Oh, grad school...
I haven't posted in a while, so I decided to throw in one of my response papers from theory to give you guys an idea of the fun stuff I get to write about. I've always been good at BS, but it turns out that academically, that is called "theory." And I love it.
“Their rage to destroy images rose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of erasing God from the consciousness of people, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God; that only simulacra exist; indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum” (Baudrillard 2004:473).
Were we ever in the presence of a reality that Baudrillard claims to have existed at some point in our conceivable history? Or, have the believers of the European rational meta-narrative only now begun to draw their eyes upon the wreckage of their fallen Babel? Under “modernity” they built a reality with blood, sweat and signs, and demanded the whole world marvel in its architectural wonder. In their imperial haste, they neglected to notice how their signs diversified, how dissimilar symbols can actually represent the same reality, and in this confrontation of social narratives-once they became conscious that their own reality was nothing more than a collection of symbols and signs-their reality collapsed upon itself.
Baudrillard laments the fact that “Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the ‘real’ country, all of ‘real’ America, which is Disneyland” (475) yet indirectly assumes that there was, once upon a time, a reality in which simulation arose and eventually murdered the original (474). Perhaps I am the by-product of the damaging effect of the mass-consumer culture I was born into, but if I could question Baudrillard, I would demand to know in what time, location, illusion may I find this original reality. You tell me God does not exist, yet billions worship at the feet of some form of supernatural being. You tell me that we worship-both religiously and secularly-falseness that once represented truth, but I insist you tell me where this original truth exists. I contend that we have always contemplated our reality based upon simulacra, yet we are unaware of this falsehood until there is a confrontational instant in which we are presented with another, very different simulacra that represents the same reality.
Among many things, we live, feel pain, weep, drink, love, hate, fuck, and die within a socially constructed reality. If humanity constructs reality, then there never existed a reality that did not precede humanity. Reality is never real. Reality was never real. Reality will never be real. Yet we devise powerful narratives that hold our pieces of reality together like mortar. Perhaps the perspective of post-modern theory should not focus on lamenting their fallen tower of the once-supposed reality. Perhaps we must finally shed the sacred text of modernity that stated: “there is no reality but our own, and our narrative is its prophet.” Listen to us and ignore the other. Come, let us mock those that do not see reality as it truly is; watch them as they “…park outside, queue up inside, and are totally abandoned at the exit” (Baudrillard 2004:475). Many listened and many converted. It is time to realize that there are many realities that both society and agent have absorbed: multiple symbols that represent the same thing.
Modernity based its narrative on the rationalization of symbols it mistook as reality. It tried very hard to define fact from fiction, truth from lie, not because there is a discernable difference, but because modernity had an unchallenged, very complex, yet narrow narrative that forced a decision between options. Unintentionally or not, truth was not truth because it was truth, but truth was truth because it was determined that this is what truth was. It was decided to be truth, and therefore it became the real embodiment of truth. Nothing else may constitute truth. And society rejoiced, as their narrative created one hell of a reality.
And today we have become aware-rather, we have been told-that our society is no longer focused on one reality, one tower. But we forget other realities were ignored in order to construct modernity. Today, we live in a society in which there are multiple simulacra that represent the same exact sign that is taken for “reality”. I contend that this is not new, only that observers have finally begun to shed their limited modernist vantage to survey a whole host of personal and social narratives that do not fit any rational mold, yet are powerful enough to be legitimized by members of society. Some researchers want to give voice to the voiceless, but they have forgotten that the voiceless have always been talking, singing, dancing and living-we just did not understand their reality because we did not understand their narrative because modernity’s narrative does not allow exceptions. The fact that so many were bewildered that the rhetoric of President Bush can hold such a powerful grip on the hearts of minds of so many Americans should serve as a warning that there is no one universal reality, one dominating social narrative seeking concrete and abstract realities, such as truth, freedom, and justice.
Relativism is commonly assumed as a zero-sum gain. When we come to realize that two very different narratives can be equally viable in understanding the same situation, we automatically believe that either one is “true” and one is “false” or that neither must be true and therefore there must be a third narrative that truthfully represents the situation. The-and I use this term intentionally-truth of the matter is that both are equally valid in the sense that they each forcefully affect the individual that has legitimized that particular narrative into their being, their body, their mind, and their very soul.
An irrational fear of modernists is the fear of relativism because their narrative posits that there is only one real answer. Therefore, though Baudrillard was post-modern in his sermon of signs, symbols and simulacra, he was still found wearing the rational vestiges of modernity that represented absolute truth-that at one point something truly meant what it was supposed to truly mean. In his denial of reality, Baudrillard affirms his reality: even an atheist believes that there is no God.
“Their rage to destroy images rose precisely because they sensed this omnipotence of simulacra, this facility they have of erasing God from the consciousness of people, and the overwhelming, destructive truth which they suggest: that ultimately there has never been any God; that only simulacra exist; indeed that God himself has only ever been his own simulacrum” (Baudrillard 2004:473).
Were we ever in the presence of a reality that Baudrillard claims to have existed at some point in our conceivable history? Or, have the believers of the European rational meta-narrative only now begun to draw their eyes upon the wreckage of their fallen Babel? Under “modernity” they built a reality with blood, sweat and signs, and demanded the whole world marvel in its architectural wonder. In their imperial haste, they neglected to notice how their signs diversified, how dissimilar symbols can actually represent the same reality, and in this confrontation of social narratives-once they became conscious that their own reality was nothing more than a collection of symbols and signs-their reality collapsed upon itself.
Baudrillard laments the fact that “Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the ‘real’ country, all of ‘real’ America, which is Disneyland” (475) yet indirectly assumes that there was, once upon a time, a reality in which simulation arose and eventually murdered the original (474). Perhaps I am the by-product of the damaging effect of the mass-consumer culture I was born into, but if I could question Baudrillard, I would demand to know in what time, location, illusion may I find this original reality. You tell me God does not exist, yet billions worship at the feet of some form of supernatural being. You tell me that we worship-both religiously and secularly-falseness that once represented truth, but I insist you tell me where this original truth exists. I contend that we have always contemplated our reality based upon simulacra, yet we are unaware of this falsehood until there is a confrontational instant in which we are presented with another, very different simulacra that represents the same reality.
Among many things, we live, feel pain, weep, drink, love, hate, fuck, and die within a socially constructed reality. If humanity constructs reality, then there never existed a reality that did not precede humanity. Reality is never real. Reality was never real. Reality will never be real. Yet we devise powerful narratives that hold our pieces of reality together like mortar. Perhaps the perspective of post-modern theory should not focus on lamenting their fallen tower of the once-supposed reality. Perhaps we must finally shed the sacred text of modernity that stated: “there is no reality but our own, and our narrative is its prophet.” Listen to us and ignore the other. Come, let us mock those that do not see reality as it truly is; watch them as they “…park outside, queue up inside, and are totally abandoned at the exit” (Baudrillard 2004:475). Many listened and many converted. It is time to realize that there are many realities that both society and agent have absorbed: multiple symbols that represent the same thing.
Modernity based its narrative on the rationalization of symbols it mistook as reality. It tried very hard to define fact from fiction, truth from lie, not because there is a discernable difference, but because modernity had an unchallenged, very complex, yet narrow narrative that forced a decision between options. Unintentionally or not, truth was not truth because it was truth, but truth was truth because it was determined that this is what truth was. It was decided to be truth, and therefore it became the real embodiment of truth. Nothing else may constitute truth. And society rejoiced, as their narrative created one hell of a reality.
And today we have become aware-rather, we have been told-that our society is no longer focused on one reality, one tower. But we forget other realities were ignored in order to construct modernity. Today, we live in a society in which there are multiple simulacra that represent the same exact sign that is taken for “reality”. I contend that this is not new, only that observers have finally begun to shed their limited modernist vantage to survey a whole host of personal and social narratives that do not fit any rational mold, yet are powerful enough to be legitimized by members of society. Some researchers want to give voice to the voiceless, but they have forgotten that the voiceless have always been talking, singing, dancing and living-we just did not understand their reality because we did not understand their narrative because modernity’s narrative does not allow exceptions. The fact that so many were bewildered that the rhetoric of President Bush can hold such a powerful grip on the hearts of minds of so many Americans should serve as a warning that there is no one universal reality, one dominating social narrative seeking concrete and abstract realities, such as truth, freedom, and justice.
Relativism is commonly assumed as a zero-sum gain. When we come to realize that two very different narratives can be equally viable in understanding the same situation, we automatically believe that either one is “true” and one is “false” or that neither must be true and therefore there must be a third narrative that truthfully represents the situation. The-and I use this term intentionally-truth of the matter is that both are equally valid in the sense that they each forcefully affect the individual that has legitimized that particular narrative into their being, their body, their mind, and their very soul.
An irrational fear of modernists is the fear of relativism because their narrative posits that there is only one real answer. Therefore, though Baudrillard was post-modern in his sermon of signs, symbols and simulacra, he was still found wearing the rational vestiges of modernity that represented absolute truth-that at one point something truly meant what it was supposed to truly mean. In his denial of reality, Baudrillard affirms his reality: even an atheist believes that there is no God.