The following is an investigation into the idea that Will, as theorised by Schopenhauer, may have relation to the concept of 'technique' as defined by Jacques Ellul. I am seeking to know whether seeking to connect these ideas together is valid. For those unfamiliar with either philosopher or their ideas, I have outlined a brief explanation of both concepts below.

'Will' - Arthur Schopenhauer
The Will is best described as a fundamental force behind all nature. It is not rational or conscious - it is impersonal and acts according to its on noumenal(?) nature. It drives all phenomena forwards, without a goal. In the human, where I have centred this discussion, the Will manifests itself as the desiring force. The Will manifests in humans experience satisfaction or suffering depending on whether these desires are satisfied.

The 'issue' with Will according to Schopenhauer's view is that the evolved mechanisms of suffering and satisfaction are inherently wired in such a way that the individual will always experience more suffering than satisfaction. His personal solution to this was a form of ascetism that appears to borrow from Eastern philosophies/theologies.

'Technique' - Jacques Ellul
Ellul's definition of technique is nuanced and deserves explanation better than I can summarise here. It can be characterised as any set of means that efficiently and predictably yields a specified goal. 'Specified goal' is a more appropriate in this context than a mere 'product', as technique manifests in specific methods with no clear product, such as organisation and mobilization of armed forces.

The significance and impact of technique is that technique imposes a style of determinism on our actions as individuals as part of a larger social system. Human and natural resources are exploited in a machine-like manner for the progression of technical operations. The conformation of the human psyche to a system of techniques results in reduction of divergent thinking (i.e. creativity) and the increased employment of propaganda to encourage social cohesion.

What relation do these concepts have to each other?
Both of these theories suggest a motivating force behind either the actions of the individual or society as a whole. I assume that Will provides a functional description of the 'life's agenda'. This life agenda is the need to self-propagate, avoiding danger through suffering and motivating conducive activities through pleasure. Similarly, technique adequately describes the evolution of technology, sciences and cultural norms as a streamlining process geared towards greater efficiency.

However, I was wondering whether these ideas could complement each other as follows. Evolution is to some part geared towards improving the chances of reproducing a gene in offspring by optimising both the conditions immediate to the organism, and the physiology of the organism. Schopenhauer seems to anticipate this evolutionary drive with his Will, which characterises the motives by which organisms behave. Not explicated in his theory is a comprehensive account of how the Will (as manifest in humans or rational animals) utilises its immediate environment. Ellul's conception of technique appears to provide a tenable hypothesis of how humans have come to utilise both inherent faculties (such as cognition) and external resources to reach optimum conditions for evolution. I believe (though I admittedly could not argue this yet) that technique provides adequate motive for the actions of an organism that could not otherwise be reduced to the driving force of Will.

To return back to my question, I wanted to know if anyone could suggest if there are any obvious differences between both ideas that need to be addressed to successfully synthesize both systems?