Ring," I felt like a set of finely sharpened nails was screeching down a blackboard for the whole ride. Perhaps this is more of a personal problem as Lina Lee would say.


Some of you will be appalled by what I have just said. "This kid has no right to defame a beloved and acclaimed novelist," you must be saying. "The Chronicles Of Narnia was a collection of some of my most cherished childhood chapter books," you must be saying. C.S. Lewis is no doubt a phenomenal writer in my opinion. As we know from the passage, he was a "professor of medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University." The way he writes just isn't for me is all. Naturally, being the ethical student I am, decided to take a stab at a dead man's legacy by poking holes in his so called "speech." I was grasping for straws. Yesterday I became so convinced that I had found the answer, the one damning piece of evidence which would show the world what a fool this man was. But, my so called evidence of "contradictory claims" was merely fool's gold.


While me and C.S. Lewis may only get over this lump in our relationship when we meet up in hell, I will have to give Lewis the win this time. His analysis of the "inner rings" which dominate society is a valid one. Even I know that playing the devil's advocate her would be an uphill fight. This hill would probably make the Himalayas look like ant hills. While Lewis may be watering down social statements for college students and all those die-hard Narnia fans out there, his thesis strangely resembles that of Friedrich Nietzsche and William Rasch (sorry for the comparison you two).  Unfortunately, human beings are genetically coded to form groups. As Thayer would say, group formation is a form a evolutionary biology, a social practice that has developed because of the need to survive.


We are no longer fighting Wooly Mammoths with spears and sporting animal skin speedos however. Indeed, in the modern world as man has taken out external threats, the only threat that remains is man himself. Thus, group formation has given birth to an overweight and deformed child: social hierarchy. This is the distinction which I interpret Lewis is trying to make (why am I doing your work for you old chap?). You see, a group is a collection of individuals who share common interests, the evolutionary example being survival. This is what Lewis refers to as "friendship" or the "group of craftsmen." Exclusion is a "by-product" but not the means to an end. The social hierarchy on the other hand exists to exclude, to keep the included powerful and the excluded powerless.


As a fellow named Karl Marx would say back in the nineteenth century, capitalism is the highest form of social hierarchy formed along economic lines through the means of production. But capitalism is not the only form of social hierarchy in the modern world. Social hierarchy can be seen everywhere in the outward appearance-happy American nation (Oh, right we DID bail out England from economic ruin). From high school cliques to billion dollar investment groups, hierarchy is the foundation of American society. Heck, you would have to have lost the use of all of our senses to not perceive the complex structure of social hierarchy which makes up our society. Why do we continue to live on when we know such hierarchies exist?


Our existence has no meaning. We are merely the spontaneous developments of collections of molecules. Lewis is bringing out his inner Nietzsche when he discusses man's inherent need to belong. "People who believe themselves to be free...may be devoured by...another form." How Nietzschian indeed Lewis. What does belonging mean for man? He is freed from the burden of leading of course! When we can become one of the herd, we are absolved of responsibility and our natural will to the Socratic Order is fulfilled in whole. In English, membership in a group subjects us to a set of morals based on group action, absolving us of taking the blame for individual action.


This means to add value to our essentially valueless lives, we constantly seek new group formations which bring with them the most prestige. This search for value however leaves us with nothing as we ignore what value we have achieved. In the words of Lewis, "we hardly recognize the pleasures of fruition." Oh Lewis, you have performed so marvelously well, hiding in the shadow of Nietzsche only to show your real colors at the end of the road. Traveling so far with the mane of a lion, you come to the stage with nothing but the clothing of a lamb (yep, when you read Nietzsche you begin to say things like this to yourself). Merely warning students of the "bad men" who wait before them will never be enough.


Where Lewis and I diverge is at the point of the alternative to the system of the "inner ring." Lewis seems to imply that by individual rejection of the "inner ring" and participation in the happiness of "friendship" we can successfully break away. But even friendship is a ring my friend. The only real way to break away is through an acceptance of the unknowable aspects of existence. We must expose ourselves to uncertainty, risking danger with a morality of certainty and living eventfully through a rolling of the dice and by rejecting our participation in any group through a Socratic delusion of mastery. Our existence will only be determined by the way we face an inevitable doom. (Where's your block to Deleuze?) Your advice is not radical enough to leave even a dent in the system of social hierarchy.


Yes, you all know I am a hack. I could have sat down and gone through the motions with this essay, marking down Lewis' use of rhetoric here and explaining his main point there. But what fun would that have been? As Lewis says, "All [that] is rather obvious." Heck, how many chances do you get to rag on somebody who is so well respected? Lewis is probably cringing as much as me as I compare him to men like Nietzsche, Thayer, Deleuze, and Rasch. Lewis and I will no doubt carry out this debate when I soon descend down into the devil's den  (yeah Bradley, you're probably right). When that day comes, be ready. Game on.


Bloom Trigger,
Noel