To be a true "conservative" would mean being opposed to the West itself, at least the West since the Enlightenment. Why is this? Because the operating system of the West is Technique and Progress.
This was a fantastic walk through of Ellul’s ideas. Thanks for writing it! I just finished “Propaganda” and it’s acted like a flashlight to so much of the discourse today.
Re the comments on tools and how they’re used, you might enjoy David Pye’s “The Nature and Art of Workmanship.” He was a British furniture designer and craftsman writing in the 1960s and compare are contrasts “Works of Risk” with “Works of Certainty” and how they interact with both workmen and the users of the end products.
Sure thing! Your comment on the old truck vs the F1 reminded me of this quote from “On Grand Strategy” by John Lewis Gaddis about control vs chaos: “Such systems thrive… from the need to respond frequently-but not too frequently-to the unforeseen.
Controlled environments encourage complacency, making it hard to cope when controls break down, as they sooner or later must. Constant disruptions, however, prevent recuperation: nothing's ever healthy. There's a balance, then, between integrative and disintegrative processes in the natural world-an edge of chaos, so to speak-where adaptation, especially self-organization, tends to occur.”
Excellent summary of Ellul’s thought and a semi-prescription. My question is would Ellul say that any pushback—avoid the new cycle, unplug, pursue unmediated community—is just part of the overall propaganda machine that includes some level of revolt? (Still waiting on Autopsy of Revolutions, so if the answer is there, I apologize).
At the end of his work Political Illusion, he does suggest building alternative communities of self governance (I did a write up here: https://www.seekingthehiddenthing.com/p/the-political-illusion-pt5-the-heroic). Ellul mentions two main features. One is disconnecting from the reward structure of the regime. Second, if you are successful and the regime thinks you a threat, they will find you and try to crush you. The only reasons the Mennonites are allowed the space they are is they do not represent a threat. So, you have to be cognizant of that. I will have more to say in the final piece looking at Autopsy of Revolution, which I am in the middle of writing. I will both agree and disagree with Ellul.
It’s a very interesting and thought provoking framing. I’ve never heard of Ellul until reading this. I suppose I agree with the problems you are identifying. What stood out was your integration of Marxism as well as capitalism. Not entirely sure that technique is the proper way that it should be framed yet, but definitely open to it.
My understanding of liberalism comes from John Lockes second treatise on law where he outlines what built much of our laws and so called “rights.” I am not sure that I would agree that he would fall under this idea of the technique. I take Aquinas framing (though I’m Protestant) of the 4 laws. I see Lockes liberalism being positioned originating from the natural law and then taking the form of human laws. So the technique idea is strange to make sense of.
We should think of “technique” — which is primarily a way of thinking about the world — as the base ideology of modernity today. It is what unites government, business, non-profits and even churches. It is the use of technique to address all of our problems. Liberal technique, “conservative” technique, and even Christian technique is all at root technique and it all shares the same basic characteristics. Once you really grasp this, that we are all trying to overcome the problems we face through the use of technique, you will have gotten close to the base layer. There are a series of myths and presuppositions that underlie technique, but you are close. This is primarily why the differences between left and right are illusory.
Too few have read him. He is French and openly Christian. I do multi-piece examinations of “Propaganda,” “The Political Illusion,” “Violence,” and “Autopsy of Revolution.” I should do one on “The Technological Society” sometime. Reading him will change your understanding of politics and the political.
If you are Lockean, it’s a big leap to grasp Ellul, who is poking through many of the myths of liberal modernity and the technological and commercial society that emerged from it. You are going to have all your foundations and your whole basic worldview challenged.
This was a fantastic walk through of Ellul’s ideas. Thanks for writing it! I just finished “Propaganda” and it’s acted like a flashlight to so much of the discourse today.
Re the comments on tools and how they’re used, you might enjoy David Pye’s “The Nature and Art of Workmanship.” He was a British furniture designer and craftsman writing in the 1960s and compare are contrasts “Works of Risk” with “Works of Certainty” and how they interact with both workmen and the users of the end products.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will look that one up.
Sure thing! Your comment on the old truck vs the F1 reminded me of this quote from “On Grand Strategy” by John Lewis Gaddis about control vs chaos: “Such systems thrive… from the need to respond frequently-but not too frequently-to the unforeseen.
Controlled environments encourage complacency, making it hard to cope when controls break down, as they sooner or later must. Constant disruptions, however, prevent recuperation: nothing's ever healthy. There's a balance, then, between integrative and disintegrative processes in the natural world-an edge of chaos, so to speak-where adaptation, especially self-organization, tends to occur.”
Interesting.
Excellent summary of Ellul’s thought and a semi-prescription. My question is would Ellul say that any pushback—avoid the new cycle, unplug, pursue unmediated community—is just part of the overall propaganda machine that includes some level of revolt? (Still waiting on Autopsy of Revolutions, so if the answer is there, I apologize).
At the end of his work Political Illusion, he does suggest building alternative communities of self governance (I did a write up here: https://www.seekingthehiddenthing.com/p/the-political-illusion-pt5-the-heroic). Ellul mentions two main features. One is disconnecting from the reward structure of the regime. Second, if you are successful and the regime thinks you a threat, they will find you and try to crush you. The only reasons the Mennonites are allowed the space they are is they do not represent a threat. So, you have to be cognizant of that. I will have more to say in the final piece looking at Autopsy of Revolution, which I am in the middle of writing. I will both agree and disagree with Ellul.
It’s a very interesting and thought provoking framing. I’ve never heard of Ellul until reading this. I suppose I agree with the problems you are identifying. What stood out was your integration of Marxism as well as capitalism. Not entirely sure that technique is the proper way that it should be framed yet, but definitely open to it.
My understanding of liberalism comes from John Lockes second treatise on law where he outlines what built much of our laws and so called “rights.” I am not sure that I would agree that he would fall under this idea of the technique. I take Aquinas framing (though I’m Protestant) of the 4 laws. I see Lockes liberalism being positioned originating from the natural law and then taking the form of human laws. So the technique idea is strange to make sense of.
Appreciate that you took the time to write this.
We should think of “technique” — which is primarily a way of thinking about the world — as the base ideology of modernity today. It is what unites government, business, non-profits and even churches. It is the use of technique to address all of our problems. Liberal technique, “conservative” technique, and even Christian technique is all at root technique and it all shares the same basic characteristics. Once you really grasp this, that we are all trying to overcome the problems we face through the use of technique, you will have gotten close to the base layer. There are a series of myths and presuppositions that underlie technique, but you are close. This is primarily why the differences between left and right are illusory.
Too few have read him. He is French and openly Christian. I do multi-piece examinations of “Propaganda,” “The Political Illusion,” “Violence,” and “Autopsy of Revolution.” I should do one on “The Technological Society” sometime. Reading him will change your understanding of politics and the political.
If you are Lockean, it’s a big leap to grasp Ellul, who is poking through many of the myths of liberal modernity and the technological and commercial society that emerged from it. You are going to have all your foundations and your whole basic worldview challenged.
Ellul was the driving force behind my development of AngloFuturism philosophy.
How can we have the Internet, hot showers, and cars without falling into the Technological Society? I believe it is possible. This is AngloFuturism.