All Three Texts
Several complexities surround the inference of sub cultural ‘meaning’ according to Jean Baudrillard’s book Simulacra and Simulation, and Fredric Jameson’s book Postmodernism. Both men have differed argument on the results that meaning disappears in the never-ending play of images that are comparable and atheistically not alike (Baudrillard 30). According to Jameson, who differently contrasts in the argument from Bauldrillard, there is a hope that gives recognition to the meanings and history of images. In his book, Jameson takes significant assessment of the media in the context of postmodernism theory and elaborates on the ideas such as equality, difference and lenience of the power to stand up in investigating an industry that maintains social standing (Baudrillard 45). Focusing mainly on the image, the theories of postmodernism are largely influential in consideration and questioning whether such meaning exists at all.
Jameson defines postmodernism as a theory of new depthlessness in an entirely new culture of image that leads to weakening of historicity. This definition borrows ideas from Barthes’s myth theory, which in its logical conclusion suggests a constant cycle of appropriation and integration. The theory furthers its explanation on this by stating a society in which all objects of multiplicity have seemingly natural meaning where each one differs from its own origin. On the other hand, Baudrillard also forms his arguments on this basis. He states that it is all of metaphysics that are gone in this world where all meanings are separate from their historical origins and exist merely to defend the fact that there does not exist any real meaning (Baudrillard 78). I agree with Baudrillard constant appropriation means that creation still bases on the previous versions, and there is nothing unique as it is a continual rehashing and imitation of ancient styles because there is no norm to contradict. On Jameson’s arguments on the creation of meaning, I think he has not taken into consideration the history defines the scope peoples perspective of meaning.
According to Jameson, however, it is misleading to argue that a plurality of meanings in postmodern objects gets its connections to exact contexts, which leads to a social structure (Baudrillard 68). This is because of the change of significations and multiplication. There has existed neither unity of the old regime nor a disintegration of the new one. There is still presence of some strong collective norms at work. If in more elaborated context, the parody of stylistic norms must be possible or nobody may ever realize sub cultural style as sub cultural. This can lead to politicization of culture, which eventually realizes a norm of depoliticized culture (Baudrillard 145).
Appearance of depthlessness re-emerges since the myth that mythology was supposed to uncover something that theorizes on the actual loss of depth seems to forget. In Baudrillard’s model of post-modernity, there is no clear possibility for one to make any form of actual transformation because there lacks any power to resist and every second thought is supposedly equalized into a mass of comparative opinion (Bertens, Johannes and Joseph 34). He stated that, in sub culture where one could not be able to take social inequalities as the primary cause, styles lose their political meaning.
From the story of the Nazis and their perceived way of identification with the symbol of punk style, he finds the meaning exceedingly indecipherable since it shows that the only way to differentiate between the sick and the healthy is simply looking at the symptoms of an illness (Bertens, Johannes and Joseph 77).
This translates to a detailed situation where the only way to separate a political statement from a fashion statement is through images. On the contrary, this perception neglects the fact that at the same time as cultural image may appear to share the same problem that it always in the context of history. However, Baudrillard’s medical analogy does not successfully construe to the field of social where both the image and plan to do an analysis on every object considered. I agree with Baudrillard that it is necessary to examine the influence of mass media on postmodern culture (Bertens, Johannes and Joseph 80). In order to do this, however, it is necessary for proper understanding of sub culture theory or culture industry. Some myths about social culture and meaning ripen better than social strata and someone will not automatically marry the idea that since something is integrated, its new stature of justification will necessarily seize. For Baudrillard, it is not possible to make out meaning simply by penetrating for the cause of specifics. However, it is a circular process where facts are built at the juncture of models (Bertens, Johannes and Joseph 85). In my view, these models act as ways of behaving and reacting to phenomena that are already extolled in the orchestration and decoding rituals of the media.
The media does not in any way mediate between official discourses and lived to experience, but single dimensional media models based on analysis of exact social groups in turn affect the said groups which influence more media analysis. In that case, such models cannot be defined as every person is always already constructed by them. In comparison to an activist model, the political activist in postmodern society is simply behaving in the same way. Jameson argues that the reality is to de-historicize the image of sub culture that was never there at the beginning (Woods 65). Just in the same way, the categorized sub culture is a de-historicized image of sub culture that never existed (Bertens, Johannes, and Joseph 89). Whereas long time ago cultural trick and socially knowledgeable subject may have been opposed, currently they are both simply playing out their media outlined roles, which are the “social libretto whose bewildered listeners we are”. However, according to Baudrillard’s explanation, things may not be as miserable based on the claims. When I compare, nothing would be wrong with any of the models if only the every possible and detailed world view as they would be as diverse as not to be easily identified models at all (Woods 88). Consequently, if there is anything that does not approve them; if they reject the real, it must be by some way restricting other viewpoints.
To me this clearly explains that media, especially in its postmodern plurality, still disregards certain voices of access, which graduate to a set of criteria of rejection or political agenda (Woods 88). Therefore, there are possibilities of identifying viewpoints outside of the prescribed models that reverse that schema. However, some of the cultural representations still censored because of ideology to resist one that covers politics behind the same varied images. To conclude, according to Baudrillard, in real life nothing is at stake anymore. Those involved in conflicts get fooled into believing that something is possibly changing when appreciation to the ultimate systemic directs, such as nuclear weapons, never will. Therefore, I agree with the theory on post modernity that suggests more range, more division, and less evident connection between official discourse and living experience of theories that posit the end of truth (Woods 42).
Bill Brown criticizes the theories of postmodern culture through his book Think Theory in a number of ways (Brown 8). He tells a story that explains possession as something that is strange, more than history which relies on the culture of consumption. In this book, Bill Brown argues that thinking is not based on experiences and that the media influence is minimal. He states that what we project in our brain, is a replica of the things that humans encounter in their day-to-day lives. He further explains that these occasions always exist outside the scene of one phenomenological attention that nonetheless makes aware that we become prisoners in things and our body are part of the things (Brown 18).
In the book Bill Brown explain that things of meaning may not live within an individual because of some balmy somewhere else far from theory, but since both are found within reach and somewhere without the theoretical field, beyond a certain limit, it is identifiable yet not definite. I think in the pursuit of looking for a better meaning of the objects that are within the area of phenomenology are often less in vision, the more we take a closer look (Brown 22). Therefore, he states that methodology of fetishism is not part of the error in detail as it is a condition of thought, the new thoughts as objects that constitute human subjects. These surrounds on factors like their movement, fear, and relation to other subjects. Although Bill Brown wants to appreciate that there is a form of transcultural pole of the institution of things, he lays his ideas on the natural stratum that disputes his discussion about the definition of a thing what things are for a given society (Brown 25).
Works Cited
Baudrillard, Jean and Mark Poster. Selected writings. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 2001. Print.
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. Print.
Bertens, Johannes W. and Joseph P., Natoli. Postmodernism: the key figures. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Print.
Brown, Bill. A sense of things: the object matter of American literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Print.
Brown, Bill. Things. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2004. Print.
Kienscherf, Markus. Simulation, Hyperreality and the Gulf Wars. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2007. Print.
Woods, Tim. Beginning postmodernism. Manchester New York New York: Manchester University Press Distributed exclusively in the USA by St. Martin’s Press, 1999. Print.
Wynne, Deborah. Women and personal property in the Victorian novel. Farnham, Surrey, England Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub, 2010. Print.
