38 Heidegger, History and the Holocaust

through a ‘process’ which involved, but did not culminate, in terms of the ‘process’, in their death (not unlike the ‘processing’ of animals on factory farms today). From first being designated as one among a number on a page for ‘relocation’, to being herded onto cattle-cars, sent by train to the ramps at Auschwitz, corralled into an undressing area, all the while being calmed and reassured by a carefully choreographed routine acted out by the Sonderkommando and guards – they were finally ushered into gas chambers before being poisoned to death. But that did not signal the end of the ‘process’; once the chambers were opened, heads were shaved and hair collected, mouths were checked for gold fillings and false teeth which were duly removed – much of the gold eventually finding its way back to bank vaults in Berlin after being melted down. Clothing was gathered up and sent to ‘Canada’ where it was searched for valuables and cash.29 It was quite the bounty, by all accounts, and corruption and theft were rife, regardless of the stiff punitive measures in place for such transgressions. The now lifeless vessels that had been transported from all corners of the continent for this singular purpose finally reached their terminus – stacked before the oven doors, then loaded onto retractable trays which fed the ovens designed and built by Topf & Sons. These ovens were specially designed to meet the new consumptive demands of the Final Solution by Topf & Sons’ chief engineer, Prüfer; the corpses of the recently murdered innocents were reduced to ash at an average rate of 60 corpses per hour!

But where have we strayed to?

In part, Heidegger’s unusual remark, which we choose to read as an epigraph to his meditation on the essence of technology, illuminates the manner in which we interpret or reveal the world. Heidegger’s account of technology’s essence does not so much show that there are no differences between factory farms and gas chambers. Of course there are differences! But with that we cannot scream ‘blasphemy’ at anyone who suggests that there are discomfiting similarities as well. What Heidegger’s account suggests, I would submit, is that part of what made factory farms, atomic bombs and extermination camps possible is a particularly and oppressively dominant interpre-tative gaze which reduces everything to the level of atom, stock, resource. What makes the term ‘Final Solution’ most worrisome, then, is the fact that it is not the exclusive language of a roomful of diabolical architects of evil, but rather that it betokens a tendency to ‘reveal’ the world and people through the lens of Enframing as resource, stock, number, cog, commodity and, indeed, in terms of a ‘problem’ to be ‘solved’, as, finally, ‘waste’.

Of course, that is not at all to suggest that Heidegger’s analysis of modern technol-ogy’s essence is ‘sufficient’! We are not suddenly divested of our need to deal with this appalling episode in our shared European history. The Holocaust is a trauma and a crime which needs to be commemorated, discussed and understood; but that is not to say that imbuing the event with an air of rarified religiosity or singularizing it is the way to proceed. We must be able to compare this event and treat it historically. Notwithstanding, as we consider how people began to conceive of the world (and