9
It is wrong to say that politics is everything, but it is a fact that in our society everything has become political, and that the decision, for example to plant one crop instead of another has become a political matter. But it must be understood that such politization leads necessarily to a totalitarian state, which in turn inevitably leads to the autonomy of politics wherein values are superseded by expediency.138
At each step, state power is increased. The people under the spell of politics seek less and less to control the state; politicizing everything, they consider it normal that the state should constantly expand its area of action and use ever more instruments of power. This is legitimate in their eyes, as they believe that all will be solved by political action.139
The third component in Ellul’s sociological trilogy, The Political Illusion (first published in 1965 in French, in 1967 in its English translation) rounds out and builds on conclusions found in The Technological Society and Propaganda.140
In The Political Illusion, Ellul describes political systems of contemporary industrial societies dominated by technique and propaganda. He argues that these two influences have changed the internal mechanism of current democracies to such a degree that actual democracy is now largely an illusion. In the same manner as in the first two books of his trilogy, Ellul broadly describes the external characteristics of the political environment, then narrows his focus to its internal tenets, before finally discussing the unsettling consequences of a politics determined by technique and psychological manipulation.
Politization
Ellul begins his analysis of the modern political sphere with a description of what he calls “politization.” Politization refers to two elements of modern industrialized societies, with particular emphasis on France and the United States. The first dimension is represented by the “importance and growing frequency of ideological debates” in nearly every sector of society.141 We see this every day, as political discourse takes place in the workplace, in houses of worship, in the classroom, and in the home. Round-the-clock news channels and notifications keep us constantly up to date on political events; increasingly disparate news sources offer clearly contrasting accounts.
The second dimension of politization is the “tendency to treat all social problems according to the patterns and procedures found in the political world.”142 Ellul maintains that today’s social ills are approached with the presumption that their solutions will be of a political nature, and that the method of arriving at these answers must necessarily take a political path. In reality, Ellul argues, many social problems are not political and do not necessarily require a political response.
The larger point of Ellul’s discussion of politization is this: politics has enveloped us like a dark cloud. Every part of our social and professional lives is encompassed by political assumptions, language, arguments, and stances. We cannot escape politics no matter how we try. Every decision we make, down to the food we consume and the clothes we wear, has become political to a greater or lesser degree. This was especially true in the intellectual climate of the 1960s, with the rise of feminism, student politics, and numerous revolts and protests. Today, as we are more aware than ever of the increasingly interconnected global economy, the political impact of all our choices is a matter of constant discussion.
According to Ellul, politization is a consequence of technique. Technique’s calculating mindset and increasing prevalence of technology have resulted in greater reliance on the technical world. This development goes hand in hand with greater dependence on the state, and the political system, since many new technologies rely on massive infrastructures that must be at least publicly regulated, if not publicly owned and maintained. As war and combat become more and more technologically advanced, political dominance becomes by and large a question of technological prowess. Today, more than ever, the political is interlocked with technique; politics cannot progress without technique, and vice versa. Like technique, politics has become a type of consciousness—a way of viewing the world. As humans continue to live and evolve within technique, the political mindset cannot be escaped. Ellul explains:
To think of everything as political . . . to place everything in the hands of the state, to appeal to the state in all circumstances, to subordinate the problems of the individual to those of the group, to believe that political affairs are on everybody’s level and that everybody is qualified to deal with them—these factors characterize the politization of modern man and, as such, comprise a myth. The myth then reveals itself in beliefs and, as a result, easily elicits almost religious fervor.143
Thus, politics have become an object of worship, faith, and personal validation. And this is precisely what Ellul maintains: the contemporary political consciousness is an essentially religious worldview.
The Necessary and the Ephemeral
Ellul writes, “the decisive trait of today’s politics is the fusion of two contradictory elements: the necessary and the ephemeral.”144 As we saw in Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective, Ellul views the “necessary” as describing a certain realm of decision-making in which one must choose between a range of defined possibilities and means. Ellul always adopted a realist approach to politics, and the state. He knows that the politician is sometimes obliged to wage war and must operate within the restrictions of what is possible at any given moment. But since politics today happens in a world defined by techniques and technology, now technique determines this possible. Technique always progresses toward efficiency: its essence or goal. Consequently, the political is likewise driven forward by a constant striving for greater effectiveness, which for Ellul includes increasing consolidation of power, money, and the quest for immediate results. He contends:
From the moment efficacy becomes the criterion of political action, new limitations restrict all decisions. That is exactly what is happening today. Even with the best intentions, no one nowadays could select any other political criterion than efficacy. Already democracy’s game rests entirely on success. The person will be elected who can bring some project to its successful conclusion, who is most likely to succeed.145
We therefore do not support the politician who is virtuous, or the one we believe is the best leader. Instead, we support the candidate who has both the best chance of productivity and the perceived ability to solve certain problems created by previous political decisions. Furthermore, the politicians who have previously been “successful” in politics or business are seen as the most efficient choices, winning votes and landing positions of authority.
The second trait of today’s political sphere is what Ellul calls “perhaps the most tragic sign and characteristic of our day.”146 This feature, the “ephemeral,” refers to the lack of concrete and lasting change resulting from political decisions. The fast-paced and efficiency-driven nature of today’s political system leads to resolutions that are often fleeting and impermanent, providing only surface-level answers to deeply rooted societal predicaments. “Thus, the ephemeral and the necessary constantly combine to give our political affairs their illusory face—illusion of freedom in some cases, illusion of seriousness and importance in others.”147
The Monopoly of Force
For Ellul, one of the most visible consequences of a political system guided by technique is the monopoly of power. In a context defined by the combination of the necessary and ephemeral, true democracy is largely illusory; the few with political power and capital will, in many cases, continue to consolidate more control and wealth. This entails additional force from those in positions of authority. Ellul writes:
The term ‘political’ must be taken here in its precise and restricted sense, i.e., with relation to the state and not just any power, or just any activity. Max Weber’s definition is both classic and excellent: “Politics is the leadership by a political body called the state, or any influence exerted in that direction.” I also agree with Weber that the state can be defined sociologically only by its specific means, which is force. Obviously, force is not the state’s only normal means, but it is its specific and exclusive means.148
Therefore, the current political machine, and those at the front of its hull, will continue to increase their use of physical force (war and prisons) and psychological violence (propaganda). Situations like the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay by U.S. soldiers, while shocking, are not surprising according to this logic. Within the choices available to politicians, they are necessary, a direct result of technique’s influence.
An often undiscussed entailment of the monopoly of force is that those with political influence frequently end up determining societal values. Because the powerful have often gained their positions from their previous successes and not from their integrity, they inevitably push their corrupt values onto the people they are supposedly serving—often unknowingly. For Ellul, most politicians are driven by approval, success, and control—not by a genuine concern for others. Those in command often encourage a distortion of traditional values within a society.149
Three Political Illusions
Ellul points out three primary interrelated illusions within the political sphere. The first concerns the control of the state. Since technique and propaganda play such a determining role in politics, the central belief of democracies—that individuals can control the direction of the state—is patently false.
The second illusion relates to participation. We have been conditioned to believe that if we actively engage in our democracy, we will make substantial changes in governmental policy and implementation. However, both the character of information and the needs of the growing political structure entail that true dissent is exceedingly rare, and the political maturity required to make meaningful political decisions is unlikely.
Finally, the third illusion has to do with the pursuit of universal goods: freedom, justice, basic human rights, and the like. While many today trust that political solutions will lead to these qualities, Ellul reminds us that as long as technique drives and limits politics, these standards will never fully be achieved. In fact, universal human goods become increasingly elusive. Ellul elaborates that this last illusion rests on the mistaken conviction that contemporary politics and the state will inevitably produce greater freedom for the individual. Following Bernard Charbonneau, Ellul refers to this as the “lie of liberty.”150 In reality, the more politization occurs, the more power will be monopolized and additional force will be utilized, leading to broadening enslavement.
Solutions?
Throughout his works, Ellul rarely offers solutions. Instead, his goal is to leave the individual free to answer the questions he poses through their style of life. That said, he does propose substantial responses to the problems presented throughout his sociological trilogy, and The Political Illusion is no exception. In order to counter the totalitarian and antidemocratic nature of our modern politics, Ellul advises us to adopt two orientations.
First, we should appreciate and encourage “the minority opinions, which must receive the more attention the feebler they are.”151 Today, more than ever, we need to listen to the underrepresented and the exploited in our society. Only when these groups have a voice will true democracy be visible.
Second, we must orient ourselves toward dialogue and discussion rather than argument and debate. Ellul believes that—largely due to propaganda—political groups have become crystallized into warring ideological tribes. In resistance to this situation, we should instead encourage authentic conversation between people with varying points of view, in much the same way Socrates did in the early Platonic dialogues. He explains:
For democracy and man to exist, it is necessary to maintain at all costs the differentiations that spark communication and relationships. All assimilation (such as of an inferior or minority group to a superior or majority group), all adaptation (of the individual to society), and all integration . . . must be avoided . . . It must be understood that if adaptation takes place, there will be no more dialogue.152
Only by speaking up for the marginalized, by encouraging the views of minority groups, by celebrating true difference, and by listening and conversing, will we be able to combat the totalitarian nature of our political system. Additionally, Ellul exhorts his readers to recognize three determining facts, which will help us more fully understand the seriousness of our condition.
The first is “the prodigious increase” of means.153 As he does in Presence in the Modern World, Ellul reminds us that humans are increasingly being reduced to instruments, often becoming cogs in the technological-political machinery of the modern age. Such exploitation leads to profound alienation and should be identified and constantly resisted in every sector of society.
Second, Ellul maintains that individuals need to know the difference between an authentic democracy and a totalitarian state. Those who believe we live in a real democracy are profoundly misinformed. Ellul elaborates:
The difference between democracy and totalitarianism is precisely in the area of means. If a government increases technology in society, steps up propaganda and public relations, mobilizes all resources for the purposes of productivity, resorts to a planned economy and social life, bureaucratizes all activities, reduces law to a technique of social control, and socializes daily life, then it is a totalitarian government.154
These characteristics of totalitarianism are frighteningly familiar in today’s political spheres, even those that are labeled as democratic. True democracy, in contrast, is the control of the state by free, informed, educated, and diverse individuals within varied social groups. In order to comprehend the gravity of our current political situation, Ellul argues that we must fully grasp that many contemporary industrial societies closely resemble totalitarian states, not democratic ones.
Finally, Ellul contends that “any quest for true democracy demands that we question all our clichés . . . all collective sociological presuppositions.”155 Here Ellul is referring to the unquestioned convictions that many hold today; for example, beliefs such as, “man is good, technology is neutral and under man’s control, and moral progress inevitably follows material progress”—and other myths such as patriotism, nationalism, and the supremacy of capitalism or socialism.156
The existence of these stereotypes (clichés, myths) in us is the social weakness of our existence, the central point at which we are vulnerable. If it weren’t for that, we might be remarkably intelligent, informed, concerned with democracy, impervious to outside influences, open-minded and liberal, humanist or Christian—but all this matters very little. In our relationship with the political world, the fundamental law is that of the chain and its weakest link. This goes for us: our weakest point, through which all bankrupt political matters enter, is our basic adherence to these stereotypes. Where they exist no freedom or democratic creativity is possible.157
To question, challenge, and oppose the clichés of our day is necessary for any authentic democracy. However, as Ellul concludes The Political Illusion, he admits that the partial solutions he has sketched are quite unlikely due to the increasing saturation of technique and mass psychological manipulation.
Summary
In contemporary industrial-technological societies such as ours, politics has enveloped nearly every facet of life. Our language, beliefs, and actions are largely motivated by political interests and concerns. In fact, many of us believe that all social ills can ultimately be remedied by political solutions. This politization is detrimental to true democracy, because the political sphere is guided by technique and propaganda—not by free, informed citizens. Two traits of the contemporary political milieu are the necessary and ephemeral. The necessary element refers to the predetermined, totalitarian direction of politics. The ephemeral refers to the fleeting and ineffectual nature of individual action to substantiate fundamental changes in society.
Politics, driven by technique and its quest for increasing control, has resulted in a monopoly of force. The most technologically advanced societies will necessarily be the ones with the greatest use of physical or psychological violence (or both) against their people. This violence comes in an array of forms—from propaganda to war—and always leads to increasing dehumanization, alienation, and hopelessness. By accepting the “political illusion,” we place our trust in a political system, believing it will provide us with greater freedom. However, if we do not understand the architecture and the motor of politics, we become enslaved.
Ellul urges us to see the linkage between technique, propaganda, and politics, and to become aware of their insidious entailments. By questioning current myths and by encouraging the voices of the underrepresented, we can open a small realm of freedom within the sphere of political necessity. In fact, this is Ellul’s ultimate goal: to help individuals become free. In his theological writings, this freedom comes by way of responding to God, and refusing to bow down to contemporary idols. In his sociological books, freedom implies continually resistance to technique and encouraging deep reflection and serious dialogue.
138. Ellul, Political Illusion, 78–79.
139. Ellul, Political Illusion, 197.
140. Ellul dedicated The Political Illusion to his close friend Bernard Charbonneau, whose influence on Ellul’s social criticism cannot be overstated. Many similar themes and arguments are found in Charbonneau’s L’État (The State), 1949/1987.
141. Ellul, Political Illusion, 8.
142. Ellul, Political Illusion, 8.
143. Ellul, Political Illusion, 12.
144. Ellul, Political Illusion, 29.
145. Ellul, Political Illusion, 35.
146. Ellul, Political Illusion, 49.
147. Ellul, Political Illusion, 66.
148. Ellul, Political Illusion, 15–16.
149. Ellul writes: “A fundamental contradiction exists between politics and justice. Politics can only act with material or psychological force—with spiritual, ideological, or police constraint. A well-constructed political move can never produce anything but power—the institutions created by it are only ends or instruments of such power” (Ellul, Political Illusion, 196).
150. Ellul, Political Illusion, 212. See Charbonneau, L’État, 67–68.
151. Ellul, Political Illusion, 237.
152. Ellul, Political Illusion, 237.
153. Ellul, Political Illusion, 238.
154. Ellul, Political Illusion, 238–39.
155. Ellul, Political Illusion, 239.
156. Ellul, Political Illusion, 239. Ellul devotes a whole work to uncovering and dismantling such clichés. See Ellul, Critique of the New Commonplaces.
157. Ellul, Political Illusion, 239–40.