“Enframing” Modernity: Heidegger, Technology, and the Human Condition

Spent some time this morning reading Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. In several places of his work, Heidegger offers a profound critique of modernity, science, and technology. His concept of “enframing” (Gestell) is particularly relevant today, as it describes how technology has become a dominant framework for understanding and interacting with the world.

In his essay The Question Concerning Technology (1954), Heidegger argues that technology is not merely a collection of tools but a way of revealing the world. This “revealing” prioritizes efficiency, control, and manipulation, but it also obscures deeper truths about existence and the human condition. Heidegger cautions that this technological mindset reduces human life to calculations and objects, neglecting what he called the “question of being” (Seinsfrage). For Heidegger, rediscovering a more authentic way of understanding the world requires moving beyond the reductionist tendencies of modern science and technology.

At the heart of Heidegger’s philosophy is a deceptively simple yet profound question: What does it mean to be? This question of Being (Sein)—what it means for something to exist—drives his magnum opus, Being and Time (1927). Heidegger argues that the question of Being has been neglected or misunderstood throughout the history of Western philosophy, and his work seeks to recover and rethink this foundational issue.

What Is Being?

When Heidegger talks about Being (Sein), he does not mean a specific thing or entity. Instead, he refers to the fundamental nature or “is-ness” of existence itself. For example, a chair, a tree, and a person all are, but their Being—the way they exist and are understood—differs. Heidegger’s question is not about the properties of things, but about the underlying condition that makes it possible for anything to exist or be experienced in the first place.

Heidegger distinguishes Being (Sein) from individual beings (Seiende). Beings are the things we encounter in everyday life: objects, people, and experiences. Being, however, is the deeper reality that allows beings to appear and have meaning. This distinction can be summarized as the difference between what exists and what it means for something to exist.

Why Has Being Been Forgotten?

Heidegger claims that Western philosophy, starting with Plato and Aristotle, has progressively “forgotten” the question of Being. Instead of asking what it means to be, philosophers have focused on categorizing and explaining beings—specific entities and their properties. For example, scientific inquiry tells us how things work or what they are made of, but it does not address the more fundamental question of why and how anything exists at all.

“The question of Being is the most universal and at the same time the most fundamental of questions.”

This neglect of Being has profound consequences for how we understand ourselves and the world. Heidegger argues that by focusing only on what we can measure or control, we lose sight of the deeper, more mysterious dimension of existence.

Dasein: The Human Relationship to Being

Central to Heidegger’s exploration of Being is his analysis of human existence, which he calls Dasein (literally “being-there”). Humans, unlike other beings, have a unique relationship with Being: we are aware of our own existence and can reflect on what it means to be. Heidegger describes this as the “openness” of Dasein to Being. This openness allows us to question, interpret, and give meaning to the world around us.

However, Dasein is not always fully attuned to the question of Being. In our everyday lives, we are often absorbed in mundane tasks and concerns, losing sight of the deeper realities of existence. Heidegger calls this state of distraction fallenness (Verfallenheit). To confront the question of Being requires us to break free from this everyday mode and face the more profound dimensions of existence.

Being and Time

Heidegger’s insight is that our understanding of Being is inseparable from our experience of time. For humans, existence is always shaped by temporality—we exist in the present, but we are constantly interpreting the past and projecting ourselves into the future. This temporal structure gives meaning to our lives and shapes how we engage with the world.

“Time is the horizon for the understanding of Being.”

By linking Being and time, Heidegger challenges static or abstract notions of existence. Instead, he emphasizes that existence is dynamic and unfolding, always shaped by context and history.

While Heidegger’s analysis of Being may seem abstract, its implications are deeply practical. He argues that modern life, dominated by technology and efficiency, has led us to forget the question of Being. This forgetfulness results in a shallow, instrumental view of the world, where everything—including human life—is reduced to a resource or tool. Heidegger’s work invites us to rediscover a more authentic relationship with Being, one that recognizes the richness, mystery, and interconnectedness of existence.

Rediscovering the Question of Being

For Heidegger, asking the question of Being is not about finding definitive answers but about awakening a sense of wonder and attentiveness to existence itself. It’s about resisting the urge to reduce life to mere functionality and instead cultivating a deeper appreciation for the complexities of what it means to be.

“The fundamental question of metaphysics is: Why is there something rather than nothing?”

This question, simple yet profound, encapsulates the enduring relevance of Heidegger’s philosophy. By reawakening the question of Being, we can confront the challenges of modernity with a renewed sense of purpose and possibility.

Echoes of Heidegger in Religious Critiques of Technology

Heidegger’s concerns resonate with religious thinkers who critique the cultural dominance of technology. Jacques Ellul (1912–1994), for instance, offered a sobering analysis of the modern world in his seminal work The Technological Society (1954). He argues that technology, once a means to achieve human goals, has become autonomous—a force dictating its own evolution and reshaping society in its image. For Ellul, this “technical autonomy” erodes human agency, devalues traditional moral frameworks, and prioritizes efficiency over human well-being.

“Technique has taken over all of man’s activities, not only his productive activities but his leisure activities as well, and all his social relations.”

Ellul’s critique resonates with Heidegger’s warning about enframing: both view the dominance of technology as a dehumanizing force that obscures deeper existential questions.

We may also turn to Wendell Berry (b. 1934), the American farmer, poet, and philosopher, who has written passionately about the impact of industrial and technological systems on rural life. In The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (1977), Berry argues that industrial agriculture undermines the relationship between humans and the land, reducing the natural world to a resource for exploitation.

“The industrial mind is the mind of a fugitive, determined to escape the constraints of marriage, of community, of nature, and of the body.”

Berry’s work complements Heidegger’s critique by illustrating how enframing plays out in agriculture, transforming practices once rooted in care and interdependence into cold, mechanistic processes.

I’m also reminded of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and philosopher, who viewed technology through a more spiritual lens. In The Future of Man (1959), Teilhard explores how humanity’s technological advancements could contribute to its spiritual evolution—or lead to its moral degradation. He saw technology as a tool that reflects the intentions of its users.

“The Age of Technology is inevitably the Age of Anxiety. But we must transform this into an Age of the Spirit.”

For Teilhard, the potential for technology to uplift humanity depends on its alignment with higher spiritual purposes—a perspective that echoes Heidegger’s concerns about authenticity.

Finally, we see echoes of Heidegger in Gilbert Cesbron (1913–1979), a French Catholic novelist, who explored the alienation wrought by technology in works like The Lost Generation (1948). Cesbron lamented how technological advances disrupted human relationships, eroded traditional values, and fostered a sense of disconnection from the sacred.

“In gaining the machine, we have lost the human. And in losing the human, we risk losing the divine.”

Cesbron’s reflections highlight the spiritual and relational costs of technological enframing, enriching Heidegger’s philosophical critique with vivid, human-centered narratives.

The Historical Roots of Enframing

Heidegger traces the roots of enframing to the ancient Greek concept of technē (τέχνη), which encompassed both practical skills and a way of knowing. This form of understanding, focused on human mastery, laid the groundwork for modern technology. Heidegger also sees Platonic and Aristotelian ideas, such as the separation of ideal forms from material reality and the emphasis on purpose (telos), as precursors to the modern technological worldview.

However, the Greek notion of technē underwent significant development before it became the kind of enframing that Heidegger critiques. During the Middle Ages and the early modern period, key cultural shifts accelerated the development of enframing. Heidegger himself doesn’t provide such a clear, linear account of how technē developed into enframing. However, some scholars have argued that the key developments occurred during the Middle Ages and the early modern period that set its foundations. Nominalism in the 14th century, for instance, emphasized individual observation over universal truths, paving the way for empirical science. The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, with figures like Martin Luther (1483–1546) and John Calvin (1509–1564), emphasized labor, stewardship, and efficiency, fostering a mindset conducive to technological innovation.

Influential Figures in the Rise of Modern Technē

The instrumental view of technology gained further momentum through the works of early modern thinkers. Francis Bacon (1561–1626), for example, often called the “father of modern science,” championed empirical observation and the systematic study of nature. In Novum Organum (1620), he famously declared that knowledge should be pursued to “command nature in action.” While Bacon’s emphasis on experimentation laid the groundwork for modern science, we might see this as an early manifestation of enframing.

“The task and duty of human power is to restore and exalt the sovereignty of man over the universe.”

Bacon’s vision of progress aligns with the technological mindset Heidegger critiques—a drive to control and manipulate nature for human purposes.

One can argue that René Descartes (1596–1650) further solidified the modern approach to nature in Meditations on First Philosophy (1641). His dualistic view separated mind and matter, reducing the physical world to quantifiable mechanisms. This perspective is emblematic of enframing.

“We must become masters and possessors of nature.”

For Descartes, reason and mathematics were the ultimate tools for understanding reality—an approach that shaped the technological worldview Heidegger critiques.

Finally, we may draw attention to John Locke (1632–1704), in works like Two Treatises of Government (1689), which emphasized individual rights, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Locke’s ideas encouraged the exploitation of natural resources for economic growth, further entrenching the instrumental view of nature critiqued by Heidegger.

“The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.”

Locke’s utilitarian ethos aligns with the instrumental rationality of enframing, which prioritizes utility over deeper engagement with the natural world.

Enframing and the Fall

Interestingly enough, some scholars see parallels between Heidegger’s concept of enframing and the biblical account of the Fall. Both suggest a kind of “fallenness” in human existence, where pride and the desire for control lead to alienation from more authentic ways of being. A prominent theologian influenced by existentialism, John Macquarrie (1919-2007) often connected Heidegger’s philosophy with Christian theology. In works like Existentialism and Theology (1955) and Principles of Christian Theology (1966), Macquarrie interprets Heidegger’s concept of enframing as analogous to the Fall, particularly in how it describes human alienation and forgetfulness of Being. For Macquarrie, enframing reflects humanity’s fallen state—an estrangement from God and authentic existence through a self-imposed fixation on control and domination. Similarly, Richard L. Rubenstein (1924–2021), in his work on the intersections of existentialism and theology, reflects on the technological domination of nature as a form of alienation akin to the Fall. His writings, such as The Cunning of History (1975), draw on Heidegger’s critique of modernity to explore how technological enframing can be understood as humanity’s attempt to “play God,” echoing the biblical Fall narrative. More recently, David Bentley Hart (b. 1965) critiques the mechanistic and reductionist tendencies of modernity in ways that resonate with Heidegger’s philosophy. In his The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss (2013), Hart indirectly draws connections between the Fall and the technological domination of nature, framing both as expressions of human pride and alienation from Being. While Heidegger did not explicitly make this connection, his critique of technology echoes theological concerns about human hubris and its consequences.

Heidegger’s philosophy does not outright reject technology but seeks to uncover its deeper implications. His work invites us to reconsider our relationship with the world and strive for a more authentic way of being. By understanding how technology shapes human existence, we might find paths toward greater balance and responsibility in our technological age.