I had the pleasure of reading The Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis as part of the MOOC “An
Introduction to C. S. Lewis:
Writings and Significance” currently being offered by Hillsdale College
(for more information about the MOOC, see http://stevesofgrass.blogspot.com/2015/11/join-me-in-enjoying-mooc-introduction.html). The “book” is really a series of three
essays: “Men without Chests,” followed by “The Way,” and finally the titular
essay “The Abolition of Man.” The
book may be read on-line for free here:
https://archive.org/stream/TheAbolitionOfMan_229/C.s.Lewis-TheAbolitionOfMan_djvu.txt. The
Abolition of Man is about 80 pages in length and may be read in one
sitting, or better perhaps three sittings of one per essay.
The context of The
Abolition of Man is worth mentioning.
The book was published in 1943 when England was fighting for its existence
against the Nazis and their goal of creating a “master race.” Lewis presented an argument against
eugenics--whether it be Nazi-style or the more insidious liberal “progressive”
style which he observed had been systematized into the state education system
of England and elsewhere. Far from
improving Man, Lewis argued that efforts to “perfect” the race through
progressive education would inevitably result in the ruining or “the abolition
of” every virtue that sets Man apart from the beasts, those traits being
bravery foremost, integrity, duty, honor, and not the least the appreciation of
the difference between good and evil and the beautiful and the ugly.
Lewis presented an argument that all things have an
inherent or objective value or beauty or goodness or the lack thereof. He stressed the objectiveness of the
quality, emphasizing that it is NOT up to the individual to decide for himself
what is or is not beautiful, good, or virtuous. This seemingly innocent philosophy would have been and still
is seen as dangerous, subversive, and “not with the program” by progressive
educators. He used an example of a
waterfall, claiming that a waterfall is inherently “sublime.” This sublimity, he argued, was NOT up
for debate. A man could NOT decide
for himself whether or not a waterfall is a thing of beauty, an awe-inspiring
phenomenon to be preserved. A good
man, a “Man,” should be brought up to recognize such things--to listen to his
heart. Such a man would at least
think twice before destroying the waterfall to make way for a highway, for
example. Such a man would be brave
enough to make his opinion known or even to physically obstruct with his own
body the bulldozers that would destroy the waterfall.
Once children are taught that they can and should make up
their own minds about such things, they will naturally extrapolate this idea to
every aspect of their lives. The
inevitable end result of an educational system based on this “progressive” idea,
Lewis argued, is the creation of an elite few deciding what is for the good or
good for the rest of us. Sound
familiar?
The Abolition of Man should be required reading for every educator, politician, and parent. Were it so, the world would be a happier, healthier, safer, peaceful, and more beautiful place.
The Abolition of Man should be required reading for every educator, politician, and parent. Were it so, the world would be a happier, healthier, safer, peaceful, and more beautiful place.
