You are on page 1of 7

For a Baudrillardian turn: bridging the divide between critical moralism and critical geopolitics

In my own way, I am very much a moralist. There is a morality of analysis, a duty of honesty (Baudrillard in Der Spiegel 2004: online)

Introduction Calling for Baudrillardian scholarship, the International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (2012) lists sixteen different political epithets that apply to Jean Baudrillard, ranging from neo-Marxist to nihilist; such plurality renders Baudrillard one of the more unconventional, albeit appealing, thinkers of our time. Having emerged from the French postmodern tradition, Baudrillard stands out as a true original, whose critical commentaries on contemporary society should not be dismissed, but, I argue, offer a fascinating point of departure from which to re-examine critical geopolitics. This is an enterprising discipline which problematises the relationship between power and knowledge, hoping to recover the complexities of global political life (Toal 1999: 108). But it has come under fire from feminist scholars, whom lament its disembodied and unaccountable nature of critique (Hyndman 2003), thus rendering it morally questionable. Drawing from cutting edge scholarship in Baudrillard Studies, this essay examines the work of Baudrillard, his position in Frances broader philosophical genealogy, and his foremost concept the Simulacrum, asking whether Baudrillard can bridge the divide between critical moralism and critical geopolitics. From structuralism to post-structuralism: the birth of the simulacrum Baudrillard spent his university years translating into French the likes of Marx and Engels, thus acquainting himself with Marxism. Baudrillards interest in sociology arose from studying the work of Henri Lefebvre and Roland Barthes, whose contributions in semiology, Kellner (2006) notes, influenced his somewhat neo-Marxist perspective: Baudrillards interest in semiology and the consumption of signs were used to amend his understanding of Marxism, which overemphasised the production process. Accordingly, commodities are not merely characterised through use value and exchange value, as Marxism suggests. Rather, a third category, sign value, should be considered: through a proliferation of signs and spectacles (delivered through the media, advertising, product packaging and so on) certain commodities create an impression of style and luxury, influencing their acquisition (ibid). Baudrillards work in this field remains highly influential to this day, essential to theories on consumerism. His rupture with Marxism can be traced back to the riots of May 1968, and events thereafter. Albeit threatening de Gaulles dismissal, the French Communist Partys inaction led to Baudrillards disillusionment with the Marxist project, and what it promised to offer in particular, the proletariat as an agent capable of change (Kellner 2006). In The Mirror of Production, Baudrillard (1975) postulates that, through continuing to prioritise concepts like necessity and labour, Marxism is effectively the running dog of the bourgeoisie, naturalising, rather than abhorring, capitalism. The concept of alienation should be severed from its Marxist ties that is, the separation of people from their human nature by capitalism (Cox 1998); rather, through our consumption of signs, it is we who have alienated ourselves from society through our dependence on the technological form (Baudrillard 1998). Essentially the subject has come to be subordinated to the object. It is this technological determinism, Kellner (2006: online) acknowledges, that marks his rejection of Marxist political

economy. If, essentially, the subject no longer matters, then Baudrillards viewpoint is rendered incompatible with Marxist analyses of class struggle, for we are powerless to do anything. Baudrillards neo-Marxist leaning did however influence his concept of the simulacrum (developed in 1981 but only translated into English in 1994). According to Baudrillard, that commodities are understood through what they signify, suggests that our sense of meaning is governed through the code of the object. Through continued participation in consumption practices, we have become seduced by such objects. If meaning is merely an illusion constructed through symbols and signs, then subsequently our reality holds no meaning; tricked into thinking otherwise, we have become deluded in our quest for reality and subordinated to a simulated version of this reality a hyperreality (Baudrillard 1994). The simulacrum, therefore, is the system of signs which governs us; modern consumer culture has caused reality to dislocate, with simulation becoming our reality. Baudrillards work thus disavows the complex subject-object dialectic, and in doing so he deviates from the postmodern pack. According to Kellner (2007: online), it is highly idiosyncratic, verging on a post-poststructuralist mode of thought, where objects rule the universe; a neo-metaphysics far from his influence in sociology. Whereas postmodern theorists acknowledge the overlap and coexistence of modernity and postmodernity, for Baudrillard, modernity as a historical epoch is over (Kellner 2006: online, emphasis added). It is not that we are entering a postmodern era; rather, our banal existence is a signifier that we are already living in a postmodernity where Marxism, or any other theory of political revolution, has nothing left to offer. Baudrillards methods of deconstruction are sometimes so confusing, unintelligible and pre-ontic that understanding his perspective is impossible. Some critics interpret his prose as exaggerated and unrealistic, almost farcical; indeed for Norris (1992), the only real illusion is that there is no reality whatsoever. He laments at postmodernisms stance of all-out sceptical indifference, a stance that involves (as in Baudrillards case) the willingness to jettison every last notion of truth (ibid: 44). His critique proceeds from a support of enlightenment values, and is part of a long-running rhetorical battle between modernists and postmodernists, the former which continue to advocate rationality, science and progress. Cole (2010) accepts that Baudrillard was targeted at a time when postmodernists were questioning the very foundations of epistemological and ontological truth, but insists that Baudrillard is not denying any notion of reality. Those who imply otherwise, like Norris, are misreading his work. By reality, Baudrillard implies a concept, or a principle the whole system of values connected with this principle (Baudrillard 2000: 63). What may have been a rational system, has become dislocated by the postmodern condition. He is not denying the material world per se; instead his is a critique of reality grounded in the empirically observable social changes that prompt discourse about a new era (Cole 2010: online). Baudrillards philosophical outlook notably has an apocalyptic tinge, with observations of the chaos of (post)modern civilisation akin to a secular premillennialism. By refusing to come to solutions and rejecting hopes of transformation, is Baudrillards philosophy a celebration of nihilism? This is a common Marxist critique of his work, and his disavowal of philosophy as a critical site of production. Marxism, according to Merrin (2005: online), markets itself as a gold-standard for all claims of radicality and resistance which, in light of the inaction concerning May 1968, should be scrutinised. It is almost too convenient bordering on clich to label Baudrillard as a nihilist; doing so neglects his own critical project, his search for forces which resist and reverse the dominion of the simulacrum (ibid). His nihilism is therefore best understood as a theoretical strategy, the undecidability of his work reflecting the futility of his quest for a more meaningful existence.

It is important not to deny Baudrillards political and ethical position. Take for instance, Baudrillards infamous statement in 1991 that the Gulf war did not take place (Baudrillard 1995). He does not doubt the events incidence; rather, his essay attacks the military simulacrum of the gulf war, representing a critical outlook towards how war is represented in the media as Merrin (2005) notes, a lifelong ethical and political engagement. Viewed through the television screen, massacre is simulated as a Nintendo exercise (Said 1993). Albeit masking the real effects of war, through our consumption the mediascape becomes a legitimised medium through which to understand the Gulf war, for the image is all we have to go on (Blackburn 2007: online). Though Baudrillard may be criticised for not helping the situation, he is certainly not refusing moral responsibility. His concern is with the terroristic programming of everyday life (Merrin 2005: online) admittedly, extreme in his analysis of 9/11:
The horror for the 4,000 victims of dying in those towers was inseparable from the horror of living in them the horror of living and working in sarcophagi of concrete and steel. (Baudrillard 2003: 194)

This remark embodies what Agger (2007: online) calls Baudrillards grotesque allure his willingness to go to an inhuman extreme to make a surgical strike on your consciousness. Likewise Smith (2004) observes that Baudrillard, unapologetically so, is a theoretical terrorist: through his provocative hyperboles he attacks our consciousness. His work is intensely interdisciplinary; therefore Kellner (2007) believes it is hard to gauge his impact on any specific discipline. Regardless, his ideas concerning 9/11 and the war on terror are significant to critical geopolitics; the next section hopes to demonstrate that a Baudrillardian turn can help this discipline realise its potential. Bridging the divide between critical moralism and critical geopolitics In his paper Militarism, Realism, Just War, or Nonviolence?, Megoran (2008: 493) observes that critical geopolitics is valuable in challenging the specifications of politics and dangers used to justify violence, but has come under fire from feminist scholars, whom lament its disembodied and unaccountable nature of critique (Hyndman 2003). Obsessed with deconstructing world terror, critical geopolitics fails to make clear that killing of civilians in any way, shape or form, is not acceptable which, in a subtle way, continues to justify violence (ibid). Megoran (2008) concedes that most critical geopolitical theory reasons with war in some way, but asks under what circumstances, if any, war can be considered just. Baudrillard asserts that there are no grounds on which the US can adopt a moral high ground and justify warfare. The bottom line is that terrorism is the shadow of a system that is itself terroristic (Merrin 2005: online). Somewhat provocatively, Baudrillard (2003: 4) acknowledges that moral condemnation against the terror was equal to the jubilation at seeing this global superpower destroyed. For instance, in disaster films the fall of the great power is a fantasy frequently acted out, which we consume and thus legitimate (Kellner 2005). Baudrillard (2003) admits that to some, his analysis may seem unacceptable; on such a sensitive issue as terrorism, his dispassionate tone is indeed problematic. However, hypothetically speaking, if Baudrillard were defending terrorism, then this defence would be an ironic act in itself; the type of strike on our conscious for which he is renowned, urging us to realise that the US is not an innocent bystander. Americas innocence was rather a tightly knit discourse which was effectively fabricated and deployed after the attacks to mobilise support for the US war effort.

The concept of hyper-reality offers a useful means of conceptualising where the west made errors in its response to 9/11. For America the power of the act was in its symbolism rather than its physical destruction, for the World Trade Center symbolised the soul of the west, and western values (Grimshaw 2006). The popular post-Cold War reality that the west emerged supreme was in effect murdered, signifying the reign of illusion and appearance (Kellner 2006: online). Living through the power of the image, having been seduced by the death and destruction that photos of the burning towers embodied, the west has collapsed into a state of fear. The excess of reality, that concerning terrorisms reign over us, was fabricated through the media, so that we now live in terror of the pseudo-event: not that which has occurred, but rather something that we believe may or will occur (Grimshaw 2006: online). Terrorism has thus emerged victorious. We are governed through the simulacra of terror because we respond to terrorisms image (ibid). Returning to Megorans paper, he concedes that critical geopolitics, despite obvious potential, is limited as a source of ethical reflection on war; calls for a more humane discipline are not critically grounded in any way, appearing more superficial than genuine (Megoran 2008). He thus exhorts critical geopolitics to institute a meaningful engagement with just war theory (ibid). If, indeed, just war theory were to be appropriated as an analytic mechanism that asked the right questions, then Baudrillardian scholarship should be appropriated as the mode of thought that compels us to interrogate and unsettle the categories of the present age (Kellner 2005). According to just war theorists, war must be engaged under the right intentions. A Baudrillardian approach reveals that Americas invasion of Iraq was a hallucinatory projection of its fears and fantasies (Blackburn 2007: online). On the one hand, Americas actions, if innocent, were a reflection of its own insecurities; Hussein was found not to have weapons of mass destruction and therefore there was no reason to go to war. On the other hand, if war was deliberately intended, it was only to feed Bushs appetite for the new world order. Megoran (2008) acknowledges that, only when sufficient effort is made to stabilise the situation in the country that has been invaded, can the war be considered just. The US has faced controversy in its control of post-invasion Iraq, which critical geopolitics has been quick to notice. Adopting a Baudrillardian outlook, Iraq and Afghanistan, post-invasion, will never become fully fledged democracies, as the US hoped. The notion that Iraq and Afghanistan should adopt American values or else, reflects a democracy asserted with threats and blackmail, doomed to fail (Baudrillard in Der Spiegel 2004: online). Essentially the West has become its own worst enemy, its own saboteur (ibid). This is epitomised in the Abu Ghraib scandal, where images of sadistic torture of Iraqi captives were leaked to the media. The bad conscience of the West is crystallised in these images (Baudrillard 2005); seduced by their fetishistic power, it was through this media simulacrum that opinion against the US turned. The supposed reality of liberation in Iraq was undermined through the medias dissemination of a spectacle of horror, which beyond Americas control, signified the limit of US power (Kellner 2005: online). This is ironic, considering that America relies on the image for a globalised soft power strategy. (As a side note, critical geopolitics has faced criticism for Americabashing, remaining mesmerised by Americas post-Cold War neoimperial vision and reluctant to analyse at a more global scale. Merrin (2005) insists that Baudrillard is not anti-American, remarking that his critique is levelled at the wests semiotic operation. Nevertheless, in critical geopolitics the west is synonymous with America, and so Baudrillard does not help matters.)

Perhaps then, just war theory is best implemented as an exercise in practical morality dealing with the messiness of a violent world (Megoran 2008: 480). Subsequently, Baudrillards challenge is clear and he can offer much for critical geopolitics. This discipline demands a more rigorous engagement with just war theory (ibid), and Baudrillards circular arguments and refusal to come to solutions demonstrate the sheer complexity of such issues. Or, perhaps Baudrillards strategic nihilism is suited to a more pacifist outlook on war. Pacifism, as an unconditional rejection of all forms of warfare, has expanded on a transnational basis, becoming a thriving political movement (Brock and Socknat: ix). However within critical geopolitics, political and intellectual discussion of non-violence is a youthful field, where Baudrillardian scholarship can offer guidance. According to Baudrillard, we are legitimating terrorist attacks simply by responding to them whether in the form of articles on, or debates around terrorism. Our attempts to rationalise the attacks are a confirmation of terrorisms success, affirm[ing] the destruction that takes place as being necessary for it and its claimants to be noticed (Grimshaw 2006: online). In this context Baudrillardian scholarship can be applied as a critique of how visual sources are used in critical geopolitics. Particularly with 9/11, and more generally with other geopolitical events, critical geopolitics pores over these images, mesmerised by film clips that beautify violence through hyperreal slow motion media simulation techniques; our fetishisation of copter-cam close-ups ... [and] bodies in freefall reflects a dark truth that we are legitimating, and consenting to, such violence (Merrin, 2005: online). Considering that such aesthetics are becoming increasingly used as a methodology, and considering our fascination with such diabolical images, Smith (2004: online) chillingly asks: will terrorism become beautiful too? It is this intense morality of Baudrillard, and of Baudrillardian thought this so-called duty of honesty which by many, is overlooked. By delivering surgical strikes on the wests psyche, it represents a staunch critique of our postmodern condition, and our role in continuing to endorse such an immoral lifestyle. Conclusion
Does his [Baudrillards] writing not constitute a harsh provocation to our banality, an attempt to rile our indignation, to shake us out of our cultural stupor? (Stephens 2007: online)

Admittedly, Baudrillardian scholarship represents a controversial point of departure from which to base such a re-examination. Baudrillard has consistently fought the role of the accused, pleading that we do not confuse the messenger with his message (in Der Spiegel 2004: online). Kellner (2006) therefore asks whether Baudrillard is not better suited as the pantomime villain of the postmodern world, the provocateur, rather than a thinker who can contribute to academic philosophy. But his critical at times, truly unpalatable commentaries should not be dismissed. It is too convenient, too easy, to dismiss his work as an apocalyptic nihilism that is devoid of empirical value. Indeed when we break out of this box, we realise, as Stephens so fervently argues, that this is a deliberate strategy intended to rouse us from our cultural coma. As a true original, Baudrillard provides salient critiques on our modern age, and his seminal concepts of simulacrum and hyper-reality have clear application within critical geopolitical analysis of Iraq, 9/11 and the War on Terror more generally. The promise of Baudrillardian scholarship is in the rawness of its theory; biting critiques which contrast to those circulating in geopolitics. Baudrillard therefore represents the type of thinker with which critical geopolitics needs to engage, which, until now, through disregard to moral responsibility has supported America in its unconscious fantasy drama (Toal 1993: 13).

References Agger, M. (2007), Le Browser: Saluting Jean Baudrillard, Available at: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_browser/2007/03/le_browser.html (Accessed: 19 March 2012) Baudrillard, J. (1975), The Mirror of Production, Translation by M. Poster (St. Louis, Telos Press) Baudrillard, J. (1994), Simulacra and Simulation, Translation by S. Glaser (Michigan, University of Michigan Press) Baudrillard, J. (1995), The gulf war did not take place, Translation by P. Patton (Bloomington, Indiana University Press) Baudrillard, J. (1998), The Consumer Society: Myths & Structures, Translation by C. Turner (London, Sage) Baudrillard, J. (2000), The Vital Illusion, Translation by J. Witwer (New York: Columbia University Press) Baudrillard, J. (2003), The Spirit of Terrorism, Translation by C. Turner (London, Verso) Baudrillard, J. (2005), War Porn, Translation by P. Taylor, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 2, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/taylor.htm Blackburn, S. (2007), Prospect Magazine Obituary Au revoir Baudrillard: The Last of the Great French Postmodernists, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 4, 4, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol4_3/v4-3-article9-blackburn.html Brock, P. and Socknat, T.S. (1999), Preface in Brock, P. and Socknat, T.S. (Eds.), Challenge to Mars: Essays on Pacifism from 1918-1945 (Toronto, University of Toronto Press) Cole, S.J. (2010), Baudrillards Ontology: Empirical Research and the Denial of the Real, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 7, 2, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-7_2/v7-2-cole.html Coulter, G. (2005), Editorial: Image, Reversibility and Challenge, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 2, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/editori.htm Cox, J. (1998), An Introduction to Marxs Theory of Alienation, International Socialism, 79, Available at: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj79/cox.htm Der Spiegel (2004), Interview with Jean Baudrillard, Translation by S. Gandesha, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 1, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/spiegel.htm Grimshaw, M. (2006), Religion, Terror and the End of the Postmodern: Rethinking the Responses, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 3, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol3_1/grimshaw.htm Hyndman, J. (2003), Beyond either/or: a feminist analysis of September 11th, ACME, 2, 1, pp.1-13

International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (2012), Call for Papers: Baudrillard and Politics, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/call-for-papers2011.html (Accessed: 15 March 2012) Kellner, D. (2005), Baudrillard, Globalization and Terrorism: Some Comments on Recent Adventures of the Image and Spectacle on the Occasion of Baudrillards 75th Birthday, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 2, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/kellner.htm Kellner, D. (2006), Jean Baudrillard After Modernity: Provocations On A Provocateur and Challenger, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 3, 1, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol3_1/kellner.htm Kellner, D. (2007), A Good Long Run, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 4, 3, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/obituaries_dkellner.html Megoran, N. (2008), Militarism, realism, just war, or nonviolence? Critical geopolitics and the problem of normativity, Geopolitics, 13, 3, pp.473497 Merrin, W. (2005), Total Screen: 9/11 and the Gulf War Reloaded, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 2, 2, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_2/merrin.htm Norris, C. (1992), Uncritical theory: postmodernism, intellectuals & the Gulf War (Massachusetts, University of Massachusetts Press) Said, E.W. (1993), Culture and Imperialism (London, Chatto and Windus) Smith, J. (2004), The Gnostic Baudrillard: A Philosophy of Terrorism Seeking Pure Appearance, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 1, 2, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol1_2/smith.htm Stephens, S. (2007), The Rushdie of the West: Remembering Jean Baudrillard, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, 4, 3, Available at: http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/obituaries_sstephens.html Toal, G. (1993), The Effacement Of Place? US Foreign Policy and the Spatiality of the Gulf Crisis, Antipode, 25, 1, pp.4-31 Toal, G. (1999), Understanding critical geopolitics: Geopolitics and risk society, Journal of Strategic Studies, 22, 2-3, pp.107-124

You might also like