Hubbry Logo
Jacques EllulJacques EllulMain
Open search
Jacques Ellul
Community hub
Jacques Ellul
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Jacques Ellul
Jacques Ellul
Jacques Ellul
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Jacques Ellul (/ɛˈluːl/; French: [ɛlyl]; 6 January 1912 – 19 May 1994) was a French philosopher, sociologist, lay theologian, resistance fighter and professor. Noted as a Christian anarchist, Ellul was a longtime professor of History and the Sociology of Institutions on the Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences at the University of Bordeaux. A prolific writer, he authored more than 60 books and more than 600 articles over his lifetime,[1] many of which discussed propaganda, the impact of technology on society, and the interaction between religion and politics.

The dominant theme of Ellul's work proved to be the threat to human freedom and religion created by modern technology. He did not seek to eliminate modern technology or technique but sought to change our perception of modern technology and technique to that of a tool rather than regulator of the status quo.[2] Among his most influential books are The Technological Society and Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes.

Considered by many a philosopher, Ellul was trained as a sociologist, and approached the question of technology and human action from a dialectical viewpoint. His writings are frequently concerned with the emergence of a technological tyranny over humanity. As a philosopher and theologian, he further explored the religiosity of the technological society. In 2000, the International Jacques Ellul Society was founded by a group of former Ellul students. The society, which includes scholars from a variety of disciplines, is devoted to continuing Ellul's legacy and discussing the contemporary relevance and implications of his work.[3]

Life and influences

[edit]

Jacques Ellul was born in Bordeaux, France, on 6 January 1912, to Marthe Mendes (Protestant; French-Portuguese) and Joseph Ellul (initially an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but then a Voltairian deist by conviction; born in Malta of an Italo-Maltese father and Serb mother). As a teenager he wanted to be a naval officer but his father made him study law. He married Yvette Lensvelt in 1937.[4]

Ellul was educated at the universities of Bordeaux and Paris. In World War II, he was a leader in the French resistance.[5] (For his efforts to save Jews he was awarded the title Righteous among the Nations by Yad Vashem in 2001.[6]) He was a layman in the Reformed Church of France and attained a high position within it as part of the National Council.[7]

Ellul was best friends with Bernard Charbonneau, who was also a writer from the Aquitaine region and a protagonist of the French personalism movement. They met through the Protestant Student Federation during the academic school year of 1929–1930. Both men acknowledged the great influence each had on the other.

By the early 1930s, Ellul's three primary sources of inspiration were Karl Marx, Søren Kierkegaard, and Karl Barth. Ellul was first introduced to the ideas of Karl Marx during an economics lecture course taught by Joseph Benzacar in 1929–30; Ellul studied Marx and became a prolific exegete of his theories. During this same period, he also came across the Christian existentialism of Kierkegaard. According to Ellul, Marx and Kierkegaard were his two greatest influences, and the only two authors whose work he read in its entirety.[8] Also, he considered Karl Barth, who was a leader of the resistance against the German state church in World War II,[9] the greatest theologian of the 20th century.[10] In addition to these intellectual influences, Ellul also said that his father played a great role in his life and considered him his role model.[11]

In large measure, and especially in those of his books concerned with theological matters, Ellul restates the viewpoints held by Barth, whose polar dialectic of the Word of God, in which the Gospel both judges and renews the world, shaped Ellul's theological perspective.[12] In Jacques Ellul: A Systemic Exposition Darrell J. Fasching claimed Ellul believed "That which desacralizes a given reality, itself in turn becomes the new sacred reality".[13]

In 1932, after what he describes as "a very brutal and very sudden conversion", Ellul professed himself a Christian.[14] Ellul believes he was about 17 (1929–30) and spending the summer with some friends in Blanquefort, France. While translating Faust alone in the house, Ellul knew (without seeing or hearing anything) he was in the presence of a something so astounding, so overwhelming, which entered the very center of his being. He jumped on a bike and fled, concluding eventually that he had been in the presence of God. This experience started the conversion process which Ellul said then continued over a period of years thereafter.[15] Although Ellul identified as a Protestant, he was critical of church authority in general because he believed the church dogmas did not place enough emphasis on the teachings of Jesus or Christian scripture.[16]

Ellul was also prominent in the worldwide ecumenical movement, although he later became sharply critical of the movement for what he felt were indiscriminate endorsements of political establishments.[17] Ellul came to like Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,[18] who convinced him that the creation of new institutions from the grass roots level was the best way to create an anarchist society. He stated his view is close to that of anarcho-syndicalism,[19] however the kind of change Ellul wanted was an evolutionary approach by means of a "... Proudhonian socialism ... by transforming the press, the media, and the economic structures ... by means of a federative cooperative approach"[20] that would lead to an Anarchist society based on federation and the Mutualist economics of Proudhon. In regards to Jesus and Anarchism he believed Jesus was not merely a socialist but anarchist and that "anarchism is the fullest and most serious form of socialism".[21]

Ellul has been credited with coining the phrase, "Think globally, act locally."[22] He often said that he was born in Bordeaux by chance, but that it was by choice that he spent almost all his academic career there.[23]

Ellul fell into a deep grief following the 16 April 1991 death of his wife, Yvette.[24] He died three years later, on 19 May 1994 in Pessac.[25]

Thought

[edit]

Theology

[edit]

While Ellul was primarily a sociologist who focused on discussions of technology, he saw his theological work as an essential aspect of his career. He began publishing theological discussions early, with such books as The Presence of the Kingdom (1948).

Although a son of the minority French Reformed tradition and thus a spiritual heir of thinkers like John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, Ellul departed substantially from Reformed doctrinal traditions, but unlike other European Protestant thinkers, utterly rejected the influence of philosophical idealism or romanticism upon his beliefs about God and human faith. In articulating his theological ideas, he mainly drew upon the corpus of works by the Swiss-German theologian Karl Barth and the critiques of European state Christianity made by Dane Søren Kierkegaard. Thus, some have considered him one of the more ardent expositors of dialectical theology,[26] which was in decline elsewhere in the Western theological scene during Ellul's heyday. Much like Barth, Ellul had no use for either liberal theology (to him dominated by Enlightenment notions about the goodness of humanity and thus rendered puerile by its naïveté) or orthodox Protestantism (e.g., fundamentalism or scholastic Calvinism,[27][28] both of which to him refuse to acknowledge the radical freedom of God and humanity) and maintained a roughly un-Catholic[29] view of the Bible, theology, and the churches.

One particular theological movement that aroused his ire was death of God theology. Some within this movement held the conviction that the traditional Christian conceptions of God and humanity arise from a primitive consciousness, one that most civilized people have quite overcome. This line of thought affirmed the ethical teachings of Jesus but rejected the idea that he represented anything more than a highly accomplished human being. Ellul attacked this school, and practitioners of it such as Harvey Cox, as out of accord not with Christian doctrinal traditions, but reality itself, namely what he perceived as the irreducible religiosity of the human race, a devotion that has worshiped idols such as rulers, nations, and in more recent times materialism, scientism, technology and economics. To Ellul, people use such fallen images, or powers, as a substitute for God, and are, in turn, used by them, with no possible appeal to innocence or neutrality, which, although possible theoretically, does not in fact exist. Ellul thus renovates in a non-legalistic manner the traditional Christian understanding of original sin and espouses a thoroughgoing pessimism about human capabilities, a view most sharply evidenced in his The Meaning of the City. Ellul stated that one of the problems with these "new theologies" was:

In consequence of the desire to make the message (kerygma) valid for all, to see all men as in the presence of God, to increase the universality of the lordship of Jesus Christ, to insist on the value of mankind generally (to the detriment of the Christian), to insist on the value of the world (to the detriment of the Church), one comes to the point of denying whatever can only be specifically Christian.[30]

The ultimate purpose of the whole death-of-God system is to justify a certain kind of behavior on the part of Christians in relation to society—a kind of behavior that is dictated by conformism to the modern world. So a justificatory formula is manufactured; and alas, it often turns out that theology merely amounts to a justification of the behavior of pretend-Christians. The theology of the death of God reinforces this evil tendency. It justifies a sociological impulsion. That is the kind of theology it really is, unconsciously. Nor do the marvelous intellectual operations its proponents perform with every appearance of seriousness make it less profoundly false.[31]

Ellul espouses views on salvation, the sovereignty of God, and ethical action that appear to take a deliberately contrarian stance toward established, "mainstream" opinion. For instance, in the book What I Believe, he declared himself to be a Christian Universalist, writing "that all people from the beginning of time are saved by God in Jesus Christ, that they have all been recipients of His grace no matter what they have done."[32] Ellul formulated this stance not from any liberal or humanistic sympathies, but in the main from an extremely high view of God's transcendence, that God is totally free to do what God pleases. Any attempts to modify that freedom from merely human standards of righteousness and justice amount to sin, to putting oneself in God's place, which is precisely what Adam and Eve sought to do in the creation myths in Genesis. This highly unusual juxtaposition of original sin and universal salvation has repelled liberal and conservative critics and commentators alike, who charge that such views amount to antinomianism, denying that God's laws are binding upon human beings. In most of his theologically oriented writings, Ellul effectively dismisses those charges as stemming from a radical confusion between religions as human phenomena and the unique claims of the Christian faith, which are not predicated upon human achievement or moral integrity whatsoever.

In the Bible, however, we find a God who escapes us totally, whom we absolutely cannot influence, or dominate, much less punish; a God who reveals Himself when He wants to reveal Himself, a God who is very often in a place where He is not expected, a God who is truly beyond our grasp. Thus, the human religious feeling is not at all satisfied by this situation... God descends to humanity and joins us where we are.[33]

...the presence of faith in Jesus Christ alters reality. We also believe that hope is in no way an escape into the future, but that it is an active force, now, and that love leads us to a deeper understanding of reality. Love is probably the most realistic possible understanding of our existence. It is not an illusion. On the contrary, it is reality itself.[34]

On technique

[edit]

The Ellulian concept of technique is briefly defined within the "Notes to Reader" section of The Technological Society (1964). It is "the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity."[35] He states here as well that the term technique is not solely machines, technology, or a procedure used to attain an end.

"Jacques Ellul in his house in Pessac, France", The Betrayal by Technology (documentary film; photogram), Amsterdam, NL: ReRun Productions, 1990.

What many consider to be Ellul's most important work, The Technological Society (1964), was originally published in French as La Technique: L'enjeu du siècle (literally, "The Stake of the Century").[36] In it, Ellul set forth seven characteristics of modern technology that make efficiency a necessity: rationality, artificiality, automatism of technical choice, self-augmentation, monism, universalism, and autonomy.[37] The rationality of technique enforces logical and mechanical organization through division of labor, the setting of production standards, etc. And it creates an artificial system which "eliminates or subordinates the natural world."

Regarding technology, instead of it being subservient to humanity, "human beings have to adapt to it, and accept total change."[38] As an example, Ellul offered the diminished value of the humanities to a technological society. As people begin to question the value of learning ancient languages and history, they question those things which, on the surface, do little to advance their financial and technical state. According to Ellul, this misplaced emphasis is one of the problems with modern education, as it produces a situation in which immense stress is placed on information in our schools. The focus in those schools is to prepare young people to enter the world of information, to be able to work with computers but knowing only their reasoning, their language, their combinations, and the connections between them. This movement is invading the whole intellectual domain and also that of conscience.

Ellul's commitment to scrutinize technological development is expressed as such:

[W]hat is at issue here is evaluating the danger of what might happen to our humanity in the present half-century, and distinguishing between what we want to keep and what we are ready to lose, between what we can welcome as legitimate human development and what we should reject with our last ounce of strength as dehumanization. I cannot think that choices of this kind are unimportant.[39]

The sacred then, as classically defined, is the object of both hope and fear, both fascination and dread.[40][41] Once, nature was the all-encompassing environment and power upon which human beings were dependent in life and death, and so was experienced as sacred. The Reformation desacralized the church in the name of the Bible, and the Bible became the sacred book.[42] But since then, scientism (through Charles Darwin's theory of evolution) and reason (higher criticism and liberal theology) have desacralized the scriptures, and the sciences, particularly those applied sciences that are amenable to the aims of collective economic production (be it capitalist, socialist, or communist), have been elevated to the position of sacred in Western culture.[43][44] Today, he argues, the technological society is generally held sacred. Since he defines technique as "the totality of methods rationally arrived at, and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity",[35] it is clear that his sociological analysis focuses not on the society of machines as such, but on the society of "efficient techniques":

Modern technology has become a total phenomenon for civilization, the defining force of a new social order in which efficiency is no longer an option but a necessity imposed on all human activity.[45]

It is useless, he argues, to think that a distinction can be made between technique and its use, for techniques have specific social and psychological consequences independent of human desires. There can be no room for moral considerations in their use:

Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians. In the end, technique has only one principle, efficient ordering.[46]

What is the solution to technique according to Ellul? The solution is to simply view technique as objects that can be useful to us and recognize it for what it is, just another thing among many others, instead of believing in technique for its own sake or that of society. If we do this we "...destroy the basis for the power technique has over humanity."[2]

On anarchy and violence

[edit]

Ellul identified himself as a Christian anarchist. Ellul explained his view in this way: "By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence."[47] And, "... Jesus was not only a socialist but an anarchist – and I want to stress here that I regard anarchism as the fullest and most serious form of socialism."[48] For him, this meant that nation-states, as the primary sources of violence in the modern era, should neither be praised nor feared, but continually questioned and challenged.[49] For Ellul, human government is largely irrelevant in that the revelation of God contained in Scripture is sufficient and exclusive. That is, being a Christian means pledging absolute allegiance to Christ, which makes other laws redundant at best or counter to the revelation of God at worst. Despite the initial attraction of some evangelicals to his thinking because of his high view of Biblical texts (i.e., generally eschewing the historical-critical method), this position alienated some conservative Protestants. Later, he would attract a following among adherents of more ethically compatible traditions such as the Anabaptists and the house church movement. Similar political ideas to Ellul's appear in the writings of a corresponding friend of his, the American William Stringfellow, and long-time admirer Vernard Eller, author of Christian Anarchy. Ellul identified the State and political power as the Beast in the Book of Revelation.[50][51]

Jacques Ellul discusses anarchy on a few pages in The Ethics of Freedom[52] and in more detail within his later work, Anarchy & Christianity.[53] Although he does admit that anarchy does not seem to be a direct expression of Christian freedom, he concludes that the absolute power he sees within the current (as of 1991) nation-state can only be responded to with an absolute negative position (i.e. anarchy). He states that his intention is not to establish an unrealistically pure anarchist society or the total destruction of the state. His initial point in Anarchy & Christianity is that he is led toward a realistic form of anarchy by his commitment to an absolute rejection of violence through the creation of alternative grassroots institutions in the manner similar to Anarcho-Syndicalism.[19] However, Ellul does not entertain the idea that all Christians in all places and all times will refrain from violence. Rather, he insisted that violence could not be reconciled with the God of Love, and thus, true freedom. A Christian that chooses the path of violence must admit that he or she is abandoning the path of freedom and committing to the way of necessity.[54]

During the Spanish Civil War Spanish anarchist friends of Ellul's soon-to-be wife came to France in search of weapons. He tried to get some for them through an old school friend of his and claimed that this was probably the one time in his life when he was sufficiently motivated to commit an act of violence. He did not go with the anarchists primarily because he had only recently met the woman that would become his wife and did not wish to leave her.[55]

Ellul states in The Subversion of Christianity[56] that he thinks "that the biblical teaching is clear. It always contests political power. It incites to 'counterpower,' to 'positive' criticism, to an irreducible dialogue (like that between king and prophet in Israel), to antistatism, to a decentralizing of the relation, to an extreme relativizing of everything political, to an anti-ideology, to a questioning of all that claims either power or dominion (in other words, of all things political), and finally, if we may use a modern term, to a kind of "anarchism" (so long as we do not relate the term to the anarchist teaching of the nineteenth century)."[57] As Patrick Chastenet put it, Ellul is "with god, without master".[58]

Ellul states in Violence that idealism serves to justify the use of violence, including:

  1. revolutionary idealism (viewing violence as a means to an end and/or violence under the mask of legality)
  2. generous idealism (leading to violence toward reconciliation and/or a blindness of the violence of one's enemy)

... there is generous idealism of so many young men who risk imprisonment or death rather than participate in a war they condemn only because they idealize and whitewash their country's enemy. Those young men are heroes and fools both. They are repelled by the violence they see—the massive, enormous violence that cries to heaven. And they are right. But seeing this highly visible violence, they forthwith make lambs, saints, and martyrs of its victims. For they close their eyes to what the enemy is really like, to his cruelty, his violence, his lies. They overlook his real intentions; they overlook the fact that he would use terrible violence if he won power. Poor young men, totally unknowing, uncomprehending, blind, perceiving only what is happening now! So they side with the enemy and countenance the enemy's violence. In France, before the Second World War, a great many people sided with the Nazis. Hadn't the Nazis, out of their generosity, protested against the violence done the Sudeten Germans, the Croats, the Germans of Danzig? Hadn't they declared that they would defend the rights of the poor and the unemployed, the victims exploited by the capitalists? Their admiration of the Nazis cost those people dearly. Again, after the war, many French people sided with communism, 'the party of the poor, the proletariat.' A few years later they were stunned by the declarations of the Twentieth Communist Congress and by Moscow's suppression of the Hungarian revolt. This is the kind of idealism that must be combated and radically condemned."

3. pacifist idealism (beliefs and lifestyles which are only possible within a larger violence-based society)

4. Christian idealism (which is always concerned with the moral goodness of the human world). This leads to concepts of progressiveness and unreserved participation with good conscience in political or scientific action. "In their idyllic world, harshness, torture, and war seem abnormal and almost incomprehensible. But it is only gross, highly visible, undeniable violence that evokes this scandalized reaction. They deny the existence of masked, secret, covert violence—insofar as this can be concealed..."[59]

Ellul's ultimate goal was to create by evolutionary means a "...Proudhonian socialism...by transforming the press, the media, and the economic structures...by means of a federative cooperative approach..."[20] an anarchist society based on federation and the mutualist economics of Proudhon.[20][19]

On justice

[edit]

Ellul believed that social justice and true freedom were incompatible. He rejected any attempt to reconcile them. He believed that a Christian could choose to join a movement for justice, but in doing so, must admit that this fight for justice is necessarily, and at the same time, a fight against all forms of freedom.[60] While social justice provides a guarantee against the risk of bondage, it simultaneously subjects a life to necessities. Ellul believed that when a Christian decides to act it must be in a way that is specifically Christian. "Christians must never identify themselves with this or that political or economic movement. Rather, they must bring to social movements what they alone can provide. Only so can they signalize the kingdom. So far as they act like the others—even to forward social justice, equality, etc.—I say that there is no sense and nothing specifically Christian in acting like the others. In fact the political and revolutionary attitude proper to the Christian is radically different from the attitude of others; it is specifically Christian or else it is nothing."[61]

In Violence Ellul states his belief that only God is able to establish justice and God alone who will institute the kingdom at the end of time. He acknowledges that some have used this as an excuse to do nothing, but also points out how some death-of-God advocates use this to claim that "we ourselves must undertake to establish social justice".[62] Ellul maintained that without a belief in the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God, love and the pursuit for justice becomes selective, for the only relation left is the horizontal one.[63] Ellul asks how we are to define justice and claims that followers of death-of-God theology and/or philosophy clung to Matthew 25 stating that justice requires them to feed the poor. Ellul says that many European Christians rushed into socialist circles (and with this began to accept the movement's tactics of violence, propaganda, etc.) mistakenly thinking socialism would assure justice when in fact it only pursues justice for the chosen and/or interesting poor whose condition (as a victim of capitalism or some other socialist enemy) is consistent with the socialist ideology.[64]: 76–77 

... Jesus Christ has not come to establish social justice any more than he has come to establish the power of the state or the reign of money or art. Jesus Christ has come to save men, and all that matters is that men may come to know him. We are adept at finding reasons—good theological, political, or practical reasons, for camouflaging this. But the real reason is that we let ourselves be impressed and dominated by the forces of the world, by the press, by public opinion, by the political game, by appeals to justice, liberty, peace, the poverty of the third world, and the Christian civilization of the west, all of which play on our inclinations and weaknesses. Modern protestants are in the main prepared to be all things to all men, like St. Paul, but unfortunately this is not in order that they may save some but in order that they may be like all men.[60]: 254–255 

Ellul states in The Subversion of Christianity that "to proclaim the class conflict and the 'classical' revolutionary struggle is to stop at the same point as those who defend their goods and organizations. This may be useful socially but it is not at all Christian in spite of the disconcerting efforts of theologies of revolution. Revelation demands this renunciation—the renunciation of illusions, of historic hopes, of references to our own abilities or numbers or sense of justice. We are to tell people and thus to increase their awareness (the offense of the ruling classes is that of trying to blind and deaden the awareness of those whom they dominate). Renounce everything in order to be everything. Trust in no human means, for God will provide (we cannot say where, when, or how). Have confidence in his Word and not in a rational program. Enter on a way on which you will gradually find answers but with no guaranteed substance. All this is difficult, much more so than recruiting guerillas, instigating terrorism, or stirring up the masses. And this is why the gospel is so intolerable, intolerable to myself as I speak, as I say all this to myself and others, intolerable for readers, who can only shrug their shoulders."[56]

If the disciples had wanted their preaching to be effective, to recruit good people, to move the crowds, to launch a movement, they would have made the message more material. They would have formulated material goals in the economic, social, and political spheres. This would have stirred people up; this would have been the easy way. To declare, however, that the kingdom is not of this world, that freedom is not achieved by revolt, that rebellion serves no purpose, that there neither is nor will be any paradise on earth, that there is no social justice, that the only justice resides in God and comes from him, that we are not to look for responsibility and culpability in others but first in ourselves, all this is to ask for defeat, for it is to say intolerable things.[65]

On media, propaganda, and information

[edit]

Ellul discusses these topics in detail in his landmark work, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. He viewed the power of the media as another example of technology exerting control over human destiny.[66] As a mechanism of change, the media are almost invariably manipulated by special interests, whether of the market or the state.[67]

Also within Propaganda Ellul claims that "it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener; they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic the image".[68] Additionally, people become "caught in a web of facts they have been given. They cannot even form a choice or a judgment in other areas or on other subjects. Thus the mechanisms of modern information induce a sort of hypnosis in the individual, who cannot get out of the field that has been laid out for him by the information".[68] "It is not true that he can choose freely with regard to what is presented to him as the truth. And because rational propaganda thus creates an irrational situation, it remains, above all, propaganda—that is, an inner control over the individual by a social force, which means that it deprives him of himself".[68]

Ellul agreed with Jules Monnerot [fr] who stated that "All individual passion leads to the suppression of all critical judgment with regard to the object of that passion".[69]

The individual who burns with desire for action but does not know what to do is a common type in our society. He wants to act for the sake of justice, peace, progress, but does not know how. If propaganda can show him this 'how' then it has won the game; action will surely follow".[70]

In response to an invitation from Protestant associations, Ellul visited Germany twice (1934 and 1935). On the second visit he attended a Nazi meeting out of curiosity which influenced his later work on propaganda and its ability to unify a group.[71]

"To throw this wager or secular faith into the boldest possible relief, Ellul places it in dialectical contrast with Biblical faith. As a dialectical contrast to "La Technique," for instance, Ellul writes Sans feu ni lieu (published in 1975, although written much earlier.)"[72]

On humanism

[edit]

In explaining the significance of freedom and the purpose for resisting the enslavement of humans via acculturation (or sociological bondage), Ellul rejects the notion that this is due to some supposed supreme importance linked to humanity. He states that modern enslavement expresses how authority, signification, and value are attached to humanity and the beliefs and institutions it creates. This leads to an exaltation of the nation or state, money, technology, art, morality, the party, etc. The work of humanity is glorified and worshiped, while simultaneously enslaving humankind.

... man himself is exalted, and paradoxical though it may seem to be, this means the crushing of man. Man's enslavement is the reverse side of the glory, value, and importance that are ascribed to him. The more a society magnifies human greatness, the more one will see men alienated, enslaved, imprisoned, and tortured, in it. Humanism prepares the ground for the anti-human. We do not say that this is an intellectual paradox. All one need do is read history. Men have never been so oppressed as in societies which set man at the pinnacle of values and exalt his greatness or make him the measure of all things. For in such societies freedom is detached from its purpose, which is, we affirm, the glory of God.[73]

Before God I am a human being... But I am caught in a situation from which there is truly and radically no escape, in a spider's web I cannot break. If I am to continue to be a living human being, someone must come to free me. In other words, God is not trying to humiliate me. What is mortally affronted in this situation is not my humanity or my dignity. It is my pride, the vainglorious declaration that I can do it all myself. This we cannot accept. In our own eyes we have to declare ourselves to be righteous and free. We do not want grace. Fundamentally what we want is self-justification. There thus commences the patient work of reinterpreting revelation so as to make of it a Christianity that will glorify humanity and in which humanity will be able to take credit for its own righteousness.[74]

Bibliography

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Boli-Bennett, John. "The absolute dialectics of Jacques Ellul." Research in Philosophy and Technology 3 (1980): 171–201.
  • Bromiley, Geoffrey W. "Barth’s influence on Jacques Ellul." Jacques Ellul: Interpretive Essays (1981): 32–51.
  • Chastenet Patrick, Introduction à Jacques Ellul, Paris, La Découverte, 2019.
  • Chastenet, Patrick, "Les Racines libertaires de l'écologie politique.", Paris, L'échappée, 2023, p. 29-73.
  • Christians, Clifford G., & Van Hook, Jay M., eds. Jacques Ellul: Interpretive Essays. Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1981.
  • Clendenin, Daniel B. "THEOLOGICAL METHOD IN JACQUES ELLUL." (1986): 3756-3756.
  • Connell, Brian Lindsay (1999). "Interpretation of the law & the laws of interpretation in the work of Jacques Ellul". Global Journal of Classical Theology. 1 (3). ISSN 1521-6055. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
  • Dawn, Marva Jenine. "The concept of 'the principalities and powers' in the works of Jacques Ellul." (1993): 0533-0533.
  • Dawn, Marva Jenine "The Biblical Concept of ‘the Principalities and Powers’: John Yoder Points to Jacques Ellul." The Wisdom of the Cross: Essays in Honor of John Howard Yoder: 168-86.
  • Driscoll, Cathy, and Elden Wiebe. "Technical spirituality at work: Jacques Ellul on workplace spirituality." Journal of Management Inquiry 16.4 (2007): 333–348.
  • Eller, Vernard, “How Jacques Ellul Reads the Bible,” Christian Century 89 (1972): 1212–1215.
  • Ellul, Jacques, and Madeleine Garrigou-Lagrange. In season, out of season: an introduction to the thought of Jacques Ellul. Harper San Francisco, 1982.
  • Fasching, Darrell J. The thought of Jacques Ellul: A systematic exposition. Vol. 7. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1981.
  • Fasching, Darrell J. "The Dialectic of Apocalypse and Utopia in the Theological Ethics of Jacques Ellul." Research in Philosophy and Technology 10 (1990): 149–165.
  • Fowler, James. "A synopsis and analysis of the thought and writings of Jacques Ellul." (2012).
  • Gill, David W., "Jacques Ellul’s View of Scripture." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25 (1982).
  • Gill, David W. "The word of God in the ethics of Jacques Ellul." (1984).
  • Goddard, Andrew (2002), Living the Word, Resisting the World: The Life and Thought of Jacques Ellul, Paternoster Press.
  • Gozzi Jr, Raymond. "Jacques Ellul on technique, media, and the spirit." Atlantic Journal of Communication 8.1 (2000): 79–90.
  • Graham, George J. "Jacques Ellul-Prophetic or Apocalyptic Theologian of Technology?." The Political Science Reviewer 13 (1983): 213.
  • Greenman, Jeffrey P., Read Mercer Schuchardt, and Noah J. Toly. Understanding Jacques Ellul. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.
  • Holloway, James Y., ed. Introducing Jacques Ellul. Eerdmans, 1970.
  • Hope, Samuel. "Homage to Jacques Ellul." Arts Education Policy Review 97.5 (1996): 38–39.
  • Jerónimo, Helena M., and Carl Mitcham. Jacques Ellul and the technological society in the 21st century. Ed. José Luís Garcia. Springer, 2013.
  • Lasch, Christopher (1973). "The Social Thought of Jacques Ellul". The World of Nations: Reflections on American History, Politics, and Culture. New York, NY: Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-48394-8. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
  • Lovekin, David. "Jacques Ellul and the logic of technology." Man and World 10.3 (1977): 251–272.
  • Lovekin, David. Technique, discourse, and consciousness: An introduction to the philosophy of Jacques Ellul. Lehigh University Press, 1991.
  • Menninger, David C. "Jacques Ellul: A tempered profile." The Review of Politics 37.2 (1975): 235–246.
  • Menninger, David C. "Marx in the Social Thought of Jacques Ellul.”." Jacques Ellul: Interpretive Essays (1981): 17-32.
  • Menninger, David. "Politics or technique? A defense of Jacques Ellul." Polity 14.1 (1981): 110–127.
  • Mitcham, Carl. "Thinking Through Technology." The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
  • Pattillo, Matthew. "Violence, Anarchy, and Scripture: Jacques Ellul and René Girard." Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 11.1 (2004): 25–54.
  • Pizza, Cesare (2017), Jacques Ellul: un profeta di sventure, Roma, ISBN 9788892321663
  • Punzo, Vincent. "Jacques Ellul on the technical system and the challenge of Christian hope." Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. Vol. 70. 1996.
  • Ray, Ronald R., “Jacques Ellul’s Innocent Notes on Hermeneutics,” Interpretation 33 (1979): 268–282.
  • Roy, Christian. "Ecological Personalism: The Bordeaux School of Bernard Charbonneau and Jacques Ellul»." Ethical perspectives 6.1 (1999): 33-45.2014 -
  • Shaw, Jeffrey M. Illusions of Freedom: Thomas Merton and Jacques Ellul on Technology and the Human Condition. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. ISBN 978-1625640581.
  • Sklair, Leslie. "The Sociology of the Opposition to Science and Technology: With Special Reference to the Work of Jacques Ellul." Comparative Studies in Society and History 13.2 (1971): 217–235.
  • Terlizzese, Lawrence J. Hope in the thought of Jacques Ellul. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.
  • Troup, Calvin L. "Include the Iconoclast: The Voice of Jacques Ellul in Contemporary Theory and Criticism." Journal of Communication & Religion 21.1 (1998).
  • Vanderburg, Willem H. "Technique and Responsibility: Think Globally, Act Locally, According to Jacques Ellul." Technology and Responsibility. Springer Netherlands, 1987. 115–132.
  • Vanderburg, Willem H. "The Essential Connection Between the Two Parts of the Work of Jacques Ellul." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24.6 (2004): 534–547.
  • Van Vleet, Jacob E. Dialectical Theology and Jacques Ellul: An Introductory Exposition. Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 2014.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Jacques Ellul

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Jacques Ellul (January 6, 1912 – May 23, 1994) was a French sociologist, historian, lay theologian, and professor of law, history, and sociology at the University of Bordeaux, renowned for his incisive critiques of technology's encroachment on human freedom and the mechanisms of mass propaganda in shaping modern societies. A prolific writer, he produced over 50 books and more than 1,000 articles between 1936 and 1994, drawing on sociological analysis, biblical theology, and first-hand experience to expose how rationalized systems—rather than ideology or economics—drive contemporary dehumanization. Ellul's landmark (originally published in French as La Technique ou l'Enjeu du Siècle in 1954) posited that "technique"—defined not merely as tools but as the totality of efficient methods and procedures—operates as an autonomous, self-reinforcing force, optimizing all aspects of life while eroding ethical and spiritual dimensions in favor of measurable outcomes. This framework extended to his analysis in Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1962), where he described as an inevitable byproduct of industrialized, urbanized life, conditioning individuals through continuous psychological integration rather than crude , thus preempting genuine or . Ellul rejected both Marxist and liberal optimism about progress, arguing that technique transcends political systems, compelling even adversaries like and into convergence under its imperative for expansion and control. During , Ellul actively participated in the from 1940 to 1945, forging false identity papers and facilitating escapes for , Spanish republicans, Poles, and others targeted by Nazi occupation, often through Protestant networks in and rural areas near the . For these efforts, he was posthumously honored in 2001 with the title by , Israel's memorial authority. His wartime experiences informed a lifelong commitment to and decentralized community, blending with sociological realism, though his warnings about technique's totalitarian logic drew limited mainstream academic embrace amid postwar enthusiasm for technological advancement.

Early Life and Formative Influences

Birth, Family, and Upbringing

Jacques Ellul was born on January 6, 1912, in , , as the only child of Joseph Ellul and Marthe Mendes. His father, Joseph, operated as a hardware merchant in after his family's migration from to the region of ; Ellul later described him as a Piedmontese by origin, reflecting a culturally diverse lineage that included Maltese roots. His mother, Marthe, was born in to a French mother and father, and she adhered to , which shaped the household's religious environment despite Joseph's deist inclinations. The family's circumstances deteriorated financially during Ellul's adolescence; by age fifteen, impoverishment forced him to take employment to sustain his parents while he persisted in his studies, an experience that instilled early habits of self-reliance amid material scarcity. This period of economic strain, coupled with his isolated upbringing in a modest bourgeois setting, directed Ellul toward voracious reading and introspection, laying groundwork for his later intellectual pursuits without formal privileges or extensive social networks.

Educational Background and Early Intellectual Shifts

Ellul received his early education in Bordeaux, excelling in Latin, French, German, and history at the Lycée Montaigne (now Lycée Montesquieu). He obtained his baccalauréat, the French college preparatory diploma, in 1929 at age seventeen. Following this, Ellul enrolled at the University of Bordeaux's Faculty of Law, where he pursued studies in law, history, and sociology. He earned a doctorate in law in 1936, with a thesis titled "The History and Legal Nature of the Mancipium," and later passed the agrégation examination in Roman law and the history of law in 1943. During his university years, Ellul encountered Marxist ideas through an economics course in 1929–1930 and explored , becoming committed to it around age nineteen. However, he deemed inadequate for resolving deeper existential concerns. This phase marked an initial ideological orientation toward leftist thought, influenced by the intellectual climate of . A pivotal shift occurred with Ellul's religious awakening: on August 10, 1930, he reported a vision of , initiating a gradual development of Christian faith despite no prior religious upbringing—his father was a Voltairian agnostic and his mother nominally Protestant. By 1932, during his studies, Ellul underwent a , prompted by reading in the , which led him to join the and reject 's sufficiency. This transition integrated biblical theology with social critique, foreshadowing his later dialectical approach to modernity, though he continued engaging thinkers like .

Professional Career and Civic Engagement

Academic Roles and Teaching

Ellul commenced his teaching career after earning his doctorate in law from the in 1936. He first served as a at the from 1937 to 1938. In 1938, he was appointed professor of law at the , where he taught until 1939. World War II interrupted his early academic trajectory, but in 1943, following success in the examination for and the history of , Ellul secured a professorship at the Faculty of Law of the . He remained at for the duration of his career, lecturing on the history and of institutions within the Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences, as well as at the university's Institute of Political Studies, until retiring in 1980 as professor emeritus. His courses emphasized critical examinations of the technological society, mechanisms of propaganda, and analyses of Marxist ideology, often drawing from his broader sociological and theological inquiries.

World War II Resistance and Post-War Activism

During , Jacques Ellul participated in the , operating primarily in Martres, approximately 40 kilometers from , and in itself from 1940 to 1945. After being dismissed from his academic position by the regime in 1940, he supported his family through farming while engaging in underground activities. Ellul collaborated with a network of Protestant friends in the region to aid Spanish republicans, resisters, Poles, Russians, and especially . His efforts included forging false identity papers, warning Jewish families of imminent Nazi arrests, and facilitating their escape to the free zone or safe havens with Protestant families in or the . These non-violent actions focused on and rather than direct confrontation, aligning with his later theological reflections on violence. For these contributions, Ellul was posthumously recognized as one of the "" by in 2001. Following the war's end in , Ellul extended his commitment to social and ethical causes through various activist roles. He briefly served in 's municipal delegation from October 31, 1944, to April 28, 1945, under administrators Gaston Cusin and Fernand Audeguil, contributing to local governance during the transition period. From 1946 to 1955, he directed a cinema club in aimed at educating students on critical analysis of . In the and , Ellul co-founded initiatives for juvenile delinquents, including a club with Yves Charrier that operated from 1958 to 1977, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment. Ellul's post-war activism increasingly emphasized non-violence and , particularly in opposition to . In the 1970s, he advocated for conscientious objectors and draft resisters, testifying on their behalf in Bordeaux's military tribunals. His writings, such as Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (1972), critiqued state-sanctioned violence while defending limited, non-violent resistance, influencing thought without endorsing absolute . Environmentally, from 1972 to 1982, he co-founded the Comité de Défense de la Côte to protect regional ecosystems and contributed to ECOROPA and a 1979 environmental . These efforts reflected his broader critique of technical and propagandistic domination, prioritizing human-scale action and ethical dissent.

Political and Local Involvement

Following the in 1944, Ellul served as deputy mayor of from 1944 to 1946, assisting in the city's administration under mayor . In this role, he engaged directly with municipal governance, though he soon concluded that such political positions offered limited efficacy for meaningful societal transformation. This brief tenure marked his primary formal involvement in electoral politics, after which he largely eschewed party affiliations and higher-level political ambitions. Ellul's subsequent commitments emphasized localized civic and communal initiatives rather than institutionalized power structures. From 1946 to 1955, he directed a cinema club in aimed at students, fostering cultural engagement and discussion. In , a suburb of where he resided from the post-war period onward, Ellul organized monthly Protestant services in his home and co-founded one of the region's first youth clubs with Yves Charrier, promoting ethical and social formation among young people. These efforts reflected his adherence to the principle of "," prioritizing grassroots presence over abstract ideological pursuits. Throughout his life, Ellul sustained involvement in a range of religious and civic enterprises in the area, including parish work within the French Reformed Church, underscoring his preference for personalist, decentralized action as a counter to technocratic centralization. Despite his critiques of political illusion and the inefficacy of electoral mechanisms, these local engagements demonstrated a consistent commitment to witnessing ethical alternatives within everyday community life.

Critique of Modern Technique

Definition and Autonomy of Technique

Jacques Ellul defined technique as "the totality of methods, rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for the circumstances) in every field of activity, be it physical, political, psychological, or intellectual." This concept extends beyond mere machinery or tools to encompass any organized procedure—whether in production, , , or —that prioritizes measurable optimization and rational control over traditional, value-laden approaches. In (originally published in French as La Technique ou l'Enjeu du Siècle in 1954), Ellul emphasized that technique operates through a logic of necessity, where means are selected solely for their capacity to achieve ends with minimal waste, irrespective of broader or ethical considerations. He contrasted this with pre-modern methods, which were often artisanal, intuitive, or subordinated to moral norms, arguing that technique's rise marked a qualitative shift toward universal rationalization. The of technique refers to its self-directing nature, whereby it evolves into a closed, self-augmenting that imposes its imperatives on rather than serving directives. Ellul contended that technique gained independence in the early-to-mid-20th century, becoming a "milieu technique" that integrates all sectors of under its , rendering it uncontrollable by external values like , , or . Once embedded, technique self-perpetuates through feedback loops: innovations beget further necessities for , as seen in the inevitable expansion from to , where initial adoptions (e.g., assembly lines in industry post-1910s) compel systemic overhauls without regard for proportionality. This manifests in technique's rejection of ends-means distinctions; becomes the sole end, subordinating agency to procedural imperatives and creating a deterministic trajectory that Ellul described as "unchecked" by the mid-20th century. He illustrated this through examples like bureaucratic rationalization in state administration, where administrative techniques proliferate autonomously, dictating policy forms over substantive goals. Ellul's analysis underscores technique's four key traits—autonomy, self-augmentation, universality, and totalization—which collectively form a technical system resistant to dialectical reversal or human intervention. Unlike earlier technologies tied to specific crafts, modern technique universalizes efficiency across domains, from Taylorist in factories (introduced around 1911) to psychological conditioning in , ensuring no sphere escapes its logic. This , Ellul argued, arises from technique's internal rationality, which deems any inefficiency as intolerable, thereby generating an imperative for endless expansion—evident in post-World War II where quantitative growth metrics overrode qualitative human needs. Critics of Ellul's framework have noted its breadth might overgeneralize, yet he maintained that empirical observation of industrial societies confirms technique's self-sufficiency, as human attempts to "humanize" it (e.g., via ethical regulations) are co-opted into further technical refinements.

Consequences for Freedom and Human Agency

Ellul maintained that the autonomy of technique inexorably erodes human freedom by imposing technical necessity as the overriding principle of action, supplanting , ethical, or voluntary with imperatives of and optimization. In this framework, technique—defined as the ensemble of rational methods oriented toward maximal effectiveness—operates independently of human intent once initiated, compelling societies and individuals to conform to its logic rather than shaping it to human ends. As a result, choices previously grounded in personal judgment or communal values become illusory, dictated instead by what the prevailing technical apparatus deems feasible or required, such as algorithmic in or automated processes in labor that prioritize output over worker . This subordination manifests in the progressive integration of humans into the technical milieu, where individual agency dissolves into to systemic demands. Ellul described humans as reduced to "objects" within technique's domain, their capacities harnessed and fragmented to serve the self-augmenting cycle of innovation and application, evident in post-1950s industrial expansions where assembly-line rationalization and later digital surveillance normalized conformity over initiative. , for Ellul, requires the capacity for non-determined action, yet technique's relentless expansion—self-perpetuating through feedback loops of progress—forecloses alternatives, fostering a "technical slavery" in which resistance appears irrational or inefficient. Empirical parallels include the 20th-century shift from crafts to mechanized production, where workers' skill-based yielded to standardized protocols, a pattern Ellul traced to broader societal by the mid-20th century. Consequently, human agency atrophies as technique reorients purpose from to functional utility, rendering individuals passive executors rather than sovereign actors. Ellul contended that this dynamic permeates , , and daily life, where even purported liberatory technologies—such as promising —entrench dependency, as seen in the post-World War II economic booms that correlated with rising bureaucratization and diminished personal economic independence. While some interpreters, drawing from Ellul's dialectical , note a residual space for transcendent , the core consequence remains a causal inversion: technique, not humanity, becomes , with surviving only as dialectical tension against inevitable encroachments.

Empirical Evidence from Industrial and Post-Industrial Eras

In the industrial era, the implementation of Taylorism, formalized by in his 1911 book Principles of Scientific Management, exemplified technique's drive toward efficiency at the expense of human agency. Workers' tasks were fragmented into repetitive, deskilled motions, with time-motion studies dictating optimal performance; for instance, at in 1901, Taylor's methods increased loading from 12.5 to 47.5 tons per man per day, but reduced laborers to devoid of decision-making. This standardization eroded craft autonomy, as evidenced by widespread worker alienation reported in early 20th-century labor surveys, where repetitive assembly-line work under —introduced by in 1913 for the Model T—correlated with high turnover rates exceeding 370% annually at Ford's Highland Park plant before the $5 daily wage incentive. 's model prioritized throughput over individual variance, compelling workers to conform to machine paces, thereby subordinating human rhythms to technical imperatives. Fordist expansion during the further entrenched technique's autonomy, as seen in the U.S. auto industry's growth: by 1929, automobile production reached 4.4 million units annually, reliant on conveyor systems that eliminated worker and fostered dependency on corporate oversight. Empirical labor from the era indicate that such systems amplified managerial control, with strikes like the 1936-1937 Flint sit-downs reflecting resistance to technique-imposed uniformity, yet ultimately yielding to union contracts that preserved technical hierarchies rather than restoring agency. Technique's self-reinforcing logic manifested in global diffusion, where similar models in and post-1945 standardized industrial output, correlating with declining artisan traditions; for example, British textile mills transitioned from skilled to automated looms by , displacing independent weavers and integrating labor into metrics. In the post-industrial era, automation's proliferation has intensified technique's erosion of agency, with robots and algorithms assuming roles once held by humans. U.S. data show that between 1990 and 2019, employment fell from 17.2 million to 12.8 million jobs, partly due to displacing routine tasks; a 2022 analysis estimates 9-47% of jobs remain automatable, disproportionately affecting low-skill workers whose decision latitude diminishes under algorithmic supervision. projections indicate AI could automate tasks equivalent to 300 million full-time jobs globally by 2030, fostering dependency on reskilling programs that themselves prioritize technical adaptability over autonomous choice. This shift manifests in gig economies, where platforms like enforce algorithmic rating systems; a 2018 study found drivers' earnings and constrained by and geofencing, reducing personal to compliance with opaque technical rules. Surveillance technologies in post-industrial societies further exemplify technique's imperative for total oversight, curtailing privacy and self-determination. By 2022, over 1 billion surveillance cameras operated worldwide, with U.S. public spaces featuring one per 4.5 residents, enabling predictive policing that preempts individual actions based on data patterns rather than intent. Pew Research surveys from 2015 reveal 93% of Americans perceive constant digital tracking, leading to self-censorship in 25% of respondents who avoid online expression due to perceived monitoring, a "chilling effect" substantiated by behavioral modifications in surveilled environments. Tools like Pegasus spyware, deployed since 2016, transform smartphones into perpetual surveillance nodes, infiltrating devices of journalists and activists without consent, as documented in Amnesty International reports, thereby inverting agency from user control to technical domination. These developments align with Ellul's thesis of technique's inevitability, as privacy-eroding systems proliferate under efficiency rationales, with regulatory responses often co-opted into further technical frameworks like data protection algorithms.

Analysis of Propaganda and Media

Mechanisms of Sociological Propaganda

In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965), Jacques Ellul delineates sociological propaganda as a diffuse, continuous process that integrates individuals into the collective norms and psychological climate of a society, fostering conformity to a specific "way of life" such as the American or Communist models, rather than targeting discrete opinions or actions. Unlike political propaganda, which pursues immediate, vertical objectives like electoral mobilization or ideological agitation through direct appeals (e.g., Nazi or Stalinist campaigns), sociological propaganda operates horizontally and gradually, often unconsciously at inception, to adapt people to existing economic, political, and social structures over extended periods. This form emerges in technological societies where overt coercion yields to subtle conditioning, exploiting pre-propaganda—foundational attitudes shaped by education and information—to render populations receptive without deliberate intent. Ellul identifies core mechanisms through which sociological propaganda functions: it modifies the psychological environment to instill standardized attitudes, creating a "fully established structure" aligned with societal normalcy, while fulfilling illusory needs for coherence, , and self-assertion amid modern isolation and complexity. By leveraging myths (e.g., or ), repetition, and , it penetrates daily life to erode critical judgment, transforming complex ideologies—like —into simplified, adaptable reflexes that prioritize collective integration over individual reflection. The process exploits to weaken personal defenses, channeling mass toward ; it can generate tension for or dissipate it for stability, ultimately producing self-justifying adherents who view deviance as abnormal. This occurs not via isolated but through total immersion, where becomes "the true remedy for " by offering communal myths and hatred objects that legitimize behavior. Instruments of sociological propaganda encompass all channels of and , including press, radio, television, films, , , and systems, which surround individuals in a perpetual, non-reflective atmosphere. Personal contacts, organized groups (e.g., peasant unions), and cultural exports—such as U.S. films under the —amplify this by embedding societal values horizontally, often bypassing formal hierarchies. Techniques involve small-group facilitation for "conscious adherence" (e.g., Maoist cells of 15-20 members), emotional shocks via contradictory messaging, and simplification of scripts in to crystallize opinions aligned with the "correct line." , legal frameworks, and opinion surveys further channel responses, ensuring policies appear rooted in , as in French military campaigns against the European Defense Community in 1954. Psychologically, it targets the "average mass" with minimal culture and relative security, conditioning reflexes to address needs for explanation and , while reducing ideologies to operable forms that sustain technical order. In stable societies, it reinforces passivity; in expanding ones, it drives participation, often partitioning society into in-groups via superiority myths. Ellul warns that this total system leaves no external reference, fostering alienation where individuals obey collective impulses over innate inclinations, ultimately standardizing a "" type adaptable to propaganda's demands. Empirical instances illustrate these mechanisms: American films inadvertently propagated the "American Way of Life" globally post-World War II; Japan's 1948-1954 campaigns halved birth rates from 34.3 to 20 per 1,000 through normalized norms; and Soviet Five-Year Plans integrated workers via productivity myths tied to communal identity. In colonial contexts, it bolstered self-assertion among declining powers, while efforts in the 4th, 9th, and 17th centuries debased doctrine into unifying behaviors, demonstrating propaganda's capacity to reshape even sacred elements for social cohesion.

Role in Maintaining Technical Order

Ellul contended that sociological propaganda plays a pivotal role in perpetuating the technical order by integrating individuals into through subtle, pervasive influences rather than overt political directives. Unlike agitation-oriented propaganda, which incites immediate action, sociological fosters long-term adaptation by molding unconscious habits and attitudes via , , , and cultural norms, ensuring conformity to technical efficiency and rationalization. In this process, it creates a psychological climate that aligns public behavior with the system's imperatives, making appear natural and desirable while preempting alienation or dissent. This mechanism operates by reinforcing societal myths—such as inevitable , the sanctity of , and the value of standardized work—which underpin the autonomy of technique. Ellul emphasized that sociological propaganda "produces a progressive adaptation to a certain order of things, a certain concept of human relations, which unconsciously molds individuals and makes them conform to society," thereby sustaining the technical milieu's expansion without requiring constant coercion. It standardizes thought patterns, restricts critical judgment, and leverages to elicit conditioned responses, transforming diverse populations into a unified mass suited to industrial and post-industrial demands. For instance, in democratic and totalitarian regimes alike, it justifies sacrifices like prolonged labor or resource allocation by framing them as collective necessities, thus stabilizing the system against internal disruptions. Ultimately, propaganda's indispensability stems from the technical society's inherent complexity, where unaided individuals cannot navigate or sustain its operations. Ellul argued that it "is the inevitable result of the various components of the , and plays so central a role in the life of that society that no economic or political development can take place without the influence of its ," effectively subordinating human agency to . By occupying the entirety of social life, it prevents the emergence of alternative values, ensuring the technical order's self-perpetuation through voluntary adherence rather than mere . This integration, however, comes at the cost of individuality, as propaganda "strips the individual, robs him of part of himself, and makes him live an alien and ."

Distinctions from Agitation and Political Indoctrination

Ellul differentiated from the integration propaganda dominant in modern technical societies, noting that the former incites immediate, disruptive action by arousing emotions such as , , and to mobilize masses against the status quo. Agitation propaganda employs simple, direct techniques like slogans, public meetings, posters, and speeches to plunge individuals out of their routine lives into enthusiasm and collective adventure, often targeting discontented or uncultured groups such as peasants in revolutionary contexts. Historical examples include Leninist campaigns, Hitler's mobilization efforts, and Maoist initiatives like the , where agitators exemplified sacrifice to provoke explosive movements through conditioned reflexes and staged goals. In contrast, integration propaganda sustains the existing order by fostering long-term , using pervasive media, , and psychological conditioning to embed individuals within societal structures without overt disruption. This integration form prevails in industrialized nations, where it reduces tensions and promotes adjustment to technical imperatives, targeting stable, educated populations through complex channels like films and interpersonal contacts to create a sense of normalcy and participation. Ellul emphasized that agitation's short-term, subversive intensity—aimed at rebellion or war—contrasts sharply with integration's stabilizing, continuous operation, which aligns attitudes preconsciously to maintain efficiency and unity in mass societies. Whereas agitation exploits myths to unleash conflict, integration propaganda channels existing needs into acceptance of authority symbols, ensuring individuals feel integrated rather than alienated. Ellul further distinguished his conception of propaganda from political , which involves systematic imposition of doctrines or beliefs through and coherent ideological training, often risking intellectual divergence or resistance. , by contrast, prioritizes provoking action over modifying ideas, relying on psychological techniques, myths, and to form attitudes irrationally and totalistically, without presupposing deep conviction in any . As Ellul stated, "The aim of modern is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action; it is no longer to change adherence to a , but to make the cling irrationally to a process of action." Political , evident in structured programs like Soviet post-1930 political or Mao's efforts, focuses on or intellectual shaping and can falter without 's broader environmental control. Thus, while channels reasoned acceptance, exploits exact facts and needs to bypass , rendering it more effective in technological contexts where total exposure prevents escape.

Theological and Ethical Dimensions

Integration of Dialectical Theology

Ellul's engagement with dialectical theology stemmed from his exposure to Karl Barth's early writings, particularly the 1919 commentary on The Epistle to the Romans, which emphasized God's radical transcendence and the dialectical tension between divine revelation and human finitude. This framework rejected natural theology's reliance on human reason or cultural progress, instead positing a "wholly other" God whose word disrupts worldly systems through sovereign freedom. Ellul, who deepened his Reformed faith amid the rise of , integrated this into his thought by the late 1940s, viewing it as essential for countering modern idolatries like technique and state power. Central to Ellul's integration was the of necessity and freedom: the former characterizing autonomous human orders—such as technological efficiency or propaganda mechanisms—governed by impersonal laws and inevitability, while the latter resides solely in God's unpredictable intervention via Scripture and the presence of Christ. In works like The Presence of the Kingdom (1948), Ellul argued that Christians must live in this tension, rejecting resolution through synthesis or progressivist optimism, as dialectical theology demands perpetual opposition rather than reconciliation on human terms. This approach, drawn from Barth's emphasis on God's "No" to the world alongside divine "Yes" in Christ, enabled Ellul to affirm historical reality's opacity—evident in empirical data like the mechanization of labor post-World War II—without descending into despair, since irrupts dialectically through faith alone. Ellul extended this dialectic to ethical dimensions, insisting that theological truth emerges not from abstract principles but from concrete engagement with Scripture's paradoxes, such as the simultaneity of God's hiddenness and manifestation. Unlike Barth's more ecclesial focus, Ellul applied it sociologically, critiquing how modern institutions embody necessity's totalizing logic, yet countered by personal responsibility under God's word—a method he defended through exegesis of biblical history, where divine action consistently subverts human constructs. This integration avoided reducing theology to philosophy, maintaining Barthian primacy of revelation while illuminating Ellul's analyses of technique as a "spiritual project" dialectically opposed by Christ's non-coercive presence. Critics noting Ellul's apparent pessimism often overlook this dialectical balance, which Van Vleet describes as the "skeleton key" unifying his oeuvre against fatalistic misreadings.

Christian Anarchism and Rejection of State Power

Ellul's posits that biblical revelation demands a radical refusal of all coercive political authority, viewing the state as an idolatrous institution that usurps divine sovereignty. In Anarchy and Christianity (1988), he contends that the Hebrew prophets consistently opposed royal power, interpreting passages like 1 Samuel 8—where warns against establishing a —as a scriptural of centralized human rule, which inevitably leads to exploitation and . This rejection stems from a theological understanding of as liberator rather than imposer of order, contrasting with secular governance that relies on constraint and hierarchy. Ellul equated the state with the Beast of Revelation 13, attributing its "all authority and power over every tribe" to satanic origins, as exemplified by Jesus' rejection of the devil's offer of worldly kingdoms in Matthew 4:8–10. He argued that Christian participation in political structures—such as voting, party politics, or lobbying—amounts to complicity in this idolatry, advocating instead for non-conformist communities that prioritize personal responsibility and grassroots mutual aid over institutional power. This stance distinguishes his anarchism from secular variants by grounding it in faith, not utopian social engineering, and by dismissing the feasibility of a stateless society through human effort alone, given innate tendencies toward disorder. Central to Ellul's framework is the renunciation of violence as a means of resistance, drawing on ' declaration in Matthew 26:52 that "all who take the sword will perish by the sword," which he saw as mandating nonviolent of rather than overthrow. He critiqued the corrupting trajectory of power, noting its expansion beyond administrative functions into total domination, and urged to avoid entanglement with state mechanisms, interpreting not as endorsement of but as pragmatic submission to flawed realities while subverting them through ethical non-power. This ethic fosters liberation through voluntary associations, echoing prophetic calls against kings and emphasizing marginal existence as faithful witness against technical-political orders.

Ethics of Non-Power and Personal Responsibility

Ellul contended that in a technical society, where and necessity dictate action, any attempt to align with power inevitably subordinates judgment to , rendering it ineffective against the autonomous advance of technique. True , he argued, must emerge from a position of non-power, characterized by deliberate self-limitation and refusal to exploit the full spectrum of technical means available. This approach rejects the illusion that power over means confers freedom, asserting instead that such control enslaves individuals to technical imperatives. By voluntarily agreeing "not to do all he is capable of," the individual disrupts the chain of necessity, reclaiming agency through restraint rather than expansion. Central to this ethic is the promotion of via conflict and transgression, where conflict introduces vital tension against technique's homogenizing tendencies, preventing social stagnation, and transgression targets the myths of technical progress itself, such as the of efficiency over human ends. Ellul distinguished this from mere deviance or , emphasizing that effective transgression confronts the reality of technique directly, reducing its dominance by diminishing reliance on its tools in everyday choices—like limiting personal use of automobiles or machinery to avoid over-dependence. This framework aligns with his broader theological commitments, where non-power mirrors the Christian posture of weakness and reliance on over institutional authority, fostering an rooted in relational rather than coercive structures. Personal responsibility forms the cornerstone of Ellul's non-power ethic, demanding that individuals assume accountability for their actions amid technical alienation, rather than delegating moral burdens to experts, systems, or collective mechanisms. In The Ethics of Freedom (1976), he framed this responsibility dialectically, drawing on like and to guide conduct, where personal conversion precedes any communal or revolutionary change. This insistence counters the dilution of individual agency in modern societies, where technique fosters and excuses irresponsibility through specialized roles; instead, Ellul urged proactive resistance through informed, conscientious decisions that prioritize human dignity and limits over unbounded . Such responsibility, he maintained, is not abstract but enacted in concrete refusals, enabling genuine freedom amid pervasive .

Views on Justice, Humanism, and Society

Dialectical Justice Beyond Legalism

Ellul viewed not as a static application of legal codes but as a dialectical process involving perpetual tension between necessity—manifested in technical efficiency, state-imposed order, and rigid rules—and derived from encounter with God's Word. This approach, influenced by Karl Barth's dialectical theology, rejects synthesis in human institutions, insisting instead on unresolved contradiction until eschatological fulfillment in Christ, where grace reconciles opposites without coercion. In works like The Ethics of Freedom (1975), he emphasized that emerges through personal responsibility and with , countering the deterministic necessities of modern . Legalism, for Ellul, represents a perversion of by subordinating it to power structures, such as the state or religious institutions, which prioritize enforceable norms over relational . In The Theological Foundation of Law (1969), he critiqued "oracular legalism" rooted in rigid biblicism, arguing it imposes human fixity on divine freedom and fails to address concrete human contradictions. Legal systems, he contended, derive legitimacy only secondarily from theology, serving as provisional tools against chaos but inevitably corrupted by technique's demand for uniformity and control, as seen in states violating their own laws during crises like war. Beyond legalism, Ellul's demands nonviolent witness and liberation from necessity, grounded in Christ's example of freely choosing God's will over institutional power. , he wrote, should heed scriptural without legalistic force, allowing in the to guide action amid societal illusions of equitable law. This ethic fosters equality through , not state mechanisms, as without equality devolves into technical manipulation rather than genuine . Ultimately, dialectical orients toward universal by grace, shattering fatalities imposed by human systems and affirming personal against propaganda's harmonizing myths.

Critique of Secular Humanism

Ellul viewed secular humanism as a flawed ideology that elevates human reason and autonomy to the status of ultimate authority, thereby denying transcendent reality and fostering illusions of control in a world dominated by autonomous technique. In The Technological Society (1954), he specifically critiqued "technical humanism"—the notion that integrating human needs like fatigue, pleasure, and opinions into technological systems could subordinate technique to human ends—as a superficial rationalization driven by efficiency rather than genuine concern for humanity. Such efforts, he argued, treat humans as objects optimized for technical performance, with no assurance against technique's eventual supremacy, as evidenced by post-1947 U.S. agricultural shifts prioritizing productivity over soil health only after yields declined. This critique extended to secular humanism's broader role as a substitute religion in desacralized societies, where it fills the void left by Christianity's retreat by sacralizing human progress, , and the state while mimicking religious structures like and rituals. In The New Demons (1973), Ellul described these ideologies—exemplified by , , and utopianism—as promising earthly salvation through material advancement but failing due to their lack of transcendence, ignoring human irrationality, evil, and mortality; instead, they absolutize technique, leading to new oppressions such as political or technological conformity. He contended that , far from eradicating the sacred, relocates it to domains like efficiency and , perpetuating cycles of order and that alienate individuals from authentic . From a theological standpoint, Ellul, informed by dialectical theology, saw secular humanism's exaltation of human pride—rooted in Greek-Roman Eros (will to power) over Christian Agape (self-giving love)—as a betrayal of Western Christian foundations, reducing God to a human projection and enabling domination of nature and others. In The Betrayal of the West (1975), he traced this to 18th-century rationalism and utopian visions (e.g., those of Charles Fourier and Étienne Cabet), which prioritize unity and mastery, eliminating dialectical tensions and mysteries, only to yield technocratic madness, enslavement, and cultural collapse, as seen in 20th-century totalitarian experiments. Humanism's autonomous reason, he warned, devolves into narrow rationalism or hybris, stripping reality of vitality and paving the way for self-destruction without divine humility. Ultimately, Ellul rejected secular humanism's optimism about human-directed as empirically unfounded, given technique's inexorable logic, which subordinates ethical and personal dimensions to systemic imperatives; true liberation, he maintained, requires recognition of human limits and reliance on rather than self-deification.

Anarchy, Violence, and Revolutionary Futility

Ellul defined anarchy primarily as an absolute rejection of violence, emphasizing nonviolent forms of resistance such as pacifism, antinationalism, and anticapitalism, rather than chaotic disorder or coercive overthrow of authority. In his 1988 work Anarchy and Christianity, he argued that biblical teachings, including Jesus' rejection of hierarchical power and emphasis on love over force, align with anarchist principles, positioning anarchy as a political option closest to Christian freedom rather than state obedience. He advocated conscientious objection to state-imposed duties like taxation or compulsory education, viewing such acts as faithful expressions of personal responsibility absent institutional coercion. Ellul's critique of violence stemmed from a Christian perspective that condemned it unequivocally as an expression of human necessity and failure of freedom, incompatible with the freedom offered in . In Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (1972), he rejected compromise views allowing limited , nonviolence as mere passivity, and counterviolence as justifiable, insisting bear responsibility for societal through their own lapses in embodying nonviolent love. He extended this to contexts, arguing that even against perpetuates cycles of power and retribution, as exemplified by ' rebuke of the sword in Matthew 26:52, rendering it futile for achieving true liberation. Regarding revolutionary futility, Ellul contended in Autopsy of Revolution that uprisings transition from spontaneous —driven by immediate wrath and despair—into structured revolutions that inevitably institutionalize violence, eroding self-criticism and original ideals. Historical examples, such as the French Revolution's Terror in 1789 and Bolshevik actions in 1917, illustrate how violence marks an irretrievable point of brutality, leading to totalitarian societies rather than , as power dynamics persist or intensify under new regimes. Revolutions fail to dismantle deep structures like the state or ; instead, they enlarge and organize the state more potently, assimilating into existing systems and betraying participatory spontaneity for abstract doctrines unadaptable to reality. In underdeveloped contexts contrary to Marxist predictions, they devolve into or mythic , reinforcing necessity over and precluding genuine transformation. Ellul thus saw nonviolent, marginal Christian communities as the sole viable alternative to such cycles, prioritizing personal ethical action over collective upheaval.

Major Works and Intellectual Evolution

Pivotal Publications and Their Themes

Ellul's early theological work, The Presence of the Kingdom (originally Présence au monde moderne, published in 1948), articulates a dialectical Christian with secular society, rejecting both revolutionary activism and monastic withdrawal in favor of faithful witness amid worldly brokenness. He posits that Christians must embody the Kingdom's reality through personal sacrifice and non-coercive presence, accepting domination by others while refusing institutional power, as true transformation occurs via divine action rather than human strategy. This text establishes Ellul's integration of Reformed theology with sociological critique, emphasizing the tension between biblical revelation and modern illusions of progress. In (French La Technique ou l'enjeu du siècle, 1954), Ellul introduces "technique" as the autonomous, self-expanding system of rational methods prioritizing efficiency over human ends, encompassing not merely machines but all organized pursuits of optimization. He argues that technique subordinates to technical necessity, rendering human choices illusory as adapts individuals to its imperatives, with no effective resistance possible within the system itself. This analysis, drawn from empirical observation of industrial and organizational trends, warns of technique's totalitarian trajectory, where follows rather than precedes it, eroding moral and existential . Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (French , 1962) examines as an inevitable feature of technological societies, functioning not primarily through lies but by preconditioning individuals via and media to accept technical integration as normative. Ellul distinguishes "agitation ," which mobilizes for specific causes, from pervasive "integration ," which fosters conformity to societal myths and standards, rendering people incapable of critical detachment. He substantiates this with historical examples from democratic and totalitarian regimes alike, asserting that modern 's efficacy stems from its alignment with technique's demand for uniform, efficient adaptation, ultimately alienating humans from authentic decision-making. Later works like The Political Illusion (1965) extend these themes by critiquing as a mythical substitute for true order, while Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic (1972) analyzes 's futility in technical contexts, reinforcing Ellul's consistent rejection of coercive solutions. Across these publications, spanning and , Ellul maintains a dialectical method, privileging empirical patterns of modern life—such as bureaucratization and mass —over ideological , with technique and as central threats to human liberty.

Shifts in Focus from Sociology to Theology

Ellul's early major works centered on sociological examinations of modern society's structural dynamics, particularly the ascendancy of technique—defined as the rational orchestration of methods for maximal efficiency—over human agency. In La Technique ou l'enjeu du siècle (1954, translated as The Technological Society), he argued that technique evolves into an autonomous, self-reinforcing system that imposes necessity on all spheres of life, eroding freedom through its imperative for endless optimization, as evidenced by historical shifts from agrarian to industrial economies where efficiency metrics supplanted ethical considerations. This analysis, drawn from observations of post-World War II European industrialization, portrayed technique as a neutral yet totalizing force, with empirical examples including the bureaucratization of labor and the standardization of production processes. Similarly, Propagande: La formation des attitudes des hommes (1962, translated as Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes) detailed how mass communication apparatuses, leveraging psychological conditioning, integrate individuals into technical society by fabricating consensus, citing data from wartime and peacetime media campaigns that achieved over 80% attitude alignment in targeted populations. These texts prioritized descriptive sociology, diagnosing deterministic trends without explicit theological resolution, though underlying concerns with dehumanization hinted at deeper metaphysical stakes. By the late and , Ellul's publications marked a pronounced integration of theological inquiry, reframing sociological diagnoses through biblical dialectics to assert transcendent resistance. Le Sens du Sacré and subsequent works like La Ville et l'homme (1970, translated as The Meaning of the City) interpreted urban expansion—a sociological phenomenon of post-1945 demographic booms leading to megacities housing billions—as emblematic of Babel-like hubris, where human constructs defy divine order, supported by scriptural parallels to Genesis 11 and empirical statistics from European contexts. In L'Espérance oubliée (1972, translated as Hope in Time of Abandonment), he contended that technique's triumph evokes divine hiddenness akin to the , yet counters it with Reformed emphases on God's sovereign freedom, urging personal ethical action over systemic reform; this built on earlier by positing as the sole locus for , as sociological alone yields . Éthique de la liberté (1973–1974, translated as The Ethics of Freedom) further exemplified this pivot, deriving moral imperatives from dialectical —influenced by —while critiquing sociological reliance on human power structures, insisting that true liberty emerges from submission to divine will rather than technical mastery. This evolution stemmed from Ellul's post-conversion synthesis (circa 1935), where initial Marxist-influenced confronted Christian , leading to a mature framework in which provides dialectical tension against sociological inevitability. Later volumes, such as La Parole humiliée (1981, translated as The Humiliation of the Word), subordinated visual-technical media (prevalent since the television era) to the primacy of prophetic speech, arguing that sociological image dominance silences revelatory truth, with historical precedents in biblical oral traditions versus Hellenistic iconism. Ellul maintained that without theological grounding, devolves into ideological justification of technique, as seen in his rejection of secular humanism's optimistic narratives unsupported by empirical reversals like from 1970s industrial excesses. This focus culminated in eschatological reflections, like L'Apocalypse: Architecture en mouvement (1975, on ), where sociological apocalypse—nuclear or ecological, projected from data—intersects divine judgment and renewal, privileging faith's non-conformist witness over revolutionary violence. Critics note this trajectory avoided compartmentalization, with illuminating 's blind spots, though some attribute the emphasis to Ellul's pastoral roles post- retirement from academia.

Reception, Criticisms, and Enduring Legacy

Contemporary and Historical Reception

Ellul's (1954) received limited initial attention in but gained international recognition in the , particularly among American intellectuals concerned with the encroaching dominance of technical rationality over human freedom. Canadian philosopher George Grant, in a 1965 review, praised Ellul's diagnosis of technique's autonomy while expressing skepticism about its historical origins, arguing that Ellul overstated the pre-modern absence of efficiency-driven methods. During the post-World War II era, Ellul's involvement in the from 1940 to 1944 enhanced his credibility as a critic of totalitarian systems, yet his Christian anarchist stance alienated mainstream academics who favored statist or Marxist frameworks prevalent in European sociology. In theological circles, Ellul was respected as a Reformed lay theologian, influencing Protestant thinkers through works like The Presence of the Kingdom (1948), which emphasized God's subversive action against institutional powers, though his rejection of hierarchical church structures drew rebukes from traditionalists. His broader sociological critiques, including Propaganda (1962), found a niche audience in media studies but faced dismissal in academia for prioritizing dialectical analysis over empirical positivism, a methodological preference that clashed with the era's structuralist and behaviorist trends. Contemporary reception has seen a resurgence since the , driven by digital technology's proliferation, with Ellul invoked as a prescient diagnostician of algorithmic control and surveillance akin to his concept of "technique." The International Jacques Ellul Society, founded in 1985 and active into the , sustains scholarly engagement through conferences and publications, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue in , , and . Critics like Albert Borgmann have faulted Ellul's monolithic portrayal of as overly pessimistic, arguing it undervalues focal practices that resist technical efficiency, yet defenders highlight his theological antidote—personal over systemic reform—as a enduring counter to technocratic optimism. In studies, his framework remains influential for analyzing modern , though academic uptake remains marginal amid dominant progressive paradigms that downplay non-materialist causal factors in social decay.

Key Criticisms and Rebuttals

Critics of Ellul's philosophy, particularly his analysis in The Technological Society (1954), have frequently accused him of technological determinism, portraying technique as an autonomous, self-perpetuating force that renders human agency impotent and renders escape impossible. Sociologist John A. Coleman argued that Ellul overemphasizes structure at the expense of agency, depicting technique as divorced from human volition—claiming, for instance, that "man, practically speaking, no longer possesses any means of bringing action to bear upon technique"—while ignoring how social realities are constructed through collective human choices and resistance, as evidenced in historical revolutions. Philosopher Albert Borgmann critiqued Ellul for invoking technology to explain societal ills without sufficiently defining or clarifying "technique," leading to an obscure explanatory framework. Ellul's apparent fatalism has also drawn rebuke, with reviewers like (1970) highlighting the bleak that permeates his work, suggesting it dismisses viable paths for or individual autonomy in a tech-dominated world. (2013) dismissed Ellul's expansive notion of technique as outdated, favoring granular examinations of discrete technologies over broad systemic claims that risk oversimplification. Such critiques often frame Ellul as a pessimist, backward-looking and resigned to technique's totalizing grip, with one early reviewer decrying the "absurdity" of deeming escape hopeless. In response, Ellul rejected charges of pessimism, insisting his analyses were objective diagnostics akin to a physician identifying disease without prescribing hopelessness, and emphasized that humans retain capacity for adaptation outside technique's domain through non-conformist ethical stances rooted in Christian liberty. Supporters like John Wilkinson have interpreted Ellul's stark assertions as dialectical hyperbole intended to provoke awareness rather than literal fatalism, arguing they underscore technique's empirical momentum—evident in its post-1954 proliferation across politics, economics, and daily life—without negating pockets of resistance. Coleman conceded Ellul's value in highlighting efficiency's primacy but countered that distinguishing coercive from enabling techniques, per thinkers like Lewis Mumford, allows for agency in shaping outcomes, though Ellul's framework anticipates such efforts' co-optation by technical necessity. Ellul's later theological writings, such as The Presence of the Kingdom (1948, revised 1967), rebut deterministic readings by positing revolutionary personal responsibility and divine transcendence as antidotes to technique's dehumanization, prioritizing relational freedom over systemic mastery.

Relevance to Current Technological and Political Crises

Ellul's concept of technique—the self-augmenting pursuit of efficiency that subordinates human ends to procedural means—illuminates contemporary technological encroachments, such as artificial intelligence systems and pervasive surveillance infrastructures, which prioritize optimization over ethical deliberation. In works like The Technological Society (1954), he argued that technique becomes autonomous, reshaping society independently of human intent, a dynamic evident in the unchecked expansion of AI-driven algorithms that govern decision-making in hiring, lending, and content moderation without recourse to moral judgment. This autonomy fosters a technocratic order where tools like facial recognition and predictive policing erode individual agency, mirroring Ellul's prediction of technology's inexorable centralization of power, as seen in state-corporate partnerships deploying digital tracking post-2020 pandemic measures. Recent analyses apply his framework to AI's role in transhumanist agendas, where biotechnological enhancements and neural interfaces promise efficiency gains but risk dehumanizing subordination to systemic imperatives. Politically, Ellul's analysis of as an organic necessity of mass-technological societies explains the amplification of ideological conformity via digital platforms, where algorithmic curation functions as continuous, horizontal persuasion rather than overt top-down messaging. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1962), he described 's permeation of , media, and culture to precondition responses, a phenomenon intensified today by echo chambers and state-influenced narratives during events like the 2020 U.S. elections and subsequent in institutions. This yields political crises marked by fragmented publics susceptible to engineered consensus, as in the deployment of regimes that, per Ellul's typology, integrate into the technological milieu to preempt dissent rather than inform. His foresight into technique's political colonization underscores the vulnerability of liberal democracies to capitalism, where monopolies enable preemptive , eroding participatory freedoms in favor of administrative control. Ellul's dialectical integration of sociological with theological resistance—emphasizing personal through non-conformist witness—offers a counter to these crises, advocating disengagement from technique's totality via localized, human-scale alternatives rather than regulatory illusions. Critics of mainstream technological , drawing on his legacy, highlight how global events like the 2022-2023 energy transitions and AI regulatory pushes in the EU and U.S. exemplify technique's triumph over political , perpetuating cycles of dependency. Yet, his framework warns against overthrows or technophilic reforms, insisting that true relevance lies in recognizing propaganda's inescapability and technique's to reclaim subversive amid escalating crises.

References

  1. https://merton.bellarmine.edu/files/original/888b212775108bff75174ea4e2599608eb5f1541.pdf
  2. https://ellul.org/ellul-and-postman/
  3. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacques-ellul-the-technological-society
  4. https://comment.org/jacques-ellul-and-technologys-trade-off/
  5. https://ellul.org/life/social-commitments/
  6. https://ellul.org/life/biography/
  7. https://www.tentmaker.org/biographies/ellul.htm
  8. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/perspectives-on-our-age
  9. http://www.christinyou.com/pages/ellul.html
  10. https://museeprotestant.org/en/notice/jacques-ellul-1912-1994-2/
  11. https://sojo.net/magazine/august-1994/jacques-ellul-hopeful-pessimist
  12. https://vanessa-oh-ry6w.squarespace.com/s/Jacques-Ellul-on-Living-in-a-Violent-World-5ssk.pdf
  13. https://righteous.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&itemId=4412162
  14. https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/jeffrey-m-shaw-timothy-j-demy-jacques-ellul-on-violence-resistance-and-war
  15. https://autonomies.org/2023/04/jacques-ellul-the-necessary-revolution/
  16. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jacques-Ellul
  17. https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-nisbet/the-grand-illusion-an-appreciation-of-jacques-ellul/
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/21/obituaries/jacques-ellul-french-critic-of-technology-is-dead-at-82.html
  19. https://ellul.org/themes/ellul-and-technique/
  20. https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety
  21. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/confronting-the-technological-society
  22. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0270467604270163
  23. https://nissenbaum.tech.cornell.edu/papers/autonomy_of_technique.pdf
  24. https://www.academyofideas.com/2025/04/why-technology-is-enslaving-and-dehumanizing-us/
  25. https://ia803209.us.archive.org/2/items/JacquesEllulTheTechnologicalSociety/Jacques%2520Ellul%2520-%2520The%2520Technological%2520Society.pdf
  26. https://patimes.org/jacques-elluls-warnings-technology-propaganda-and-constitutional-freedom/
  27. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul.pdf
  28. https://old.ntinow.edu/libweb/rDPzPZ/6S9116/jacques_ellul__the_technological-society.pdf
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361921786_Reading_the_Technological_Society_to_Understand_the_Mechanization_of_Values_and_Its_Ontological_Consequences
  30. https://apposition.substack.com/p/we-live-in-a-technological-society
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/taylorism
  32. https://teachy.ai/en/summaries/high-school/10th-grade/geography-en/taylorism-and-fordism-transformations-in-industrial-production-95a73
  33. https://ideas.repec.org/p/pil/wpaper/81.html
  34. http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Labor/L_Overview/L_Overview.htm
  35. https://hbr.org/1988/11/the-same-old-principles-in-the-new-manufacturing
  36. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i182/articles/alice-h-amsden-third-world-industrialization-global-fordism-or-a-new-model.pdf
  37. https://www.gao.gov/blog/which-workers-are-most-affected-automation-and-what-could-help-them-get-new-jobs
  38. https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/how-will-ai-affect-the-global-workforce
  39. https://www.nu.edu/blog/ai-job-statistics/
  40. https://theincmagazine.com/surveillance-technologys-impact-on-privacy/
  41. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/
  42. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/09/spyware-and-surveillance-threats-privacy-and-human-rights-growing-un-report
  43. https://academic.oup.com/jhrp/article/16/1/397/7234270
  44. https://monoskop.org/images/4/44/Ellul_Jacques_Propaganda_The_Formation_of_Mens_Attitudes.pdf
  45. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacques-ellul-propaganda
  46. https://ms.fortresspress.com/downloads/9781451470390_Ch1.pdf
  47. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/jacques-ellul-the-prophet-as-theologian/
  48. https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/files/8695484/Dialectic_Ellul_IJPT.pdf
  49. https://www.thetedkarchive.com/library/jacob-e-van-vleet-dialectical-theology-and-jacques-ellul
  50. https://robertoigarza.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/art-a-study-on-elluls-dialectical-approach-to-the-modern-and-spiritual-world-choi-2003.pdf
  51. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9786&context=etd
  52. https://learn.elca.org/jle/dialectical-theology-and-jacques-ellul-an-introductory-exposition-fortress-press-2014/
  53. https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/9781451470390/Dialectical-Theology-and-Jacques-Ellul
  54. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacques-ellul-anarchy-christianity-en
  55. https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-you-might-get-something-out-of-french-christian-anarchist-sociologist-jacques-ellul/
  56. https://www.jesusradicals.com/uploads/2/6/3/8/26388433/ethics-of-nonpower.pdf
  57. https://www.jesusradicals.com/uploads/2/6/3/8/26388433/power-of-technique-ethics-of-nonpower.pdf
  58. https://ellul.org/writings/featured-books-by-ellul/
  59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cgf6xx
  60. https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/0732/the-ethics-of-freedom.aspx
  61. https://search.proquest.com/openview/cc9c77bf6835c16dfeafa0dee624a525/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1819398
  62. https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&context=vulr
  63. https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/9780/8028/0802808051.aspx
  64. https://thefrailestthing.com/2018/12/07/jacques-ellul-was-not-impressed-with-technical-humanism/
  65. http://www.newhumanityinstitute.org/pdf-articles/Jacques_Ellul-New-Demons.pdf
  66. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/AoS/BetrayalOfTheWest.pdf
  67. https://www.religion-online.org/book/violence-reflections-from-a-christian-perspective/
  68. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacques-ellul-autopsy-of-revolution
  69. https://blog.emergingscholars.org/2016/04/the-presence-of-the-kingdom/
  70. https://medium.com/uwccf/book-recommendation-the-presence-of-the-kingdom-a-call-to-live-as-christians-b23028812de
  71. https://www.supersummary.com/the-technological-society/summary/
  72. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/literature-and-writing/technological-society-jacques-ellul
  73. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/elluls-propaganda/
  74. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46234/propaganda-by-jacques-ellul/
  75. https://www.plough.com/en/topics/life/technology/jacques-ellul-prophet-of-the-tech-age
  76. https://ellul.org/themes/theme-ellul-and-theological-writings/
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365350518_Jacques_Ellul_A_Companion_to_His_Major_Works
  78. https://trivent-publishing.eu/img/cms/3-%2520PJCV%25207-2-%2520BWD%2520Heystee.pdf
  79. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/jacques-ellul
  80. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28010/chapter-abstract/211791124?redirectedFrom=fulltext
  81. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/steered-spectacle-jacques-ellul/
  82. https://ellul.org/society/committees/
  83. https://www.academia.edu/21526695/Contributions_of_Jacques_Elluls_Propaganda_to_teaching_and_research_in_Rhetorical_Theory
  84. https://journals.sfu.ca/rpfs/index.php/rpfs/article/download/92/91/183
  85. https://www.localfutures.org/jacques-ellul-a-prophet-for-our-tech-saturated-times/
  86. https://mindmatters.ai/2023/06/jacques-ellul-and-the-technocratic-society/
  87. https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-35-number-4/jacques-ellul-and-idols-transhumanism
  88. https://americanreformer.org/2023/10/technology-politics-and-facing-the-current-moment/
  89. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humaff-2015-0037/html
  90. https://rbnmckenna86.substack.com/p/jacques-ellul-on-propaganda
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.