[SenAnder]

It's very in line with the current zeitgeist to dismiss a thoughtful piece on the perils of compromising personal values and friendships for the sake of social climbing, as a mere defense of classism. Gone from public discussion are virtue, integrity, loyalty. There is only class struggle.

Did you get the impression he meant labour organizers or ambitious but honest entrepreneurs when he spoke of scoundrels? Or, given his emphasis on friendship, did he mean those who would sell-out their co-workers? Do you really mean to defend the "financial upward mobility" that comes from, say, withholding the health hazards of a product?

[at_a_remove]

That last bit is a tremendous stretch and you're doing your shoulder joint no good in reaching that far.

No, there's more to it than that, but like I said, at worst, it has a kind of "stay in your lane" feel to it. Not in the snotty "know your role" sense, no, rather a more insidious method is substituted, in which, by not striving to enter the Inner Ring, you're rewarded with some kind of nebulous peer respect. Very a much a "meek will inherit" sort of thing, and often untrue.

Take the Tolstoy bit that was part of the piece. The general is ignored. But what if the general had something important to say, something of tactical or strategic value? Well, it's ignored. I'll counter with HST: "Politics is the art of controlling your environment." Wouldn't it be prudent for that general, should he recognize his situation, to strive for entry into the Inner Ring and then be heard? It would be. Lewis does not address this. Instead, one is to take consolation that one was at least correct, but unheard, as the Inner Ring steers the ship off course. You're even suppose to hope that other people, also outsiders, will recognize your track record and your value.

Personally, I haven't found much consolation in that outsider position at all. Instead I have watched the members of the Inner Ring sail off to ever-better positions, failing upward. Rather than attempting to change my position, I am to accept it and some reward will be dispensed unto me. I have yet to see it.

[robertlagrant]

> Rather than attempting to change my position, I am to accept it and some reward will be dispensed unto me

I really don't think that's in the text. Where are you reading that?

[SenAnder]

Throughout the piece he cautions against abandoning friends, principles, and of striving for the inner circle for its own sake, and for greed. It is a very uncharitable reading to then recast this caution and awareness as a general prohibition against entering the inner ring for any purpose. Nothing in the piece gave me the impression he is cautioning against, e.g., an upstart entrepreneur entering various inner rings to grow his sales, or a general vying for political power to help his country. It is the inverse he warns of - a general staying silent, or becoming a yes-man against his better judgement, to gain social standing at the expense of his troops.

You're right, he spends few words extolling the usefulness of the inner ring [1] - presumably he thought it obvious, especially to his audience at King's College. Probably seeing greed and sycophancy as bigger dangers than lack of ambition or too much sincerity, he naturally warned against the former. Like an old captain warning against storms instead of giving encouraging words about how many fish there are to catch. I wouldn't begrudge him that.

[1] Few, but not none: It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.