structure(s) of power and change

In doing a morning wade through the bloggy marshlands in search of opinions that offer insight and analysis, I came across one that touches on a few points I have been considering for some time, but had not yet put into words. In the post The Postmodern Politics of the Clintons, the author refers to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Jean Baudrillard where a few ideas struck me as relevant.

The first, "If modern societies, for classical social theory, were characterized by differentiation, for Baudrillard, postmodern societies are characterized by dedifferentiation, the "collapse" of (the power of) distinctions, or implosion. In Baudrillard's society of simulation, the realms of economics, politics, culture, sexuality, and the social all implode into each other." Structures of power still remain and shape pliable bodies, but have become so complex that it is no longer possible to distinguish between them. In fact, perhaps one could argue that there are no more structures of power, but instead a power apparatus whose shape is always shifting.

The complicated and interconnected fashion of modern-day society makes it incredibly difficult for a candidate of change to have any specific appeal without appearing to be anti-mainstream and therefore absurd (Nader, for example). It is not possible to 'change' the war in Iraq without changing other complicated political systems such as economics, foreign policy, class divides, etc.

These issues are addressed as individual and separate structures, albeit with some overlap. However, one cannot change a singular aspect of a complex power apparatus without effecting the entire structure. The war in Iraq is not just connected to American foreign policy, but is connected to the 'reality' in which Americans live. Our foreign policy is structured on aggressive, masculine values that privilege American interests over all else, and are designed to promote an aura of protection around the simulation in which we live. If we accept that "realm of the hyperreal (e.g., media simulations of reality, Disneyland and amusement parks, malls and consumer fantasylands, TV sports, and other excursions into ideal worlds) is more real than real", we acknowledge that in order to have any substantial political change, our current vision of reality will be destroyed. After all, the war in Iraq is about amusements parks and consumer fantasylands, isn't it? Is it not about the preservation of American interests both physically and symbolically? Certainly, oil is at the center of any American interest - the prototypical American trip to Disneyland or weeknight excursion to the mall is not possible without oil. But more so than that, Iraq is about America's right to exist in a consumer fantasyland, is it not? We fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to fight them at home and disrupt the American way of life. We are compelled to continue business as usual, or the terrorists win. Existing within this simulation is what makes us feel safe, and thus is worth the cost of people's lives.

However, the Presidential candidate whose mantra is change must break down this amorphous structure of power and address it as many separate issues. Perhaps she defaults to the past, to a time where these powers could be addressed individually, or perhaps their individuality has has always been a part of the simulation. Either way, he must be cautious about how these issues are addressed, taking care not to discuss specifics, as no details can exist that do not result in a systematic collapse of the fantasy of American life. Instead, the popular candidate is one who can remain ambitious but simultaneously inspirational - in other words, one who can be a part of the simulation and offer the feeling of change without disrupting anything. After all, isn't it typically American to attempt changing only the 'bad' but leaving the rest of the system as it was? Think of all the medications we have that are designed to identify our one 'problem', solve it and leave the rest intact.

Unfortunately, I must cut this post short but will continue on to the second point, about randomness and gambling, soon...

David Foster Wallace and Hillary Clinton

Steven Colbert brought up an excellent point about cultural representations of meaning on his show last night. He asked if the media switched its focus from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama because they had grown tired of the female senator, and were presented with the opportunity to participate in their favorite activity, to talk about themselves and how they had given him a free pass. I was quickly reminded of David Foster Wallace's comment that "[t]elevision used to point beyond itself", at real life; but no longer is reality necessary to sustain television's popularity. Now it can point only at itself.

In this case, television needs not the reality of the democratic campaign, as it can create its own. Clinton offers examples of 'fake' television debates in a 'real' television debate, which provides television an opportunity to focus back on itself. No longer is the coverage tied to the physicality of a candidate. The story is not Clinton or her actions, but the media's portrayal of her. Popular commentators comment on their ability to offer commentary, and populate the Sunday morning news with favorites such as 'media frenzy' or 'liberal bias'. The news no longer needs to come from reality, instead news is generated from the way it is reported.

Television is already saturated with impersonations of candidates - the re-creation of so called reality in such a way that it mimics the real rather than commenting on it. But eventually people grow bored of these impersonations, so another layer of reproduction is added where candidates actually appear in the mimicry. Yet, it does not default back to reality. Instead it offers a confusing, exciting new layer where people can act as voyeurs and watch as their real live politicians mock those who mock the caricature of themselves on which they spend so much effort.

I think Colbert hit the nail right on the head - when the same old story of Clinton's imminent demise is no longer shocking, coverage desperately searches the landscape for new material, taking any chance it could get to draw attention to itself.

In the words of Baudrillard, "[i]t is not illusion which conceals reality. It is reality which conceals the fact that there is none."

meaning, values and clinton. oh my!

I am consistently infatuated by the way meaning is shaped in popular culture - more specifically, meaning within this democratic presidential primary campaign. The complicated race/gender dynamic between two candidates equally qualified, equally loved and equally disliked in their own ways is reduced to talking points. This point, in and of itself is nothing new, nor anything specific to this particular primary. All modern elections, campaigns and presidencies are run this way, but what I find to be particularly interesting is to which talking points these two complicated campaigns have been reduced.

Both exist under the umbrella of change, as the entire democratic party is in agreement that change is 'good'. (The republican party early on had been fixated on change, but now that a nominee has been selected, this verb no longer has a place on banners or podiums). Their relationship, portrayed as oppositional, is defined by a set of dualities, including 'a new kind of politics' and 'politics as usual', 'empty rhetoric' and 'experience (to advocate change)', 'sincere' and 'disingenuous, aka a monster who will stop at nothing', 'inspirational' and 'practical', and probably a dozen more escaping me at the moment.

Read any news article, and actions or words of either candidate are fit into the aforementioned shells. I am reminded of a line from Baudirillard's 'Passwords', where he claims "...because the sign always effaces the thing. So the object designated the real world, but also its absence - and, in particular, the absence of the subject". Baudrillard is, of course, talking about language and meaning. He states that the symbol, in this case a category such as a monster who will stop at nothing, effaces or hides the reality. Clinton criticizes Obama on his foreign policy experience and the dynamic is abated to 'a new kind of politics' versus 'politics as usual'.

What does a new kind of politics mean? What does a new kind of politics look like? What are the benefits of a new kind of politics? The actual meaning, the reality, is never discussed. The Obama campaign says it is sticking to the issues - but fails to actually mention any substantial policy initiatives. Instead, it continues to communicate by advocating these categories of difference (I won't get into how advocating categories of difference is the exact same thing the Clinton campaign is doing, the McCain campaign will do, and is the quintessence of what is wrong with American politics). Instead, Obama chalks up Clinton's win in Texas and Ohio to her going negative. He fits their relationship back into a category of new versus old, but still does not elaborate on the specifics, of sincerity versus disingenuousness. (Clinton claiming she has more foreign policy experience and therefore will be able to handle international crises is not really negative in any sense, but perhaps on the coattails of unnecessary comments about Obama's race in January, is seen as more aggressive).

Aggressive or not, Clinton is elaborating on the image being portrayed. Successfulness aside, she is attempting to make Obama appear as an empty shell in relation to her practical experience. She is using the sign to her advantage through elaborating on it and making it appear as connected to reality Or, as Baudrillard might say, turning it into a true simulation. Obama, on the other hand, is only reiterating the image. He criticizes her for going negative, he criticizes her for politics as usual, he says he is inspirational and he claims he will stick to the issues. But what this all boils down to is that that she voted for the war and he claims he would not have.

Baudrillard asks, "The fact remains that the study of value is complex: whereas commodity value can be apprehended, a sign value is feeling and fluid - at a particular point it gives out and is frittered into 'show'. When everything eventually gives way to artifice, are we still in a world of value, or in its simulation?" The value or significance of either campaign's symbolism is inherently meaningless. Obama is only inspirational insofar as he can inspire people. And for some time now, people have become inspired because he is considered to be inspirational. At a particular point, the reality of the situation gives way and we exist only in a simulation, a simulation of a new kind of politics where people's political inspiration is expressed by talking about their inspiration.