C.S Lewis in his “The Abolition of Man”,
published in 1943, asserts that man’s
power
over nature is eventually nature’s conquest of man. In his speech, he expresses
his concern about taking subjective theory of value as predominant value and
how it would eventually de-humanize man. Therefore, he asks us to stop for a
while, on the path of mastering nature, and rethink about problematic modern education,
society and nature. Simultaneously, by referring Chinese philosophy, Tao, into
his own argument, Lewis has no doubt standing on a solid grand against what he
called “conditioner”, who is floating in the middle of nowhere.
C.S Lewis
raises three points during his speech to support his argument by deconstructing
“Man’s Conquest of Nature” – a common slogan to celebrate the rapid and
profound development of applied science.
In the first few paragraphs, C.S Lewis
re-examines the “power” people are talking about during the process of conquest
of nature. Who possess that power? Where does it lead to us? His three typical examples
are easy for audience to understand that our so-called power towards nature
does not belong to most of us, who only knows how to use it under certain instruction.
It is in fact some men’s power over other men, or previous generation over
latter one. Lewis invite people to imagine the most glorious future based on pure
rationalism, man live in that time are selected “by eugenics, by pre-natal
conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied
psychology” (24), which makes man less powerful, because there is nothing for
them to change or conquest. In the end, “Human nature will be the last part of
Nature to surrender to Man” (25), and most men are dominated by few hundreds of
men, who in the first place give most men the power. And those minority men,
under Lewis’ interpretation, are the conditioner, the planner.
Lewis goes on to analyze conditioners and
education under the circumstances in the next few paragraphs, where he simultaneously
introduces the concept of Tao to project on nature with humanity, to dissect ancient
education belief versus contemporary education ideology. In his point of view,
traditional teachers follow the nature, the greater good also be recognized as
Tao, and pass on their perception, like “old birds teaching young birds to fly”
(25). While in new education system, man educate younger man based on what they
prefer. Conditioners, no longer teacher, plan and decide what is best for man
regardless of nature. They step outside of the nature and try to produce
nature. However, according to Lewis, whoever is no longer part of the nature cannot
be man, nor can he create another nature to be “man”. Because all is just
artificial product. “We do not look at tree either as Dryads or as beautiful
objects while we cut them into beams, (…) The stars lost their divinity as astronomy
developed, and the Dying God has no place in chemical agriculture”
In the last few paragraphs, Lewis emphasizes
the consequence of man gains fully control of nature: Nature is the Victor. By
simple process of deduction, Lewis summarizes his argument, that man’s conquest
of nature is conditioner’s conquest of most man, the latter individuals are
surrendered to nature. He goes on and explains: If most men are motivated by conditioners
(other men) instead of nature, then who or what is going to motivate conditioners?
The answer is nature. The impulse to motivate themselves is driven by their own
preferences. And that is what Lewis really concerned about.
In title page of “The Abolition of
Man”, Lewis quote from Confucius: “The Master said, He who sets to work on a
different strand destroys the whole fabric.” Lewis stands in a teacher’s
position to initiate readers to think deeply about “Man’s conquest
of Nature”. Irrational is as good as rational. Subjective theory of value can be a good thing only if it is not become the absolute ideology. In another word, nothing can be extreme. In a meanwhile, by quoting ancient wise man and using proper
metaphors, he thoroughly and clearly states that when human nature becomes
artificial as well (extreme situation), it is when nature gains ultimate victory, and it is when the
abolition of man.
Bibliography
Lewis,
C. S. "Chapter 3." The Abolition of Man. Place of Publication Not
Identified:
Exciting Classics, 2013.
1 comment:
Lewis observes that most of what we describe as technology granting power to people is really technologies mediating relations of power among people (some of whom benefit, while others may suffer). But you are really engaging in your precis with his second, related, claim, that what we seem to fancy is a matter of humans mastering "nature" (usually imagined as a sexed/raced *terra nullus* offered up for consumption) with technology is better understood as technology mastering humans by reducing them to "nature" (the random sensations, appetites, events of the human is/seems-to-be without the human oughts/seems-to-me).
The crucial passage in this respect is your "Conditioners, [delete that misleading comma] no longer teacher, plan and decide what is best for man regardless of nature. They step outside of the [delete that unnecessary article] nature and try to produce nature. However, according to Lewis, whoever is no longer part of the nature cannot be man, nor can he create another nature to be 'man'." This seems right, tho' I may be a little unsure of that very last bit.
Anyway, I think it is in your engagement with Lewis' use of the Tao (what he calls the Tao) that so much of the really interesting work is happening here. You point out Lewis' quotation of Confucius and offer up a gloss on Lewis' account in which this perspective is central, but I tend to think you have made Lewis sound more reasonable than he possibly deserves. Lewis seems to mean three things by the Tao: One. He uses the term as a loose catchall to name a presumably universal perennial philosophy shared by all human traditions. (This is something I suspect does not exist at a level of generality that would do the foundational work Lewis demands of it.) Two. He uses the term to name the principle that those who instruct the people are guided themselves by the principles they teach. (While this undermines hypocrisy and cynicism and unprincipled opportunism once again it doesn't solve the problem of adjudicating meta-disputes since these disputes can still occur among people who are not being hypocritical but quite zealous indeed.) Three. Failing this, it seems to me Lewis is simply expressing the typical conviction of his historical position, the expectation that straight white Christian imperial English bourgeois liberal values will prevail or even provide the lens through which to understand all other views. Hence, in my view, Lewis' use of the term the Tao and his citation of Confucius look rather like Orientalizing misreadings of the material in the service of what has to be described as a racist "civilizational" project.
You write: "Subjective theor[ies] of value can be a good thing only if [they do] not become the [I'd delete that "the"] absolute ideology. In another word, nothing can be extreme. [Maybe I'd put this as: "In other words, nothing in excess."] Ultimately I cannot help but think that Lewis would sympathize with the spirit of outlook you describe here. No doubt that congenial sympathy explains Lewis' eagerness to appropriate the Tao as he has done. What I think the closeness and care of the focus of your own reading has done is reveal that the force of Lewis' argument at a propositional level (the level of making claims supported logically by evidence) may be a very different matter from the argument happening at the level of word-choice, style, evocation of associations and frames and figures and so on. Very interesting discussion here. Good.
Post a Comment