We are living in a technological age. The acceleration and pervasiveness of technology (both as knowledge and objects) is a dominant force shaping the direction of history. No other time in history has techno-optimism, the idea that we can “techno” our way out of any problem, been such a driving force in society. As Big tech, maybe the biggest symbol of this trend, accumulate staggering profit, the narrative marches on.
Consider this, if the global technology sector were a country, its GDP would be the third-largest in the world. Even so, the pervasiveness of tech extends far beyond the economy. It has come to touch every aspect of human societies, revolutionizing how we shop, study, work, and relate to each other. The cyber-world, as it was once known, is no longer a virtual representation of reality. It is, instead, a reality of its own that now exists in parallel to our offline reality.
If technology is the defining force of our age, how can we live the good life in it? For centuries humans have asked this question as a way to engage faithfully with their environment. How do we do that in a technological age? In this case, a clarification is in order. In a time where the word technology gets thrown around a lot, what actually does it mean? To help us with this task we now turn to a 20th-century scholar.
The Danger of Technique
In 1954, French theologian and sociologist Jacques Ellul put forth one of the most complete critique of technology’s impact on humanity. His seminal work, La technique ou l’enjeu du siècle, is one of the first to recognize that we were indeed living in a technological age. In his view, that was a concerning development. He saw the rise of technology as a vortex that started in the industrial revolution but accelerated in the last two centuries. He used the French word technique that meant not just the objects themselves but a mentality, an approach to the world. Underneath it was the culmination belief that the world was a machine, and that by combining the right parts, one could solve any problem.
Technology was not a neutral force. Instead, it was marked by rationality. It obeyed prescribed rules and follow dictated patterns. It is obsessed with efficiency in every field of human activity. Not only that, but it often supplants and destroys the old, replacing them with the new. In doing so, it often leaves a trail of loss, confusion, and disorientation.
Furthermore, he believed that technology was self-perpetuating. It starts with a narrow purpose in mind but eventually, by creating new problems, it begets new objects to address it. In this way, it can raise whole new industries in a short amount of time. Thus, it can both be a fantastic driver of economic growth and job creation, even as it destroys and disrupts existing structures.
Techno-determinism and the Human-Machine Telos
Jacques Ellul observed that technology tends to be deterministic. This is even more true today in a digital age where algorithms and decision engines are shaping our future by predicting, nudging, and optimizing human behavior toward pre-determined aims. In its pursuit of perfectionist dreams, it stubbornly seeks the most efficient method in a process which often supplants human creativity. It imposes its preferred method as a universal law, forcing all its users to follow its pre-determined principles.
At its essence, it drives the future toward a human-machine telos. Because it believes the universe is mechanistic, it further transforms us into machines. Technology, therefore, seeks to conform us to its image of mechanical perfection. It treats living beings as predictable objects built to accomplish narrow objectives.
If it wasn’t enough, Ellul believed that as it became ubiquitous, it has also become the new sacred. Supplanting religious hegemonies of the past, technology is the new god before which everyone must bow. One cannot question it, one must only accept its sovereign plan for a future of efficiency, perfection, and effectiveness. In that, he could not be more right.
A Faithful Response
It does not take much probing to realize Ellul’s proposed response to this predicament. In a technological age, where our world has turned to tech worship, Ellul is an iconoclast. Breaking down the idols through resistance and subversion is the only way. As a Christian, he believed that to be the most appropriate response in view of a mounting techno-tyranny. The faithful must throw a wrench into the whole process and work for its collapse.
By that, I don’t think he meant a complete return to nature. Yet, it starts with a recognition of the pervasive pernicious impact of technology in society. Resistance to technique, as both objects and mentality, is a return to human creativity and partnership. It most certainly entails a new way to build and operate machinery. A way in which it recognizes its limitations while upholding the sacredness of live beings.
It means dismantling the centralizing power of techno elites and spreading their knowledge with the masses. Placing technology in its rightful place as one tool among many in the work for the flourishing of life. A subversion that returns to the human and hopefully leads us back to the ultimate. This is the type of response, I believe, Jacques Ellul could get behind and see it as a faithful rendering of his legacy.
Conclusion
Ellul’s critique of technology only gets more relevant with time. The prophetic insights that he originally saw in the half of the 20th century continue to reverberate in a world where technique has only become more predominant. Coupled with an appropriate mindset that replaces despair with action, it can lead to the type of subversion we need to see in our time.
Even so, one must ask whether subversion is enough in a technological age. Is technique only a phenomenon to be resisted, an evil to be controlled? Even if it is properly pursued as a tool, is that sufficient to capture its meaning. Are there other fascets we must see if we are to fully comprehend this technological age? That is when we turn next to another French prophet, paleontologist, and theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
