C.S. Lewis on Affection

C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves is an exploration of the nature of love, dealing it particular with four categories of love. One such category which is that called “affection”. Lewis initially defines Affection with the example of mother’s love towards a child and also a child’s love towards a mother. Though such a definition seems simple enough, he also focuses on a paradox which makes the reader question the seeming simplicity of Affection. Lewis remarks in the beginning of the chapter, “It is a Need-love but what it needs is to give. It is a Gift-love but it needs to be needed” (32). After qualifying some specifications for Affection, Lewis explores the truth of the aforementioned paradox.

It is important to note that Lewis specifies familiarity as a set criterion for Affection. This importance will not be further explored within this essay, but it ought to be kept in the back of our minds as we enter into the paradox of Need-love and Gift-love as found present in Affection.

Lewis first addresses Need-love in relation to Affection. “Almost anyone may be the object of Affection” says Lewis. “Yes; and almost everyone expects to be” (39). The truth of this statement seems to be self-evident. Lewis provides the reader with examples from different literary works (King Lear, The Way of All Flesh), but also comments that these example can be found in people from our own lives. We, as humans, are filled with this sense of “right” when it comes to Affection. But Lewis would further refine such a statement, saying rather, “What we have is not ‘a right to expect’ but a ‘reasonable expectation’ of being loved” (40). It seems that the point Lewis is attempting to make by this restatement is that humans tend to pervert Affection when they begin to view it as a right. Instead, it is something that we can reasonably expect if “we, and they [our intimates, those from whom we desire affection], are more or less ordinary people” (40). It seems that the implication is that Affection, as a Need-love, can be a perversion which leads something which is not love at all. Lewis makes this point with jealousy as well, commenting that Affection can to and is often times the basis for jealousy.

Perversions to Affection are not limited to Need-love, however, for there are certainly perversions in the realm of Gift-love as well. To make this point, Lewis depicts an over-bearing mother who “gives” to her children and family to an extent of foolishness. She waits up for them when they are out late, cooks hot dinners every night, insists on doing their laundry (despite her inability of doing it well)—all of which drive those on the receiving end crazy. It is excessive and to such an extent, annoying. Lewis points out that, while this mother is certainly giving, she needs to give it. She “needs to be needed” (50). In this sense, it seems, Gift-love is also Need-love, for it must be given.

From these two perversions, the perversion of Need-love and of Gift-love, in the realm of Affection, it would almost appear that Lewis is attempting to say that Affection is not a love, that it is not good. Lewis even allows for this objection himself when he quotes an imaginary objector, “Selfish or neurotic people can twist anything, even love, into some sort of misery or exploitation” (53). The point that Lewis is making, however, is that Affection cannot be on its own. He says, “Affection produces happiness if—and only if—there is common sense and give and take and ‘decency’” (54). There must be something more than mere Affection. By noting the perversions of Affection, Lewis is essentially saying (which he does indeed state explicitly at the end of the chapter), “If we try to live by Affection alone, Affection will ‘go bad on us’” (55).

Lewis’ main point in all of this is that Affection is not the end all—there is more to Love than simply Affection. Not even that there exists more to Love than simply Affection, but that there necessarily must be more to Love than Affection.