In elaborating Baudrillard's notion of the simulacra, he seems to suggest that the real real supports an objective view of the real? The direction he plots for the simulacra is that a more objective real existed in the past and that we are now moving toward the real real, or a gradual breakdown of the objective real as we have understood it. I guess this is what objectivity really is, an agreed paradigm of what is real at the moment as it seems to any subjective self. This would be saying that the real real is based on a simulacra (of the real of which we are unaware, or of the real which does not actually exist but only appears to exist ie. the 'space' exists but any sense of an objective real doesn't) and the only thing that is real is in effect the simulation, or our awareness of the simulation. So what is real is not real and what is between the real and simulation is real, the space where our awareness of change occurs. In the true spirit of such logic contradiction abounds, combined with a shift sidewards!
But what if we were to imagine the opposite direction of the simulacra? What if we were moving away from the real real and toward the objective real? We could imagine that people in the past were living in a dream, or similarly, living in a world where they were less able to make sense of the world in the way that we can today. From this position, it would seem that we are becoming more aware of our world, more self aware and more progressive as we move forward through time. It would also indicate that we are moving closer to 'the truth'. Yet when we consider both an agreement and a critique of Baudrillard in turn in this way, we find that we logically flounder back and forth between the two and then begin to illogically question whether it can be both or neither of these scenarious at the same time. What is needed is a way of thinking which extends or opens a space for conversation.
One way to move beyond this dilemma would be to consider the value and perception we place on the real real and the objective real in turn. How we perceive and value each dictates whether we believe we are in fact progressing or regressing within each scenario, whether we are moving forward or backward. Can the objective real really be real if the person residing in its reality is unaware that it is a construct, albeit maybe a better/the only option to inhabit. But wouldn't that person have to be aware of this fact in order for that reality really to be real to them? Doesn't that person have to knowingly choose the objective real as the better option? If it is chosen for them then it wouldn't seem real, it would seem constructed, forged, and in this instance the real real would likely appear more real. This step cannot be the result of paternalisation, the actor must knowingly rationalise this process and make this decision. If this step is eliminated then the appearance of reality inverts or swaps. Knowing reality it seems, in this sense, comes from a process of doing or 'work'. We need to be doing or working in order to 'produce' our own reality. Yes, Marx wrote about 'work' and 'alienation' from our work, and Gramsci wrote about 'movement'. Yet there is also the option of the simulacra which in effect erases all else it would appear to those held inside, which as we know at once ends the conversation. But from the outside, the simulacra is logically a world where the real real has come to seem real and the objective real has been lost.
A simple example of this concept might be an updated blog, sometimes blogs are worked on and updated many times. Some blogs make all their updates transparent to the viewer via saved copies and links. Other blogs update and save over the top of previous versions rather than saving drafts before publishing. In this scenario, from the perspective of the viewer, they would have no means of knowing that previous copies have ever existed. This may not seem important, but if in between updates of a blog another website makes reference to a blog which has since been changed, then anomolies and incongruence will occur from the perspective of the viewer. As such, a thread of inquiry will be broken, the viewer will be unable to move forward or backward and the sequence of events will become unfixed. From the perspective of the web, the digital artefact will always exist with a record of time and date, but again, something cannot be accessed by a viewer if the simple fact that it exists is unknown.
This example shows how knowledge, particularly 'linking' knowledge, can become lost. Initially, within the simulaca, because the process would be cultural and gradual over time, anomalies would be apparent which would create confusion. People would go to webpages on the internet for example and encouter dead-ends and incongruence which would make no sense, that is, people would be aware that something was awry but wouldn't know any detail or understand why. Then over time people would just get used to the dead-ends and wouldn't question them, they would just start over and happily begin looking elsewhere. People wouldn't know that the dead-ends actually meant something, perhaps even more than the actual live trails themselves. With this idea in mind, Baudrillard gives the example of Disneyland as a distraction to the reality of simulacra in real life. Baudrillard seems to say that Disneyland is so exaggerated that it makes our unreal real lives seem more real by comparison. This shows how a reality of 'dead-ends' can become normalised and reality can become shifted or 'recentred'.
So if the process of 'work', that is the process of 'understanding' and of asking and knowing 'why' is removed (leisure society), then we would perceive the real real as having substance and the objective real as being like a cage. Kant writes about this in the Categorical Imperative with regards to respect and morality. But what if we were to stand back in this conversation and view history and social theory as having left a trace behind us in a line. What if we viewed the real as being in the the past and there having been a progressive movement over time away from that point through the stages of simulation to simulacra and/or vice versa, either direction? In this case, there would have to be a beginning and an end, a boundary, possibly the Enlightenment Project?
Obviously, things and life occurred before the inaugration of the Enlightenment but is this project an experiment of sorts, a controlled environment devised to enable measurement? Have we all been inside a glass jar inside a science laboratory for the last few hundred years being monitored? I wonder what changes have occurred under such observation? What has remained constant? Obviously the ability and the means for some of us to rationalise such a concept? And what of the 'Hawthorn Effect'? What has been the role of Sociology in all of this? We seem to feel trapped in a cage at one end of the spectrum and at one level, and yet trapped in a science experiment at the other extreme. The only way to be free to move forward it seems is to allow the objective real to be the real and to engage in the conversation, and in so doing we must each engage in the 'work' required to create our own reality. Is this the space between 'zombie' and 'complexity'? Are 'zombie' and 'complexity' two aspects of the same thing, or are they just the same thing??
We can see with this discussion that the real real and objective real are dependent upon one another in order to create a two dimensional space, or a space for reality or meaning or the ability to think and rationalise. Real real seems to run horizontal and objective real seems to run vertically. As objective real and simulacra run in either direction through time ie. real to simulacra and/or simulacra to real, in order to operate or move, the process needs to be supported by a layering of the real real and the objective real it would seem. Likewise, any layering or value placed on either versions of reality must be supported by some sort of movement in either direction. In this way, this two dimensional space is both created and destroyed within the very same instant, continually changing and modifying. Likewise, we can see the value in looking at dichotomies on an epistemological level and at dialectics on an ontological level. The first creates a closed environment and the second an open environment. When we try to use a dialectic at an epistemological level we encounter a dead-end in nihilism and relativism. Likewise, we must use the dialectic at the ontological level in order to reveal the potential that this world and this function (ie. the dialectic) has to offer.
As a final note, always it seems when we imagine for the Other, like when we imagine the Other being unaware in the simulacra, the conversation ceases. It is only when we imagine from our own perspective that the conversation moves. When we speak for Others its seems, we come to a standstill. It is only when we speak for ourselves and allow Others to speak for themselves that we can move.
This is all still sketchy, but I'm working on it!!
No comments:
Post a Comment