Daniel Rawson

In Jacques Ellul’s interview about the betrayal of technologically he discusses the theme of responsibility and how people in our society fail to claim accountability for their actions, regardless weather or not the consequences are directly related to their actions. He illustrates this point by telling a story about when a dam that was built by a long list of people breaks, no one claims responsibility for the dam breaking. He talks about each process and worker that went into constructing this dam and he says how no one wants to step forward and take the blame when the dam breaks because everyone had their own specific task they had completed successfully. Jacques makes the argument that the work is so fragmented and broken up into smaller pieces that no one is truly responsible when the dam breaks. Each person is responsible for their own specific task and that’s all he has to do. If something goes wrong in the larger process of constructing the dam, the responsibility does not fall on any single worker.

This way of thinking draws parallel to the way the people in the town of Guellen functioned. As the town was descending further into debt and chaos the people of Guellen continued to buy nicer food and alcohol regardless of the debt they were accumulating. This lack of responsibility from the townspeople illustrates how Claire was able to use her power to get what she wanted at the end of the story simply by offering the town a bailout so they would not have to be held accountable for their frivolous spending.

Another relationship between Jacques story about the dam and The Visit is the failure of any single person to take responsibility for the death of Ill. At the end of the story the doctor proclaims that Ill has died from a heart attack and immediately after that the mayor chimes in by saying Ill, “died of joy”. Regardless of the fact that each of these people contributed to the death of Ill they maintained a neutral ground and avoided taking any responsibility for the death of Ill because they were additional forces at play then their contribution to Ill’s death. The conclusion of this story can be used as support for the claim Jacques was trying to make that as long as people are part of a larger system they will continue to deflect blame and responsibility if something goes wrong.

Responsibility. “The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.” Synonym: Guilt. In Friedrich Dürrenmatt’s The Visit, responsibility is a major theme. In The Visit, Man Two declares Jews conspired to Guellen’s bankruptcy and detriment. Likewise, in Tadeusz Borowski’s This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen, the narrator declares Jews are not only accountable for their impending doom, but they are also accountable for the narrator’s lifestyle. It is plain that responsibility is placed into the hands of the Jews. In The Visit, Claire discloses to the townspeople that she arranged Guellen’s economic undoing to avenge the injustice perpetrated against her by Ill. Upon the realization of Ill’s part in their town’s ruination, the townspeople responded by justifying Ill’s imminent demise. He was guilty (responsible) of a grave injustice against Claire, an injustice that resulted in her suffering, after all. Ultimately, Ill is killed by a townsman, but with the validation of the whole town, including Ill’s family. This convolutes responsibility since it is out of the question for one individual to take responsibility for Ill’s death. Moreover, it is unfeasible for the whole town to take responsibility for Ill’s death, as a good deal of individuals partook in Ill’s killing.

In his interview, Jacques Ellul declares, “In a society such as ours, it is almost impossible for a person to be responsible.” He demonstrates this by providing a situation in which a dam is built somewhere and bursts. He continues by asking, “Who is responsible for that?” Is it the geologists, engineers, workmen, or politicians? He answers his question with, “No one. There is never anyone responsible. Anywhere.” This is in view of the fact that fragmentation occurs everywhere, specifically in the building of the dam in this situation. Jacques Ellul declaring it is impossible for a person to be responsible is exemplified in The Visit. When all’s said and done, no one in the town will be held responsible for Ill’s death because every townsperson was involved – Claire, the Mayor, the Priest, the Policeman, the Schoolmaster, Ill’s wife, Ill’s son, Ill’s daughter, and the remainder of the town. Everyone took delight in acquiring luxuries as a result of the remuneration received by the townspeople from Claire for Ill’s death.

In the interview of Jacques Ellul, he explains why society has become irresponsible because of the advanced technological innovations. He claims that people are part of a big chain that technology has developed, and they have just become one part of a big project and have little to no responsibility. He uses an example of building a dam, where different departments have only one task to complete rather than a whole project to complete. Technology is getting out of peoples hands, it is advancing at a fast pace where tasks are getting easier and requiring less labor from humans. For example, auto pilot cars are becoming this new trend on cars that companies are implementing in their cars so that the drivers wont have to do much work when they want to transport from one place to another in car. We can see the theme of power come into play right here, since technology and the people evolving this technology have the power over everyone to change a society as a whole. Their power is immense since technology can invent something like new robots to take over many jobs and they can easily affect many by making them unemployed. Then the rate of unemployment would rise so much, because technology would take over the labor force.

The connection Jacques Ellul statements have with The Visit is that in the visit most of the people had little to no responsibility of Alfred’s death. The town as a whole became unified in which each person didn’t have much remorse about deceiving Alfred that they were on his side. Since the whole town was doing it the responsibility didn’t fall on a certain person. In this situation Claire is technology that Jacques explains because she was controlling everybody all the departments like the police, the doctor, the priest, she just told them what to do and they worked towards it. The money that they were going to receive gave them a small responsibility to deceive Alfred to his death and they would be happy. Claire’s money was the reason her power was so immense since she could control a whole town.

In Jacques Ellul’s interview on technology and responsibility, he talks about how advanced technology has become. However, there is a problem where in this society, it seems impossible for a person to be held responsible for something. An example that he provides is when a dam bursts, it becomes unclear of who becomes responsible. There were engineers, workmen, politicians who worked on this dam and because we cannot pinpoint one, no one is responsible. He then concludes that if no one is responsible, no one is free. This relates to Dürrenmatt’s The Visit, as both touches upon the issue of responsibilities. In the play, there are moments when someone isn’t doing their job. The policeman nonchalantly listens to Ill’s concern about Claire even when he tells him that he is in danger. At one moment, the policeman is even pointing the gun at him. Another example is when Claire tells the doctor to list the next death as a heart attack. Claire in a way is taking away his responsibility as a doctor. Both the doctor and policeman are supposed to have role in society but it in the play, they are not doing their job but rather they are being careless. Another time we see irresponsibility in the play is when the people are buying things on credit. Clearly, they do not need fancy jewelry but they still buy it anyway.

In the interview, Ellul mentioned how freedom is associated with money. People are free to travel but that itself costs money. Likewise in the play, wealth plays an important factor as it allows one to have more power. Claire, who is rich, uses her wealth to get people into doing what she says. Claire seems to “buy” justice in order to get her revenge (ex. policeman seen with new gold tooth). Towards the end of the play, almost everyone is wearing new, yellow shoes. They are slowly becoming like each other, losing their individuality. Ellul similarly talks about how people in this society are losing their individuality as they form a mass and a coherent whole. Despite technology advancing, people do the same things without any thought behind it.

Power, Responsibility and Morality are some of the most prevalent themes in “The Visit.” However, the pursuit of justice seems to be at the core. The super wealthy Claire Zachanassian has returned to her now decrepit and desolate hometown to avenge the wrong she felt was done to her decades earlier by one of her townsman. This betrayal that was done to her had a major impact on her life. It led to her being exiled and that in turn made her become a prostitute.

What is justice? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. In the play I would concur that Justice is depicted as whatever the person who has the most power or in this case the most money says it is. Justice for Claire will prevail if Alfred Ill, the man who betrayed her is killed. At first the towns people seemed morally outraged by her idea of justice. In fact the mayor had a dramatic response when Claire suggested that the only way she’d give the poor town a million dollars was if someone killed Ill. He said “you forget, this is Europe, you forget,we are not savages.” His response clearly showed that he and the citizens of the town had a different idea of justice and that they had a strong moral compass, though that quickly seemed to dissipate by their overwhelming need for a technological and financial boost to their hometown.

I think the Jacquees Ellul’s interview relates to the play with the sharp contrast I realized when he spoke about technology and the effects it has on people. The people of Guellen decided to take justice into their own hands and kill Alfred Ill. They did this act solely based on the financial gain from it. They wanted to their town to have a technological boom, reopened factories and other places of business would do just that. However it seems that while these people are longing for technological advances to their town, Ellul is arguing that technology confines us and to an extent conforms us as well. The Parisians example he used with the 3 million people driving to the Mediterranean alludes to the conformity technology causes. This shows the contrast with what technology actually causes and what the people of Guellen actually sees it has.

People often carry out technological task but neglects the human side of themselves. In the play, of course the towns people benefited from the murder of Ill. The town began to strive after they were given the money but at the cost of another human being.

The formation of a mass culture because of technology is worrisome. People start to lose sense of their individuality and responsibility. Ellul uses car as an example of an invention that betrays our individuality. A car is suppose to represent the freedom of travel. By obtaining a car, one could go anywhere on land. However, people always seem to head to one destination for holidays. There are so many places to go but a mass of people come up to the same conclusion. How can individuality survive if the majority follow the same thinking.

I connected this mass culture to the play The Visit. As the play goes on, the development of a mass culture becomes evident. The characters adapted the same ideas of materialism, and fashion. Many start buying the same yellow shoes. Even with an high likelihood of future income, many residents of Guellen decide to purchase the same shoe. There is no individuality even though they have money to purchase something else. In addition, all the townsman wanted the better brand of a good. Domestic beer became inferior to imported beer and off brand cigarettes were no longer wanted. People started to think the same way.

This poses a threat to society because similar thinking will lead to an agreement. Guellen came up to agreement that Alfred must “die”. Even though they voice their support for Alfred living, they do not act in support. Alfred’s death resulted from the constant paranoia and intimidated from the townspeople. The town killed Alfred without a weapon but because of emotional and mental torture from the masses of people thinking of his death.

There is no justice in the end. This mass culture is the one who is responsible for creating a society that is beneficial for the members within. When something wrong happens like the death of an outcast such as Alfred, it becomes almost impossible to prosecute the perpetrators especially if is a mass of people that form the majority of society. So exceptions like these become ignored since the mass of people will not recognize that the society they created is unjust. The mass culture makes responsibility for the individual more difficult to identify. Mistakes are more likely to be caused by society as a whole. The majority within society will not punish themselves for conforming to the unjust society they live in.

Based on the video Jacques Ellul argues that although our society is more advanced at the moment, we do not use freedom to its limit. The the video it says that freedom does not exist in today’s society. Although we have many advanced vehicles and technology we always use it to do the same things everyday. An example would be going to school by car or train. We take the same train at the same time everyday and we do not take it anywhere else. We do not use the technology to its fullest by not exploring and going to other places. In today society we have so many new and advanced technology, like; laptops, faster internet, new iPhone’s and Androids, drones and robots. People have knowledge of these technology and buys it but literally uses it for the same reason everyday. We use our faster internet to just play games, watch videos and just scroll down on social media looking at whats happening and maybe some people reading the news or doing homework online. We do not use it for other purposes besides our entertainment and not using it to its full potential.

There is an connection with The Visit, the town was dirt poor and has no technology and they do not take responsibility for these effects it had on their town. Alfred Ill died because he took a bribe no one was responsible for his death because they started to justify themselves and made themselves believe they did nothing wrong and it is not their fault that Alfred had died.

There is a connection between both The Visit and the video by Jacques Ellul and the theme of both is individuality. Jacques Ellul gave an example based on  a airport and its how we huddle in masses although there is an fake belief that the new technology gives freedom. In the airport we are always in masses, some of them are random people maybe on your same flight so you travel with them in a coherent mass. In The Visit, everyone has the same shoes and were stopping Alfred from getting on the train. It is like another big huddle of a coherent mass of people with yellow shoes. In both of these excerpt it explains that based on these coherent masses, people lose their individuality.

In the video Ellul’s argues that in this modern technologically advanced society responsibility and freedom does not exist. He shows us our flawed idea of free will and illustrates the reality on how we just become this mass group of conformists. Ellul’s uses the example of traveling to show such lack of freedom. The inventions of cars and airplanes are believed to grant us some sort of freedom, the ability to go wherever and whenever we want plays into that idea. Yet we all seem to travel to the same places around the same time of year and fail to notice that. This really opened my eyes and I was able to compare it to our smartphones. Now a days the majority of us have Androids or iPhones and are madly in love with them. We are fed the idea that they leave the world to our disposal with all their abilities and new advancements. However, we could see that mass conformity through the apps we all have downloaded on them. Again one can choose to have these smartphones but at the end of the day we all use them for the same reasons through the same apps. In addition to this Ellul’s also points out how there is no such thing as responsibility. There are too many determining factors in the mix leaving out the idea of responsibility. It becomes a lot more complicated when trying to point fingers and most of the time responsibility loses its logic. I was able to make a connection to The Visit through this idea and through the death of Alfred Ill. At first I blamed the people of Gullen and had no doubt in my mind that it was all their fault. However, now I would take that back and say it is nobody’s fault. Everyone began buying on credit, claiming they would not let anything happen to Ill and started to feed into the new found wealth. The town and its people began to slowly conform excluding Ill. Once he passed away there was no way of holding someone responsible! It was a collective action that brought about this specific outcome. This then leads to the flawed idea of justice and how in certain instances, like responsibility, it loses its logic. Where and how could justice come out of this situation? In fact Ellul’s poses an almost identical example in the video. He uses the example of the broken dam and how no one is held responsible although everyone had some sort of impact on the outcome. They all had to do something with the dam and yet when it breaks no one is held accountable. Here responsibility loses its existence and logic once more.

Responsibility. One seemingly simple concept, but when beginning to dissect it, its not so simple at all. It is defined as the fact of being accountable or to blame for something, and with this definition there can already be flaws seen. It’s too general. There are a vast number of different steps and procedures to everything now-a-days that there is no one to blame and no one is responsible as Jacques Ellul brilliantly portrayed. His example with the bursting dam shows how responsibility is slipping away from us when we can’t even assign responsibility to something so small as the building of a dam. He associates this collapse to technology, which it does play a huge role, however technology isn’t solely to blame. As seen in The Visit, the people in Gullen were being very irresponsible and technology was nowhere to be seen. They condemned Alfred Ill to dead based on a simple bribe, then the attempt at rationalization and justification of it began. They tried to shift the thinking from a moral responsibility to a responsibility to the town’s well being. Like Professor Rickenbach stated in class, they had they’re end goal in mind and just had to add twists and turns in their logic to get there. A good comparison is seen between the two when they talk about losing individuality. Ellul makes a direct remark about this when he talks about the illusion of freedom from technology. It looks like we are more free however we end up huddling up turning into a “coherent mass.” His examples of the millions of people getting into their cars going to the Mediterranean and the image shown of the bunch of people in the airport display this point very vividly. This loss of individuality is also seen in The Visit, but less explicitly. One way that its shown is through everyone getting the same yellow shoes conforming toward the bribe. It is also seen when Alfred is trying to get on the train and the huddled mass of people is in front of him stopping him. If Alfred would had ran through the crowd, and someone would have killed him there who would have been to blame? No one would have know because the responsibility would have been lost in the mass, along with individuality.

In an attempt to begin to synthesize what we’ve been discussing in relation to Dürrenmatt’s The Visit, consider one of the main themes we’ve attacked (Power, Responsibility, Justice [The Moral, The Good]) and write a 350 word blog post in response. Also, make sure to first watch Jacques Ellul’s interview which is posted on the blog. How does what he has to say relate to the play? Please post by the end of the day Tuesday, Nov 8. And make sure to go vote!