File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1995/baudrillard.09-95, message 28


Date: Sat, 30 Sep 1995 16:20:29 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: dab->Disney/Capital Corp.




On Fri, 29 Sep 1995 allanl-AT-genie.geis.com wrote, in reply to Douglas: 

> i think you are correct in your assumption that rules are implied, i mean,
> despite what baudrillard may claim, we are living in a post-modenr society, and
> there is no overarching ideal controlling our societies.  the idea is that
> capitalism superimposes itself on us, especailly with the advent of
> globalization.  globalism forces the ideas of the ocmpany on the people,
> wihtout their say, or necessarily their agreement.  in much the way that, for
> marx, calvinism prepared people for capitalism, television(and
> disneyland/world) prepares us for this new breed of capitalism.  by making us
> passive, and discouraging critical analyses of situations.

Allan,

Rather than ripping apart anything, I'm instead gonig to ask you a 
question or two, and make a comment perhaps. First, from the quote above, 
I'm wondering how you're understanding 'globalism'--here's why I ask. It 
seems to me (and I'm open to argument here) that Jameson, and many 
others, by suggesting late-stage cap, or fast cap (agger), or whatever, 
or attempting to do what B talks about on p. 22:

   The only weapon of power, its only strategy against this defection, is 
to reinject the real and the referential everywhere, to persuade us of 
the reality of the social, of the gravity of the economy and the 
finalities of production. (22a)

That is, they are attempting to reassert some sort of control over 
capital and pomo, and I wonder if you're doing the same thing (or intend 
to) with a term like globalism, especially since it seems to occupy a 
subject position (it forces the ideas on us). Am I treating you fairly 
here? If so, how do you deal with the apparent friction between B and 
that position?

Number two is a chicken-egg thing--in the final chapter (On Nihilism) B 
says that "The dialectical stage, the critical stage is empty. There is 
no more stage" (161).  Is it tv that has caused this (your implication), 
or is tv simply an example of critique's having devoured itself, and 
fallen into infinite regress? I'm guessing that B would go with the 
latter, although not perhaps as I've constructed it.

Well, that's it for right now. 

Collin Brooke
cgb1046-AT-utarlg.uta.edu

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005