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.
I like that you refer to the Gülleners as acting ‘irresponsibly’ when it comes to buying things on credit. This seems to make sense on one level, as they’re living beyond their means. However, how might this irresponsibility be translated as a responsibility elsewhere? Claire’s ‘taking away the responsibility of the doctor’ is really nothing more than the doctor becoming complicit — and therefore responsible — for whatever happens to Ill, assuming that the cause of death is NOT in fact a heart attack. You do a nice job of showing the complexity and the shifting signification of the term ‘responsibility’ here. Good work. 5/5