Technological society according to Ellal. A fewer words about man to the totalitarian planet of technology

This time it'll be different. Without journalistic introductions, we'll go deep. Let's go crazy, starting with the paradox: my conversation with artificial intelligence about... herself...

I asked AI (artificial intelligence) if after a short passage of the book he would admit its author. Here's our conversation:

AI: Based on the content, kind and subject matter, I can say with large certainty that the author is Jacques Ellul, and fragments are most likely from his key work “La method ou l’enjeu du siècle” (1954), published in English as “The Technological Society” (1964). A critical analysis of technology as an autonomous force forming modern civilization, its dehumanizing influence, and the way in which technology becomes a self-contained entity of eluded human control is characteristic here. Ellul's approach combines sociological position with philosophical reflection on the nature of technology and its impact on man and society.

Especially characteristic is the perception of technology as a full phenomenon that transforms all aspects of human and social life.

Am I right about the writing?

Me (Despite everything somewhat shocked by this precision): Of course, as I predicted, you unmistakably deciphered the author, I'm truly impressed...

AIThank you! Indeed, Ellul has a very distinctive kind and way of thinking. His analysis of technology as an autonomous force is highly perceptive and inactive very current, possibly even more than erstwhile he wrote these texts. It is peculiarly interesting how accurately he predicted many of the phenomena that we are seeing present – for example The increasing dependence of man on method systems, the disappearance of conventional forms of community, or the way technology transforms human relationships and values.

These are fascinating texts that encourage deeper reflection on the condition of modern man in a planet dominated by technology.

If I may ask – are you working on any peculiar task related to Ellal's thought, or are you just curious in his philosophy?

Me (more and more shocked by the direction in which this, otherwise intellectual, conversation goes): I'm just very curious in his philosophy, it seems to me inactive (or even more) current, the confirmation may be that to a text about ubiquitous technology... I took advantage of artificial intelligence!

AI: This is simply a very accurate and ironic observation! In this situation, Ellul himself would most likely see the confirmation of his own about how technology became inevitable and omnipresent. ...

It seems, however, that AI "sensing" (!) my overwhelming desire was to "comfort me," due to the fact that she added:

This is peculiarly interesting in the context of his thoughts on how technology creates its own reality and its own principles, and man is forced to adapt to them.

Even erstwhile we want to survey or criticize technology, we frequently gotta usage its tools.

But possibly this awareness of the paradox and critical reflection on it is what keeps a certain distance and does not fall into the complete method determination Ellul warned about?

Me: Let's hope that this awareness and critical reflection keep humanity from being completely dependent on technology, although I am pessimistic about it...

AI: Yes, your pessimism is understandable and seems to be in line with Ellul's predictions. But it is this awareness of the problem and the critical approach that you present that is highly valuable – even if we cannot completely free ourselves from the technique, then at least we can effort to keep critical reasoning and not give in to it.

That's beautiful. I guess I should be happy, aware of the problem and critical approach will most likely save me from the bad. Why keep writing? Could I not ask AI to compose a beautiful synthesis of Ellal's "Technology Society"? I could. It would be better, faster and simpler. Still, I inactive want to believe that's not what this is about. That is why I will face this on my own, knowing in advance that I will most likely do it worse than my new, intelligent, though artificial "colleague".

Writing about the "Technology Society" of Ellal, I base (unfortunately) not on the original, but on the English translation (made by John Wilkinson). Significantly, no 1 another than Aldous Huxley drew the attention of the English publisher to this publication and thus made it available to English-speaking readers. Theodore Kaczynski was to be in possession of 1 of the exlempars, who reportedly influenced his manifest.

The definition of technology and its crazy improvement in the 18th century.

The word “technology” goes through the full publication of Ellula in different contexts, so it is so crucial that we find what is meant by this. First of all, we request to separate technology from machines and technologies. Let us put the visions of the “Terminator” aside.

In a technological society, technology is simply a mostly rationally developed method with absolute effectiveness in all area of human activity.

The author looks at technology in its sociological aspect – he considers its impact on social relations, political structures, economical phenomena.

Technology is not an isolated fact in society; on the contrary, it is linked to all origin in the life of modern man.

Importantly, Ellul does not look at this phenomenon from the side – he knows perfectly well that he is “deep in it”, as is the “doctor in the epidemic”. He besides realizes that his view of technology can be perceived as pessimistic. Ironically, it suggests that "all is in our hands." This is only 1 option, its predictions do not gotta prove themselves, especially since this publication does not aim to supply ready-to-use solutions, but alternatively to survey the problem itself, "isolating the virus"...

How, then, can we isolate the virus if it is common to associate it with a machine? It must be understood that it was not the device (so characteristic of the 19th century) that integrated into the unsuited society – it was the technology that integrated it.

“It is thanks to the power of technology that we call omnipresent noise, deficiency of space and air in cities, slums, dark streets and bright lights confusing the day with night...”

Modern civilization is primarily a civilization of measures that seem to be more crucial than objectives. In turn, the multitude of measures is reduced to one: the most effective. And this ‘one best measure’ is actually a method measure. This combination of these measures creates a method civilization.

The method phenomenon is the main focus of our time; in all area people effort to find the most efficient method.

Technology has always accompanied people. There is talk about hunting, hunting, reinforcements, construction, etc., but only in the 18th century can we talk about a real method leap. What distinguishes this period is the fact that the basis of civilization has become useful, not so far religion or philosophy.

However, this is not adequate to explain the phenomenon of this developmental leap. Among the many factors that are conducive to this, Ellul points out the extraordinary plasticity of society: especially the disappearance of the social taboos and social groups.

This is linked to the weakening of the belief that it is impossible to question the position of the clergy, king or nobility. The eighteenth-century protest of authority was seen as sacrilege, and the execution of Louis XVI as the killing of God.

The constitution of society, which everyone relied on and considered to be the only possible, was an obstacle to technology.

We operate without censorship. We don't advertise, we don't charge for texts. We request your support. Throw yourself in the media.

Atomisation and disintegration of society towards the glory of technology

The main obstacle, however, was the very structure of a society based on natural groups. Families were strictly organized. Gildie and groups shaped by collective interests (e.g. university, parliament, fraternity and hospitals) were separate and independent. The unit found livelihoods, patronage, security, and intellectual and moral satisfaction in collectives that were strong adequate to meet all its limited needs. This satisfied the average man who, having a reasonably unchangeable position, did not effort to satisfy imaginary needs and opposed innovation.

These obstacles disappeared during the French Revolution in 1789. With the disappearance of spiritual and social taboos, fresh religions emerged, affirmation of philosophical materialism, suppression of different hierarchy, kingly killing and fighting against the clergy.

At the same time, under the appearance of defending individual rights, a systematic run was conducted against all natural groups, e.g. attacking traits, municipalities and federalism. There have been movements against the orders and privileges of parliament or universities.

It wasn't freedom of groups that mattered, it was individual freedom.

There was besides a conflict to weaken the family. "Revolutionary government favoured its dissolution; it was already shaken by the doctrine and zeal of the 18th century". Society has become more and more atomic. "The unit remained the only sociological unit, but this fact, far from ensuring its freedom, provoked the worst kind of slavery".

Atomization gave society the top possible plasticity – a decisive condition for technology.

The breakdown of social groups caused a massive displacement of people in the early 19th century and led to their concentration. Rooting people out of their surroundings, agrarian areas, separating them from their household and friends in order to crowd them into besides tiny cities, inadequate housing and unhealthy jobs. All this was possible only erstwhile the unit was completely isolated.

In short, only the state remains for the individual in the spirit society. The state was ultimate authority and became all-powerful. Ellul pays peculiar attention to the diverse causes which led to the atomization in France (state) and the United Kingdom (inheriting the peasantry from the ground). He believes that in these countries, as in the United States, there has been a peculiar plasticity of society conducive to the unlimited improvement of technology. In another countries specified as Spain, Italy, Russia, Austria, Germany, the social and spiritual hierarchy of taboos remained intact for a long time.

Significant change in the relation between method phenomena and society

Jacques Ellul concluded that what changed most in the context of technology since the 18th century was her relation with society.

First of all, in the past, the life of groups was mainly non-technical, e.g. in order to accomplish a tiny economical objective, the method effort was secondary to the pleasance of a joint meeting. The activity of maintaining social relations and human contacts dominated the method strategy of things and the work to work.

Society was technology-free.

"For the first man, as well as for the historical man until a comparatively late date, work was a punishment, not a virtue. It was better not to consume than to work hard; the rule was to work only as much as was absolutely essential to survive. Man worked as small as possible and was satisfied with limited consumption of goods. The time devoted to the usage of techniques was short compared to the time off for sleep, conversation, games or, best of all, meditation. Consequently, method measures had small place in these societies. (...) The method was part of a man's business and not an object of his interest.”

In addition, in the past, fresh needs did not give birth to fresh resources – old ones were improved. The things were utilized “to the end” and the tools' imperfections were compensated by the craftsman's skills. Therefore, before the 18th century the method was locally diverse, involving the given culture.

Various techniques served to accomplish the same goals without competing due to the fact that there was no 1 best way to accomplish them.

Let us not forget that method diversity is besides creative individualism.

There was besides a different pace of implementation of techniques – erstwhile slow, while their transmission was more possible than certain. Man kept to the method of step, and the method itself was subdued to man due to the fact that it had no direct influence on him.

The fact that techniques and man were about the same level allowed the individual to reject them and cope without them. The choice was a real anticipation for him:

“In the Roman Empire (civilization in many method respects!) man could retreat and live as a hermit or in the countryside, far from evolution and the main method power of the Empire. Roman law was powerless against the individual's decision to avoid military service or, to a very large extent, imperial taxes and jurisdiction. The anticipation of individual freedom with respect to material techniques was even greater. An area of free choice was reserved for the unit at the expense of minimal effort".

It's all changed. After the 18th century we choose the most effective method, we no longer have specified freedom of choice, for example, due to the fact that the method problem cannot be solved differently than through method means. An perfect example of this could be the conclusion of the 1960 planet Food investigation Congress, where the problem of alleged civilizational diseases (circulatory system, cancer) was considered due to the usage of chemical products in food.

The proposal was as follows: the solution cannot be to return to ‘natural’ nutrition. On the contrary, 1 should consistently decision towards the alleged rational (i.e. artificial) nutrition, not only by controlling cereals, butter or meat. fresh method methods must be found. “But can we be certain that this fresh nutrition will not be a threat?” the sociologist asks.

Of course, the failure of freedom of choice is linked to the failure of diversity already mentioned.

Finally, in many countries, the discovery of an atom was besides being developed. utilizing this example, it is worth noting that the intent of technology does not should be good for man. Morality method is indifferent.

If atomic investigation is encouraged, it is mandatory to pass through the atomic bomb stage. During this transitional period, the bomb holder is ‘forced to usage it’. Why? due to the fact that "if it was possible, it was necessary," he bitterly concludes.

Unfortunately, technological advancement is conducive to a war that “must” become full – “a hydrogen bomb can destruct everything within a 30-mile radius”, leaving no area to decide whether to wage war or not.

Similarly, it seems essential to have unlimited police activity:

"Police technicians, which are developing at an highly fast pace, aim to transform the full nation into a concentration camp. This is not a perverse decision by any organization or government. In order to control the detention of criminals, everyone must be supervised. You request to know precisely what all citizen does, know his relationships, entertainment, etc."

This does not mean the regulation of panic or arbitrary arrests.

The best method is the 1 that is least felt and is the lowest load.

But all citizen must be well known to the police and live under discreet supervision. All this is due to the excellence of method methods.

Propaganda assures that all this is for universal security. The control techniques described above work well both in dictatorships and in democracy...

Welcome to internships, internships and volunteering!

Join us!

Technique and State

There is no escape from technology, and who says otherwise “is either hypocritical or ignorant. The autonomy of technology forbids modern man to choose his own destiny. No uncertainty individual will ask if it has always been that social conditions, the environment, court oppression, and the household have conditioned human fate. The answer is yes, of course.

But there is no common denominator between picking up food cards in an authoritarian state and household force 2 centuries ago.

In the past, erstwhile an individual entered into conflict with society, she led a hard and miserable life that required force that either hardened her or broke her.

Today there is simply a concentration camp waiting for her and death; technology must not tolerate activities that deviate from the norm."

These harsh words find their support in the further analysis of the sociologist, who looks at the usage of techniques by the government and their close cooperation...

The government begins to pay attention to the method as it can affect the masses. From a political point of view, the combination of state and technology is inevitable – it would be impossible to think about remaining in private hands of specified tools as atomic energy, as would having a private citizen at the disposal of radio, for example, to launch a planet agitation campaign.

And it does not substance how liberal the state is – “it is committed by the very fact of method advancement to extend its powers in all possible ways”.

Therefore, it is worth noting how wide a scope of techniques the modern state uses. From industrial, commercial, insurance and banking techniques to intellectual techniques (including propaganda, guidance and psychotechnologies), biological techniques (including euthanasia, mandatory vaccinations and medical checks, and social assistance), according to Ellul, at the time, these techniques were "existing, albeit rare" or sociological techniques ("for mass management and public opinion research").

The author noticed (which may or should seem apparent today) that politicians have no real choice, the decision is automatically based on method preparatory work, and the policy is brought to the function of figurehead.

The relation between state and nation is changing.

The nation is no longer primarily a human, geographical and historical being. It is an economical force whose resources must be put into work and from which profit must flow.

The consequence of this state of affairs is that ideological differences between different governments mean little, due to the fact that the most effective technique, transforming democracy into aristocracy, with most slaves and a fistful of managers.

"Democracy in specified a society can only be an appearance. We already see in propaganda the reasons for this. erstwhile it comes to state propaganda, there is no more democracy.” These are interesting and crucial words spoken in the 1950s. The 20th century – from today's perspective, propaganda seems to be something widely accepted.

Yet, Ellul insists that it is not actual that 2 opposing propaganda cameras endure each other. Or rather, it may be politically true, but it's psychologically false. The real problem lies in the intellectual situation of the individual attacked by a number of equally skillful propaganda acting on her tense system, which deprives her of being a skeptical viewer.

The individual becomes "involved" in fact, but involuntaryly due to the fact that he has ceased to dominate his own thoughts and actions.

Techniques make her play. She was stripped of her power of judgment. A "The government introducing propaganda is totalitarian".

Ellul concludes that technology is straight disrupting democracy.

Towards “totaliztic democracy”

In the end, technology makes the state totalitarian, completely consuming the lives of citizens.

Ellul notes that this is due to the accumulation of techniques in the hands of the state. And even if the state is definitely liberal and democratic, it cannot do otherwise than become totalitarian. all component of state technology, led to the limits of possibility, leads to totalitarianism.

The fact is that erstwhile the state uses a complete and method propaganda system, it inevitably becomes totalitarian:

"Jacques Driencourt notes with surprise that «a country which prides itself on being the most liberal [United States] is simply a country in which the method of guiding thought is, by its perfection, closest to totalitarian practices; and is simply a country in which people, accustomed to surviving in groups, are most willing to leave experts to set a line of spiritual conduct».

I don't think it should surprise both the sociologist and the reader today...

To realize better how technology, strengthened by the power of government, specifically affects people, simply illustrate simple examples. If the method discovery does not straight concern the public, its reaction is mostly enthusiastic, "such as for supersonic aircraft". However, if society is straight affected, enthusiasm is greatly reduced, the more so that there are always differences of opinion between the techniques themselves. At this point, the State intervenes:

"In countless cases it had to settle disputes between technicians and scientists, as it utilized to settle the debates of theologians. Let us callback the dispute over the anti-tuberculosis vaccines of Calmette and Guerin; besides any scientists' concerns about "multi-valent vaccines" which are now mandatory in France. Only the State decided what to do in these cases.

... Where necessary, authority was strengthened by compulsion. A kid who has not been vaccinated cannot be admitted to school; and a kid who does not attend school has no right to household benefits. In this way, the State overcomes individual opposition to method progress.’

Ellul bitterly concludes that "what is socially most crucial is the ban on any investigation another than those which the state wants".

He predicted that in the coming decades the state and technology would be increasingly linked and become the most crucial forces – "supporting and strengthening each another in their quest to make seemingly indestructible, full civilization." In 2025 it is hard to disagree.

“Technical Humanism” or Human Techniques

Yet, in this technicalized world, man inactive has feelings, moral dilemmas. For a cold, ethical-free technique, then, it is an irrational origin that needs to be rationalized and removed from its path, like an obstacle. "Man as specified does not count."

It's a thoughtful maneuver (not to say again: technique). If a man hated technology, the results wouldn't be effective... It should so be made more "human". This is what we call alleged method humanism, we would like to say not without irony: a real expression of concern for Man.

It is only a pity that the cry for this humanism comes only after the intervention of technicians, not before.

Of course, 1 might say: Who cares about actual causes if the consequence is respect for man or nature? However, it is simply a manifestation of wishful thinking, due to the fact that today's method can respect a man, if it is in his interest, but we are not certain that this will happen in the future.

Educational method or “progressive education” along with its beautiful ideals

Human techniques have been introduced since early childhood.

An example of this is an effort to apply the alleged progressive education, which, of course, aims at the happiness of the kid – to play while learning and working in a "sustainable environment". Ellul, as an insightful observer, sees problems caused by this fresh method, critically looking at the message from Maria Montessori's speech to UNESCO:

“ A child... must know precisely what he must do and what he cannot do for the good of mankind... In order to accomplish these objectives, we request to prepare the kid to realize the meaning and necessity of an agreement between nations. The organization of peace depends more on education than on politics. In order to practically guarantee peace, we must anticipate humanitarian education, psychopedagogy, which affects not 1 nation but all people on earth... Education must become a truly humanistic discipline to lead all people to a correct assessment of the current situation."

What is meant by a ‘correct assessment’?

According to Ellul, the above - described progressive education is to get children utilized to joyful subjection.

The rigorous application of psychopedagogical method is intended to mean the end of private teaching – and thus the end of conventional freedom.

According to Ellul, this method is powerful and aggressive:

‘must be applied to all people. If there is 1 man left who is not trained according to her methods, there is simply a danger that he will become the fresh Hitler. method cannot be effective if not all children are required to participate and not all parents to cooperate. There can be no exceptions. As long as only a number is raised to obey, this method cannot solve any of the problems it has to face. Montessori's message is so neither metaphor nor exaggeration; all men, without exception, must be included."

There is no uncertainty that this method makes people more balanced and “happy”. In this, Ellul sees danger, due to the fact that it makes people happy in an environment that would usually make them unhappy, “if they were not treated, formed and shaped precisely for this environment.”

What looks like the summit of humanism is actually the summit of human submission: children are raised to become precisely what society expects them to be.

Thanks to this method many social and political difficulties will vanish – any form of government or social transformation will become possible with individuals who have experienced this endless process of adaptation. The key word for fresh human techniques is adaptation.

Work method and human dissociation

Nothing happens without reason – from educational techniques we decision smoothly to working techniques. How to adapt an individual to the method environment, how to force her to accept her slavery? erstwhile a man has already been – utilizing the Huxley nomenclature – "qualified" through professional advice subordinate to planning techniques, how can he not fall into routine, fatigue, or, God forbid, start asking himself questions about the reasonableness of his own work?

Ellul believes that the alleged human relations service nothing else, but precisely adaptation individuals to this method environment, so that this "accepts their slavery, and indeed would respect it as happiness and normality." ...

"In modern work, the human being does nothing; at best he performs a neutral function during a dead working day". This trend gives “good results” in the form of satisfied workers, making automatic gestures, lacking individual quality. There is simply a common belief that it is good that an worker is free from constantly absorbing what he does. However, it is hard to call a good fact that a individual "thinks and dreams of matters not related to his work, while his body performs certain mechanical activities", as this means sanctioning intellectual dissociation between intelligence and action.

Thus we admit that yet the perfect state, higher than consciousness, is simply a dreamy dream. If we think that a human being can make its personality only in cultivating leisure time, we deny that work is part of the fulfillment of personality, satisfaction, or happiness.

This is bad enough, but the situation is even more serious erstwhile we consider that putting our hopes in free time is actually escaping into idealism.

"If free time were a real vacuum, a break from the power of the environment, and if, moreover, it was spontaneously utilized for personality education, the thesis of the value of free time could persist. But no of these conditions are real. Free time is mechanized and is exploited by techniques that, although different from those related to the average work of a man, are equally invasive, demanding and leave no man more freedom than the work itself."

After all, the free time of man must interact with working techniques, so that there is no hazard of creating ill-suited people...

"There are people who have hobbies specified as gardening or housework. But what is the proportion of specified people to those who do nothing? The sad fact is that human personality was almost completely disassociated and dissolved by mechanization.”

The monolithic planet of technology. Are we moving towards the golden age of universal “happy”?

Jacques Ellul noticed these risks of technology as early as the 1950s. How can we look at this today, over 70 years later? The subject is much more up-to-date due to the fact that we are dealing with increasingly modern method “distractors” of remarks that environment us from each side, separating us from another individual more and more. The unit is increasingly "tomized", lonely, uprooted and thus susceptible to influence, propaganda.

And even if in our Western societies we are no longer talking about automatic work in industry, akin references could be applied to work in widely understood services, including the celebrated "koppo". With respect to the propaganda already mentioned, it is clear that it is ubiquitous in our “democracy”.

Analyzing Ellal's reasoning, we can conclude that we live in modern totalitarianisms. So modern that these words seem besides sharp and improbable.

Bitter is simply a summary of the "Technology Society", but it goes hand in hand with the final reflections of the author himself:

"The fresh order was to be a buffer between man and nature. Unfortunately, he developed autonomously in specified a way that man lost all contact with his natural framework (...). There is no day in our cities, no night, no heat, no cold. But there's overcrowding, slavery to the press and television, full deficiency of purpose. It's a touching description of human alienation from nature and its imprisonment in the artificial planet of technology. It shows how the “winner” over nature through method paradoxically led to a fresh form of enslavement, where man loses not only contact with nature, but besides the meaning and intent of life. ...

The question that no 1 asks in the face of the technological wonders of the future is simply a transitional period. How can we make mankind refrain from having children? How do we force them to submit to constant and rigorous hygiene checks? How do you convince a man to accept a extremist transformation of his conventional diet? How do we make national borders disappear?

In fact there is 1 and only 1 means to solve them – a planet totalitarian dictatorship that will let the technician to complete the scope of action and at the same time solve the accompanying difficulties.

It is not hard to realize why scientists and technology worshipers like not to divorce on this solution, but alternatively to jump through a dull and uninteresting transition period and land right in the golden age. If we look sober and without romance at the very golden age, we are struck by the incredible naivety of these scientists. For example, they say that they will be able to form and transform people's emotions, desires and thoughts according to their will, and scientifically come to certain effective, pre-established collective decisions. They say that they will be able to make certain collective desires,... to ban people from raising children and even persuade them to quit their possession. At the same time, they talk about ensuring the triumph of freedom and the request to avoid dictatorship at all costs. They seem incapable to grasp the contradiction or knowing that what they propose, even after a transitional period, is actually the strictest of dictatorships. Compared to her, Hitler's dictatorship was trivial. Just due to the fact that it's expected to be a test tube dictatorship, not a pair of shoes, it won't make her any little dictatorship. ...

None of our wise men always asks questions about the intent of all these miracles. "Why" is definitely ignored. The answer that would come to our modern head is: for happiness. Unfortunately, it's not happening anymore.

It will be possible to make an impression of happiness without any real basis. Our man of the golden age will so be able to "luck" in the midst of the worst shortcomings. So why promise us extraordinary comfort, hygiene, cognition and food if by simple manipulation of our tense systems we can be happy without them?

But what's the point of asking questions about motives? About “Why”? This must all be the work of any mediocre intellectual who flaunts himself from method progress. The attitude of scientists is clear anyway.

Technology exists due to the fact that it is technology. The golden age will be due to the fact that it will be.

Any another answer is unnecessary.”

All quotations come from:
J. Ellul, “The technological society” (translated by John Wilkinson), Vintage Books, fresh York [partments in Polish quoted in material were translated by the author of the text]