Scan barcode
kricitt's review against another edition
challenging
fast-paced
4.25
Impactful, perhaps more so with the 2000s and 10's behind us.
faulkneribarelyknowher's review
3.0
damn
first of all, it's certainly misguided to view Baudrillard's claims as the true, real-life intentions of the terrorists of 9/11; these essays read more like a philosophical analysis of the outcomes (real, yes, but also symbolic) of the event.
the first essay was eye-opening. Baudrillard's remarks on globalization (more accurately anti-globalization) were interesting, and wove 9/11 as an event into the context of Western advancement of the world order, the Cold War, and the outcomes of 9/11 as harbinger of surveillance society and general modern mental malaise. the idea of 9/11 as a symptom of a suicidal world order is also interesting, and serves as a good metaphorical vehicle for similar self-destructive behavior of Western-led globalization.
the second, shorter essay was digestible and clear. the symbolic implications of the architecture of the towers was interesting to read about in a metaphorical kind of way.
the third and fourth essays were harder for me to understand, dealing more with 9/11's act in relation to Baudrillard's mapping of simulation and simulacra. there were some interesting ideas that i could tease out from here (e.g. universality vs. globalization vs. singularity), but for the most part i think it went over my head. i think this would be more digestible if i had read Simulation and Simulacra (which i have tried and failed to do).
i question the virtue of these works as well: sure, there are interesting symbolic and metaphorical implications of these terrorist acts (which i guess is Baudrillard's specialty) but there are more realistic, tangible effects to be discussed (Islamophobia in globalization, anti-US sentiments in 3rd world countries (esp. post-Cold War (or, as Baudrillard calls it, WWIII)), the psychological impacts, etc.). but again, i don't know if i entirely gleaned the essence of some of these works, and Baudrillard makes it clear that he is discussing something distinct from these other, more tangible effects and causes.
if you are ambitious, this collection of essays could be good to read, but i urge that you at least read the first essay.
first of all, it's certainly misguided to view Baudrillard's claims as the true, real-life intentions of the terrorists of 9/11; these essays read more like a philosophical analysis of the outcomes (real, yes, but also symbolic) of the event.
the first essay was eye-opening. Baudrillard's remarks on globalization (more accurately anti-globalization) were interesting, and wove 9/11 as an event into the context of Western advancement of the world order, the Cold War, and the outcomes of 9/11 as harbinger of surveillance society and general modern mental malaise. the idea of 9/11 as a symptom of a suicidal world order is also interesting, and serves as a good metaphorical vehicle for similar self-destructive behavior of Western-led globalization.
the second, shorter essay was digestible and clear. the symbolic implications of the architecture of the towers was interesting to read about in a metaphorical kind of way.
the third and fourth essays were harder for me to understand, dealing more with 9/11's act in relation to Baudrillard's mapping of simulation and simulacra. there were some interesting ideas that i could tease out from here (e.g. universality vs. globalization vs. singularity), but for the most part i think it went over my head. i think this would be more digestible if i had read Simulation and Simulacra (which i have tried and failed to do).
i question the virtue of these works as well: sure, there are interesting symbolic and metaphorical implications of these terrorist acts (which i guess is Baudrillard's specialty) but there are more realistic, tangible effects to be discussed (Islamophobia in globalization, anti-US sentiments in 3rd world countries (esp. post-Cold War (or, as Baudrillard calls it, WWIII)), the psychological impacts, etc.). but again, i don't know if i entirely gleaned the essence of some of these works, and Baudrillard makes it clear that he is discussing something distinct from these other, more tangible effects and causes.
if you are ambitious, this collection of essays could be good to read, but i urge that you at least read the first essay.
heteroglossia's review against another edition
Baudrillard talks of terrorism beyond the parameters it is usually discussed in. You won’t find much mention of political or historical specificity or attempts to find causation or “meaning” in terrorism. For him, it is beyond a theory of “clash of civilizations,” beyond discussions of Good & Evil. Terrorism is meaningless, it is the extreme event, attempt, of those outside global power to humiliate by refusing to act in a way that can be logically understood. Terrorism is not “real” & therein lies its power & detriment – It is worse than real, “it is symbolic.”
I found his discussion on the spectacle of terrorism particularly interesting. How these deaths from the brutal act, the whole reality & brutality of the current system enters into some kind of system of spectacular exchange. “The media are part of the event, they are part of the terror,” ⠀⠀⠀
Some quotes that I felt really encapsulated things: ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀
“When global power monopolizes the situation to this extent, when there is such a formidable condensation of all functions in the technocratic machinery, and when no alternative form of thinking is allowed, what other way is there but a terroristic situational transfer? It was the system itself which created the objective conditions for this brutal retaliation. By seizing all the cards for itself, it forced the Other to change the rules. And the new rules are fierce ones, because the stakes are fierce. To a system whose very excess of power poses an insoluble challenge, the terrorists respond with a definitive act which is also not susceptible of exchange.”
"This is not, then, a clash of civilizations of religions, and it reaches far beyond Islam and America, on which efforts are being made to focus the conflict in order to create the delusion of a visible confrontation and a solution based on force. There is, indeed, a fundamental antagonism here, but one which points past the spectre of America (which is, perhaps, the epicentre, but in no sense the sole embodiment, of globalization) and the spectre of Islam (which is not the embodiment of terrorism either), to triumphant globalization battling against itself.”
I found his discussion on the spectacle of terrorism particularly interesting. How these deaths from the brutal act, the whole reality & brutality of the current system enters into some kind of system of spectacular exchange. “The media are part of the event, they are part of the terror,” ⠀⠀⠀
Some quotes that I felt really encapsulated things: ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀
“When global power monopolizes the situation to this extent, when there is such a formidable condensation of all functions in the technocratic machinery, and when no alternative form of thinking is allowed, what other way is there but a terroristic situational transfer? It was the system itself which created the objective conditions for this brutal retaliation. By seizing all the cards for itself, it forced the Other to change the rules. And the new rules are fierce ones, because the stakes are fierce. To a system whose very excess of power poses an insoluble challenge, the terrorists respond with a definitive act which is also not susceptible of exchange.”
"This is not, then, a clash of civilizations of religions, and it reaches far beyond Islam and America, on which efforts are being made to focus the conflict in order to create the delusion of a visible confrontation and a solution based on force. There is, indeed, a fundamental antagonism here, but one which points past the spectre of America (which is, perhaps, the epicentre, but in no sense the sole embodiment, of globalization) and the spectre of Islam (which is not the embodiment of terrorism either), to triumphant globalization battling against itself.”
darwin8u's review
4.0
A very symbolic and literary way of looking at the origins and results of terrorism. I don't think there was much I actually disagreed with in these two essays. However, in his search for an almost poetic/philosophic explanation for terror [a:Jean Baudrillard|1264|Jean Baudrillard|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1217498723p2/1264.jpg] risks the absurdity of oversimplification for beauty's sake.
More...