First let me just say thank you to Ken Rufo for his guest lecture. It was a pleasure to read, okay maybe not a pleasure, I would have much rather been eating some cereal on my couch, but it was a insightful and entertaining read. After class yesterday, I realized I was going to have to read his post again, because I had zoned out the section about simulation, and it seems that was a slightly important part. I feel much better about Baudrillard the second time around, and well to tell you the truth I feel much better about Marxism the umpteenth time around as well. I seem to always think I have a handle on one of these theories and then we talk about them again, and I have to readjust my thoughts. Ken, (can I call him Ken? Is he a Dr.? I think I would rather call him Rufo, since that's a bad ass name...please don't be offended by that) Rufo did a great job of explaining both Marxism and Baudrillard in terms I can understand: Cows, Hay, and Money. I don't really want to rewrite everything he said because you can just read it on Dr. McGuire's blog, but he explained the basic order of simulation by using the example of money. I think the combined efforts of Dr. M (she sounds like a character out of James Bond) and Rufo (who sounds like a character out of Hook) to explain the simulation hierarchy has really helped me to understand Baudrillard, and also understand what the movie, The Matrix, was trying to say. I haven't seen The Matrix in a long time (I am very excited to watch it tonight!) but I think I already understand some of the reasons Baudrillard thought they got it wrong. I know we were talking in class about how a simulacra is a copy with no original, and this may be really simpleminded, but the Matrix (as in the thing that is in the movie The Matrix) isn't really a simulacra because it does have an original, it is based off of the world during the 1990's. Both Rufo and Dr. M tried to start explaining other problems Baudrillard had with the movie, but I'm not sure I understand them enough to go on talking about them. Maybe someone could explain it to me once they have written the extra credit paper.
I also wanted to talk about how Rufo had connected Saussure, Marx and Baudrillard, because I found the use-value and exchange-value stuff really interesting. I thought his explanation of the signifier and the signified in connection with the use-value and exchange-value really helpful in understanding theoretical commodities. When Dr. M was talking about this in class yesterday with Foucault's "What is an Author" I had no idea what she was saying, well that's not true I have enough of an idea of what she was saying to connect it with that Rufo was explaining about Baudrillard after I read his blog a second time. I'm not sure I am making a whole lot of sense right now, but I hope that at least my fellow classmates know what I am talking about. I'm wondering a quote from Rufo's lecture will help, "For Baudrillard, the possibility exists that these new systems of exchange, in this case 'critical theory' or 'Marxist theory,' become a model of sorts that produces its analyses as if they are self-fulfilling prophecies. " I feel like that is what Dr. M was talking about when we were discussing the importance of an author, when an author is needed, and the importance of Freud and other theorists as authors, and I was just nodding my head but not really understanding what she meant until now.
I think I will have to come back to Baudrillard after watching the Matrix and reading a bit of the stuff Dr. M put up on Web-CT. But at least I think I am ready for him. Thanks again Ken Rufo, and I'm sorry that I called you "Rufo" repeatedly throughout my blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
when you said, "I also think that we have naturalized labor in our country, we don't care who made a product or how it was made, we just want to buy it." Confused me a little because when I think about naturalizing labor, doesn't the mean giving equality to labor workers? I think i'm just getting caught up on the words, "naturalized labor".
I can understand that confusion, Quincy. When I talk about naturalizing labor, I'm talking about the tendency that Marx had, and most capitalists have, to think that laboring is the national condition of the human animal, rather than say, sitting around playing Halo 3, which only counts as laboring if you're lagging real bad or playing a modder. Anyway, if you go back and read Marx's Capital, 1, you can see how this assumption of man's "natural condition" as laborer helps to situate Marx's argument about exploitation. It also leads him to fetishize use-value, in my opinion at least, which he describes in almost romantic terms at various points, in large part because use-value without exchange-value is basically the direct expression of labor-value (which is natural and good) without the intervening effects of the market, and capitalist exploitation. The thing about Marx, and Baudrillard totally agrees with this, I think, is that his diagnosis of what's wrong with capitalism is totally right, but his analysis also extends that "what's wrong" without being aware of it.
Oh, and if anyone wants to get sniped while talking theory in Halo 3, just let me know. It's amazing how well Derrida and Master Chief go together. Alright, so they don't, really, but it would be cool.
I hope that Ken's response to your comment cleared up "naturalized labor" he explains it much better then I. Let me know if you want to talk about it more though.
Post a Comment