Jump to content
aprasad202

How to Learn Baudrillard

Recommended Posts

Can someone give me a reading list for baudrillard like which order I should go in or if there are any preluding authors I should read first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against Banality by William Pawlett

 

The Perfect Crime by Jean Baudrillard

 

The Transperancy of Evil by Jean Baudrillard

 

The Agony of Power by Jean Baudrillard

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against Banality by William Pawlett

 

The Perfect Crime by Jean Baudrillard

 

The Transperancy of Evil by Jean Baudrillard

 

The Agony of Power by Jean Baudrillard

 

What about Simulations and Simulacra? Is it not necessary reading? Also, what depth of understanding of psychoanalysis do I need to understand his works?

Edited by aprasad202

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R.I.P. Cross-X, you will be missed just like all of the other stars who passed in 2016

   Never knew my post was gonna go this far...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why does everyone on this god forsaken site love baudrillard

 

lol, well this year I've mainly been reading wilderson but I've gotten sick of it so I wanted to expand. Psychoanalysis, Heidegger, and Bataille also interest me but I think especially with next years topic Baudrillard will be really good. Also my coach, Young Park, wanted us to read higher theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Simulations and Simulacra? Is it not necessary reading? Also, what depth of understanding of psychoanalysis do I need to understand his works?

Yeah it's a fine read. A bit confusing at times though. Not a lot of pscyhoanalysis tbh.

why does everyone on this god forsaken site love baudrillard

tru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why does everyone on this god forsaken site love baudrillard

Baudrillard has become a meme. Huh. I wonder how he would have felt about that.

 

lol, well this year I've mainly been reading wilderson but I've gotten sick of it so I wanted to expand. Psychoanalysis, Heidegger, and Bataille also interest me but I think especially with next years topic Baudrillard will be really good. Also my coach, Young Park, wanted us to read higher theory

In that case, I would recommend Being-Towards-Death and the Simulacrum of Death: Heidegger and Baudrillard by Mario Perniola and Chris Turner.

Edited by CynicClinic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baudrillard has become a meme. Huh. I wonder how he would have felt about that.

"You see, the very image that I am has now become that same form of over-saturation of which I once spoke" I dunno dude I don't read Bauddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get more questions about Baudrillard than all other theorists combined by what seems like a 5-to-1 ratio. Never received more than a couple questions about Alasdair Macintyre's project, which is one of the most convincing total rejections of modern society around. Agamben, Zizek, Foucault, and Deleuze are game-changers. Karatani and Brandom are important too. But Bataille and Nietzsche are borderline fascists, however engaging and witty. You may as well run Objectivism! And what's wrong with straight-up Marxism/communism? Does anyone even run that anymore? That's the basis of Baudrillard! Why settle for sprouts when you can have a sequoia?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get more questions about Baudrillard than all other theorists combined by what seems like a 5-to-1 ratio. Never received more than a couple questions about Alasdair Macintyre's project, which is one of the most convincing total rejections of modern society around. Agamben, Zizek, Foucault, and Deleuze are game-changers. Karatani and Brandom are important too. But Bataille and Nietzsche are borderline fascists, however engaging and witty. You may as well run Objectivism! And what's wrong with straight-up Marxism/communism? Does anyone even run that anymore? That's the basis of Baudrillard! Why settle for sprouts when you can have a sequoia?

honestly, this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*sniff* you schee, ve ahr alvays eating from *sniff* ze trash *schniff* can, and scho ohn, and ze nahm ov zihs *schniffing and such* trasch cahn is ideology.

 

Honestly though Zizek 10/10 he's the only Lacanian author I take seriously, his writings on power and subversion are on point. Subversive Ideology K all the way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly if you wanted to learn about Baudrillard and eventually run it, watching debates online where teams run it would really help, along with flowing to see where arguments line up and how they clash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick Fox, have you read Alenka Zupančič?... Try 'The Shortest Shadow: Nietzsche's Philosophy of the Two' (2003). Now there's some Nietzscheanism I can fully endorse!... Or this passage I'm fond of from 'The Odd One In' (2008):

 

In the contemporary ideological climate it has become imperative that we perceive all the terrible things that happen to us as ultimately something positive—say as a precious experience that will bear fruit in our future life. Negativity, lack, dissatisfaction, unhappiness, are perceived more and more as moral faults— worse, as a corruption at the level of our very being or bare life.

 

There is a spectacular rise of what we might call a bio-morality (as well as morality of feelings and emotions), which promotes the following fundamental axiom: a person who feels good (and is happy) is a good person; a person who feels bad is a bad person. It is this short circuit between the immediate feelings/sensations and the moral value that gives its specific color to the contemporary ideological rhetoric of happiness. This is very efficient, for who dares to raise her voice and say that as a matter of fact, she is not happy, and that she can’t manage to—or, worse, doesn’t even care to—transform all the disappointments of her life into a positive experience to be invested in the future?

 

There is an important difference between this and the classical entrepreneur formula according to which we are always broadly responsible for our failures and misfortunes. This classical formula still implies a certain interval between what we are and the symbolic value of our success. It implies that, at least in principle, we could have acted otherwise, but didn’t (and are hence responsible for our failures or lack of happiness).

 

The bio-morality mentioned above is replacing the classical notion of responsibility with the notion of a damaged, corrupt being: the unhappy and the unsuccessful are somehow corrupt already on the level of their bare life, and all their erroneous actions or nonactions follow from there with an inexorable necessity. In other words, the problem is not simply that success and efficiency have become the supreme values of our late capitalist society (as we often hear from critics of this society)—there is nothing particularly new in this; social promotion of success (defined in different ways) has existed since time immemorial. The problem is, rather, that success is becoming almost a biological notion, and thus the foundation of a genuine racism of successfulness. The poorest and the most miserable are no longer perceived as a socio-economic class, but almost as a race of their own, as a special form of life. We are indeed witnessing a spectacular rise of racism or, more precisely, of “racization.” This is to say that we are no longer simply dealing with racism in its traditional sense of hatred towards other races, but also and above all with a production of (new) races based on economic, political, and class differences and factors, as well as with the segregation based on these differences. If traditional racism tended to socialize biological features—that is, directly translate them into cultural and symbolic points of a given social order—contemporary racism works in the opposite direction. It tends to “naturalize” the differences and features produced by the socio-symbolic order. This is also what can help us to understand the ideological rise of the theme of private life, as well as of lifestyles and habits.

 

To take a simple example: if a “successful artist” is invited as a guest on a TV show, the focus is practically never on her work, but instead on the way she lives, on her everyday habits, on what she enjoys, and so on. This is not simply a voyeuristic curiosity; it is a procedure that systematically presents us with two elements: “success” on the one side, and the life that corresponds to this success on the other—implying, of course, a strong and immediate equivalence between the two. The objective surplus, the materialized work itself, is eliminated at the very outset. In other words, our ways of life, our habits, our feelings, our more or less idiosyncratic enjoyments—all these are no longer simply “private matters” exposed to scrutiny to satisfy our curiosity. They are one of the crucial cultural catalysts through which all kinds of socio-economic and ideological differences are being gradually transformed into “human differences,” differences at the very core of our being, which makes it possible for them to become the ground of a new racism. This is the process that aims at establishing an immediate connection between being (“bare life”) and a socio-economic value.

 

We are thus witnessing a massive and forceful naturalization of economic, political, and other social differences, and this naturalization is itself a politico-ideological process par excellence. As I said above, “naturalization” involves above all the promotion of a belief in an immediate character of these differences—that is to say, in their being organically related to life as such, or to existing reality in general. I could also put this in the following way: the contemporary discourse which likes to promote and glorify the gesture of distancing oneself from all Ideologies and Projects (as the Ideologies of others, and because they are necessarily totalitarian or utopian) strives to promote its own reality as completely non-ideological. Our present socio-economic reality is increasingly being presented as an immediate natural fact, or fact of nature, and thus a fact to which we can only try to adapt as successfully as possible.

 

 

As an example of the underlined portion, I'd cite the compassionate conservatism of The National Review:

 

[Trump's campaign rhetoric] is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves.

If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that. Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down.

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible.

Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.
Edited by Lazzarone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...