Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
net/publication/259000115
CITATION READS
1 777
1 author:
Martin G. Weiss
Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt
54 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
DNA and Immigration: Social, political and ethical implications of DNA analysis for family reunification (IMMIGENE) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Martin G. Weiss on 27 May 2014.
In the year 2000, just after the new Austrian coalition government that
assumed power, the annual Vienna Opera Ball took place as usual. Like the
“Prima della Scala” of Milan, this glamorous event, where the wealthiest of the
announced their intention to attend, the protests outside the Vienna State
Opera House were especially large. While the demonstrators chanted “Never
windows slowly drove up the main ramp. Upon reaching the opera’s main
entrance, the car stopped and – into a fury of flash photography – out stepped
Adolf Hitler in full uniform and flashing a Roman salute. With the words
“We’re here again!” he strode through the reception hall where a stunned
usher took his ticket just before he was arrested and led away by two police
officers. A few days later, Hubsi Kramar, as the subversive actor is known,
although in his interrogation he had stressed that his appearance at the Opera
Ball had been a theater piece and he had only been portraying the Nazi
dictator. Yet: Power knows no simulation (For an account of the whole affair,
see: Falter. Stadtzeitung Wien [Vienna city weekly newspaper] November 10,
2000: 13 ff.
represents the reality pole, would react to a simulated hold-up robbery. Along
with the fact that the execution of a pure simulation is impossible, Baudrillard
points out that “power, i.e. the established order, is connected to the reality
principle and does not allow for such a thing as simulation”. What “power”
both, the terms power and reality can be equated. But power and reality are
therefore also at each other’s mercy, as power, in order to preserve itself, can
accept nothing other than reality. Power, as presence, remains bound to the
real, as any questioning of reality would undermine power itself. This is why
presence would cause the whole system to collapse. Yet this fact also gives
scheme of power, power must grasp them as reality in order to control them.
Albeit hyperreality is always the first, and the differentiation between reality
form a unity in the hyperreality that surrounds us, are reality or the real on the
one hand, and simulation or the simulacrum on the other. The unity of both,
equation of reality with the established order and with power. But how does
only one active pole, the transmitter, while the receiver is damned to passivity.
“The media are that which forever ban the answer, that which render
impossible every process of exchange […] Here lies their actual abstractness.
founded” (Ibid.).
theory suggests, but a concrete exchange, i.e. in the living event of “speech
Baudrillard calls it, have to do with power? To shed light on this question,
explains:
opposes the subject as given reality. Power is the thing, the an such or the
“thing as such,” that resists the will of the subject. Insofar as the media
“represent” this reality, they partake in its power. The medial image is just as
unquestionable as the real onto on and its power lies in this unquestionability.
Therefore, for Baudrillard, reality and mass media both stand on the side of
reality, and are hence no opposites, but merely two occurrences of the reality
pointed out. What Baudrillard calls reality or power is in fact the “mere
reality and the “obscene”: “[O]bscenity, […] the naked truth, […] the insane
pretension of all things to express their truth” (1988:34). Here the obscene is
the pure presence of the real. That Baudrillard equates reality, understood as
mere presence, with the information of the media, i.e. with …speech without
communication (Ibid.:21-22).
Baudrillard’s thesis can be further elucidated when contrasted with the media
with power, or with violence, and this in turn with the kind of speech that
ultimate “resort, which one does not transcend and which silences all
not locate violence in the dominance of the general over the particular, as
where there are no (more) facts, but only interpretations” (Ibid.:34). Yet the
Vattimo arrives at his surprising assessment of the mass media in his attempt
“Weltbilder” (images of the world), the epoch in which the world became an
image (of the subject) in the name of boundless domination (of nature). Here,
the Turin philosopher shifts the common reading of this passage to its
even the supposed certainty of reality: “As a matter of fact, the ever-
the real world becomes a fable. If, in our late-modern times, we still possess
How and where should we find access to such a reality ‘in-itself.’ Reality to us
When considering the current diversity of the media, it becomes clear that we
Indeed, Vattimo even goes so far as to suppose that the “twist” (Verwindung)
possible under the new conditions of existence, which are determined by the
For Vattimo, the pluralization of the media landscape constitutes not only the
creates plurality.
chastising of the Frankfurt School. Where Adorno had interpreted the mass
fringe group now has the means to express itself on an equal footing: “This
that Adorno warned about, but believes that the situation of today is
“When Adorno spoke of the mass media, he had the Nazi propaganda of Dr.
Goebbels in the back of his mind – the voice of the ‘big brother’ who could
hypnotic manner. But the media world, as it gradually crystallized out of the
1998:16).
from transmitter to receiver, which excluded all true communication, i.e. living
dialog, we must now, after the emergence of the internet at the latest, agree
with Vattimo that medial events are today open to more “participants” than
ever before:
is highly visible evidence that there is no as such existent “reality,” but that
evidence that the model of an objective reality that would only need to be
represented to derive its truth does not hold up; if reality in-itself were
interpretations, of it, but only one: “What sense would the existence of
several radio and television stations have in a world in which the exact
the map and the respective area were the norm?” (Vattimo, 1989:14). In the
duplication of reality in the media it becomes apparent that the telos of the
Nietzsche did indeed show that the idea of a reality that arranges
itself on a foundation according to rational criteria (the idea that
metaphysics always had of the world) is only a ‘disquieting’ myth of
a still primitive and barbaric humanity: metaphysics is a still violent
way to react to a dangerous and violent situation; it in fact attempts
to take possession of reality by means of a ‘surprise attack,’
availing (or believing to avail) itself of the main principle on which
everything depends and therefore succumbs to the illusion of
possessing domination over events. Along these lines Heidegger
showed that conceiving Being as foundation and reality as a
rational system of cause and effect was only one method to extend
the model of ‘scientific’ objectivity – of the mentality that, in order
to rigorously dominate and organize all things as well as finally
humans themselves, reduces their inwardness and their historicity
to the level of purely measurable, manipulable, substitutable
factors – to Being as a whole” (Ibid.:15).
With the omnipresence of the media this concept is finally demonstrated to be
untenable. In the world of mass media it becomes apparent that the object
the “one reality” appears as given only in its countless medial “world
necessary structure of the real and adapting oneself to it” (Ibid.). Rather, the
“positive nihilism”:
Jean Baudrillard, on the other hand, sees in the media merely the duplication
of violent reality and can therefore not view them as means toward
emancipation. Why this is so will be discussed presently.
in its double nature (reality and information). But what does Baudrillard mean
by simulation, the other pole of indifferent unity. If the media are located on
The first three phases are still closely associated with representation, as they
still somehow maintain a separation of sign and signified, i.e. a sign relation.
as such, even one in itself, but is rather the presence of that which is itself
appearing, which can only be present in this symbol, but as such is still
second order image, Baudrillard names the curse, which doesn’t depict a
deeper reality, but, in a certain respect, changes it, and hence continues to
refer to it as its object. An image of the third order would be magic, which
would seek to belie the absence of a deeper reality by presenting itself as the
appearance of something, although there is nothing behind it. “In the fourth, it
phase, a comparison with Nietzsche’s “How the Real World Finally Became a
2. The real world – unattainable for now, but promised for the sage,
the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious,
incomprehensible – it becomes a woman, it becomes Christian.)
6. The real world – we have abolished it. What world has remained?
The apparent one perhaps? But no! with the real world we have
also abolished the apparent one! (Noon; moment of the briefest
shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT
ZARATHUSTRA.)” (Nietzsche, 1988:80).
Plato’s doctrine of two worlds, according to which the world on this size only
partakes of the ontos on of the ideas. The world of appearance that Plato
positive nihilism, which has recognized that only the world of appearances
exists and has learned to love it as itself, without always leering at the real
appearance and therefore no longer refers to any real world or deeper reality.
In simulation, the real world and the world of appearances fall into one.
Simulation refers to nothing except itself; that which remains, is the world of
appearances. But with the abolishment of the real world we have also
i.e. the substrate-less life world. That which remains, is the simulation without
Nietzsche’s world. Hyperreality is that which remains when one abolishes the
real world and the world of appearances. Wolfgang Welsch remarks on this
thesis in his standard work on postmodernity: “The Real […] no longer exists,
is produced by information, it has not only become more and more difficult,
reality and simulacrum. Both affect and penetrate each other and consolidate
mal Baudrillard, following Marx, points out “how, in the course of societal
Baudrillard again names four stages: the “natural stage,” in which things are
not yet viewed as exchangeable, but have their value in their predetermined
utility, which also makes up their unchanging essence. The second stage is
that of exchange value, where things lose their unchanging essence and their
value, i.e. the market determines what they are. Baudrillard calls the third
value, there is no reference point at all […]” (Ibid.:96). In the last two stages,
the separation of utility value and exchange value still maintained by Marx
dissolves. Ultimately, utility value merges in exchange value. What a thing is,
is no longer derived from its Being, conceived as unchanging, but from its
totally fictive exchange value. The utility value, hence reality, can no longer be
further use:
“twisted” and eternal Truth gives way to the play of interpretations, or to the
simulation,” as the hell “of the subtle, maleficent, elusive twisting of meaning
the real as power that, to maintain its own stability, allows no response and is
“negative nihilism” the position that has recognized that there is nothing to
moral and other “otherworldly” values, the “thing-in-itself,” the signified, yet
does not interpret this as a liberation, but despairs of the “death of God,” i.e.
of the dissolution of the objective, and which lapses into the “spirit of revenge
against time and its ‘it was,’” i.e. the resentment against the here and now.
overcome the “spirit of revenge,” that remains faithful to the earth and that
has learned to love transient and elapsing appearances as such. The positive
and active nihilist no longer seeks the value, meaning, or sense of things in a
“real world” beyond appearances, but loves the empire of absolute meaning
liberated from every “in-itself,” the empire of liberated symbolization, for its
own sake. In contrast to this stands Baudrillard, who has recognized that we
absolute referents, yet who can’t bear this fact, but despairs of it. Seen from
desire for objectivity and hence to the “spirit of revenge.” On the other hand,
words:
References
Jean Baudrillard ([1972] 1979). For A Critique of the Political Economy of the
Sign. Telos Press: St. Louis.
Jean Baudrillard (1976, 1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death. London: Sage.
Martin Heidegger (1980). “Die Zeit des Weltbildes.” In: Martin Heidegger,
Holzwege. Frankfurt a. M.