It was not for nothing that French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu once referred to classification as "symbolic violence". In biographies, histories and journalistic pieces, labels such as "radical", "liberal" and "conservative" so easily lose all meaning and become mere purr or snarl words that tell you far more about the writers than about their subjects. It is with this proviso that I address a question raised by a reader, who wondered whether CS Lewis wasn't a monarchist rather than a democrat.
Of course, the first thing that might be usefully said is that the two systems, and indeed belief in the two systems, are not mutually exclusive. It's quite possible to live under a constitutional, largely ceremonial, monarchy, as millions of Euopeans can testify today. As long ago as the sixteenth century, Anglican priest Richard Hooker understood that a society where the king was subservient to the law would be a happier one than one in which a tyrant ruled. (Lewis, in his
Preface to Paradise Lost, acutely referred to tyranny, defined as "rule over equals as if they were inferiors", as rebellion.)
"Happier that People whose Law is their King in the greatest things, than that whose King is himself their Law. Where the King doth guide the State, and the Law the King, that Commonwealth is like an harp or melodious instrument." (Hooker,
Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity)
(Some, incidentally, might argue that the roles of King and Law are conflated in Sharia (arrived at by scholars interpreting the words of Allah as recorded in the Qur’an), if it underpins a system that lacks the institutional safeguards provided by a body of elected representatives empowered with the freedom to make what laws they please.)
Secondly, Lewis believed that man's spiritual nature was more important and more enduring than his bodily nature, and that ceremonial monarchy played a part in reminding human beings, who have a history of being so easily seduced by tyrants, of this. The hierarchical nature of monarchy also served to remind us that, "when equality is treated not as a medicine or a safety-gadget but as an ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind which hates all superiority" (Lewis, "Equality").
Those who call Lewis a Conservative (conservative and conservationist in a pre-politicised, pre-Friends of the Earth sense, he undoubtedly was) would do well do read this paragraph from
the same essay, originally published in
The Spectator in 1943:
"We Britons should rejoice that we have contrived to reach much legal democracy (we still need more of the economic) without losing our ceremonial Monarchy. For there, right in the midst of our lives, is that which satisfies the craving for inequality, and acts as a permanent reminder that medicine is not food. Hence a man's reaction to Monarchy is a kind of test. Monarchy can easily be "debunked"; but watch the faces, mark well the accents, of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes, or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison."
Film-stars ... millionaires ... gangsters ... prostitutes – surely Lewis couldn't have been speculating on future occupants of the White House?