Take a chill pill

When I was really young, maybe around five or six, I had a hunch – that the world around me was a simulation of some kind – orchestrated to test me or observe me. I remember living in a picturesque neighborhood of Winter Park, taking the bus to my brick-lined school daily, playing with the same privileged kids on the playground at lunchtime. Looking back, I think even at that young an age, what Slavoj Žižek called the, “American paranoiac fantasy” (Zizek 2002, 234), which for me was more like the American saturation fear, was in full effect – especially since we were just about to move to Baldwin Park.

Even I, as a five-or six-year-old kid, knew there was something a little off about the reality I was living in. And although I would love to associate that will the contrast between modernism and postmodernism in our digital age, as I’ve done over the past few weeks, I can’t do it any more. The theorist we read most for tomorrow’s class is Jean Baudrillard. And man, has he got issues.

In my book, Baudrillard has crossed a line. Although (I think) I understand his messaging surrounding the contrast between simulacrum of modern times and postmodern times, I feel the need to call him out on the implications of that.

First, I invite you to take a look at my last four blogs. Every single one of them has been about how modernity is dead – and the dire implications of that if we don’t recognize it. Baudrillard recognizes modernity is dead, but goes off the rails when detailing its implications and significations. I am genuinely concerned after reading and re-reading his pieces.

Take, for example, this line from Baudrillard’s short piece on the September 11^th terrorist attacks: “Terrorism would be nothing without the media” (Baudrillard 2002, 229). He goes on to tell readers that September 11^th was a mark in time between where we had the ability to live in reality and the mass loss of that ability. Now, take another example from the second Baudrillard text we read, a broader argument for postmodernism, written in 1994: “Illusion is no longer possible because the real is no longer possible” (Baudrillard 1994, 396).

WHAT?! The real isn’t possible anymore? Not only do think that’s a stretch of theory, I think it is wholly untrue.

I’ve got another hunch – but this time about Baudrillard. When I wrote my CMC 200 research packet on generational differences, the literature and even some of my interviewees reminded me throughout that the oppositions between my generation and our predecessors are not new. Most generations before us had opposing views compared to their predecessors. And often, those predecessors thought a world with the next generation would be a complete disaster.

Dear Baudrillard –  I, the person who has spent hours the last few weeks wiring discouraging and pessimistic outlooks in relation to the theory we’re learning about, am telling you that there is hope! For you personally and for my generation. September 11^th was a major event, but it still would’ve existed and impacted millions without the media. Additionally, illusion is alive and well! Art is thriving and ready to question people like you, who have the real “American paranoiac fantas[ies]” (Zizek 2002, 234).

Yes, a lot has happened to create a larger generational value contrast than ever before for my generation, specifically the digital age, and I see where you’re coming from in calling out our world as ever becoming less authentic. And I agree with you that we need to do something about it. But take a chill pill, man – you’re coming across as more desensitized than most of my generation. ;)

Peace,

-UA191

Conventional

I found Jean Francois Lyotard’s piece to be absolutely brilliant. Looking around in the world today I can see very clearly what Lyotard was trying to get at in his article. Lyotard describe today as “ a period of slackening” (Lyotard 1979, 38). While it seems easy to look around and find things we see as slackening, such as our current political situation or the general laziness of individuals in our country; the truth is this is only the symptom behind a much larger issue.

 The real issue behind the problems of America and the world is that “parties” have all the power. As Lyotard states, “When power assumes the name of a party, realism and its neoclassical complement triumph over the experimental avante-garde by slandering and banning it” (Lyotard 1978,40). Whether it be our political system, school system, or economic system the powers that rule “capitalist” have the control. Furthermore, these parties whom hold the power get to decide what is write and what is wrong. Lyotard points to the examples of Stalin whom suppressed any type of creative thoughts that didn’t go inline with his rule. Without uniformity it is hard to control others, which is why since the beginning of modern civilizations anyone who went against the rule suffered consequences. The idea of a grandmaster narrative, and control over others for power is alive and well. Politicians and the media are in complete control of aesthetic judgment just as they were in the days of Hitler, who used propaganda to gain control over Germany.

This then leads to the idea of the death of modernism. Lyotdard mentions that people have become more apathetic; and why wouldn’t they be? After all, with the power our politicians have it is hard to see how we can make a difference.  And if we feel like we can’t make a difference then we sit on the sidelines and act conventionally. Unfortunately it is this fear of being unconventional that has killed modernism.

Land of the free?

            After reading Baudrillard and Zizek I started feeling paranoid and began wondering if everyone around me are actors that star in an entertainment show about me.

Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? If you ask Zizek, he will argue the latter. He states “we can perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climatic conclusion of twentieth century art’s passion for the real.” Hollywood is obsessed with catastrophe movies or of the “unthinkable” and Zizek claims that America had fantasized an event such as 9/11 through these films. It was not until September 11 that our sense of reality was challenged, as we had never once thought the terrors that occur in other countries would ever happen to us.

“ It is not reality that entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality” (Zizek 2002, 234).

It is true that we all live different realities but what discourages me is how we do not make an effort to understand other realities until they actually occur to us. I always think “ one man’s terrorist is another’s hero” and how more than 3000 die all the time in regions of the world.  We immediately see images of the horrors that occur in our nation but often do you see an image of American intervention in another country? The “spectacular” surrounding the events in other regions of the world rarely exist and when they do its only for a brief moment. For example we had to visually see the image of the Syrian child, Omran Danqueesh, to actually imagine the reality of those living the reality of the war. Unfortunately, we all tend to forget about these images a couple days later, until we are bombarded with some new ones that evoke some type of an emotional response. Meanwhile, the image of the twin towers collapsing is forever embedded in our memories. Why is that so?  

Baudrillard argues that the WTC collapse was indeed violent and catastrophic, however, this is not what makes it “real.” Reality is a principle, which this event actually lacks; 9/11 is something worse: it is symbolic. This tragedy continues to live on through the images of the spectacle that the terrorists created. Indeed, if it were not for the images, Baudrillard argues that, “terrorism would be nothing without the media” (Baudrillard 2002, 229). As terrorism continues to regenerate easily on its own it is hard to distinguish the differences between the event and the images that we see. Baudrillard quotes “And it is this uncontrollable unleashing of reversibility that is terrorism’s true victory” (Baudrillard 2002, 229). This victory completely threatens the Western value system and liberal globalization, which aims to advance the ideology of “freedom.” Indeed, liberal globalization is turning into a police state globalization.

I do not know about you but sometimes in this country I do not feel free. As a nation where we are conditioned to be slaves to capitalism, discouraged from questioning or challenging the status quo as well as having the highest incarceration rates with a criminal justice system that highly resembles Jim Crow Laws, it is hard to feel free. Granted that we have so many privileges and opportunities that millions around the world do not, I just to cringe whenever I hear  “Land of the Free”. 

Listening to Rage Against the Machine in class the other day reminded me of this song about American contradictory. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLUq_x2ZJg