In the video, Jacques Ellul makes the interesting argument that advancements in technology have confiscated individual freedom and social responsibility. In order to argue this, he explains that cars are used very similarly, although they give us the ability to go and travel anywhere. We “freely” choose to travel at the same time and to the same destinations. Because of this conformity, the individual loses its value and combines with the greater mass of society.This loss of individuality then brings up the question of responsibility. In a community where the individual is not considered, who can be held responsible for wrongs in society? These themes are similar to the ideas present in Durrenmatt’s The Visit. The people of Guellen have lost their sense of individuality, not due to advancements in technology but because they all accepted that Alfred would die and the town would be saved. In the play, we see that money makes people lose their sense of individuality. The townspeople conformed and began buying the same yellow shoes and other expensive items on credit. Because they are all participating in creating more debt for Guellen, this illustrates the lack of responsibility from the townspeople. Giving Alfred’s life to Claire then becomes the general decision that the town implicitly agrees upon. With this in mind, who is held responsible for Alfred’s death? No single person can be held responsible for the death of Alfred. Ellul explains this loss of responsibility by describing the collapse of a dam. The construction of a dam includes several groups of people including politicians, builders, etc. Each group is responsible for a specific task and the work is fragmented. When the dam collapses, Ellul argues that no single person can be held responsible. With this mentality, it can be concluded that responsibility diminishes where individuality is not present. However, as readers we know that every single person that bought goods on credit has contributed to the death of Alfred. Once there is conformity in a society, wrongdoings are overlooked. This can also prove the power of the larger community and the act of conformity.
THE NASTINESS OF REASON
English 2850 | Fall 2016
Nice post! You identify something interesting, and that’s the relationship between individuality and responsibility. Or, the notion of the ONE vs. the MANY and the question of someONE being responsible and NO-ONE being responsible (this all seems a bit convoluted but I’ll try to unpack). Because we are living in a fragmented world, as Ellul explains, there is no long ONE person to take responsibility since many people are always involved. When Ellul says no one is responsible, I take that to mean that essentially, EVERYONE is responsible. There is this notion of collective guilt; as the idolatry of the Individual is challenged, so is the notion of individual innocence. Ellul points out the complicity of everyone in everything. I’m thinking here of my recent discussion regarding the election and those who claimed “well I didn’t vote so I had nothing to do with it” — what we see, actually, is that even by not voting you are involved whether you like it or not. You are always already complicit in everything that happens in your community/society/nation, etc. I’ll leave it here for now, but in any case, great post. 5/5