Jean Baudrillard
Alright so as for Jean Baudrillard, this was probably one of the most confusing pieces that I have read. There were a few sections that were really interesting but at the same time, for me, they didn’t all go together, hmmm. I remember in the beginning of the year that we talked about being able to understand one specific piece even if you aren’t able to understand the rest of it; I think that might work for me. I think there was one specific piece that really stood out to me. The role of science shows up a lot towards the middle and end of Baudrillard’s piece. On page 1737, it says “science never sacrifices itself: it is always murderous”. I think I actually understand this. From what I gathered, it goes back to the fact that science is continuously proving itself wrong. It’s a continuous cycle. After a piece of science is proven, it isn’t long until there are other experiments that are performed in order to prove that piece wrong, therefore, science “murders” itself by proving itself wrong.
Another part that I found interesting was on page 1734. Here, Baudrillard explains the idea of sickness and the different between someone who is faking it and someone who is faking it but is able to make themselves actually produce the symptoms that go along with the illness. “Someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and make believe he is ill. Some who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms.” This then made me think of how someone is able to tell if an individual is really sick or isn’t. He then explains this situation in a later paragraph (argh, which I can’t find right now)
The section on religion, although somewhat interesting was also pretty confusing for me. On page 1736 Baudrillard basically says that if there is no sign, there is no god. Huh? Then he goes into saying “what if God himself can be simulated?” wait what? Maybe if I was more religious I might understand this, who knows. I hope the class discussion will help me better understand this section.
The last section of this piece was probably the most interesting part for me. I thought the idea that he talked about Disneyland was very interesting. Although I have never been, I almost feel as if I have, only because of the millions of commercials about vacationing there and all that other crazy stuff. I liked the one section where he said “Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest if real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation” (1741). He then goes on to say “the real is no longer real” hmmm? Maybe this goes back to the idea of Derrida of “the center is not the center”. I sure hope not, I still don’t understand that. All in all, this was definitely a confusing piece for me and I’m sure the class discussion will help me better understand it.
Hi Elizabeth,
Maybe I can help you out where you say, “On page 1737, it says ’science never sacrifices itself: it is always murderous’.”
It’s not that science murders itself. Instead, think of science as a killer of all that it studies. Science feels the need to categorize and explain a subject at any and all cost to the subject it studies. This doesn’t mean much when we think of inanimate objects, but when we talk about people, this becomes detrimental.
Have you ever seen the movie Nell? Nell is a woman living in the middle of nowhere, having been raised by her mother who suffered from a stroke. Nell never learned to talk the way we do. Instead, she learned to speak like her mother who had lost control over her facial muscles. Once the mother dies, Nell is discovered and suddenly she becomes the object of scientific study. Psychologists believe she made up a new language so they camp out and spy on her. Her house is monitored and she has no privacy. Eventually she is removed from her home and placed in a facility for further observation. Here she sinks into a deep depression. The suffering she feels comes at the hands of the psychologists who believe she is simply a case to be analyzed. Had she not been rescued by the two psychologists who eventually do see her as human, not just a case for science, she would have lost every aspect of life as she knew it and died within the confines of an asylum.
As for God…
This part I am unsure of but I think maybe you can think of God as equal to “The Word.” People tend to see God as the originator, the one who “spoke” things into existence. If we believe the “word” is God’s power, can the word itself call things into existence, including the concept of God? If I’m right, Baudrillard thinks yes. He thinks words, or signs, can call things into existence whether those things are real or simply concepts, including the concept of God. Suddenly, God is not real.
In the case of images/statues that are supposed to represent God, consider this. When nobody living has ever seen the spiritual entity, what can those symbols or icons possibly be modeled after? Those symbols are now a copy of an unreal image. Yet, those who are religious believe in a “truth” that is actually based in the unreal. Some would call this faith. Baudrillard calls it hyper-reality.
(We’ll see if I’m close in class tomorrow.)
Posted 1 year, 3 months ago- Kim
Hi Elizabeth…
Looks like you’re mighty popular. I’m going to attempt to built upon what Kim has written in response to your question about Baudrillard & God. Notice my blog, I’m an idiot, so feel free to destroy anything I say.
I love Kim’s example with God & ‘the Word.’ I think it’s the Gospel of St. John that begins “in the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Of course, this only works if you are Christian. Anyhow, this is a clear example of equation. Baudrillard would argue that there is no ‘God’ there is only a collection of representations and images that are striving to illustrate ‘God’ but, in their belief are creating a reality that is unique to them. There is ‘the Word’, images, icons, and ideas of ‘God’ that make him real, but, as I believe Baudrillard argues, without these, there is no God. It’s a Derrida-ean thing…you can’t talk about ‘it’ without mentioning ‘it’. It is not possible to have a conception of God without actively creating and making ideas about God concrete.
Posted 1 year, 3 months agoHey Elizabeth,
Posted 1 year, 3 months agoI really found the part where Baudrillard discusses the difference between when someone claims they are sick and just lays in bed verses when someone claims they are so sick that they actually begin to develop the symptoms. I can relate to what he was saying because when you don’t want to do something, you usually say something like “My stomach hurts” — If you want someone to believe you’re really sick and you begin to fake it, your stomach actually begins to bother you.. I feel like maybe you get so nervous about wanting people to believe that you’re actually sick, that it actually starts to happen! But then when you tell someone you’re sick, you just go up to your bedroom and watch t.v. all day and forget about everything, you just relax. I just thought it was really cool how he brought up those two differences because I wouldn’t have thought of all of that on my own. I also thought it was really cool how he discusses Disneyland discussing dreams vs. reality. When you’re little Disneyland is like a dreamworld, but when you’re older it’s more of a reality check.. the world is nothing compared to Disneyland- it’s just a place for you to escape and relate your childhood memories to.