The Four Loves" Book Club--Part 2
"Affection"--Guest post by Dan Scott!
I am on vacation, so I’m very grateful that Dan Scott—whose two most recent posts on his blog, “The Drafting Table” both have CS Lewis quotes at the center (or as some people spell it, “centre”) of them—was willing to write this guest post! THANK you, Dan! (:
Dan—You should find the only changes to be formatting, and the inclusion of two pictures of cute animals! —Theodicy
Defining Affection
This chapter of The Four Loves [1] covers Affection, which at least in some ways can be seen as the most natural (or perhaps most instinctual is putting it more precisely). It starts with parents and ends with pets, including a discussion of "pet parents"—Lewis doesn't use that term (it being 1960 when The Four Loves was published and all), but his description is clearly pointing at that type.
The Greek word for the Love examined in this chapter is storge. In this first excerpt I'll share, Lewis gives its definition, then a vivid image [2], then moves on to a profound paradox:
My Greek Lexicon defines storge as "affection, especially of parents to offspring"; but also of offspring to parents. And that, I have no doubt, is the original form of the thing as well as the central meaning of the word. The image we must start with is that of a mother nursing her baby, a bitch or a cat with a basketful of puppies or kittens; all in a squeaking, nuzzling heap together; purrings, lickings, baby-talk, milk, warmth, the smell of young life.
The importance of this image is that it presents us at the very outset with a certain paradox. The Need and Need-love of the young is obvious; so is the Gift-love of the mother. She gives birth, gives suck, gives protection. On the other hand, she must give birth or die. She must give suck or suffer. That way, her Affection too is a Need-love. There is the paradox. It is a Need-love but what it needs is to give. It is a Gift-love but it needs to be needed.
This paradox about needing to be needed definitely comes up again in this chapter.
As C.S. Lewis explores Affection, some additional points of definition/description emerge:
it's "the least discriminating of loves"
"its objects have to be familiar" to the extent that we never notice the beginning of affection, it's a characteristic of relationships that feel like they've always been there
it can blend easily with the other Loves
it is comfortable and informal (like an old sweater, if I correctly recall one of the metaphors he uses)
Lewis points out that "Old" as an adjective often accompanies Affection because of the way it points to a long and comfortable acquaintance ("mon vieux" is also used this way in French). This point about the informal vibe of Affection is dealt with at some length as it relates to manners:
Affection at its best practises a courtesy which is incomparably more subtle, sensitive, and deep than the public kind. In public a ritual would do. At home you must have the reality which that ritual represented
We can show respect for strangers with politeness and formality; we can show our love and respect for close friends and family with inside jokes and gentle ribbing. However, the underlying love and respect has to be there; unfortunately some take this the wrong way and are just rude or disrespectful to those nearest them and then feel misunderstood when it isn't well received, but you can't actually reverse the syllogism:
He knows that Affection takes liberties. He is taking liberties. Therefore (he concludes) he is being affectionate.
This section also draws a pretty good distinction on the same point, I thought:
"We can say anything to one another." The truth behind this is that Affection at its best can say whatever Affection at its best wishes to say, regardless of the rules that govern public courtesy; for Affection at its best wishes neither to wound nor to humiliate nor to domineer. ... You can do anything in the right tone and at the right moment--the tone and moment which are not intended to, and will not, hurt.
The way Affection interacts with manners can be tricky, but it's far from the worst pitfall of this Love.
Dangers / Dark Side
One of the themes I'm getting so far from The Four Loves [3] is that all the Loves are good but they have to be kept in their proper station ("rightly-ordered", as it's often put). Trying to make one of the Loves fill a larger or more ultimate role than it was intended for is a recipe for heartache. There's a passage I won't quote in full, but basically it draws numerous parallels between Affection and other Loves to show how great and good it is--there's a risk of elevating it too much precisely because there is so much good about it--then Lewis summarizes that,
If we dwelled exclusively on these resemblances we might be led on to believe that this Affection is not simply one of the natural loves but is Love Himself working in our human hearts and fulfilling the law.
However, he contends that,
Nearly all the characteristics of this love are ambivalent. They may work for ill as well as for good. By itself, left simply to follow its own bent, it can darken and degrade human life.
The two main ways that he lays out that Affection can get bent and twisted are on the side of would-be recipients and would-be givers of Affection, respectively. One pitfall is a sense of resentful entitlement when Affection received falls short of what someone feels it should be. The other is when someone has a deep-rooted need to be needed but the ones they'd like to shower with Affection are becoming more independent.
King Lear is given as a literary example of a sense of entitlement to Affection and how badly that can go off the rails. This sense of entitlement can come from the way Affection is the most "natural" of the Loves, as discussed above.
We all know that we must do something, if not to merit, at least to attract, erotic love or friendship. But Affection is often assumed to be provided, ready made, by nature; "built-in", "laid-on", "on the house". We have a right to expect it. If the others do not give it, they are "unnatural.
'How sharper than a serpent's tooth', indeed!
This sense of entitlement can also feed into a sort of jealousy, where you don't want the objects of your Affection to find new interests or relationships:
Unfortunately it is almost equally possible to break your mother's heart by rising above the homely ethos. The conservative tenacity of Affection works both ways. It can be a domestic counterpart to that nationally suicidal type of education[4] which keeps back the promising child because the idlers and dunces might be "hurt" if it were undemocratically moved into a higher class than themselves.
What he means by it working both ways is that it is hurt when the object of Affection falls into poor life choices, but also can be when its object rises to unanticipated success (and no longer has Needs that the giver of Affection can readily fill).
Rightly-ordered Affection, in contrast, is happy (albeit tinged with bitter-sweet in the moment, no doubt) to have its recipients spread their own wings:
Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say "They need me no longer" should be our reward.
Lewis relates the story of two people (real characters with names changed, I gather), Mrs. Fidget and Dr. Quartz, who have an excessive need to be needed and struggle to accept children or students becoming independent.
The ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as "unselfish".
Lewis observes that in many cases, those with a bent in this direction often express it towards a pet (not that all pet owners are like this), which is probably better for the people around them but still isn't great:
This terrible need to be needed often finds its outlet in pampering an animal.
Discussion
The two preceding sections cover the main points of this chapter. In this final section, I thought I'd share some points that might be interesting to discuss. Feel free to suggest some more in the comments.
Aside from King Lear, what other literary examples can you think of where a character has a problematic relationship with Affection, either craving and feeling entitled to it, or being overbearing in how they display it (when its more about the giver's need to be needed than it is about a true need of the recipient)?
When it comes to manners, contemporary society has become a lot less formal than the UK of Lewis' day. At the same time, the way social media makes having an audience possible even in private moments (think about how filming a proposal has become more common, for example) makes it risky to express ourselves in ways that might sound bad to someone without context. In light of these points, how much of a distinction do you observe/practice between public and private/home manners?
A couple of common phrases about Affection are "Public Displays of Affection (PDA)" [5] and "Alienation of Affection" (a tort). How do these terms relate to the way this Love is described in this chapter?
The line "I do not think we shall see things more clearly by classifying all these malefical states of Affection as pathological" and the surrounding discussion of "medicalizing" sin makes me think of the novel Erewhon. I tend to think of treating relational or behavioural problems as a matter for therapy (or medication) rather than moral lapses or character faults as a contemporary trend [6]. But The Four Loves is over 60 years old and Erewhon is over 150 years old, so maybe it isn't so new?
For the discussion about pets it's worth pulling out this G.K. Chesterton quote about animals from his essay "On Seriousness" [7]:
This comparison between the sacred animals of Egypt and the pet animals of to-day is not so far-fetched as it may seem to some people. There is a healthy and an unhealthy love of animals: and the nearest definition of the difference is that the unhealthy love of animals is serious. I am quite prepared to love a rhinoceros, with reasonable precautions: he is, doubtless, a delightful father to the young rhinoceroses. But I will not promise not to laugh at a rhinoceros. I will not worship the beast with the little horn. I will not adore the Golden Calf; still less will I adore the Fatted Calf. On the contrary, I will eat him. There is some sort of joke about eating an animal, or even about an animal eating you. Let us hope we shall perceive it at the proper moment, if it ever occurs. But I will not worship an animal. That is, I will not take an animal quite seriously: and I know why.
Wherever there is Animal Worship there is Human Sacrifice. That is, both symbolically and literally, a real truth of historical experience. Suppose a thousand black slaves were sacrificed to the blackbeetle; suppose a million maidens were flung into the Nile to feed the crocodile; suppose the cat could eat men instead of mice—it could still be no more than that sacrifice of humanity that so often makes the horse more important than the groom, or the lap-dog more important even than the lap. The only right view of the animal is the comic view. Because the view is comic it is naturally affectionate. And because it is affectionate, it is never respectful.
Lewis' conclusion is that Affection is great, but it needs to be kept in rein by reason, justice/fairness, decency, etc. Mis- or dis-ordered Loves are dangerous though. And that's where I'll wrap this post up as well.
[1] It's called The Four Loves, but there are still three chapters left and we already have: Need-love, Gift-love, Appreciation, and Affection. More like 7 loves, amirite?
[2] My first child is not quite two, so babies with their soft, fuzzy little heads and the feeling when they fall asleep on your shoulder is a sensation (and accompanying sentiment) I can easily identify with right now.
[3] This theme comes up in a lot of Christian writing on love, tbh.
[4] This little five-word phrase could be a whole other discussion...
[5] Thinking about this in relation to the Five Love Languages, the definition from C.S. Lewis that I shared at the beginning of this post makes (non-sexual) physical touch (e.g. a hug or a pat on the head) seem like the basic "language" of affection, although the other ones (gifts, quality time, affirming words, serving) can probably all play a part as well.
[6] This is not to deny that there's a subset of these problems where therapy or medication should be the approach.
[7] This same collection also has another relevant essay about a pet pig.