First, many thanks to Ken Rufo for taking the time to introduce us to Baudrillard, especially in such a clear, digestible manner. To be perfectly honest, it was a welcome respite from the intense work we have been doing all semester. It is certainly not that Baudrillard's ideas are in any way less complex than any of the theorists we have previously encountered, but Ken's conversational style (and the nature of blogging) made this lecture feel like a chat--in fact I read it with a cup of tea. Many thanks.
One aspect of the Guest Lecture I enjoyed was that it illustrated Baudrillard's evolution of thought throughout his life. I find this encouraging as a young person trying to take in all that we have been studying (and many other things--theories, philosophies, perspectives--that I have studied or thought/talked about throughout my life) to be reminded that theory and the thought process behind theory is indeed a process, and it is one which is constantly changing and evolving. I enjoyed Ken Rufo's description of Baudrillard's work from the mid '70s:
I mean it's tough to announce that pretty much most forms of critical thought invent the stuff they purport to discover, that they support the things they fight against, and then still offer a coherent and useful alternative to all of that. So a lot of Baudrillard's work from '76 on is an attempt to try to tease out different possibilities...but at various points in time he suggests: symbolic exchange, seduction, pataphysics, fatal theory, radical theory, impossible exchange, nihilism, yada yada. They're all thought experiments, so it's not really fair to harsh on their inadequacies too much.
I think this reinforces the awareness that one of the limitations (and perhaps also one of the strengths of theory) is that it is theory--it is not fact, doctrine, or truth. This is evident in theory's tendency to deny the existence of or at least the ability to access truth or source/origin or meaning. However, despite theory's disavowal of truth, it is not uncommon for theorists or (as relates to the notion of 'author function' over 'author') critics who use and interpret theory to use its assertions and conjectures dogmatically--to forget that theory should be evolving, changing, disagreeing with its predecessors and itself.
The biography of Baudrillard's work seems to embody this ideal of theory. It begins trying to reinforce and improve Marxist theory. It then disavows Marxism, claiming Marx had it backwards. After that is disavows the majority of theory altogether, saying that it does not discover and theorize, but rather that it creates discourse through its theories. Then it searches from one idea to the next--trying them out as "thought experiments" and finally settles on a few more concrete theories where it will stay, to be reinforced or criticized or rethought in the theory continuum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I feel like Baudrillard perhaps comforts you in some way. He seems resitant to the totalizing which other theories seem to indulge in (at least given a cursory inspection).
You've expressed discomfort with Freud/Lacan, largely along the same lines as myself - "If I make one gripe the whole thing seems to go out the window but I REALLY, REALLY don't agree with this bit here" - but Baudrillard is tolerant of that. He drew flack in that obituary for being, I suppose indecisive is as good a word as any, but so did Derrida in some way. Rather than righteously invent a solution to every problem (most of which are admittedly of the theorist's own invention anyways) JB likes to skate around the notion of solutions, attempting instead to really understand the issue at hand before making any firm suggestions. Really, he stays chasing the dogs (remember them from the beginning of the term) that theory is really most comfortable chasing. A good deal of the time, people seem to be cathcing the dog and then not really being able to do anything with it. The subsequent attempts to train the dog, without knowing what tricks he is even supposed to learn, often fall far below the grandeur of the chase. And, anyways, isn't any story really all about the telling?
Post a Comment