.jpg)
The Unknown Citizen[1]
This Marble Monument
Is Erected by the State)[2]
[1]
The title itself takes liberties with the idea of “the tomb of the unknown
soldier,” within which is interred the arbitrarily chosen remains of an
unidentified World War One casualty. This single unknown soldier symbolizes all
who have fought and died anonymously for the United States. So this poem
appears to be satirizing the idea of serving and giving one’s life to one’s
country by applying this honor to the mere citizen, a not-wholly-outrageous
idea, in fact, until you read the details of the poem.
[2]
The unknown citizen didn’t die on any battlefield and the poet – who we will
soon find sounds like little more than a dispassionate bureaucrat – seems to
know a lot of details of his life; so it’s reasonable to question why he
remains anonymous at the end of his life. This seems an oblique foreshadowing –
whether conscious or not, deliberate or not – of themes developed by Jacques
Ellul in The Presence of the Kingdom (1949), The Technological Society (1964),
and Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965): the relationship of
the individual to the mass, the primacy of the mass, the loss of identity in
technological society, etc.
[5]
There’s an odd juxtaposition here that could easily be missed: the poet/bureaucrat
is saying “except for the war” – which is a cataclysmic, life changing event
that leaves no one unaffected – he led a rather mundane life as a factory
worker. But how do we skip so blithely over this anonymous individual’s wartime
experiences? The “unknown citizen” has no voice of his own in this poem –
indeed, we suspect he had no voice of his own during the entire course of his
life – and it would be tempting to hear what he has to say about his experiences
in the war, as a worker, as a citizen, as a family member, etc. And, once
again, to note that he “never got fired” is as close as we get to praise in
this line; the absence of criticism in lieu of actual praise.
[6]
Again, faint praise: he “satisfied” his employer. Did he only do the minimum?
Or is “satisfaction” the best any unknown citizen can expect as a consequence
of a life’s labors?
[7]
The unknown citizen was a conformist in every possible way. Not only was he a
dutiful employee (who “satisfied” his employers), he was a dutiful member of
his class, the laboring class, a dues-paying union member.
[8]
Again the bureaucrat steps in to assure us that even the labor union –
potentially an agent of radical change in industrial society – was conformist
and “acceptable” to society.
[9]
Ellul, in “Propaganda,” talks about “human techniques,” that is to say the
various fields of psychological research and practice concerned the full
integration of the human person into an environment that is fundamentally
unnatural. Clearly, the unknown citizen was fully assimilated in his
meaningless existence, socializing comfortably with his “mates” and taking “a
drink” – but not to the point that his drinking behavior becomes disruptive to
his social roles.
[10]
This is a page ripped from Ellul’s “Propaganda.” Let me say right now that I am
completely aware that Auden composed this poem before either Ellul’s “Technological
Society” or “Propaganda,” and this is a testament to his critical vision. Ellul
tells us that the mass media of social control must be concerned that their
constant efforts are fruitful. Furthermore, to be effective propaganda must be
continuous and continual, affording the citizen no opportunities to find and
take recourse in points of reference outside the dominant system of propaganda.
So there is another “human technique” at work here; in our post-modern world it
is the ratings service (a la Neilsen), the socio-economic institution that
assures us that messages are hitting their intended audiences.
[11]
The technological society is far more concerned with product than with process.
It doesn’t really matter what malady the unknown citizen suffered from; what is
important is that the technological system worked to rid him of it.
[12]
The technological society no longer recognizes human ends; the means, in the
technological society, become the ends. We don’t produce to satisfy a need; we
produce only in order to produce, and use our “human techniques” (e.g., “marketing”
and “advertising”) to create artificial needs. The ability to respond to these
messages of artificial needs (i.e., “advertisements”) is a critically important
characteristic for an individual in the technological society. It proves he has
assimilated fully from individual to constituent of the mass.
[13]
I’m convinced there’s some significance to the fact that Auden referred to this
particular technology by a brand name (Frigidaire) rather than by its
technological name (refrigerator). I just haven’t figured out yet what the
significance is…
[14]
Ellul, in “Propaganda,” emphasizes the centrality of public opinion research to
the processes of propaganda. For one thing, he notes that people in a highly
technologically developed society feel entitled to be a part of the political
system. Paradoxically, however, he notes that governments cannot follow public
opinion when forming, enacting, and carrying out policy: public opinion is
inherently volatile and changing; government policy cannot follow public
opinion, so public opinion must be made to follow government policy.
[15]
Passively, without dissent, to be sure. How could it be any other way?
[16]
Planning is most certainly a central characteristic of the technological
society.
[17]
Freedom and happiness are central themes in all of Jacques Ellul’s works. The
highest form of human freedon, to Ellul, is individual thought; the ability to
think critically about the world and one’s place in it. Critical thinking – and
therefore freedom – is short-circuited by the various techniques of the technological
society, including (and, in fact, primarily) propaganda. To be most fully free
is to be able to question one’s culture and make moral judgments about it,
about its values, about its goals, about its direction, etc. Happiness, then,
is a natural consequence of freedom. One cannot truly be said to be happy if
one’s life is determined by one’s environment.
[18]
The bureaucrat brings the poem around full circle. The “unknown citizen’s” life
is planned, measured, and evaluated in real time. Judgments are made not on the
basis of achievements, but on the ability to adhere to the plan – on both the
individual basis but also on the basis of the plan’s effects on the level of
the mass. Notations are made only of deviations from the expected norm of the
mass, not on the basis of objective achievements of the individual. So the fact
that we (the bureaucratic class) are not aware of any “problems” (deviations
from the mass norm) is all the sign we need to make the final judgment: not
whether the “unknown citizen” was either free or happy (words which have no
meaning in this technological context), but whether he was in conformity with
the expectations of social planners. A perverse sort of utopia if ever there
was one.
This Marble Monument
Is Erected by the State)[2]
[1] The title itself takes liberties with the idea of “the tomb of the unknown soldier,” within which is interred the arbitrarily chosen remains of an unidentified World War One casualty. This single unknown soldier symbolizes all who have fought and died anonymously for the United States. So this poem appears to be satirizing the idea of serving and giving one’s life to one’s country by applying this honor to the mere citizen, a not-wholly-outrageous idea, in fact, until you read the details of the poem.
[2]
The unknown citizen didn’t die on any battlefield and the poet – who we will
soon find sounds like little more than a dispassionate bureaucrat – seems to
know a lot of details of his life; so it’s reasonable to question why he
remains anonymous at the end of his life. This seems an oblique foreshadowing –
whether conscious or not, deliberate or not – of themes developed by Jacques
Ellul in The Presence of the Kingdom (1949), The Technological Society (1964),
and Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (1965): the relationship of
the individual to the mass, the primacy of the mass, the loss of identity in
technological society, etc.
[3]
Praise is replaced by an official accounting; praise is replaced by the absence
of criticism.
[5] There’s an odd juxtaposition here that could easily be missed: the poet/bureaucrat is saying “except for the war” – which is a cataclysmic, life changing event that leaves no one unaffected – he led a rather mundane life as a factory worker. But how do we skip so blithely over this anonymous individual’s wartime experiences? The “unknown citizen” has no voice of his own in this poem – indeed, we suspect he had no voice of his own during the entire course of his life – and it would be tempting to hear what he has to say about his experiences in the war, as a worker, as a citizen, as a family member, etc. And, once again, to note that he “never got fired” is as close as we get to praise in this line; the absence of criticism in lieu of actual praise.
[6] Again, faint praise: he “satisfied” his employer. Did he only do the minimum? Or is “satisfaction” the best any unknown citizen can expect as a consequence of a life’s labors?
[7] The unknown citizen was a conformist in every possible way. Not only was he a dutiful employee (who “satisfied” his employers), he was a dutiful member of his class, the laboring class, a dues-paying union member.
[8] Again the bureaucrat steps in to assure us that even the labor union – potentially an agent of radical change in industrial society – was conformist and “acceptable” to society.
[9] Ellul, in “Propaganda,” talks about “human techniques,” that is to say the various fields of psychological research and practice concerned the full integration of the human person into an environment that is fundamentally unnatural. Clearly, the unknown citizen was fully assimilated in his meaningless existence, socializing comfortably with his “mates” and taking “a drink” – but not to the point that his drinking behavior becomes disruptive to his social roles.
[10] This is a page ripped from Ellul’s “Propaganda.” Let me say right now that I am completely aware that Auden composed this poem before either Ellul’s “Technological Society” or “Propaganda,” and this is a testament to his critical vision. Ellul tells us that the mass media of social control must be concerned that their constant efforts are fruitful. Furthermore, to be effective propaganda must be continuous and continual, affording the citizen no opportunities to find and take recourse in points of reference outside the dominant system of propaganda. So there is another “human technique” at work here; in our post-modern world it is the ratings service (a la Neilsen), the socio-economic institution that assures us that messages are hitting their intended audiences.
[11] The technological society is far more concerned with product than with process. It doesn’t really matter what malady the unknown citizen suffered from; what is important is that the technological system worked to rid him of it.
[12] The technological society no longer recognizes human ends; the means, in the technological society, become the ends. We don’t produce to satisfy a need; we produce only in order to produce, and use our “human techniques” (e.g., “marketing” and “advertising”) to create artificial needs. The ability to respond to these messages of artificial needs (i.e., “advertisements”) is a critically important characteristic for an individual in the technological society. It proves he has assimilated fully from individual to constituent of the mass.
[13] I’m convinced there’s some significance to the fact that Auden referred to this particular technology by a brand name (Frigidaire) rather than by its technological name (refrigerator). I just haven’t figured out yet what the significance is…
[14] Ellul, in “Propaganda,” emphasizes the centrality of public opinion research to the processes of propaganda. For one thing, he notes that people in a highly technologically developed society feel entitled to be a part of the political system. Paradoxically, however, he notes that governments cannot follow public opinion when forming, enacting, and carrying out policy: public opinion is inherently volatile and changing; government policy cannot follow public opinion, so public opinion must be made to follow government policy.
[15] Passively, without dissent, to be sure. How could it be any other way?
[16] Planning is most certainly a central characteristic of the technological society.
[17] Freedom and happiness are central themes in all of Jacques Ellul’s works. The highest form of human freedon, to Ellul, is individual thought; the ability to think critically about the world and one’s place in it. Critical thinking – and therefore freedom – is short-circuited by the various techniques of the technological society, including (and, in fact, primarily) propaganda. To be most fully free is to be able to question one’s culture and make moral judgments about it, about its values, about its goals, about its direction, etc. Happiness, then, is a natural consequence of freedom. One cannot truly be said to be happy if one’s life is determined by one’s environment.
[18] The bureaucrat brings the poem around full circle. The “unknown citizen’s” life is planned, measured, and evaluated in real time. Judgments are made not on the basis of achievements, but on the ability to adhere to the plan – on both the individual basis but also on the basis of the plan’s effects on the level of the mass. Notations are made only of deviations from the expected norm of the mass, not on the basis of objective achievements of the individual. So the fact that we (the bureaucratic class) are not aware of any “problems” (deviations from the mass norm) is all the sign we need to make the final judgment: not whether the “unknown citizen” was either free or happy (words which have no meaning in this technological context), but whether he was in conformity with the expectations of social planners. A perverse sort of utopia if ever there was one.
