An Investigation, Defence and Explication of the Work of Jean Baudrillard and His Definition of Evil

Course: Ethical heor!

"rofessor: Esther #eed

Word Count: $,%&'

his essa! )ill present an overvie) of Baudrillard*s +ain positions )hich )ill su,se-uentl! provide a landscape for us to ,etter understand his vie)s on evil )hich is still i+portant for us to consider toda!. he ke! texts for this )ill ,e The Transparency of Evil ,! Baudrillard hi+self and )ill include Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings ,! his editor, /ark "oster. he +ain points that I shall +ake )ill

,e that Baudrillard*s interpretation of realit! is still useful in conte+porar! discourse as )ell as his approach and definition of evil )hich should ,e taken seriousl! if )e are to further ourselves ,oth )ithin philosoph! and political dialogue. His )ork re+ains significant ,ecause his thoughts on evil re+ain relevant as )ell as his general approach to the social sciences )hich )ill ,e also ,e presented here.

0or centuries, highl! regarded thinkers have atte+pted to explain evil and the nature of this elusive entit! that evades our grasp. Baudrillard*s vie) )ill assist us in understanding evil as a co+prehensive o,1ect rather than the t!pical ,inar! interpretations co++onl! accepted. Baudrillard posits the -uestion 23)here did Evil go4 And the ans)er is: ever!)here 55 ,ecause the ana+orphous of +odern for+s of Evil kno)s no ,ounds. In a societ! )hich seeks 55 ,! proph!lactic +easures, ,! annihilating its o)n natural referents, ,! )hite)ashing violence, ,! exter+inating all ger+s and all of the accursed share, ,! perfor+ing cos+etic surger! on the negative 55 to concern itself solel! )ith -uantified +anage+ent and )ith the discourse of the 6ood, in a societ! )here it is no longer possi,le to speak Evil, Evil has +eta+orphosed into all the viral and terroristic for+s that o,sess usi.7 he follo)ing article )ill su,+erge itself in presenting and grasping ho) Baudrillard defined and responded to evil and )h! he is still relevant for toda!.

The Evil of Consumption. Capitalis+ is one of the greatest for+s of evil for Baudrillard. 9et us preface the follo)ing conversation )ith a functional understanding of capitalis+ ,ecause for Baudrillard he reverses the teleological i+plications of this s!ste+. A si+ple definition could ,e the follo)ing: a post5feudal response to a +ore egalitarian approach and that )hich endorses particular ,ehaviours and 1ustifications for the direct production of co++odities. Although this definition is not co+prehensive it )ill assist us in approaching the so+eti+es see+ingl! circular philosophical stratosphere of Baudrillard.

Whereas for +ost sociologists the nature of capitalis+ is that of production and its outco+esii, for Baudrillard he interprets the funda+ental point of axis to ,e that of consu+ption. His focus does not si+pl! re+ain on the topic of the consu+ption of goods, ,ut also of realit! itself. #ealit! is su,su+ed into nothingness and the onl! thing that re+ains is the si+ulacra or si+ulation of realit!. his is )hat is evil for Baudrillard, the idea that realit! re+ains )hen it alread! has ,een consu+ed in its entiret!. Capitalis+ presents so+ething not true of the real and passes it off as :real*. When it consu+es realit! in its place it i+poses an identit! upon the individual consu+er, and that identit! is defined in and through consu+ption. Essentiall!, the greatest evil of capitalis+ is that it consu+es the individual and there,! +aking one a slave and present itself as infinit!. It also supports the ver! s!ste+ it is negated ,!. 0or Baudrillard this is the direct evil and perversion of capitalis+, in that it has found a )a! to even distort the )hole of realit! into use5value.

&

he inspiration for the notion that realit! has ,een consu+ed erupts out of a short stor! co+posed ,! Jorges Borges, an Argentinian author and poet, Baudrillard shares a portion of the narrative: 2If once )e )ere a,le to vie) the Borges fa,le in )hich the cartographers of the E+pire dra) up a +ap so detailed that it ends up covering the territor! exactl! ;the decline of the E+pire )itnesses the fra!ing of this +ap, little ,! little, and its fall into ruins, though so+e shreds are still discerni,le in the deserts < the +etaph!sical ,eaut! of this ruined a,straction testif!ing to a pride e-ual to the E+pire and rotting like a carcass, returning to the su,stance of the soil, a ,it as the dou,le ends ,! ,eing confused )ith the real through aging= < as the +ost ,eautiful allegor! of si+ulation, this fa,le has no) co+e full circle for us, and possesses nothing ,ut the discrete char+ of second5order si+ulacra7iii ;p.8=.

Conse-uentl!, realit! itself has ,een consu+ed ,! the over5production of realit! itself there,! negating the existence of an! true realit!. /ost +ight dis+iss Baudrillard as ,eing indolent here in his scholarship, ho)ever, I contend that Baudrillard*s theor! of the inexistence of realit! is ,oth conscientious and thorough in its conclusions. An exa+ple of this theor! )ould ,e in the purchase of a D>D, a +ovie of a +ovie. A cop! )hich is nothing +ore than a representation of a representation. If one goes to a +ovie, )hat the! are participating in is a duplicate of )hat the actors portra! )hile ,eing fil+ed. he actual realit! is not that )hich see on the +ovie screen ,ut rather the scripted :pla!* ,eing recorded for cine+a.

The Evil Demon of Imagesiv Sublimated Ethics. o Baudrillard needs are not innate, ,ut rather are constructed. What so+eone invests in is also indicative of their character and ethics. In one of his +ost significant texts, Baudrillard exposes realit! as a s!ste+ of o,1ects. But not 1ust an! set of rando+ o,1ects, ,ut rather o,1ects that )ork together in such a )a! as to create desire and dictate to the audience )hat the! should desire.

hese o,1ects ;:de+ons*= are self5referential and representative of the )hole of societ!. his is another evil of Baudrillard, is that o,1ects no longer refer to an!thing :real*, and )hen people purchase such ite+s, the! are effectivel! ,u!ing into nothing.

Baudrillardian author /ark "oster, in explaining the disposition of these o,1ects, declares this a,out their nature 2 he latest such freedo+ is the rando+ selection of o,1ects that )ill distinguish an! individual fro+ others. In fact, one )ould think that the ideolog! of co+petition is here dedicated to the sa+e process, and conse-uentl! to the sa+e end, as it is in the field of productionv7 ;p. ((=.

?ne such exa+ple )ould ,e in fashion advertise+ent )hich pre+ises its )hole creative notion that )hoever purchases the o,1ect )ill clai+ their distinctive individualit!. his is )here the ini-uit! lies ,ecause in the ver! clai+ is the negation of the clai+ itself. he advertise+ent is created in such a )a! to present to the vie)er that the announce+ent )as prepared 1ust for the+ and !et in realit! is sho)n to +illions of other vie)ers, there,! den!ing the ver! clai+ of individualit! and interpellating the consu+er into a s!ste+ )here the procurer ,eco+es the ver! i+age it has ac-uired.

Baudrillard takes this idea further in expounds upon the notion of the i+age that the o,1ect represents and is vehe+entl! against the constitutive ele+ents of the i+age. 0or Baudrillard, the i+age holds +ultiple +eanings. In one sense the i+age is literal in that the o,1ect is itself a sign )hich refers to a specific i+age it represents. 0or exa+ple, the i+age of a car represents all of the things a car pro+ises including things like prestige, +o,ilit!, identit!, and the pro+ise of social inclusion. Baudrillard includes in this initial definition that these representations present so+ething untrue a,out the consu+er )ho purchases the car for these ver! reasons.

o si+plif! this )ould ,e to speak of general ethics )ithin societ!. In his )ork, Baudrillard attacks the notion of ethics as an atte+pt at creating the illusion of a nor+al societ! ,! situating its population through specific role5pla!ing responsi,ilities. "lainl! stated, for Baudrillard ethics are evil. He goes on to argue that ethics are nothing +ore than the process of su,li+ation at )ork. In ho+as /ann*s novella Death in Venice the narrative follo)s a )riter )ho ventures off to >enice to escape the angst of his )riter*s ,lock and )hile there ,egins to experience ro+antic feelings for a !oung ,o!, !et to den! these he dives deeper into his )ork and thus su,li+ates his true desires into his art. his exact response is Baudrillard*s paradig+ of nor+ative ethics, )hich is that )e are saved fro+ co++itting innate evil acts and are then encouraged to use the initial perversion as a for+ of social ,eautification and exaltation.

Bot onl! are ethics that )hich den! us our true desires, ,ut the! are also that )hich den! us the true essence of our ,eing ,! creating accepta,le roles )e participate in. he evil of ethics is that it +arginaliCes our ver! ,eing and disregards our true selves, for Baudrillard though this is )here he is +ost depressing as an author ,ecause his assu+ption is that left )ithout the illusion of ethics )e )ould ,e entropic ,eings looking for the opportunit! to participate in hedonistic acts. his is the ver! i+age Baudrillard speaks against, the i+age ;the role= that denies us the ver! essence of self. Do )hen )e ,u! into o,1ects as entities that can ,ring us happiness, )e are su,li+ating our a,ilit! to ,e happ! )ithout the+. We are also fulfilling a social role ,ased upon acceptance into the )ider co++unit! )ithin the context )e inha,it. But this is not )here Baudrillard ends, for there is a second ele+ent to the evil of the i+age, )hich is even +ore sinister.

0or Baudrillard, the i+age erupts out of capitalis+ and the proliferation of signs and i+ages that the consu+er is consu+ed ,!. In this +o+ent of consu+ption is the align+ent of the consu+er )ith the doctrine of the o,1ect. 9et*s si+plif! this idea ,! exa+ining a secretar! )ho is e+plo!ed ,! a local car dealership. he environ+ent that she inha,its that is directl! correlated to her role is one of -ualitative custo+er service. Her 1o, is to +ake the ,u!er happ!.

In this light, the car dealership is an entit! )ithin a +uch ,igger s!ste+ E capitalis+. Hence her role is not si+pl! so+ething that she co+es in and perfor+s ,ut is +uch ,igger then a series of tasks for it is in her allegiance to this co+pan! )here her true support lies. If the co+pan! is a consu+er5driven corporation converted ,! the allure

of individualis+, then the conclusion )e arrive at is that this co+pan! is a servant of capitalis+.

In this +o+ent then )hat )e are +et )ith is a secretar! )ho doesn*t +erel! execute tasks ,ut ,! participating in the ethos of the ,usiness supports, endorses and preaches. his is the sa+e for an! +e+,er of staff )ho is e+plo!ed ,! a co+pan! that represents capitalis+. he! represent evil. heir ver! essence has ,een consu+ed ,! the role the! have taken on )hich endorses capitalis+. o Baudrillard this is inescapa,le, even if the e+plo!ee is a li,eral )ho disagrees )ith capitalis+, for it is the role that is ,eing fulfilled and the +e+,er of staff )ho is advocating for that )hich the! do not ,elieve in and is ,eing su,su+ed ,! the ideolog! itself. his is the greatest evil.

Bataille, the Symbolic Exchange, and Omnip esence of Evil. ?ne cannot speak of Baudrillard )ithout so+eho) eventuall! encountering the 6er+an philosopher and econo+ist, Garl /arx. In his first three narratives* he applies /arx*s econo+ic theor! )ith se+iological studies )ith the sociolog! of consu+eris+ to +ake sense of the inner )orkings of societ!. Ho)ever, )hat one +ight notice is that Baudrillard*s initial align+ent to /arx*s o,servations ,egins to disappear as his )ork continues on. In his (HF& ,ook entitled : he /irror of "roduction*, Baudrillard criti-ues /arx*s philosoph! of historical +aterialis+ and clai+s that he +erel! inverts the sa+e values of capitalis+ in his criti-ue and hence supported the ver! structures he )as see+ingl! againstvi.

'

Another pivotal personalit! that influenced the )ork of Baudrillard is the 0rench cultural theorist 6eorge Bataille. ?ut of this relationship e+erges a ne) social her+eneutic designation that Baudrillard refers to as the :s!+,olic exchange*. Douglas Gellner elucidates this ter+ ,! stating that: 23Is!+,olic exchangeJ )as derived fro+ 6eorges BatailleKs notion of a 2general econo+!7 )here expenditure, )aste, sacrifice, and destruction )ere clai+ed to ,e +ore funda+ental to hu+an life than econo+ies of production and utilit!.

BatailleKs +odel )as the sun that freel! expended its energ! )ithout asking an!thing in return. He argued that if individuals )anted to ,e trul! sovereign ;e.g., free fro+ the i+peratives of capitalis+= the! should pursue a 2general econo+!7 of expenditure, giving, sacrifice, and destruction to escape deter+ination ,! existing i+peratives of utilit!vii.7 I think it*s i+portant to note here that Bataille e+plo!s the )ord utilit! not in the strictest philosophical sense, ,ut rather in its econo+ic sense )hich is to i+pl! that if )e pursue our individual sovereignt!, then )e +ust not ,e enslaved ,! +easures of satisfaction.

Hence, )h! he encourages us to include sacrifice and destruction, )ithout these )e )ould have our freedo+ eradicated ,! the drive for satisfaction as the teleological goal.

he general criti-ue arises out of the excess ;for Baudrillard, the excess is evil itself= of an! o,1ect as product, )hen so+eone purchases so+ething the! are not +erel! purchasing the o,1ect ,ut also the s!+,ol and prestige that the o,1ect itself

pronounces. 0or exa+ple, if so+eone purchases a na+e ,rand shirt fro+ o++! Hilfiger the! are not si+pl! ,u!ing a shirt ,ut the! are also ,u!ing a certain fashiona,le look that is constituted ,! the ver! na+e it ,ears. Also, i+portant to note is that the na+e is itself a for+ of social currenc!, )hen so+eone purchases a shirt fro+ a local store )ith an unkno)n na+e the! are ,u!ing 1ust that: co++unal anon!+it!. When Baudrillard speaks of the s!+,olic exchange it is not +erel! an exchange of ite+s, ,ut an exchange of all that the s!+,ol itself stands for. In the case of o++! Hilfiger it not 1ust a na+e ,ut it is also an identit!.

Here is the evil of this s!+,olic exchange that Baudrillard attacks, as )e have previousl! shared, )hich is that )hen so+eone ,u!s a product the! )ithout kno)ing take o)nership of the ver! s!+,ol and align the+selves )ith the o,1ect in all its integrit! and decadence. In this instance )e have ,een speaking of the fashion la,el o++! Hilfiger )ho has in recent !ears ,een accused ;+ore specificall! ,! the ne)s agenc! #euters= of pro+oting s)eatshops in Asiaviii.

B! i+plication the person )ho purchases an ite+ )ith the o++! Hilfiger tag on it endorses this perverse )ork ethic. his is )hat is trul! evil a,out the i+age for Baudrillard, to hi+ one cannot choose )hat aspects to support ,ecause the o,1ect itself relies upon its state of totalit!.

The Evil of !edia. he philosoph! of the i+age extends itself ,e!ond the econo+ic co++odit! and into the real+ of +edia. ?ne of the +ost crucial su,1ects Baudrillard had a su,stantial voice in )as ho) +edia affected our understanding of realit!. ?ne ter+ that

(%

+aterialiCed out of his criti-ue of +edia )as the h!perreal. his is plainl! defined as an i+age )hich is so real that it is ,e!ond real. He also uses it as the replica of so+ething that never existed. o explain this, Baudrillard e+plo!s the use of Disne!land as that )hich is a direct replica of A+erica, an exa+ple )ould ,e 0rontierland )hich represents the frontier era of A+erican histor!. It is i+aginar! ;but is neither right nor wrong= so that )e )ould ,elieve the rest is real ,ut the traged! is that the faLade is A+erica )hich has ,een consu+ed through si+ulation.

he h!perreal is that )hich atte+pts to e+ulate so+ething and turn it into an o,1ect of so+e sort. All of the values, do)n to the +orpholog! of the cro)d are +ere representations of realit! ,ut in their confession clai+ that realit! is not real. Disne!land is also created to de+onstrate that the +ature population are those )ho exist outside of its gates )hen in realit! the rest of the )orld is dense )ith an i++ature under5developed population. Another exa+ple )ould ,e prisons )hich give the illusion of safet! and freedo+ for the rest of the )orld ,ut is nothing +ore than an illusion to reveal that the rest of the )orld is that )hich is i+prisoned under the guise of freedo+.

Baudrillard*s attack on the +edia is that it represents onl! a portion of realit! ,ut pro1ects itself as the )hole of realit!. He also conde+ns the +edia for its lack of co++unication. He argues that true co++unication is t)o5)a! in that )hen so+eone is having a conversation there is +utual reciprocit! occurring. He states that this is not the case )ith things like the ne)s or television in general, that there is the illusion of true co++unication )ithout the a,ilit! of the vie)er to full! interact and give ,ack. 0or Baudrillard, the greatest evil of television is the screen itself. 2 he a+ount of

((

signification produced ,! television over)hel+s our a,ilit! to give +eaning ,ack and thus renders our )orld opa-ue. Based on this +odel of the s!+,olic, Baudrillard fa+ousl! declared that the (HH( 6ulf War 2did not take place7 since a )ar re-uires a struggle ,et)een adversaries, )hich the first Ira- War clearl! did not have. A true )ar )ould involve exchange and opposition.

Baudrillard argued that the Mnited Dtates )as a constant giver in this non5)ar and, at an! rate, the goals of 6eorge H.W. Bush and Dadda+ Hussein overlapped so +uch that the! )ere not adversaries ix.7 As )e can see here fro+ a Baudrillardian author that the television is that )hich pro1ects so+ething not true of itself, and the screen is that )hich a+plifies false co++unication.

In Baudrillard*s )ork The Masses: The !plosion of the Social in the Media his +ain thesis is that )e are trapped in the si+ulations of +edia and it is not that )e cannot kno) the real due to ignorance, in fact it*s 1ust the opposite, it*s due to over5 infor+ation. he over saturation of infor+ation su,1ects realit! to the point of negation. He goes so far as to prophec! that one da! in the future, if the +edia and technolog! continue their course that realit! )ill no longer ,e eas! to discern.

Evil, Seduction, and the Image. A +a1orit! of ethical theorists distri,ute +ost of their theor! on defining evil as so+e +oral plu+,line ,! )hich societ! +easures the principles of another. 0or Baudrillard )ho is unfairl! cast as a nihilist clai+s that the greatest evil that exists is not terroris+, )ar or starvation ,ut rather it is the i+age. he i+age that pro+ises )hat it does not have and the allure that it dra)s others into, this is the evil. De+iotician

(8

Jonathan D+ith sa!s this of Baudrillard*s ethics 2/odern +oral theor! is 1ust another :+ap that precedes the territor!K<a :h!per+oral si+ulation* that +akes an :is* fro+ an :ought*. hat :production* of +oral kno)ledge is doo+ed to uncertaint! ,! theor!dependence, argues Baudrillard. Instead, he offers the :seduction* of a pre+odern ontolog! of 6ood and Evil. he :fatal strateg!* of seduction evokes a :state of grace* )hich invites us to encounter 6ood and Evil as a :totalit!* and ,e :reenchanted* ,! the +!ster! of the )orldx.7

o full! understand this )e +ust re+e+,er that in the pre5+odern era identit! )as defined in and through so+e sort of self5align+ent to a ,elief s!ste+ of sort, )hether it is religious or not. Do )hen Baudrillard speaks of a pre5+odern ontolog!, this i+plies that )hen one enters into a discourse a,out ethics, the! are e+erging fro+ a particular narrative paradig+.

I think )e also have to define his usage of seduction )hich is not the characteristic notion t!picall! e+plo!ed. 2He also sa!s: :to seduce is to die as realit! and reconstitute oneself as illusion*xi He goes on to define it as an act of ritualis+, a +ode of circulation that is secretive, and that )hich leads and encourages one a)a! fro+ right ,ehaviour. Essentiall!, )hat Baudrillard concludes is that the genesis of +oralit! as a religious ethical classification of nor+ative social ,ehaviours is itself nothing +ore then so+ething that distracts us fro+ real +oral conduct and also clai+s that as )e perfor+ ethics, the act sustains the production of the illusion that )e are part of a +oral societ!.

(&

When societ! creates a la) that enforces that stealing is )rong, )hat occurs according to Baudrillard, is that the person is interpellated into a role and !et the essence of )ho the! are is +arginaliCed and i+posed upon ,! the specificit! of these principles. 0or Baudrillard the greatest evil is not that )hich is detri+ental to hu+anit! ,ut that )hich is pro1ected as detri+ental to hu+anit!. 2 he )orld is not dialectical 55 it is s)orn to extre+es, not to e-uili,riu+, s)orn to radical antagonis+, not to reconciliation or s!nthesis. his is also the principle of evilxii.7 Baudrillard does not see evil as part of so+e +!thological cos+ic ,attle, ,ut rather as an opposing force that drives us to a :radical antagonis+* that defies an! process of reconciliation. his notion of evil assu+es that evil does not need the good to sustain itself, that the nature of evil is to re+ain and upset the e-uili,riu+ that +ost seek.

If evil exists on its o)n, then ,! inference, so does the good. he good also e+,odies such an antagonis+ that does not seek an illusion of the )hole, ,ut in a -uite a +onolithic fashion hopes that its antipath! )ill soon )in the da!. he iron! here is that as non5dualistic and 6nostic as Baudrillard presents hi+self, this argu+ent hinges upon a hidden kind of dualis+.

It is no surprise that Baudrillard has detractors and criti-ues )ho are +ore than frustrated )ith )hat see+s to ,e pretentious ideas. 0or one thing, Baudrillard is not al)a!s clear on ho) defines his ter+s. His editor, /ark "oster, sa!s this: 2BaudrillardKs )riting is open to several criticis+s. He fails to define ke! ter+s, such as the codeN his )riting st!le is h!per,olic and declarative, often lacking sustained, s!ste+atic anal!sis )hen it is appropriateN he totaliCes his insights, refusing to -ualif! or deli+it his clai+s. He )rites a,out particular experiences, television i+ages, as if

($

nothing else in societ! +attered, extrapolating a ,leak vie) of the )orld fro+ that li+ited ,ase. He ignores contradictor! evidence7.xiii

?ne of the greatest apparent )eaknesses in Baudrillard is his ina,ilit! to ,e specific, he +akes ,road5s)eeping generalities and disregards contextual application )hich could ,e disastrous if so+eone )ere to take hi+ as a literalist. As "oster states, Baudrillard totaliCes his insights )hich is an after5effect of his ina,ilit! to su,stantiate his clai+s, )hich see+s to ,e one of the largest argu+ents against the validit! of his )ork. Baudrillard*s )ork has also ,een the inspiration for the +ovie 2 he /atrix7, a science fiction fil+ that posed the notion that realit! as )e kno) it is so+ething )e +ust overco+e to trul! live.

he directors )ere inspired ,! Baudrillard*s )ork )ith si+ulation so deepl! that the! decided to insert his ,ook ;Si!ulacra and Si!ulations= into one of the scenes )hich )as presented as a ,i,le. Baudrillard, +uch like a ghost is a partial5o,1ect )hich )ill e+erge and re5e+erge )ithin the ps!che of Western philosoph!, one can onl! hope that his reach )ill extend his geographical grasp.

What has ,een presented here is an exa+ination, criti-ue, and defence of the definitional understanding of evil in Baudrillard*s )ork. Although, at ti+es, it can see+ as if Baudrillard is ,eing pointlessl! arcane, the hope in this presentation of his )ork )as to present a social scientist )ho )as criticall! engaged )ith the )hole of societ!. His co++it+ent to re5associating the +asses )ith realit! itself is a heav! ,urden for an!one, one that he appears capa,le of +anaging. 2/r. Baudrillard )as not una)are of the pro,le+. :What I*+ going to )rite )ill have less and less chance

(@

of ,eing understood,* he said, :,ut that*s +! pro,le+xiv.*7 What I )ant to pose in direct defence of Baudrillard is that the a+,iguit! of his )ork )as intentional, +eaning that he )as +uch +ore like a ,i,lical prophet or ancient ra,,i )ho spoke in para,les as to invite those )ho had a desire to learn and investigate further could pursue such a goal.

It his is understanding of evil that )ill e+po)er us to respond to such a +!sterious thing. His +ore co+prehensive approach to evil a)akens the realit! that there no) has to ,e a co+prehensive response rather than the historicall! dualistic i+prudent retort. his essa! sought to present this notion of evil as an o,1ect that itself has alread! consu+ed realit!. o overco+e such a thing is to overco+e realit!. In Baudrillard*s )ork there is an acute attentiveness that speaks into the current strata of societ!, his )ork on +edia, evil as shared here re+ains true to the conte+porar! landscape fro+ )hich it springs.

(A

ii

http:OOinso+nia.acOessa!sO)hateverPhappenedPtoPevilO Econo+ics and Dociolog!: #edefining heir Boundaries: Conversations )ith Econo+ists and Dociologists ,! #ichard D)ed,erg ;(HH%=

Si!ulacra and Si!ulations ,! Baudrillard "aper,ack: @& pages v /ark "oster vi Jean Baudrillard, The Mirror of "roduction, trans. /ark "oster ;Be) Qork: elos "ress, (HF@= vii http:OOplato.stanford.eduOentriesO,audrillardOR8 viii http:OO))).cleanclothes.orgOne)slistO@HH ix Merrin, W. ;#$$$= K elevision is Gilling the Art of D!+,olic Exchange x Docial De+iotics >olu+e ', Issue (, (HH' 5Jonathan D+ith pages H&5(8% xi Deduction xii http:OO))).u,ishops.caO,audrillardstudiesOvol(P8Os+ith.ht+ xiii "oster, /ark. SIntroduction.S Jean Baudrillard: Delected Writings. Dtanford: Dtanford M", (H''. (5H
iii

iv

xiv

http:OO))).n!ti+es.co+O8%%FO%&O%FO,ooksO%F,audrillard.ht+l

Butler, #ex. Jean Baudrillard: he Defence of the #eal. Dage "u,lications. (HHH. 6ane, /ike ;editor=. Baudrillard 9ive: Delected Intervie)s. #outledge. (HH&. 6ane, /ike ;editor=. Jean Baudrillard: In #adical Mncertaint!. "luto "ress. 8%%%. 6ane, /ike ;editor=. Baudrillard: Critical and 0atal heor!. #outledge. (HH(. Baudrillard, Jean and Chris urner ; ranslator=. he Intelligence of Evil or the 9ucidit! "act ; alking I+ages=. Berg "u,lishers. Bove+,er (@, 8%%@. Baudrillard, Jean. and Chris urner ; ranslator=. I+possi,le Exchange. >erso Books. Dece+,er 8%%(. Baudrillard, Jean. he D!ste+ of ?,1ects, 9ondon: >erso. (HHA Baudrillard, Jean. he Consu+er Dociet!, "aris: 6alli+ard. (HH'. Baudrillard, Jean. he /irror of "roduction, Dt. 9ouis: elos "ress. (HF@. Baudrillard, Jean. D!+,olic Exchange and Death, 9ondon: Dage. (HH&. Baudrillard, Jean. he ransparenc! of Evil, 9ondon: >erso. (HH&.

Baudrillard, Jean. Di+ulacra and Di+ulation, Ann Ar,or: he Mniversit! of /ichigan "ress. (HH$.