The real for the real

Rufo makes many vaild points about Baudrillard’s sometimes contradictory writings.

Baudrillard realizes that the “sign-value” must be incorporated into analysis because of the limitations of structural Marxism. This simple idea of what an object signifies being more important than the cost or the quality of its construction is a widely acceptable idea. This idea seems to be used in current everyday markets. Rufo gave a great example of Tommy Hilfiger where people buy the brand because of the brand, but it is made for cheap in a sweatshop. Most well-known brands today are the same way, people only seem to value the name of which they are getting and not necessarily the actual product. “focusing on sign-value meants that you have to focus on patterns of consumption rather than modes of production” claimed Baudrillard, which still seems to be true in some aspects today.

Rufo points out that Baudrillard has contradicted himself. He has explained that commodity is a sign itself but goes on to say how the sign is understood as a form of commodity. He used to attempt to add sign-value to the commodity but went on to say how sign-value is how commodity can be analyzed at all. Baudrillard is stating how the two are interrelated and need each other to exist and analyze, although seemingly contradictory.

Saussure’s idea of sign is similar to that of Marxist commodity, as Rufo discusses. The signifier and signified are replaced with use-value and exchange value. Laborers create an item and then it is sold for an amount of money, at which point the use-value is lost sight of and it is thought of the exchange-value, or money. These values are interdependent. Baudrillard convincingly argues for this in his writing.

It seems simple enough that we buy things and stop thinking about their use value or the reason they were built, made or put together for in the first place but start only thinking of their exchange-value because we are interested in their price.

Rufo goes on to mention an interesting point that the relationship between the signifier and signified relates to the logic of commodity. The relationship exchange allows the logic of signification to dominate the production of meaning. 

Baudrillard recognizes that these theories prove themselves over time. “One just follows the analytical formula, deploying the right terms or concepts when needed, and voila, you’ve got yourself some good criticism.” (Rufo) This is true with anything, where one could assume they are going to do bad on a test thus setting themselves up for failure. So, thinking in terms of a specific theory or system of exchange-values allows implementation of such ideas.

It seems that Baudrillard is somewhat afraid of capitalism. He thinks it is a problem to focus on production. He discusses capitalism as worrying only about the constant production of things because it is about consumption of those things. He goes on to argue how Marx’s theories help support capitalism and not oppose it because Marx’s ideas are the naturalization of use-value is capitalism and not the sign-values which was previously thought.

Since all of these theories, Baudrillard went on to identify the three main orders of simulation. I enjoy the way that Rufo explains simulation through his example of exchanging this to represent other things. Using icons is the first order of simulation which is using something, not the actual thing, to represent the actual thing. The second order is when you use something in exchange for something but it does not have to actually represent the actual thing anymore. The third order is not a simulation stage but a simulacral stage. Baudrillard describes it by saying "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory."

“It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudlldsimultnmainframe.html)

Rufo describes what Baudrillard refers to as the hyper as “the simulational stuff is so pervasive that you filter your real experiences through the simulation of that reality”. You are relating to the real because of the simulation so there is no way out of it, as the real that you see will just be an effect of that simulation.

The fourth stage Baudrillard later brings up seems a little too intense. The “integral reality” where simulation is everywhere makes for a seemingly fake life. If everything is simulation, there is no reality. 

I think Rufo did a good job at explaining thoroughly Baudrillard’s ideas and used relatable examples to understand his theories. The guest blog allowed me to further understand the idea of the hyperreal and the relation between commodity and Sassure along with Baudrillard’s relation to Marxism.