between chaos and paralysis

7/28/2019 Between Chaos and Paralysis

1/4

Between Chaos and ParalysisOnly the Christians can open the way for freedom to enter the

world. But alas, as of now they are of all men the least free.

JACQUES ELLUL

+ TO A WORLD teetering between chaos andparalysis, can Christians offer hope? As we face thisquestion the first thing to do, it seems to me, is toreject both false ways of posing it and false answersto it. This done, I think it will be possible to discernthe right way.

In this short article I can only indicate summarilymy convictions in this matter. But first let memention a widely held view which seems to mequestionable. More and more frequently we heartalk of "revolution," of "overthrows/' as characteriz

ing our times. It is true that we are witnessing thedevelopment of so-called "revolutionary" movements (communist movements, revolts of the pooror of former colonial peoples, and so on). But todescribe them as "revolutionary'' is to judge superficially, for these movements regularly end by reproducing and indeed reinforcing the trends presentin the old society (nationalism, the power of thestate and the bureaucracy, economic and technological expansion). The only change is in the controlling personnel and in a modification of the old

formal structures (for example, suppression of free

enterprise, economic leveling and so on). Thuswhile there seem to be changes, observation on adeeper level shows that there is no real change at all.

The same holds as concerns "crisis" or overthrows. It is true that traditional morality, the oldreligion, family life, relations between the generations, labor relations have all been shaken profoundly, and in some countries (France, for instance) havebeen utterly destroyed. But here too it is superficialto call this a total overthrow. These changes affectonly the most simplistic aspects of the old society, asanyone will agree who examines the situation per

ceptively. Behind this mobile and unsettled surface,I insist, our society remains as it was permanent,stable, even rigid. What disturbs me is not any"overthrow," but on the contrary the absence ofoverthrow of the basic, actual structures of themodern world.

Some believe that we are on the road to chaosbecause guerrillas battle in Latin America, becauseyoung people have taken to drugs, etc. As I see it,this kind of thing is important on the individuallevel (that of the soldier who must go to Vietnam or

Dr. Ellul is professor of the history of law and social his-tory at the University of Bordeaux.

of the father who can no longer understand hischildren). But it does not in the least menace society, which goes on building and organizing itselfwith terrible implacability. Technological mechanisms, the demand for economic growth, the primacy of science, bureaucratization, manipulation ofman to adapt him at whatever cost to the life othersmake for him, the development of the "society ofspectacle," urbanization, the collectivization of life(whether in the shape of American conformism or ofcommunist integration) these are the real forces

at work in our world. But no one at all raisesquestions about them. Indeed the world generallyassents to these forces, which tend to produce a set ofstructures (in the sense given that word by structuralism) that are objective, blind, impermeable tohuman action, autonomous and accepted as necessary. No matter where he lives, man is incapable ofchallenging them, does not even dream of doing so,because at bottom he is in agreement with them.

These structuring forces are also fashioning a newmorality, a new religion (e.g., of work or of thestate), a new scheme of human relations (e.g., based

on eroticism), a new aesthetic, etc., etc. Thus tospeak about crisis or chaos is to yield to an illusion.We are simply witnessing the disappearance of theold traditional forms to which we are accustomedthat is all. I say on the contrary that there isn'tenough chaos. And my reason for saying this isprecisely that man is incapable of controlling society's present forms the organizing, systematizingforces that suppress personality and destroy the flexibility of life.

I

The attitudes usually taken in face of this movement of mechanization, of crystallization of thesocial body especially under the influence oftechnology seem to me mistaken. I limit myself toenumerating them:

First is an idealistic position of blind trust in God,which holds that scientific and technological progress cannot turn out badly because God keeps watchand because, ultimately, we have the promise ofsalvation. Now it is true that God keeps watch andthat we must live in hope. But on the one hand, toexpect miracles of God is not in accordance with

Scripture; and on the other, the promises concernthe Kingdom of God and our salvation. We have no

JUNE 5, 1968 747


2/4


3/4

What then do I mean when I say that our hopelies in starting from the individual from totalsubjectivity? This: that in politics, for example, it isno longer at the level of economic or social democracy that we must fight (the point at which we havestopped in Europe), but at the level of the citizen'svirtue, his powers of criticism, his "participation-contestation," as I tried to show in my Political

Illusion. For what is under attack in our presentpolitical society is the autonomy of the citizen, hisability to judge for himself. He is up against networks of information, public relations, propagandain diverse forms. Hence we can attain democracy ifwe start out from the possibility of critical renewal,but not if we start out from new institutionalsystems, or by joining a party or by propagandizingfor some group that may seem to be better thananother.

This radical subjectivity will inform also thethree human passions which seem to be the essentialones the passions to create, to love, to play. Butthese mighty drives of the human heart must find a

particular expression in each person. It is in thebuilding of a new daily life, in the discovery ofthings, acts, situations utterly different from thosethat society would fasten on us, that this subjectivitycan express itself. The problem is to keep thesedevelopments from also being taken over by society.

For example, the "creative project" in the shape ofa hobby is a good thing, but it has become a fashion,it has been commercialized and turned into a meansof integration into society. Thus it is not truly creative, but is rather a complementary system of fostering conformity. In other words, the passion to createassumes that the individual will constantly inventa way of acting, a new being, that cannot be annexed by the sociotechnological order.

Similarly, love is the great project of communication between men. The hippies are in a sense righton this point. But, evidently because their critical

powers are wanting, they have fallen into a sexuallaxity which is a parody of love. Love too is anastounding revolutionary force; only we must notallow this force for freedom to be appropriated intothe hardened forms of conformed Christianity, finally, the passion to play: this alone must be thebasis for anyone's participation in a group. Howeverserious an enterprise, however important the stakesand the values to be realized, these must not induceus to participate (in political life, for instance). Allthat in fact is part of the very technical structuresthat must be opposed! But if, on the contrary,participation is prompted by the passion to play,then it is free; it gives life to the group and at thesame time permits the individual to express himself.But note that when I speak of play I mean theopposite of what our society offers us as such spectacles, novel displays, TV, etc., which debasethe passion to play. I have in mind rather what theethnologists refer to when they speak of festivalsamong so-called "primitive" peoples.

I l lThese brief remarks (they are really mere chapter

heads!) show that what is needed is the creation of anew style of life, and that this cannot be accomplished save by starting with the individual'sdiscovery of himself. Every individual must becomea creator of his own life and that is an undertaking which will require a terrible effort; for not onlywill he have to oppose the forces of conformity but(at least in many cases) he will have to carry on histrade or profession or fulfill other obligations at thesame time. Thus he will be operating not on the

margin of society, but in it. A person must not usehis free time to "distract" or "cultivate" himself, butto create his own life.

I think that the difficulty of doing this is so great,the effort required so unending, that it is not possible save as one can lean on something other thanoneself. I am convinced that Christians are absolutely the only ones who can attempt it but here tooon condition that they start from zero. Kierkegaard,it seems to me, alone can show us how to start.Socialist or spiritual or politically involved movements on the part of Christians I consider exactly

the contrary of what can be useful to society. Inparticular, the present orientation of the WorldCouncil of Churches (especially as set forth in thefour volumes on "Church and Society") is fundamentally in error. Yet as I see it only the Christianfaith (and no other belief or revolutionary stimulus)gives man sufficient hope to prompt him to embarkon the undertaking I have described. If we are toquestion our society in so radical a fashion, we mustadopt a point of view essentially different from thatsociety's one that we cannot arrive at by startingfrom our human wisdom. It is precisely because itspeaks of a Wholly Other that the revelation pro-

JUNE 5, 1968 749


4/4

vides us with a point of view and a point of de-parture that are essentially different.

In the second place, if we lookat our society withcomplete realism (as we must do), we shall soonperceive that it is in a pretty desperate case. Andthen, man is tempted to say, "Just the same, it's notquite as bad as that!" He refuses to see the reality, orelse he seeks easy remedies in other words, hedoes not face up to his true responsibility. But the

fact is precisely that in order to bear up under theutter harshness of our situation, we must have ahope beyond it; for without such a hope this worldwould be too tragic. And that is why Christians,possessing the hope of the resurrection and theKingdom of God, ought to be the only ones to carryout this decisive task for society.

IV

Ought to be! Alas, time and again for almost2,000 years the churches have obstinately done ex-actly the opposite of this "ought" concealing thegravity of the problems, evading the issues, opposingall revolutionary tendencies, holding to the forces oforder, conservatism and traditional morality andadapting themselves to these.

But it is not enough to lean on the Wholly Otheror to adopt a radical realism. Only total and truefreedom will make possible the discovery of a newstyle oflife. Yet man will not find that freedom inhimself. One can hardly believe in a "natural freedom" indeed all indications are that the oppositeis the case. But behold, the good news of the gospelaffirms precisely that in Christ and through Christwe are free (provided that we live the faith!). "I t is

for freedom that Christ has set you free." To theChristian is given a freedom through which he (andhe only!) can challenge all slaveries ofwhatever kindand escape them himself. But here again we have atruth and a possibility of life which Christians donot appropriate. For let me stress this if thefreedom which is given us is to exist, we must live it,desire it and utilize it. Only the Christians (and thatmeans starting out from the individual) can openthe way for freedom to enter the world; and alas, wesee that Christians are of all men the most conformist, the most compliant, the most bound by

habit, the least free. In their conceptions ofmoralityand virtue, of church work, of respectability, theyare sunk in dogmatisms. This being so, how will itbe possible to traverse the difficult era we live in andto come out elsewhere?

Finally, to attempt such an undertaking toconstruct a new morality, a new justice, a new peaceand authentic new human relations, and at the sametime to shatter the technological and bureaucraticstructures needs not only hope and freedom butpower of a kind that is certainly beyond humanpossibilities. But behold, Christians have the prom

ise ofbeing associated with the power of God him

self. Through their prayer incarnated in action theycan bring into play the power which will not fail usif we are serious in the battle offaith. It is the powerofthe Holy Spirit that can make that revolution.

But again I must point to the failure ofChristianswho no longer truly believe in the Holy Spirit orelse, as often among the Baptists and the Pente-costals, believe in the Holy Spirit but do not orcannot understand the Spirit's relevance to today's

society, and so invoke his aid for pious works thathave nothing to do with the real life of man in thesetimes. Thus, once more, here is a possibility thatGod offers man and that Christians do not knowhow to use.

Such is the decisive responsibility of Christianstoday. They alone are capable ofbringing about thegreat mutation ofthis society; they are the Noah ofthe deluge ofthis civilization. But they seem not tobe aware ofthis, and they sleep, or they look up atheaven like the apostles at the moment of theascension, to whom the angels said, "Why do you

stand looking into heaven?"It is now that we must work on the earth withpower and freedom, not to exploit and extract morehappiness from it, but to bring in a new civilizationthat cannot yet be imagined.

To Mr. Hemingway

or anyone else who believes

in God atnight+ IT'S ALMOST more than I can stand,

holding Krissy's sleep-warm handon the way to the bathroom.

In the deathhouse of pre-dawn(especially when no lights are on)my mind moves shivering and barefootedamong statistics hard and rooted,

and bravely tries to find its waywithout the bread-trails of the day:

teleologies and other comforts.

And constantly her hand draws strength,fatigues me even in the lengthof the hall . . . about six feet.

I fumble weakly with the switch,and greet the Trio, squat and fixed.

Immutabilities resound;Kris, her pink pajamas down,mounts day-time logic, portly, white,and tinkles to the yellow light.

Strengthened, I go back to bedand pull the guilt up round my head.

(We left the bathroom light on.)

SHIRLEY W. NELSON.

75o T H E CHRISTIAN CENTURY

between chaos and paralysis

Documents