Fish & Water: Jacques Ellul on the “Total Environment”
I realize that I overuse the analogy of the fish not being able to see the water that it is swimming in, and I ask your forbearance in this. (And yes, I will still likely use this analogy again!)
If I return to this analogy it’s because the writers that we have been looking at refer to this idea repeatedly. It bears repeating because in order to understand the world that we live in, we need to be constantly asking ourselves questions such as, “Why is the world the way that it is?” “Does the world have to be this way?” “If the world wasn’t this way, how would this affect me?” And, “How could the world look differently?” In order to begin to answer these questions, we need to be able to discern what in our culture adds to human flourishing, and what are modern accretions that detract from human flourishing – we need to be able to see the water we’re swimming in.
So without further ado, here is our second quote from Jacques Ellul, where he refers to the “total environment” in which we find ourselves:
“It is the emergence of mass media which makes possible the use of propaganda techniques on a societal scale. The orchestration of press, radio, and television to create a continuous, lasting, and total environment renders the influence of propaganda virtually unnoticed precisely because it creates a constant environment.”
~ Jacques Ellul
As I’ve mentioned before, when trying to understand the modern world, it’s helpful to reflect on what the world looked like before the Industrial Revolution. Ellul here refers to the effect of the modern emergence of mass media which, because it creates a “total environment renders the influence of propaganda virtually unnoticed.” It’s worth noting that Ellul was writing about this “total environment” nearly a century ago, and the reality is that the extent to which we are surrounded by a totalizing environment of propaganda has only increased exponentially. Before the Industrial Revolution, most people would have consumed very little media, and so their energy, effort, and concern would have focused on the small world that they could hope to have any control over: their immediate community.
If we weren’t already sufficiently dazed and confused by the onslaught of mass media, we are entering into completely unchartered waters with the introduction of A.I., deep fakes, and so on. Early signs are that the effects of unfettered A.I. could be catastrophic for the human capacity to discern truth from falsity. This is particularly troubling when one adds in the added dimension of international rivalries and the weaponization of A.I. in these rivalries. The potential deleterious effects on social cohesion are reason for serious concern.
As with all aspects of technology however, the reality of course is that technologies only have the power that we (corporately) allow it to have. While no individual has the power to stop it, if we become a culture that says “no” to creeping technology, then we can have at least some control over the extent to which it can affect us. As with everything in the modern world, ultimately we cannot resist the Machine on our own, so we need to live with others who share our skepticism, concern, and willingness to change our lives if we hope to leave a better world for future generations.
I have not touched much on the question of how one should live in a world increasingly affected by the influence of technology. At one end of the spectrum are traditional societies that have largely not adopted most modern technologies, and at the other end of the spectrum are those who accept technology with little-to-no criteria. The most famous western example of a techno skeptic society are the Amish, and I will speak about them at greater length eventually.
I don’t want to go down this rabbit trail today, but I would like to plant this question as a seed: in the face of Ellul’s “constant environment,” what can groups of like-minded people do to mitigate the effects of both technology and the propaganda that technology empowers? What are principles that communities should adopt in order to protect themselves?
My intuition is that, while there will be commonalities among the responses of different groups to this question, that there will also be a good deal of differences, depending on each group’s cultural, historical, and political reality. One basic difference is that groups in smaller countries should be able to have greater influence on the political and cultural environment in those countries than those in larger countries. A general rule is that the smaller the society, the greater the control one has over one’s life. This a big question and one that supersedes the bounds of this post, but at least it’s a place to begin to consider what we can do, as groups of citizens, to address the current and coming crises caused by technology and propaganda.
Ok…that’s it for today! I hope you enjoyed this latest consideration of the thought of Jacques Ellul…as always, stay tuned for more by downloading The How Did We Get Here? Reading List…and I will see you soon!