Ken Rufo says that Baudrillard was his first great theorist love, and it is easy to understand why. Baudrillard did everything a theorist ought to. He read other theorists, was informed by them, contradicted them, developed his own theories, and ignited controversy with his theories. He made people think, and isn't that the point of critical theory, to provide analysis that provokes thought and further analysis on the part of both the reader and the theorist? Rufo provides a history of Baudrillard's work, and in doing so outlines several points that (at least for this reader) spurred contemplation.
First, Rufo explains that Baudrillard began as a Marxist, and through his analysis turned Marxism inside out. Baudrillard began by incorporating sign-value into structural Marxism, and the focus on sign-value meant a focus on consumption rather than production. Rufo's example, Tommy Hillfiger's logo on polo shirts made in sweat shops, illustrates that commodities are completely removed from their production. What is important is that those clothes have the Tommy Hillfiger logo on them, and that people will pay a lot of money for that logo. By focusing on the sign-value of Tommy Hillfiger's logo and the revenue it generates, the production of the clothing is forgotten, it doesn't matter.
Baudrillard later, as Rufo explains, complicated this by positing sign-value as something that enabled the analysis of commodity in the first place. He argues that it is integral to the necessary pre-existing understanding of language for Marxist criticism. This enables the connection to Saussure and semiotics. To justify this relationship, Baudrillard (and Rufo) point to the sign, signifier, and signified, and Marxist commodity. The sign is comprised of the signifier and signified, and the commodity, and it's sign-value, is comprised of use-value and exchange-value. The relationship of the sign-value of the commodity to its use-value and exchange-value, is necessarily arbitrary, like the relationship of the sign to the signifier and signified.
This correlation, Rufo argues, allowed Baudrillard to arrive at the conclusion that systems of analysis are simply new systems of exchange-values. The consequence of this is that theories produce self-fulfilling prophecies. By developing terms to suit analysis, theorists cultivate concepts that justify their theories. This creates a sort of model for critical theory, which Rufo explains as a way of following the analytical formula and utilizing terms and concepts specifically designed to prove the theory in order to validate it. Baudrillard's criticism of other theorists, like Lacan and Foucault, relates to his earliest works on simulation. This model for critical theory enables the construction of artificial meanings that appear to be "real" meanings. In doing so, the theories pretend to find insight, when they actually simulate insight by creating the means with which they find it. Baudrillard's criticism of Psychoanalysis is that it allegedly claims to have discovered the unconscious, but it actually constructs and produces it as a tool in support of Psychoanalysis. Essentially, theory is constantly producing systems that claim to discover when they actually produce. What is important in theory is the insights it is thought to provide, not the process by which they are developed or constructed.
This simulation of meanings in theory is related to Baudrillard's work with simulation and media, and his argument that the media produces an artificial reality as theory creates artificial meanings. The media, especially television according to Baudrillard, creates and copies things which the general population comes to accept as real. Baudrillard outlines the four orders of simulation: the first, in which simulation stands in for reality, the second, in which simulation hides the lack of reality, the third, in which simulation produces its own reality, and the fourth, in which simulation is so pervasive that it is everywhere, encompassing everything and nothing all at once. He revised the third order before introducing the fourth, and it can be understood as the simulacrul stage in which the copy no longer has an original.
In calling the third order of simulation as the simulacral stage, Baudrillard is borrowing the term simulacrum from Plato, effectively reappropriating the term to suit his needs. This perhaps seems contradictory to Baudrillard's criticism of theory itself, as he is producing concepts and terms to validate his own theory. But isn't this contradiction a larger problem in theory? Or is it a point of theory? Each branch of theory has its own contradictions and conflicts, which the subsequent reactionary theories seek to challenge and further complicate. Structuralism argues that language is a stable system of differences, with binary divisions and opposites that never confront one another. Post Structuralism recognizes language as unstable, and argues that the binaries are in constant conflict. New theories arise in opposition to old theories, and are constantly replacing one another as the dominant theory. Baudrillard likely recognized his own contradictions (at least Ken Rufo does), and these contradictions lay the groundwork for reactionary theory.
In his later work, Baudrillard addresses the Impossible Exchange Barrier, which suggests that the world is resistant to attempts of theorizing it. Theories reach a certain point at which they can no longer address the entirety of their opposition without contradiction. In light of his theories of simulation and simulacrum, this may be a good thing according to Rufo, in that this obstacle might thwart the imposition of value-meanings.
Rufo closes his crash course on Baudrillard with the idea that Baudrillard was not trying to rescue the real, but rather rescue illusion, which cannot happen in a world in which everything is "realized." A world where there is no reality other than a simulation that has created its own meaning is precisely where we are today. If everything is a simulation to the point where it becomes reality, then there is no possibility of mystery or illusion, because the simulation and reality are part of a grand illusion, which is a theoretical quarrel. Baudrillard's work, according to Rufo, attempts to reproduce illusion and mystery, and to avoid the traps that plague critical theory.
Right on, Baudrillard.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
"There is no language in a heap of stones."
For our response, we read an interview of Jack Kerouac conducted by Ted Berrigan. It can be found here: http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4260/the-art-of-fiction-no-41-jack-kerouac
It’s difficult to conceive of Jack Kerouac, the author, without considering Jack Kerouac, the individual. So influential were his own experiences in his work that Kerouac lamented the interview process, asking why he must waste his breath answering hundreds of questions when he has spent his entire career “interviewing myself in my novels.” However, Kerouac is often viewed not as an individual writer, but as the representative, or spokesperson, for a group he named: the Beat Generation. Kerouac coined this phrase in 1948 in a conversation with his close friend and fellow Beat writer, John Clellon Holmes. The group also included influential writers Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, William S. Burroughs, and Gregory Curso. Though each of these men made significant contributions to American literature, they are often considered as a unit, rather than autonomously. In this way, the Beat Generation, particularly Jack Kerouac, represents a conflation of the individual writer and the author. Kerouac, as his interview with Ted Berrigan indicates, refuses to play the role of a writer who is somehow separate or removed from his work, instead attempting to get closer to actual lived experience and forms of thought through his prose.
The connection between Kerouac’s “spontaneous style” of prose and his erratic manner erratic manner of speaking cannot be ignored in his interview with Ted Berrigan. Kerouac resists the formal method of interview at all levels: he frequently interrupts the interview, suspends conversation to recite poetry for long portions of the tape, and speaks on subjects that have little or no connection to the question being asked of him. While some of these factors may be due to the fact that all participants in this interview are in various states of drunkenness and have consumed at least three kinds of pills during the course of the interview, it is clear by Kerouac’s responses that he is not interested in maintaining any kind of false pretense during the interview process. Kerouac’s frequent interruptions and tangents call attention to the Beat philosophy to which he adheres: the idea that one should attempt to get as close as possible to actual lived experience and though through speech and writing. Kerouac often corrects Berrigan, making additions or amendments to his questions and comments. This self-conscious need to correct Berrigan’s speech calls attention to the superficiality of the interview process and the inadequacy of language.
Despite the problems of language, which are likely compounded by the mixture of prescription drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties, readers can gain some insight regarding Kerouac’s take on his generation and his writing. The circumstances surrounding this interview and the atmosphere in which it takes place are interesting in and of themselves. First, Berrigan’s introduction notes that the Kerouac’s do not have a telephone, so the interviewing crew simply shows up on Kerouac’s doorstep one day when they feel it’s time to talk. Kerouac’s wife, Stella, answers the door and initially refuses to let the interviewers in, thinking they are simply another hoard of people looking for the author of On the Road. Berrigan brings two friends with him to the interview, poets Aram Saroyan and Duncan McNaughton. Thus, rather than a standard two-person, question-and-answer style interview, readers get a myriad of six different voices all conversing, drinking, and reciting poetry. This atypical style of interviewing speaks to both the perception of Kerouac as a writer and the connection between the author and the man. In fact, the confusion and spontaneity of Berrigan and Kerouac’s initial meeting calls to mind several scenes in on the Road, particularly the moment when Sal shows up with Dean and a hoard of friends at his Aunt’s: all are reluctantly ushered in, fed, and entertained, but always with the understanding that their welcome is conditional, and they may only stay so long.
In addition, the long and abstract responses Kerouac gives to Berrigan’s questions draw a parallel between the style of his prose and his manner of speaking. Throughout the interview process, Kerouac seems suspicious of Berrigan, refusing to be subjected to the authority of the interviewer over the interviewee. As mentioned before, Kerouac often answers circuitously, or turns the question on Berrigan, exploring the meaning and reasons behind asking such a thing, rather than answering directly. The vast majority of the interview focuses on the connection between Kerouac’s life and his work, seemingly drawing the conclusion the Beat literature is more a group effort, rather than a collection of works promulgated by individuals. For example, Berrigan discusses Kerouac’s role in the production of William S. Burrough’s Naked Lunch and spend a lot of time discussing Ginsberg’s influence in Kerouac’s work. In this way, the interviewer seems to suggest that there is no difference between the characters and style in Beat literature and the lives of the men who were considered Beat. This assumption is often made, so much so that scholars often hyphenate names, referring to Neal Cassidy as Moriarty-Cassidy. It would be interesting (though inconsequential) to consider how this assumption informed both Kerouac’s writing of these characters, and also, given the level of interaction these writer had with each other, how Kerouac’s interpretation of these men affected their actual relationships and actions.
Kerouac pays particular attention to the idea of what it means to be a great writer and how this status has both informed as affected his career as a writer. In the end, he says that “Notoriety and public confession in the literary form is a frazzler of the heart you were born with, believe me,” which is to suggest that publication, not writing, is what makes an author, and in the end, perverts the writer. Towards the end of the interview, Kerouac stops Berrigan, saying there is something important he needs to say before the tape ends. This vital piece Kerouac must includes a meditation on his name. He explains how etymology of his name means many different things, but that ultimately the name Kerouac means “There is no language in a heap of stones."
Whether Kerouac and the Beat writers were actually successful in their attempts to convey something authentic about experience and thought is open to interpretation. What the name or the man Kerouac actually represents is beyond the scope of this project. However, it is clear from his interview with Berrigan that Kerouac, at least the man, believed in the power of language to immortalized his heroes and to question our assumptions. In this way, Kerouac has left at some bit of himself immortalized in his prose, and while the influence of his writing may be something entirely separate from the man who wrote it, Kerouac can at least be credited with naming a discourse, if not fathering one.
It’s difficult to conceive of Jack Kerouac, the author, without considering Jack Kerouac, the individual. So influential were his own experiences in his work that Kerouac lamented the interview process, asking why he must waste his breath answering hundreds of questions when he has spent his entire career “interviewing myself in my novels.” However, Kerouac is often viewed not as an individual writer, but as the representative, or spokesperson, for a group he named: the Beat Generation. Kerouac coined this phrase in 1948 in a conversation with his close friend and fellow Beat writer, John Clellon Holmes. The group also included influential writers Allen Ginsberg, Gary Snyder, William S. Burroughs, and Gregory Curso. Though each of these men made significant contributions to American literature, they are often considered as a unit, rather than autonomously. In this way, the Beat Generation, particularly Jack Kerouac, represents a conflation of the individual writer and the author. Kerouac, as his interview with Ted Berrigan indicates, refuses to play the role of a writer who is somehow separate or removed from his work, instead attempting to get closer to actual lived experience and forms of thought through his prose.
The connection between Kerouac’s “spontaneous style” of prose and his erratic manner erratic manner of speaking cannot be ignored in his interview with Ted Berrigan. Kerouac resists the formal method of interview at all levels: he frequently interrupts the interview, suspends conversation to recite poetry for long portions of the tape, and speaks on subjects that have little or no connection to the question being asked of him. While some of these factors may be due to the fact that all participants in this interview are in various states of drunkenness and have consumed at least three kinds of pills during the course of the interview, it is clear by Kerouac’s responses that he is not interested in maintaining any kind of false pretense during the interview process. Kerouac’s frequent interruptions and tangents call attention to the Beat philosophy to which he adheres: the idea that one should attempt to get as close as possible to actual lived experience and though through speech and writing. Kerouac often corrects Berrigan, making additions or amendments to his questions and comments. This self-conscious need to correct Berrigan’s speech calls attention to the superficiality of the interview process and the inadequacy of language.
Despite the problems of language, which are likely compounded by the mixture of prescription drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties, readers can gain some insight regarding Kerouac’s take on his generation and his writing. The circumstances surrounding this interview and the atmosphere in which it takes place are interesting in and of themselves. First, Berrigan’s introduction notes that the Kerouac’s do not have a telephone, so the interviewing crew simply shows up on Kerouac’s doorstep one day when they feel it’s time to talk. Kerouac’s wife, Stella, answers the door and initially refuses to let the interviewers in, thinking they are simply another hoard of people looking for the author of On the Road. Berrigan brings two friends with him to the interview, poets Aram Saroyan and Duncan McNaughton. Thus, rather than a standard two-person, question-and-answer style interview, readers get a myriad of six different voices all conversing, drinking, and reciting poetry. This atypical style of interviewing speaks to both the perception of Kerouac as a writer and the connection between the author and the man. In fact, the confusion and spontaneity of Berrigan and Kerouac’s initial meeting calls to mind several scenes in on the Road, particularly the moment when Sal shows up with Dean and a hoard of friends at his Aunt’s: all are reluctantly ushered in, fed, and entertained, but always with the understanding that their welcome is conditional, and they may only stay so long.
In addition, the long and abstract responses Kerouac gives to Berrigan’s questions draw a parallel between the style of his prose and his manner of speaking. Throughout the interview process, Kerouac seems suspicious of Berrigan, refusing to be subjected to the authority of the interviewer over the interviewee. As mentioned before, Kerouac often answers circuitously, or turns the question on Berrigan, exploring the meaning and reasons behind asking such a thing, rather than answering directly. The vast majority of the interview focuses on the connection between Kerouac’s life and his work, seemingly drawing the conclusion the Beat literature is more a group effort, rather than a collection of works promulgated by individuals. For example, Berrigan discusses Kerouac’s role in the production of William S. Burrough’s Naked Lunch and spend a lot of time discussing Ginsberg’s influence in Kerouac’s work. In this way, the interviewer seems to suggest that there is no difference between the characters and style in Beat literature and the lives of the men who were considered Beat. This assumption is often made, so much so that scholars often hyphenate names, referring to Neal Cassidy as Moriarty-Cassidy. It would be interesting (though inconsequential) to consider how this assumption informed both Kerouac’s writing of these characters, and also, given the level of interaction these writer had with each other, how Kerouac’s interpretation of these men affected their actual relationships and actions.
Kerouac pays particular attention to the idea of what it means to be a great writer and how this status has both informed as affected his career as a writer. In the end, he says that “Notoriety and public confession in the literary form is a frazzler of the heart you were born with, believe me,” which is to suggest that publication, not writing, is what makes an author, and in the end, perverts the writer. Towards the end of the interview, Kerouac stops Berrigan, saying there is something important he needs to say before the tape ends. This vital piece Kerouac must includes a meditation on his name. He explains how etymology of his name means many different things, but that ultimately the name Kerouac means “There is no language in a heap of stones."
Whether Kerouac and the Beat writers were actually successful in their attempts to convey something authentic about experience and thought is open to interpretation. What the name or the man Kerouac actually represents is beyond the scope of this project. However, it is clear from his interview with Berrigan that Kerouac, at least the man, believed in the power of language to immortalized his heroes and to question our assumptions. In this way, Kerouac has left at some bit of himself immortalized in his prose, and while the influence of his writing may be something entirely separate from the man who wrote it, Kerouac can at least be credited with naming a discourse, if not fathering one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)