Humans want to be in the “Inner Ring.” This desire comes from our need for inclusion, which can lead to evil. The need can cause us to do stupid things, but if we choose the right path we might pick the right Inner Ring.
Lewis argues that the Inner Ring can be good and bad. The Inner Ring is what people strive for. They want to be inside so they are not outside, but once inside they are still not happy. Friendship is the key to any Inner Ring. Without friendship people are just a group wanting the same thing with no relationship with one another. I agree with Lewis on his account of the Inner Ring because I think that while we want to be inside, it will not get us anywhere better in life. Lewis talked about how once you get inside, the sparkle, …show more content…
Once an outsider, always an outsider. I believe that anyone can get on the inside, but they will always feel like they are on the outside. An example of this is the rich versus the poor. The poor will be seen as poor to the rich no matter what. But those who become so obsessed with the idea of getting inside become controlled by the Inner Ring. I do not think it is healthy to become obsessed with any idea, unless it is something pure and sinless. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, obsessed means, “to be the only person or thing that someone thinks or talks about; to think and talk about someone or something too much” (“Obsess” merriam-webster.com). I agree on Lewis’ point when he talks about how the Inner Ring becomes an evil when we become obsessed with it or it leads us to do things we would not …show more content…
Luc Martin, Blair Evens, and Kevin Spink wrote in “Coach Perspectives of ‘Groups Within the Group’: An Analysis of Subgroups and Cliques in Sport” about negative effects of the Inner Ring. They interviewed different coaches about the different subgroups within the teams. There were both positive and negative ways the subgroups can effect others. The overall consensus was, “subgroups have the potential to elicit negative outcomes for members, but can also facilitate the development of beneficial norms and positive beliefs about the self” (Martin, Evens, and Spink 2). Groups within groups can be positive or negative. Each group is influencing other groups. This can lead to disunity in the group as a whole, but most of the time there is cohesion. One of the coaches gave an example of a subgroup. He said that different positions in a sport are different subgroups. People join together when they are in the same position and that makes a subgroup. Also, these subgroups are changing from time to time because people move from group to group. The coaches also said that the word “clique” has a negative connotation. “As one example, a coach described cliques as ‘Groups of people that tend to be separate and have their own identity and negative energy within the team,’ and continued to suggest that they were purposeful in the sense that clique members would make statements such as: ‘This is who I
Lewis argues that the Inner Ring can be good and bad. The Inner Ring is what people strive for. They want to be inside so they are not outside, but once inside they are still not happy. Friendship is the key to any Inner Ring. Without friendship people are just a group wanting the same thing with no relationship with one another. I agree with Lewis on his account of the Inner Ring because I think that while we want to be inside, it will not get us anywhere better in life. Lewis talked about how once you get inside, the sparkle, …show more content…
Once an outsider, always an outsider. I believe that anyone can get on the inside, but they will always feel like they are on the outside. An example of this is the rich versus the poor. The poor will be seen as poor to the rich no matter what. But those who become so obsessed with the idea of getting inside become controlled by the Inner Ring. I do not think it is healthy to become obsessed with any idea, unless it is something pure and sinless. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, obsessed means, “to be the only person or thing that someone thinks or talks about; to think and talk about someone or something too much” (“Obsess” merriam-webster.com). I agree on Lewis’ point when he talks about how the Inner Ring becomes an evil when we become obsessed with it or it leads us to do things we would not …show more content…
Luc Martin, Blair Evens, and Kevin Spink wrote in “Coach Perspectives of ‘Groups Within the Group’: An Analysis of Subgroups and Cliques in Sport” about negative effects of the Inner Ring. They interviewed different coaches about the different subgroups within the teams. There were both positive and negative ways the subgroups can effect others. The overall consensus was, “subgroups have the potential to elicit negative outcomes for members, but can also facilitate the development of beneficial norms and positive beliefs about the self” (Martin, Evens, and Spink 2). Groups within groups can be positive or negative. Each group is influencing other groups. This can lead to disunity in the group as a whole, but most of the time there is cohesion. One of the coaches gave an example of a subgroup. He said that different positions in a sport are different subgroups. People join together when they are in the same position and that makes a subgroup. Also, these subgroups are changing from time to time because people move from group to group. The coaches also said that the word “clique” has a negative connotation. “As one example, a coach described cliques as ‘Groups of people that tend to be separate and have their own identity and negative energy within the team,’ and continued to suggest that they were purposeful in the sense that clique members would make statements such as: ‘This is who I