Follow Up: C. S. Lewis’s Inner Rings and Fans

In yesterday’s post, we discussed C. S. Lewis’s 1944 address The Inner Ring. Fr. Dwight Longenecker mentions this essay in an article of his own, in which he points out the obvious relationship between the concepts in Lewis’s address and his wonderful novel/grown up fairy tale That Hideous Strength.

That Hideous Strength is my second favorite work by Lewis, after Til We Have Faces, and as it is full of memorable scenes and I’ve read it a number of times, it was not difficult to recall passages to illustrate the points in his address. The reality of what Lewis is discussing is patent.

In his address, Lewis goes out of his way to say that Inner Rings are not always a bad thing:

I must now make a distinction. I am not going to say that the existence of Inner Rings is an Evil. It is certainly unavoidable. There must be confidential discussions: and it is not only a bad thing (1), it is (in itself) a good thing, that personal friendship should grow up between those who work together. And it is perhaps impossible that the official hierarchy of any organisation should coincide with its actual workings. If the wisest and most energetic people held the highest spots, it might coincide; since they often do not, there must be people in high positions who are really deadweights and people in lower positions who are more important than their rank and seniority would lead you to suppose. It is necessary: and perhaps it is not a necessary evil. But the desire which draws us into Inner Rings is another matter. A thing may be morally neutral and yet the desire for that thing may be dangerous.

So rings are everywhere, sometimes serve a purpose, and are something almost everyone, it seems, is attracted to. But there are exceptions. In That Hideous Strength, Lewis provides the example of Hingest, the renowned chemist, who is a man of actual achievement. He has no interest in the N.I.C.E. and its circles within circles, tries to leave, and is murdered.

Through no merit of my own, I seem to be largely immune to the allure of Inner Rings.  I’m happiest, generally, working on some project on my own, although team activities can be satisfying, too, I’m just more likely to enjoy working solo.

Even back at high school, I do not recall ever wanting to hang with the cool kids. Of course, as the weird loner kid who did both sports (basketball) and drama club and sang in the school choir, there was no Inner Circle that would have me. Nope, it’s another temptation that attracts me, one that is both very much like an Inner Circle while at the same time its polar opposite: the allure of fandom.

Sports is the obvious example. It’s very exciting when your team competes, never mind that they are in no real sense ‘your’ anything. ‘Your’ city doesn’t own them, you have no say over who is on the team, team strategy, long term goals, or any other aspect of team operation. Team owners can and do move their teams away, as the nearby Oakland Raiders fans know too well. This idea that any professional sports team is ‘our’ team, is the fan’s team, is preposterous.

I’ve known all this since I was a kid. Yet, it took me almost 60 years before I shook off my emotional attachment to several professional teams. (2)

Being a sports fan is like being in an inner circle in this respect: there are insiders and outsiders. There are other teams (and their fans) that you despise as a function of your being a fan of your team. Your identity is tied up with being a fan of your team.

Now, few sports fans would admit to this. They’d claim it’s just a game, just for fun. Yet, on an emotional, and even functional level, it’s all true. Sure, those crazy Raiders fans in the Black Hole know it’s a game, that they are playacting according to rules almost as specific as those followed in the game on the field.

Related image

But then again, it’s not. It becomes a chief, sometimes defining, aspect of personality.

Being a fan is nearly opposite to being part of an Inner Ring in three respects: it’s as easy as buying a hat or t-shirt to become a fan, membership is open to everyone, and loyalty is valued. Yet there are definite insides and outsides, and rules. You can criticize the team, the players, the coaches, the front office and the owners, but only so far. People who criticize structural issues, such as how players are compensated or the absence of reasonable safety measures, run the risk of being called out as not real fans – unless they make the proper noises about how much they love the team.

So why even bring this up? The social usefulness of the compelled conformity of fans has not escaped those in love with the idea of compelled conformity.  In this sense, fandom can be made to be an extension of the will of some Inner Circle or other. I think this use of team worship as a method of control has been in play for a long time now. Consider:

Athletes, actors & other entertainers take political stands as an exercise in herd management. Team loyalty is invoked to usurp thought in political affiliation; athletes and actors tell ‘fans’ what politics to root for.  In a sane world, who would care what a 25 yr old jock has to say about anything, let alone politics? Or an actor? The hot dog vendor at the stadium is more likely to have interesting views, since he’s not spent 10,000+ hrs on his jump shot or learning to fake emotions. He may not be compelled in his positions by the need to conform to the group.

In my lifetime, the first famous athlete to take political stands during his career was Ali. He helped reverse public opinion on Vietnam. The press loved him. He was a bit of an outlier, since at the time sports figures could not be counted on to express the ‘correct’ views.

Now? Imagine if someone on the NBA Champion Warriors, who have twice turned down invitations to the Trump White House after a heavily-publicized love fest with Obama, were to be seen wearing a MAGA hat? It would be as shocking as if they started passing the ball to the other team in games.

Now imagine you’re a 20 year old 1st round draft pick, and you wander in to that environment – you going to buck the trend? The coach and stars have made it publicly clear they despise as idiots, evil or both EVERYBODY who holds opposing political views. So you, the 20 year old rookie, conform. Fans continue to be presented with a 100% consistent team political position. Fans may be under less pressure than rookies, but I’d be shocked if anyone at a Warriors game were to wear that MAGA hat. They’d get verbally abused, at least.

That facade of 100% consistent team politics must be maintained. Thus, some of the greatest hatred today is reserved for athletes and entertainers who fail to conform. Traitor to the team! Eeeeevil! Stupid! They must be destroyed! When the NFL tried to get these infants to dial it back for business reasons, all the knives come out.

We cannot let anyone start thinking that freedom of thought trumps group cohesion. All those years of training in school, all the conformity & mindless loyalty, would be undone in a minute if it were shown that teammates could disagree about politics and still be – teammates.

There’s roughly a 50/50 chance an American chosen at random will not be some flavor of committed liberal/progressive/socialist/communist. Yet we are presented with the image of 99% conformity among professional athletes and entertainers, and the complete vilification of that remaining 1%.

This facade of cohesion is one of the last remaining bastions against having to face the true variety of political positions that exist in any functioning democracy. The point of democracy, after all, is to allow people to honorably disagree and still live together in peace.

That’s why, while sane people just role their eyes at the posturing of these prima donnas and get on with their lives, the left cannot tolerate the very idea of professional athletes and other pampered celebrities rejecting any part of their politics. The edifice of group think – the herd – so painstakingly built, would fall.

  1. I think there was a typo here, as context and sense demand it should read “it is not only not a bad thing…” Or?
  2. Lakers, then Warriors, if you must know. I’ve watched a lot of sports, but only gotten really involved in these 2 teams. Now? Meh.

Author: Joseph Moore

Enough with the smarty-pants Dante quote. Just some opinionated blogger dude.

6 thoughts on “Follow Up: C. S. Lewis’s Inner Rings and Fans”

  1. I’m sure you meant this as a minor aside, but I cannot help noticing this little tidbit: “… unless they make the proper noises about how much they love the team.”

    Just once, I would like to read an article about the exploding homosexual scandal in the Church without the author’s obligatory reminder to the reader to show proper compassion to those afflicted with this particular temptation. I should probably show due Christian compassion toward mall bombers, rapists, armed robbers, movie producers, and school shooters, yet no discussion of these social maladies includes an exhortation to such considerations.

    1. I completely understand the frustration, but it must still be remembered that there are a lot more people dealing with such temptations than there are bombers, rapists and shooters, and most of them neither sought those temptations out nor (I suspect in their heart of hearts) would have chosen to keep them, had they had a choice. (The movie producers I’m less sympathetic to.)

      In the end, of course, we’re all sinners and we all need Christ’s mercy, and each other’s. But the current scandal in the Church is a symptom of the larger sexual problems of our entire post-Revolution culture, in that it’s the mindset of sexual entitlement promulgated by the Revolution that’s driven so many criminal clerics to abuse their power. And that mindset is something I have myself contributed to, among far too many others, by passively accepting the hypersexualization of that culture if nothing else. I may not be guilty of these men’s scope or type of evil; that doesn’t mean I’m innocent enough to be comfortable throwing stones.

      1. “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

        Why the carve-out for sodomy? I know people who have strong inclinations to violent outbursts of wrath, overindulgence in alcohol, you name it. Those inclinations are objectively disordered, constitute trials for many/most of those who have them. Are we called to accept them with respect, compassion, and sensitivity? Must we avoid every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard?

        Quite frankly, our society should institute a vigorous program of just discrimination in their regard. The sin that dare not speak its name has become the sin that won’t shut up. It’s debauched our clergy and vitiated the preaching of the gospel for the last fifty years, especially with regard to the teachings on marriage and family life.

  2. You sure do make California sound dystopic! A photograph of Tom Brady’s locker with a MAGA hat in it led to some angry media coverage, but almost no actual Patriots fans cared at all. Yeah, everyone knows that Robert Kraft (the Pats’ owner) and Donald Trump are friends, and the cries of the puritanical uber-progressive types who don’t watch football anyway are always met with derision and dismissal.

    I chalk it up to the local culture. Pats fans are very loyal to their team and resentful of outsiders who try to weaken that loyalty. The only acceptable “party lines” involve the Pats being the best, your team (whoever they are) being just as corrupt as the Pats, and that winning is good. You’ll never find a place more mistrustful of national media, especially sports media, than New England. Attempts to divide New Englanders from their families, friends, and regional loyalties in the name of some sort of kooky ideological purity will just get you sworn at. It’s something a conservative can celebrate about this region that they so often malign! Now, that intense local loyalty has drawbacks: the willingness of Bostonians to wink at the murderous activities of gangsters as long as they were local boys whose brother once did your wife’s cousin a solid is probably the other side of that coin–I suppose that to some people taking “thou shalt not kill or steal” as absolutes smacks of the kind of ideological purity that should not be a cause of division.

    We live in weird times–conservatives are championing free speech and liberals love the F.B.I.! The whole idea of team fandom as a tool of progressive groupthink is something that could only have started making sense five minutes ago. Roughly since televised sports have existed, liberals have been more suspicious than conservatives of big-time sports and the tribal loyalties that it creates.. Charitably, the liberalism of the postwar era was informed to a great extent by the horrors of 1914-1945, horrors that were attributed to extreme nationalism and to an undervaluation of the individual that allowed for both Communist and Fascist totalitarianism. Liberals were apt to see in team sports an echo of the evils of the early 20th century: tribalistic nationalism and enforced conformity that completely subordinates the individual. Less charitably, local loyalties, as to a team or a city, get in the way of the progressive project of total loyalty to…the progressive project.

    I can’t begin to analyze what’s been going on these last few years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s