Baudrillard explanation

[darkwielder 14]

Just wondering if someone could explain Baudrillard, and when it could be used effectively

[foucault0ff 177]

So Baudrillard makes a ton of arguments, which makes it a pain to block out/ deal with, but a lot of them are similar. 

 

One thing he writes a lot about that can be threatening is about how "the system" is dead- so basically if you're an optimistic K aff and trying to create change, you will be coopted. It is sort of similar to wilderson, except its not a race based argument and most people run this with a terror alternative. Terrorism is the only possible solution because its the only thing that will catch "the system" off guard. 

 

Another argument that he makes (I think this is kind of silly) is that erasing activism attempts to erase difference rather than create change, so when someone says "lets end racism" what they really mean is "lets make people assimilate to white culture." I think the link to this is largely dependent upon the approach of your aff and is pretty easily beaten with a thorough explanation of your method. 

 

Baudrillard refers to "the other" as "the remainder." He says that some group in society will always be "the remainder," so by ending oppression for one group, we just create it for another. This is also a pretty dumb argument that people only win on because its mishandled, but just win that its ethical to take every step to prevent oppression. 

 

There is an identity argument that says by making your movement visible/ presenting it through an institution, you diminish revolutionary potential and make cooption inevitable. This is kinda like a pessimism argument, but you link to it just because you use debate for your movement. 

 

"Shadowboxing the system" (as I've heard people refer to it ) is saying that radically opposing the system without actively terrorizing it only affirms it; because it makes it seem stronger- we talk about how terrible it is but then can't do anything about it. 

 

Good luck!

[darkwielder 14]

thx, so which one does the gift and counter gift stuff apply to

[MartyP 812]

thx, so which one does the gift and counter gift stuff apply to

The gift and counter-gift apply to the relationship between the West and the non-West and symbolic exchange, so it applies most to the first thing Foucault0ff said about terrorism and resisting the system

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

The gift and counter-gift apply to the relationship between the West and the non-West and symbolic exchange, so it applies most to the first thing Foucault0ff said about terrorism and resisting the system

Bifo in '11 

 

Fernando '10 

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

 

 

 

"Shadowboxing the system" (as I've heard people refer to it ) is saying that radically opposing the system without actively terrorizing it only affirms it; because it makes it seem stronger- we talk about how terrible it is but then can't do anything about it. 

 

 

 

Semiocap 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another argument that he makes (I think this is kind of silly) is that erasing activism attempts to erase difference rather than create change, so when someone says "lets end racism" what they really mean is "lets make people assimilate to white culture." I think the link to this is largely dependent upon the approach of your aff and is pretty easily beaten with a thorough explanation of your method. 

 

Could you elaborate on this??? And could you point me to what book he makes this argument - please? (I haven't been reading lately ;_; - school and stuff) 

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

With his shadowboxing stuff, a more nuanced way to put it is that because all institutions are dead/lack any real authority, your revolutionary movement returns legitimacy to it because people are like, wow, if there's an uprising there must be some actual power they're fighting against, no one would just go for a revolution against something that has no authority.

 

 

Bifo's spin is more realistic ie that the state and systems have really big guns so you're gonna die of you try to openly fight it. Because capitalism is dying, just sit back and ride out the wave.

[themightycthulhu 0]

can anyone also explain his theory on rhetoric? he talks a lot about language and how it can never solve in his hyper reality critique.