Late Baudrillard was all about the anemia of power in post modernity. How power systems of either the Left or the Right were being undermined by a new interactivity generated by mass media and information technology. That far from being liberating of the powerless, rather creates a feedback loop wherein all power is rendered useless, for good or for ill, as polarities continually cancel each other out. . E,g the Panopticon has become a feedback loop, with the state deploying CCTV cameras against the general public, but the general public using smartphones against the police, recording evidence of police brutality. To the point wherein the police offer to become their own panopticon, by the wearing of body-cams Which one might see as a progressive outcome, but for the fact that the real power rests with the technology itself - rather than the police. Takes on a life of its own. Moreover, the simulacra itself, the real power - endeavors to negate police brutality not from any moral imperative, but because police brutality is an ugly reality, A hot event, that hyper reality must negate for the cool running of the simulacra. Wherein both police and rioters are in agreement, the negation of power being the ultimate goal, with the power of hyper reality enveloping both sides. No police brutality, but no riot either. No police state/ but no revolution either. Whereas Foucault was for Baudrillard still in a 19th century mind-state, who saw the state as the ultimate arbiter of power, not that the state itself had become a slave to technology.
I've been wondering lately if one Fatal Strategy to use against the police would be to simulate a group of protesters arrest and then leave instead of staying to verify their power to the public.
Interesting is, everyone on internet today hype some kind of new world order conspiracy like, both left and right wing expecting some kind of 1984 world techpolice cyberstate that will never happens. Like trump or idk, those dumb newright wing presidents across the world that are just dumb economic liberals. Or china thing. Nothing happening, ever...
@@OPaidamentira Baudrillard reckoned such simulations of fascism, where there as a reality principle, rather than being real fascism. They allow the Right to posture, to strut, to antagonize Liberals, meanwhile they grant the Left a pantomime villain to boo and to hiss at. But there's really no intention of resurrecting real fascism, because as Baudrillard saw it, that would be too real by half. The cool running of the simulacrum would be threatened by such a hot event, it would disrupt the cyclical, mobius strip of advertising,, 24 hour news cycles, the back and forth of the culture wars, the procession of live sporting events, the procession of election seasons. However, the simulacrum must pass as real in some way, as being connected to the rest of history, given the dullness and hollowness of the simulacrum may become a threat in of itself over the long term. . Hence circuit breakers such as Trump and the Alt Right. A little fascism lite to keep things interesting, a weak approximation of history, to convince us something is still at stake. Neo fascism playing a similar role to terrorism in that respect An apparent attack on the system. which in truth is bolstering the system. Something like a vaccine, a small dose of reality to offset a more virulent strain of reality.
@@JAMAICADOCK What i meant is, both left and right want this event of superestructure of power to rupture the sameness of our world, its a willingness to see the world as it is right now collapse and become a hypertechno version of 1984. But what we get is nothing, both left and right are nothing, as you said, they dont represent threats at all, but midia present them as they are real threats. Actual leftism is just a version of status quo liberalism, as the right is another version of status quo liberalism, in the end of the day there is no real resemblance between the actual right and real fascism, or the actual left and old day left. But media depict right as a fascist threat to the leftists, and depict left as a communist threat to the rightists. Trump isnt a circuit breaker, he is the same, think in the terms depicted on the agony of power, that, radicalness is on the side of the intelligence of evil. What made trump a president if not the ironic way he speaks the truth about the system that he is inside? The Swamp imagery, the external character coming to breakthrough the binary system that is openly a masquerade( the image of the two legs of the system) while he is adapted to one and everybody accept, as he speaks the same truths, about this system and the other candidates. What make he lose if not the way he can not speak as the same? My real point it is that both left and right are depictions of things that arent real in itself, but only through media discourse. why is it like that? not just to engage the voters, but also to construct identities. A leftist buy leftist clothes, books, consume leftist media, and live a leftist live, as a rightist do the same, and both believe they are the contradiction of another, and are fighting another, when it is openly said that is just a farse and they agree with it, but the idea of being a farse just make them urges for fighting this farse, as they were external actors to it. When the idea of the fight happens internally and only internally of the system and have to be passively mediated through voting. This is the motive, as i think, behind the will of a 1984 superstate and a hypercolapse. It's like a messiah. But this is also a will implanted by the system, through media, and they wait passively to happen, while the "occult actors of the elite" architect all the plans, and they are informed about it through "independent" media networks.
Bro you're awesome. Right now I'm doing my PhD in Cultural Studies and your videos are so great. I appreciate what you're doing very much. Keep going at it :D
Excellent overview. I would add one of the myths perpetuated by certain US/UK social theorists is they homogenously label Foucault and Baudrillard as postmodernist and relativistic. The relationship and theoretic underpinnings between them are far more nuanced. Foucault was interested in the complex relationship between discourse, microphysics of power and subjectification through studies on imprisonment, surveillance and sexuality. Baudrillard's trajectory was more aligned with simulation and how the mass media signs saturate society that demystified anything labelled as 'real'. They both fired arrows against the concept of truth but from very different juxtapositions.
Commenting before I’ve watched so apologise if you touched on this. Would you agree with a point put across by Douglas Kellner that a synthesis between Foucault and Baudrillard can be achieved?
I've been curious how Baudrillard's concept of power as reversible would apply with the push to be aware of power dynamics between people dating celebrities, or professors relationships with students. His essay in Screened Out on the diminishing relationship between men and women on college campus in the 90s seems to point to a perception that harassment on mass scale couldn't be the patriarchal attitudes, but men becoming fixated on the disappearance of sex itself...
Perhaps. IMO, I don't really like to apply Baudrillard thought to consider things like harassment (especially gender-based harassment) because he was, dare I say, sexist in his writings
After reading a bit, and watching a few of your videos, I've heard Baudrillard use the phrase "reality principle". Saying something to the effect that in the past all they had was illusion and myth, so the problem isn't there but in the "reality principle" (signifying the real). Is there a book or lecture where i can check this out specifically in more depth? Or is that basically his entire work?
Reality Principle comes up in Marcuse and Freud as well, it's not really about the past but in how, as mankind begins to understand our subjectivity, we realize that reality is always constructed by ideological rituals and fantasies.
Doesn’t Foucault though address these critiques from Baudrillard by rejecting the repressive hypothesis in History of Sexuality? He distances himself from people like Herbert Marcuse which Baudrillard’s critique seems to be more applying to
The fact Baudrillard submitted the essay to the journal Foucault was an editor of cracks me up, I think it’s fantastic. The fact it was not published in it does not. On a human level, Baudrillard was a bro, and if in the same position Foucault was in, would have published the work. The self-obsessed sort of clique nature of that social grouping has always been a bummer
Late Baudrillard was all about the anemia of power in post modernity. How power systems of either the Left or the Right were being undermined by a new interactivity generated by mass media and information technology. That far from being liberating of the powerless, rather creates a feedback loop wherein all power is rendered useless, for good or for ill, as polarities continually cancel each other out. .
E,g the Panopticon has become a feedback loop, with the state deploying CCTV cameras against the general public, but the general public using smartphones against the police, recording evidence of police brutality. To the point wherein the police offer to become their own panopticon, by the wearing of body-cams
Which one might see as a progressive outcome, but for the fact that the real power rests with the technology itself - rather than the police.
Takes on a life of its own.
Moreover, the simulacra itself, the real power - endeavors to negate police brutality not from any moral imperative, but because police brutality is an ugly reality,
A hot event, that hyper reality must negate for the cool running of the simulacra.
Wherein both police and rioters are in agreement, the negation of power being the ultimate goal, with the power of hyper reality enveloping both sides. No police brutality, but no riot either. No police state/ but no revolution either.
Whereas Foucault was for Baudrillard still in a 19th century mind-state, who saw the state as the ultimate arbiter of power, not that the state itself had become a slave to technology.
I've been wondering lately if one Fatal Strategy to use against the police would be to simulate a group of protesters arrest and then leave instead of staying to verify their power to the public.
Interesting is, everyone on internet today hype some kind of new world order conspiracy like, both left and right wing expecting some kind of 1984 world techpolice cyberstate that will never happens. Like trump or idk, those dumb newright wing presidents across the world that are just dumb economic liberals. Or china thing. Nothing happening, ever...
@@romanticplacebo3693 sorry wdym?
@@OPaidamentira Baudrillard reckoned such simulations of fascism, where there as a reality principle, rather than being real fascism.
They allow the Right to posture, to strut, to antagonize Liberals, meanwhile they grant the Left a pantomime villain to boo and to hiss at.
But there's really no intention of resurrecting real fascism, because as Baudrillard saw it, that would be too real by half.
The cool running of the simulacrum would be threatened by such a hot event, it would disrupt the cyclical, mobius strip of advertising,, 24 hour news cycles, the back and forth of the culture wars, the procession of live sporting events, the procession of election seasons.
However, the simulacrum must pass as real in some way, as being connected to the rest of history, given the dullness and hollowness of the simulacrum may become a threat in of itself over the long term. .
Hence circuit breakers such as Trump and the Alt Right. A little fascism lite to keep things interesting, a weak approximation of history, to convince us something is still at stake.
Neo fascism playing a similar role to terrorism in that respect An apparent attack on the system. which in truth is bolstering the system.
Something like a vaccine, a small dose of reality to offset a more virulent strain of reality.
@@JAMAICADOCK What i meant is, both left and right want this event of superestructure of power to rupture the sameness of our world, its a willingness to see the world as it is right now collapse and become a hypertechno version of 1984. But what we get is nothing, both left and right are nothing, as you said, they dont represent threats at all, but midia present them as they are real threats. Actual leftism is just a version of status quo liberalism, as the right is another version of status quo liberalism, in the end of the day there is no real resemblance between the actual right and real fascism, or the actual left and old day left. But media depict right as a fascist threat to the leftists, and depict left as a communist threat to the rightists.
Trump isnt a circuit breaker, he is the same, think in the terms depicted on the agony of power, that, radicalness is on the side of the intelligence of evil. What made trump a president if not the ironic way he speaks the truth about the system that he is inside? The Swamp imagery, the external character coming to breakthrough the binary system that is openly a masquerade( the image of the two legs of the system) while he is adapted to one and everybody accept, as he speaks the same truths, about this system and the other candidates. What make he lose if not the way he can not speak as the same?
My real point it is that both left and right are depictions of things that arent real in itself, but only through media discourse. why is it like that? not just to engage the voters, but also to construct identities. A leftist buy leftist clothes, books, consume leftist media, and live a leftist live, as a rightist do the same, and both believe they are the contradiction of another, and are fighting another, when it is openly said that is just a farse and they agree with it, but the idea of being a farse just make them urges for fighting this farse, as they were external actors to it. When the idea of the fight happens internally and only internally of the system and have to be passively mediated through voting.
This is the motive, as i think, behind the will of a 1984 superstate and a hypercolapse. It's like a messiah. But this is also a will implanted by the system, through media, and they wait passively to happen, while the "occult actors of the elite" architect all the plans, and they are informed about it through "independent" media networks.
Bro you're awesome. Right now I'm doing my PhD in Cultural Studies and your videos are so great. I appreciate what you're doing very much. Keep going at it :D
Reversibility of power relations is central in Foucault.
Fantastic explanation. Pretty familiar with Baudrillard but have not read FF and my interest is definitely peaked.
Happy to hear it :)
Hey great overview! Would love to see videos on Macintyre or Gadamer!
Hopefully one day I'll get to them!
I really enjoy these couch vlog episodes but when are you going to show is your record collection? 😋
Haha I change the record every time so eventually you'll see them all
I want that Foucault T-shirt too!!!! LOL
Hahaha me too (this one's really too small for me :/ )
Excellent overview. I would add one of the myths perpetuated by certain US/UK social theorists is they homogenously label Foucault and Baudrillard as postmodernist and relativistic. The relationship and theoretic underpinnings between them are far more nuanced. Foucault was interested in the complex relationship between discourse, microphysics of power and subjectification through studies on imprisonment, surveillance and sexuality. Baudrillard's trajectory was more aligned with simulation and how the mass media signs saturate society that demystified anything labelled as 'real'. They both fired arrows against the concept of truth but from very different juxtapositions.
Commenting before I’ve watched so apologise if you touched on this. Would you agree with a point put across by Douglas Kellner that a synthesis between Foucault and Baudrillard can be achieved?
Absolutely!
Where can I read about this?
@@kellyrankin8844 In ‘Jean baudrillard: from Marxism to postmodernism and beyond’ by Douglas Kellner. Great secondary lit
I've been curious how Baudrillard's concept of power as reversible would apply with the push to be aware of power dynamics between people dating celebrities, or professors relationships with students. His essay in Screened Out on the diminishing relationship between men and women on college campus in the 90s seems to point to a perception that harassment on mass scale couldn't be the patriarchal attitudes, but men becoming fixated on the disappearance of sex itself...
Perhaps. IMO, I don't really like to apply Baudrillard thought to consider things like harassment (especially gender-based harassment) because he was, dare I say, sexist in his writings
Great T-shirt 👌
Great Video!
After reading a bit, and watching a few of your videos, I've heard Baudrillard use the phrase "reality principle". Saying something to the effect that in the past all they had was illusion and myth, so the problem isn't there but in the "reality principle" (signifying the real). Is there a book or lecture where i can check this out specifically in more depth? Or is that basically his entire work?
Reality Principle comes up in Marcuse and Freud as well, it's not really about the past but in how, as mankind begins to understand our subjectivity, we realize that reality is always constructed by ideological rituals and fantasies.
A similar critique of the reifying hermeneutics of Marx. Really dig Baudrillard as a quasi-semiotician
Ya definitely definitely!
Doesn’t Foucault though address these critiques from Baudrillard by rejecting the repressive hypothesis in History of Sexuality? He distances himself from people like Herbert Marcuse which Baudrillard’s critique seems to be more applying to
The fact Baudrillard submitted the essay to the journal Foucault was an editor of cracks me up, I think it’s fantastic. The fact it was not published in it does not. On a human level, Baudrillard was a bro, and if in the same position Foucault was in, would have published the work. The self-obsessed sort of clique nature of that social grouping has always been a bummer
Peter Green