Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
C.S. Lewis on the Specter of Totalitarianism
C.S. Lewis on the Specter of Totalitarianism
Jun 30, 2025 10:28 PM

The great Christian apologist’s “scientocracy” is upon us. What should be our response?

Read More…

It is safe to say C.S. Lewis is not known first of all for his treatment of totalitarianism. We are familiar with Lewis the Christian apologist, Lewis the writer of children’s stories and science fiction fantasy, Lewis the literary critic and Oxford don, and then chair of medieval and renaissance literature at Cambridge. We’re less familiar with Lewis the political thinker. But in the almost 60 years since he passed away, on November 22, 1963, e to learn more and more about Lewis’ significant interests in, and concerns about, politics.

This contradicts the conventional wisdom about Lewis, which was that he disdained and avoided politics. And yet we know that in every chapter of his biography, and in several of his writings and throughout his personal correspondence, politics is at the very least near the surface and at times front and center for Lewis.

Lewis was also steeped in the classical thinkers, particularly Plato and Aristotle, and so he was interested in justice, and injustice. One classical definition of justice is to give each his due, and injustice the denial of the same. Those themes run throughout his works. The classical definition of tyranny is to rule for one’s private interest rather than the good of the whole. We can think then of tyranny as injustice plus political power.

And then there’s totalitarianism. One definition of totalitarianism is a system of government in which the state aspires to control all aspects of life such that the personal/public divide is obliterated. We can think of totalitarianism then as injustice plus political power plus the technical means to apply that power universally and effectively.

Lewis delivered the lectures that later became The Abolition of Man and wrote the fictional version of Abolition, That Hideous Strength, primarily worried about a particular kind of totalitarianism: what he called “scientocracy.” In a letter to a Chicago journalist written in 1959, Lewis acknowledged that es in different forms at different times:

Ought we to be surprised at the approach of “scientocracy”? In every age those who wish to be our masters, if they have any sense, secure our obedience by offering deliverance from our dominant fear. When we fear wizards, the Medicine Man can rule the whole tribe. When we fear a stronger tribe, our best warrior es King. When all the world fears Hell, the Church es a theocracy. “Give up your freedom and I will make you safe” is, age after age, the terrible offer. In England the omnipotent Welfare State has triumphed because it promised to free us from the fear of poverty.

It is crucial to note that Lewis believed that the omnipotent Welfare State will tackle real problems—real needs that demand responses. “We have on the one hand a desperate need: hunger, sickness, and the dread of war,” Lewis writes in his essay “Is Progress Possible?” “We have on the other [hand] the conception of something that might meet it: petent global technocracy. Are not these the ideal opportunity for enslavement?”

Whereas the classical liberal understanding of politics is that we empower the state through our consent because it will protect our rights, Lewis feared the modern state purports to “do us good or make us good. . . . We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

What kept Lewis up at night was bination of the tools of this petent global technocracy” with how modernity, beginning primarily with Rousseau, has undermined the very conditions by which people can believe in a genuine and objective moral reality. Lewis wrote about Rousseau and others in his English Literature in the Sixteenth Century. For the ancient thinkers—pagan, Jewish, Christian, Stoic—the chief goal of philosophy and politics was to determine what ultimate reality was and what it demanded of human beings, and then educate human beings so as to align with that moral reality as much as possible. With Rousseau we have a rejection not only of natural law but of a fixed human nature entirely, such that the nature of philosophy changes from discovery of and adaptation to reality to the endless possibilities of creation and innovation. Nature no longer provides the guide but is itself the object of power. Rousseau says his miraculous legislator in his Social Contract “must feel capable of, so to speak, changing human nature.”

“Certain it is in the long run,” Rousseau writes in his Political Economy, “peoples are what governments make them be.”

What happens, Lewis worried, when those governments move first from protecting our rights to being charged with improving our lives and then seeing their mandate as improving us, to “improving” on human nature itself? What happens when the government is no longer a creature of “we the people” but “we the people” are subject to be crafted/shaped/molded by our governments?

Lewis wrote Abolition not to persuade readers of the truths of Christianity, nor even theism, nor the superiority of Western civilization. He would hardly have chosen the word Tao to refer to morality if that was what he was up to.

His question is this: Is there a moral reality woven into the fabric of the universe such that we can discover what is true about right and wrong and act accordingly? Or is morality something malleable, a tool for the powerful or for unguided evolution or for the flow of History with a capital H, something that we need not discover but now that we e of age can create and shape for ourselves? From Antigone’s challenge to Creon to the serpent in Genesis asking “Did God really say?”; from Plato’s battle with the sophists to Pilate’s “What is truth?”; from Rousseau’s reimagined natureless state of nature to the truths we hold to be self-evident; from Nietzsche’s creative supermen to today’s transhumanists—this is arguably the question that lies beneath all of our disputes and controversies. And one does not have to be a Christian or even a theist, nor dismiss Lewis as a “mystic,” in order to find his argument sound. The prominent British philosopher and atheist John Gray finds Abolition to be a trenchant and persuasive book. It is striking that Lewis appeals to neither divine revelation nor religious scripture to ground his arguments.

Abolition addresses this perennial and paramount question about moral reality, and in doing so takes the side of Antigone and Plato and the Bible and Confucius, and opposes Thrasymachus, Rousseau, Nietzsche, B.F. Skinner, and our modern skeptics and transhumanists like Ray Kurtzweil and others. Whereas many of Lewis’ works describe and defend the divine Author of the moral law in both his special and general revelation, Abolition concerns itself only with the reality of the moral law itself, and the stark alternatives to a belief in objective morality.

There’s not space in this essay to rehearse Lewis’ treatment of this question here, but I can highlight three ideas that might provoke monality and some contrast between Lewis and Ayn Rand, whose The Fountainhead came out the same year as Abolition (1943).

First, an education proper to human beings depends on the nature of those human beings, and human beings are both reasoning and affective, or feeling, creatures. But while both reason and feelings are necessary, reason is in the driver’s seat. Lewis understood reason to be more than mere calculation insofar as he accepted the Platonic understanding of a human being posed of reason, emotion, and appetites; the head, the heart, and the stomach; and the corresponding virtues for each part of the human soul: wisdom for the head, courage for the heart, and moderation for the stomach. When these are in their proper order, we have the fourth cardinal virtue—justice. The point of education is to properly align our emotions such that they correspond correctly to this or that value, or reality. Contra Hobbes and Hume, reason is not purely instrumental: Hobbes is wrong to claim that “thoughts are to the desires as scouts and spies, to range abroad, and find the way to the things desired,” and Hume is wrong to say that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Hobbes and Hume turn the human being upside down such that reason can only serve our appetites: Our stomachs are in charge and our hearts and heads follow.

In the first chapter of Abolition, Lewis is critical of the elementary school books he considers because they eviscerate the proper place of emotions and instrumentalize the guiding role of reason, leading to truncated young people who will be ripe for any kind of sentimental propaganda that can feed that genuine need they’ve been denied. Remember that Lewis’ totalitarian regimes will always attempt to provide some genuine good that has been neglected.

Second, what reason reveals to us is a reality that does not depend on us for its truth. This is just to say that Lewis in Abolition is staking a claim for a sort of moral realism, but he’s also doing this in an interesting way. He explicitly avoids speculating as to how it e about that the universe really is the way it is. While we know from his other works that he has a theistic and indeed Christian explanation, he aims here for something of an “overlapping consensus” about the bedrock reality of moral truths regarding the sort of creatures we are and what our flourishing looks like. Thus Lewis and Rand can both oppose petent government while strongly disagreeing on two important matters. First, the underlying explanation for why totalitarian government is wrong: Is it wrong because it tramples on the rights of truly remarkable individuals who are guided by rational egoism, or is it wrong because it violates the rights of creatures made in God’s image, creatures the Apostle Paul (and John Locke!) describes as “God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

The second important matter is what exactly human flourishing looks like. Lewis and Rand both champion an understanding of freedom such that they robustly criticized overactive governments, but their conceptions of what genuine freedom consisted of could hardly be more different. Lewis, for example, strongly agreed with the Scottish poet and preacher George MacDonald’s quip that “the one principle of Hell is: ‘I am my own.’” Rand, I suspect, would not agree.

But disagreement on these admittedly very important matters doesn’t preclude agreement on opposing totalitarianism, in word and deed. After all, the enemy of my enemy is . . . well, if not my friend in Lewis and Rand’s case, given her bitterly critical marginalia in her copy of Abolition, perhaps my “frenemy.”

Finally, Lewis’ work in Abolition and elsewhere continues to strike a chord, and I suspect this is part of Rand’s continued prominence as well, because technology has advanced far enough to render questions about reengineering human nature practical and no longer merely hypothetical. While the debate about the relationship between morality and human nature stretches back to Antigone and before, the means to plish the abolition of man and woman seem closer to reality than they have ever been. Whereas the scientific experiments Lewis describes in Abolition and its fictional counterpart, That Hideous Strength, had a definite science fiction feel to them in the 1940s, the modern attempts to transfer or upload human consciousness, significantly delay or even eradicate death, and ing generations no longer feels so far off in the future.

If that’s the case, we do well to continue to revisit these two very different but quite incisive thinkers.

Adapted from remarks delivered on November 30, 2022, at the University of Texas at Austin: “Ayn Rand & C.S. Lewis on the Specter of Totalitarianism: A Conversation with Yaron Brook and Micah Watson,” sponsored by the Salem Center and the Civitas Institute.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Acton Institute statement on Richard M. DeVos Sr. (1926-2018)
Richard (Rich) M. DeVos exemplified the value of hard work, free enterprise and expansive philanthropy in building munities. The Acton Institute mourns the passing of DeVos, 92, who for decades was known for leadership in business, his dedication to the promotion of liberty, and his courage in maintaining and defending the free and virtuous society. “Rich DeVos never shrank from the conviction that the roots of liberty and the morally-charged life are to be found in the eternal truths of...
How Switzerland honors the Protestant work ethic and Catholic subsidiarity
In the U.S., Labor Day weekend celebrates the work ethic that made this nation the most prosperous in human history, and federalism is enshrined in our constitution. But Switzerland – so often overlooked by the West – may have much to teach us about how to honor and embrace the profound influence of the Protestant work ethic and Catholic subsidiarity. At Acton’s Religion & Liberty Transatlantic website, political scientist Mark R. Royce discusses how aspects of Switzerland’s little-discussed political system...
Walmart’s T-shirt homage to mass murder
It is extremely concerning and offensive to find Walmart and other retailers promoting what they call “cool shirts“ — bright red tees emblazoned with the Soviet hammer and sickle, says Mari-Ann Kelam in this week’s Acton Commentary. “Making light of the mitted under and in the name munism shows ignorance and callousness.” As an Estonian-American living in Europe, I am embarrassed and pained. It is impossible to explain such flippancy to people here, many of whom suffered munism. People are...
Against job-shaming: ‘Cosby’ actor reminds us of the dignity of work
After a decades-long career in film, theater, and education, actor Geoffrey Owens decided to take a part-time job as a cashier at Trader Joe’s. When customers and news outlets began posting photos of the actor bagging groceries, the ments included a mix of mockery and what Owens describes as “job-shaming.”Fortunately, according to Owens, “the shame part didn’t last very long.” “It hurt…I was really devastated,” Owens explained on Good Morning America, “but the period of devastation was so short.” Owens...
The Great Recession and the failure of financial intermediaries.
Note: This is post #92 in a weekly video series on basic economics. What caused the Great Recession of 2008? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, economist Tyler Cowen discusses a couple of key reasons, including homeowners’ leverage, securitization, and the role of excess confidence and incentives. He then considers what could have been done to prevent the worst financial crisis of our young century. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d mend watching them...
Radio Free Acton: ‘Work in the age of robots’; Has classical music been forgotten?
On this episode of Radio Free Acton, John Couretas, Executive Producer of Radio Free Acton, interviews Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, on his new book “Work in the Age of Robots,” about what our jobs and the future of AI might look like. Then, on the Upstream segment, Bruce Edward Walker talks to Jay Nordlinger, Senior Editor of National Review, about Classical music: are people still listening to it nowadays and why is it important? Check out...
How we participate in God’s own work
“This is what I have observed to be good,” the Preacher says, “that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot” (Ecclesiastes 5:18[NIV]). “Toilsome labor” is work that is incessant, extremely hard, or exhausting. That doesn’t sound all that appealing, does it? So why does the Preacher say such labor isgood? Because, he...
Searching for Walker Percy in St. Francisville
Walker Percy wrote novels that explored the “dislocation of man in the modern age” and that were “delivered with a poetic Southern sensibility and informed by the author’s deep Catholic faith.” To celebrate the novelist’s life and work, the people of St. Francisville, Louisiana host an annual Walker Percy Weekend. Caroline Roberts, a writer and producer of the Radio Free Acton podcast, attended this year’s event and wrote about the experience for the latest edition of Acton Longform, our new...
Where criminal justice reform meets the redemptive power of work
According to a recent study by the Rand Corporation, “more than 2 million adults are incarcerated in U.S. prisons,” with roughly 700,000 leaving federal and state prisons each year. Of those released, “40 percent will be reincarcerated.” It’s a staggering statistic—one that ought to stir us toward greater reflection on how we might better support, empower, and equip prisoners in connecting with social and economic life. How might we reform our criminal justice system to better help and support these...
Explainer: Judge Kavanaugh and why you should care about ‘Chevron deference’
Judge Brett Kavanaugh made a second appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee today for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing. During questioning,Kavanaugh was asked about a controversial, but little-known, legal doctrine called “Chevrondeference.” Here’s what you should know about Kavanaugh’s position andwhy you should care about Chevron deference. What is the Chevron the Senate is referring to? The pany? Yes, though indirectly. Chevron, the corporation, was the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved