After examination of the background and influences that shaped Ellul’s thought, we can now take a closer look at his dialectical method. Here, we not only find echoes of his past studies and experiences, but the many ways his methodology permeates his unique scholarship.
Ellul’s philosophy and theology can be difficult to penetrate. Not only is he overly verbose and repetitive in many of his writings, he also occasionally contradicts himself. Ellul recognized these tendencies, but did not work to repair or clarify them.[1] After all, the very presence of these apparent stumbling blocks—of tension and contraction—holds the unifying guide to Ellul’s work: his dialectic. The foremost Ellul scholar, David W. Gill, writes:
If there is one characteristic which permeates every thought and every analysis rendered by Jacques Ellul, it is that his work is thoroughly dialectical. . . . Contradiction, opposition, and paradox are ever-present in anything Ellul has in view. Axiomatic-deductive, linear logic is rejected. Rationalistic “scientism”–the worship of empirically demonstrable facts (and nothing else)–is damned. Understanding, whether of Christianity or society, results from a true perception of the various antithetical factors and forces at work.[2]
Dialectic is the skeleton key to Ellul’s philosophy and theology; it is the hermeneutical principle by which one can clearly and coherently explore all of Ellul’s work. In fact, Ellul’s conception of dialectic is both a worldview and a methodology. I will now explain this by discussing the key ideas in Ellul’s insightful and often-neglected essay “On Dialectic.”
Dialectic comes from the Greek word dialegesthai, which means “to dialogue.”[3] It also connotes contradiction. There have been many competing definitions of dialectic. From Socrates and Plato to Kant, Hegel and Marx, various intellectuals have arrived at different conclusions concerning dialectic. As previously mentioned, Ellul’s notion of dialectic stems from Marx, Kierkegaard, and Barth. While Ellul shares many similarities with these thinkers, he extends and develops the concept of dialectic in a new and comprehensive manner.[4]
According to Ellul, reality (the external world) is something with which humans enter into a dialogue. Reality exists as both separate and not-separate for humans; it is knowable and comprehensible, yet also unknowable and incomprehensible. These fundamental aspects of reality are always inextricably linked. Thus, the basic structure of reality is dialectical.[5]
Ellul maintains that reality includes the logical and the illogical, the rational and the irrational. For example, if one looks at the world through the eyes of a twentieth-century scientist, then one will understand the rational side of reality; it is seen as causal, linear, and orderly. Conversely, if one looks at the world through the eyes of an existentialist, one will understand the irrational or absurd side of reality, which is seen as noncausal, nonlinear, and disorderly. The important point is this: reality contains both aspects—the sensical and the nonsensical, or as Ellul puts it, the “Yes and the No.”[6] Ellul explains,
Put a positive charge next to a negative one and you have a powerful flash, but this is a new phenomenon excluding neither the positive nor the negative. Can we be sure, then, that positive and negative factors in thought cancel one another, that one cannot maintain a No at the same time as a Yes? But these two questions show at once that there are two aspects of dialectic—a dialectic of ideas, but perhaps also a dialectic of facts, of reality.[7]
Ellul goes on to argue that reality (which is not limited to the physical, external world, but includes human thought, ideas) is comprised of contradictory factors that coexist. It necessarily follows that a comprehensive philosophical or theological system must take into account both constituents of reality: rational and irrational. Ellul agrees with Plato’s statement, “The dialectician is one who sees the totality.”[8]
Ellul argues that there have been two primary interpretations of the nature of reality, beginning with the pre-Socratics. The first view, influenced by thinkers like Heraclitus, states that the nature of reality is always in a state of flux; therefore, true (immutable) knowledge can never be obtained. This perspective influenced many in Western thought, primarily Nietzsche and the existentialists. The second perspective, influenced by Parmenides, maintains that reality is unchanging and static. This view has also been extremely influential, particularly among many Platonists and certain religious thinkers. Ellul believes that both strands of thought are correct. Reality is comprised of changing and unchanging factors.[9] This belief is of utmost importance to remember when reading Ellul’s philosophical and theological writings.
David Lovekin, in his book Technique, Discourse, and Consciousness, argues that Ellul’s dialectic is informed primarily by Hegel.[10] It would be more accurate to state that Ellul was influenced primarily by Kierkegaard’s dialectical method, which was informed by and shares similarities with Hegel’s system, but also has key differences. Ellul is sympathetic to Hegel’s logic, while also critical of it. He argues that Hegel’s system requires all aspects of reality to be in a state of change. In other words, if two factors ultimately end in a synthesis, then they cannot remain unchanged—change is necessitated through the final movement. In contrast, Ellul believes that reality consists of factors that are ultimately synthesized, and it also consists of factors that remain separate and distinct.[11] For this reason, Ellul rejects Hegel’s logic. He states, “One might also think of a living organism in which forces are constantly at work. Some of these forces tend to keep the organism alive, while others tend to destroy and disaggregate it; and at each instant there is a synthesis of the two groups of forces that produces the state of the live body at a given moment.”[12] In this example, Ellul maintains that there are three factors that comprise reality: positive, negative, and a combination of positive and negative. This certainly sounds very Hegelian, but Ellul insists that his logic is more accurate and comprehensive, and thus ultimately quite different, than Hegel’s.[13]
Ellul was also greatly influenced by Marx’s conception of dialectic. As we have seen, Marx argued that history was moving dialectically from societies ruled by the bourgeoisie to societies ruled by the proletariat. He believed that the historical process evolves by way of a series of conflicting factors and ultimately ends with a new and more beneficial human society. For this reason, Marx (and Ellul) maintained that history can only be understood by looking at the conflicts within society. These represent the inherent tensions that force change, development, and social progress.
Like Hegel and Marx, Ellul believes there are contradictory factors that exist inherently in society. Hegel believed that history was producing better societies; Marx argued that history would ultimately end in a peaceful, communal state of existence for all. While Ellul appreciates both of these views, he does not accept these conclusions. Instead, he maintains that the very idea of “progress” is itself an ideology.[14]
Furthermore, Ellul believes that Hegel and Marx both fall into a sort of deterministic mindset that excludes the dialectical category of possibility. According to Ellul, the category of possibility includes both freedom and necessity as essential components of reality. Because of possibility, the future can never be known in advance. Thus, Ellul argues that Hegel, Marx, and many of their followers are misguided.[15]
Hegel does a superb job of synthesizing opposites and reconciling differences. In fact, Hegel’s approach seems more coherent than Ellul’s. But Ellul insists that reality’s constituents cannot always be synthesized; indeed, quite often they cannot be. Ellul’s philosophical and sociological methodology is one of a phenomenologist. He simply describes reality as it presents itself to consciousness.[16] This is one reason why Ellul does not try to iron out the contradictions and paradoxes that present themselves. Rather, he embraces reality as it appears: both rational and irrational.[17] Later, however, we will see that Ellul is closer to Hegel than he admits.
It is necessary to understand Ellul’s methodological approach to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures in order to fully grasp the depth of his theological writings. According to Ellul, dialectic appears first in ancient Hebrew thought. He maintains that in the Hebrew Scriptures there is a clear presentation of human consciousness coming to terms with the often contradictory nature of the spiritual and material worlds. Ellul does not argue that there is an explicit theory of dialectic found in ancient Judaism, but that the principle of dialectic unambiguously appears in this tradition.[18] He argues, “The Hebrews formulated God’s revelation dialectically without examining what they were doing intellectually, without working out the noetic aspect.”[19] In other words, Ellul argues that the Hebrews experienced reality as it presented itself to them: as a dialectic. They did not rationalize it away or deny its contradictions. Rather, they embraced the paradoxical nature of reality and described it. In this sense they were some of the first phenomenologists.[20]
Ellul discusses several examples of dialectic in the Hebrew Scriptures in order to support his claim. First, the ancient Hebrews state that a unique, transcendent Being exists outside human history, and at the same time inside human history. They describe their God as one who actively moves through history with them. Conversely, God is described as not being restricted to the temporal realm. This Being is known and unknown to them; he is one who participates, and one who does not. God is an active dialogue partner and a silent dialogue partner. This dialectical relation culminates in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, whom a small group of Hebrews believed to be fully God and fully human, fully transcendent and immanent. Ellul goes on to argue that in Christianity, we encounter the most fully developed understanding of dialectic, because of its insistence upon the dual nature of Christ.[21]
Second, Ellul maintains that dialectic is evident in recurring processes located in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. For example, the process of “command– disobedience– judgment– reconciliation” is a dialectical movement that is found throughout these sacred texts.[22] This is clearly illustrated in the story of the Exodus. Here, the Hebrew people fail to follow the command of God (disobedience), they are sentenced to slavery in Egypt (judgment), and finally they are reconciled to God as they return to the Holy Land. In the Christian Scriptures this process also continually takes place. For example, Jesus’s parable of the prodigal son clearly demonstrates this dialectical process. According to Ellul, the sacred narratives within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures always end in reconciliation. Furthermore, Ellul maintains that all things ultimately end in reconciliation.[23] It is clear that this reconciliation might also be called a synthesis. So, despite his insistence that his dialectical methodology is fundamentally different than Hegel’s, we can see that they are more similar than not.
A third aspect of dialectic found in the Scriptures, according to Ellul, is the relation of the part to the whole. According to Ellul, the remnant is always dialectically related to the sum, and vice versa. It follows that reconciliation is always the outcome for the part as well as the whole. He explains,
The election of the chosen people implies the reintegration of the human race. The election of the remnant implies the reintegration of all Israel. The election of Jesus implies the reintegration of the remnant. From the biblical standpoint, then, the development of judgment is never a mechanism to separate the good and the bad (as though these were simply rejected, excluded, eliminated, etc.). It is an election of the bad mediated by the good.[24]
Here, Ellul is arguing that the part and the whole can never be understood apart from each other: what applies to one applies to both. For Ellul, dialectic necessarily involves a constant tension between the part and the whole, but it always ends as one—part and whole together in fulfillment and reconciliation.[25]
Following this dialectical path of reasoning, Ellul maintains that salvation is universal. In other words, the process of being reunited with God is the logical and necessary outcome of the historical process. Universal salvation is certainly not a dominant belief within Christian circles, and many have rejected Ellul’s theological works because of his affirmation of this doctrine. In any case, Ellul remained firm and fast in his conviction: all things—humans, animals, the earth—will ultimately be reunited with God. More will be said concerning Ellul’s universalism in a later chapter of this work.[26]
As a final summary, dialectic in Ellul’s work includes the following principles:
These key principles comprise Ellul’s dialectical worldview.[27] One might object to this schema by arguing that if principle four is correct, then principle two cannot be (or vice versa). Even though all things end in reconciliation, Ellul maintains that there are certain constituents of reality that cannot be reconciled at this time or by human effort; for example, the technological realm and the transcendent realm, or human and divine realms. This is clearly demonstrated in the two veins of Ellul’s writings. His philosophical and sociological works portray a world dominated by technique, artificiality, and necessity, whereas his theological work presents a reality constituted by spirit and freedom. Both strands of Ellul’s work represent a reality that exists in dialectical tension, but, according to Ellul, neither of these realities can be reconciled by humanity.[28] Yet this is not to say that there will never be reconciliation. Ellul firmly believes the opposite.
It is absolutely necessary that this dialectical factor exist. If the technological system is total, then this factor has to exist outside it. But only the transcendent can be outside it. For me then, the transcendent is, in the concrete situation which technology has put us, the necessary condition for the continuation of life, the unfolding of history.[29]
In this passage, it is clear that even though irreconcilable factors exist, the transcendent will ultimately make possible a future state of existence that will reconcile all constituents of reality. Ellul does not clearly describe this state of existence, or how to get there, but he nonetheless argues that it is a logical and necessary entailment of the dialectical nature of reality.
In conclusion, in Ellul’s understanding of dialectic, he views reality as made up of contradictory forces always in tension. At the same time, he believes that history is moving toward a goal of reconciliation. He states,
There is always one history (not two, a secular and a sacred), made up of conjunction, opposition, and contradiction of the independent work of man and the “relational” work of God. All history in every real and concrete event is an expression of this double force. . . . As in the dialectical crisis, no one factor is suppressed, but both are integrated into a synthesis.[30]
It is clear from these statements that Ellul’s theory of dialectic dominates his worldview. Furthermore, it is impossible to have a worldview without it affecting one’s methodology. Thus, both the worldview and the method of Ellul’s work are dominated by dialectic.
As stated earlier, many who read Ellul’s work are not familiar with his dialectic. I firmly believe that this lack of familiarity has led many to become alienated from either Ellul’s philosophical or his theological work. It is my goal to not only present key ideas found in Ellul’s writings, but also to continually demonstrate how dialectic is the thread that unites Ellul’s entire system together and is the key to understanding all of his philosophical and theological work. In the following, I will briefly give some examples of dialectic in Ellul’s work, which will make clear the necessity of being familiar with it when approaching his writings.
Ellul’s best-known book is The Technological Society (La Technique), first published in 1954. This brilliant work systematically describes and analyzes the role of technique in the modern world. Many have interpreted this book as taking a pessimistic attitude toward technique, but Ellul argued that it was primarily a phenomenological work that aimed at describing the underbelly of the technological realm. In it, he primarily presents the negative effects technique has had on society, human consciousness, and nature. Technique, according to Ellul, dominates and controls everything that crosses its path; it subsumes and transforms all that touches it. This leaves technique looking like a monolithic, one-dimensional entity. But this is not the case. When we approach technique in a dialectical manner, we see that technique can never be fully understood without a comprehension of those opposing factors that exist in tension with it.[31]
For example, according to Ellul, technique strips humans of freedom. It demands specific rules of efficiency that govern all arenas of contemporary society. Once technique takes over, humans must submit to it and end up existing in a realm of necessity. However, the opposing factor that exists in tension with necessity is freedom. (Necessity and freedom represent two contradictory factors that partially comprise dialectic.) Technique represents a determined milieu that excludes free agency. Conversely, out of their desire and in their search for freedom, humans continue to look to technique for fulfillment. In other words, human freedom—in part—propagates technique while at the same time limiting itself to the realm of necessity.[32]
A concrete example of this dialectical relationship can be seen by looking at the Internet. The World Wide Web provides the user with the ability to cross geographic and cultural boundaries quite easily and efficiently. It also enables the user to freely and instantly communicate with friends and loved ones. So, in a sense, technique is creating a society where more people have this freedom. However, according to Ellul, technique is only creating the freedom necessary to submit to itself. That is, the freedom offered by the Internet requires a computer, an Internet connection, and the knowledge to use it. This is a limited freedom. True freedom would not involve one becoming ensnared by a technological device. This example illustrates the need to understand the dialectically opposed but interrelated factors involving the categories of necessity and freedom.
In his work The Ethics of Freedom (1976), Ellul offers one theological counterpart to much of his sociological and philosophical work concerning technique. According to Ellul, true freedom is only found in the Transcendent. Humans in modern society are not free because they have allowed themselves to be controlled by technique. Ellul calls this “slavery” or “alienation.”[33] He writes, “He (the worker) is a man completely shut off from himself. He has become an appendix of the machine. . . . Alienation today is not that of misery or social inferiority. It has taken a more profound and total sense. It extends to more than the economic sphere. It is a psychological or moral problem.”[34] The reality of alienation is a result of the realm of necessity, which itself is a characteristic of technique. Technique may provide individuals with limited freedom, but according to Ellul, they are still alienated.
For Ellul, the sphere of necessity makes way for the possibility of freedom. However, this possibility is not yet a complete actuality. Only through a relationship with the Transcendent can one break free from necessity and enter into complete freedom. The Transcendent is fully manifested in Christ. Furthermore, Christ embodies all four principles of dialectic. First, God, in Christ, is continually involved in a process of creative self-revelation. In other words, God is always acting in new and unpredictable ways; God is both immutable and mutable. Second, Christ is comprised of contradictory factors that cannot be synthesized: the human and the divine. Third, Christ’s dual nature demonstrates that the material and the spiritual can, at some level, be synthesized into a whole. Finally, Christ’s life and resurrection bring reconciliation to all things.[35]
The doctrine of the Trinity is central to Ellul’s worldview and shapes nearly all of his work—philosophical and theological. We should remember that, for Ellul, the Trinity is a concrete manifestation of dialectic, and is also the fullest revelation of God. In fact, Ellul argues that Christians should refer to themselves first as Trinitarians rather than monotheists. He explains, “Creation by the Father, the incarnation of the Son, and transfiguration by the Spirit are the architecture of revelation. . . . Monotheism engenders authoritarianism and totalitarianism both ecclesiastically and politically. Trinitarian thinking ensures at the same time both divine and human liberty.”[36] This radical conviction lies at the heart of Ellul’s project. It demonstrates clearly that Ellul firmly believes that dialectic should be foundational—especially in religion. Furthermore, a nondialectical understanding of religion (that is, the worldview of technique) will result in a one-dimensional society of religious exclusivists.[37]
As we have seen, Ellul’s dialectical theology shaped all of his intellectual work. The clearest example of this is in his book Hope in Time of Abandonment (1973), which Ellul considered to be his most important theological work. In it, we see a vivid dialectical understanding of reality. For example, Ellul argues that the realm of technique is the realm of the “closed” rather than the “open” (the spiritual realm). In the closed milieu, humans are restricted by institutions of domination, ideologies of control, and religions of fear. This sphere continues to limit and stunt the psychological and spiritual growth of humanity.[38]
Humans are restricted precisely because technique has determined human consciousness and behavior. There is rarely any true spontaneity, creativity, or freedom. Instead, humans think in certain preordained categories and act in predetermined modes of behavior. Because of this stifling, humans begin to look for an open sphere of existence. They look for freedom in new forms of technology, consumerism, and television, according to Ellul. Within this sphere of technique, however, freedom cannot be found. Only through the spiritual can one escape the realm of necessity. But how can one connect to the spiritual? Ellul maintains that the dialectical link between the closed and open realms is hope. Hope is not an impractical emotion or an abstract concept. For Ellul, hope is a living reality that should be enthusiastically embraced and lived out. As the title of his book suggests, we are living in an age of abandonment—a hopeless age where nearly every aspect of life has been abandoned to technique. Hope is the only true response to the domination of technique.[39] At first glance, this seems like an overly simplistic and naïve response. However, upon further investigation into the nature of hope, we will see the dialectical coherence of Ellul’s claim.
Hope, according to Ellul, is the “impossible possibility,” the “antiobject,” and the “antidiscourse.”[40] It is not an object to be studied or a fixed theoretical concept. Rather, hope is a reality that is existentially encountered and acted out. Ellul does not clearly and specifically define hope, because he maintains that this would “systematize” hope.[41] Despite this insistence, Ellul does refer to his theology as a “theology of hope.” He does believe, however, that his is a theology that is not fixed or immutable. Rather, it is one that is in a state of flux and is “unstructured.”[42]
In order to fully understand how hope is the dialectical link between the realm of technique and the realm of freedom, we need to briefly discuss Ellul’s conception of history. According to Ellul, history moves dialectically along two tracks, one spiritual and one material. Within the spiritual historical progression, there are two primary movements: presence and promise. The movement of presence denotes specific historical periods when God is “strikingly and unquestionably present.”[43] Clear examples of these periods can be found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as well as in the individual experiences of the believer. Conversely, there are periods in history where God is silent, where God has “abandoned” humanity. These are periods of simultaneous abandonment and promise, such as our current moment in history. According to Ellul, “Such is the basic spiritual reality of our age. God is turned away. God is absent. God is silent.”[44] This “turning away” is not a punishment for human behavior or a rejection of humanity by God, but a moment in history when God has chosen to remain silent. Ellul argues that there have been many moments of God’s silence throughout history, especially as seen in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Our moment is not unique in this sense. Ellul quotes Paul Tillich to explain this age of silence:
The Spirit has shown to our time and to innumerable people in our time the absent God and the empty space that cries in us to be filled by Him. And then the absent one may return and take the space that belongs to Him, and the Spiritual Presence may break again into our consciousness, awakening us to recognize what we are, shaking and transforming us.[45]
Like Tillich, Ellul firmly believes that history is constituted by presence and absence. However, Ellul also maintains that Tillich has oversimplified the situation by implying that humans merely need to wait for God to appear again. According to Ellul, the absence of God is also a demand: a demand to combine faith and action—praxis—with active hope. Hope can thrive only in a period of absence and silence.[46]
Not only is hope demanded from God’s silence, it is also the dialectical link between absence and presence. In order to explain this, Ellul turns to Jewish theologian André Neher: “God has withdrawn in silence, not in order to avoid man, but, on the contrary, in order to encounter him. But it is an encounter of silence with silence. . . . The dialectic which links God with man is no longer positive. . . . It is a negative dialectic.”[47] Silence has its dialectical counterpart: action. Furthermore, action must be motivated by confident hope in God. According to Ellul, this action is comprised primarily of prayer, fellowship, and local political engagement. He explicitly outlines these entailments of hope in his books Prayer and Modern Man (1970) and Anarchy and Christianity (1988). These will be further discussed in the final chapter of this work.
To summarize, the closed realm of technique coexists with the open realm of the spirit. The closed sphere is one of necessity and determination; the open sphere is one of freedom. Each realm also has its own historical progression. Within the spiritual progression, there are two movements, presence and promise (absence). This current age is a movement of absence: a period of God’s silence. This moment in history is transcended by the dialectical link of active hope. More importantly, active hope also acts as the connector between the closed and the open realms, between necessity and freedom.[48]
As I have clearly demonstrated, in order to fully understand Ellul, one must first understand his conception of dialectic, as well as the central ideas found in his philosophical and theological writings. Without this knowledge, one’s understanding of Ellul will certainly be superficial and inadequate, and one will miss the very motivating force behind Ellul’s scholarship. Many philosophers, theologians, and social theorists today read only one side of Ellul’s work. Even worse, they fail to grasp Ellul’s dialectical worldview and methodology, let alone to see the world dialectically. Recalling Kaczynski, we can imagine how a truly comprehensive familiarity with Ellul’s work and worldview could have likely led Kaczynski to a different philosopher for intellectual and moral support.
In the following chapters, not only will I make use of Ellul’s dialectical method in order to weave together the most important aspects of his philosophy and theology, but I will also explain these aspects. For example, Ellul’s conception of technique and its consequences will be discussed at length. Also, I will briefly present Ellul’s critique of modern politics and propaganda, and explain Ellul’s Christian anarchism. (Along with his conception of dialectic, Ellul’s writings on anarchism and nonviolence are perhaps the most neglected part of his oeuvre.) Finally, I will present and explain Ellul’s universal soteriology—a central aspect of his theology that has also been neglected and misunderstood by many.[49]