Ellul 5.pdf

10.1177/0270467604270259

BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2004

Son / THE TECHNOLOGICAL BLUFF

Reading Jacques Ellul’s

The Technological Bluff in Context

Wha-Chul Son

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

This article is a critical review of The Technologi-

cal Bluff , the last book on technology by Jacques Ellul.

Although this work has attracted little attention, the

concept of techno-logical bluff 1 provides a new per-

spective to understand contemporary technological

society. After presenting Ellul’s exposition of the con-

cept of techno-logical bluff, its original contribution to

technology studies is emphasized. It is also examined

how the analysis of techno-logical bluff is connected

with other major Ellulian notions such as autonomous

technique and the efficiency principle. This is followed

by a suggestion that the analysis of techno-logical

bluff could function as a basis for a constructive dia-

lectic relationship between classical and more recent

discourses on technology. The last section is devoted

to the Ellulian solution for the technological society

suggested in this work, namely, the paradox of

nonfreedom.

title The Technological Bluff ” (Karim, 2001, p. 131,

note 3). Ellul himself, however, claims the novelty of

TB’s project. He says that “some think that this book

of mine cannot hope to say anything new. Neverthe-

less, I see some important things that have not yet been

brought to light” (TB, p. xii).

The purpose of this article is to clarify the concept

of the techno-logical bluff 2 and to examine whether TB

provides a new perspective to understand contempo-

rary technological society. Has Ellul said anything

new by introducing the new concept, techno-logical

bluff? What is its contribution to Ellul’s own idea and

how does it differ from, for example, propaganda?

How different is his view on the technological society

in the late 1980s from the one of the 1950s and how is it

incorporated in this work?

Apart from Ellul’s own comment, there are at least

three other reasons for assuming that it is worthwhile

to read TB closely. First, during the intermediate pe-

riod between TSys and TB, there was “an explosion of

techniques” (TB, p. 1) that is now in its full-fledged

stage. Ellul witnessed information technology, com-

munication technology and bio-technology, albeit on a

far less developed level. It would be interesting to see

what the master of classical philosophy of technology

has to say about these new technologies that other phi-

losophers of technology such as Martin Heidegger,

Herbert Marcuse, and Lewis Mumford, who are often

associated with Ellul, could not yet have experienced.

Another reason is that the generally negative, critical,

and more abstract trend of philosophy of technology

before the 1960s has changed into more diverse voices

during the 1980s. If Ellul is taken as representing the

old regime, then one might expect some reaction to re-

cent discussions in philosophy of technology. Third,

reading TB can help us to understand this difficult

author a bit more clearly. Vanderburg (1998) said,

Keywords: technology; techno-logical bluff; auton-

omy of technique; principle of efficiency; paradox of

nonfreedom; propaganda; Herbert Marcuse; Jacques

Ellul

T he Technological Bluff (1988/1990; from here on,

TB) is the last book on technology by Ellul following

The Technological Society (1954/1964; from here on,

TSoc) and The Technological System (1977/1980;

from here on, TSys). Compared with many of his other

books including more theological ones, however, TB

has attracted little attention. Many articles have been

published about Ellul’s works and ideas since TB was

published; however, only a few have mentioned this

work, most of them only in passing, some of them with

obvious misunderstanding and contempt. 2

One commentator even said that Ellul “rewrote and

expanded that book [TSoc] and published it under the

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 24, No. 6, December 2004, 518-533

DOI: 10.1177/0270467604270259

2004 Sage Publications

Son / THE TECHNOLOGICAL BLUFF

519

Each work [of Ellul] has too much of its own

independent intellectual existence. I would

argue that each article and book relates to the

whole of his work more like a holographic plate

that has been cut into pieces. Illuminating each

piece in an appropriate manner reveals the entire

image. (p. 77)

term, for example, “systematic inquiry of technique”

or “invention, development and cognitive deployment

of tools and other artifacts,” as Hickman (2001, pp. 11-

12) suggests in his definition of technology. Whereas

Hickman’s notions of technology are more closely

related to the actual deployment of technique, dis-

course on technique could mean “what people think

about technique” or even the philosophy or sociology

of technique (TB, p. xv).

Accordingly, the project of TB is different from

those of TSoc and TSys in the sense that TB focused

on the discourse that sustains technological society

and technological system, not on the phenomenon of

techniques itself. In other words, the prime concern of

TB was, for example, not whether technology is auton-

omous, but how and why people come to view technol-

ogy being completely under the control of human

beings.

In the remainder of this section, I elaborate the

notion of techno-logical bluff further by presenting

Ellul’s own exposition and comparing it with similar

concepts and approaches in philosophy of technology.

Although having been constantly accused of being a

pessimist, Ellul still wrote another book on technolog-

ical society. This manifests that he has not given up the

hope for a better future. TB might help to figure out the

entire image of Ellul’s thought on technology by re-

vealing its unique illumination.

In the following, I begin with Ellul’s exposition of

the concept of techno-logical bluff as well as its origi-

nal contribution to the interpretation of our age. To

clarify this concept, I compare techno-logical bluff

with Ellul’s own analysis of propaganda and Herbert

Marcuse’s theory of the “one-dimensional man.” Then

I demonstrate how this concept is consistent with

major Ellulian notions that were suggested 2 decades

ago: autonomous technique and the efficiency princi-

ple. This will be followed by an observation of how the

analysis of the techno-logical bluff could provide cri-

teria for examining more recent theories in technology

studies. 3 Although these elucidations reveal that

Ellul’s view on contemporary technological society is

not brighter than his previous analysis in TSoc, the last

section is devoted to the Ellulian solution in terms of

the paradox of freedom presented in TB.

The Phenomenon of Techno-logy Bluff

Ellul explains what he means by techno-logical

bluff as follows.

I am not referring to technical bluff. I am not try-

ing to show that techniques do not deliver what

they promise, that technicians are bluffers. ...I

am talking about technological bluff, about the

gigantic bluff in which discourse on techniques

envelops us, making us believe anything and, far

worse, changing our whole attitude to tech-

niques: the bluff of politicians, the bluff of the

media, the bluff of technicians when they talk

about technique instead of working at them, the

bluff of publicity, the bluff of economic models.

(TB, p. xvi)

Understanding the

Concept of Techno-logy Bluff

Technique and Techno-Logy

What does Ellul mean by techno-logical bluff and

why does it matter? To answer these questions, one has

to first figure out the difference between technique and

techno-logy in Ellul’s philosophy of technology.

Ellul emphasized the distinction between technique

( technique ) and techno-logy ( technologie ). Technique

refers to “the totality of methods rationally arrived at

and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of

development) in every field of human activity” (TSoc,

p. xxv). It should also be noted that Ellul’s technique

mainly refers to modern techniques.

Ellul explained that techno-logy means the “dis-

course on technique” (TB, pp. xv-xvi). This has a

broader meaning than other possible definitions of the

The bluff (a) demonstrates “the prodigious power,

diversity, success, universal application, and impecca-

bility of techniques” (TB, p. xvi); (b) conceals nega-

tive aspects of technique, and eventually (c) intensifies

the relationship between human and machines (TB,

p. 16). As the result of the techno-logical bluff, tech-

nique is seen as the only chance for progress and devel-

opment in every society (TB, p. xvi). Here Ellul is ad-

dressing a problem that has been largely ignored in the

philosophy of technology. It is not a matter of concrete

520

BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2004

problems caused by techniques, but of how people

perceive technique and react to problems caused by it.

The techno-logical bluff makes those problems

invisible and thus obsolete.

The techno-logical bluff has many forms. It could

be as direct as an advertisement that begins with “tech-

nology is our future” but could also manifest itself via

technology policy, education, media, and so on. It also

refers to some hidden assumptions on which the adver-

tisement or policy is based. Ellul presented some spec-

imens of the techno-logical bluff such as (a) the dis-

course on humanism that claims that “all technical

activity orients us to a greater humanity” (TB, p. 125);

(b) the emphasis on technical culture that is a contra-

diction in terms, according to Ellul, because “tech-

nique is universal, whereas culture cannot be” (TB,

p. 144); (c) the assurance of human mastery over tech-

nique; (d) the claim for the power of rationality; (e) the

ideology of science as an inevitable and necessary

means of salvation; and (f) the trust in experts.

According to Ellul, the techno-logical bluff is a new

phenomenon that arose in the 1980s when what Ellul

called a “great innovation” took place (TB, pp. 16-23).

It was a silent transformation of the public perception

of technique. Before the 1980s, Ellul argued, people

had not adapted very well to the technological prog-

ress since the Industrial Revolution. There had been

many attempts to resolve the problem of people’s

maladaptation to the ever-changing technical environ-

ment. The pessimistic analysis of technique and opti-

mistic utopianism were different kinds of one effort

serving the same purpose. The great innovation refers

to the phenomenon that those expectations and disap-

pointments started fading away. The transformation

was simple. People stopped trying to resolve the prob-

lem but got used to it. “They have stopped trying to

clash head on with obstacles and refusals. They have

stopped trying to rectify technical malfunctioning by

direct action” (TB, p. 18). Problems caused by tech-

nique have come to be taken as ordinary and inevita-

ble. In other words, the techno-logical bluff is a new

mechanism through which the myth of technical

progress can continue to prevail in our contemporary

technological society.

sition, . . . and partly because it has an obvious

cogency that is not found on the part of what

might oppose it. . . . Ordinariness gives reassur-

ance. The genius of technique (not of techni-

cians) is to produce the most reassuring and

innocent ordinariness. This is what we are study-

ing under the title of the technological bluff. (TB,

pp. 18-19)

The effect of the techno-logical bluff is manifest in

two types of people in the technological society: the

fascinated and the diverted. Fascinated people marvel

at the continuous development of technology and trust

that technology will bring the ultimate good for hu-

manity, without any critical attitude. Diverted people

do not care what is going on but are constantly diverted

by unnecessary technological gadgets, sports, games,

movie stars, and so on. Consequently, there is no room

left for rational, critical, and free judgment that defines

humanity. Ellul diagnosed the situation as “the

triumph of the absurd” (TB, p. 199).

This analysis might seem to be counterintuitive

because it is common to see critical attitude develop-

ing among large groups of citizens toward aspects of

the technological society. For example, since the

1980s, environmental movement has been quite suc-

cessful. More recently antiglobalization movement

could also be seen as a counterexample. This criticism

is not or only partly justifiable, as we see in the later

part of this article.

Characteristics of Techno-logy Bluff

How different is the analysis of the techno-logical

bluff from Ellul’s previous works and other thinkers

critical about technology? This section is devoted to

elucidate the original contribution of TB, by compar-

ing characteristics of the techno-logical bluff with

similar concepts and ideas.

Techno-logical bluff and propaganda . First of all,

as hinted above, techno-logical bluff itself is not a

technique. More specifically, techno-logical bluff

should be distinguished from propaganda or human

technique. Techno-logical bluff does not necessarily

contain a purposeful message similar to propaganda

and has a broader and deeper scope than the latter. The

techno-logical bluff spreads the vague and broad idea

that technique is the inevitable and unique source of

human betterment and progress, whereas propaganda

conveys a more defined message that is deliberately

Things are done . . . the proliferation of tech-

niques . . . has outflanked prior obstacles and

integrated them progressively into the pro-

cess. ...Ithasdone all this without any hostile

reaction or refusal, partly because what is pro-

posed infinitely transcends all capacity for oppo-

Son / THE TECHNOLOGICAL BLUFF

521

a schoolteacher who emphasizes the importance of

science and technique or a speech of an activist who ar-

gues for more environment-friendly techniques, could

function as techno-logical bluff.

Two remarks must be made. First, this does not

mean that Ellul followed the simple definition of pro-

paganda as a mischievous manipulation of the public

on a very specific topic. In his earlier book, Propa-

ganda (1962/1965), Ellul presented an extensive anal-

ysis of propaganda revealing (a) that “integrating pro-

paganda” is more important than “agitation

propaganda” in the technological society (pp. 70-79),

(b) that the simple contrast of propagandist as deceiver

and propagandee as victim cannot be held because, in

modern technological society, propagandist and

propagandee need propaganda for their own sakes

(pp. 118-160), and (c) that propaganda aims to change

men’s attitude in a certain way (the subtitle of Propa-

ganda is The Formation of Men’s Attitude ), as one can

see in many indirect forms of propaganda such as com-

pany public relations (PR). However, the analysis of

Propaganda always presupposed the structure of pro-

pagandist and propagandee, which is not the case with

the techno-logical bluff the origin or shape of which

are varied.

Second, in spite of the difference, propaganda and

techno-logical bluff have a very close relationship in

two senses: (a) one of the most effective tools of

techno-logical bluff is propaganda. Commercial

advertisement (direct product commercial and indirect

company PR) and government propaganda are very

powerful in making people trust in technique. (b) To a

certain extent, technological bluff can be seen as the

result of various propaganda. Each propaganda has its

own message; however, as a whole, the propaganda

technique has contributed to the formation of men’s

attitude toward technique as a whole. The techno-

logical bluff is produced by those who have this trans-

formed attitude; yet it is not propaganda any more.

One could support Ellul’s claim by saying that propa-

ganda of technological society has led to the great

innovation since the 1980s, when the techno-logical

bluff began to prevail. Nakajima (2001) analyzed

green PR in terms of Ellul’s integration propaganda

revealing how green PR can change people’s attitude

toward a certain environmental issue, so that related

corporations can continue to benefit from their

antienvironmental products or activity. The effect,

however, is not limited to attitudes concerning a spe-

cific issue. Green PR, together with hundreds of other

kinds of propaganda, make technique in general, a

very ordinary and comfortable part of human life.

Because of this ordinariness of technique, many kinds

of techno-logical bluff are produced and reproduced,

without any deliberate designer.

Marcuse’s one-dimensional man and the techno-

logical bluff . Ellul’s analysis of techno-logical bluff

reminds us of Marcuse’s notion of one-dimensional

man. Marcuse argued in the 1960s that the advanced

industrial society had lost the dynamic of the preced-

ing period and the ability to accommodate critical

thoughts. Its system is rigidly institutionalized and has

a tendency to preserve the established existing struc-

ture. Consequently, individual freedom to criticize the

existing system and imagine something completely

new is suppressed by various mechanisms, such as

propaganda and cultural industries. According to

Marcuse, when man does not have the ability to tran-

scend and criticize standards and norms of the existing

society, he is one-dimensional man. The society that

does not allow potential alternatives to its system is a

one-dimensional society. While criticizing his con-

temporary society as one dimensional, however,

Marcuse also hinted that there could be a revolutionary

change initiated by outsiders of society and few

intelligentia (Kellner, 1991, p. xxxvi; Marcuse, 1964,

p. 256), and this prediction partially came to pass in the

May Events of 1968.

There are apparent similarities between Ellul’s and

Marcuse’s analysis, especially in terms of how citizens

of the technological society or advanced industrial

society suffer from a false image of the world. Both of

them analyze the system that makes impossible any

critical thinking and reflection, creates false needs,

and promotes a positive attitude toward the existing

structure of society.

Nevertheless, Ellul does not give any indication that

his analysis of techno-logical bluff is connected to

Marcuse’s theory. Instead, in his brief summary of the

history of the ideologies concerning science, Ellul

claimed that in the period between 1945 and 1975 sci-

ence was confronted with an ideological crisis.

According to him, people were not enthusiastic about

science. During that period, the close link between sci-

ence and technique, as well as the ambiguity about the

value and positive nature of science, were recognized

(TB, pp. 172-178). The image of science pursuing

truth and happiness, which had prevailed since the

18th century until 1945, was broken, and many skepti-

cal questions about science were raised. As Ellul’s

522

BULLETIN OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY / December 2004

own TSoc (1964) and Marcuse’s (1964) One Dimen-

sional Man were written in that period, one can specu-

late that Ellul viewed Marcuse’s insight as similar to

his TSoc and, thus, distinguished them from what he

wanted to convey in TB.

Ellul continued that, after 1975, corresponding to

the time of the aforementioned great innovation, the

ideological crisis has been reversed and science (and

technique) regains its respected status. The connection

between science and technique was not considered

negative, but positive, as it leads to economic benefit.

Furthermore, science, now indistinguishable from

technique, is viewed as something inevitable for

progress.

dialectical thinking operates (TSys, p. 318). It is a pro-

cess that is innate in modern technique, because of

which one eventually loses the external viewpoint.

Mentioning these two texts in relation with TB, Punzo

(1996) argued that “Ellul sees the great design of the

technological bluff as being directed to sealing human

life within this universe” (p. 25). 4

This reveals the fundamental difference between

Marcuse’s and Ellul’s ideas concerning the relation-

ship between modern technique, market, and politics.

Namely, while Ellul (1954/1964) argued that tech-

nique is the prime mover 5 of social, political, eco-

nomic, and cultural change (p. 133), Marcuse believed

that the problem of advanced industrial society and its

fascinated and diverted people is essentially a politico-

economical one. Marcuse (1964) stated, “Today polit-

ical power asserts itself through power over the ma-

chine process and over the technical organization of

the apparatus” (p. 3). The same position is held by

Horkheimer and Adorno (1969/2002):

More than ever, through the social transforma-

tion that it entails, science is becoming not

merely the discovering of nature but the response

to everything that disquiets or troubles us. There

is thus developing an ideology of science that I

would call a soteriology. The present-day ideol-

ogy of science is an ideology of salva-

tion. . . . Science alone holds the future to our

society. (TB, p. 182)

The basis on which technology is gaining power

over society is the power of those whose eco-

nomic position in society is strongest. Techno-

logical rationality today is the rationality of

domination. . . . These adverse effects, however,

should not be attributed to the internal laws of

technology itself but to its function within the

economy today. (p. 95) 6

Ellul radicalized the last comment a bit further and

said,

In earlier scientism, science thought that it could

suppress God and prove his nonexistence. But

this was true to only a minority. Today, this is not

a goal. . . . God serves no purpose in this situation

in which we now are. Science, thanks to ideol-

ogy, has now become divine as never before.

This is precisely the greatest danger. (TB, p. 184)

This difference concerning the prime mover of the

modern technological society has to do with

Marcuse’s focus on domination and Ellul’s emphasis

on absurdity. While Marcuse is concerned that citizens

of advanced industrial societies are dominated by the

system and deprived of their ability to be critical, Ellul

emphasized the absurdity created by the prevailing

techno-logical bluff. On the one hand, both notions de-

scribe a similar situation in which people think in the

way that the system wants them to think and, therefore,

do not enjoy their freedom. On the other hand, the

stress on the absurdity of the modern technological so-

ciety implies a more fundamental claim, namely, that

what is at stake here is not a class struggle between the

rich and the poor or the dominating and the dominated,

but being human—humanity itself. No individual and

no class are free from the techno-logical bluff, nor do

any of them benefit from it. The techno-logical bluff is

not produced by deliberate effort nor is it spread by

some specific action. It engenders a pseudoreligious

faith in technique, and the message can be preached in

These comments show there are differences in

Marcuse’s and Ellul’s approach to the similar phenom-

ena they observed. Whereas Marcuse lamented that

citizens of the advanced industrial society have lost the

ability to be critical, Ellul described the current situa-

tion that technique has become divine. The implica-

tion of this claim can be found already in TSoc. There

Ellul argued that human beings need a sense of mys-

tery on which one’s reason and consciousness is based.

Although technique destroys the mystery and does not

recognize the sacred, it eventually takes the place of

the sacred, as human beings cannot live without the

meaning that only the sacred can provide (TSoc,

p. 25). In TSys, Ellul described the same situation as a

technological system becoming a universe in which a

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: