Randy Renier I.

Espinoza
Sociology 297
Prof. Nanette Dugo
Book Report
on

Simulacra and Simulation

by Jean Baudrillard

Simulacra and Simulation

In this seminal book, French social theorist Jean Baudrillard puts forward an extreme
version of postmodern theorizing, bleak in its dispassionate and negative critique of postmodern
society. Although he mentions the word postmodern only once or twice throughout the book
and did not specifically use it as a modifier or adjective to describe contemporary society (he
rather described contemporary society as postcapitalist or late capitalist), Baudrillard clearly
characterizes the features of late-capitalist society as distinct from those of the immediately
preceding capitalist society, which he describes as the hallmark of modernity, the modern age
of human history. Although at this time still unconscious of and unconcerned with terminology,
he unequivocally examines subjects and concepts and employs methods of analysis in a way
that is characteristically postmodern and situates and contextualizes his conceptual formulation
within the contemporary world, which he sees as introducing a new age distinct from
modernity. Veering away from Marxism and criticizing traditional epistemological frameworks,
Baudrillard explores the terrain of postmodern discourse by problematizing popular or mass
culture in terms of its impact on the dynamics of a society that is moving towards hyperreality
and, in the process, discovers fresh new ground that clears the way for further theorizing on
postmodern culture.
Precession of Simulacra
Baudrillard asserts that the inherent difference between one and the other, between the
real and its imaginary, the very difference that constituted the charm of abstraction, has
disappeared. In its stead, the workings of contemporary era have evolved a new order of
reality, a new kind of simulation. Where before representation flourished as an epistemological
system that draws its validity from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and the real, the
kind of simulation (wherein the model as it were simulates the real) that still supported the
dichotomy between the real and the imaginary, the new order of simulation stems from the
utopia of the principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as the value, from
the sign as the reversion and death sentence of every reference. Baudrillard further writes that
whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false
representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulation.
In a world of simulacra and simulation, representation, as we used to know it, is in fact a
simulacrum in and of itself, a mere model which has no reality.

Simulation and Hyperreality

Baudrillard describes simulation as a process whereby the image undergoes successive
phases. First, it is the reflection of a profound reality (sacramental order), the phase that very
well characterizes representation. Second, it masks and denatures a profound reality (order of
maleficence), which loosely translates to a phase of dissimulation. Third, it masks the absence
of a profound reality (order of sorcery). And finally, it has no relation to reality whatsoever; it is
its own pure simulacrum (orders of simulation, as opposed to the first three, which are orders
of appearances.) In this stage, multiple simulacra can be created; for instance, multiple replicas
or clones can be made from a single genetic code. This nature of simulation renders
representation as an obsolete system since the existence of multiple simulacra negates the
equivalence between the originating copy and the set of copies created from it. Besides, the
exactness of the simulation makes the distinction between the real and the pseudo- or neoreals impossible.

Disneyland : Hyperreality in the U.S.

This whole process of hyperreality is clearly illustrated in Baudrillards analysis of
Disneyland as a popular representation of America. First, it is viewed as the reflection of the
reality of a mass culture that constitutes contemporary America. Second, Disneyland obfuscates
the profound reality of American society by taking this microcosm of theme park as
representative of the American population. Third, Disneyland now, in all its splendor and
appearances, hides the fact that it is representing no profound reality at all, because there is
now no America or California to speak of or to make sense of. In the final analysis, Disneyland
is not reflecting any reality or, more precisely, has no reality of its own. The thin line that
distinguishes the real and the not real has collapsed such that there is no more model (it is to
emphasize that model is not synonymous with simulacrum) and no more original, no more
signifier and no more signified, no more referent and referring term. What is left is the truth of
simulacra -- not in the traditional sense of a model made of a preexisting reality that comes to
stand on behalf of that reality, but models that emanate from previously independent and
immutable structures that evolve a reality of their own, a reality that becomes even more real
than the original.
These simulacra eventually lose their relation to the originating reality and eventually
lose their own reality in an implosion of signs and reality, resulting in hyperreality, a condition
where there exists an indistinguishable divide between what is real and what is not, between
signs and reality. Thus we can talk of the dissolution of Disneyland into American life and the
simultaneous dissolution of American life into Disneyland, in the same way that theres a great
implosion of mass/popular culture (TV and the Internet) and American sociality happening
today. In the midst of this confused and convulsed state of affairs, Baudrillard reaffirms the
precession of simulacra; that in the great implosion of signs and reality, simulacra emerge to
become predominant. Disneyland, Hollywood, hypermarkets, and other dominant cultural
symbols thus loom large in the consciousness of the American people. This is, in a way, a
recognition of the prevalence of mass culture as all-encompassing signs that tend to change our
perception and experience of reality.

The Mall: Hyperreality in the Philippines

In the Philippine context, hyperreality is most explicitly represented by the
predominance of malls in the consciousness of the Filipinos. The mall as it were is the
microcosm of Philippine sociality. It has supplanted the plaza complex as a veritable community.
Where in the past the plaza complex was the hub of activity in the city wherein sociality,
politics, and culture radiate from the central plaza, the mall is the modern-day center wherein
the atrium or the entertainment stage serves as the nucleus of cultural and commercial
activities. The mall has supplanted former socio-economic centers such as Binondo, Sta. Cruz,
and Quiapo as central places of leisure, entertainment, commerce, and political activity. Much of
the social structures that used to be dispersed across the wide urban geography of the plaza
complexes of Manila are now concentrated in the enclosed, one-stop complex that is the mall.
The mall is the counterpart of the hypermarkets of America; actually, it even surpasses
them in terms of extent and influence. The mall in the Philippines is a mix of hypermarkets and
Disneyland. It controls the cultural and economic activities of common people; much more, it
promises to colonize the political sphere as well. Now that BIR filing and NBI clearances are
already processed inside the mall, its not far-fetched to anticipate more government agencies
establishing outlets and field offices in the mall. When that happens, the colonization of what
Habermas calls the lifeworld of Filipinos by the mall will be complete. And thats the extent of
hyperreality: the simulacrum assuming a reality much greater than the reality of the social
itself, the dissolution of real sociality, and the end of our ability to discern and experience
reality.
End of Theory and Practice
In the Baudrillardian universe of simulacra and simulation, theory and practice assume
no utility and value. The precession of simulacra rejects any attempt to theorize and make
sense of the world and social action. No political projects can offset the totalizing effects of
simulacra. For in the Baudrillardian world, meanings are nonexistent, and meaning-creation is
futile. Thus previous theoretical systems, representation included, have lost their meaning and
value. Even semiotics, the study of signs, is rendered incapacitated. The explosion of signs
(simulacra) that heralded the dawn of the postmodern age and their eventual implosion, the
high point of this age, have both blurred the relation of these signs to reality and have given
them a reality that is more real than social and physical reality. In this world, institutions and
structures are no more than mere instrumentalities in the neat functioning of this process of
simulation. Politics and anthropology, for instance, are long dead. The political system, the Left,
strikes, wars are there just to make known the fact that power has long undergone its demise
and that these seemingly political activities are nothing but efforts to revive something that has
long been lost. Cultural forms follow the patterns of simulation: contemporary films are no more
than mere technologically advanced and more polished duplicates of classic films. The Gulf War
and the Vietnam War are nothing but vain efforts to reclaim the political that humanity has lost
since World War II. Simply put, everything in the social and material world is but the
meaningless signs that have lost their meaning and value.

Dissolution of Meaning and Sociality

The Baudrillardian system necessarily puts an end to meanings and any efforts at
creating meanings. The world produces more and more information but less and less meaning.
Everything that is produced by simulation, every sign and every response to such sign, is
perceived and received by the masses with passive reaction. The media have become
producers not of socialization, but of the implosion of the social in the masses. The masses,
according to Baudrillard, react to the media by directing or absorbing all the messages that the
media produce without responding to them. In the process of this passive reception or
resistance, sociality is lost and any relevant social act is neutralized.
Conclusion
Baudrillard offers a novel way of rethinking and making sense of postmodern culture
and society. In all its avant-garde and ingenious quality, he nonetheless gives us a negative
analysis of society, one that is a lot more apocalyptic than Marxs was, more critical than the
Critical Theorys has been, and more postmodern than Foucaults is. Though many of his
observations may be valid in the light of the increasing mediatization and technologization of
much of our social reality, theres a danger inherent in a totalizing theoretical system such as
Baudrillards. If everything that Baudrillard asserts were to be taken as true and valid, then his
own theorizing would suffer the fate of previous and future theories: drained of all meaning and
value. Be that as it may, Baudrillard puts forth an attempt, albeit extreme, to understand the
nature and characteristics of the postmodern world. Although Baudrillard somehow claims that
political and progressive engagement is rendered superfluous in the new world order, he
reflects that it is in the tactical universe of simulacrum that one will need to fight without
hope, for hope is a weak value, but in defiance and fascination. While arguing that simulation
configures social structures and relations, Baudrillard contends that the masses, one way or
another, have the discretion to resist the totalizing and colonizing hegemony of simulacra.
If taken critically and cautiously, Baudrillards theoretical system may help give us a
more enlightened understanding of contemporary society. However, if taken and embraced
completely as a theoretical and political paradigm, Baudrillardianism may even more complicate
the complexity of making sense of our social reality, for it is at best a cryptic and pessimistic
theory that belies any effort and hope for remedies to the problems and issues facing the social
world. In order to consummate its utility, it needs to be infused with structural elements that
inform Marxism and Critical Theory and the elements of postmodernism and poststructuralism
that recognize humanism and agency as relevant features of the postmodern world. For a
theory to be successful and truly beneficial to humanity, it must recognize the existence of
structures and agency and the dialectical relationship between them, for it is the congenialcontradictory nature of this relationship that constitutes sociality, and any attempt at
understanding social change ought not to forget this important reality.