A cold, sterile world exists before us — a desolate, lunar landscape with no laughter, mirth, or intimacy to put our mortal minds at ease. If C.S. Lewis’ grim omens are at all worth heeding, then such an outcome is entirely plausible. As described in The Abolition of Man, Lewis foresees a class of “Conditioners” posing a threat to natural order and objective morality, because their power and “progress über alles” dogma will intensify exponentially as time presses forward. Their ranks will only condense, and their goal is simple: ideology is paramount, and thus, a monopoly on thought is a justified endeavor.This is not a baseless assumption — far from it. The roots of such a soulless future have already breached the soil, watered and gifted sunlight by authoritarian entities of past and present. Sentiment for such barbaric systems still exists, as people pine in ignorance. If we are to preserve human nature, rejecting the advances of “Conditioners” is in our best interest, collectivelyI.
In the narrowed eyesight of a Conditioner, “real civilization becomes possible” only when “nature herself begins to throw away the anachronism” (Lewis 170). This quotation from Professor Frost encapsulates the mindset of totalitarian actors — that their ideological prescriptions are a standalone remedy for an otherwise grim outcome, capable of healing all societal ailments. Innate ethical standards are disregarded in the ruthless hunt for power, and vague definitions of advancement are put forth as the ultimate objective. Questioning these malleable, ever-shifting goalposts is sacrilege, and borderline treason. This renders anyone who dares to criticize an enemy of progress, and a human “anachronism” worth “throwing away.” Concurrence becomes the ultimate means of security, and acquiescence the default reaction. Mark Studdock, the flawed protagonist of That Hideous Strength, often finds himself in such a vice, made especially vulnerable to indoctrination measures by his intense insecurity. He is eager to embrace a group identity among so-called “elites,” hence his initial acceptance.
While totalitarian movements and entities often offer varying definitions of “progress,” it is vital to acknowledge the kindred philosophies which guide their efforts and utterances. The National Institute of Coordinated Experiments’ (N.I.C.E.) specific vision for “real civilization” is dependent on the elimination of all organic matter, as Professor Frost makes clear in Chapter Eight.N.I.C.E. seeks to isolate the mind, considering it to be the ultimate apparatus of guidance within a dirty, complicated existence. Thus, through convenient thinking, these actions become a matter of “simple hygiene,” rather than destructive practice. Polish academic and communist dissenterII Ryszard Legutko would assert that both past and contemporary governments (i.e. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or even the modern European Union) operate(d) within the same faulty guardrails. Independent of whether they are real or fictional, these self-proclaimed saviors crave control of interaction and future development, heralding themselves as guardians of truth who will bring to fruition “a new life, the awakening of new vision, the stirring of dormant impulses” (Lewis 35).Consequently, a subjective “Utopia” becomes “a bold project… [rather than] a political fantasy” (Legutko 47). Thought hegemony becomes a noble pursuit, because the common folk are an entropic herd — one in desperate need of a shepherd.
Another element of totalitarianism that remains rather consistent (in both fact and fiction) are the mechanisms of internal function, and the necessity of blind loyalty within such organizations. Professor Frost reveals this soon after declaring N.I.C.E.’s true intentions: “We want geldings and oxen… who would work with stallions and bulls?” (Lewis 170). The implication here is self-evident: Within its inner ranks, N.I.C.E. is looking for spineless sycophants rather than independent-minded employees. They seek those who are willing to put aside their own values for those of the organization, because N.I.C.E’s message and purpose is paramount, and the individual is henceforth rendered meaningless. A lack of total unanimity represents a hurdle in the path towards the finish line, and one that needs to be discarded for the sake of “progress.” The Communist Parties of yore established and operated within the same internal framework. Loyalty was also the main priority, superseding any notion of individuality or unique thought. In order to maintain the confidence and trust of one’s inner-circle peers, one must “humbly submit…
[ignoring one’s own]
innermost feelings” (Legutko 65). In this sense, Filostrato is a model employee, sharing one key characteristic with the geldings and oxen Frost mentions — castration.
In an effort to avoid scrutiny or basic inquisition while maintaining this smooth internal function, the leaders within totalitarian bodies are often strategically ambiguous. For Deputy Director Wither, this vagueness manifests itself through Orwellian double-speak and confounding jargon — a weapon sheathed by the facade of shallow kindness within his tone. He constantly emphasizes how “on methodological grounds — it is so important to make everything clear” (Lewis 234). However, upon reading any passage of Wither-laced dialogue, it becomes apparent that his proclaimed intentions contradict his ulterior motives. The reality is that Wither is a man possessed by ideology, driven by perverse self-righteousness and an unquenchable lust for power. A prime example of a “Conditioner,” he acts to degrade objectivity and natural order, seeking to imbue (albeit subtly) his Robespierrean philosophy within everyone he encounters. Such quintessential conditioners are not confined to novels, however. The haughty elitists within the European Union, political veteran Ryszard Legutko argues, employ loaded obscurity in similar fashion. They feign the benefits of a pluralistic society, and seem to appreciate viewpoint diversity at the surface-level — but surface-level it remains. As Legutko pinpoints, modern Liberal-Democracies tout “the rhetoric of multiculturalism” while also “[entering] a stage of rigid dogmatization” (Legutko 173). This faux appreciation, when tested or put under the slightest pressure, is nothing but an appeasement guise.
Likewise, the external functionality mirrors its internal counterpart. This is because the road to ideological monopoly is paved by ambush AND charge, often deployed in respective succession. N.I.C.E. unsurprisingly follows suit, combining subtle thought alteration tactics (usually propagated in media format) with arrant barbarism through the emergence of an omnipresent, corrupt police force. Mark Studdock, once he ascended into N.I.C.E.’s shadow cabinet, was put in charge of the ambush component. His task was to “concoct the news,” submitting two differing accounts of a staged riot to two separate publications; “One for the most respectable of papers, the other for a more popular organ” (Lewis 128); one meant for the working class, and the other intended for the upper echelon of society. Both offered praise, whether direct or grounded on emotional appeal, of N.I.C.E. and its fledgling police force. This is where the “charge” component emerged, with Mark having set the stage. Henceforth, N.I.C.E.’s detestable law enforcement branch enjoyed considerable power. As with the other trends covered, this one is bolstered by historical precedent. In fact, hindsight into the not-so-distant past lends credence to Lewis’ timely inclusion of N.I.C.E.’s police. Read the following passage from That Hideous Strength: “At every corner, and often in between, lounged or sauntered the N.I.C.E. police, helmeted, swinging their clubs, with revolvers in holsters on their black shiny belts” (Lewis 212). Would it not be all too plausible to replace “N.I.C.E.” with “Schutzstaffel,” “Stasi,” or “Cheka”? This is because communists and fascists alike adhere to the same, established strategy — that “the building of a new society must coincide with the intensification of the campaign against its enemies” (Legutko 119). It is a defined strategy: Those who yearn towards total power rely on subtle changes, which eventually serve to normalize an emerging status quo, simultaneously wearing down potential dissenters. Thus, a puritanical way, they are attempting to seize control by minimizing human thought processes.
Naturally, with this intensification “campaign” comes heightened consequences for those who deviate from the prescribed range of thought. Bill Hingest, renowned chemist and purehearted scientist, was murdered by his fellow N.I.C.E. members because of such noble dissent. To N.I.C.E., he was nothing but “a disagreeable old man and rather a snob,” something which Mark proclaimed to Jane in passing. This proclivity to question things served to bring about his grim fate, as he was found “beside his car… badly beaten about the head” (Lewis 81). Highly comparable brutality was also a tenet of Soviet control. Monolithic thought was the enforced norm, and many who were caught straying from the party’s interpretation of Marxist doctrine received a rusty ice pick to the skull. Even in the 21st century, these instances of punishing “thoughtcrime” persist. In December of 2013III, North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un executed his own uncle, Jang Sung-taek, accusing him of “anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts.” Status, familial connections, party membership, and other factors hold no weight; not when somebody is considered an enemy of progress. Whether one is a common civilian or an insider doesn’t alter this reality within totalitarian systems. Simply put, no one is exempt when the message or “cause” of those in power could be challenged. In the tunnel vision of totalitarians, it is only when protestant minds surrender that the noble future can advance with full steam ahead; It is only when dissenters are broken into submission that the engine of progress can chug forward on smooth tracks; It is only when one removes the pebble in his/her shoe that a full sprint can ensue.
The struggle between tradition and modernity is one which C.S. Lewis considers eternal. When Dr. Dimble mentions the “struggle between Logres and Britain” (Lewis 367) in the closing chapter, it refers to a perpetual tug-of-war between the Old and New Orders; betweenIV the budding visions of the few against the wisdom which has sustained mankind since its civilizational inception; between the Quaker-esque commune of St. Anne’s on the Hill and the frigid academic stronghold of Belbury. Modernity, for all of its convenience and grand hopes, is subject to corruption by the consolidation of power and erosion of individuality, because both pose threats to the longstanding ideals of objective truth. Ryszard Legutko addresses a similar, contemporary dilemma in the conclusion of The Demon in Democracy, outlining the inherent flaws present within “the aspirations and dreams of modern man” (Legutko 177). In the closing passage of this book, the contentious Legutko accuses modern man of being blind towards “the danger of a moral fall,” implying that such a mindset is simply a consequence of the times. N.I.C.E. operated with such blinders attached, unaware of the harm which they were inflicting. Even when the organization crumbled in a fire & brimstone fashion, Curry and Feverstone remained indignant, bitter about its fall from grace. Legutko would claim that the modern European Union is laced with Currys and Feverstones — those who cling to Marxism and its empty promises despite the fall of the Soviet Union; those who haven’t learned from its destructive nature and inhuman means of functioning. Lewis and Legutko alike gaze critically upon this sanctimonious outlook, therein questioning the actual validity of their futuristic thought process.
Change or be changedV — that is the motto under which N.I.C.E. and its real-life equivalents operate. Totalitarian actors of all platforms are apostles to this crooked creed, believing themselves to be the ultimate catalysts of mankind’s “inevitable” future. In adhering to this worldview, they reject C.S. Lewis’ tri-pronged model presented in The Abolition of Man: head, heart, and stomach working in harmony to form our moral compasses and conduct our actions. According to Lewis and other relative skeptics like Legutko, this decay of natural law is destined. Such is the grim future that will come to fruitionVI if society is viewed through the same hardened lens as technology. If Lewis and Legutko shared dinner one night, they would raise a glass to a worrisome future, where posterity is shaped by an ever-shrinking class of pedants, hellbent on muting their opposition through ideological conquest.
Key for Rhetorical Strategies:
I.) Pathos
II.) Ethos
III.) Logos
IV.) Parallel Structure
V.) Symploce
VI.) Anastrophe
Works Cited
Legutko, Ryszard. The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies. Encounter Books, 2016.
Lewis, C. S. That Hideous Strength. Scribner, 1945.
Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. Harper Collins, 1944.
Pyongyang, Associated Press in. “North Korea Accused Jang Song-Thaek of Being ‘Careerist and Trickster’.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 Dec. 2013, www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/north-korea-jang-song-thaek-execution.
Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight For A Human Future At The New Frontier Of Power. PublicAffairs, 2019.
Leave a Reply