Interview with

Jacqu s
Ellul
Jacques Ellul, recently retired from his position as Profes sor of Law and the Sociology and History of Institutions at the University of Bordeaux, is best known in academic cir cles for his book, The Technological Society. That in sightful critique of technology is often used as a sociology textbook in universities around the world. To Christian readers Ellul is also known for his many other books, which offer theological perspectives on the world we live in. They include The Meaning of the City, Hope in Time of Abandonment, and the book we focus on here, The Humiliation of the Word. This interview was a collaborative effort. Woody Minor (my husband) conducted the interview in French and translated it from French into English when we were back in the U.S. OUf French friend Francoise Clamens helped translate my English questions into French. The three of us were greeted wannly by Professor Ellul at his charming home (an old hunting lodge) on a rainy June afternoon in Bordeaux. -Sharon
RADIX 4
~

... '" "

~
C

.E" to

c 1t

Radix: You have spoken of the lack of logic in visual media such as television and film. How do you see the role of the critic? It seems that critics are able to exr-r~ss themselves with logic about media,--- _

Ellul: When I have spoken of the lack of logic in the media I mean that the logic of images is not the same as the logic or rea soning of the spoken or written word. Further, the image functions by an association of ideas and it is very difficult to transfonn what one understands from these associations into logical language. It is possible, of course, but one must first restructure or re constitute the message that is transmitted by the visual data into the rational message of the word. This is the first task, and the foremost task, of the critic.

The challenge is not to commit a contradiction of sense as one passes from one mode of lan guage to another. I should also say that I have led a cinema club for ten years. Radix: A group where you dis cuss movies? Ellul: Yes. And I must say that for me this was the most diffi cult group of all because, after looking at images for two hours, attempting to present a critique to the hundred or so students that were there, was terribly dif ficult and also quite exhausting. You could look at some televi sion program or some movie and say, "Oh, I liked it" or "I didn't like it," but to try to make this transition from one mode of language to another-thais the difficulty. The critic should always be aware that a movie can't be cri tiqued in the same way as a book. The particular language of the image has to be taken into account.

presentation of the creation of the world moving along into, very probably, an apocalypse. But one of my friends had a completely opposite reaction to the film. He thought that in the beginning it presented chaos, then moved after that into showing the progressive devel opment of order. So you can see that the interpretation of images is very difficult.

Ellul: Yes, it needs to be inter preted. Radix: So this is the role of criticism? Ellul; Yes, this is the role of criticism-it's the role of human intelligence. It's for this reason that I regret that we don't teach our youth to make use of both at the same time. Radix: The two what? Ellul: The image and the inter pretation of the image. That is, to learn how to read the images and not Simply learn the tech nique of making the images. The word is not only ambigu ous, it is fragile. Whereas the image, like reality, is what one sees, and it is indisputable. Radix: When does an image be come propaganda? According to you, images can be neutral, can't they? Ellul: I would say that an im age becomes propaganda not necessarily when it is being used by an established power or force, but rather when a quantity of images is assembled which influences things to go in one certain direction. Which is to say, one image is not propa ganda, predsely because it has to be explained. It has to be in terpreted. But when you have many im ages, a quantity of images, with their associations of ideas grouped one to the other for a period of years-that's propa ganda. In France right now we have some examples that are abso lutely typicat classicaL For ex ample, on television there is propaganda about the tensions between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Israel is a1 ways porRADIX 5

The word is not only ambiguous,

Radix: We would like to know what you think of the film, Koy aanisqatsi (World Out of Balance). lis essentially based on images, but it uses them as an argument Radix: In your book, The Hu~ against technology. The direc miliafion of the Word, you say tor, i:1 fact, acknowledges you that the word is full of ambigui in the credits. ty but the image is very clear yet here is an example of a lot Ellul: Well, first of all, I have a of ambiguity in images. lot of admiration for the director because he knew how to give Ellul: Of course, but it's not not just pretty pictures or imag the same ambiguity that we're es but was able, through a play of images, to give a critique of talking about here. In my book the modem world that is very on propaganda I noted that the close to my own.But it's rather image signifies nothing by it amusing to consider how differ self, that it needs to be explicat ed or explained by language. ently different people can inter pret this film. My wife, for ex amp:2, interpreted it a~ the Radix: So you're saying that story of the development of the like reality an image needs to world and its progression-as a be interpreted?

trayed as wrong and the Pales tinians as right. If that happens one time it's not propaganda, but if it happens many times then it is propaganda. Now, to the other part of your question, "Can you have images that are not propagan da?" I would say, yes, cer tainly-to the degree that an im age placed in the service of a critical spirit can function quite well as anti-propaganda. It's not a question of reversing the trend of propaganda, as in the example of Israel and Palestine. To reverse the situation and to say that Israel is always right and Palestine is always wrong is not the answer. What I mean to say is that the critical spirit can be manifested in images. In gen eral, however, this is usually very poorly received. To give you an example of the critical spirit, let's take Charlie Chaplin. In the beginning of his career he was very well re ceived as a comic, that's all. But already with Modern Times there is a turning paint and his later films were poorly received be cause these later films ques tioned certain values in Ameri can culture, and to question these values was unacceptable. In France we had someone that you probably haven't heard of, Jean Yanne. He played the same sort of role and he was just fan tastic. But everybody detested him. Radix: When was he active in France? Ellul: Around 1960. Yanne made a very important film called The Chinese in Paris that was very critical of China at a time when all the French intel lectuals were Maoists. The film was very funny. In it, France was invaded by the Chinese. Welt when the Chinese came in
RADIX.6

they were very serious, but little by little they were seduced by the good life in France, by the Parisian charm, by wine. So the Chinese army became disso lute- and that was a total scan dal to the French Maoists. Then Yanne made another film, on show business, which, quite frankly, was terrible. But what was characteristic about the film was that he took shots at everything, at everybody. He

say, in television or in large, or ganized events. Did we misun derstand you? Ellul: No, I believe you under stood me quite well. I don't be lieve that you can truly speak of evangelization in an immense meeting in which one is trying to play on the nerves or on the emotions. I refuse to condone, I reject, this genre of meeting be cause I witnessed Hitlerian Nazi rallies. Radix: Where?

Welre SO used to seeing current events on television that the world itself tends to become a sort of television.

Ellul: In Nuremberg in 1934. I was in Germany at that time. I found myself in the midst of an immense crowd. When there are 30,000 people around you all shouting, "Heil Hitler!" it's very difficult not to do the same thing. One is absolutely crushed. So 1 don't like rallies. Radix: If I understand you cor rectly, you're saying that in enormous rallies, where you have thousands and thousands of people, the very scale of the event prevents real communica tion. Communication is really impossible in that kind of con text. Ellul: Yes, It's impossible. It's absolutely impossible. You can influence people, yes. You can make them march, for example. Yes. Radix: So you can get results. Ellul: Well, as for results, either you achieve a certain structur ing or ordering of people, or else the results are quite weak. Last year we had a crusade here in France. This crusade was ad mirably prepared by small groups at I would say, eight or ten participants. In that (ase I would say that when these little

went after the Right and after the Left-it made no difference to him. And that's why he wasn't well received: he lacked a certain etiquette. So he ended up not making any more films. Radix: You are very sensitive to the uses of propaganda. What do you think about mass evangelism? Recently in the United States there was a scan dal about televangelists. In your book you seem to be saying that it is impossible to have any kind of word of substance in the con text of mass communication-

groups got together, met togeth er, it truly was evangelization. Even when it was a question of ten or twelve people, it was evangelization. Then afterward, when there was the big rally, there was very little response or the results were almost not there.
Radix: I suppose it goes with out saying that you didn't go to the rally.

Ellul: Oh yes, I didn't go. I didn't participate in the rally. But I believe that individual evangelizing and evangelizing by small groups can comple ment each other. Some people will say nothing in a group con text, but with just one other per son, evangelization can occur. On the other hand, group evan gelization is also necessary and important. People also need the friendship and wannth that can occur in a group situation. So I think that these two things, in our Refonned church, should coexist. You know, as a rule, the French are not friendly, they are not wann, and they are not wel coming. Not at all. Radix: Why is that? Ellul: The French evangelicals have remained staunch Calvin ists. Because of a certain ri gidity, a visitor to a Protestant church here feels like a stranger, feels quite left out of things, and that's not good. I have known a fair number of people who, af ter haVing encountered the Bible through the work of evan gelicals, prefer afterward to go ~o worship with Seventh Day Adventists or Pentecostals, where it's much friendlier and warmer. I understand that quite weE Radix: Do you think that this ri

gidity that you're speaking of could perhaps be a result of the particular history of France the tragic history of Protestant ism in the 16th century? Ellul: Oh, I think you're right. Yes, that has a lot to do with it, because the regions that are very Protestant in France are regions where it's been impos sible to have anything change, whatever it is. One of my sons, who became a pastor, and who is rather progressive, has a par ish in one of those regions, and the first thing they told him was that when you preach you have to preach with your robe on. Well, he had never worn a robe before. But a couple of months ago I saw my son preaching, with his robe with the collars, and he told me. "If I don't wear the robe, no one will come to the church and hear me preach. It wouldn't be a true church for them other wise." So, it's very important, this history of Protestantism in France. t who was not raised as a Protestant, have always found this rather surprising.

Some people would say that the most important event in our history was the St. Bartholo mew's Day massacre-and per haps that's true. But you know it wasn't only France. The refor mation in Holland, for example, didn't go easily either.
Radix: I've always wondered what the history of France would have been like had the Huguenots not been massa cred-if there had been a stronger Protestant presence in France. France would doubtless have had a very different his tory, though it's hard to say.

Ellul: Oh yes, very different. For example, I don't think there would have been a French Rev olution, because they would have gamed their liberty with out violence. The 18th century in France would have been quite different. I'm convinced that we would have had a state that was much less dominant, less centralist.
Radix: In The Humiliation of the Word you have written, "In a
(continued on p.21)

RADIX?

(Ellul continued)

Ellul: Yes, well-there are ten in that direction, but I dencies world of artificial images, rela tionships are gratuitous and would have to say they are ephemeral." As Christians, how rather insignificant when placed can we fight against this tenden side by side with the develop ment of something like the com cy in our relationships? puter, for example. Mter ali, I Ellul: Yes! that was influenced think it's rather terrible that by a very important book by children in France C.re learning Cuy Debord called Society of the less and less to speak French Spectacle. This book shows that and more and more to use com the tendency of depic::ing our puters. It's something that is dif life in images tends to tum our ficult to believe! but there are life into images. We're so used children who arrive at the age to seeing current events or. tele of 15 who are ::ncapable of vision that the world Use] f tends speaking French. to become a sort of television. At that point we have arrived at an understanding or conception of life that is imaginary. Or to say this in another way, at that ESg point we find ourselves in the ~ ~ presence of a conception of ~:-.e ~ ~ .: world that is imaginary. ~ @ --~ =- ~ :;: ~ This leads me to think of a ~~ ~ ~ statement of a young person ~ --= who told me he had witnessed something in the Metro, in Par is. What he saw was three guys who attacked an old lady and nobody budged. Nobody did a thing. He said it was just like television-Voila! The Christian response, I think! .is to learn that Radix: You!re not speaking one is never to regard a person about writing or reading! but as an image but as a being, and simply about speaking? a being tha t one is called to love. And! consequently! never Ellul: They have a very poor to take lightly or easily the vocabulary. They have very few needs that that being might words with which to express have. Then, at that moment, in themselves. The programs now that condition, the image, the simply teach the basics, that .is! spectacle! tie show, disappears. the language of the lowest com mon denominator by which one could get by. That is to say, it is Radix: You have given many like the basic English with examples of the devaluation of which one could get by if one the word in our culture. Are visits the United States, but one there examples of a reversal of certainly would not be able to this tendency? For example, the read the great English authors. fact that the Catholic Mass is no When I posed this question to longer said in Latin would seem one of our friends who is a pro to indicate a movement away fessor of English, she said she from ritual and toward mean can no longer put students to ing. work reading the great authors,

"

...

~-

but must simply prepare them to pass their exams. The exam consists of reading an English or American newspaper or maga zine and then giving a resume of an article. They end up know ing the language of the press, journalistic language. The sec ond part of the test is that they must listen to a cassette in Eng lish and give a resume of it in English and translate it. Anoth er common aspect of these tests is for them to compose a busi ness letter. But never do they deal with the great authors. I am convinced that if one were to teach them the great English literature, that after ward they would be able to read the newspaper or discuss other aspects of contemporary life. But the reverse situation is not true. If they know only the language of the newspapers, they will never read Shake speare. It bothers me to see the richness of spoken language disappear, little by little. Radix: You have said that writ ing itself is a step toward the de valuation of the word. How does the Bible fit into that idea? What does that say about the meaning of the Bible? Would you say that the word is more alive when it is included in a sermon?
Ellul: Yes. Well, first of all- I don't think that the word is sim ply a transferral or transmission of information; the word is a re lationship between two beings. One knows very well that it is not a question Simply of lan guage--that when one has af fection or empathy for someone! one understands much better what that person says and he or she understands much better what I say. But when there is antipathy! there are misunder standings. Thus I would say
RADIX 21

that the word creates a relation ship between two beings. But the written word, no. When I write, on the other hand, it's dif ferent because I am always thinking of a specific person, and it's for that reason that qUite often my wrttings are po lemicaL Radix: You're thinking of a spe cific person when you're writ ing? Ellul: Yes, I'm thinking about another intellectual. I think of Edgar Marins, I've thought of Sartre, also of Bernard Char bonnnau, and of Camus. I think of these people and then I write in response to what they have written. Or on the other hand, I might think of some Protestant friends when I'm writing. That is to say, I dialogue. I also try to re spond to people's needs. I am not doing literary-type writing. Radix: You're not thinking so much in tenns of style? Ellul: Not at all. Definitively speaking, writing has no sense for me unless it involves rela tionships that become personal relationships. And as for that, I receive a great quantity of let ters. Radix: all? Do you answer them

Radix: He complained fre quently that it was an enor

same thing.
Ellul: Yes.
Radix: Is that what you're say
ing here---that the word of God
becomes real or living in a liv
ing being?
Ellul: Yes. Radix: So it's not a question simply of speaking but of liVing. Ellul: Life is expressed by the word. Radix: But what is the value then of simply reading the Bible? a It is absolutely neces Ellul: sary. You can read the Bible to find comfort, to have more of a relationship with God, but the word of God also demands to be truly understood. I some times lead Bible study groups and I'm very grateful to those groups because they require me to work with the Biblical texts, to study them and to under stand them fundamentally to a degree that I wouldn't do on my own. At the moment I'm working for a Bible study group, study ing the idea of anguish or suf fering in the Bible, and I've been amazed what I've learned about anguish in the Bible. I simply wouldn't have received this course of study if it hadn't been asked of me by the group. That would have been a part of the Bible I would have never seen or glimpsed. Radix: If I understand you cor rectly, you're saying that the word of God written in the Bible does not live unless it is internalized in a being who reads it and lives it-that is to say, the Bible does not have a

lIIIII-

..

Ellul: Yes, I answer them all, and it's a big job. At that point I would say that writing is trans fanned into the word, into fa pa

role.
Radix: Did you know that C. S. Lewis also received mountains of letters and that he always an swered? Ellul: Really?
RADIX 22

han is to make this SCripture alive anew, not only in the ser mon, but also in your life. As I said earlier, the word and the person are completely linked. You Simply cannot separate the word from the person. So, when the Christian lives from the Bible the word is trans formed anew, and the Scripture becomes a living word. Radix: It's what you said in your book, isn't it-that the word of God is the same as the action of God? That they are the

mystical life of its ovvn apart from the liVing being who en counters it? Ellul: No, I don't believe there's some mystical process at work here. I'm not what you would call a fundamentalist. I don't believe that God dictated all of the Bible word by word, and I don't believe that every word of the Bible is a sacred word. No, rather, what I mean is that the Biblical authors were truly inspired by God, but they wrote with their ovvn person ality, with their own level of un derstanding and knowledge. So I can't really think that the Bible gives us explanations within the sdentific domain or about at oms, and so on. No, evidently not-obviously not. Radix: What modem theolo gians do you think have contrib uted most to the revitalization of the word? Ellul: Oh, well for me, it's Karl Barth. It's Barth, after all, who delivered us from this confron tation between conservatives and liberals, who made us un derstand the value and utility of history, of historical criticism, and who consequently permit ted us to read the Bible with a great deal more freedom. That contribution of Barth is extraor dinarily important. Someone else whom I like very much is Juergen Moltmann. That is, when he's doing theology and not pOlitics. There is also in France an excellent theologian, one who is also quite difficult, who has taught a lot in the United States, and this is Ga briel Vahanian. He taught at the University of Notre Dame, and presently he is with the the ology department at the Univer Sity of Strasbourg. His books are quite difficult, but they are

short. His thought is very dense, but when he speaks to his students it is always clear. There is much that is quite new and fresh in his thinking, in his ideas. Radix: In your own writing, do you use a computer or a word processor? Ellul: A word processor-oh no, surely not. Not because I'm hostile, but because I'm incapa ble. And also because that doesn't really correspond to my thinking. I always write with a fountain pen because I need to

facts or bibliographie questions. What I got back were stacks of paper meters high from the computer, and four fifths of it had nothing to do with my question. Among the rest, three fourths of it wasn't much help either. It really wasn't very use ful for me. In another complicat ed research project I was work ing on, I posed a series of questions to the computer and the results were intellectually null and void. I was obligated to redesign the research strategy and basically redo it myself. Radix: Do you think it's possi ble to work in a technological field and also lead a Christian life? Ellul: Oh, certainly, certainly to the degree that one is capable of being critical of what one is in the process of doing. That is to say, in the exercise of la tech nique one must be aware of the dangers and the limits. And this is the role of the Christian. Let me tell you a little story that is a good example. We have a very prominent surgeon here at the University of Bordeaux. He's a strict Protestant, with a cool, analytical mind. In a class room where everybody was quite enthused about the devel opments in surgery, he said, "Listen, you all admire these wonderful operations that we are able to perform. We perform heart operations, we replace kidneys, we replace livers, etc.; it's all quite admirable. But we never ask ourselves where these organs come from. They have to come from an organism that is young and healthy; they have to be in good condition. There is only one source for organs like this, and that is automobile acci dents. So, you see, the more of these operations .that you per form, the more you are hoping
RADIX 23

In the exercise
of la technique

one must be aware of the dangers and the limits.

see my ovvn handwriting in front of me. If I see characters that print themselves on the screen, which are not my own handwriting, then that's not me. I need to have my manu sCript take form little by little, by my own hand. I cannot sep arate my hand from my rrUnd. In the past when I have used computers I have always been quite disappointed in their per formance. I have used data banks in my research. I posed very precise questions to the computer concerning certain

for automobile accidents. If we strive to reduce automobile acci dents, then we \'\Till perform fewer of these operations." All the surgical students in the class were dumbfounded that he had the courage to tell them that. The role of the Christian is not to say, "I must not touch or become involved in technolo gy," but instead to be able to recognize its limits, its dangers, its demands-to be lucid.
Radix: Do you think it's possi ble for a society to get so bad that the Christian feels that he or she must withdraw from that society? I don't mean to say that it's like this right now in society, but hypothetically. A historical example would be the Essenes in the first century B.C., where they felt that the culture had be come hopelessly corrupt. It's an apocalyptiC mode I'm thinking of.

ing to St. Matthew. Do you think Ellul: No. I don't think it's pos it's possible for a human actor to sible to make a film about the portray Christ? life of Christ, because we simply don't know what the presence Ellul: Oh no, I simply don't of Jesus was like in the midst of abide by that. I don't agree with other human beings. It's that that. I believe that a film direc which one cannot portray. tor can convey the Christian message, but by metaphor. For Radix: What about spending a exampk I think in this regard lot of money on special effects to evoke the story with all its miracles of the Exodus, the es cape from Egypt? Do you think it would be possible to touch someone, to impress someone, with the magnitude of what Yahweh performed in liberating When the the slaves from Egypt?

Ellul: I believe that one mustn't leave, one must stay and fight. But what is very difficult is to think that all these technological programs are enormously ex pensive and consume gigantic amounts of capital. Factories are continuing to produce extremely dangerous toxins-and no one knows where to deposit wastes. Now they are sending those toxins and wastes to poor African countries. We give them money and they take the toxins. This simply is an impossible situa tion. It's unacceptable. So we must struggle. We must fight against this.

'Chris'dan lives from fete Bible . cne wer d IS transformed anew/ and the Scripture becoPles a living word.
J'

Ell ul: Yes, but you will be miss

of some of the fihns of Fellini. Most of the people who see his films don't necessarily see this, but in the black films, the films noirs, of Fellini, there is always right in the middle of them, one short sequence that brings with it some light into the darkness, one little image that brings some hope. It's quite moving to see this. But of course you realize Radix: Well, hypothetically, is Radix: One final question. Do that you must know how to read it possible? you think it's possible to make a the films of Fellini carefully and Ellul: Well, I'd say that by the movie that authentically con well. use of metaphor it should be veys the Christian truth as con tained in the Bible----movies Radix: But, as for a film about possible. But it is necessary, cer based on the gospel? For exam the life of Christ, you don't think tainly, to be an excellent direc tor. EJ ple, Pasolini's The Gospel Accord- that's possible?
RADIX 24

ing the central truth of the mes sage.' You see, the emphasis is not so much on the liberation because, Biblically, this liberty that is given to them is danger ous. They end up in the desert and they are not happy in the desert. They have lots of prob lems, etc. It's very difficult to say what liberty is, and how do you say this in a film? Furthermore, there is something essential from the Biblical point of view. That is, the Hebrew word for Egypt is mitzmim, and that means double anguish, or dou ble suffering. The Talmud says that the double anguish the peo ple had in the land of Egypt was the anguish of living and the an guish of dying. The God who liberates you from this double anguish-how do you propose to can vey that in a film?