Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:26:56 -0800
From: Soren Pedersen <speder-AT-post2.tele.dk>
Subject: Re: A possible "sellout"?


> >Hyperreality has reached such a mature stage that reality has turned
> >metaphysical.
> >Reality is something which occasionally pops up from beyond and disrupts
> >the smooth
> >execution of hyperreality's code. My favorite example is the presidential
> >campaign in
> >95/96, where Bob Dole crashed through a fence that served merely a visual
> >(simulatory)
> >purpose, not the functional purpose as Dole obviously thought, when he
> >leaned against
> >it. There it was - Reality violently disrupting hyperreality. It was so
> >embarrasing, but
> >it was also so so real and human. Of course, it took only a few seconds to
> >fix the bug
> >and restore order to hyperreality. My question is: How on earth do we
> >enact the virtues
> >of the "virus, lapse, germ, catastrophe" in a political strategy in order
> >to disrupt
> >hyperreality? It seems impossible to me, because reality is not something
> >which can be
> >accessed consciously (unless you're into secret strategies such as
> >terrorism and
> >hacking). It is more of the order of the Lacanian Real, i.e. something
> >which dislocates
> >the semiological chain because it happens in a totally unexspected way.
> >Reality is
> >something which happens. It is not something you can make happen. If you
> >follow the
> >latter strategy (make it happen), you will probably end up in an obscure
> >"religious"
> >movement celebrating reality. A religion of reality - that would be the
> >ultimate victory
> >of hyperreality (perhaps such religions already exist in US, or?).
> 
> Is a fence something to be leaned on? Or is a fence primarily a symbol. I
> think this hits the essence of what Baudrillard is telling us. The fence is
> part of the Code. The Code broke down but not because reality re-asserted
> itself. It is an instance of what Baudrillard would call Objective Revenge.
> The object oustripping our containment of it within the Code. You are the
> one who, post facto, ascribe some other "reality" to the fake fence. You
> put in place some other codification to replace the one that has broken
> down. It happens so quickly and unconsciously and we all participate. I
> don't think you will find Baudrillard discussing the real "real" vs the
> fake "real".

It could be interesting to discuss the metaphysics of a fence, but I'm sure an 
Australian farmer struggling to keep rabbits from his fields would be better equipped 
for such a discussion that we are. But you might be right - somewhere along the way, the 
true fence disappeared. It became an object of desire and subsequently loaded with 
meaning to the point where its original purpose vanished into thin air. THEN the fence 
decided to strike back. You claim that this instance of objective revenge has nothing to 
do with reality re-asserting itself. I'm not so sure about that. It is not reality per 
se, but it is certainly evidence of reality. It is evidence that a crime took place - 
Reality was stolen from us. Whether it was killed or is still alive somewhere is the big 
question (and who is the perpetrator?).

When Baudrillard discusses Disneyland vs. America, he does in fact distinguish between a 
real "real" and a fake "real":

"Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America 
that is Disneyland." (Sim & Sim, p. 12).

America is Disneyland and Disneyland is America. This claim is not entirely consistent 
with his approach. He should have said that Disneyland is America and America is absent, 
but I suppose he couldn't resist the (admittedly strong) temptation of stepping inside 
the order of representation and claim that America is Disneyland.


> What do I get out of Baudrillard? I get a sensitization and a
> destabilization that I think is necessary to think critically. He points to
> things (or the absence of things) that I may not have noticed on my own. He
> exposes the deepest of assumptions in their operationalized environments.
> In short, there are few thinkers today who see as deeply as Baudrillard
> does the inner mechanics of our collective consciousness. There are few
> thinkers who have attempted to think so thoroughly outside that
> consciousness as well.

I'm in complete agreement with you, but I also think that life would have been much 
easier had I never read him in the first place. It would be nice to be able to surf 
smoothly along the shallow surface of hyperreality without the constant sense of 
alienation.