Oct 08, Sid Nuncius rated it it was ok I thought this book was largely but not quite entirely provocative nonsense. There is some decent sociological analysis in it, but there is also a very large amount of utter drivel. In spite of the title, Baudrillard accepts that military events took place in the Gulf and that people suffered and died during them, but he maintains that what took place was not a war, and the version of events we saw on TV and in other media was not what really happened. Plainly, the title is intended to attract I thought this book was largely but not quite entirely provocative nonsense.
|Published (Last):||28 September 2009|
|PDF File Size:||8.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.47 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
For Baudrillard, as for the situationists, it was consumption rather than production that was the main driver of capitalist society.
Baudrillard argued, drawing from Georges Bataille , that needs are constructed, rather than innate. He stressed that all purchases, because they always signify something socially, have their fetishistic side. Objects always, drawing from Roland Barthes , "say something" about their users. And this was, for him, why consumption was and remains more important than production: because the "ideological genesis of needs" precedes the production of goods to meet those needs.
Example: a pen writes; a refrigerator cools. Example: One pen may be worth three pencils, while one refrigerator may be worth the salary earned by three months of work. Example: a particular pen may, while having no added functional benefit, signify prestige relative to another pen; a diamond ring may have no function at all, but may suggest particular social values, such as taste or class.
But the focus on the difference between sign value which relates to commodity exchange and symbolic value which relates to Maussian gift exchange remained in his work up until his death. Indeed, it came to play a more and more important role, particularly in his writings on world events. Simulacra and Simulation[ edit ] Main article: Simulacra and Simulation As Baudrillard developed his work throughout the s, he moved from economic theory to mediation and mass communication.
Although retaining his interest in Saussurean semiotics and the logic of symbolic exchange as influenced by anthropologist Marcel Mauss , Baudrillard turned his attention to the work of Marshall McLuhan , developing ideas about how the nature of social relations is determined by the forms of communication that a society employs. Simulation, Baudrillard claims, is the current stage of the simulacrum: all is composed of references with no referents, a hyperreality. For Baudrillard, the end of the Cold War did not represent an ideological victory; rather, it signaled the disappearance of utopian visions shared between both the political Right and Left.
Giving further evidence of his opposition toward Marxist visions of global communism and liberal visions of global civil society, Baudrillard contended that the ends they hoped for had always been illusions; indeed, as The Illusion of the End argues, he thought the idea of an end itself was nothing more than a misguided dream: The end of history is, alas, also the end of the dustbins of history.
There are no longer any dustbins for disposing of old ideologies, old regimes, old values. Where are we going to throw Marxism, which actually invented the dustbins of history? Yet there is some justice here since the very people who invented them have fallen in.
Conclusion: if there are no more dustbins of history, this is because History itself has become a dustbin. It has become its own dustbin, just as the planet itself is becoming its own dustbin. Employing a quasi-scientific vocabulary that attracted the ire of the physicist Alan Sokal , Baudrillard wrote that the speed society moved at had destabilized the linearity of history: "we have the particle accelerator that has smashed the referential orbit of things once and for all".
Baudrillard argued that although genuine belief in a universal endpoint of history, wherein all conflicts would find their resolution, had been deemed redundant, universality was still a notion utilised in world politics as an excuse for actions. Universal values which, according to him, no one any longer believed universal were and are still rhetorically employed to justify otherwise unjustifiable choices.
Today, by contrast, universalization is expressed as a forward escape. He was determined in his columns to openly name the perpetrators, Serbs, and call their actions in Bosnia aggression and genocide. He argued that the first Gulf War was the inverse of the Clausewitzian formula: not "the continuation of politics by other means," but "the continuation of the absence of politics by other means. Saddam Hussein did not use his military capacity the Iraqi Air Force.
His power was not weakened, evinced by his easy suppression of the internal uprisings that followed afterwards. Over all, little had changed. Saddam remained undefeated, the "victors" were not victorious, and thus there was no war—i. Some critics[ who? Consequently, Baudrillard was accused of lazy amoralism, cynical scepticism, and Berkelian idealism. Merrin argued that Baudrillard was not denying that something had happened, but merely questioning whether that something was in fact war or a bilateral "atrocity masquerading as a war.
What is worse is that these dead still serve as an alibi for those who do not want to have been excited for nothing: at least these dead will prove this war was indeed a war and not a shameful and pointless. On the terrorist attacks of 11 September [ edit ] In contrast to the " non-event " of the Gulf War, in his essay The Spirit of Terrorism  Baudrillard characterises the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City as the "absolute event".
Seeking to understand them as a reaction to the technological and political expansion of capitalist globalization, rather than as a war of religiously based or civilization-based warfare, he described the absolute event and its consequences as follows: This is not a clash of civilisations or religions, and it reaches far beyond Islam and America, on which efforts are being made to focus the conflict in order to create the delusion of a visible confrontation and a solution based upon force.
There is indeed a fundamental antagonism here, but one that points past the spectre of America which is perhaps the epicentre, but in no sense the sole embodiment, of globalisation and the spectre of Islam which is not the embodiment of terrorism either to triumphant globalisation battling against itself.
This stance was criticised on two counts. In the journal Economy and Society, Merrin further noted that Baudrillard gives the symbolic facets of society unfair privilege above semiotic concerns. Second, authors questioned whether the attacks were unavoidable.
Bruno Latour , in Critical Inquiry, argued that Baudrillard believed that their destruction was forced by the society that created them, alluding to the notion that the Towers were "brought down by their own weight.
Baudrillard decried the "cynicism" with which contemporary businesses openly state their business models. He steals our denunciation. Our potlatch is indignity, immodesty, obscenity, degredation and abjection. Others just invite you to think. He yearns to have intellectual influence, but must fend off any serious analysis of his own writing, remaining free to leap from one bombastic assertion to the next, no matter how brazen.
Your place is simply to buy his books, adopt his jargon, and drop his name wherever possible. The latter Baudrillard himself characterised as reductive. Merrin, therefore, alludes to the common criticism of structuralist and post-structuralist work a criticism not dissimilar in either Baudrillard, Foucault, or Deleuze that emphasising interrelation as the basis for subjectivity denies the human agency from which social structures necessarily arise. He fails to define key terms, such as the code; his writing style is hyperbolic and declarative, often lacking sustained, systematic analysis when it is appropriate; he totalizes his insights, refusing to qualify or delimit his claims.
He writes about particular experiences, television images, as if nothing else in society mattered, extrapolating a bleak view of the world from that limited base. What is in doubt is that this sort of thinking enables a historically informed grasp of the present in general. According to Baudrillard, it does not. The concurrent spread of the hyperreal through the media and the collapse of liberal and Marxist politics as the master narratives, deprives the rational subject of its privileged access to truth.
In an important sense individuals are no longer citizens, eager to maximise their civil rights, nor proletarians , anticipating the onset of communism. They are rather consumers, and hence the prey of objects as defined by the code. In popular culture[ edit ] This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. One critic wondered whether Baudrillard, who had not embraced the movie, was "thinking of suing for a screen credit,"  but Baudrillard himself disclaimed any connection to The Matrix, calling it at best a misreading of his ideas.
Jean Baudrillard Philosopher and sociologist who blurred the boundaries between reality and simulation The French philosopher and sociologist, Jean Baudrillard, at his home in Paris, in During the war, he said it was not really taking place. After its conclusion, he announced, imperturbably, that it had not taken place. This prompted some to characterise him as yet another continental philosopher who revelled in a disreputable contempt for truth and reality.
The Gulf War Did Not Take Place