S.M.JAFFAR - Recently Updated Pages

smjaffar-Introduction,Views and Activities

smjaffar — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:50:29 CST

href="http://search.yahoo.com/"> <img src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/search/ysan/ysanlogo.gif"

Introducing myself

next page
box300
socialism
philosophy
khayaal
aurvedic

I WAS BORN JULY 18,1919 in village Kalanpur district Jaunpur UP India..I participated in IINDIA'S struggle for independence during the"Quit India" movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi on August 9, 1942.
.Elected president of Lucknow University Students' Union in 1941-42.Imprisoned by the British for leading the students movement against their rule..

As general secretary of All India Students' Congress, I toured the riot -ravaged areas of Bihar and Bengal with the team of Mahatma Gandhi who was on a humanitarian mission.to save large number of people from secterian violence.
During the feeedom struggle I was incharge of the students' wing of Forward Bloc ,the party of Mr.Subhash Chandra Bose. I .am a JOURNALIST by profession ..

Why This Site?

IN a world where race for individual gains at the cost of community gains has

replaced the values of human life,there is an urgent need to check the consequences of this trend. ..
Referring especially to the Indian scene,where the spiritual achievements of saints and sufis are greatly advertised, the fact is that most people,particularly the elite are persuing a selfish materialist life.One can imagine what results would follow from this attitude . S.M.Jaffar
Subjective Roots of Corruption

S.M.Jaffar

The "Corrupt" means a loss of direction.. When the actual working of the world is ignored,individual is isolated in his mind and his actions become corrupt .

The last century has shown an acceleration of decay. Abusive governments, pollution, overpopulation, a proliferation of destruction weapons. Worst of all, in the supposed luxury of industrialized countries, human life has descended into rigid competition for the ability to afford a life apart from violent dirty cities and predatory, perverse, parasitic fellow citizens.
The society is trying to outrun its own corruption. It is futile to rely on political or economic systems to provide answers. The most destructive facet of corruption is that it pervades the assumptions of what is good and what is bad. When illusions outweigh reality, desperate attempts are made to avoid the bad, but bad is created because what is considered good is unrealistic. Corruption comes from within and cannot be isolated in a category. It is far too easy to deny the decay. The people buckle down and focus on their jobs, hobbies, television screens. . They relax into thinking that they have outrun the nightmare,But incidents happen. A few, then more. And soon as they are moving on again, the talking figures on their television screen act as if this is unfortunate but, shrugging, they suggest it is natural. It is just how it is. "Human nature," .
Soon there are two realities in which they live: the socially-accepted theory, and the experience of daily life. With enough money, they can isolate themselves from the latter. Since corruption comes from within, however, it re-emerges not locally but globally, and they find the climate changing, or unstable political situations manipulating them, or even a lack of option for a sensible life. Since most people accept the theory, they act according to it, and thus minimize the impetus toward a better way of life. People are taught -- by favorite celebrities, by politicians, by the peers -- that modern society will provide each individual freedom of choice, a good life, and even meaningful activities. The theory is that if each individual has liberty and wealth, life will be good and problems will decrease. History and experience,however teach the opposite. The further they go into empires of the individual, the more selfishness and greed and paranoia overwhelm them. It is not possible to machine-process people into ideal beings through external force. They must tackle what is within them.
This focus on the external, denying the inner world, is what defines modern society. Thee nature was conquered with the internal combustion engine, the assembly line, interchangeable parts, and now digital electronics. It is assumed that humans act like these devices as well. It is not correct that democracy, individual freedoms, humanism, and material comfort will make humans ideal people like metal poured into a mold, stamped and assembled by machines. The machines do not have personality or the different mental abilities that define human individuals. The society rewards not higher behavior but obedience and conformity, and a willingness to respond to the acquisition of money and social prestige. This is the false reality ; what is called thin or partial intelligence, which is the ability to focus well on details while being ignorant of the system at large. This system at cannot be perceived by attention to details, or even context, but can be analyzed by its design: how the whole fits together so that it functions. To look at civilization on the level of design is to see its actual motivations, behind the facade of smiling faces on television or grand speeches full of positive-sounding words like "freedom" and "progress." . Citizens are taught to fear dictatorship, but no one mentioned authoritarianism enforced by the bad choices of individuals, by selfishness and short-sightedness.. Kings are feared but no one mentioned that bad choices by voters could have a more destructive effect. Uncountable voices command to fear those with fanatical or extremist direction, but only a few warn that a lack of direction can spread corruption more widely than any single choice. To avoid corruption, the basic human values should be re-interpreted. The start is made with reality, and the design of the physical world. People require air, water and living space, but even more, they need a model of how the universe functions so that it can be work ed for the betterment of mankind. Natural law, like the inner worlds, cannot be controlled externally. The most basic level of human thought, the programming of assumptions could be discussed through philosophy. This mode of analysis grapples with not only the abstract but the whole of design, such that no detail is detached from the world in which it operates as thin intelligences tend to do. The philosophy of modern society, is confined to the material comfort of individuals. The modern societies do not assess direction as a whole; they defer to what the voters want. The voters are told to want what enhances their own material comfort, and so they see only details, not the whole. Almost all of them have no knowledge of politics, and most of them lack the insight to make intelligent decisions in this field. They view society as something which will never change and will always provide for them. The philosophy behind this individualism is utilitarian. It assumes that if you can make most people think what happens benefits them materially, all will be well. But what about the direction of the whole? The modern individualism does not address this. There is no public recognition of this failing, only a stream of propaganda extolling its virtues and exhorting to combat "problems," without mentioning that current assumptions create these problems. A society based upon the pursuit of individual pleasure and wealth is destined to be selfish. Selfishness is a form of corruption. Instead of doing what is right for the overall direction of society,only convenient choices are made. This convenience creates side effects that ultimately will all have to be faced,. The wealth is enjoyed now and let future generations face the consequences. Predictably, that future has arrived. The philosophies that have got the world into this mess can now be seen as erroneous assumptions. But philosophy has many meanings: it is both a type of thing, as in "a philosophy of convenience," and a language for discussing philosophies. Armed with this logical tool, the modern philosophy can be torn apart enabling people to see where it goes wrong. . The tendency is to deny this condition of nature by categorizing it as "bad," and categorizing all that denies it as "good." People are equal, All death should be outlawed. Even competition, or noting that one person is a better swimmer or writer than another, becomes taboo. We stop using words like fat, retarded, ugly, short, incompetent and begin speaking in a patois of euphemism and political categories. This leads to a state where certain ideas are as much thought crime, and the penalties as dire (denial of livelihood and social acceptance), as those in any authoritarian state. Denial perpetuates illusion, . It forces to separate the real world from theory, and by making the theory, corrupting the assumptions. Nature is defined by survival of the fittest. Accidents happen and there is no justice in the world. Power comes from the barrel of the gun. . Nihilism, or as some call it, Zen, is a state of recognizing the mechanistic function of nature without passing judgment over it. The opposition of nihilism is delusion. Delusion makes human categories like "good" and "evil" into which the world is sorted, and thus try to control each other through these mental constructs. But these rapidly run into contradiction. It is said that murder is bad, but murderers are murdered. It is said that inequality is bad, but some one has to be picked who is "more equal" to lead . It is pretended that all people are the same but some are considered to be stupid or parasitic. Worst of all, delusion requires vigorous defense because it is contrary to reality, and this means constant retribution upon those who point out the obvious -- that reality exists, that truth can be determined, and that human theory does not supercede the physical and natural world. This is why either theory is brought in line with reality, or corruption is created through a theory that is essentially delusional in contrast to reality. The dual processes of nihilism and idealism helps to remove unrealistic values and replace them with better ones. This mental event also helps to deal with the problems of "good" and "evil." When the overall design of nature is grasped, predation and death are found equally necessary to consumption and life, and how natural selection makes the species more adapted to reality and thus more capable within it. Like the ancient Gnostics, we see how good necessarily gives birth to evil to keep it in balance. Good and evil work together to create a "meta-good," or reality itself, which never runs into a state of stagnation or delusion. .. . .
Mathematical Model of Corruption--C= M (monopoly ) +D (discretion)-A (accountability)

In a special report on corruption , Robert Klitgaard Dean and Ford Distinguished Professor of International Development and Security at the RAND Graduate School has devised a mathematical model of Corruption as a System Consider two analytical points. First, corruption may be represented as following a formula: C = M + D - A.Corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. Whether the activity is public, private or nonprofit, and whether it is carried out in Ouagadougou or Washington, one will tend to find corruption when an organization or person has a monopoly power over a good or service, has the discretion to decide who will receive it and how much that person will get, and is not accountable Second, corruption is a crime of calculation, not passion. True there are both saints who resist all temptation and honest officials who resist most. But when bribes are large, the chances of being caught small, and the penalties if caught meager, many officials will succumb. According to Mr Klitgaard combating corruption begins with designing better systems. Monopolies must be reduced or carefully regulated. Official discretion must be clarified. Transparency must be enhanced.. The probability of being caught, as well as the penalties for corruption (for both givers and takers) must increase. Each of these introduces a vast topic. But notice that none immediately refers to what most of us think of first when corruption is mentioned - that is, new laws, more controls, a change in mentality, or an ethical revolution. Laws and control prove insufficient when systems do not exist in which to implement them. Moral awakenings do occur, but seldom by the design of our public leaders. If we cannot engineer incorruptible officials and citizens, we can nonetheless foster competition, change incentives and enhance accountability - in short fix the systems that breed corruption. END

shadow of Terror over Fatehgarh
I was a Prisoner
S.M.Jaffar

The country was seething with discontent against the
British Government for shoving India into the World
War two without obtaining the consent of its people.
It was yet to reach the flash point in the form of the
"Quit India movemen"t launched by Mahatma Gandhi on
August 9,1942.
The Britishhad however read the forebodings on the
horizon.As a precutionary measure even before the
movement they started rounding up the former
revolutinaries and anti-war activists.In U.P all of
them labelled as terorist were confined in a high
security prison in Fatehgarh situated in a minor
district.Arrested in June 1942 I was also one of the
security prisoners there.Thus amidst the misiries of
the Prison it was a thrill for me to be in the
company of those who had aleady become a legend in
their lifetime.
We were confined into heavily
guarded three barracks which accommodated nearly three
hundred prisoners.We were locked up inside the
barracks after dusk and the locks were opened in the
morning .The prisoners were allowed to remain in the
open in the small enclousers around the barracks
sorrounded by high walls and barbed wires.They were
allowed meals twice day cooked by ordinary
convicts.The nights were spent in beds made on brick
platforms.the prisoners spent most of the time reading
books ,conducting excited discussing ideological
issues and taking exercising.When newspapers were
smuggled from outside animated afforts were made to
know what was happening outside in the world.Everybody
wanted to know the fortunes of war because on this
depended the fate of their limitless confinement
because under the rules the time of confinement was
not under court jurisdiction..It is however strange
nobody talked about his family and loved ones left
behind.
Unfortunately most of those with
whom I shared the prison are dead.An urdu poet Mirza
Ghalib said "sab kahan kuch lala-o-gul me numyan ho
gain.Khak men kaya suraten hongi jo pinhan ho gain"
(Not all but some have blossomed as colourul
flowers. What beautiful faces which were alive have
mingled with dust).The first among those I remembered
was Shaukat Usmani who was among the original founders
of the cimmunist party of India.His conversion to
communism has an interseting history.Some muslim
clerics in early 1900s had issued an eddict that on
account of the British occupation India had become
dar-ul-harab( abode of war) and therefore had become
unfit for true muslims to live there.They
should,therefore migrate to some Islamic
country(Dar-ul-salm).
Responding ,Young Shaukat Usmani who lived somewhere
in a desert town of Rajasthan joined a group of
muslim young persons and decided to leave India for
Turkey.Crossing clendenstinely the Indo Afghan Border
and climbing high mountains and walking through long
deserts avoiding both the local police and robber
gangs they crossed Afghanistan and entered the Russian
Territory from where they thought of crossing over to
the Turkish territory.They had,however little
knowledge That the great communist revolution had
taken place and the route to Turkey was blocked.They
found themselves in the midst of a chatotic condition
on Russian territory where a muslim governor
appointed by the Czarist governor was jittery over the
newly constituted red army expected to arrive any time
to end his tyrannycal rule.In the meantime the
immigrants were produced before the governor,Since
they had illegally entred the territory they were
declared slaves of the governor. Their dreams
sharrered they reconciled to the fate.After sometimes
the rumour spread that units of the Red Army had
started marching towards the territory in order to
liberate it from the Czar's governor.Amidst general
panic the army arrived and the functionaries of the
old regime surrendered before it..Mr Shaukat Usmani
and his comrades in slavery were released treated
well by the army authorities and on their way back to
Moscow were taken with them as free men.
In Moscow they were
hailed as fellow revolutionaries. The party bosses
selected some of thee educated persons from the group
and sent them to a special academy for an intensive
training in the ideology,arts and tactics of fomenting
revolutions world wide.Among the trainers was a high
profile Indian revolutionary M.N.Roy. After the
training was over Usmani was smuggled in Early 1920s
to Cwanpur,an industrial town in U.P and was given the
task of motivating a group of avtive indusrial workers
with a view to forming nucleus of a communist
organization.But soon the British intelligence
discovered the identity of Usmani and the kind ofwork
he was doing there.Other such networks were also
discovered all over the country.this triggered the
rounding up of these workers who were prosecuted under
the famous Merrut Conspiracy Case.
After his release Usmani
continued work in the movement till the beginning of
the Second War till he was rearrested,although other
communists continued to remain outside on account of
their support given to the British after Germany
attacked Russia.

Another inmate of the camp was aristocratic
Saumendra Nath Tagore nephew of poet Rabindra Nath
Tagore.After his initial education he was sent to
Europe for further studies .At that time the message
of the Russian revolution and the fight for India's
independence had set ablaze the imagination of Indians
living abroad.In Germany Tagore came into contact with
a group of such Indians prominent among whom were
Biren Chattouppadhayya and Raja Mahendra Pratap
Singh.Tagore travelled to Moscow.He however never
liked the transformation of Russia into a Stalinist
dictatorship.On his return to India he floated his own
outfit the Revolutionary Communist Party of India
which had considerable influence in Assam and
Bengal.He was married to the famous classical dancer
Shrimati Huteesingh.
There were also two brothers
Raj Kumar Sinha and Vijay Kumar Sinha.They had already
undergone long terms of imprisonment for
revolutionary activities before coming to this camp.
Vijaya Kumar Sinha was a well read person and had
served a term in Andamans also.Two prominent leaders
of Revolutionary Socialist Party previously known as
Anshulan were Sushil Bhattachary and Satyan
Banarjee.Mr Jharkhandey Rai also belonged to the same
party.The other heroes of the Kakori Conspiracy Case
were Vishnu Saran Dublish,brothers Manmath Nath Gupta
and Manmohan Gupta.Mr.Dublish was a large hearted
person who endeared himself to all.
Bhagwas Das Mahur an
associate of Sardar Bhagat Singh who made an attempt o
kill a government spy suspected of informing the
police about Chandra Shekhar Azad killed in an
encounter with the police in the Bhosawal Conspiracy
case was also there.He was a self educated
intellectual and after his release became a professor
in Jhansi.
Two prominent congress
leaders Keshava Deo Malaviya , Mohanlal Gautam and
labour leader Ganga Sahai Chaubay were there for
instigating violence against the government.The two
young brothers Mohit Kumar Banarjee and Basant Kumar
Banarjee were picked up for their revolutionary
activities.In fact most adult members of their family
were confined in different jails in U.P.Mahashey Kedar
Nath Arya,a religious person clad in saffron robes was
a socialist and secular to the core.Dr Pitambar Pant A
teacher of physics in the Allahabad university was
arrested for participating in the Agra Conspiracy
case.Another professor was Kailash Prakash.
Among members of the original
party formed by Bhagat Singh the Hindustan Socialist
Republican Party were Krishn Shankar Srivastava and
Sheo Bachan Rai.Mani Lal Sharma Absar
Hussain,Surendra Pandey and Virendra Pandey were
followers of M.N. Roy.The communists were represented
by Shekhar Gangauly and Ardhanshu.
Vishambhar Dayal
Tripathi and brother Gangadhar Tripathi and Nalani
Kumar Mukerjee represented Forward Bloc and firmly
believed that Netaji's army the INA would soon
liberate the country.The congress socialist party was
represented by the fire-eating old Rajput Thakur
Malkhan Singh.Eastern UP was represented by Jagganath
Singh,Jagannath Shastri Baleshwae Singh
TarkeshwarPandey,Pabbar Ram and Rajdeo Singh.Allahabad
was represented by Badri Phalwan,Rup Narain Tripathi
and Ajay Kumar Basu.
It was after the
defeat of Nazi Germany in the World War two that the
stiff posture of the British showed signs of
relaxation.Soon negotiations started between Gandhiji
and other prominent leaders who were released from
captivity .The last to be released were the prisinors
from the terrorist camp of Fathgarh.There were
emotional scenes at the time of parting.During
legthening years of imprisonment in Fatehgarh with
uncertainty hovering over the future,we had become a
closely-bonded family.Even afterwards despite
differences of ideology ,time and distance these ties
forged during trials and tribulations,hopes and
disappointments never slackened.END

smjaffar on the Media

smjaffar — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:31:56 CDT

T Douglas kellner,
(From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia)

The media is the whole body of communications that reach large numbers of the public via radio, television, movies, magazines, newspapers and the World Wide Web. The term was coined in the 1920s with the advent of nationwide radio networks, mass-circulation newspapers and magazines.
The mass media reaches a mass audience. That audience has been viewed by some commentators as forming a mass society with special characteristics, notably atomization or lack of social connections, which render it especially susceptible to the influence of modern mass media techniques such as advertising and propaganda.
During the 20th century, the advent of mass media was driven by technology that allowed the massive duplication of material at a low cost. Physical duplication technologies such as printing, record pressing and film duplication allowed the duplication of books, newspapers and movies at low prices to huge audiences. Television and radio allowed the electronic duplication of content for the first time.
Mass media had the economics of linear replication: a single work could make money proportional to the number of copies sold, and as volumes went up, units costs went down, increasing profit margins further. Vast fortunes were to be made in mass media.
The Internet and mass media
During the last decade of the 20th century, the advent of the World Wide Web marked the first era in which any individual could have a means of exposure on the scale of mass media. For the first time, anyone with a web site can address a global audience, although serving high levels of web traffic is still expensive. It is possible that the rise of peer-to-peer technologies may have begun the process of making the cost of bandwidth manageable.End
xxxxx
Postmodernism & the Media
by Andreas Saugstad
November 20, 2000
The media are dominating our culture. We live in the information age, not only because of the internet, but because of TV channels, radio-channels, newspapers, magazines and books. As the CNN ad says: "you are what you know" - information is essential to our times. In my country of Norway, Reality TV is now dominating, shows with random people placed in a bar together, or some Norwegians placed in a house in Greece, or some other setting where very normal people (nothing bad in being normal) are filmed in every thinkable (and unthinkable) situation.
As I am writing, Ricky Lake is on my TV screen in Oslo, Norway - this show has found its way to Scandinavia and many other places, I think. As one of my friends said: "We live in a time where fame without content is dominating." People are getting famous because of nothing, and instead of making educational and cultural programs, TV stations make trash TV, because of the commercial value.
Jean Francois Loytard
The period in which we now live is called postmodernism. Jean-Francois Lyotard has said that in postmodernism one has given up the idea of a grand narrative. Belief in universal criteria, like those in the Enlightenment, has been replaced by the postmodern relativism and pluralism. The idea now is to accept a number of different perspectives, and not exclude any expression or perspective from the culture or information stream. Postmodernism is the philosophical equivalent to New York City: Embracing pluralism, combination and diversity. As Lyotard claims, a unified culture has now been replaced by a culture full of many small stories, many different critieria - a polyphony of voices.
Pluralism and the Media
Let me now make some reflections on the postmodern media. How do we evaluate the media in the postmodern world? Should Ricky Lake be banned from TV because the show obviously has no intellectual or aesthetic value? Should the intellectuals revolt against the emptiness of the postmodern media?
Postmodernism has influenced many. In Norway, my home country, the editor of Morgenbladet, the leading intellectual newspaper, defends pluralism. Many of the French intellectuals do too, and even though postmodernism is regarded as quasi-intellectualism by many Americans, some of the basic ideas are important. The Americans have always believed in freedom of expression, at least in theory.
But the problem with pluralism is that it often seems to lead to a related point of view, namely relativism, i.e. the view that anything goes, that nothing is more true or more right or wrong than anything else. Therefore, we should distinguish between two kinds of pluralism.
Pluralism-relativism
First we have normative pluralism, an idea which also may be called relativism or nihilism: The acceptance of all narratives, expressions and norms, claiming that no one is better than all the others. Secondly, there is a kind of postmodernism which is pluralist in the sense that it accepts different views, without denying that something is better than other things.
Diversity without relativism
In this latter case of pluralism or postmodernism, we are faced with the old idea of defending other people's right to say whatever they wish, without accepting their points of view. And this is the kind of postmodernism I find the most interesting: embracing a diversity of human expressions and interests, without lapsing into relativism. The idea of diversity, without relativism, is my starting point for suggesting an approach to the information age and media today.
Non-relativist pluralism
So I find the non-relativist acceptance of diversity the most interesting. An ethical relativism ends up in logical contradictions and is thus self-defeating. I believe that de facto there are intellectual, ethical and social values, and that it is possible to fight for these, without denying other people to pursue their interests, likes and dislikes, even though they may to some extent oppose my own values. Of course we cannot accept any kind of fascist, racist or inhuman expression, but within reasonable limits, we should accept many different voices and cultural expressions. When the inhuman ideas are ruled out, we must allow people to express their opinions and let the media have a plurality of expressions.
Real News vs. Tabloid TV
But some things are better than others, and this is important to notice when discussing the media. Ricky Lake is trash, Walker Texas Rangers is obviously a very pro-American propaganda TV series and the British tabloids are bad, both in a moral and intellectual sense. On the other hand, Lingua Franca is a good magazine and CNNs journalism is better than that of the British and other tabloids. As I see it, it must be possible to do a normative evaluation of the media, while still accepting that others follow another line of thought. We do not lead an intellectualist and elitist revolt against Ricky Lake, rather intellectuals and those with serious human concerns should try to promote their own media expressions at the same time as Ricky is doing her stuff.
This gives us a key to handle and understand the modern media world, and a hint as to how we should relate to it. As I said, Reality TV is the big thing in my country these days. Reality TV doesn't seem to be dangerous at all, doesn't inspire to violent acts like other shows may do. Thus I accept that many people like it. But I still don't think most Reality shows are any good. It is from an intellectual point of view very primitive, and it does not stimulate citizens or heighten the level of sophisticated discourse. Sadly, the Reality TV people, or Ricky Lake or the Spice Girls or Madonna get more media covering than philosophers or thinkers like for instance Martha Nussbaum, Don Cupitt or Edward Said. People are more interested in the virginity of Britney Spears than information about Noam Chomsky - or they have been made more interested in this.
The media dominate our lives, and although celebrity news can be fascinating, the media overplays this kind of news. They could have contributed to enlightenment, reflection and discourse and broadening our horizons, but too seldom they do. Actually, I would find some information about Noam Chomsky's personal life interesting, but what I am given (at least here) is the the latest news about Britney and her tour in Europe. People get famous for being pretty, singing cover songs, or just being on TV, while intellectuals and peace-workers are often unknown to the general public. Once upon a time, before the age of television, there was a queue on the main street of Oslo when Henrik Ibsen released his newest play. Today, scientists and writers are often presented in papers, but sports and pop stars and celebrities get much more attention.
Jedediah Purdy
The solution to all this is probably not found in elitism. In USA, Jedediah Purdy the 25 year old writer, has been accused of being an elitist. In his analysis of irony in the United States, he has criticized Seinfeld. One might accuse Purdy of being elitist, and not accepting the joys and highlights in ordinary people's lives.
One reader remarked that this Ivy educated young writer shouldn't challenge the Seinfeld show when this is what so many Americans really enjoy. I do not know exactly how Purdy relates to this, but we must not underestimate the value of good entertainment, and that reading about pop stars sometimes is something many of us find fascinating from time to time. As Loyotard says there are many minor narratives today, and we receive a number of different kinds of information about the world.
Celebrity news, the tabloids and entertainment may perhaps at its best tell us one kind of story that we from time to time find fascinating. Different kinds of media expressions meet different needs in human life. After a hard day working, for instance on a thesis, book or as a lawyer or teacher, you may not want to go strait to reading Plato, but perhaps relax with something entertaining. Then a Reality TV show may give you something different, so you can reload the batteries. Wittgenstein, for instance, loved to read Street and Smart detective magazines, and of course sometimes such stories may be fun to read.
But this does not mean we shouldn't fight for our ideals. I think a very large portion of what we find in the media today gives us very little emotional or intellectual inspiration.
Thus the media situation must change. When a TV channel sends soccer games four hours in a row, something is wrong. Some of the soaps on daytime TV, could be replaced by some really good educational programs, or travel programs. We could learn more about history, science, different cultures, present-day academic life, through TV and the media.
To heighten the level of civilized discourse, we need even more historically based analyses, critical articles, philosophical discussions and ethical reflection. As the postmodernist Don Cupitt seems to have noticed, it is important to avoid a cultural situation, where entertainment fills our lives all the time. Or let me put it this way: The kind of entertainment we often see now, is sometimes so shallow that it should be challenged and perhaps replaced. (Seinfeld and Dawson's Creek are good counter-examples). Even though Cupitt is a radical postmodernist, he seems to have seen the dangers of a shallow culture, and he tries to increase the level of reflection by producing a book a year and giving talks and writing small articles.
Conclusion
The key is not to end up in media elitism. I do see the value of entertainment and will not force my views on everyone. Still, I think intellectuals, academics, artists, peace workers and others should work to change the media in the Western world. In the third world, many journalists see as their tasks to enlighten the people, why is this not on the agenda of Western journalists, TV producers and others in the media world?
Critical reflection, discussions of values, philosophy and culture should be an important part of the modern information world. Such critical, ethical and cultural reflection should be given a large part of the attention in this conglomerate - the postmodern media world Even though many different interests and kinds of shows do exist and I accept the right to have a different opinion, I will try to fight for my values. Within certain limits, we must accept a plurality of media expressions, but I (together with all those sharing my vision) will fight for my part of the cake. This is pluralism without relativism as an approach to the media.
GO back Inside

Copyright (c) 2000

Baudrillard: A New McLuhan?
By Douglas Kellner
Homepage: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/kellner.html
Curriculum Vitae: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/DK97CV.htm
During the 1980s, Jean Baudrillard has been promoted in certain circles as the new McLuhan, as the most advanced theorist of the media and society in the so-called postmodern era.[1] His theory of a new, postmodern society rests on a key assumption that the media, simulations, and what he calls "cyberblitz" constitute a new realm of experience and a new stage of history and type of society. To a large extent, Baudrillard's work consists in rethinking radical social theory and politics in the light of developments of the consumer, media, information, and technological society.
Baudrillard's earlier works focus on the construction of the consumer society and how it provides a new world of values, meaning, and activity, and thus inhabit the terrain of Marxism and political economy. From the mid-1970s on, however, reflections on political economy and the consumer society disappear almost completely from his texts, and henceforth simulations and simulacra, media and information, science and new technologies, and implosion and hyperreality become the constituents of a new postmodern world which -- in his theorizing -- obliterate all the boundaries, categories, and values of the previous forms of industrial society while establishing new forms of social organization, thought, and experience.
Reflections 0n media as social force from1960
Among Baudrillard's most provocative theses are his reflections on the role of the media in constituting the postmodern world. Indeed, he provides paradigmatic models of the media as all-powerful and autonomous social forces which produce a wide range of effects.[2] To explicate the development and contours of his positions on the media, I shall follow his reflections from the late 1960s to the present, and sort out what I consider to be his contributions and limitations. I shall also be concerned to delineate the political implications of his media theory and to point to alternative theoretical and political perspectives on the media.
Baudrillard's Postmodern Media Theory -alineation 1967-70s
In 1967, Baudrillard wrote a review of Marshall McLuhan's _Understanding Media_ in which he claimed that McLuhan's dictum that the "medium is the message" is "the very formula of alienation in a technical society," and he criticized McLuhan for naturalizing that alienation.[3] At this time, he shared the neo-Marxian critique of McLuhan as a technological reductionist and determinist. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, McLuhan's formula eventually became the guiding principle of his own thought.
Requiem for the Media 1972
Baudrillard begins developing his theory of the media in an article "Requiem for the Media" in _Toward a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (1972). The title is somewhat ironic for Baudrillard is really only beginning to develop a social theory in which the media will play crucial roles in constituting a new postmodernity. Thus Baudrillard is really writing a requiem here for a 'Marxist theory of the media' arguing: "McLuhan has said, with his usual Canadian-Texan brutalness, that Marx, the spiritual contemporary of the steam engine and railroads, was already obsolete in his lifetime with the appearance of the telegraph.
Priviledged Domain-materialist analysis-1973
Language Sign and Communication
In his candid fashion, he is saying that Marx, in his materialist analysis of production, had virtually circumscribed productive forces as a privileged domain from which language, signs and communication in general found themselves excluded" (CPES, p. 164). Baudrillard's critique of Marx here begins a radical interrogation of and eventual break with Marxism which would culminate in _The Mirror of Production_ (1973). Baudrillard begins distancing himself from Marxism in "Requiem for the Media," and in particular attacks Marx's alleged economic reductionism, or "productivism," and the alleged inability of the Marxian theory to conceptualize language, signs, and communication (Habermas at the time was developing a parallel position within Critical Theory).[4]
As an example of the failure of Marxian categories to provide an adequate theory of the media, Baudrillard criticizes the German activist and writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger's media theory and his attempts to develop a socialist strategy for the media.[5]
Mass Media-Anti Mediatory-Fabricate non-communication
Baudrillard dismisses this effort as a typical Marxian attempt to liberate productive forces from the fetters of productive relations that fails to see that in their very form the mass media of communication "are anti-mediatory and intransitive. They fabricate non communication -- this is what characterizes them, if one agrees to define communication as an exchange, as a reciprocal space of a speech and a response, and thus of a responsibility (not a psychological or moral responsibility, but a personal, mutual correlation in exchange) .... they are what always prevents response, making all processes of exchange impossible (except in the various forms of response simulation, themselves integrated in the transmission process, thus leaving the unilateral nature of the communication intact). This is the real abstraction of the media.
Impersonal Communication-Bad
And the system of social control and power is rooted in it" (CPES, pp. 169-170).
It is curious that Baudrillard, interpreted by many of his followers as an avant-garde, postmodern media theorist, manifests in this passage both technophobia and a nostalgia for face-to-face conversation which he privileges (as authentic communication) over debased and abstract media communication. Such a position creates a binary dichotomy between "good" face-to-face communication and "bad" media communication, and thus occludes the fact that interpersonal communication can be just as manipulative, distorted, reified, and son on, as media communication (as Ionesco and Habermas, among others, were aware), while ruling out in advance the possibility of "responsible" or "emancipatory" media communication -- a point that I shall return to in conclusion.
TV Object simulation,signs,codes and models
In another study in the _Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_, Baudrillard noted how the "TV Object" was becoming the center of the household and was serving an essential "proof function" that the owner was a genuine member of the consumer society (CPRES, pp. 53ff.). The accelerating role of the media in contemporary society is for Baudrillard equivalent to THE FALL into the postmodern society of simulations from the modern universe of production. Modernity for Baudrillard is thus the era of production characterized by the rise of industrial capitalism and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie while postmodern society is an era of simulation dominated by signs, codes, and models. Modernity thus centered on the production of things -commodities and products -- while postmodernity is characterized by radical semiurgy, by a proliferation of signs. Furthermore, following McLuhan, Baudrillard interprets modernity as a process of explosion of commodification, mechanization, technology, and market relations, while postmodern society is the site of an implosion of all boundaries, regions, and distinctions between high and low culture, appearence and reality, and just about every other binary opposition maintained by traditional philosophy and social theory. Furthermore, while modernity could be characterized as a process of increasing differentiation of spheres of life (Max Weber as interpreted by Habermas), postmodernity could be interpreted as a process of de-differentiation and attendent implosion.[6]

Autonomous realm of hyper reality-Obliteration of the Social
The rise of the broadcast media, especially television, is an important constituent of postmodernity for Baudrillard, along with the rapid dissemination of signs and simulacra in every realm of social and everyday life. By the late 1970s, Baudrillard interprets the media as key simulation machines which reproduce images, signs, and codes which constitute an autonomous realm of (hyper)reality and which come to play a key role in everyday life and the obliteration of the social.[7] Baudrillard's analyses of simulations and hyperreality probably constitute his most important contributions to social theory and media critique. During an era when movie actors simulate politics and charlatans simulate TV-religion the category of simulation provides an essential instrument of radical social critique, while the concept of hyperreality is also an extremely useful instrument of social analysis for a media, cybernetic, and information society.
Reversal of Relation-Representation and Reality
Baudrillard's analyses point to a significant reversal of the relation between representation and reality. Previously, the media were believed to mirror, reflect, or represent reality, whereas now the media are coming to constitute a (hyper)reality, a new media reality -- "more real than real" -- where "the real" is subordinate to representation leading to an ultimate dissolving of the real. In addition, in "The Implosion of Meaning in the Media," Baudrillard claims that the proliferation of signs and information in the media obliterates meaning through neutralizing and dissolving all content -- a process which leads both to a collapse of meaning and the destruction of distinctions between media and reality. In a society supposedly saturated with media messages, information and meaning "implode," collapsing into meaningless "noise," pure effect without content or meaning.
Destructive of Meaning
Thus, for Baudrillard: "information is directly destructive of meaning and signification, or neutralizes it. The loss of meaning is directly linked to the dissolving and dissuasive action of information, the media, and the mass media.... Information devours its own contents; it devours communication and the social.... information dissolves meaning and the social into a sort of nebulous state leading not at all to a surfeit of innovation but to the very contrary, to total entropy" (SSM, pp. 96-100).
Black Hole of signs-No content only form-Short circuting
Baudrillard uses here a model of the media as a black hole of signs and information which absorb all contents into cybernetic noise which no longer communicates meaningful messages in a process of implosion where all content implodes into form. We thus see here how Baudrillard eventually adopts McLuhan's media theory as his own, claiming that: "the medium is the message signifies not only the end of the message, but also the end of the medium. There are no longer media in the literal sense of the term (I am talking above all about the electronic mass media) -- that is to say, a power mediating between one reality and another, between one state of the real and another -- neither in content nor in form. Strictly speaking this is what implosion signifies: the absorption of one pole into another, the short-circuit between poles of every differential system of meaning, the effacement of terms and of distinct oppositions, and thus that of the medium and the real. Hence the impossibility of any mediation, of any dialectical intervention between the two or from one to the other, circularity of all media effects. Hence the impossibility of a sense (meaning), in the literal sense of a unilateral vector which leads from one pole to another. This critical -- but original -- situation must be thought through to the very end; it is the only one we are left with. It is useless to dream of a revolution through content or through form, since the medium and the real are now in a single nebulous state whose truth is undecipherable" (SSM, pp. 102-103).
No Media-Institutions mediating
In effect, Baudrillard is suggesting that the very project of developing a radical theory of the media is impossible because there really are no "media" in the sense of institutions and cultural machines mediating between dominant political and economic powers and the population below. He claims that the media and "reality" implode such that it is impossible to distinguish between media representations and the "reality" which they supposedly represent. Baudrillard also suggests that the media intensify massification by producing mass audiences and massification of ideas and experience. On the other hand, he claims that the masses absorb all media content, neutralize, or even resist, meaning, and demand and obtain more spectacle and entertainment, thus further eroding the boundary between media and "the real." In this sense, the media implode into the masses to an extent that it is unknowable what effects the media have on the masses and how the masses process the media.
Consequently, on this view, the media pander to the masses, reproducing their taste, their interest in spectacle and entertainment, their fantasies and way of life, producing an implosion between mass consciousness and media phantasmagoria. In this way, Baudrillard shortcircuits the manipulation theory which sees media manipulation imposed from above producing mass consciousness, yet he seems to share the contempt for the masses in standard manipulation theory claiming that they want nothing more than spectacle, diversion, entertainment and escape, and are incapable of, or uninterested in, producing meaning.
Ideological critiques meaningless
Hot and Cool Media Events
In any case, since the media and the masses liquidate meaning, it is meaningless to carry out ideological critiques of media messages since the "medium is the message" in the sense that media communication has no significant referents except its own images and noise which ceaselessly refer back and forth to other media images and spectacles. In _On Seduction_ (1979), Baudrillard utilizes McLuhan's distinction between "hot" and "cool" media to describe the ways that media devour information and exterminate meaning. According to Baudrillard, the media take "hot" events like sports, wars, political turmoil, catastrophes, etc. and transform them into "cool" media events, which he interprets as altogether another kind of event and experience. Concerning the difference between a televised and attended sports event, Baudrillard writes: "Do not believe that it is a matter of the same game: one is hot, the other is cool -- one is a contest where affect, challenge, mise en scene, and spectacle are present, whereas the other is tactile, modulated (visions in flash-back, replays, close-ups or overhead views, various angles, etc.): a televised sports event is above all a televised event, just as _Holocaust_ or the Vietnam war are televised events of which one can hardly make distinctions" (SED, p. 217).
For Baudrillard, eventually, all the dominant media become "cool," erasing McLuhan's (problematical) distinction between hot and cool media. That is, for Baudrillard all the media of information and communication neutralize meaning and involve the audience in a flat, one-dimensional media experience which he defines in terms of a passive absorption of images, or a resistance of meaning, rather than the active processing or production of meaning. The electronic media therefore on this account have nothing to do with myth, image, history, or the construction of meaning (or ideology).
TV-mystification
Television is interpreted instead as a media "which suggests nothing, which magnetises, which is only a screen, or is rather a miniaturized terminal which in fact is found immediately in your head -- you are the screen and the television is watching you. Television transistorizes all neurons and operates as a magnetic tape -- a tape not an image" (SED, p. 220).
Baudrillard, McLuhan and the Ecstasy of Communication
We see here how Baudrillard out-McLuhans McLuhan in interpreting television, and all other media, simply as technological forms, as machines which produce primarily technological effects in which content and messages, or social uses, are deemed irrelevant and unimportant. We also see how, like McLuhan, he anthropomorphizes the media ("the television is watching you"), a form of technological mysticism (or to be more nasty, mystification) as extreme as McLuhan. Like McLuhan, Baudrillard also globalizes media effects making the media demiurges of a new type of society and new type of experience.
Baudrillard also practices McLuhan's method of probes and mosaic constellations of images and concepts which take on an experimental and provisional nature. Consequently, whereas he sets forth theoretically articulated theses about the media in "Requiem," in his studies of simulations and later writings he tends to cluster images, concepts, and descriptive analyses, within which media often play a key role, rather than systematically articulating a well-defined theoretical position, thus adopting a key McLuhanite literary strategy.
Global Community
Yet we might contrast here McLuhan's ecumenical Catholicism with Baudrillard's somewhat puritanical Protestantism.[8] McLuhan fantasized a new type of global community and even a new universal (media) consciousness and experience through the dissemination of a global media system, the global village. McLuhan also believed that the media could overcome alienation produced by the abstract rationality of book culture which was being replaced by a new synaesthesia and harmonizing of the mind and body, the senses and technologies.
Idols of the Mind
Baudrillard by contrast sees the media as external demigods, or idols of the mind -- to continue the Protestant metaphor --, which seduce and fascinate the subject and which enter subjectivity to produce a reified consciousness and privatized and fragmented life-style (Sartre's seriality). Thus while McLuhan ascribes a generally benign social destiny to the media, for Baudrillard the function of TV and mass media is to prevent response, to isolate and privatize individuals, and to trap them into a universe of simulacra where it is impossible to distinguish between the spectacle and the real, and where individuals come to prefer spectacle over "reality" (which both loses interest for the masses and its privileged status in philosophy and social theory).
Instrument of Cold Seduction
The mass media are thus instruments for Baudrillard of a "cold seduction" whose narcissistic charm consists of a manipulative self-seduction in which we enjoy the play of lights, shadows, dots, and events in our own mind as we change channels or media and plug into the variety of networks -- media, computer, information -- that surround us and that allow us to become modulators and controllers of an overwhelming panoply of sights, sounds, information, and events. In this sense, media have a chilling effect (which is why Baudrillard allows McLuhan's "cool" to become downright "cold") which freeze individuals into functioning as terminals of media and communication networks who become involved as part and parcel of the very apparatus of communication. The subject, then, becomes transformed into an object as part of a nexus of information and communication networks.
Public and Private Space-Media space
The interiorization of media transmissions within the screen of our mind obliterates, he claims, the distinction between public and private, interior and exterior space -- both of which are replaced by media space. Here Baudrillard inverts McLuhan's thesis concerning the media as extensions of the human, as exteriorizations of human powers, and argues instead that humans internalize media and thus becomes terminals within media systems -- a new theoretical anti-humanism that might amuse Louis Althusser. The eye and the brain, on this model, replaces both the other sense organs and the hand as key instruments of human practice, as information processing replaces human practice and techne and poesis alike.[9]
Instruments of obsceniPublic and Private
In "The Ecstasy of Communication" Baudrillard describes the media as instruments of obscenity, transparency, and ecstasy -- in special sense of these terms.[10] He claims that in the postmodern mediascape, the domestic scene -- or the private sphere per se -- with its rules, rituals, and privacy is exteriorized, or made explicit and transparent, "in a sort of obscenity where the most intimate processes of our life become the virtual feeding ground of the media (the Loud family in the United States, the innumerable slices of peasant or patriarchal life on French television). Inversely, the entire universe comes to unfold arbitrarily on your domestic screen (all the useless information that comes to you from the entire world, like a microscopic pornography of the universe, useless, excessive, just like the sexual close-up in a porno film): all this explodes the scene formerly preserved by the minimal separation of public and private, the scene that was played out in a restricted space" (p. 130).
Obscenity of the Visible
In addition, the spectacles of the consumer society and the dramas of the public sphere are also being replaced by media events that replace public life and scenes with a screen that shows us everything instantaneously and without scruple or hesitation: "Obscenity begins precisely when there is no more spectacle, no more scene, when all becomes transparence and immediate visibility, when everything is exposed to the harsh and inexorable light of information and communication" (p. 130). The ecstasy of communication: everything is explicit, ecstatic (out of or beyond itself), and obscene in its transparency, detail, and visibility: "It is no longer the traditional obscenity of what is hidden, repressed, forbidden or obscure; on the contrary, it is the obscenity of the visible, of the all-too-visible, of the more-visible-than-visible. It is the obscenity of what no longer has any secret, of what dissolves completely in information and communication" (p. 131). One thinks here of such 1987 media obscenity concerning the trials and tribulations of Gary Hart and Donna Rice, of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, of Ron and Nancy Reagans' cancer operations and astrology games, or the dirty business deals of his associates, and the dirty political deals of Iran/Contra -- all of which have been exposed to the glaring scrutiny of the media in which what used to be private, hidden, and invisible suddenly becomes (almost) fully explicit and visible.
In the ecstasy of communication everything becomes transparent, and there are no more secrets, scenes, privacy, depth or hidden meaning. Instead a promiscuity of information and communication unfolds in which the media circulate and disseminate a teeming network of cool, seductive and fascinating sights and sounds to be played on one's own screen and terminal. With the disappearence of exciting scenes (in the home, in the public sphere), passion evaporates in personal and social relations, yet a new fascination emerges ("the scene excites us, the obscene fascinates us") with the very universe of media and communication. In this universe we enter a new form of subjectivity where we become saturated with information, images, events, and ecstasies. Without defense or distance, we become "a pure screen, a switching center for all the networks of influence" (p. 133). In the media society, the era of interiority, subjectivity, meaning, privacy, and the inner life is over; a new era of obscenity, fascination, vertigo, instantaneity, transparency and overexposure begins: Welcome to the postmodern world!
In his more recent 1980 writings which I have not examined here -- and which tend to recycle (i.e. simulate) his earlier positions -- Baudrillard continues to call attention to McLuhan as the great media theorist of our epoch and continues to subscribe to the postions that I explicated above, though occasionally he notes that one should even go further than he has so far in denying that the media are producers of meaning, or that media content or apparatus is important.[11]
Three Subordinations -dramatic mutation
Undoubtedly, the media are playing an ever greater role in our personal and social lives, and have dramatically transformed our economy, polity, and society in ways that we are only now becoming aware of. Living within a great transformation, perhaps as significant as the transformation from feudalism to industrial capitalism, we are engaged in a process of dramatic mutation, which we are barely beginning to understand, as we enter the brave new world of media saturation, computerization, new technologies, and new discourses. Baudrillard's contribution lies in his calling attention to these novelties and transformations and providing new concepts and theories to understand them.
Yet doubts remain as to whether the media are having quite the impact that Baudrillard ascribes to them and whether his theory provides adequate concepts to analyze the complex interactions between media, culture, and society today. In this section, I shall suggest that Baudrillard's media theory is vitiated by three subordinations which undermine its theoretical and political usefulness and which raise questions as well about the status of postmodern social theory.
Technology and apparatus
I shall suggest that the limitations in Baudrillard's theory can be related to his uncritical assumption of certain positions within McLuhan's media theory and that therefore earlier critiques of McLuhan can accurately and usefully be applied to Baudrillard. This critique will suggest that indeed Baudrillard is a "new McLuhan" who has repackaged McLuhan into new postmodern cultural capital.
First, in what might be called a formalist subordination, Baudrillard, like McLuhan, privileges the form of media technology over what might be called the media apparatus, and thus subordinates content, meaning, and the use of media to its purely formal structure and effects. Baudrillard -- much more so than McLuhan who at least gives some media history and analysis of the media environment -- tends to abstract media form and effects from the media environment and thus erases political economy, media production, and media environment (i.e. society as large) from his theory. Against abstracting media form and effects from context, I would argue that the use and effects of media should be carefully examined and evaluated in terms of specific contexts. Distinctions between context and use, form and content, media and reality, all dissolve, however, in Baudrillard's one-dimensional theory where global theses and glib pronouncements replace careful analysis and critique.
Baudrillard might retort that it is the media themselves which abstract from the concreteness of everyday, social, and political life and provide abstract simulacra of actual events which themselves become more real than "the real" which they supposedly represent. Yet even if this is so, media analysis should attempt to recontextualize media images and simulacra rather than merely focusing on the surface of media form. Furthermore, instead of operating with a model of (formal) media effects, I would argue that it is preferable to operate with a dialectical perspective which posits multiple roles and functions to television and other media.
Ideology-Form and Content
Another problem is that Baudrillard's formalism vitates the project of ideology critique, and against his claims that media content are irrelevant and unimportant, I would propose grasping the dialectic of form and content in media communication, seeing how media forms constitute content and how content is always formed or structured, while forms themselves can be ideological, as when the situation comedy form of conflict/resolution projects an ideological vision which shows all problems easily capable of being resolved within the existing society, or when action-adventure series formats of violent conflict as the essence of reality project a conservative view of human life as a battleground where only the fittest survive and prosper.[12] For a dialectical theory of the media, television would have multiple functions (and potential decodings) where sometimes the ideological effects may be predominant while at other times time functions a medium like television functions as mere noise or through the merely formal effects which Baudrillard puts at the center of his analysis.
Consequently, there is no real theory or practice of cultural interpretation in Baudrillard's media (increasingly anti-)theory, which also emanates an anti-hermeneutical bias that denies the importance of content and is against interpretation.[13]
Technological determinism-No social influence
This brings us to a second subordination in Baudrillard's theory in which a more dialectical position is subordinated to media essentialism and technological determinism. For -- according to Baudrillard -- it is the technology of, say, television that determines its effects (one-way transmission, semiurgy, implosion, extermination of meaning and the social) rather than any particular content or message (i.e. for both Baudrillard and McLuhan "the media is the message"), or its construction or use within specific social systems. For Baudrillard, media technology and semiurgy are the demiurges of media practices and effects, separated from their uses by specific economic and political interests, individuals and groups, and the social systems within which they function. Baudrillard thus abstracts media from social systems and essentializes media technology as dominant social forces. Yet against Baudrillard, one could argue that capital continues to be a primary determinant of media form and content in neo-capitalist societies just as state socialism helps determine the form, nature, and effects of technologies in certain state socialist societies.
Baudrillard, like McLuhan, often makes essentializing distinctions between media like television or film, ascribing a particular essence to one, and an opposed essence to the other.
Capitalist societies
Yet it seems highly problematical to reduce apparatuses as complex, contradictory, and many-sided as television (or film or any mass medium) to its formal properties and effects, or to a technological essence. It is therefore preferable, for theories of media in the capitalist societies, to see the media as syntheses of technology and capital, as technologies which serve specific interests and which have specific political and economic effects (rather than merely technological ones). It is also preferable to see the dialectic between media and society in specific historical conjunctures, to see how social content, trends, and imperatives help constitute the media which in turn influence social developments and help constitute social reality.
Media and society-short circuited
For Baudrillard, by contrast, the media today simply constitute a simulated, hyperreal, and obscene (in his technical sense) world(view), and a dialectic of media and society is shortcircuited in a new version of technological determinism. The political implications of this analysis are that constituting alternative media, or alternative uses or forms of existing media, is useless or worse because media in their very essence for him militate against emancipatory politics or any project of social transformation. Such cynical views, however, primarily benefit conservative interests who presently control the media in their own interests -- a point to which I shall soon return.
Thirdly, there is a subordination of cultural interpretation and politics in Baudrillard to what might very loosely be called "theory" -- thus constituting a theoricist subordination in Baudrillard. In other words, just as Louis Althusser subordinated concrete empirical and historical analysis to what he called "theoretical practice" -- and thus was criticized for "theoreticism," -- Baudrillard also rarely engages in close analysis or readings of media texts, and instead simply engages in rather abstract theoretical ruminations. Here, his arm-chair or TV screen theorizing might be compared with Foucault's archival theorizing, or to more detailed and systematic media theory and critique, much to, I'm afraid, Baudrillard's detriment.
Baudrillard also rigorously avoids the messy but important terrain of cultural and media politics. There is nothing concerning alternative media practices, for instance, in his theorizing, which he seems to rule out in advance because on his view all media are mere producers of noise, non-communication, the extermination of meaning, implosion, and so on. In "Requiem for the Media," Baudrillard explicitly argues that all mass media communication falls prey to "mass mediatization," that is "the imposition of models": "In fact, the essential Medium is the Model. What is mediatized is not what comes off the daily press, out of the tube, or on the radio: it is what is reinterpreted by the sign form, articulated into models, and administered by the code (just as the commodity is not what is produced industrially, but what is mediatized by the exchange value system of abstraction)" (CPES, pp. 175-176).
Revolutionary Media
All "subversive communication," then, for Baudrillard has to surpass the codes and models of media communication -- and thus of the mass media themselves which invariably translate all contents and messages into their codes. Consequently, not only general elections but general strikes have "become a schematic reducing agent" (CPES, p. 176). In this (original) situation: "The real revolutionary media during May {1968} were the walls and their speech, the silk-screen posters and the hand-painted notices, the street where speech began and was exchanged -everything that was an immediate inscription, given and returned, spoken and answered, mobile in the same space and time, reciprocal and antagonistic. The street is, in this sense, the alternative and subversive form of the mass media, since it isn't, like the latter, an objectified support for answerless messages, a transmission system at a distance. It is the frayed space of the symbolic exchange of speech -- ephemeral, mortal: a speech that is not reflected on the Platonic screen of the media. Institutionalized by reproduction, reduced to a spectacle, this speech is expiring" (CPES, pp. 176-177).
Immediate,not mediated communication
In this text, Baudrillard conflates all previously revolutionary strategies and models of "subversive communication" to "schematic reducing agents" and manifests here once again a nostalgia for direct, unmediated, and reciprocal speech ("symbolic exchange") which is denied in the media society. Haunted by a disappearing metaphysics of presence, Baudrillard valorizes immediate communication over mediated communication thus forgetting that all communication is mediated (through language, through signs, through codes, etc.). Furthermore, he romanticizes a certain form of communication (speech in the streets) as the only genuinely subversive or revolutionary communication and media. Consistently with this theory, he thus calls for a (neo-Luddite) "deconstruction" of the media "as systems of non-communication," and thus for the "liquidation of the existing functional and technical structure of the media" (CPES, p. 177).
Against Baudrillard's utopia of immediate speech -- which he himself abandons in his 1980s writings--, I would defend the project of structural and technical refunctioning of the media as suggested earlier by Brecht, Benjamin, and Enzensberger. Baudrillard, by contrast, not only attacks all form of media communication as non-revolutionary, but eventually, by the late 1970s, he surrenders his commitment to revolutionary theory and drops the notion of revolutionary communication or subversive cultural practices altogether.[14] Moreover, Baudrillard becomes a bit testy and even nasty in his later writing when considering alternative media. In a symptomatic passage in "The Ecstasy of Communication," Baudrillard writes:
the promiscuity {note the moralizing coding here -- D.K.} that reigns over the communication networks is one of superficial saturation, of an incessant solicitation, of an extermination of interstitial and protective spaces. I pick up my telephone receiver and it's all there; the whole marginal network catches and harasses me with the insupportable good faith of everything that wants and claims to communicate. Free radio: it speaks, it sings, it expresses itself. Very well, it is the sympathetic obscenity of its content. In terms a little different for each medium, this is the result: a space, that of the FM band, is found to be saturated,... Speech is free perhaps, but I am less free than before: I no longer succeed in knowing what I want, the space is so saturated, the pressure so great from all who want to make themselves heard.
I fall into the negative ecstasy of the radio (pp. 131-132).
Against this snide and glib put-down of alternative media, I would argue that alternative television-radio-film provide the possibility of another type of media with different forms, content, goals, and effects from mainstream media.[15] A radical media project would thus attempt to transform both the form and the content of the media, as well as their organization and social functions. In a socialist society, mass media would be part of a communal public sphere and alternative media would be made accessible to all groups and individuals who wished to participate in media communication. This would presuppose dramatic expansion of media access and thus of media systems which would require more channels, technology, and a social commitment to democratic communication.
To preserve its autonomy, such systems should be state funded but not controlled -- much like television in several European countries.[16] It would also have to function as the better local public access systems now do in the United States in which a certain number of channels are put aside for public use and available to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis. In Austin, Texas, for instance, we now have a multi-channel access system with two channels reserved for city government, one city educational channel for use by the Austin school system, one for regularly scheduled weekly access shows by groups committed to public access television, and two channels open to anyone for any use whatsover (these two channels are currently dominated by religious, musical, and sports programming). So far this system has proved functional, allowing just about any individual or group the opportunity to make and broadcast their own programming and statements.
An alternative media system would thus provide the possibility for oppositional, counterhegemonic subcultures and groups to produce programs expressing their own views, oppositions, and struggles that resist the massification, homogenization, and passivity that Baudrillard and others attribute to the media. Alternative media allow marginal and oppositional voices to contest the view of the world, values, and life-styles of the mainstream, and make possible the circulation and growth of alternative subcultures and communities. Baudrillard's theoreticism, however, completely eschews cultural practice and becomes more and more divorced from the political struggles and issues of the day -- though the question of Baudrillard's politics would take another long and very tortured paper to deal with. Reflecting briefly on Baudrillard's media theory leads me to three provisional conclusions:
1) Postmodern media theory is rather impoverished qua media theory and reproduces the limitations of McLuhan's media theory: formalism, technological determinism, and essentialism. John Fekete's critique of McLuhan might profitably be applied to Baudrillard, as might some of the other criticisms of McLuhan once in fashion which may need to be recycled a second time for the new McLuhan(cy).[17] The theory of autonomous media also return with Baudrillard; thus the critiques of autonomous technology can usefully and relevantly be applied to Baudrillard, and, more generally to postmodern social theory.[18]
2) The very weakness of postmodern media theory raises fundamental questions about the status of postmodern social theory itself. The question arises as to whether an implosive theory -like Baudrillard's -- that denies all the boundaries of previous social theory is in a position to carefully and rigorously work out the complex relations and contradictions between the media, economy, state, culture and society, or whether -- as I believe -- neo-Marxian theories of dialectics and mediations are preferable.
3) So I conclude that more sustained critical focus on Baudrillard's theory of the media (as well as all of his other theories) is necessary -- as opposed to the celebatory adultation which has so far -- at least in some circles -surrounded the emergence of a New Master Discourse. If the Baudrillardian postmodern theory is inadequate, then we need new theories to illuminate the multi-faceted and significant roles of the media in contemporary capitalist societies. No such theory exists -- which is part of the attraction of Baudrillard who at least tries to offer a new media theory adequate to its object -and the production of one is perhaps Baudrillard's real challenge to us.end
Notes
1. This polemic draws on material from my forthcoming book _Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond_ (Polity Press, 1989). I am grateful to Arthur Kroker for penetrating critical remarks on an earlier version of this text, to Steve Best for incisive critiques of several versions of the text, and to Peter Bruck who proposed expansion of the political implications of my critique. In this paper, I shall use the following abbreviations in the text for Baudrillard's work: CPES=_Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1978); SSM=_In the Shadows of the Silent Majorities_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); SIM= _Simulations_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); and SED=_De la seduction_ (Paris: Galilee, 1979).
2. Baudrillard presents a rather extreme variant of a negative model of the media which sees mass media and culture simply as instruments of domination, manipulation, and social control in which radical intervention and radical media or cultural politics are impossible. Baudrillard thus shares a certain theoretical terrain on theories of the media with the Frankfurt school, many Althusserians and other French radicals, and those who see electronic media, broadcasting, and mass culture simply as a terrain of domination. For my critique of the Frankfurt school media theory, see _Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989).
3. Baudrillard, Review of _Understanding Media_ in _L'Homme et la Societe_, Nr. 5 (1967), pp. 227ff.
4. See Jurgen Habermas, _Theory and Practice_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), and the critique in Rick Roderick, _Habermas and the Foundations of Critical Theory_ (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986).
5. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "Constituents of a Theory of the Media," in _The Consciousness Industry_ _New York: Seabury_, 1974.
6. See Marshall McLuhan, _Understanding Media_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984). Scott Lash proposes use of the term "de-differentiation" in "Discourse or Figure? Postmodernism as a 'Regime of Signification,'" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. 5, Nrs. 2-3 (June 1988).
7. Douglas Kellner, "Boundaries and Borderlines: Reflections on Baudrillard and Critical Theory," _Current Perspectives in Social Theory_ (forthcoming 1988).
8. On McLuhan's catholicism, see John Fekete, "McLuhancy: Counterrevolution in Cultural Theory" (Telos 15, Spring 1973), pp. 75 123 and Arthur Kroker, _Technology and the Canadian Mind_ (Montreal: New World Press, 1984).
9. Fekete, ibid, pp. 100ff.
10. Jean Baudrillard, "The Ecstasy of Communication," in Hal Foster, editor, _The Anti-Aesthetic_ (Port Washington, N.Y.: 1983). Page references from this source will be inserted in the text.
11. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
12. For further elaboration, see Douglas Kellner, "TV, Ideology and Emancipatory Popular Culture," _Socialist Review_ 42 (Nov-Dec 1979), pp. 13-53 and "Television Images, Codes, and Messages," _Televisions_, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1980), pp. 2-19.
13. See Steven Best and Douglas Kellner "(Re)Watching Television: Notes Toward a Political Criticism," _Diacritics_ (Summer 1987), pp. 97-113 for elaboration of the project of developing a political hermeneutics against postmodernist (mostly formalist and anti-hermeneutical) modes of criticism.
14. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
15. This argument is elaborated in Douglas Kellner, "Public Access Television: _Alternative Views_," _Radical Science Journal_ 16, _Making Waves_ (1985), pp. 79-92, and Steve Best and Douglas Kellner, "Watching Television: The Limitations of Post-Modernism," _Science as Culture_ 4 (forthcoming 1988). I point to some of the limitations in Baudrillard's media theory for analysis of contemporary politics in "Baudrillard, Semiurgy and Death" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. IV (1987), pp. 125-146.
16. I shall develop this position in my forthcoming book _Television, Politics and Society: Towards a Critical Theory of Television_ (forthcoming Westview Press).
17. Fekete, Ibid.
18. See Langdon Winner, _Autonomous Technology_ (Cambridge, Mass: The M.I.T. Press, 1977).

smjaffar's favourite items

smjaffar — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 00:33:42 CDT

Nobel Laureate Stiglitz On Third World Economies
Better to Be A Cow

S.M.Jaffar
"It appears that it is better to be a cow in Europe
than to be a poor person in a developing country while
the average European cow gets a subsidy of $2 a day,"
said Joseph Stiglitz in his new book, Making
Globalization Work.Further he remarked thar half the
world's population subsisted on less.
Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in economics
for information theory. He was the top economist
advisor for President Clinton and after that, for the
World Bank. Stiglitz ruffled many at the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and elsewhere with
his controversial opinions.
In his position at the IMF,he met often with
poor-country governments, and in his new book - a
follow-up to "Globalization and Its Discontents" - he
argues their case against the wealthier lands of East
Asia and the West
In Globalization and Its Discontents (2002), Stiglitz
pointed out that despite all the promises of
globalization, the developing nations of the world
didn't seem to be, well, developing. His book is
flavored with a deep distaste for inequality. "Those
who are concerned about inequality see much of it
arising out of luck - the luck of being born with good
genes or rich parents or the luck of buying a piece of
real estate at the right time," he writes. "Those who
are less concerned feel that wealth is a reward for
hard work."
The numbers that Stiglitz cites in the latest book are
staggering: 40% of the world lives in poverty. In
every region of the world outside South Asia, the USA
and the European Union, unemployment increased from
1990 to 2002; and 59% of the world's population lives
in countries where inequality is growing.

The poor countries have too much debt, he says, and it
is largely the fault of the lenders. The debts should
be forgiven, and followed by large increases in
foreign aid. The poor countries got back too little
from trade deals, he says. They should be given free
access to rich-country markets, and the fat countries
should quit subsidising their farmers.According to
Stiglitx "The liberalization of capital markets has
not brought growth: How can one build factories or
create jobs with money that can come in and out of a
country overnight? And it gets worse. Prudential
behavior requires countries to set aside reserves
equal to the amount of short-term lending. So if a
firm in a poor country borrows $100 million at, say,
20 percent interest rates short-term from a bank in
the United States, the government must set aside a
corresponding amount. The reserves are typically held
in U.S. Treasury bills--a safe, liquid asset. In
effect, the country is borrowing $100 million from the
United States and lending $100 million to the United
States. But when it borrows, it pays a high interest
rate, 20 percent; when it lends, it receives a low
interest rate, around 4 percent. This may be great for
the United States, but it can hardly help the
borrowers.

In trade talks, Stiglitz writes, "The job of Western
trade negotiators is to get a better trade deal for
their countries' industries." The U.S. trade
negotiator pushes for intellectual-property rights so
that Americans can get paid for what they invent. At
the same time, Congress blocks poor-country products
with one-sided anti-dumping laws, an outrageous sugar
quota and a ridiculous subsidy to cotton

But Stiglitz is hardly evenhanded. He brushes aside
rich-country anxiety, such as the U.S. trade deficit
with China. He caricatures the views of his opponents,
saying they believe that their undiluted version of
free trade will make everyone better off, when what
they actually believe is that by lowering prices it
will make most people better off. Stiglitz highlights
the flaws of markets, but he is not equally tough on
the deficiencies of government economic policies or
the failures of foreign aid.According to Stiglitz,the
countries which worked with their own efforts
certainly gained from a globalized economy,but those
who solely depended on the mercy of IMF could not show
much improvement." He further says" By contrast, in
the current process of globalization we have a system
of what I call global governance without global
government. International institutions like the World
Trade Organization, the IMF, the World Bank, and
others provide an ad hoc system of global governance,
but it is a far cry from global government and lacks
democratic accountability".

Stiglitz was an official in the last Democratic
administration, and this book might be a source of
ideas in the next one if it leans far enough left. He
criticizes the Kyoto accords on greenhouse gases, not
because they let China and India off the hook, but
because they ignore the effluents of the rich. "By
what right are the developed countries entitled to
pollute more?" he asks.
He proposes a set of green tariffs to offset damage to
the Earth. He has tried out the idea on officials, and
he says they liked it but tended to see it as "the
equivalent, in the trade arena, of declaring nuclear
war." He also proposes a global anti-monopoly
authority.
This book focuses on fair trade, patents, world
resources, the environment, the multinational
corporation, international debt and the global reserve
system.
Stiglitz puts extra emphasis on environmental concerns
and what he calls a "grand experiment" we are
conducting vis-a-vis global warming, "If we had access
to a thousand planets, it might make sense to use one
to conduct such an experiment, and if things turn out
badly -- as I believe this experiment will -- move on
to the next. But we don't have that choice; there
isn't another planet we can move to. We're stuck here
on Earth."
Some of these may seem like impossibly radical ideas
now, but you never know.They may make it possible for
the millions inhabiting the under-developed and the
developing counties to move out of their present state
of poverty and destitution. Books like "Making
Globalization Work" - and it is an intelligent,
feisty, partisan volume - are where such ideas get
their first popular airing.end