Neo, in The Matrix, carries a copy of Baudrillard's Simulcra and Simulations, that's Jean Baudrillard the French philosopher, who examines
technology, or more accurately its virtual outputs, in culture. More than
this, he has created several concepts and theories that redefine what
technology is in our lives and culture, beyond face-to-face and print
media. His focus on the idea of ‘simulations’ is a break with the past,
disassociated from reference to the reality it pretends to represent. This is
illustrated in his infamous book, ‘The Gulf War Did Not Take Place’. His core
idea is that the virtual world(s) we have created are now more important
cognitively and culturally, that their supposed referents in the real world.
More than this, he thinks the virtual has cleaved away from this assumed real
world. He took an even more controversial position on 9/11, seeing it as a defining event is a clash between two globalisised perspectives.
Hyperreality
He rejects traditional Marxist descriptions and explanations
of economics, with its focus on ‘production’, constructing a new era of
consumerist culture, based on consumerism, communications and commodities.
‘Hyperreality’ is the new state, free from the anchors of reason and
materialism. For Baudrillard, consumerist communication has it’s own set of
codes related to the desires of the consumer. This new form of living has demoted the idea of people as producers.
‘Consumer Society (1970) rejects the Marxist (and Freudian)
ideas of the free agent. The conspicuousness of consumption, he thinks, is far
more complex. Malls have their perpetual springtime and perpetual shopping. Our
created needs, all the possibilities of pleasure make us not producers but
consumers with a huge capacity for consumption. Prophetically, he saw the real
role of credit as lubricating this desire and its excesses. His critique of Marxism reaches its peak in The Mirror of
Production (1973), where each of the major elements in Marxism are demolished –
dialectic, modes of production and so on. Indeed, he turns Marxism on its head,
as he thinks it is a justification for the system it purports to destroy. For
all its machinations around labour, production and value, Marxism has no distance.
Signifiers
In what he calls the ‘code’, floating signifiers, ads,
virtual experiences and so on, we live within a system of signs. As his leftism
gave way to fatalism in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976), death is the only
escape. But death confirms the absence of relevance of the system in which we
fund ourselves trapped. In On Seduction (1979), he renews his broadsides
against Marx, Freud and the structuralists, opting for a Nietzschean view of
perspectivism. It is a blow to glib liberalism and Marxism. Citizens are not a
community, they are consumers.
Simulcra, simulations,
virtual reality
He picks up on Nietzsche’s rejection of oppositional
thought, to move the debate beyond appearance and reality, subject and object,
oppressors and oppressed – to a world of Simulacra and simulations (1981) –
ads, TV news and soap operas. Even in the realm of divinity the battle between
sumulcra and iconoclasts, who conformed the power of ‘icons’ shows that our
concerns are in this battle of signs. Representation first reflects a reality,
then masks and perverts that reality, masks the absence of that reality and
finally bears no relation to reality. This is pure Nietzshe. There is a
brilliant passage in this book on Disneyland. You will never see that place in
the same light after reading this critique of the US ‘embalmed and pacified’.
Yet despite writing all of this in the era of traditional
broadcast media, his work has gathered strength as, what he calls the ‘virtual’
world, has grown to immense proportions. With the advent of the internet and
web, along with social media, augmented reality, virtual reality and artificial
intelligence, his theories have gathered strength as the world he has described
has come to be. The ‘virtual’ moves us further away from and exists outside of
reality. Clay Shirky quantified the astonishing amount of time we as a species
have spent passively watching TV but makes a distinction between this and
active, creative participation in online activity. I’m not sure that
Baudrillard fully grasps these differentials.
In any case, he has been using the term ‘virtual’ for 25 years
and in The Gulf War Did Not Exist (1991) he shocked traditional commentators by
claiming that the war, as shown through media, was not grounded in the Gulf War
but a created reality. History itself collapses through dilution, as we move
beyond an ‘event’ based culture to a non-historical state.
Twenty five years later, we see this code of signs,
simulations and virtual experiences, often as an end in itself. ISIS are more
virtual than real, with real acts being epiphenomena, beheadings fodder for
social media, murder as media. Brexit was a virtual battle, an internal party
dispute played out but disengaged from reality. Trump plays the Baudrillard
game perfectly, recognising that these signs need not be grounded in reality.
His soundbites and Tweets are virtual, in a self-contained world of cage
fighting with other media messages. These are virtual bombardments that promote
ideas, with historical events and fixed viewpoints playing a minor role. Wars
are created to be filmed, now Tweeted, Facebooked and YouTubed. Wars are
virtual.
But Baudrillard took an odd position, which has puzzled many
– that the best reaction to this all-consuming storm of simulacra and
simulations is ‘silence’. This, many argue, is inappropriate, as technology can
be a force for good. But Baudrillard’s challenge is to take the debate beyond
good and bad. It is an existential, not moral, position.
Art
In The Conspiracy if Art (1996) he trounces modern art, as no longer relevant and part of the very system it pretends to critique. It is the art of collusion and has no special status. Art is everywhere and nowhere, part of a consumerist nexus with its careers, commerce and tawdry fame. Worse, it has become mediocre, worse still - null. Adored by the art world after Simulacra and simulations, he came back to destroy its view of itself as superior, even relevant.
Conclusion
It is difficult to grasp Baudrillard’s key concepts and
constructions without abandoning traditional oppositional modes of thought and
fixed Marxist, Freudian, Liberal, Historicist and Structuralist narratives, but
this is the only way to understand his theories. Like Wittgenstein, he pushes
us to the limit of language and thought. He also sees himself and his own theories
as being part of the virtual simulations. I warn you now, these are not bedtime
reading texts. They take time, reflection and persistence – not such a bad
thing in the era of instant, virtual gratification, his target. Never easy,
always challenging, certainly original – Baudrillard is a philosopher for our
age.
1 comment:
Thanks, this is really messing with my mind! I get the connection to Wittgenstein. I remember struggling with Ludwig as an undergraduate but much later in life I think I've started to understand him better. The limits of thought and language. And you said something about Brexit that I can agree with, so that's good.
Post a Comment