Lust for Power (Jacques Ellul)

7/30/2019 Lust for Power (Jacques Ellul)

1/4

Jacques EllulLUST FOR POWER

The first thing we must realize is that the lust forpower is not purely subjective. Neither is it a whollymoral nor psychological nor sociological matter: thed e s i " ~ to exploit and dominate others is not peculiar to

~ . ; n e category or class (be they the wicked, bourgeoisie,capitalists, or imperialists). Such a view misses the pointentirely. In fact the whole matter of lust for powerrevolves about the union and the interpenetration ofobjective systems, the accumulation of means whosevery power is the logic of the means themselves. At thesame time of course it includes the people who make upthe system and acquire a subjective or class-based lustfor power by the system or its methods. For example: aman owns a car. At face value the car is but an instrument. I f he goes too fast or drives dangerously it ishis fault and his alone: he is certainly free to dootherwise. The driver possesses a sense of power whichhe submits to in favor of automobile and speedometer,which in turn can take him to 90 or 100 mph. And, thisman is a member of a society which thrives on records,speed and the economy of time-where spectators gethighs at raceways, and the media are filled with all sortsof speed records. Consequently, our driver is less thancompletely free in the way he drives his car.

Secondly, one might say that power in itself isindifferent; it can be used for good or evil; it is part ofsocial reality. Then there is authority-a positive idea,because power seems at one and the same time regulatedby institutions and recognized as power by everyone.There is also force, which more often has a negativeJACQUES ELLUL is Professor of Law and Juri.sprudence at the

University of Bordeaux. His most recent books published inthe United States include The Betrayal of the "Vest,Apocalypse, The Ethics (J Freedom and The New Demons.Earlier works include The Techological Sociely, Propaganda,The Politico/Illusion and Autopsy of Revolution. This articletranslated by the monk;, of New Skete, Cambridge, NewYork,

connotation-the domination of one by another byviolence. I believe, however, these distinctions are fartoo simple and inexact when considering the reality ofthese phenomena we are considering. Authority as wellas power contains force, domination, and (to a point)violence. There is no such thing as an authority that ispure, objective, serene, freely approved. All authoritypsychic, charismatic, or functional-is necessarilylinked with force, that is, with some constraint andrepression. In the same way there is no such thing asobjecti:ve, neutral power. All power is tied to theexercise of force and, therefore, to constraint, andsometimes to violence. There is no constitutional changethat can Lransform the organization of force into"morally pure" authority. Spiritual change oriTIoralizing cannot make a system of force into a simpleinstrument for the service of mankind. Thus there is acertain amount of contamination among these realitiesof power, force, and authority.Having said this, we must point out that the structures of power are diverse: there is the power of moneyto which we are perhaps the most sensitive, what with allthe denunciations leveled against it by liberals,socialists, and humanists. But political power is no lessunknown in our world. Indeed, we find ourselves, willynilly, between at least two systems cf power. For somethe power of money is the most abominable and hascorrupted everything. They think it necessary to create apopular state, free of the power of money, one that isuntainted and able to make guarantees to its citizens.For others, the greatest danger lies in politicaltOlalilarianism, the omnipotence of the State. In thiscase the first goal is to fight dictatorship, to promote theconcerns of the people, to preserve liberty. Of coursethere will be abuses and the power of money may takeover, but this would be a lesser evil. In addition to thesetwo objective forms of power, however, there is thepower of science and technique. This, too, is puredomination. It represents a system; that is, technique,

KATALLAGETE0


2/4

too, is s..:bject to its own proper laws. Techniquenecessarily implies domina tion, force, total efficiency; itcannot be otherwise.

Now in these three cases, it is necessary to rememberthat money has its power in itself, as do the State andtechnique. I t is not a matter of choice at all-it is amatter of the intrinsic logic of the systems. The onlyutopian possibility is simply to pass from one to theother while pretending to be free. But in all three cases,we have independent processes which necessarilyproduce either an accumulation of money or the growthof State domination or the geometric increase oftechnological efficiency. Like it or not, this is the lawunder which these systems operate . Then, of course, thesystems meet up with the thirst for power, the desire todominate. It is here, at the meeting of factorsorganically independent and qualitatively different, thatwe find the real problem of power today.

When a man who wanted to lord it over others had athis disposal only the rudimentary armaments of theMiddle Ages, his ability to dominate was necessarilylimited. He did not find himself caught up by considerations of the contemporary means for action wehave been discussing for the simple reason that theywere limited means. But as methods of power becameless limited, they took on an autonomy that proportionately increased man's ability to dominate othermen-this happened without man being aware that hehad made a clear choice to dominate. Today, however,the so-called objective attitude of the technologist, oreven the neutral attitude of the politician who makes achoice for a variety of given objectives, is in reality onlyc: veil disguising a real penchant for power. The greaterthe methods of power, the less the concern aboutaggression in employing them. Hand to hand combatreCjuires making faces, crying out, and gesticulating to{"righten the enemy. Pushing a button at an atomicmissile console can be done without disturbing one'scool, for this is simply a response to a technicalcalculation, and has nothing to do with conscience.There is neither aggression nor hatred in pushing thebutton. This characterizes the transformation of forcein ou r society: it simply reduces the rational, passionate,and existential reality to a mere exercise in technique.

Therein lies the advantage. We are promised atransition from the political ,realm to the administrativerealm. We move from the political craving to dominateand manipulate to a cold, impersonal mode of behaviorthat seems the very guarantee of non-domination. Wepretend to eliminate the individual's personal decisionto dominate through the simple use of mechanical

FALL 1979

efficiency..n reality, this is more an expression of thespirit of power than technological objectivity. It isessential to technique to increase in power. But the onewho uses technique is not simply a robot: he himself isinvested with power and can recognize the possibilitiesof his actions. Consequently, he proceeds under thepretext of scientific objectivity to give free rein to hislust for power in a new way: he is not a tyrant but a"technologist who exercises power," even if notechnocratic organization exists in the narrow sense ofthe term. Thus increase of power comes about in oursociety by the union of the means of exercising forcewith the spirit of power. Bit by bit, absolute efficiency isachieved in an objective and impersonal way, withoc,tpassion, without feeling.

T he above considerations are necessary to evaluatethe effects of power in our contemporary world not onlyoutside the traditional categories of good and evil butbeyond analyses that are purely psychological. The firstobvious question is whether power can be used for TheGood. This is the position of those who, for example,favor dictatorship to assure man's well-being: if just,virtuous, wise men exercise absolute power, they willlead humanity towards well-being and The Good.However, this presents two difficulties. We must alwaysremember that power tends to run wild. From ':hemoment' any system of power has been set in motion,power is never satisfied with itself. This means that, onthe one hand, the power at hand is always consideredinsufficient to achieve the great objectives envisioned bypower. I t is always necessary to augment power with theconviction that tomorrow one will finally have themeans to realize the original vision and the man withthese ideas never betrays a lack of power. On the otherhand, power which has increased in the immediate pastcannot restrain its own growth. On the contrary, itnecessarily continues in the same direction. In theprimary accumulation of power is both the conditionand also the necessity of further acquisition of power.For example, it is explained that when an economicsystem has a growth rate of 5 percent per annum overten years, a growth rate of 0 percent cannot occur; thesystem is economically and technologically condemnedto follow the growth rate for a sufficiently longer periodof time. The principle of power thus tends towards theunlimited. There is no limit for power other than thatwhich it can effectively accomplish in time, but it doesnot cease wanting to surpass this limit of pure "temporal impotence," in order to be able finally toaccomplish that which yesterday seemed inaccessable.

However, the principle of unlimited growth poses adecisive problem: can there exist values in a societywhich are subordinate to unlimited growth? I invoke

31


3/4

that famous statement of Talleyrand, "Power tends tocorru!?t and absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Andin the same vein is the profound analysis of Junger inThe Glass Bee, where he shows that the growth of powernecessarily and inevitably leacls to the destruction ofvalues.)

I f values exist, there exist as well areas that powercannot reach-not because power is "weak," but by thevery nature of reality. Consequently, power is alwayssubject to judgment, for there exists a reality whichcannot be judged by power. Without these twoconditions, there are no values. But these are the veryconditions which power (be it money, the State, science,or technique) cannot tolerate. Ho w could there beanything inaccessible to power? This would be preciselythe area which power must designate and control. It isprecisely the source of values and their developmentwhich interests all power, for power is never content toexist in a neutral situation. Power as power needs moreand more proof, declaration, and recognition that it isgood and just and proper and lawful. It is the verynature of power to want to be all things. Power is nevercontent with a mere exercise of power.

how could independent values ever sit in judgr'lc,;"on power? Power cannot tolerate judgments, becausethat would suppose a power beyond, and in fact,greater, than itself. ? ower and those who exercise powercannot interpret anything except in terms of power. Forthose dedicated to the pursuit of power, judgments arepossible only because of the superior power of thejudge. The mechanism of the growth of power isinevitably a destroyer of moral and spiritual values, nomatter what group, no matter what society. (See theadmirable book by H. Boll, The Sacrament of the Bull)

W must also consider the problem from anotherpoint of view. Power necessarily implies thesubordination of man. Power always works against manas well as nature and objects. When power is exercised itis inevitable that this power be used against others. Itmakes little difference whether the minority suppressesthe majority or vice versa. Tocqueville has shown thatthe dictatorship of the majority is just as terrible as thedictatorship of the minority. He is right, not Marx. Thedictatorship of the proletariat is no t made legitimate bythe number of its supporters. The masses or the mobwhich exercise power is as radically evil as the dictator.(The name of the demon is "legion".) Moreover, whenpower works on man, the inevitable result is a radicalone: man becomes a thing, he is objectified (which isquite a different status than "alienation"). Powerworks on man as its just and proper victim. Therefore itcan ,ead him, manipl'late tim, and transform him; itcan stri!J him of his humanity to make him simply a

function, or at best an adjunct of power. jVtan sotransformed will give ~ ) o w e r a rein to its full capabilities.Power has no respect for man, for that would be acontradiction in terms. ?ower which would considereach man as an individual, which would be mindful ofhis value and sense of life-such a power would cease tobe power. The courts, since. their invasion bypsychology and psychoanalysis, have in reality given upjudgment: as soon as the accused becomes an individualwhose behavior can be explained and whose face is theexpression of a complex story, it is impossible tocondemn him. Power loses its very reality, for thereality of power is the negation of humanity in the oneswho exercise it as well as in those over whom it isexercised. This is the drama of Hegel's master and slave.

In these conditions, the real problem in maintainingthe possibility of human life in society is how to limitpower. We would seem to have three possibilities. Thefirst I call the c o n v e ~ l t i o n a j limitations of power,namely, law and constitution. Whoever has powerobeys the law and agrees to abide by certain limitations.This is the whole theory behind the democratic liberalstate: the principle of the division of power. But inreality this is ineffectual in practice: this system worksin so far as whoever holds power accepts it and indeedgoes along with it. The extreme weakness of the con-stitutional theory is that political power itself makes theconstitution. Thus at its own will (in spite of referenda),power can change f,om one constitiltion (when itbecomes troublesome) to another. (We have seen [his inFrance since 1793). Second: if law has its source in theState, it is evident that the State is a limit to power onlyto the degree tolerated by p0'Yer. Power has only (0change the rules of law to remove limits to itself. (Thework of Hans Kelsen not only identifies these prin'ciples, but spells out their consequences.) I f law isfounded on something other than the State, then theState will no t rest until its power siezes the source of lawand makes law nothing more than an instrument of theState itself. Third: the weakness of Montesquiue'stheory of "the balance of power": the legislature acts asa balance to the executive branch and the judiciary actsas a balance and control to the other two. But if thethree powers are integrated into one ensemble-theensemble of the State-they cannot balance each other.A simple reorganization of the State can neutralizeeither or both of these powers-and who would stand inthe way of such a reorganization?

And this leads us to a second point: balances, law,constitutions, etc., can be a safeguard in the face ofpower only if they have their foundation in something

KATALLAGETE2


4/4

other than the organism of power. I f law is created inthe manner oj (' custom, is it independent of the Stateand a genuine obstacle to power. I f judiciary power isimplanted in an autonomous social group (for example,the Parliaments and the bourgeoisie in France in the18th century) , it cannot be destroyed by the State. Onthe contrary, it is actually the social group which holdsthe State's reins. In other words, for power to be limitedit must encounter obstacles having their source andreality in independent, autonomous social groups whichcan deliver resistance. This obstacle m ! _ ~ s t be exterior tothe organism of power and cannot simply be moral rule,ideal, or constitution. The reality of these obstacles topower must be deeply rooted. The Church, for example,until the seventeenth cemury was a real obstacle in theface of the autocratic inclinations of monarchs andStates.

For democracy to live, it is not sufficient that itsformal, democratic rules be legalized. Rather, it isnecessary that there exist within the social body a group,community or organization which issues childlikeeh allenges against the government in power, andidentifies and thereby confronts the structure of poweritself, the aims, the bureaucratic tendencies, thetechnological systems, etc. This is the only true counterto-power. But we must be careful, at just this juncture.I f the goal of Our counter to power is simply theconquest of power, the replacement of one regime byanother, it is nothing. Worse, it is nothing more than anew incarnation of the spirit of power, as, for example,are Communist parties everywhere. A true counter topower neither seeks power nor seeks to destroy thesystem in power. Rather it seeks to produce in society azone of uncertainty, to introduce contingent factors, tothrow a wrench into an all too perfect, all too efficientmachine. Any counter to power necessarily aims atreducing efficiency, introducing tensions, troubles,uncertainties, "fading," etc.-and this not from malicebut simply from the recognition and conviction that ifpower is not obstructed, it obeys its own laws. The ideaof a counter to power, of course, does not imply purespontaneity, but rather recognized opposition.

All this said, this idea of a counter to power is notwholly satisfactory. It will lead, inevitably, to a conflict.The dominant power will seek to destroy, assimilate,absorb or recover the counter to power which cannot betolerated indefinitely. There are then only two results:either the counter to power augments itself and therebyenters the cycle of other growing powers; or, it abandons its current form and seeks other bases, otherexpressions, other principles, and reorganizes itself. I tchanges its battlefield, front, and appearance. This isthe only satisfactory response, but-and there is noneed to hide i t - i t is extremely difficult to realize. (I

FALL 1979

have discussed these points in detail in my Autopsy ofRevolution. )

But there ;s an even more radical possibility: thedeliberate choice 07 "non-power," the rejection of allforms of power whatever they may be and no matterhow legitimate Lhey are. "Non-power" obviously goesmuch further than non-violence or opposition to war.Non-power is a radical rejection of the more "normal"tendencies in man-aggression, reacting to violencewith violence, the rule of an eye for an eye and all thevalues and institutions of our society, in particular theeconomic organization, the ideas of competition thatlife is a battle which the best man wins. As long as wepreserve this ideology we are inevitably preparing fa,;:the advent of communist or fascist dictatorship andtheir technostructures. Of course, we must not fall intothe trap of idealism-that is, we must not hope that anyfuture society could exist with an ethic of total nonpower. There is no need to devote ourselves to ananarchistic utopia.In our day, and in our society which has chosenpower, there must be an unceasing and uncompromisingrejection of power. We, the small bu t indispensablevoice of dissent, must choose non-power. We areindispensable, because if our affirmation is not graspedand lived by us, society is doomed. The witness of nonpower (non-success/inefficiency, "failures," etc... )lives in truth by constantly questioning all the ideologiesof society. I t is neither the produc tion of wealth nor thesuccess of the means and systems of production,distribution and consumption, nor the political constructions of justice, which provide society with afuture.The future of our society rests upon the only freepersons in our society. The witnesses to non-power arethe only free persons around us, for those who are benton power resist sociological change, especially as iteffects them as individuals.

There is no other way. Indeed, this way holds greaterimplications and possibilities than one mig)" t think;there are hidden and profound implications for all ofus.

Documents

Lust for Power (Jacques Ellul)