baudrillard üzerinden inciyi tartışıyoruz

In popular culture
Native American (Anishinaabe) writer Gerald Vizenor, who has made extensive use of Baudrillard's concepts of simulation in his critical work,[25] features Baudrillard as a character in a "debwe heart dance" in his 1996 novel Hotline Healers.[26]
The Matrix, a (1999) film by the Wachowski brothers, names Baudrillard's thought, especiallly Simulacra and Simulation, as an influence. While one critic went so far as to claim that if "Baudrillard... has not yet embraced the film it may be because he is thinking of suing for a screen credit,[27] Baudrillard himself disclaimed any connection between his work and The Matrix, calling it at best a misreading of his ideas.[28][29]
Newcastle based band Maxïmo Park wrote a song about Baudrillard which featured as a b-side to "Karaoke Plays" from their 2007 album Our Earthly Pleasures.
Baudrillard's Blender,, a reciprocating, no-frills, low-brow design, self-writing-montage-machine for Symbolically Exchanging the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election TV Coverage.
Apollo 440 paid tribute to Baudrillard via direct quotes in lyrics and song titles
[edit] Bibliography
[edit] Books
The System of Objects (1968)
The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (1970)
For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1972)
The Mirror of Production (1973)
Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976)
Forget Foucault (1977)
Seduction (1979)
Simulacra and Simulation (1981)
In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities (1982)
Fatal Strategies (1983)
Simulations (1983)
America (1986)
Cool Memories (1987)
The Ecstasy of Communication (1987)
The Transparency of Evil (1990)
The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991)
The Illusion of the End (1992)
Baudrillard Live: Selected Interviews (Edited by Mike Gane) (1993)
The Perfect Crime (1995)
Paroxysm: Interviews with Philippe Petit (1998)
Impossible Exchange (1999)
Passwords (2000)
The Singular Objects of Architecture (2000)
The Vital Illusion (2000)
Au royaume des aveugles (2002)
The Spirit of Terrorism: And Requiem for the Twin Towers (2002)
Fragments (interviews with François L'Yvonnet) (2003)
The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact (2005)
The Conspiracy of Art (2005)
Les exilés du dialogue, Jean Baudrillard and Enrique Valiente Noailles (2005)
Utopia Deferred: Writings for Utopie (1967-1978) (2006)
Pataphysics (2007)
Radical Alterity (2008)
Why Hasn't Everything Already Disappeared? (2009)
Carnival and Cannibal, or the Play of Global Antagonisms (2010)
The Agony of Power (2010)
[edit] Articles
“The Spirit of Terrorism”. Telos No. 121 (Fall 2001). New York: Telos Press.
"Divine Europe". Telos No. 131 (Summer 2005). New York: Telos Press.
[edit] Audio-CDs
Die Illusion des Endes — Das Ende der Illusion (Jean Baudrillard & Boris Groys), 58 minutes + booklet. Cologne: supposé 1997. ISBN 3-932513-01-0
Die Macht der Verführung, 55 minutes. Cologne: supposé 2006. ISBN 978-3-932513-67-1

References
1.^ The world of Jean Baudrillard
2.^ See How to pronounce Jean Baudrillard.
3.^ a b Francois L'Yvonnet, ed., Cahiers de l'Herne special volume on Baudrillard, Editions de l'Herne, 2004, p.317
4.^ Steven Poole. Jean Baudrillard. Philosopher and sociologist who blurred the boundaries between reality and simulation. The Guardian. March 7, 2007
5.^ Francois L'Yvonnet, ed., Cahiers de l'Herne special volume on Baudrillard, Editions de l'Herne, 2004, p.322
6.^ Chris Turner's introduction to The Intelligence of Evil, Berg (2005), p. 2
7.^ Francois L'Yvonnet, ed., Cahiers de l'Herne special volume on Baudrillard, Editions de l'Herne, 2004, pp.317-318
8.^ cf. Barry Sandywell's article "Forget Baudrillard", in Theory, Culture and Society (1995, issue 12)
9.^ Jean Baudrillard Faculty page at European Graduate School
10.^ Francois L'Yvonnet, ed., Cahiers de l'Herne special volume on Baudrillard, Editions de l'Herne, 2004, p.319
11.^ Francois L'Yvonnet, ed., Cahiers de l'Herne special volume on Baudrillard, Editions de l'Herne, 2004, p.320
12.^ Peter Pericles Trifonas, Barthes and the Empire of Signs, Icon (2001)
13.^ see here Baudrillard's final major publication in English, The Intelligence of Evil, where he discussed the political fallout of what he calls "Integral Reality"
14.^ as he argued in the book The Perfect Crime, Verso (1995) for instance
15.^ see here The Transparency of Evil, Verso (1993)
16.^ p. 63 in For a Critique ... (1983)
17.^ as set out in For a Critique ... (1983)
18.^ Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulations. The Precession of Simulacra. European Graduate School.
19.^ "Baudrillard and the Simulacrum Society" by G. Mayos.
20.^ The Illusion of the End, or Selected Writings, p. 263.
21.^ The Illusion of the End, p. 2.
22.^ taken from the essay: Jean Baudrillard The Violence of the Global. European Graduate School. Translated by François Debrix
23.^ Jean Baudrillard. The Spirit of Terrorism. European Graduate School. November 2, 2001, Translated by Dr. Rachel Bloul
24.^ Dutton, Denis, "Jean Baudrillard", Philosophy and Literature 14 (1990) 234-38.
25.^ Review of Postindian Conversations by Gerald Vizenor and A. Robert Lee
26.^ Gerald Vizenor, Hotline Healers (1996), Chapter 5.
27.^ Adam Gopnik, "The Unreal Thing", The New Yorker 19 May 2003 [1]
28.^ "Le Nouvel Observateur with Baudrillard". Le Nouvel Observateur. Archived from the original on 2008-01-13. http://web.archive.org/we...-Baudrillard_english.html . Retrieved 2009-08-23.
29.^ http://www.nytimes.com/20...-matrix.html?pagewanted=1
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Jean Baudrillard

Jean Baudrillard Faculty page at European Graduate School (Biography, bibliography, photos and videos)
Jean Baudrillard entry by Douglas Kellner in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
International Journal of Baudrillard Studies
[hide]v • d • eContinental philosophy

Contemporary philosophy ( analytic · continental )

Related articles Critical theory · Phenomenology · Hermeneutics · Deconstruction


Concepts Angst · Authenticity · Being in itself · Boredom · Dasein · Différance · Existential crisis · Facticity · Intersubjectivity · Ontic · Other · Self-deception · Trace · more...


Theories German idealism · Hegelianism · Existentialism · Marxism · Structuralism · Postmodernism · Poststructuralism


Philosophers Theodor W. Adorno · Louis Althusser · Giorgio Agamben · Hannah Arendt · Alain Badiou · Jean Baudrillard · Henri Bergson · Albert Camus · Gilles Deleuze · Jacques Derrida · Johann Fichte · Michel Foucault · Frankfurt School · Antonio Gramsci · Jürgen Habermas · Georg Hegel · Martin Heidegger · Edmund Husserl · Søren Kierkegaard · Alexandre Kojève · Jacques Lacan · Claude Lévi-Strauss · Maurice Merleau-Ponty · Friedrich Nietzsche · Jean-Paul Sartre · Friedrich Schelling · Arthur Schopenhauer · Slavoj Žižek · more...


Portal · Category · Task Force · Stubs · Discussion

Persondata
Name Baudrillard, Jean
Alternative names
Short description
Date of birth 27 July 1929
Place of birth Reims, France
Date of death 6 March 2007
Place of death Paris, France
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard" ;
Categories: 1929 births | 2007 deaths | People from Reims | University of Paris alumni | European Graduate School faculty | 20th-century philosophers | 21st-century philosophers | Continental philosophers | French philosophers | 20th-century French philosophers | French sociologists | Nihilism | 'Pataphysicians | Postmodern theory | Postmodernists | Poststructuralism | Hyperreality theorists | Burials at Montparnasse Cemetery

Correct meaning of "precession"
In the section on Simulation and Simulacra, the article badly misrepresents Baudrillard on the meaning of "precession" as "succession". The following quote from the second paragraph of Simulation and Simulacra confirms the correct meaning as related to the word "precede": the simulacral precedes the real. This is available online here [1]:

The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.
I thought I'd mention it first for discussion before making changes. I haven't read the Baudrillard essay cited at the start of the section; perhaps he develops the succession meaning there, but I kind of doubt it. It's spelled out quite clearly above. --Kramer J (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and modified this section; added some quotes and expanded a little on the orders of simulacra. --Kramer J (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Why is "a professor of philosophy of culture and media criticism at the European Graduate School in Saas-Fee in Switzerland" an advertisement? Alter Ego 20:34, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Because is certainly not a permanent professor and the contributor seems to spam wikipedia with links to EGS website. see User:143.93.17.21 contributions. Ericd 20:14, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This issue was resolved by concensus and administrative support on Talk:European Graduate School in 2006. User:Trialanderrors made excellent points at that time, and these were reiterated also by User:Metamagician3000 in discussion of similar points on this Talk page (see below). 68.160.140.22 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the 'Introduction to work' section -- "The first Gulf War served as a crisis point determining whether or not war was still possible in the post-industrial age." -- stands a little too much on it's own. How so was it a crisis point, and how does that relate to the previous sentences in the paragraph? Perhaps an expansion of the reasoning would be appropriate. lennarth, around lunchtime, 02 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotidianity
I have a complaint about this word. My complaint is that it's not a word. "Quotidian" is an esoteric word in itself, and it's really not a good idea to morph the word into an even more esoteric variant (let alone the fact that most lexicographers would tell you it's not a word). How about changing this to "mediocrity"? That's a good solid word that most people understand... (08 Sept 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.124.167 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Author-Subject Hostility?
I'm not sure who's done the lion's share of the editing here, but the "auteur" seems to be passively hostile to the subject. The writing is fine quality, but doesn't give a fully neutral presentation. Several of Baudrillard's arguments are couched in a somewhat dismissive and minimizing language, and criticisms are mixed in with neutral commentary in many presentations of his ideas here. As someone below pointed out "there seems to be volumnious critique of his work." This is also the impression I had on reading the article; a reader simply trying to get an overview of Baudrillard's philosophy and work comes away with the impression that he was somewhat disregarded as a thinker. The effect is subtle but substantial. I'm not familiar with Baudrillard at all and so can't repair this, but I believe that the criticisms should identify themselves as such rather than being integrated into the presentation of his thinking and work, and the slightly dismissive tone should be eliminated - criticisms are essential but have their own place and Baudrillard deserves a genuine "pro" presentation as well as the "con." Maybe someone who has studied his work can attempt to rectify this? (4/27/2007)

I think the person who's done the 'lion's share' of the editing is probably myself, so I'd better respond. I'm sorry that you think that's how the article comes aross at present, but please be assured that, personally, I'm not hostile at all. Quite the contrary, I'm a persistent defender of Baudrillard's work (even in published print at times), and I think he's widely misunderstood. The problem, I think, is that wikipedia aims to be verifiable (that is, related to published material), and there aren't a great many vocal defenders of his work - save a small band of not vary accessible academics (check out the international journal of Baudrillard studies for who they might be). In contrast to that there's a huge amount of publications that refer to a kind of stereotyped version of him (i.e. loopy Gallic reality denier). This makes it hard to put his positions across in both an unbiased and 'wikipedian' manner. Ayway, I'll try and have a bit of a tweak with the article and see what I can do.
The Baudrillard article errs I think in citing Dennis Dutton as a critical voice illuminating Baudrillard's work. First of all, Dutton's remarks are ad hominem. Secondly, Dutton has been known to make nearly identical criticisms of a great many postmodernist thinkers.

Baudrillard's thought is worth thinking about critically, but this quote and others like it simply make it seem that Baudrillard's thought is worth ridiculing. It is not Baudrillard, but a stereotypical 'Baudrillard' that is being discussed. Appian way (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

British spelling
Note: globalisation is a perfectly valid British spelling. Buffyg 21:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fair enough, but "globaltisation" or something - which was what was there before - isn't * --csloat 22:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed it was "globalsitation." "Globaltisation," however, would have had a certain irony to the mispelling. ;-> Buffyg 22:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Baudrillard article errs I think in citing Dennis Dutton as a critical voice illuminating Baudrillard's work. First of all, Dutton's remarks are ad hominem. Secondly, he has been known to make similar criticisms of a great many postmodernist thinkers.

Baudrillard's thought is worth thinking about critically, but this quote and others like it simply make it seem that Baudrillard's thought is worth ridiculing. It is not Baudrillard, but a stereotypical 'Baudrillard' that is being discussed. Appian way (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Baudrillard and anti-Americanism
"Recently, many have criticized Baudrillard's comments following the September 11th attacks on the United States, in which he seemed to approve or legitimate them: "In the end it was they who did it but we who wished it." These critics have pointed to the consistent anti-American tone of his previous works ("America") as proof of anti-Americanism."
I'm not sure why we're talking about "many" here as though this is a prevalent opinion among people who've spent any time with Baudrillard's work. Baudrillard has been quoted as offering the following clarification:

I do not praise murderous attacks — that would be idiotic. Terrorism is not a contemporary form of revolution against oppression and capitalism. No ideology, no struggle for an objective, not even Islamic fundamentalism, can explain it. …I have glorified nothing, accused nobody, justified nothing. One should not confuse the messenger with his message. I have endeavored to analyze the process through which the unbounded expansion of globalization creates the conditions for its own destruction.
One has to ask about the extent to which the same quote was turned over several times in the same rush that created "Freedom Fries" and remarks that most of the gears in French tanks are those used in retreat. One might as easily remark that Baudrillard's remarks were so received in a time of occasionally blind Francophobia, but that would still only bring us a small part of the way toward clarity. I do not accept the attribution of this remark as adequate, nor do I believe that one can carelessly remark on "the consistent (consistently?) anti-American tone of his previous works". In any case, it is a violation of NPOV to make this remark without noting contrary opinions, including Baudrillard's remark. This isn't a clear case of sympathy for the devil or Whit Stillman's AFL-CIA. Buffyg 02:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Baudrillard's critique of the US is rather consistent, and this is not just a position taken by American right but by recent French criticism. "Americans may have no identitiy, but they certainly have great teeth", or to paraphrase, Disneyland's purpose is to promote the illusion that the rest of America is 'real'. He's come up in such works as Phillipe Roger's "L'enemie americain". Moreover, what an author says about their own work or remarks can never be considered "authoritative" -- you should know that! Baudrillard considers terrorism to be the result of globalization. Many consider this "Anti-globalism" a type of anti-American critique. (No one in France was anti-global when French was the lingua franca, for instance.) He may be right, or he may be wrong, and we can't really know his intentions, but the controversy remains. Censoring out the controversy is not an ideal solution. Why not include the countercriticism? I'm going to reinsert the remarks and include his defense Hopefully we can compromise.217.184.88.157 08:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
This is kind of silly. If anything, Baudrillard has been criticized for being too pro-American, or at least of appearing to celebrate American consumerism and of being supportive of the 1991 war in the gulf (see Christopher Norris, e.g.). Both readings are ridiculous. Have you actually read his book America? Don't tell me he's "come up" in Roger's book -- is he actually accused there of being "anti-American"? Can we have evidence of this claim on the article itself, especially if we're pretending it is some kind of frequently made claim about Baudrillard? I'm not really aware that it's even something people talk about -- the idea of criticizing someone for being "anti-American" is really not an important part of philosophical discussions like this, IMHO.--csloat 00:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro-American? Who views him that way? Yes, indeed, Philippe Roger includes him in a long list of anti-US intellectuals, and cites several caustic remarks from him. I feel that you do not know the current discussion in France itself, which has belatedly acknowledged anti-Americanism as a discourse. Le Monde and others praised Roger's book, by the way. So it may not be important to "Commoder Sloat", but many others, like BHL, include it as intellectually important. Baudrillard himself obviously felt the topic of America was important enough to title a book and repeatedly broach the topic. (And if you can find *any* source that believes him to be too "pro-American", please do.)

This is from the prestiges Sciences-Po: Denis Lacorne - Anti-Americanism and Americanophobia : A French Perspective - March 2005 http://www.ceri-sciences-po.org In its most extreme form, Americanophobia today expresses itself in a morbid desire for the military defeat of America, or even for the destruction of America. To sweeten his deadly pill, Dr Baudrillard thus claimed, a few days after the trauma of 9/11 that each of us, French, secretly wished the death of America. This was our schadenfreude, our secret joy at the suffering of others – a suffering that is necessary and justified because Americans well deserved it! Our jubilation, according to Baudrillard, was proportional to our “terrorist imagination,” supposedly shared by all well-meaning men and women. The “sacrificial” nature of the attack was beyond description. It displayed violence at its best – a strange mixture of “the white magic of cinema, and the black magic of terrorism.” The destruction of the twin towers ultimately fulfilled the dream of the West: “our aversion to any final or permanent world order.”

Jean Baudrillard, “L’esprit du terrorisme,” my italics, Le Monde, 2 November 2001. For François Guery, there is
an obvious and direct connection between Duhamel and Baudrillard. When young students read the Scènes de la vie future, writes Guery, they think “it’s Baudrillard talking about America. They haven’t heard of Duhamel. But Duhamel is nothing but Baudrillard.” F. Guery, “L’Amérique impensable?,” Philosophie Politique, n° 7, December 1995, p. 14-15.

Roger, Guery, Lacorne ... it seems that I am not alone in citing systematic anti-Americanism from M. Baudrillard. Willowx 09:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't suppose you've seen the article "Holy Europe" in the latest New Left Review, where Baudrillard discusses the defeat of the constitutional referendum in France under a logic remarkably like what is discussed in terms of American hegemony over globalism? The diagnosis of hegemony and its auto-immune failure is strikingly familiar — are you prepared to claim that an argument of this form is evidence of Baudrillard being anti-European, anti-EU, or anti-EU constitution?
As for Lacorne... seriously, how does one support the claim that it is the French who wished "the death of America" (I don't see any evidence available that Baudrillard is talking about this fantasy or that "we" are the French). You can claim if you like that "we" did not harbour any fantasies of such an event, but I don't suppose you saw Fight Club, with its fantasy of the simultaneous destruction of so many towers of unmistakeably American financial power to remake the world in the leveling of so many credits and debts? I do believe that David Fincher, Jim Uhls, and Chuck Palahniuk are counted among "us", but I wouldn't confuse the shocking realisation of a fantasy (as film or as 9/11) for just deserts. If there was anything like Schadenfreude, it was before the fact and not after. Sitting in front of a TV in Midtown Manhattan and watching the towers collapse, I didn't think at the time or since that this was a case of "violence at its best" (nor do I believe anyone can produce any textual support indicating that Baudrillard did) but, as someone who spent a lot of time in meetings in the preceeding year talking about how to recover from large office buildings being blown up, I thought quite a lot about Fight Club as our fantasy of such a shock and recognised in the real event some mixture of “the white magic of cinema, and the black magic of terrorism.”
Perhaps the French are asking some questions about why they believe what they do about America. I see increasing evidence of utter misdiagnosis in the case of Baudrillard, while I find even less compelling a footnoted reference to an observation that students misrecognise a novel from 1930 as Baudrillard's work (maybe that's enough for François Guery; unfortunately I don't have access to a library that would allow me to consult that source, although I would assume you've checked it if it's on your list). What would be helpful would be someone who manages a competent or otherwise supportable reading of Baudrillard rather than an annexation of poorly interpreted quotations to arguments that may find more compelling evidence in the work of other authors. Buffyg 01:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify (and to agree with Buffyg's comments above) -- I did not say that Baudrillard did not have something to say about America, but to read his book America as some kind of anti-American manifesto is just bizarre. Have you read the book? Can you cite what is anti-American about it? It has been many years since I read it when it was first translated into English, but "anti-American" does not at all appear fair. You're right I am not closely watching the discourse in France about this issue but I am aware that some public intellectuals are speaking of France's "anti-American" problem though I am not aware that Philippe Roger and Jean-Francois Revel (hardly philosophers of the political mainstream) have much acceptance in philosophical circles about this notion. I was not aware that this discourse targeted Baudrillard specifically, though I should not be surprised, and I stand corrected there. But as Buffy points out above, Baudrillard's notion that we have fantasized about this event (9-11) is not that controversial at all once you understand "we" to be the audience of the American mediascape of which Baudrillard very much considers himself a part, rather than something like "the french."
You asked me to cite sources where Baudrillard is portrayed as too American - perhaps that is too strong a characterization but read Norris' critique of his Gulf War essays, which I have already cited, or Kellner's critique of Baudrillard in his book Jean Baudrillard from Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond, both of which portray Baudrillard (unfairly imho) as a postmodern apologist for American imperialism and relentless capitalist expansion. I think Callinicos could fit into this frame as well. Of course these critiques appear in the Anglo-American context, rather than the French. --csloat 05:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

pronunciation?
How do you pronounce his last name (don't tell me in IPA, I can't read it). 63.162.73.158 20:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Baudrillard Journal

See http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies for International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (On The Internet)

Apparently "bō-drē-yär". If someone can convert that to IPA, it'd be a nice thing to note. Sarge Baldy 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
don't know IPA, but you'd say it bored-ree-are, give or take --212.95.227.168 10:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Bored-we-are? After studying the guy for a semester that kind of seems accurate. :-) --Jim (Talk) 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incomparable Baudrillard??
Can someone explain why in this article there is a section called 'Incomparable Baudrillard' which contains links to sundry pages. The name of the heading also sounds like an endorsement and none-too NPOV. These links could surely be placed in External links, because they are worthwhile links. For instance, one could write about his objurgation of Sontag's visit to Sarajevo 1994 and his intellectual disagreement with her, then use the article as a reference.--Knucmo2 11:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf war
I put in a quote at the end of the first paragraph of the Gulf War bit that I think sums up his views quite well. If anyone wants to footnote it (because I'm unsure of how to) I got it from Introducing Postmodernism by Richard Appignanesi and Chris Garratt. However I'm sure it could be referenced better from somewhere else. --Horses In The Sky 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Pataphysics?
The article on 'pataphysics says: "Philosopher Jean Baudrillard is often described as a pataphysician and did consider himself as such for some part of his life.". I don't see any mention of that here; if true, it seems like it'd be useful to include some information on that in his biography. --Delirium 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a source for this too - The article on the Stanford page speaks of Baudrillard's pataphysical elements in his work. Baudrillard has mentioned Jarry in his works, too. --Knucmo2 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critiques of Baudrillard - Citation
Could we get a citation for Mark Poster's (rather lengthy) comment from the section entitiled "Critiques of Baudrillard"? I would suspect that it comes from Poster's edited volume of Baudrillard's works, but the article does not indicated if this is the case.

[edit] post-marxism
the post-marxism article was pointing to neo-communism, i split it out, but it will need much work to get it up to a basic level. if people are interested, please contribute what you know, edit my starter drivel * , and help build that article too. --Buridan 13:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editorial changes
Anyone who's been browsing this page fairly recently might have noticed I've made some fairly radical changes, mainly because I don't think the article got to grips with the fundamentals of Baudrillard's thought - and the concepts weren't ordered chronologically either, which is significant in a thinker whose work is so ofen characterised as 'early' (consumerism) and 'late' (media). In parts I think there were elements that were just incorrect (particularly the fallacy that Baudrillard literally thinks the Gulf War didn't exist, which is just not true), which I've tried to rectify while remaining faithful to the form of the article. In other parts I thought the references (such as 'Baudrillard believes we somehow reached the end of history') were just a little, as it were, undergraduate Baudrillard. I've expanded some of the references too.

Generally, I've tried to introduce the fundamental (structural) underpinning to his work in the introduction, but it may be that it comes across a little complex, because I wanted to keep it short. Similarly I've tried to show how the semiotic/symbolic elements run through the entirety of his oevre.

Anyone's welcome to try and add to/improve it (I really need to get back to the work I'm supposed to be doing!), the spelling hops a bit between US and UK spelling, and the references are just brackets rather then footnotes. I think in particular a section specifically on Seduction (the book) and its relation to essentialist feminism (Luce Irigaray) and anti-essentialist feminism (Judith Butler) might be useful - not to mention the role of the principle of seduction generically.

And one last thing: whilst editing's all well and good, I can't help thnking the standard of critical theory, sociology, contemporary philosophy pages (the liked of Badiou, Latour, Butler and so on) on Wikipedia can be a little (or very) poor in comparison to the historical, mathematical or scientific ones. So while this ain't mine to edit, please don't fall into the trap of treating this stuff like you might if you were writing about Transformers or something, cos I know a fair old amount of Uni students who rely on it (and it doesn't do my career as a sociologist any good when it keeps getting the fashionable nonsense tag attached either!). Ta!

hyperrealism critique
I am fascinated by his concept of hyperrealism, and was wondering, since there seems to be volumnious critique of his work, whether or not there are any critiques of this particular idea.

[edit] outdated opinion? how?
His argument can be summarised as being an attempted subversion of the (now rather outdated) thesis of Francis Fukuyama how does this passage have any sense - what does it mean that Fukuyama's thesis is outdated? And why is it 'rather' outdated, and not simply outdated? And by this logic, would this mean that each philosopher discussin Plato or Aristotle should be prefaced with warnings that they are talking about 'outdated' positions? I think this is a nonsensical claim and will remove it. --83.131.133.28 13:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply: Woa! No need to get too het up about it! I noted that it's a somewhat dated position purely and simply because Fukuyama himself has distanced himself from it to an extent, apropos of various events that have taken place since the mid 90s. And if we're being pedants, by the way, I think its fair to say some (if by means all) of Aristotle's thought is outdated: does anyone living today hold on to the idea that there are four main elements to earthly existence, for example? It is, I think, dependent on the argument; and Fukuyama's argument in this case was very much an argument situated in the capricious world of current affairs.

[edit] Ambiguity, etc.
The first paragraph of the Criticisms of Baudrillard section:

Baudrillard's writing, and his uncompromising positions, have led to criticism the force of which can only be compared to, in contemporary social scholarship, Jacques Lacan. Only one of the two major confrontational book-length critiques — Christopher Norris's Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War (ISBN 0-87023-817-5) — however seeks to reject his media theory and position on 'the real' out of hand. The other — Douglas Kellner's Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond (ISBN 0-8047-1757-5) — seeks rather to analyse Baudrillard's relation to postmodernism (a concept with which Baudrillard has had a continued, if uneasy and rarely explicit relationship) and to present a Marxist counter. Regarding the former, William Merrin (as discussed above) has published more than one denunciation of Norris's position. The latter Baudrillard himself has characterised as reductive (in Nicholas Zurbrugg's Jean Baudrillard: Art and Artefact). (emphasis added)
Re the first sentence, is that really right? And does that refer to Lacan's writings or writings of others on Lacan? Re the last sentence, does that refer to postmodernism or (probably more likely, but no citation is given) Keller's analysis of "Baudrillard's relation to" it? --zenohockey 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply: sorry if that sounded ambiguous; Lacan had no position whatsoever on Baudrillard himself, if that's what your wondering, having died a bit too early. (Baudrillard does have some Lacanian influence in his work mind, but that's by the by.) What I meant to say was: both Baudrillard and Lacan persistently attract scabrous (and for my money a wee bit misinformed) critique that claims they write 'Fashionable Nonsense'(cf. the book of the same name, among others). If anyone wants to elaborate on who exactly is contiually bashing him feel free (I could certainly list a few - even, for instance, Brian Turner gives him very short shrift in his book Orientalism, Postmodernism and Globalism), but I don't really have time. I think it's certainly not too far from the truth, mind.

On the last sentence, I agree, it needs more elaboration. Baudrillard was talking about (in the Zurbrugg book here) Kellner's treatment of his 'system' of thought. That is, Kellner's interpretation of the (quasi idolatrous) power, if you will, of simulacra. What he actually said went something like: "perhaps my system is reversible and can and should be reversed, but in Kellner's case my system was reduced and therefore I had to defend myself." If that seems unclear, it's because it's very hard to get across exactly what he's getting at in less than 1000 words! The best way I can think to sum it up is that Baudrillard's notion of simulation refers less to technological simulation as normally understood (and therefore to a virtual unreality) and more to a premature understanding of reality; a belief the world can be fully comprehended. So consequently Baudrillard's position is that Kellner takes his writings about virtual reality a little too literally: Kellner's version of Baudrillard seems to allude to everyone living in a Matrix-esque techno-universe, which isn't really what Baudrillard is getting at.

(starting a new idea here--by a reader) As a layman, I feel there is a confusion in the Object Value section. Did the writer take these from the philosopher himself, or did the writer create them? Functional and Exchange, these make sense to me. It would seem that the next two are problematic. In most systems of philosophy, a sign is concrete, while a symbol represents the ineffable. If that is NOT the case with Baudrillard, please, pardon me. To that end, the pen is literally a graduation gift--there's no symbolism here. It CAN symbolize the love and pride the giver feels for the recipient. If this is the case, then state that. The diamond symbolism makes sense. And regarding sign: that same pen would only become a sign of prestige via the process of the later mentioned commodity exchange. Owning a pen that belonged to Napoleon would be a sign of prestige--it's a concrete thing. I see that you do state that here, but it could be spelled out. This is a sentence I will edit. I think your diamond example would be better served by saying the larger diamond is a sign of greater wealth, and the gargantuan diamond is a sign of being nouveau riche (just kidding on the latter). And finally, the argument can be made that you should speak of either the diamond or the refrigerator in all four sections. The shift in the middle is disorienting. It would seem that the fridge would be the way to go--and it's easy to see how a fridge can be a sign of something. Its symbolism is tougher. Maybe: replacing a small fridge with a larger one symbolizes a couples desire to have children? It's a tough one. The reason I am NOT changing this further is because I don't know if I'm way off base re: this philosopher's thinking. I'm just looking at this from a laymen's sense of logic. Francis Smith (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On the use of a philosopher's death to make money : STOP SPAMS !
User:Europeangraduateschool, who, with some friends or paid employees of him, have repeatedly spammed Wikipedia in various international languages (including Afrikaans and Chinese - they are looking for wealthy customers everywhere) is taking advantage of the daily visitors to Baudrillard's page, on this sad day, to make profit. He is not ashamed of, under his own name, taking the pretense of GFDL photos which he has uploaded, and claimed that were made at his school (the "truth" of that claim is not relevant, especially for an analyst of the "disparition of reality" such as Baudrillard), to make propaganda for his private and unrecognized school. See his contributions, see the debate on Talk:European Graduate School. See his recent contributions on [2]. See his suspicious contributions, under an anonym account, spamming the French Wiki here. Abou didee

See attempts to censor this talk page and others users comments. Abou didee 04:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I’m of the opinion that the current level of debate (if you can even call it that) on this and opther language pages for Baudrillard is neither beneficial to the users, contributors nor the general image of Wikipedia. Firstly, I’m sure we all agree that having an image of Baudrillard is more beneficial than not having one. Secondly, an image of Baurdillard has been provided under license for our use. Thirdly, I do not believe that citing the source and location of an image can reasonably be considered spam. Should this be the case, many other images on wiki will need to be removed, and the long history on the spamming debate for the school seems to indicate that wiki users do not consider it spam. I also believe it is a bit crude to assume that the “spamming” is lead by one user, who has, under his/her command multiple wiki users to distribute the image. Perhaps the images and links are merely being distributed because wiki users find it ads to the Baudrillard and other pages?

However the subsequent reaction to the initial claims of spamming etc I find just as disturbing. Deleting text or images, when you think it violates any wiki rules, especially on talk pages should be considered more carefully, and I would like to request our various heated users to sit back and relax for a while, in the spirit of WP:DR. I agree with the opinions of the French fr:user:Theirry Caro on the french Baudrillard page fr:Discuter:Jean_Baudrillard#Des_photos_publicitaires where he concluded that the image should stay, with citations, as long as EGS isn’t mentioned excessively in the article; that seems to me a level headed approach to the issue. I would like to request that other independent users consider the recent discussions on this and other pages. Lastly, I would like to make the following suggestions before I make any edits, in an effort to find consensus,

We restore the criticism of all parties in full, except where a (noble) user delete their own criticism
We keep the image on the site
We restore the image citation to the correct citation as required by the license.
If we do not restore the citation, the image should be removed as it infringes on the rights of the owner
We restore the connection to the EGS faculty page, because it is rich in information on Baudrillard, something other wiki users would like to see, especially the videos.
I’ll appreciate considered comments on the above… Goodlucca 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture
Native American (Anishinaabe) writer Gerald Vizenor, who has made extensive use of Baudrillard's concepts of simulation in his critical work,[25] features Baudrillard as a character in a "debwe heart dance" in his 1996 novel Hotline Healers.[26]
The Matrix, a (1999) film by the Wachowski brothers, names Baudrillard's thought, especiallly Simulacra and Simulation, as an influence. While one critic went so far as to claim that if "Baudrillard... has not yet embraced the film it may be because he is thinking of suing for a screen credit,[27] Baudrillard himself disclaimed any connection between his work and The Matrix, calling it at best a misreading of his ideas.[28][29]
Newcastle based band Maxïmo Park wrote a song about Baudrillard which featured as a b-side to "Karaoke Plays" from their 2007 album Our Earthly Pleasures.
Baudrillard's Blender,, a reciprocating, no-frills, low-brow design, self-writing-montage-machine for Symbolically Exchanging the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election TV Coverage.
Apollo 440 paid tribute to Baudrillard via direct quotes in lyrics and song titles
[edit] Bibliography
[edit] Books
The System of Objects (1968)
The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures (1970)
For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1972)
The Mirror of Production (1973)
Symbolic Exchange and Death (1976)
Forget Foucault (1977)
Seduction (1979)
Simulacra and Simulation (1981)
In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities (1982)
Fatal Strategies (1983)
Simulations (1983)
America (1986)
Cool Memories (1987)
The Ecstasy of Communication (1987)
The Transparency of Evil (1990)
The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991)
The Illusion of the End (1992)
Baudrillard Live: Selected Interviews (Edited by Mike Gane) (1993)
The Perfect Crime (1995)
Paroxysm: Interviews with Philippe Petit (1998)
Impossible Exchange (1999)
Passwords (2000)
The Singular Objects of Architecture (2000)
The Vital Illusion (2000)
Au royaume des aveugles (2002)
The Spirit of Terrorism: And Requiem for the Twin Towers (2002)
Fragments (interviews with François L'Yvonnet) (2003)
The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact (2005)
The Conspiracy of Art (2005)
Les exilés du dialogue, Jean Baudrillard and Enrique Valiente Noailles (2005)
Utopia Deferred: Writings for Utopie (1967-1978) (2006)
Pataphysics (2007)
Radical Alterity (2008)
Why Hasn't Everything Already Disappeared? (2009)
Carnival and Cannibal, or the Play of Global Antagonisms (2010)
The Agony of Power (2010)
[edit] Articles
“The Spirit of Terrorism”. Telos No. 121 (Fall 2001). New York: Telos Press.
"Divine Europe". Telos No. 131 (Summer 2005). New York: Telos Press.
[edit] Audio-CDs
Die Illusion des Endes — Das Ende der Illusion (Jean Baudrillard & Boris Groys), 58 minutes + booklet. Cologne: supposé 1997. ISBN 3-932513-01-0
Die Macht der Verführung, 55 minutes. Cologne: supposé 2006. ISBN 978-3-932513-67-1

On September 11
In contrast to the "non-event" of the Gulf War, in the essay The Spirit of Terrorism[23] he characterised the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City as the "absolute event." Seeking to understand them as an (ab)reaction[clarification needed] to the technological and political expansion of capitalist globalization, rather than as a war of religiously-based or civilization-based warfare, he termed the absolute event and its consequences as follows (p. 11 in the 2002 version):

This is not a clash of civilisations or religions, and it reaches far beyond Islam and America, on which efforts are being made to focus the conflict in order to create the delusion of a visible confrontation and a solution based upon force. There is indeed a fundamental antagonism here, but one that points past the spectre of America (which is perhaps the epicentre, but in no sense the sole embodiment, of globalisation) and the spectre of Islam (which is not the embodiment of terrorism either) to triumphant globalisation battling against itself.
Baudrillard thus placed the attacks — as accords with his theory of society — in context as a symbolic reaction to the continued expansion of a world based solely upon commodity exchange. This stance was criticised on two counts. Richard Wolin (in The Seduction of Unreason) forcefully accused Baudrillard and Slavoj Žižek of all but celebrating the terrorist attacks, essentially claiming that the United States of America received what it deserved. Žižek, however, countered that accusation to Wolin's analysis as a form of intellectual barbarism in the journal Critical Inquiry, saying that Wolin fails to see the difference between fantasising about an event and stating that one is deserving of that event. Merrin (in Baudrillard and the Media) argued that Baudrillard's position affords the terrorists a type of moral superiority. In the journal Economy and Society, Merrin further noted that Baudrillard gives the symbolic facets of society unfair privilege above semiotic concerns. Second, authors questioned whether the attacks were unavoidable. Bruno Latour, in Critical Inquiry argued that Baudrillard believed that their destruction was forced by the society that created them, alluding the Towers were "brought down by their own weight". In Latour's view, this was because Baudrillard conceived only of society in terms of a symbolic and semiotic dualism.

[edit] Reception
Critics have found fault with some of Baudrillard's writing, ideas or his uncompromising positions.

For example Denis Dutton, founder of Philosophy & Literature's "Bad Writing Contest" — which listed examples of the kind of willfully obscurantist prose for which Baudrillard was frequently criticised — had the following to say:

Some writers in their manner and stance intentionally provoke challenge and criticism from their readers. Others just invite you to think. Baudrillard's hyperprose demands only that you grunt wide-eyed or bewildered assent. He yearns to have intellectual influence, but must fend off any serious analysis of his own writing, remaining free to leap from one bombastic assertion to the next, no matter how brazen. Your place is simply to buy his books, adopt his jargon, and drop his name wherever possible.[24]
However only one of the two major confrontational books on Baudrillard's thought — Christopher Norris's Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War (ISBN 0-87023-817-5) — seeks to reject his media theory and position on "the real" out of hand. The other — Douglas Kellner's Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond (ISBN 0-8047-1757-5) — seeks rather to analyse Baudrillard's relation to postmodernism (a concept with which Baudrillard has had a continued, if uneasy and rarely explicit, relationship) and to present a Marxist counter. Regarding the former, William Merrin (as discussed above) has published more than one denunciation of Norris's position. The latter Baudrillard himself characterised as reductive (in Nicholas Zurbrugg's Jean Baudrillard: Art and Artefact).

Willam Merrin's work has presented a more sympathetic account, which attempts to "place Baudrillard in opposition to himself." Thereby Merrin has argued that Baudrillard's position on semiotic analysis of meaning denies himself his own position on symbolic exchange. Merrin thus alludes to the common criticism of Structuralist and Post-structuralist work (a criticism not dissimilar in either Baudrillard, Foucault or Deleuze) that emphasising interrelation as the basis for subjectivity denies the human agency from which social structures necessarily arise. (Alain Badiou and Michel de Certeau have made this point generally, and Barry Sandywell has argued as much in Baudrillard's specific case).

Finally, Mark Poster, Baudrillard's editor and one of a number of present day academics who argue for his contemporary relevance, has remarked (p. 8 of Poster's 2nd ed. of Selected Writings):

Baudrillard's writing up to the mid-1980s is open to several criticisms. He fails to define key terms, such as the code; his writing style is hyperbolic and declarative, often lacking sustained, systematic analysis when it is appropriate; he totalizes his insights, refusing to qualify or delimit his claims. He writes about particular experiences, television images, as if nothing else in society mattered, extrapolating a bleak view of the world from that limited base. He ignores contradictory evidence such as the many benefits afforded by the new media ...
Nonetheless Poster is keen to refute the most extreme of Baudrillard's critics, the likes of Alan Sokal and Norris who see him as a purveyor of a form of reality-denying irrationalism (ibid p. 7):

Baudrillard is not disputing the trivial issue that reason remains operative in some actions, that if I want to arrive at the next block, for example, I can assume a Newtonian universe (common sense), plan a course of action (to walk straight for X meters, carry out the action, and finally fulfil my goal by arriving at the point in question). What is in doubt is that this sort of thinking enables a historically informed grasp of the present in general. According to Baudrillard, it does not. The concurrent spread of the hyperreal through the media and the collapse of liberal and Marxist politics as the master narratives, deprives the rational subject of its privileged access to truth. In an important sense individuals are no longer citizens, eager to maximise their civil rights, nor proletarians, anticipating the onset of communism. They are rather consumers, and hence the prey of objects as defined by the code.