What Baudrillard Has Taught Me
Industry of Animal Life
Baudrillard raises some really good arguments in this chapter, and while I don't agree with all of them, it gave me something to thing about and debate.
I believe what Baudrillard was referring to, only in a much more wordy manner, was a term called Speciesism: Are humans a superior species? I can't help but attribute my beliefs to a religious reasoning, in that God had created Man just under that status of Angel, and therefore above animal. And I don't think it can be argued that humans are superior to animals in intellect, as we can problem solve and critically think. Only I truly believe that the animals have something of which we should aspire to, that they in fact are of a higher "being" than man. Their system of life is better established, controlled, and more effective than anything humans could propetuate.
What separates us from animals, in Baudrillard's words is Reason. Many of us believe this (including me). But he writes that "our destiny has never been separated from theirs, and this is the sort of bitter revenge on Human Reason, which has become used to upholding the absolute privilege of the Human over the Bestial." So in other words, because we feel that animals have no reason, it is acceptable to treat them as a commodity. Only Baudrillard is saying this is not true, that our destiny is the same, that their is no distinction between the reason of a man and the reason of beast. Over time "we have made of them a racially inferior world.
Man has reduced animal to an object of complete bestiality, one far separated from even the bestiality of man. Because they cannot speak they cannot objectify, and so they give in--a self-annihilation. And such a thing as small and insignificant in human evolution as language has become the end-all in determination of moral and ethical practices. Baudrillard says that in "a universe of increasing speech, of the constraint to confess and to speak, only they remain mute, and for this reason they seem to retreat far from us." Animal is no longer an co-inhabitant of the planet, no longer a LIFE, but a product, a tool of proliferation.
I think Baudrillard included this chapter because it directs its argument at the very core of mankind, at the center of our discourses. It's a chapter about territories and territory infringement, of the domination of ones space and the psychological destablization caused by a superiority complex.
I know from a religious standpoint many people misinterpret the verse in the Bible that says God gave man dominion over the animals. This is often used as validation for their mistreatment and abuse. I find it ironic that so many Christians use this as an excuse to ignore injustices done to animals and as a reason for their meat-based diet and yet very few of them take into account the scripture that states we (meaning humans) are to be stewards of creation. Let's say Van Gogh was still alive, and he had just completed a painting he called Starry Night, and he gave you this painting and said 'please take care of this painting, I created it therefore I care very deeply for it; I trust you enough to give you complete control over it". Would you leave the painting out in the rain? Or subject it to extreme heat? would you tear a hole in it or paint over it? NO! You would realize its worth and its place and respect its territory.
The same can be applied to animals. They have something Man has lost. Perhaps it is contentment, or purpose. Perhaps animals are smarter than humans. Take into account that they live a sustainable life, that their established system of existence is much more effective and lasting. If the fundamental theory of evolution--only the strong survive--is true, I wonder how Man has made it this far.
Bullet to Binary
The great Howard Zinn can be accredited for the phrase, "you can't stay neutral on a moving train". It's an amazing truth, especially in a world of so many binaries. I think that polarity exists because that's where meaning is found. If there isn't something you believe in strongly enough to advocate for, it's harder to find a purpose or meaning to existence. I guess in choosing sides people have found worth...an identity. My friend just recently did a documentary in which he interviewed college students asking them "how do you identify yourself?" The most popular reply was "a college student". But one only stays in college for a short period of a lifetime, and once they exit they must redefine themselves. Therefore, are our identities only constructed by the social institutions? Are, then, our identities a product of our atmosphere? I think a lot of it has to do with validation. Humans are always searching for validation, for reassurance in their existence. If you can identify yourself with either side of a binary, you are validated by a collective. Think of the phrase "I am..." and all the many ways in which you can complete that sentence. Most of what is said could have a binary, and somewhere in the world someone is that binary.
Simulacra
A good quote from Baudrillard: " It [a simulacra] is no longer a question of simulation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real...". What is a blind person's perception of beauty, since beauty is a term established by the seeing, for the seeing. Of course, we could argue over what beauty is, but nevertheless a seeing person's view of beauty would vary greatly from that of a blind person's. So in relation to a simulacra, beauty either exists or it does not. And have we substituted the reality of "beauty" with a false pretext of the idea only to believe that this idea, this concept of beauty, is reality. And then, does it therefore not exist for the blind, thus making it a simulacra? I guess what i'm saying is, can a strong belief in something make it true, whether in actuality it is real or not? And if there are consequences that follow such manifestations, how can we say it is not real?
Simulacra: it's like having a mask without a face to wear it, or that the mask is the face itself.
Be Our Guest
Restaraunts provide an otherwise disassociated, alienated culture with a sense of community. It has always been the desire for people to interact with one another over food; it's the basis on which many American events revolve (tailgating, picnicing, holidays, dining out, etc.) In many cultures outside of the United States, food is the most precious good that one can possess, and so the act of sharing one's food becomes more than just a social act; it becomes a sanctity between the two parties, a sense of comraderie and unity. Going to a restaraunt is, whether realized or not, a need for community among fellow humans. There is something very organic about sitting down among strangers, and enjoying a good meal; something that we feel has been lost, a sense of identity and one's place within a structed society. We strive to get back a sense of unity and connectedness that has been replaced with microwaved foods enjoyed in the solitude of one's living room; or a quick, impersonal meal-to-go eaten within the safety of automobile boundaries.
Baudrillard raises some really good arguments in this chapter, and while I don't agree with all of them, it gave me something to thing about and debate.
I believe what Baudrillard was referring to, only in a much more wordy manner, was a term called Speciesism: Are humans a superior species? I can't help but attribute my beliefs to a religious reasoning, in that God had created Man just under that status of Angel, and therefore above animal. And I don't think it can be argued that humans are superior to animals in intellect, as we can problem solve and critically think. Only I truly believe that the animals have something of which we should aspire to, that they in fact are of a higher "being" than man. Their system of life is better established, controlled, and more effective than anything humans could propetuate.
What separates us from animals, in Baudrillard's words is Reason. Many of us believe this (including me). But he writes that "our destiny has never been separated from theirs, and this is the sort of bitter revenge on Human Reason, which has become used to upholding the absolute privilege of the Human over the Bestial." So in other words, because we feel that animals have no reason, it is acceptable to treat them as a commodity. Only Baudrillard is saying this is not true, that our destiny is the same, that their is no distinction between the reason of a man and the reason of beast. Over time "we have made of them a racially inferior world.
Man has reduced animal to an object of complete bestiality, one far separated from even the bestiality of man. Because they cannot speak they cannot objectify, and so they give in--a self-annihilation. And such a thing as small and insignificant in human evolution as language has become the end-all in determination of moral and ethical practices. Baudrillard says that in "a universe of increasing speech, of the constraint to confess and to speak, only they remain mute, and for this reason they seem to retreat far from us." Animal is no longer an co-inhabitant of the planet, no longer a LIFE, but a product, a tool of proliferation.
I think Baudrillard included this chapter because it directs its argument at the very core of mankind, at the center of our discourses. It's a chapter about territories and territory infringement, of the domination of ones space and the psychological destablization caused by a superiority complex.
I know from a religious standpoint many people misinterpret the verse in the Bible that says God gave man dominion over the animals. This is often used as validation for their mistreatment and abuse. I find it ironic that so many Christians use this as an excuse to ignore injustices done to animals and as a reason for their meat-based diet and yet very few of them take into account the scripture that states we (meaning humans) are to be stewards of creation. Let's say Van Gogh was still alive, and he had just completed a painting he called Starry Night, and he gave you this painting and said 'please take care of this painting, I created it therefore I care very deeply for it; I trust you enough to give you complete control over it". Would you leave the painting out in the rain? Or subject it to extreme heat? would you tear a hole in it or paint over it? NO! You would realize its worth and its place and respect its territory.
The same can be applied to animals. They have something Man has lost. Perhaps it is contentment, or purpose. Perhaps animals are smarter than humans. Take into account that they live a sustainable life, that their established system of existence is much more effective and lasting. If the fundamental theory of evolution--only the strong survive--is true, I wonder how Man has made it this far.
Bullet to Binary
The great Howard Zinn can be accredited for the phrase, "you can't stay neutral on a moving train". It's an amazing truth, especially in a world of so many binaries. I think that polarity exists because that's where meaning is found. If there isn't something you believe in strongly enough to advocate for, it's harder to find a purpose or meaning to existence. I guess in choosing sides people have found worth...an identity. My friend just recently did a documentary in which he interviewed college students asking them "how do you identify yourself?" The most popular reply was "a college student". But one only stays in college for a short period of a lifetime, and once they exit they must redefine themselves. Therefore, are our identities only constructed by the social institutions? Are, then, our identities a product of our atmosphere? I think a lot of it has to do with validation. Humans are always searching for validation, for reassurance in their existence. If you can identify yourself with either side of a binary, you are validated by a collective. Think of the phrase "I am..." and all the many ways in which you can complete that sentence. Most of what is said could have a binary, and somewhere in the world someone is that binary.
Simulacra
A good quote from Baudrillard: " It [a simulacra] is no longer a question of simulation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real...". What is a blind person's perception of beauty, since beauty is a term established by the seeing, for the seeing. Of course, we could argue over what beauty is, but nevertheless a seeing person's view of beauty would vary greatly from that of a blind person's. So in relation to a simulacra, beauty either exists or it does not. And have we substituted the reality of "beauty" with a false pretext of the idea only to believe that this idea, this concept of beauty, is reality. And then, does it therefore not exist for the blind, thus making it a simulacra? I guess what i'm saying is, can a strong belief in something make it true, whether in actuality it is real or not? And if there are consequences that follow such manifestations, how can we say it is not real?
Simulacra: it's like having a mask without a face to wear it, or that the mask is the face itself.
Be Our Guest
Restaraunts provide an otherwise disassociated, alienated culture with a sense of community. It has always been the desire for people to interact with one another over food; it's the basis on which many American events revolve (tailgating, picnicing, holidays, dining out, etc.) In many cultures outside of the United States, food is the most precious good that one can possess, and so the act of sharing one's food becomes more than just a social act; it becomes a sanctity between the two parties, a sense of comraderie and unity. Going to a restaraunt is, whether realized or not, a need for community among fellow humans. There is something very organic about sitting down among strangers, and enjoying a good meal; something that we feel has been lost, a sense of identity and one's place within a structed society. We strive to get back a sense of unity and connectedness that has been replaced with microwaved foods enjoyed in the solitude of one's living room; or a quick, impersonal meal-to-go eaten within the safety of automobile boundaries.
(Comment this)
