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