The Question Concerning Technology

What is Heidegger attempting to accomplish through writing “The Question Concerning Technology”?

Heidegger’s main purpose in this text seems to be to get his readers thinking much more critically about the ways technology works to define and manipulate its users. He argues that unless we slow down and question technology we will become passive users of it. He says:

Thus we shall never experience our relationship to the essence of technology so long as we merely conceive and push forward the technological, put up with it, or evade it. Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral. (4)

Actually, as I reread this quote, it seems that he’s not only questioning technology, but he’s questioning our relationship with it. He’s also striving in this piece to redefine what technology is by merging the two conceptions of technology as (1) “a means to an end” and (2) a “human activity” (4). Heidegger views defining technology as a central question in his piece claiming that viewing technology as a non-neutral instrument through which humans acquire ends will allow us to manipulate technology as a means rather than becoming passively manipulated users of it.

What are the major points of Heidegger’s argument as he works toward his end?

Heidegger begins by centralizing the question concerning technology as one of defining what technology is and what relationship humans have to it. He claims the two distinct definitions of technology – a means to an end and a human activity – belong together because the manipulation of our surroundings to suit our needs is, in fact, a human activity. Heidegger sees technology as humans developing tools to manipulate their surroundings in order to meet an end (4-5). Technology is, in other words, merely an instrument developed and used by humans. Nothing more. Heidegger makes connections between “old” technology (weather vane, sawmill) and “modern” technology (power plant, jet aircraft, radar, hydroelectric plants) claiming that, though modern technology is more advanced, the essence behind it is basically the same. Both old and new technologies were tools developed for the purpose of harnessing something within nature. Heidegger claims that understanding all technology as a means to an end is central in maintaining the “proper” relationship with it. That is, we must work to master it rather than being mastered by it (5).

In order to touch upon the causality of technology, Heidegger expands upon the four causes provided by philosophy: the material, the shape into which the material enters, the end, and that which brings about the end (6). He demonstrates the different causes by using a silver challis as an example—that is, the four causes that bring about the silver challis. The material cause consider what the end is made of. In the case of a silver challis, the end is made of silver. The shape of a silver challis is predetermined. The end cause for the silver challis is the religious background from which the conception of the challis sprung (its purpose, form, and function). And finally, that which brings about the challis would be the silversmith. Heidegger goes on, however, to question whether the conception of the four causes is accurate claiming that, in fact, the four causes are closely bound and affected by one another (7-9). Heidegger claims the four causes are at play in “bringing-forth” (11). That is, nature reveals itself through the action of these four causes. “Bringing-forth brings hither out of concealment forth into unconcealment. Bring-forth comes to pass only insofar as something concealed comes into unconcealment” (11). What is unconcealed, Heidegger claims, is “truth.” Though he does not make the outright claim, Heidegger seems to be pointing to a foundational truth here—claiming that the bringing-forth of the four causes will bring about the revealing of a Truth. Heidegger draws the conversation back to technology by claiming that “technology is a way of revealing” (12).

Extending his argument as it relates specifically to modern technology (which he seems to define as that which draws upon exact science, Physics) claiming that it is different from older technologies in that “the revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such” (14). Through man’s manipulation of modern technologies, the earth reveals itself to be various things—a mineral deposit or coal mining district.

I certainly see the logic here, however, I tempted to disagree with Heidegger that older technologies did not harness the earth’s energy. If we look at the three “basic machines”—the inclined plane, the lever, and the wheel—we see they all manipulate energy—physical energy—in some way that allows humans to go beyond their natural abilities. Maybe I’m reading Heidegger too literally. Perhaps he’s more concerned with the exploitation of Earth’s resources more than he is with philosophizing about human’s manipulation of the laws of nature. Because certainly the older technologies drew on energies provided by the earth, but the newer technologies have worked to own the energy provided by the earth – commodifying it – rather than simply use it as needed. Perhaps this is where Heidegger senses something amiss.

Heidegger goes on to discuss technology as a standing-reserve (17). That is, “it has its standing only from the ordering of the orderable” and has no power of its own (17). The same can be said, Heidegger claims, for humans who are challenged, ordered, to draw forth the energies of the earth. However, since humans have a shaping power in technology, they are not merely part of the standing-reserve, but I think Heidegger is claiming they can be if they are passively using technology. Heidegger claims that “man becomes truly free only insofar as he belongs to the realm of destining and so becomes one who listens and hears, and not only one who is constrained to obey” (25). In other words, in order to prevent becoming one in the standing-reserve who is merely called upon (as technology is) to manipulate nature and bring forth stored energies, humans must actively respond to technology, the driving force behind technology, and that which is influenced/affected by technology. Heidegger concludes by arguing that as long as we view technology as an instrument—merely a means to an end, we will always be relegated to the task of mastering it thus becoming ourselves part of the standing-reserve. However, when we question “how the instrumental comes to presence as a kind of causality” then we will become active users who will have a more direct hand in shaping and using technology (32).

How does this work relate to the Composition Class?

As technology, digital computerized technology specifically, becomes more central in everyday life, it seems learning to “master” technology goes hand in hand with being successful in the world. Though it was written sixty years ago, this piece is still highly relevant today, perhaps more so than it was in 1949. Students would benefit from a new conception of technology as it functions within their lives considering for instance what the Internet reveals about humans. Heidegger doesn’t really go into it much, but considering the political revealing of today’s technology would also be highly beneficial for students—especially students who may not have as much access to some of the most “basic” technologies. If we consider computers as revealing something inherent about those who had a hand in creating them, we might draw really interesting conclusions. For instance, if we were to consider that most software marketed in the US privileges standard English, we might draw surprising conclusions about who created the software and who they envisioned using the software. I think it’s been said many times since Heidegger published this piece, but passing on a critical consciousness regarding technology’s influence in our lives today seems central to a student’s success in the world—both as they move to use technology as it is typically used by those in power but also as the move to manipulate technology, to bend it to the user’s will rather than visa versa. As Heidegger says, technology is not neutral, and passing on this conception of technology would do a lot to demystify it and make it a much more visible thing.

Questions I had while reading this text

My initial reading of this text brought up many questions, but I found that two were at the heart of my understanding what Heidegger was trying to achieve through writing this text.

First, when Heidegger discusses technology, what is he talking about? When I first read this text, I grew increasingly frustrated that he didn’t nail down what kind of “technology” he was addressing. My second reading revealed that this was one of his central questions, hence why he didn’t define it outright. But as I think about technology as a bringing-forth—“bringing-forth brings hither out of concealment forth into unconcealment. Bring-forth comes to pass only insofar as something concealed comes into unconcealment” (11)—I wonder if any manipulation of nature counts as technology. Language, for instance. Not the words written on a scroll or typed on a computer screen, but merely spoken language. We’re manipulating air to produce sounds that other humans will recognize and understand. The development of such communicative tools reveals something about the nature of humans—our need, for instance, to connect on some level with others. Does this count as technology in Heidegger’s estimation?

Heidegger states several times that the essence of technology is that it is a revealing, and my second big question concerns what it reveals. Again, as this is one of his central questions, perhaps this is why he doesn’t answer what technology reveals. Perhaps this would be contrary to his goal of making his readers more consciously aware of how technology (broadly defined) reflects upon nature and humans. He discusses how technology that draws upon energy resources can reflect upon humans, but he doesn’t expand on this. He seems to be hinting that humans are bad for wanting to exploit the natural reserves of the Earth, but he never comes out and says that directly. But if technology is a revealing, then what does it reveal? Is this question meant to be answered in a case-by-case basis? Or there an overarching revealing that can be discussed?