Jacques Ellul
Christian Century June 5, 1968 pp. 747-750
TO A WORLD teetering between
chaos and paralysis, can Christianity offer hope? As we face this question the first thing to do, it seems to me,
is to reject both false ways of posing it and false answers to it. This done, I think it will be possible to
discern the right way.
In this short article I can
only indicate summarily my convictions in this matter. But first let me mention a widely held view
which seems to me questionable. More
and more frequently we hear talk of "revolution," of
"overthrows," as characterizing our times. It is true that we are witnessing the development of so-called
"revolutionary" movements (communist movements, revolts of the poor
or of former colonial peoples, and so on).
But to describe them as "revolutionary" is to judge
superficially, for these movements regularly end by reproducing and indeed
reinforcing the trends present n the old society (nationalism, the power of the
state and the bureaucracy, economic and technological expansion). The only change is in the controlling
personnel and in a modification of the old formal structures (for
example, suppression of free enterprise, economic leveling and so on). Thus while there seem to be changes,
observations on a deeper level shows that there is no real change at all.
The same holds as concerns
"crisis" or overthrows. It is
true that traditional morality, the old religion, family life, relations between
the generations, labor relations have all been shaken profoundly, and in some
countries (France, for instance) have been utterly destroyed. But here too it is superficial to call this
a total overthrow. These changes affect
only the most simplistic aspects of the old society, as anyone will agree who
examines the situation perceptively.
Behind this mobile and unsettled surface, I insist, our society remains
as it was — permanent, stable, even rigid.
What disturbs me is not any "overthrow," but on the contrary
the absence of overthrow of the basic, actual structures of the modern world.
Some believe that we are on the
road to chaos because guerillas battle in Latin America, because young people
have taken drugs, etc. As I see it this
kind of think is important n the individual level (that of the soldier who must
go to Vietnam or of the father who can no longer understand his children). But it does not in the least menace society,
which goes on building and organizing itself with terrible implacability. Technological, mechanisms, the demand for
economic growth, the primacy of science, bureaucratization, manipulation of man
to adapt him at whatever cost to the life others make for him, the development
of the "society of spectacle," urbanization, the collectivization of
life (whether in the shape of American conformism or of communist integration)
— these are the real forces at work in our world. But no one at all raises questions about them. Indeed the world generally assents to these
forces, which tend to produce a set of structures (in the sense given to that
word by structualism) that are objective, blind, impermeable to human action,
autonomous and accepted as necessary.
No matter where he lives, man is incapable of challenging them, does not
even dream of doing so, because at bottom he is in agreement with them.
These structuring forces are
also fashioning a new morality, a new religion (e.g., of work or of the state),
a new scheme of human relations (e.g., based on eroticism), a new aesthetic,
etc., etc. Thus to speak about crisis
or chaos is to yield to an illusion. We
are simply witnessing the disappearance of the old traditional forms to which
we are accustomed — that is all. I say
on the contrary that there isn't enough chaos.
And my reason for saying this is precisely that man is incapable of
controlling society's present forms — the organizing, systematizing forces that
suppress personality and destroy the flexibility of life.
The attitudes usually taken in
face of this movement of mechanization, of crystallization of the social body —
especially under the influence of technology —seem to me mistaken. I limit myself to enumerating them:
First is an idealistic position
of blind trust in god, which holds that scientific and technological progress
cannot turn out badly because God keeps watch and because, ultimately, we have
the promise of salvation. Now it is
true that God keeps watch and that we must live in hope. But on the one hand, to expect miracles of
God is not in accordance with Scripture; and on the other, the promises concern
the Kingdom of God and our salvation.
We have no
747
guarantee that our human
history will not end in disaster, in catastrophe.
The second attitude I consider
erroneous is the reasoned optimism of philosophers and theologians. Philosophers hold that there is a sort of
permanent human nature in which we must place confidence; that man has always
managed to pull himself out of difficult situations and will continue to do
so. Theologians seek (for instance, in
the Bible) a theological vindication of today's technical and scientific
movement. As to the first point, we
would have to be sure that there is a "human nature" (and what is its
nature?); and moreover the past is in no way a guarantee for the future. As to the second, theologians in general
forget the fact the Fall, an apply to our situations the texts of Genesis, as
if there had been no change in our relations with God since the creation, as if
we were still in an Eden to be exploited and organized — when in truth the
covenant under which all me find themselves is the covenant of Noah; and this
speaks of fear and human will (Gen. 9:2) and of death as the price of
sustenance for the body (Gen. 9:3).
Thus man cannot fulfill his original divine vocation by the
technological exploitation of the earth.
A third objectionable attitude
is that which leads to dependence on automatic mechanisms for solving the
problem: for example, Teilhard de Chardin’s evolutionism in which technology,
socialism and science play the role of factors which permit humanity to pass
from the Noesphere to fusion at Point Omega – just as, by simple evolution,
matter passed into life and the animal into man. To the same order of systems belongs Marxism, which (at least in
its most widespread interpretation) declares that the play of dialectical
materialism in history will necessarily solve all contradictions, hence, all
problems. These systems seem to me
dangerous, because they demand of man a sort of renunciation of autonomous action. But this adaptation of man to the system is
precisely the greatest danger inherent in a technological, bureaucratic
society.
I could mention other
orientations – the structuralist philosophy, for instance – but these would
require long discussion. So as a final
objectionable attitude I cite one often found among intellectuals: the idea
that, to combat sclerosis, the crystallization of society, we must accelerate
the movement of contention and demoralization.
These intellectuals do not realize that what they attack is no longer
the structure, but simply things already on the way to destruction, already in
decline and altogether superficial (the old morality, the old religion,
etc.). As U.S. proponents of this
attitude one could cite Henry Miller, Tennessee Williams, Edward Albee, the
“Living Theater” and so on. These
parties are completely mistaken as to the objective of their attack, and in the
end they simply facilitate the establishment of organizational structures.
If then we reject these tendencies
(granted, I have dealt with them in far to summary a fashion). What shall we
do, what should we be?
We have seen that
a double movement is under way: destruction of a whole set of forms (which are
indispensable to man) and the development of rigid structures (which are less
visible but are more menacing to man).
This double movement involves, on the one hand, the creation of new
forms (political, moral, religious, aesthetic), and on the other hand the struggle
against structures (technical, economic, bureaucratic and also mental). In both cases we can only start with the
individual; that is to say, the present movement is so radical that it is only
by going back to the root – that it will be possible to mend matters. This view is much disputed in Europe. In know, however, that it will probably win
the ready assent of the American reader, for the value of the individual is
traditionally stressed in the U.S. But
this assent arises from a misunderstanding on the readers part. American society is in fact one of the most
destructive of the individual (e.g., through psychological and adaptive
techniques, thorough tests, etc.). When
I speak of the individual I have in view neither individual religion nor private
enterprise, neither classic democracy nor individualistic philosophy. These are all outdated and doomed forms, and
it is useless to try to revive them.
When I speak of
the individual as the source of hope I mean the individual who does not lend
himself to society’s game, who disputes what we accept as self-evident (for
example, the consuming society), who finds an autonomous style of life, who
questions even the movement of this society.
This individual must make a radial diagnosis of the situation, must live
in ever renewed tension with the forces of society. But at the same time he must watch himself lest he play a
superficial game. Thus the hippies do
not at all have the needed orientation.
Strictly speaking, the hippies question nothing, but limit themselves to
attempting to destroy forms that are already peripheral and indeed do not exist
save insofar as the technico-economic infrastructure of society exists. The hippies can exist only because outside
their ranks there is a society that functions, works, administers and so
on. They are as it were the human
product of that very-luxuriousness of society that must be resisted.
748
What then do I
mean when I say that our hope lies in starting from the individual – from total
subjectivity? This: that in politics,
for example, it is no longer at the level of economic or social democracy that
we must fight (the point at which we have stopped in Europe), but at the level
of the citizen’s virtue, his powers of criticism, his
“participation-contestation,” as I tried to show in my Political Illusion. For what is under attack in our present
political society is the autonomy of the citizen, his ability to judge for
himself. He is up against networks of
information, public relations, propaganda in diverse forms. Hence we can attain democracy if we start
our from the possibility of critical renewal, but not it we start out from new
institutional systems, or by joining a party or by propagandizing for some
group that may seem to be better that another.
This radical
subjectivity will inform also the three human passions which seem to be the
essential ones – the passions to create, to love, to play. But these mighty drives of the human heart
must find a particular expression in each person. It is in the building of a new daily life, in the discovery of
things, acts, situations utterly different from those that society would fasten
on us that this subjectivity can express itself. The problem is to keep these developments from also being taken
over by society. For example, the
“creative project” in the shape of a hobby is a good thing, but it has become a
fashion, it has been commercialized and turned into a means of integration into
society. Thus it is not truly creative,
but is rather a complementary system of fostering conformity. In other words, the passion to create
assumes that the individual will constantly invent a way of acting, a new
being, that cannot be annexed by the sociotechnological order.
Similarly, love
is the great project of communication between men. The hippies are in a sense right on this point. But, evidently because their critical powers
are wanting, they have fallen into a sexual laxity which is a parody of
love. Love too is an astounding
revolutionary force; only we must not allow this force for freedom to be
appropriated into the hardened forms of conformed Christianity. Finally, the passion to play: this alone
must be the basis for anyone’s participation in a group. However serious an enterprise, however
important the stakes and the values to be realized, these must not induce us to
participate (in political life, for instance).
All that in fact is part of the very technical structures that must be
opposed! But if, on the contrary,
participation is prompted by the passion to play, then it is free; it gives
life to the group and at the same time permits the individual to express
himself. But note that when I speak of
play I mean the opposite of what our society offers us as such – spectacles,
novel displays, TV, etc., which debase the passion to play. I have in mind rather what the ethnologists
refer to when they speak of festivals among so-called “primitive” peoples.
These brief
remarks (they are really mere chapter heads!) show that what is needed is the
creation of a new style of life, and that this cannot be accomplished save
starting with the individual’s discovery of himself. Every individual must become a creator of his own life – and that
is an undertaking which will require a terrible effort; for not only will he
have to oppose the forces of conformity but (at least in many cases) he will
have to carry on his trade or profession or fulfill other obligations at the
same time. Thus he will be operating
not on the margin of society, but in it.
A person must not use his free time to “distract” or “cultivate”
himself, but to create his own life.
I think that the
difficulty of doing this is so great, the effort required so unending, that it
is not possible save as one can lean on something other than oneself. I am convinced that Christians are
absolutely the only ones who can attempt it – but here to on the condition that
they start from zero. Kierkegaard, it
seems to me, alone can show us how to start.
Socialist or spiritual or politically involved movements on the part of
Christians I consider exactly the contrary of what can be useful to
society. In particular, the present
orientation of the World Council of Churches (especially as set forth in the
four volumes on “Church and Society”) is fundamentally in error. Yet as I see it only the Christian faith
(and no other belief or revolutionary stimulus) give man sufficient hope to
prompt him to embark on the undertaking I have described. If we are to question our society in so
radical a fashion, we must adopt a point of view essentially different from
that society’s – one that we cannot arrive at by starting from our human
wisdom. It is precisely because it
speaks of Wholly Other that the revelation provides
749
us with a point
of view and a point of departure that are essentially different.
In the second
place, if we look at our society with complete realism (as we must do), we
shall soon perceive that it is in a pretty desperate case. And then, man is tempted to say, “Just the
same, it’s not quite as bad as that!”
He refuses to see the reality, or else he seeks easy remedies – in other
words, he does not face up to this true responsibility. But he fact is precisely that in order to
bear up under the utter harshness of our situation, we must have a hope beyond
it; for without such a hope this world would be too tragic. And that is why Christians, possessing the
hope of the resurrection and the Kingdom of God, ought to be the only ones to
carry out this decisive task for society.
Ought to be! Alas, time and
again for almost 2,000 years the churches have obstinately done exactly the
opposite of this “ought” – concealing the gravity of the problems, evading the
issues, opposing al revolutionary tendencies, holding to the forces of order,
conservatism and traditional morality and adapting themselves to these.
But it is not enough to lean on
the Wholly Other or to adopt a radical realism. Only total and true freedom will make possible the discovery of a
new style of life. Yet man will not
find that freedom in himself. One can
hardly believe in a “natural freedom” – indeed all indications are that the
opposite is the case. But behold, the
good news of the gospel affirms precisely that in Christ and through Christ we
are free (provided that we live the faith!).
“It is for freedom that Christ has set you free.” To the Christian is given a freedom through
which he (and he only!) can challenge all slaveries of whatever kind and escape
them himself. But here again we have a
truth and a possibility of life which Christians do no appropriate. For – let me stress this – if the freedom
which is given us is to exist, we must live it, desire it and utilize it. Only the Christians (and that means starting
out from the individual) can open the way for freedom to enter the world; and
alas, we see that Christians are of all men the most conformist, the most
compliant, the most bound by habit, the least free. In their conceptions of morality and virtue, of church work, of
respectability, they are sunk in dogmatisms.
This being so, how will it be possible to traverse the difficult era we
live in and to come out elsewhere?
Finally, to attempt such an
undertaking – to construct a new morality, a new justice, a new peace and
authentic new relations, and at the same time to shatter the technological and
bureaucratic structures – needs not only hope and freedom but power of a kind
that is certainly beyond human possibilities.
But behold, Christians have the promise of being associated with the
power of God himself. Through their
prayer incarnated in action they can bring into play the power which will not
fail us if we are serious in the battle of faith. It is the power of the Holy Spirit that can make that
revolution.
But again I must point to the
failure of Christians who no longer believe in the Holy Spirit – or else, as
often among the Baptists and the Pentecostals, believe in the Holy spirit but
do not or cannot understand the Spirit’s relevance to today’s society, and so
invoke his aid for pious works that have nothing to do with the real life of
man in these times. Thus, once more,
here is a possibility that God offers man and that Christians do not know how
to use.
Such is the decisive
responsibility of Christians today.
They alone are capable of bringing about the great mutation of this
society; they are the Noah of the deluge of this civilization. But they seem not to be aware of this, and
they sleep, or they look up at the heaven like the apostles at the moment of
the ascension, to whom the angels said, “Why do you stand looking into heaven?”
It is now that we must work on
the earth with power and freedom, not to exploit and extract more happiness
from it, but to bring in a new civilization that cannot yet be imagined.
750