Philosophy of Technology: Chapter 16 (Jacques Ellul)

"On the Aims of a Philosophy of Technology" (preface to The Technological Society, 1954, 1963, and 1964)

Background notes on Ellul:

• French philosopher, law professor, sociologist, theologian, and Christian anarchist 
• approached technology from a deterministic viewpoint
• constant concern with the emergence of a "technological tyranny" over humanity
  
• exemplifies the global, holistic approach of continental philosophers, but also denies that this makes his work either speculative or evaluative, but entirely descriptive
• deliberately avoids offering ethical and aesthetic evaluations of technology
• accuses those who read him as negative or pessimistic as simply reacting to their own prior value commitments
• describes technology as, at best, a sociological abstraction and not a real phenomenon (those who believe it is real reveal their commitment to methodological individualism) 

Reading Response:
In this preface, Ellul is concerned with explaining the goals of his book and what it will not attempt to do. He states that he is not interested in describing techniques, providing a balance sheet of technological accomplishments, or making ethical or aesthetic judgments on technique. He cannot do these things because, he believes, no one is capable of giving a true account of the total effect of technological techniques as a result of their own point of view inevitably interfering. Instead, he claims he has attempted to present a concrete and fundamental interpretation of technique, based on description only.

He starts with a definition, arrived at by examining activities and observing techniques: "technique is the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency in every field of human activity." He emphasized the sociological aspect of technique, or the effect of technique on social relationships, political structures, and economics--every factor in the life of modern man.

In focusing only on the descriptive, Ellul suggests that he should not be considered a pessimist, as readers who suggest so are making value judgements and not concerned with knowing whether things are factual or not. He insists that he is not interested in proving anything, only in performing sociological reflection (not individual action). He does not believe that the individual exerts any control over social, political, or economic mechanisms. As he sees it, individual decisions are made within a framework or collective reality, and therefore no reference to individual agency is made (even though he does acknowledge that individuals are more determined, albeit differently determined, than in the past). Ellul believes it is an illusion to think that we are free from society's taboos. Rather, we are simply conditioned by something new: technological civilization. We have simply moved from one set of determinants to another.

In response to accusations of fatalism, Ellul counters that man is only helpless if he abdicates his responsibilities by living a trivial existence by not taking a stand against these determinants in our technological civilization. However, he can only provide us with a probable evolution: he cannot know whether individuals will follow this advice, and therefore it is probable that man will not pull himself together and assert himself.

In response to accusations of pessimism, Ellul acknowledges that he has no solution to put forth, as any solution would be idealistic, fanciful, and even dishonest. He asks many questions, though, as he believes one must diagnose the problem before one can treat it. Thus his interest in a working procedure, starting with a description of the facts, which can lead to analysis and posing problems, which will finally lead to solutions.


He calls for each of us (not just scholars or experts) to seek ways to resist and transcend technological determinants. He even goes as far as to challenge the US Constitution when he states, "freedom is not an immutable fact graven in nature and on the heart of man. It is not inherent in man or in society, and it is meaningless to write into law." He insists that freedom is meaningless and only found in overcoming and transcending determinisms, representing victory over necessity. In other words, freedom is an act, not a right. We decide to be free from something. To Ellul, the first act in freeing man from the determinism of technology is by becoming aware of its essence and by the need to transcend it.