Ellul says that "the better adapted man is, the more tolerant and liberal the system can act toward him. The more he conforms, the less constraint has to be used." (Ellul, 1980, 109) He makes this claim while discussing flexibility as a feature of the technological system. Ellul says that as long as man does not challenge the system he is allowed a fair amount of independence. This is accomplished by increasing the abstraction of the system and the establishment of second- and third-order controls. Seemingly he acquires greater freedoms, but these freedoms are compensation for, or adaptations to, the system; thus, they actually further decrease our freedom and responsibilities while providing the sense that we are free and responsible. We are given more choices but these choices are only choices of technique. So long as we choose a new self-help group, or a little blue pill to elevate our mood or our members, or choose MP3 over CD, and so on, we are free to do as we like. In fact, these and many other lifestyle choices, to include who we want to be today, are marketed to us. So what are these second- and third-order controls that are used to give us the illusion of freedom and responsibility?
Perrow’s article gives us the answer to this question. First-order controls are direct surveillance, orders, and rules and regulations. These do, of course, exist in the technological system, but their overuse would result in our correctly feeling the loss of freedom and responsibility. Proliferation of rules and regulations also leads to errors, primarily because people will choose the least inconvenient rule to follow and not necessarily the most applicable. Second-order controls primarily consist of standardization and specialization, but also include hierarchy according to Perrow. He specifically says that these concepts have "technical origins and rationale," that is, they are technique. (Perrow, 7) By limiting the amount of stimuli that people have to respond to they control people. They channel behavior and if they are well constructed they result in more predictable and efficient behavior. (Perrow, 8) So although second-order controls result in our having less to control, they provide us with the feeling of being in control. This parallels Ellul’s claim that the technological system strips us of our responsibility.
Large amounts of ambiguity and uncertainty produce fear and
anxiety in us. We are afraid of making an error and the possible
consequences of doing so. This is why we hand over all of our
responsibilities, particularly our moral responsibilities, to experts.
Moral judgments always involve contexts that include ambiguity or
uncertainty. Thus, we rely on those who are specialized, or on
standard procedures, to make these decisions for us. Third-order
controls change or control our premises. By controlling our premises
our attention can be directed to some stimuli and redirected away from
other stimuli. This is done by reducing the amount of information we
have in an area and increasing the amount somewhere else. By using
this form of control less first- and second-order controls can be
used. By having our premises changed we feel even more in
control; that we are freer. Several of the ways that our attention is
directed or redirected is by signs, posters, speeches, and performance
reviews; frowns and smiles in everyday conversation; repeated use of
keywords (ala plastic words [see Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modular Language by Uwe Pörksen]); controlling the number of words; and reinforcement, particularly positive reinforcement. (Perrow, 11-13)
These types of control certainly seem applicable to the
organization or corporation; but how do they apply to society in
general, and how do they support the technological system?
nowadays we have all kinds
of complicated machines
so no one person
ever has to have blood on their hands
we have complex organizations
and if everyone just does their job
no one person ever has to understand
Ani DiFranco – crime for crime
Second-order controls are particularly prevalent. Our
institutions are all highly standardized and specialized. Law no
longer involves judgments but has become procedural rules to be
followed. Techniques for everything from sales to test taking to
critical thinking have been developed. Standardized testing is well,
standardized, and is a massive industry. Standards apply to
practically everything we buy or consume. Equipment must be
interchangeable and work together, food must be safe, labeling laws
specify what must be listed and how. Schools of higher education have
reduced themselves to simply (re)producing technicians. I could go on ad nauseum
about second-order controls, but far more interesting for the feelings
of freedom and responsibility that they impart to us are third-order
controls. The reduction of the amount of information in certain areas
of our lives is easily taken care of by the control of the media by a
very few, very large corporations. This is particularly important in
the areas of politics and world affairs. But by control being in the
hands of only a few, usually locally remote, corporations we do not
even know what is going on in our "own backyards."
[para break added]
These same large media corporations also conveniently handle the
redirection or replacement of these missing stimuli by other stimuli.
The compensations of the media are practically endless, and this is
where we are most "free." There are a practically unlimited number of
channels on TV, be it satellite, cable or broadcast. Every week
several new movies are released. Didn’t that ad on TV look great? An
unlimited supply of specialty magazines exist for the connoisseur of
everything from Barbie® dolls
to cigars. Music—would you like that on tape, vinyl, CD, DVD-Audio,
SACD…? Propaganda of all sorts is used as redirection, or is it
misdirection? How is it that over sixty percent of the American
population came to believe that direct ties existed between Saddam
Hussein and al Queda? Why were we being told in the immediate
aftermath of 9/11 to go shopping? Just what does "We Stand United"
mean? Psychological commitment to the organization is a classic result
of third-order controls. By changing our premises—making us
believe that if you do not support George Bush and his cronies that you
are not only unpatriotic but treasonous; convincing us that Britney
Spears can really sing—we believe that we are in control; that we are
responsible for our choices; and that we are free.
(Sources for this answer are primarily The Technological System by Jacques Ellul, chap. 4; The Bureaucratic Paradox: The Efficient Organization Centralizes in Order to Decentralize by Charles Perrow, Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1977: 2-14; crime for crime by Ani DiFranco on Not A Pretty Girl and class notes.)
Afterthoughts and Notes:
Written as part of final exam for Sociology 469.04 Seminar in
Sociological Institutions – Technology and Modern Society. Fall 2003 at
Illinois State University.
If I had know the amount of first-order controls to be implemented
over the course of the Bush presidency I would have spent more time on
them in the 2nd paragraph. Certainly more than basically just "their
overuse would result in our correctly feeling the loss of freedom and
responsibility." See for example: The Homeland Security State
Additions to text marked by [ ].
Fleshed out the sources a bit more since the professor knew many of them but you may not.
