Baudrillard: The Reality of Illusion

Rufo’s post puts Baudrillard’s complicated and intricate theories into historical perspective by discussing his original position as a Marxist looking to improve and expand upon the theory. Baudrillard discussed the importance of the understanding of “sign-value” in that an object is not worth what it is but instead what it represents. Rufo gives the example of brand name clothing such as Tommy Hilfiger. 

I found this example particularly interesting and disturbing. As a college student, keeping up with fashion is some what of a priority and a struggle. Through Capitalist ideologies, we are lead to believe that we need to work in order to have money for expensive things and that one tshirt is worth more money than another. However, it is not the material or labor that produced that shirt that we pay for, its the logo that represents what we want and how we want to be perceived. 

More importantly, Rufo explains that Baudrillard feels that Marx made a big mistake when he “naturalizes” labor. Marx claimed that in a communist society man would still work because he instinctively wants to feel useful and produce materials. This is an ideology that supports capitalism as well because there is truly no such thing as “natural,” only ideas and traditions that are passed on throughout society. Marx believes it should be the workers who control means of production instead of the capitalists but Baudrillard argues that this works in the capitalists favor. He thinks by claiming that labor is “natural” labor becomes the main focus, making the working class unconcerned and uninvolved with the means on production.

The concept of mass production relates directly to Baudrillard’s theories about simulation because the production of goods is constantly making it easier for people with less money to “simulate” the possessions and lifestyles of those in the higher class. I thought this was a particularly interesting concept because it really continues to dismiss any notion of originality and focus on the reality that there are only copies everywhere we go. He relates this not only to material things but to theories as well, such as Marxism, that present themselves as original thoughts and theoretical truths but in creating this insight they are also producing a simulation of insight.

Rufo goes on to discuss Baudrillards orders of simulation. He uses money as an example of how the orders work. Rufo explains how money starts out as a representation of goods but eventually has no correlation to anything real. We see this as the value of the dollar changes through circumstance, making the idea of a dollar a truly figurative thing. When traveling abroad, the value of my savings changed drastically from location to location making the meaning of a dollar unstable. This is not something we think about from day to day as we continue to participate in a system where we seek out money, an unstable representation of power, in order to obtain the things we want and need. Rufo later discusses how credit cards become part of the 4th order of the simulacrum. With credit cards, you are not only using something as unstable as money but you don’t even have to have it in order to spend it.

Later, Rufo expands on Baudrillards orders of the simulacra and I found this to be a particularly difficult concept. He mentions the term simulacrum, meaning a copy without and original, and uses theme parks as an example. When visiting a place like Disney, we see attempted recreations of movie scenes and famous locations but because nothing is exactly the same, the copy is original in its own right. Baudrillard claims that this confuses reality and furthers the simulacrum because our real experience is being shaped by the idea of something else. 

I find Baudrillard both confusing and frustrating. However, I can see that my frustration comes from a need for answers and a need to grasp what is real. Baudrillard wants us to let go of the idea of capturing reality and instead grasp on to the truth of illusion and mystery. We cannot grasp illusion in our society where everything is “realized” and as a student whose main goal is to obtain knowledge, this can be difficult.

Irving's Function

            In Foucault’s article, “What is an Author?” Foucault defines what he sees as a misinterpretation of how the author is meant to function as well as his interpretation of the “author function.”  After dismantling the theory offered in Barthes’ “The Death of the Author,” Foucault disagrees with the idea that the author is completely detached from the work.  He argues that claiming that the author is not the source origin and control in the work automatically accepts the work itself as the new source origin, which is also problematic.  Rather, Foucault explains that the author has in fact not disappeared.  The author is a function of discourse and the presence of the author function gives the work status.  The author is therefore an ideological presence rather than an individual source of knowledge that creates a work.  

            The author is not the function himself; it is his status in literary discourse that creates the author function.  In other words, if an author is famous for a particular text, he is more likely to have status and therefore his other works will carry that status.  As Tim Spurgin declares in his interpretation of Foucault’s text, a novel such as Oliver Twist has its status and standing because of the name Charles Dickens created for himself.  Therefore, the reader must look at the author function and think about how the proper name “Charles Dickens” defines our reading of the novel.  As Foucault states in his article, “The author’s name is not, therefore, just a proper name like the rest,” suggesting that an author’s name signifies not only the person but the works and ideas attributed to that person (381).  The author function complicates the author’s name as it plays a role in the literary discourse, valorizing the work.  It defines what works are given value and meant to be read in the literary world.

            The conversation on the author function leads to the interview with John Irving by Ron Hansen from The Paris Review.  The interview begins by describing an image of Irving, showing that although he is wealthy and famous, he still bring the interviewer into the small, crowded back room.  The interview questions are first directed to ask Irving about his life and how he established his status as well as how he feels about other authors such as Charles Dickens.  In this way, the interviewer asks how Irving views his author function not only in himself but in relation to other authors.  The questions indicate that the author’s influences and gain in status are significant in establishing the author function.  The interview itself automatically assumes Irving’s status as an author and contributes to his author function, as he is valorized as an author and his works are therefore given value.  

For instance, Hansen engages Irving in a conversation regarding his response to criticism on his work.  The discussion relates to the author function in that a review necessarily criticizes the author as well as the work, for it establishes the reputation of the author and therefore his author function.  Hansen asks, “How about the analysts and intellectuals? Have you ever learned anything from reading criticism about your work? Do reviews please or annoy you, or do you pay too little attention to them for that?”  The interviewer in this way is trying to demonstrate how the author functions in relation to other authors.  Irving’s response that “reviews are only important when no one knows who you are” is a perfect example of how the status of the author is vital in the acceptance of a work.  Irving says, “In a perfect world, all writers would be well-enough known to not need reviewers.”  Here, Irving recognizes that there is a need for an author function in order for work to be validated, have status, and be classified.  Foucault describes the significance of the author function when he writes that “The author’s name manifests the appearance of a certain discursive set and indicates the status of this discourse within a society and culture,” suggesting that the name is essential in determining whether a “work” is in fact considered a work (382).  Similarly with Irving, his comment that if all authors were well-known they would not need reviews shows that the status of the author dictates the success of the work.  The author function, therefore, is a presence in the work but not a creative authority over it.

Therefore, the author’s name is not just like any other proper name.  As Foucault says in his writing, “the name seems always to be present,” showing that the author is not simply the writer but plays a role in the text (382).  In this way, Charles Dickens’s name or Irving’s name mean more than your name or my name means because it carries a certain status in the literary world.  Furthermore, the name encompasses all that the author represents.  This status transfers into an author’s literary work and therefore the author’s function in the literary work is his status in literary discourse.  In addition, it is clear that certain works that necessarily need an author and may not have the same credibility had they not been backed by the status of the author function, such as Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist.

       Through Hansen’s questions to Irving, the interview allows a way for Irving to speak about his opinion on the author function.  Hansen challenges Irving to examine his function throughout the literary world.  For example, he asks, “Your literary debts to Charles Dickens, Günter Grass, and Kurt Vonnegut are pretty clear in your work, at least to some readers. How do you see their books contributing to your own?”  His question references other author functions that have influenced literary discourse.  The value placed on their impact rather than how an unknown writer influenced Irving indicates that the author function determines the status of a work and whether it is considered a work at all.  Irving responds in a way that shows his establishment of his status and his acknowledgement of his place in his writing.  

Irving seems to be aware that his author function contributes to the success and fame of his work.  The interviewer as well embraces Irving’s status from the author function, and it is evident that Irving’s author function contributes to the fame of his work.  For example, when Irving mentions a novel that he was in the process of writing at the time (A Prayer for Owen Meany), the interviewer asks him if he would be willing to say more on the new novel.  The interviewer’s interest in the novel, even though it is unfinished, shows that the author function automatically creates interest in his work.  Before Irving has completed a novel, people are interested in knowing what it will be about and therefore are already placing value on it.  Without the author function, this interest in an unfinished work would not occur.

The interview not only implies the author’s status but also authority in a work.  Throughout the interview, Irving insists on his control over his work as a writer, something that Foucault would find problematic on the surface.  Irving says in the interview, “The authority of the storyteller’s voice—of mine, anyway—comes from knowing how it all comes out before you begin.  It’s very plodding work, really,” indicating that he feels he is in control of the work.  However, it becomes evident that his idea of control is that it is important for a writer to tell a story properly and give it justice, for a writer does not create a story but finds it.  Irving says, “A writer is a vehicle.  I feel the story I am writing existed before I existed; I’m just the slob who finds it, and rather clumsily tries to do it, and the characters, justice,” showing that writer is not an inventor but rather shapes the work and is therefore constantly present in the work.  As Foucault writes, “The text always contains a certain number of signs referring to the author,” suggesting that the author’s function is complex, as he is always present and influencing it without direct authority.  Irving finds this ability to shape the work and its status important.  For instance, at one point in the interview Irving is asked to respond to the purpose of writers of screenplays.  Irving’s response includes his statement that in screenwriting, “the writer is not in control of the pace of the story, or of the tone of the narration.”  Therefore, Irving believes that he is in control of his writing and wants to deliver the story in a meaningful way, which does not necessarily mean he believes his in control of how people perceive his writing.  In other words, while he does believe he controls what is said in his works of literature, he is not declaring that he controls what happens once his works are distributed.  Therefore it is a fair assumption that his statement, “The story I’m writing existed before I existed,” is a correct establishment of how he understands his role as an author in crafting the work and recognizes that his author function gives his writing its status.

The interview questions are directed to question Irving’s opinion of his own author function and his relation to other author functions.  Irving seems to follow Foucault’s opinion that his function is only based on the status he gives to his work.  Even though Irving acknowledges the control he has in creating and shaping his work, he also recognizes his silent presence once his work is distributed and that his function at that point is no longer controlling the work but rather valorizing it.