Jacques Ellul, Technique, Efficiency & Materialism: The Disease of Modern Civilization

Book Review for The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul

I acquired a copy of Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society, translated by John Wilkinson (ISBN: 978-0-394-70390-9), a few months ago. Recently, I finished reading this monumental 473 page critique of technological civilization in its entirety (everything but the bibliography and index). It took me awhile to read it for two reasons: it is rather dull and I was reading it in my spare time (literally sitting in the car before work). The book was extremely interesting but rather dry in presentation. Jacques Ellul is no doubt an intriguing intellectual, but he is fairly lacking in the emotional expression of his personality and it really makes this book a flat read.

That said, I am rather impressed at the scope and depth of his argument against the course of civilization under the direction of blind materialistic efficiency. I am most certainly of the opinion, at this time, that this text is of enormous importance and can be a useful aid in many sociological, anthropological, politically philosophical and idealogical circles.

This book speaks to me because it puts into words some of the things I had noticed and was thinking, but couldn't quite pin down. One of the overarching points which Ellul seems to be getting at is that modern civilization, which has a pervasively materialist worldview, idolizes and gives priority to the value of efficiency, and that materialist based efficiency is cold, calculated, inhuman, and absolutely dangerous and destructive to both human happiness, the value of life, and the ecosystem.

Another major point is that of how man utilizes technique as a tool to ensure his survival, comfort, and evolution through the manipulation of his environment (physical, societal, and psychological) with various techniques. However, in doing so he must adapt to the tool and therefore becomes himself manipulated (physically, socially, and psychologically) by the conditions necessary for the most efficient use of that tool, which ultimately leads to a utilitarian development of personhood directed by massification and materialistic efficiency – man becomes a sort of robotic machine.

In layman's terms and in lay psyche that translates to Jacques Ellul brilliantly defines the coming new world order by examining technique and society. He tells you how the world works, why the world works the way it does, what the various parts of the world system are, some of the methods used within the world system, the historical development of the world system, where this new world system is headed, and even who controls this world system and how much power they have.

Ellul tells us that what are enslaved to the world system: "The 'all' is involved because technique yields results and demands efforts to such a degree that no individual can remain outside. But if technique demands the participation of everybody, this means that the individual is reduced to a few essential functions which make him a mass man. He remains 'free', but he can no longer escape being a part of the mass. Technical expansion requires the widest possible domain. In the near future not even the whole earth may be sufficient." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 207). He tells us how we arrived in this situation and in the same breath hints at how might free ourselves: "But when the natural is intergrated, it ceases to be natural. It becomes part of the technical ensemble. It is an element of the mechanism, an element which must play its role, and no more." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 217). Finally, he tells us who controls and shapes the world order: "...there is a limited elite that understands the secrets of their own techniques, but not necessarily of all techniques. These men are close to the seat of modern governmental power. The state is no longer founded on the 'average citizen', but on the ability and knowledge of this elite. The average man is altogether unable to penetrate technical secrets or governmental organization and consequently can exert no influence at all on the state." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 274). He then concludes: "Technique shapes an aristocratic society, which in turn implies aristocratic government. Democracy in such a society can only be a mere appearance. Even now, we see in propaganda the premises of such a state of affairs. When it comes to state propaganda, there is no longer any question of democracy." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 275)

I found the last statement striking as it was exactly what I had been thinking when I realized that the world order was designed by aristocrats, yet the common person thinks they can somehow have freedom within a system designed specifically by and for aristocracy merely by altering one or two key components (ie. the political or economic system). What ignorance! Such naivety amounts to believing that by replacing the umpire, switching ball fields, changing teams, or introducing a new ball or bat, it will somehow result in something other than a baseball game. It seems to me that if one honestly believes they can be free within a society based upon technique and materialistic efficiency they are either ignorant to reality or blatantly delusional. How can anyone expect to obtain a very human concept (freedom) from mechanized materialistic efficiency (the world system)? How can anyone conclude that a system designed to control will ever provide individual liberty? These are just a few thoughts this book brings to mind.

Now, this is where I may differ from others who happen to agree with Ellul's assessment, as I do. I do not believe technique or technology are themselves harmful to humanity, however I firmly believe that when humanity is excluded from the equation and all technique becomes founded upon materialism and efficiency it is utterly destructive to humankind and will eventually result in the total loss of all which can be described as human. I believe this is the danger which the technological society, as described by Jacques Ellul, presents to us all, and the very cause of this present darkness. The materialistic world view coupled with technological efficiency is a disease of modern civilization and a scourge upon the universe.



All in all, The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul is an excellent book which I feel should be required reading for any conscious person despite its dry presentation. The wealth of useful information which an individual can extract from this book makes it well worth the time and effort of reading this nearly 500 page text.

Sandy Hook, Mass Shootings, and Societal Insanity

I don't really have much to say about the horrific massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary or the recent plague of mass shootings – I just don't. Actions like these are horrible and really are beyond words, but it seems everyone has something to say and some sort of quick fix.

Everyone in our American society is asking “how could this happen?” and they all have their answers and solutions. Well, I don't have a quick fix and I am certainly not gullible enough to place the blame on any one thing. If you ask me the problem is our society and our society, like any society, is complex.

I don't think the problem is guns and I don't think the solution is to ban them – I just don't. Banning all firearms or placing tighter controls on them might stop mass shootings, but in my opinion, you are nuts if you think it will stop mass killings, which is the real problem here. We need to ask what drives individuals to violently lash out against seemingly random individuals?

One might say they are nuts or mentally ill, but what causes that? In my opinion it is our society and its underlying idealogical driving force of strict materialistic efficiency. It is also my opinion that these individuals target random people because they all, and we all, represent and support the organism of our society which is destroying individuals everywhere, ripping their humanity from them, and raping the environment. They are attacking the only physical part of the very thing which is already attacking them every day.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying “we” are the problem, I am saying “it” is the problem – the idea, the invisible organism, the hidden idealogical driving force behind “progress”, and our perspective on what “progress” is. “We” allow “it”, and I would venture to argue that we don't even allow “it” any longer, but are driven by, create by, and created for “it”. And when “it” let's some of “us” down, some individuals either can't cope or they react violently because they lack the very human tool of interdependency which grants them self-respect, integrity, appreciation for all life, and hope, unlike the system of dependency which our society has created and nearly forced all of us into.

I think the problem is our society, in fact, my belief in that is so strong that I prefer to say that I know the problem is our society (and I would venture to say that most are at least suspicious of that fact), and its strict materialistic efficiency is just one of the main roots holding the entire tree in the very bloody ground upon which it stands. Just how to get enough people to see that is the largest problem on my mind...

It is very difficult to love and respect a system that you depend on which does not even recognize your value as any more than a number or statistic – period. Given that very human fact, is it any wonder we have the violence and problems we do within our society? How can you be expected to act human and have emotions and care for others within society if society, of which we are all a part, does not treat you as a human being with emotions and care for what you think and feel? Simply having some “shrink” to talk too and some pills to take is not enough! Actions speak louder than words – we must SHOW we give a damn, and a society based on dependency is, in my opinion, incapable of such.

Now, so far as guns are concerned, this may not sound very “hippie-ish” of me or meet your ideas of “progress”, but I am not against them, which is by the way, very individualist of me (only individuals can have interdependence). It is true that guns are tools designed to kill, but it is not true that all killing is wrong. As the Hidden Song on the Tool album Undertow says, “life feeds on life.” - you must kill to live; therefore, tools designed to do that job quickly, painlessly, and efficiently (particularly with a spiritual approach to efficiency which likely includes care for pain) are not necessarily wicked tools. Personally, if a lion decided to have me for dinner I fear the pain of how it is going to do it more than the idea of being dinner itself.

And the necessity of killing for food is not the only reason tools designed for such purposes should be around – self defense is another very valid reason. The world is dangerous and not simply because of humans! Its a jungle out there and we all know this, unless we are living in la-la land.

Even if you live your life as a strict pacificist and live on nuts and berries you must still destroy what might have been in order to preserve your own life. The only difference when it comes to life under such circumstances is much like the definition of a fetus versus a living human – it is mere semantics. Should your teeth be plucked out and your hands be cut off because they are designed to acquire and consume organic material? Of course not! In other words, we all agree that it is necessary for life to feed on life, but we disagree on what the definition of life (or various levels of life) is, often merely because it makes us “feel” better about ourselves.

My point is that tools designed for taking life are not necessarily evil in themselves, it is how they are used and what ideology is driving the individual who uses it. Most “progressives” (I use that term in quotes because I consider myself a classic liberal who sees nothing “progressive” about our society whatsoever) have no problem with a peace officer carrying a firearm, but they suddenly have a problem when it is an ordinary citizen. Why is that? Where is the interdependency when only the authoritarians are permitted to efficiently and effectively do what we are all entitled (and often required) by nature to do in the first place?

I'm not trying to defend the Second Amendment here or Article 1 Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but rather I am trying to make my point. That point is that it is the body, mind, and spirit of the people using tools, not the tools themselves which are the problem. Blaming the tools is a far too simple and potentially hazardous answer. We are far too willing to give up our rights or even give an inch on them, when our inquiry and understanding of both the problem and the accused right should be examined inside out and upside down if any of our “societal rights” mean anything to us in the first place. Such an inquiry and understanding always begins with a full understanding of life, necessity, society, and a thorough analysis of what “progress” truly is.

I am confident that if people look deeper than the wound (the object) and the causation (the action) they will find both the underlying human condition (the adjective) and the causal force (the noun) which is all predicated on various epistemological assumptions (the philosophical ideology), which is ultimately founded upon metaphysical ideologies (dualism, physicalism, idealism or panpsychism), which is finally founded upon metaphysical assumptions (physicalism versus some sort of theism), which all works its way on down into society, its individual members and its ultimate underlying ideological drive.

In my opinion society has gone mad because it makes insane assumptions which it has twisted around in such a manner as to make the other equally valid assumption (by logic) sound somehow less likely and self-evident. Humanity needs deity (no matter what it believes deity to be) because humanity needs something which transcends it and its condition, and it needs this flowing through every level of its society, lest human greed and selfishness (individual or collective) become humanity's purpose. If you honestly believe nothing transcends your physical make-up and condition (regardless of what some claim) what do you rationally have to turn to as your guiding light besides YOU?

An interdependent society provides what is needed because it makes its deity among many lesser deities “Love” - something which cannot be perceived directly but only inferred (thus it transcends). Of course, then there are metaphysical assumptions concerning the definition of “love”, but then again, that assumes that the only valid criteria of truth is visual, auditory, or “scientifically” observable (as the criteria of materialistic science currently stands) and not the criterion of “feeling”.

As a panpsychist I must say that God is not dead, we only kill God/dess when we kill without necessity, for that is the only true death – to die without being the reason for the continuation of life.

For that matter, a last philosophical note... What of entropy and the expansion of life despite its need to feed on life?

Peace. Alraune