The Ecstasy of Communication

by Jean Baudrillard

This book marks an important evolution in Jean Baudrillard's thought as he leavesbehind his older and better-known concept of the "simulacrum" and tackles the new problem of digitaltechnology acquiring organicity. The resulting world of cold communication and its indifferentalterity, seduction, metamorphoses, metastases, and transparency requires a new form of response.Writing in the shadow of Marshall McLuhan, Baudrillard insists that the content of communication iscompletely without the only thing that is communicated is communication itself. He sees themasses writhing in an orgiastic ecstasy of communications. Baudrillard navigates the Object'smaelstrom with the euphoria of the astronaut reentering Earth's atmosphere with no possibility ofassistance from Mission Control.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, Sociology, Essays, France, Communication

107 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Jean Baudrillard was a French sociologist, philosopher and poet, with interest in cultural studies. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as hyperreality. Baudrillard wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, critique of economy, social history, aesthetics, Western foreign policy, and popular culture. Among his most well-known works are Seduction (1978), Simulacra and Simulation (1981), America (1986), and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991). His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism. Nevertheless, Baudrillard had also opposed post-structuralism, and had distanced himself from postmodernism.

Reviews

[rhenvar · Rating 3 out of 5]

strangely useful dating advice

[Mon · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Obscenity begins when there is no more spectacle, no more stage, no more theatre, no more illusions, when everything becomes immediately transparent, visible, exposed in the raw and inexorable light of information and communication. We no longer partake of the drama of alienation, but are in the ecstacy of communication.'

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many people do not like Baudrillard because he is an arrogant asshole, but I kinda like that snarkiness in his writing, it makes it more fun to read. Keeping in mind that this book was in itself an ironic slap in the face to the academic system, it is rather playful in its dismemberment of theoretical fads and structures and its poignant obscenity. Four stars.

[Mika Auramo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ranskalainen yhteiskuntafilosofi Jean Baudrillard on ajankohtaisempi kuin koskaan, vaikka hänen kriitikkonsa muuta väittävät. Ekstaasi ja rivous on hyvä johdanto tämän surrealismista pitäneen jälkimodernistin pääteemoihin, joissa marxilaistyyppisiä ideologiateorioita tuodaan nykyaikaan.

Baudrillard ennakoi vahvasti jo nykyistä verkostoitunutta tietoyhteiskuntaa, vaikka hänen esimerkkinsä ovatkin televisiotäyteisestä viihdekulttuurista. Tosin ennusmerkit tuolloin jo olivat selkeät. Nykyään sosiaalisen median aikakaudellahan monet viettävät kuin virtuaalista skitsofreenikon elämää, ja maailma on ylivalotettu läpinäkyvyydelle, jolloin ihmisen minuus ikään kuin sulautuu erilaisten verkostojen ”imu- ja imeytymispinnoille”, kun suoritetaan niitä päivittäisiä ”läpinäkyvyyden rituaaleja”. Tulee ikään kuin tarve puhua ja lähettää kuvia erilaisiin palveluihin, vaikka ei ole mitään järkevää sanottavaa. Se johtaa Baudrillardia mukaillen äärimmäiseen pinnallisuuteen, joka on digiaikana eräänlaista ”disinkarnaation estetiikkaa” yhdistettynä digitaaliseen identiteettiin, pahimmillaan somenarsismiin. Tosin se subjekti häivyttyy niin kuin sen raja objektiinkin, kun käyttäjätilin haltijakin on muka postailemassa Instagram-tililleen uusimpia kuviaan osana Facebookin mainosdiskurssia samalla, kun maailma pyörii tarpeettomasti siinä ruudussa tai näyttöpäätteellä.

Nykyään puhutaan kupla-ajattelusta, mutta Baudrillard taustoittaa sitäkin oivallisesti ja käyttää tiede-esimerkkinä ihan oikeaa lasta, joka oli eristetty muusta maailmasta steriilin muovikupla-asumuksensa sisään selviytyäkseen ja välttääkseen sairaudet. Siinä mielessä olemme kaikki kuplalapsia, että ajattelumme ja havaintomme itsemme ulkopuolisesta maailmasta ovat ikään kuin vain aivojemme muokkaamaa simulaatiota näkemästämme ja kokemastamme. Onhan jokainen kuullut sanonnat, että kauneus on katsojan silmässä tai jokin on makuasia.

Siitä päästäänkin Baudrillardin simuloiviin järjestelmiin ja simulakrumeihin. Ne ovat ikään kuin funktionaalisia tai strukturaalisia verkostoja eli simuloivia järjestelmiä, jotka eivät kuvaa tai jäljittele todellisuutta, vaan ne ikään kuin ovat tämä todellisuus vailla yhteyttä esikuviinsa. Nämä kuvat tai merkit alkavat itsessään merkitä todellisuutta, ja tätä Baudrillard kutsuu hypertodellisuudeksi. Esimerkiksi käyvät Disneyland, 24/7 tosi-tv-lähetykset ja ready-made-taide Andy Warholin tapaan. Ihan samoin television ja somekanavien mediatulvassa niin uutiset, tv-sarjat kuin tubettajienkin ja tavallisten kuvakollaasien postaajien mediatulvaa leimaa useinkin keinotekoisuus, kopiomaisuus, joista se originaali on hukassa. Baudrillardin sanoin se simuklarumi ei peitä totuutta, vaan totuus peittää sen, ettei sitä oikeastaan olekaan. Siksi se on hypertodellista, eli kirjoittajan mukaan sitä todellisuutta ei sitten oikeastaan olekaan olemassa. ”Totuus on vedetty irti todellisuudesta kuin tuoli istumaisillaan olevan tyypin alta.”

Paradoksaalisesti näin ääri-individualistisena aikana, kun maailma on litistetty kännykänruutuihin, ja hyperkommunikaatio johtaa hyperreaalistumiseen, ja se entinen subjekti lakkaa olemasta sulautuessaan vaikkapa somemediakuvatulvaan. Baudrillard pitääkin jatkuvaa media-, informaatio- ja kommunikaatiovirtaa lähinnä ylitsepursuavana ja rivona pornografiana, ja hypernäkyvyys tuo kohteet liian lähelle eli ihan iholle ja sen allekin, ja tällöin se tiedon vastaanottajan ja lähettäjän raja hämärtyy niin kuin subjektin ja objektin välinen etäisyys. Niinhän se tuppaa olemaan, että mediapornossa kaikkea seurataan hetki hetkeltä ja reaaliajassa, ja niin kuin varsinaisessa pornografiassa kaikki paljastetaan, eikä ole poissaolon, häivytetyn ja peitetyn mahdollisuutta: kaikki on näkyvillä ja läsnä ilman mitään syvyysvaikutelmaa. Tästä Baudrillard kehittelee vielä lisää hämärtämällä subjektin ja objektin rajaa: haluaahan se subjekti intohimoisesti muuttua itse objektiksi, olla muiden ihailujen ja tykkäystenkin kohteena. Tämä johtaa usein siihen, että objekti viettelee meidät ennen kaikkea välinpitämättömyydellään, vaikka subjekti pyrkii kohti vapautta ja autonomiaa. Siten se on ikään kuin taistelua imploosion intohimojen ja eksploosion intohimojen kesken. Onhan subjekti kolonisoinut kaiken eläimellisestä henkiseen, eikä objektia tulisi ymmärtää edes metaforana vaan intohimona, joka heijastaa peilin tavoin subjektiin objektiiviset intohimonsa.

Toinen paradoksi on ihmisen näennäinen sosiaalisuus siellä netin somekanavilla, kun todellisuus on tutkimusten ja lehtijuttujenkin perusteella ihan päinvastoin, eli yksinäisyys tuppaa lisääntymään ja ahdistuneisuus siinä ohella. Kommunikaatiosta ja informaatiosta on tullutkin sosiaalisen aavikoitumisen muoto, eikä horisontittomassa erämaassa saa oikein kiintopistettä mistään. Intohimot ensinnä materialisoituvat, kunnes katoavat kokonaan. Virtuaaliminän masokismin kliimaksina toimii mielipahan muuttuminen mielihyväksi, kunnes ”lobomoitu sielu on pelkkä aivopoimu”. Lohduttomuus lisääntyy, maailma on kutistunut, vaikka kaikki horisontit on jo aikaa ylitetty, ja lopulta ihminen menettää kiintymyksen itseään ja toisia kohtaan...

Toisaalta maailma vajoaa omaan välinpitämättömyyteensä, emmekä pysty Baudrillardin sanoin antamaan sille merkityksiä tai reflektoimaan sitä, mikä onkin ihmeellistä. Jo stoalaiset ovat sen aikoinaan ymmärtäneet, että maailma on lopulta pakotettu liikkumattomuuteen ja että totuus on kätkettävä, jottei maailma vulgarisoi sitä ironisella objektiivisuudellaan.

Kaiken kaikkiaan Baudrillardin teoksesta välittyy aika lohduton, dystooppinen kuva nykyisyydestä ja lähitulevaisuudesta, kun maailma on muuttunut meidän lisäksemme monitoreissa hyperreaaliseksi pseudotodellisuudeksi emmekä osallistu tähän (virtuaali)näytelmään oman elämämme dramaturgina. Ihmiset ikään kuin ovat kutistuneet vain erilaisten verkostojen mikro-ohjausyksiköiksi, joiden yksityinen tila on kadonnut. Nykyisenkaltaista (digikanavien) vuorovaikuttamisen ekstaasia Baudrillard pitää yksinkertaisesti rivona – määräähän sen kommunikaation kategorinen imperatiivi...

[Mikael Hekkala]

Tää oli kyl makeahko esseen tyylinen setti. Makean esseestä teki erityisesti Baudrillardin kirjoitustyyli, joka oli kaukana akateemisesta ja lukiessa jäi kuva, että Baudrillard olisi ikään kuin vain jutellut jollekin frendille uusista ideoistaan.

Teoksessa mielenkiintoa herätti Baudrillardin yritys maalata postmodernista ajanjaksostamme selkeä esteettinen ja kulttuurinen kuva. Baudrillard korostaa esimerkiksi kulttuurimme ekstaasin kaltaista kommunikaatiota mihin subjekti uppoaa, koska informaatio ja kommunikaatio tulvii kaikkialle, muodostaen yhden ulottuvuuden informaatiolle ja täten tietyllä tavalla edustaa science fictionin kaltaista "wired brain" ideaa.

Postmodernissa identiteetistä Baudrillardin mukaan on taas tullut sirpaloitunutta. Suuret Syyt ja Tarinat ovat kadonneet ja ihmisten tarttuminen yhteen minäkuvaan vaikuttaa ahtaalta. Fragmentoitunut subjekti on maailmassa kaikkialla kameleontin kaltaisesti muuttaen identiteettiään ja sulautumalla uusiin viiteryhmiin. Tässä logiikassa on kuitenkin uhkana minän kadotus identiteettien ylitarjontaan.

Simulakrumit ovat iso osa Baudrillardin nykykulttuurin kuvausta. Simulakrumeilla Baudrillard viittaa ilmiöön missä "Reaalinen" (todellinen, käsinkoskelteltava maailma) on kadonnut simulaatiohin, jotka ovat taas kadonneet toisiin simulaatioihin. Ihmisiltä on kadonnut siis täysin kosketus todellisesta maailmasta eli Reaalisesta. Baudrillard selväntää ajatusta mielenkiintoiselle esimerkillä: Toisessa maailmansodassa esimerkiksi Nagasakin ydinpommin pudottajatiimi traumatiosoitui pudotuksesta täysin loppuelämäksi, kun taas nykyaikaisessa sodankäynnissä operaatiot aiheuttaa vähemmän traumoja. Tätä mahdollisesti selittää simulaatioharjoittelu. Kun sotilaat ovat vuosia harjoitelleet simulaatiopeleillä on kosketus reaaliseen tuhoon ja orgaanisen elämän kuolemiseen kadonnut täysin. Tällä on kauhea seuraus filosofisessa mielessä: sotilaat ovat Reaalisessa tilanteessa ikään kuin edelleen simulaatiopelin sisällä.

[Panos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ενδιαφέρουσα η θεωρητική σκέψη του Baudrillard και στο συγκεκριμένο έργο βρίσκουμε ψήγματα των βασικών προβληματισμών που αναπτύσσονται στα υπόλοιπα έργα του. Ωστόσο, στη μακροδομή του το βιβλίο αυτό είναι κουραστικό και σε μερικά σημεία από σκοτεινό έως ακαταλαβίστικο (ίσως φταίει εν μέρει και η μετάφραση).

[Gytis Dovydaitis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Obscenity. Seduction. Pornography of information. All encompassing miniaturization. Nudity as a desperate statement of existence. Abolishment of transcendence.

My head is spinning, thus I call to see a doctor. He inspects me from up close. Gets one of his eyebrows really high. "You're suffering from the giddiness of postmodernism." he says, "Buy a bottle of vodka and drink it while dreaming of socialist utopia".

There was no vodka in the shop. Only prices. I paid what it asked nonetheless.

I feel better now.

[Gloomy · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Necesidad de hablar cuando no hay nada que decir. Necesidad tanto mayor cuando no se tiene nada que decir, del mismo modo que existir es mucho más urgente cuando la vida carece de sentido."

[Marc Nash · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 1st two chapters are the strongest as Baudrillard's (almost like a rap artist) smooth flow of words and concepts rips into all the then current conventions of sociology/semiotics/philosophy, both on a linguistic level and a conceptual one without pausing for breath or definition. The words bear their own weight, they just do that iconoclastic thing without breaking sweat. Masterful.

It drops off after that as the words and terms feel less established, more hollow, more jargony. But still an excellent brief axe taken to deforest the conventions of understanding in the 80s.

[Auden Tura · Rating 4 out of 5]

rip jean u would have hated social media !!

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

really happy I came across this Baudrillard book, examines the deterioration of private-public boundaries through the typical hyper-reality, late-capitalist lens Baudrillard is renowned for.

I would be lying if I said I understood all of this but that’s sort of what I like about reading this type of post modern theory. Being in 1/2 understanding of it and 1/2 projection of your own thoughts & experenices into the theories.

Despite being written in the 80’s the central component of ‘digital hypervisibility’ slots in nicely with the slouching malaise of 21st century digital communication-excess where excessiveness without boundary feels like it’s an intrinsic part of the new mode of commutation.

I think I notice myself slowly slipping into a sort of decreasing ability to recall & apply vocabulary and proper informed, accurate critique’s in my day - to - day life as result of my reliance and enjoyment of digital communication over the last 6 months so reading literature on the periphery of this very modern phenomenon I am falling in the trap of is really interesting.

[Jules · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very prescient and very short collection of essays touching on the information overload which has come after alienation, the contrast between ecstasy and passion experienced with something so hyperreal as AI, and the articulation of theory as a sort of exorcism of the real rather than a reflection of that real or a means of disappearance into it.

[Chrystyphyr · Rating 2 out of 5]

Few bits are VERY interesting and good for my thesis but after the first 30 odd pages it gets freaky and unintelligible

[isaac smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok, I read this because I liked the title, and Baudrillard is so notorious. I really want to focus on Deleuze lately but have been distracted by this man (Also Derrida, Ricoeur, and Agamben). I started Simulacra and Simulation a while ago but never got into it. I am both tempted to trace the lines of Baudriallrd’s thought through all the works he references in this book. Moreso, I am tempted to read Forget Foucault. These are just my notes from a Google document, so I apologize for the formatting that did not transfer over. It is shamelessly on my blog too, in full force, if you’re interested.

The first eponymous chapter usually receives the most attention. Read summaries anywhere, please. Perhaps the signified lack of the master signifier does not count as a failure, but:

“Each system (including the domestic universe) forms a kind of ecological niche, with a relational decor where all terms must remain in perpetual contact with one another, informed as to their respective strategies and that of the entire system because the failure of one term could lead to catastrophe.” (Baudrillard, EoC 14)

Then, anything that reduces society to myth and anything that bashes statistics appeals to me.

“Although this is no doubt only a discourse, one must take note that the analysis of consumption in the sixties and seventies originated in the advertising discourse or in the pseudo—conceptual discourse of professionals. “Consumption,” the “strategy of desire” were at first only a metadiscourse, the analysis of a projective myth whose real consequences were generally unknown. Actually no more was known about the relation of people to their objects than about the reality of primitive societies. This is what allows one to build the myth, but it is also the reason why it is useless to try and objectively verify these hypotheses through statistics. As we know, the discourse of advertisers for the use of professionals in the field, and who could say that the present discourse on computer science is not accessible strictly to professionals in computer science and communication (the discourse of intellectuals and sociologists, for that matter, raises the same question).” (Baudrillard, EoC 15)

Now, I do not mind a little Ray Bradbury style anxiety.

“Private telematics: each individual sees himself promoted to the controls of a hypothetical machine, isolated in a position of perfect sovereignty, at an infinite distance from his original universe; that is to say, in the same position as the astronaut in his bubble, existing in a state of weightlessness which compels the individual to remain in perpetual orbital flight and to maintain sufficient speed in zero gravity to avoid crashing into his planet of origin.” (Baudrillard, EoC 15)

Moving on, to Ch2, “Rituals of Transparency”, we have a provocative phrase:

“If all this were true we would really be living in obscenity, in the naked truth, in the insane pretension of all things to express their truth." (p 34)

Then, there is the dual of imagination against giddiness which has strong Yung Lean implications.

“We don’t look for definition or richness of imagination in these images; we look for the giddiness of their superficiality, for the article of the detail, the intimacy of [...] their technical artificiality and nothing more”

From Ch 3, “Metamorphoses, Metaphor, Metastases”, (“MMM”) we have a nice excerpt on the body which serves my fancy:

“Psychological body, repressed body, neurotic body, space of phantasy, minor of otherness, mirror of identity, the locus of the subject prey to its own image and desire: our body is no longer pagan and mythic but Christian and metaphorical ——body of desire and not of the fable. We have put it through a kind of materialist precipitation. The way in which we interpret our body today, instead of the divination derived from dance, the duel and stellar planets, the way in which we recount [the body] in our unrecognized simulacrum of reality, as an individuated space of pulsion, of desire and phantasies, has led it to become the materialist precipitation of a seducing form, which carried within it a gigantic power of negation over the world, an ultra-mundane power of illusion and metamorphosis” (Baudrillard, EoC p 47)

From here, I will just let the quotes speak mostly for themselves because I do not see much value in my commentary. This is kind of sad to me because it leads me to question how much I actually processed and thought about the book.

"The other is not (as in love) the locus of your similarity, nor the ideal type of what you are, nor the hidden ideal of what you lack. It is the locus of that which eludes you, and whereby you elude yourself and your own truth. Seduction is not the locus of desire (and thus of alienation) but of giddiness, of the eclipse, of appearance and disappearance,of the scintillation of being. It is an art of disappearing, whereas desire is always the desire for death. The secret is never the repressed. It is never “everything you don’t know and have always wanted to know about yourself and sex” (Woody Allen), it is that which no longer pertains to the order of truth. That which, saturated with itself, withdraws from itself, plunging into the secret and absorbing everything surrounding it. An immediately contagious giddiness: seduction operates through the subtle pleasure which beings and things experience in remaining secret in their very sign —while truth operates through the obscene drive of forcing signs to reveal everything." (Baudrillard EoC, The Seducer or the Superficial Abyss)

Is this remark fascist?

"The present system of dissuasion and simulation succeeds in neutralizing all finalities, all referentials, all meanings, but it fails to neutralize appearances. It forcefully controls all the procedures for the production of meaning. It does not control the seduction of appearances. No interpretation can explain it, no system can abolish it. It is our last chance." (Baudrillard EoC, The Seducer or the Superficial Abyss)

Is Baudrillard’s discussion of games at all relatable to game theory or Wittgenstein’s games?

“With Séduction, there is no longer any symbolic referent to the challenge of signs, and to the challenge through signs, no more lost object, no more recovered object, no more original desire. The object itself takes the initiative of reversibility, taking the initiative to seduce and lead astray. Another succession is determinant. It is no longer that of a symbolic order (which requires a subject and a discourse), but the purely arbitrary one of a rule of the game. The game of the world is the game of reversibility. It is no longer the desire of the subject, but the destiny of the object, which is at the center of the world.” (Baudrillard EoC, From the System of Objects...)

This word makes me think of David Foster Wallace. Name-dropping Heidegger is also bold and gives me some “Poetry, language, thought” associations.

“The banal, which Heidegger called the second fall of Man, after Original Sin, this very banal becomes prodigious. This is the fatality of the modern world, whose astounding depth raises to challenge reality itself.” (Baudrillard EoC, From the System of Objects...)

Again Buadriallard’s argument here is not related to the fatalism that David Foster Wallace attacks in his undergraduate thesis "Richard Taylor's 'Fatalism' and the Semantics of Physical Modality." This is when Ecstasy of Communication begins to strongly echo Baudriallard’s previous works such as his 1983 Fatal Strategies which in turn builds on his 1976 Symbolic Exchange & Death. As one review puts it, “Baudrillard seems to be exactly what Nagle calls transgression without content…[But all the same] The dialectic has given way to ecstasy. It is not sublation that leads to disappearance, but rather, the multiplication of the singular unto obscenity. Signifiers without signifieds. The object seduces the subject. The effect precedes the cause. Things move so fast that all causes are retroactively imputed. Causation is a simulation.” Of course, what Baudriallard is really pulling on for this chapter is his 1968 The System of Objects where “Baudrillard paints quite the vast picture here, basically arriving at the conclusion that all consumption is depraved and all objects are signs. But, he's smart about how he breaks things down into different orders of consumption, and treats them separately (even if only to make them ultimately arrive at the same point) and the distinctions are worth considering.”

“The fatal is always an anticipation of the end in the beginning, a precession of the end whose effect is to topple the system of cause and effect. It is a temptation to pass to the other side of the end, to go beyond this horizon, to deny this perpetually futurestate of things. The Object, then, is always already a fair accompli. It is without finitude and without desire, for it has already reached its end. In a way, it is transfinite. The object is therefore inaccessible to the subject’s knowledge, since there can be no knowledge of that which already has complete meaning, andmore than its meaning, and of which there can be no utopia, for it has already been created. This is what makes the Object a perpetual enigma for the subject. This is what makes it fatal.” (Baudrillard EoC, From the System of Objects...)

Moving on from that Kantian ding an sich, Buadriallar has a dense passage that rings of Lacan and existential phenomenology. Metaphor precedes concept. Lacan’s le objet a sits in obscurity behind the stade du miroir.

“If this has been concealed to us until now, it is because the subject has made the world into the metaphor of its own passions. It colonized everything: the bestial, mineral, astral, historical, and mental. But the object is not metaphor, it is passion, pure and simple. And the subject is perhaps only a mirror where objective passions come to be reflected and played out.” (Baudrillard EoC, From the System of Objects...)

Next, the apparent rushed desire of the word is lost in indifference yet the passionate unfolding of things confuses their appearances. He nods to Aurelius or Seneca?

“The world itself seems to want to hurry, to exacerbate itself, losing patience with the slowness of things, and at the same time it sinks into indifference. It is no longer we who give the world meaning in transcending or reflecting upon it. The indifference of the world in this respect is marvelous; marvelous is the indifference of things in respect to us, and yet things passionately unfold and confuse their appearances. The Stoics had already expressed all this with great eloquence.” (Baudrillard EoC, From the System of Objects...)

I guess Baudriallard defends his unacademic and passionate style of writing.

“Theory must take on the form of what it aims at i.e. theory must seduce for seduction. "Theory is, at any rate, destined to be diverted, deviated, and manipulated. It would be better for theory to divert itself, than to be diverted from itself. If it aspires to any effets de vérité it must eclipse them through its own movement. This is why writing exists. If thought does not anticipate this deviation in its own writing, the world: will do so through vulgarization, the spectacle or repetition. If truth does not dissimulate itself, the world will conjure it away by diverse means, by a kind of objective irony, or vengeance." (Baudrillard, EoC Why Theory)

This seems like Derrida’s negativity beyond Hegel’s aufheben.

“The fatal, the obscene,the reversible, the symbolic, are not concepts, since nothing distinguishes the hypotheses from the assertion. The annunciation of the fatal is also fatal, or it is not at all. In this sense it is indeed a discourse where truth has withdrawn” (Baudrillard, EoC Why Theory)

But, there is no Fukuyama end of history, no post-ideology?

“If, as a result, strategy replaced psychology? If it were no longer a question of setting truth against illusion, but of perceiving the prevalent illusion as truer than truth?” (Baudrillard, EoC Why Theory)

[Noahreidy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not as rigorous as his others. It felt more like he was writing summaries of his other books. His chapter on seduction was really good

[Baba Yaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

a self-help book for the postmodern age from catty diva baudrillard. les get into it

this is my intro into baudrillard and theory in general. oh my god this was way more fun to read than bataille like wow. sometimes he's even funny. i wasnt sure theorists were capable of that. probably the first piece of theory ive read that i understood the main of from start to finish.

it does get abstract in the last section or two but its still digestible. its just that some of the terms are very theory-y and it takes a second to grasp the point hes making because im not schooled in the weirdo vocab wizardry of these philosophy people. just roll with the punches though cuz its worth it. for something written in the 80s its surprisingly very fuckin relevant liiike grandpappy had his eyes peeled. i dont think tiktok wouldve surprised him but i do think he wouldve been disappointed. he actually past to the great beyond in 2007 which means he definitely witnessed some shit in his lifetime after the publication of this essay. potentially he couldve seen charlie the unicorn on youtube in 2005. im not saying he DID but its a definite possibility so theres a frame of reference of you

so the main thing is there's too much. too much everything. we're too connected, we can instantly reach each other, we have ready access to each other's business, and when it comes to our identities, we're basically all wearing name tags. there's too much information available to the point that we know too much and everything means everything, which means its all meaningless. everything has been overanalyzed by theory, by science, by philosophy, by psychology and politics has been reduced to a joke. there's no more social life either, just the liminality of being one of "the masses." in his words, the boundary separating the "interior" from the "exterior" has ceased to exist: there's no mystery anymore, no magic, no humanity. it's like a super close-up of a face. it stops being someone's face, and starts being some weird shit. so he says, everything is obscene.

and again he wrote this in the 80s. "oh im too easily reached by the telephone"/"the TV has corrupted our humble abodes and we're all looking into screens instead of mirrors" like he was already complaining and he didn't even have an iphone. guys like we live in a weird world

baudrillards advice to that is basically to fight fire with fire. the finer points are beyond me on his little seduction strategy (im not going to explain that one just read it), but basically its like, if the world is meaningless, stop trying to wring meaningless out of it because that's what got us into this mess. we gotta tango with the abyss you feel me? get a little sexy with it, have a little fun. oh fuck it here's the word straight from the horses mouth:

Baudrillard's declassified computer age survival guide:
"How does one disguise oneself?
How does one dissimulate oneself?
How does one parry in disguise, in silence, in the game of signs, indifference--in a strategy of appearance?"

Guys this essay is fun for the whole family. get into it

[Vickers · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baudrillard's poetic articulation makes the exact intention of his prose often difficult to grasp, which in this case equally stimulates intrigue. His propositions concerning the role of communication, inter-human relationships and how the immediate reality is experienced are exceedingly non-conforming. It turns out though (as he slyly reveals in the later chapters) that this is how in his mind theory is ideally operating, namely as a terminal to transform via accelerated theoretical tendents the implicit tendencies of reality instead of merely observing them through vain, ostensible objectivism.

However none of the contents of the work seem to be entirely detached from the realm of irony, hence (amids the colourful firework show of semantic symbolism and polemical socio-cultural detours) a rigidly literalist reading of the work is unlikely to discover the true spirit of it, nor its true substance, if any. In any measure the reader is to be greatly forewarned.

[Kevo de Trop · Rating 4 out of 5]

Si Baudrillard estuviera vivo y viera cómo la realidad virtual ha anulado (o, en sus palabras, vaciado) al espacio y al tiempo tendria mucho material interesante para seguir escribiendo; se quedaría perplejo ante el avance de la inteligencia artificial, por cómo está relegando a segundo plano, no sólo al espacio y al tiempo, sino al humano mismo. En fin, la realidad actual le impresionara, pero no tanto, porque ya a finales del siglo pasado escribía cosas que encajan muy bien con lo que se vive hoy en día hablando de medios de comunicación y tecnología, él describió los precedentes del presente.

Aunque a veces se va demasiado en metáforas y divagaciones que lo alejan a uno del punto central, creo que hay ideas interesantes en lo que escribe. Después de haber leído y escuchado varias malas referencias sobre él, comencé a leerlo con algo de desconfianza, pero la verdad es que no es tan malo como pensé...

[Ray · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rambling atop a tangent encased by metaphors that serve no other purpose than to preach rather than teach. The man loves his creative writing, I'll give him that. Sometimes that writing leads to an association of "feminine" with "death" and hoo boy, why did I want to read this again? He has fun, which gives a secondhand enjoyment. Nothing more although, probably, something less.

Read it if you want, don't if you don't, but don't feel bad if you quit this ~100 page book.

[Thea Voutiritsas · Rating 4 out of 5]

He’s an abstract curmudgeon but he goes off

[Isaac]

I am kind of an idiot, so reading philosophy is always a little difficult. If I don't hold my focus to me, vicelike, perspiring, brow furrowed, in need of an adult diaper, everything disintegrates into nonsense; not even accidental nonsense, intentional and mocking nonsense. All this to preface my opinions.

Reading this was like slipping through a fog. Definitions of concepts were oftentimes only implied, then these poorly-grasped (by me) concepts were used to define new concepts, and so on until I was 100 feet into the air held together only by the suggestion of a structure. I thought this was due to my own stupidity, but by the end of the book, it was clear Baudrillard was putting his philosophy of concealment into practice, even down to the style he deployed. I think that is fun; I liked that.

I also enjoyed the author's thinking on seduction; it reminded me explicitly of Kierkegaard's Abraham's problem of disclosure (which I thought was due to me having read about it recently, but Baudrillard actually brought him up by name.)

"Herein really lies the paradox of a production which was mistaken about its finality, and which can therefore only exacerbate itself in a strange impotence. Even the protagonists of the secret would not know how to betray it, because it is no more than a ritual act of complicity, a sharing of the absence of truth, a sharing of appearances."

Recently, I have spent many days with a fishing rod, but I have not caught one fish. Unfortunately, it is only strengthening the lake's hold over me. If a bass could speak, it would probably say: "Seduction as an invention of strategems, of the body, as a disguise for survival, as an infinite dispersion of lures, as an art of disappearance and absence, as a dissuasion which is stronger yet than that of the system."

[Shadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a marvelous but dense collection of paroxysms, Baudrillard diagnoses modern society with a sinister schizophrenia. There is a loss of the tangible, yes, but more dangerously an unrelenting totality of contiguity with and of all things. The subject has become a receptacle and a resonator of the networks that have pervaded all minutiae of existence. The private and public have melded into one surface. The message has been lost in translation yet the mode of communication is fetishized by all, leaving us in obscene ecstasy.

The tone is incessant and erratic; one has the morbid sense that Baudrillard is despairing at the thought of his prophetic vision. He tells the story of a subject that has lost its ability to "produce himself as a mirror." There is no more real, only a hyperreal which has become more real than the real itself. Utter confusion and a reversal of desire ensue. We do not know what we want nor are we capable of finding that out for ourselves. The body and its relation to objects have lost any meaning; the world has been reduced to a series of flashes on a screen.

[Monoploid · Rating 4 out of 5]

My wonderful friend, Will, bought me this book.

I enjoyed it! I was ever so close to understanding simulacra and simulation, but then I lost it, just as I began to taste it. I find that sociology Baudrillard is much more interesting to me than philosopher Baudrillard. That being said, I think I am woefully under-read on semiotics, which prevents my understanding of his dense work.

Here is my favorite line from this book:

“I plunge into the negative ecstasy of radio”

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

A massive spaz out of a philosophy text... metaphor doesn't work? Who cares! Contradict half of what you've written with the barest meandering of explanation? Awesome! Probably the only (quasi)futurist who has no particular interest in understanding science, Baudrillard seems to have had a lot of fun writing The Ecstasy of Communication. One can imagine him gleefully banging away at the typewriter which makes it hard not to like even if you feel like it's empty calories as the genre goes.

[Seba Aranda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sorprende como, a pesar de su antiguedad, describe con gran precisión ciertas situaciones que ocurren hoy.

[Mohammed Amine BIAD · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ecstasy of communication is an open criticism of media and its effect. It depicts the alteration of the public and private spaces accrued with the invasion of media. Baudrillard, claims that we are losing the sense of space and matter. The landscape around us is limited to screens and networks. He predicted, somehow, how intense would media affect our relationships, our perspectives on the world, and our understanding of privacy, intimacy, and surveillance.
Baudrillard centers his theory around the way media pushed reality to the margins leaving us in a state of hyperreality. The amount of information and the urge of sharing everything publically is what he refers to as Ecstatic. He claims that we are exposed, forcibly, to information (microscopic pornography because it is forced and exaggerated).

[James Payne · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are stretches of interest here, but most of the text, even when it should be riveting given the argument and the subject, is dull. It is dull because Baudrillard's prose, or its translation, leaves the text in permanent abstraction, speaking in generalities, and through neologisms, so the reader inevitably glazes over. The book itself looks amazing, a cyberpunk high-point for semiotext(e) and the ads in the back of the book alone make it worth finding it a copy. This should be so much cooler than it is, but one can see how a contemporaneous reader would have been enthralled. The argument about the immanency of hypercommunication without content has certainly been borne out via social media.

[Matt Clement · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard to rate this one, because I enjoyed the flowing language but, honestly, had very little idea what to do with the content. My experience reading philosophy has been that, often, the language is confusing but, sometimes, and idea catches just right and helps to clarify thinking around other concepts. That happened a few times while reading this book.

That said, it often seems like I enjoy the feel of reading books like this more than I absorb the content. That's all right, but it also means I could probably benefit from some instruction in this area. I expect that I'll come to this book, and more Beaudriallard, in the future, if for no other reason than it's less than 100 pages. It's an easy read in that sense.

[Sarah Fogel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was unfortunately not able to make it all the way through this book. I found it very interesting, as Baudrillard is a very enticing writer with unique ideas which he expresses in a unique way. With that being said, this book, and presumably the rest of Baudrillard's work (which I cannot claim to have read) is quite dense. Somewhere along the journey of reading this one, I lost the plot completely and felt I would've had to start over to really understand what he's trying to say. What I understood of this book was insightful and enjoyable, but it commands more attention than I was willing to give it right now. Maybe some other time. Sorry Jean.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this mesmerising, disorienting essay, Baudrillard declares that technological, scientific, and psychological advances render our world increasingly 'saturated with meaning' - we are relegated to receptive nodes in a hyperrealistic, instantaneous, 'pornographically objective' network. Our only hope to retain and reclaim our humanity is to unfocus our attention and detach from meaning, to seduce and allow ourselves to be seduced by appearances in themselves, to relish in the insoluble and indecipherable.