Debord and Baudrillard

- Knock, knock.

- Whose there?

- Modern Electronic Media.

- *Gasp* Go away!

            Honestly, the main concept of these authors is summed up in the first paragraph in Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle, when he says, “all that once was directly lived has become mere representation” (1). The idea that there was once a time when society experienced life to its fullest, and that what we currently experience is but a façade is indeed disturbing. Although I would argue that we are made of the same genetic makeup that we have been for at least the past 100,000 years and thus are subject to the same hormones and chemicals, which essentially reflects a continuous life experience. Nonetheless, biology only provides the groundwork, the environment still significantly shapes the life experience.

            Debord argues on page 16 that there as been a “decline from being, into having, and having into merely appearing.” This is a critique on capitalism. At first I didn’t agree, but lets consider the example of children and video games. Playing is a very essential part in mammalian neurological development. All mammals play, whether you are an adorably ferocious lion cub or a human. Playing connects vital neural pathways that create standards for social interaction, interpersonal intelligence, etc. However, with the invention of video games, children aren’t directly interacting with each other as often as they should during this highly plastic period in their brain, which results in mild to severe antisocial behavior. As Baudrillard points out, “the reader is thereby plunged into a kind of idleness…instead of functioning himself…he is left with no more than the poor freedom either to accept or reject the text” (281). The children (or more likely their parents) must go out of their way to be exposed to social interactions because the technology isn’t going anywhere.

            My point is that we lose a degree of simply living in the natural world and experiencing the life that we have been designed to live via evolution. This spectacle that Debord has been alluding to is the inverted image of society in which relations between commodities have replaced relations between people. As a result of being influenced by these images from the capitalist media, we strive to try and convince others that we are normal be appearing to have what the media tells us that we need. For example, having haircuts designated for gender roles. This can be completely unconscious (and potentially simply due to exposure), for example craving Wendy’s over McDonalds because you recently saw a commercial for it. Moreover, we consume products we are exposed to and familiar with more often than off brands (or at least I do). This I think is partially due to human nature. From an evolutionary perspective, it is safer to eat the berry we are familiar with to avoid an accidental poisoning. 

Barthes & Foucault

            The delicious consumption of modern media messages, what a delicacy! You are what you eat. This statement describes the attitudes of Barthes and Foucault (more emphasis on the latter) towards the effects of modern media on our desires, fears, and fundamental beliefs. And I have to agree with them to a certain extent, however, not fully. After all, we are what we eat, but our bodies do have the ability to specifically choose which polypeptides, carbohydrates, vitamins, fats, etc. to utilize while replenishing the body. I draw a parallel to media here. I too have the option to consume NPR, America’s Next Top Model, The Origin of Species, Hamlet, etc. Nonetheless, if an individual consumes too many glorious glazed doughnuts, then she will have no control over the over-reservation of fats, and thus turn into a plump toad. The parallel with media continues. If that same individual consumes too much America’s Next Top Model her (or his) perception of physical beauty is skewed, which results in an artificial desire to be skinny…too bad she ate all those doughnuts.

            I should probably incorporate the readings. Barthes states on page 98 that there is a dialectical synthesis between a signifier and a signified subject, which creates a sign. For example and in honor of my magnificent birthday that just passed, the signifier might be my birthday cookie cake, the signified love and appreciation of my existence. They exist without me, but the cake is a sign of this joy that they have me in their life. Haha, I sound like a narcissist.

            Foucault paints a similar image with the author in “What Is An Author?” (451). Here he talks about “the link between a proper name and the individual being named and the link between an author’s name and that which it names are not isomorphic.” For example, Oprah is not just Oprah; she is a sign of all things good. All you need to do is slap her name on a book and suddenly it is a credible and commendable piece of genius.

            The topic of merely being a sign amongst signs was mentioned. Sure, why not? We specialize in various skills and knowledge area. The clinical psychologist is a sign of healer, the professor a sign of knowledge, the governor a sign of leadership…or corruption. ;) Moreover, I don’t know that this is a relatively new idea. For instance, tribal cultures have shaman, or signs of lore and medical remedies. Foucault goes on to describe his “Panopticism,” which is essentially this systematic ordering and controlling of human populations through subtle and often unseen forces via a circular building with an observation tower in the center in an open space surrounded by an outer wall made up of cells to contain individuals. This metaphor for society doesn’t work for me. I think that maybe this was more plausible with TV because it was more passive (i.e. the individual just sits and consumes the information and cant respond). However, with the invention of the Internet, she can play a more active role and choose what to consume and interact with the information source. 

McLuhan

              SooOooOooO, I found all the chapters that we read to be interesting, however I found the chapter on Narcissism to be especially compelling.  My major is Psychology and I work in a research lab that focuses on trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). McLuhan essentially describes the symptoms of PTSD in relation to amplifications of new technologies on the complex networks of society, which he refers to as the nervous system. McLuhan actually refers to this as “battle shock” or shell shock (p. 44), which was the term used for PTSD (hysteria in the case of female rape victims) before the DSM-III in the 1980’s termed the coin PTSD. In PTSD an individual is exposed to a sudden, unexpected trauma in which s/he experiences extreme sense of horror, helplessness, and/or violation to their physical integrity (e.g. rape, natural disaster, car wreck, etc.) In McLuhan’s example, the trauma is a new technology that amplifies the extent to which humans are capable of doing various tasks more easily (e.g. the wheel, telegraphy, etc.). However, with this new amplification of human capabilities, new unexpected complexities are added to human tasks brought on by our own narcissism. This hyperarousal is also characteristic in PTSD, in which the individual experiences physiological arousal in response to cues that remind him or her of the trauma, and experience repeated unwanted thoughts and imagery of the event. The body responds to this by dissociating from reality through a numbing process as a counter to the stress involved with the hyperarousal.

            Similarly, McLuhan points out that “as a counter-irritant, the image produces a generalized numbness or shock that declines recognition” (p. 43). He then goes on to refer to the origin of communication from speech to computer. This of course had vast effects on society and the human network. Suddenly, communication is hyperaroused; America’s Chatty Kathy can suddenly contact India’s Knowledgeable Kaishwarya, which OF COURSE results in a workout revolution, called “YOGA,” in America for middle-class married women, gay men, and (oddly enough) attorneys. As time goes on, it no longer seems strange or revolutionary, Americans become numb to the concept. It transcends Indian culture, and becomes this new entity in America (e.g. Rock n’ Roll Yoga, Power Yoga, etc.).

            This also brings up the point of the phenomenon called globalization. This is highlighted nicely in Ch. 9, and by that I mean Ch. 3 (Ch. 9 was something about language and the loss of community, but I don’t want to focus on that, nor do I want to focus on all that TV stuff in Ch. 31). On page 36, McLuhen mentions the melting away of national sovereignties due to the “conditions of electric speed.” He also says that electricity “decentralizes.” I have to agree with this seeing as how suddenly there is an emergence of transnational organizations in the world. Whether they are humanistic or terrorist. I mean dear Oprah! (and I mean that in the sense of Jesus! Or M-word! Or Buddha! Because lets face it, Oprah’s a deity). Organizations such as the Taliban can communicate via electronic technologies AND have a MEGA-Militaristic nation invade one of their hot spots and survive because they are transnational. They transcend borders. Afghanistan is not a Taliban state anymore, but who cares? There are enough Taliban in Germany and the USA trying to blow up CHRISTmas treesin Oregon.