“Dissimulation warning! Dissimulation warning!” my robot just said. “Don’t expect anything in your future to be anything like your past. Memory is unnecessary according to some. We can make a new world just by saying it, just by making a new symbol or two, and just by virtue of interminably being in the public eye. And those symbols don’t have to represent anything real. The New World is whatever we say it is, and no consequence of previous actions requires as a law of human nature that a similar consequence will occur.”
That robot sounds a bit like Jean Baudrillard, author of Simulacra and Simulation, talking. Or maybe like some character out of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? aka Blade Runner. We’ve entered fully the world of “If you can say it, it’s real because the real is difficult to detect.” It isn’t a matter of things just looking like something real; life now is matter of living symbolically on the basis of symbols themselves, on the basis of constructs of our imaginations, and on the basis of ideals that have never historically proved themselves to be anything other than empty symbols or pipe dreams.
Baudrillard has received his share of criticism for his psychology, philosophy, and social ideas, and maybe deservedly so, but he makes some points that might apply to our burgeoning
Blade-Runner-World in which we have to give someone a test to see whether or not he or she is a real person—or, should I say, represents a viable reality. In his Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard discusses the 1971 TV verité program that became the model for all reality TV. It was the show that followed the Loud family for seven months of uninterrupted shooting, during which time the family, in Baudrillard’s words, “fell apart.” Baudrillard writes, “Was TV itself responsible [for the breakup]? What would have happened if TV hadn’t been there? More interesting is the illusion of filming the Louds as if TV weren’t there.” (27,28) *
Living our lives as we do in the midst of cameras, we are all characters in a movie or reality show similar to The Truman Show. Everyone is a potential video producer with unlimited access to the world stage. Any action of ours might be broadcast at any time. That’s not good for privacy, but it is certainly good for turning a make-believe world into a perceived reality. For some, the ubiquitous cameras are self-serving in the extreme, as exemplified by a young congresswoman from New York, the 2018/2019 TV darling AOC, as she is known. Apparently, she can simply say that an economic system is ideal regardless of what the past has shown us. In this instance, the saying is about socialism as an ideal.
Now, most of us can acknowledge that in a world with seven billion people, collective social support is a worthy cause, particularly because so many require assistance of some kind to achieve the first two levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (physiological and safety needs). Beyond those two needs that society in general might be able to supply in part with a distribution of wealth, lie those other “needs” that Maslow identified: Love/social acceptance, esteem, self-actualization, and, from his later work, transcendence. Apparently, those who advocate the complete or nearly complete distribution of wealth believe that those “higher” needs can be attained through an economic solution.
Baudrillard has said that symbols no longer symbolize the real. The “originals” that symbols symbolize are nonexistent. Symbols symbolize other symbols, most of which apparently aren’t based on any historical precedent. In general, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming the dream, that is, with a young congresswoman’s seeking an “ideal.” But the proof lies in the pudding itself, and there are, to be redundant, historical precedents. Those precedents (e.g., Cuba’s, Venezuela’s, the old Soviet Union’s economies and histories of human indignities fostering millions to attempt escape) bespeak of despotism and a circle of the elite who deem what is or what isn’t a “need.” Imagine the young congresswoman in her old age, not pandered to by a fawning media oblivious to the content of her stream-of-consciousness ramblings, seeking some help from a system that says, “Sorry, for the greater good, we’re going to have to cut you off from this ‘need.’”**
Here’s what Baudrillard writes: “It is the whole traditional world of causality that is in question: the perspectival, determinist mode, the active, critical mode, the analytic mode—the distinction between cause and effect, between active and passive…between the end and the means. It is in this sense that one can say: TV manipulates us, TV informs us….” (30) * Think of how dependent we all are—or if not “dependent,” then “accustomed to”—on the words of pundits and commentators. Remember that the “announcerless game” between the Jets and the Dolphins broadcast by NBC in 1980, was a failure. Fans demand commentators for perspective. News junkies demand commentators to tell them what to think, to explain the symbols, the metaphors, and the models of the times. And it doesn’t matter to the uninformed if the commentators are themselves “informed” or “uninformed,” simulating or dissimulating. Such is the manner of our dependence on simulations, rather than on history or personal, rational analysis.
Regardless of how many ills all economic systems engender in a society, for achieving the top-level needs of Maslow, the facts of history favor those systems that from an individual’s perspective work top-down. That is, those who have self-esteem derived from individual effort are usually those most capable of providing the first two need levels—physiological and safety needs. But that is irrelevant, isn’t it? As we move closer to passivity supported by a dictatorial society and away from individual activity, the only reality is the simulated one, the one projected on TV screens, spoken by commentators of varying levels of erudition, and shown by videos taken by phone cameras. Everyman, in the allegorical sense, is a producer. Given enough cameras, enough coverage, any symbol, any “ideal,” can become the truth.
“Warning!” the robot said.
I know this will appear to be a bit farfetched to some, but bear with me for a few more thoughts. In the Philip Dick novel, the character Phil Resch says, “It doesn’t seem possible. For three years I’ve been working under the direction of androids. Why didn’t I suspect…Garland has been my superior from the start…Then at one time an authentic Garland existed..And somewhere along the way got replaced…Or—I’ve been impregnated with a false memory system.” (127) ***
Is it possible that Baudrillard has a legitimate point when he says that the originals on which symbols were based are all gone—or never existed? Is it possible that we are immersed in a world of symbols based on symbols, on simulations. As he writes, “It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real….” (2) *
*Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press. 1994.
**Of course, given a certain level of fame, independent wealth can grow. She will be able to write books and give speeches for handsome compensations as so many ex-politicians do.
***Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York. Del Rey Book/Ballantine Books, 1968.
That robot sounds a bit like Jean Baudrillard, author of Simulacra and Simulation, talking. Or maybe like some character out of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? aka Blade Runner. We’ve entered fully the world of “If you can say it, it’s real because the real is difficult to detect.” It isn’t a matter of things just looking like something real; life now is matter of living symbolically on the basis of symbols themselves, on the basis of constructs of our imaginations, and on the basis of ideals that have never historically proved themselves to be anything other than empty symbols or pipe dreams.
Baudrillard has received his share of criticism for his psychology, philosophy, and social ideas, and maybe deservedly so, but he makes some points that might apply to our burgeoning
Blade-Runner-World in which we have to give someone a test to see whether or not he or she is a real person—or, should I say, represents a viable reality. In his Simulacra and Simulation, Baudrillard discusses the 1971 TV verité program that became the model for all reality TV. It was the show that followed the Loud family for seven months of uninterrupted shooting, during which time the family, in Baudrillard’s words, “fell apart.” Baudrillard writes, “Was TV itself responsible [for the breakup]? What would have happened if TV hadn’t been there? More interesting is the illusion of filming the Louds as if TV weren’t there.” (27,28) *
Living our lives as we do in the midst of cameras, we are all characters in a movie or reality show similar to The Truman Show. Everyone is a potential video producer with unlimited access to the world stage. Any action of ours might be broadcast at any time. That’s not good for privacy, but it is certainly good for turning a make-believe world into a perceived reality. For some, the ubiquitous cameras are self-serving in the extreme, as exemplified by a young congresswoman from New York, the 2018/2019 TV darling AOC, as she is known. Apparently, she can simply say that an economic system is ideal regardless of what the past has shown us. In this instance, the saying is about socialism as an ideal.
Now, most of us can acknowledge that in a world with seven billion people, collective social support is a worthy cause, particularly because so many require assistance of some kind to achieve the first two levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (physiological and safety needs). Beyond those two needs that society in general might be able to supply in part with a distribution of wealth, lie those other “needs” that Maslow identified: Love/social acceptance, esteem, self-actualization, and, from his later work, transcendence. Apparently, those who advocate the complete or nearly complete distribution of wealth believe that those “higher” needs can be attained through an economic solution.
Baudrillard has said that symbols no longer symbolize the real. The “originals” that symbols symbolize are nonexistent. Symbols symbolize other symbols, most of which apparently aren’t based on any historical precedent. In general, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming the dream, that is, with a young congresswoman’s seeking an “ideal.” But the proof lies in the pudding itself, and there are, to be redundant, historical precedents. Those precedents (e.g., Cuba’s, Venezuela’s, the old Soviet Union’s economies and histories of human indignities fostering millions to attempt escape) bespeak of despotism and a circle of the elite who deem what is or what isn’t a “need.” Imagine the young congresswoman in her old age, not pandered to by a fawning media oblivious to the content of her stream-of-consciousness ramblings, seeking some help from a system that says, “Sorry, for the greater good, we’re going to have to cut you off from this ‘need.’”**
Here’s what Baudrillard writes: “It is the whole traditional world of causality that is in question: the perspectival, determinist mode, the active, critical mode, the analytic mode—the distinction between cause and effect, between active and passive…between the end and the means. It is in this sense that one can say: TV manipulates us, TV informs us….” (30) * Think of how dependent we all are—or if not “dependent,” then “accustomed to”—on the words of pundits and commentators. Remember that the “announcerless game” between the Jets and the Dolphins broadcast by NBC in 1980, was a failure. Fans demand commentators for perspective. News junkies demand commentators to tell them what to think, to explain the symbols, the metaphors, and the models of the times. And it doesn’t matter to the uninformed if the commentators are themselves “informed” or “uninformed,” simulating or dissimulating. Such is the manner of our dependence on simulations, rather than on history or personal, rational analysis.
Regardless of how many ills all economic systems engender in a society, for achieving the top-level needs of Maslow, the facts of history favor those systems that from an individual’s perspective work top-down. That is, those who have self-esteem derived from individual effort are usually those most capable of providing the first two need levels—physiological and safety needs. But that is irrelevant, isn’t it? As we move closer to passivity supported by a dictatorial society and away from individual activity, the only reality is the simulated one, the one projected on TV screens, spoken by commentators of varying levels of erudition, and shown by videos taken by phone cameras. Everyman, in the allegorical sense, is a producer. Given enough cameras, enough coverage, any symbol, any “ideal,” can become the truth.
“Warning!” the robot said.
I know this will appear to be a bit farfetched to some, but bear with me for a few more thoughts. In the Philip Dick novel, the character Phil Resch says, “It doesn’t seem possible. For three years I’ve been working under the direction of androids. Why didn’t I suspect…Garland has been my superior from the start…Then at one time an authentic Garland existed..And somewhere along the way got replaced…Or—I’ve been impregnated with a false memory system.” (127) ***
Is it possible that Baudrillard has a legitimate point when he says that the originals on which symbols were based are all gone—or never existed? Is it possible that we are immersed in a world of symbols based on symbols, on simulations. As he writes, “It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real….” (2) *
*Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Trans. by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press. 1994.
**Of course, given a certain level of fame, independent wealth can grow. She will be able to write books and give speeches for handsome compensations as so many ex-politicians do.
***Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? New York. Del Rey Book/Ballantine Books, 1968.
RSS Feed