CAFES AND NIKES: HERE IS AN ANALYSIS WITH NO QUOTATIONS

---

Since the wide acceptance of Heidegger’s existential phenomenology, European continental philosophy has entered a new age. Instead of focusing on metaphysics like the German Idealists, continental philosophers focused on a new branch of philosophy, phenomenology. The formal definition of phenomenology given by Edmund Husserl is the scientific study of conscious subjective experiences, but it was later expanded by German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, and French philosophers, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre, to study all experiences surrounding the subject. Specifically, phenomenology studies all things and experiences that revolve around the subject, making phenomenology encompass sociology, politics, psychology, etc.

       Jean Baudrillard and Guy Debord are two philosophers who follow this phenomenology tradition, specifically, the postmodernist and neo-Marxist traditions. Baudrillard, an influential French sociologist and philosopher is a key figure in the post-modernism tradition, which seeks to deconstruct, meaning to analyze the structure of a notion and is different from traditions such as German Idealism, society, and societal issues. On the other hand, Guy Debord, another influential French sociologist, is a key figure in the Neo-Marxist tradition. Both Baudrillard and Guy Debord have similar focuses and theoretical frameworks, but there exists a very nuanced difference between the two.

       Baudrillard and Guy Debord discussed the same topic, consumerism and its connection to symbols/identity. To be precise, Baudrillard and Guy Debord both discussed the structure and impact of modern consumerism on society and individuals. Before we discuss the differences and similarities between Baudrillard's and Guy Debord’s frameworks, let’s first look at their respective theories.

       Baudrillard noticed a new phenomenon in the modern consumerist society, the identity value that a product brings is larger than the functional value of the product. In other words, the identity that a product brings to the consumer is considered before the function of the product. When people buy shoes, they do not consider the function of the shoe, that is to cover the feet when walking, they consider the brand, such as Nike or Adidas first. However, Baudrillard’s deconstruction does not end here, he further states that the function of the product is a form of identity, that is even if we value the function before the identity of the product, we are still valuing the identity of the product. To Baudrillard, the function of a product no longer exists in modern consumerism.

       Baudrillard explained this with a detailed example in his book System of Objects. He raised the example of European furniture design during the Victorian period (18th century) and European furniture design during the modern era (20th century). He noticed that during the Victorian era, what was first noticed was the decorative value and beauty it brings to the atmosphere of a Victorian household. See the flowery beds and the curvy desks, those decorations on the beds and desks serve no function, they bring only identity to the owner. Same with the china or any other oriental vase placed on cabinets, all furniture and props serve as decoration to express the owner’s economic and cultural identity. Now if we example modern furniture, we notice that Victorian-style decoration ceases to exist, beds no longer have flowery decorations, desks are rigid and unicolored, and the china and oriental vases no longer have a place in the cabinets. It seems like modern furniture is more oriented toward function, instead of identity (decorations). However, Baudrillard astutely noticed that none of the functions that modern furniture serves are truly “functional”. Since functionality originates from the disregard for style, a “functional” set of furniture should either be mismatched or have some “out-of-style” pieces. However, the modern furniture setup seeks to create a unanimous style by using either the same color scheme (such as using white for most furniture) or design (rigid and simplistic). Therefore, the function that modern furniture serves is the same as Victorian furniture, the ontology of furniture remained, and what was changed was only the form of expression. The rigid and simplistic design of modern furniture is merely another form of the flowery and curvy style of Victorian furniture. In this case, Baudrillard observes that the so-called “functional” designs of modernity are merely another form of expression as the antique styles in Victorian times. There is no separation between function and identity for the consumed goods. All that is valued in modernity is identity, no function.

       Baudrillard even further expanded this claim into what he calls hyperreality. In his study of consumerism, he employed abstract thinking and concluded a general pattern in modern society, which is his hyperreality. He rephrased function and identity into reality and hyperreality. Reality represents what is “real” what is factual, and what can be experienced directly through the senses. Hyperreality is the opposite of reality, it is something that is “fake” and “imagined”, it originates from the interaction between subjects and subjects, it is something that cannot be directly experienced through the senses. Here is a metaphor to help make sense of the definitions, think of reality as a rock and hyperreality as the image of the rock. Baudrillard proposes that in the current society, we live in hyperreality, that nothing we experience is “real.” We constantly exchange symbols, money, a paper token of value, and identity, a product that conveys symbolic identity. It is almost like the movie Matrix, where humanity is trapped in a virtual simulation, where we perceive “real” things, but they are nothing but machine codes (symbols). Unlike the Matrix, Baudrillard’s hyperreal is inescapable, because the Matrix is made by machines (something that is not us), but the hyperreal is made by us (the subject).

       In summary, Baudrillard proposes that the society and individuals in the society are immersed in a state of hyperreality, which is made up of subjects exchanging symbols (identity) with other subjects. Baudrillard states that this state of hyperreality is inescapable for individuals in society as this hyperreality is created by ourselves.

       On the other hand, Guy Debord has a similar theory compared to Baudrillard because both of them noticed the phenomenon occurring in society. Guy Debord also noticed the decline of the function, but he articulated this phenomenon with another language. Since he had a neo-Marxist background, he articulated and analyzed this phenomenon from economic and historical perspectives. Instead of articulating “the function of the product is being valued less than identity”, Guy Debord would say, “the social life is colonized by commodity.” Guy Debord analyzed the phenomenon in society directly. As he sees it, the commodity has been infiltrating our day-to-day life, making us “forget” what was once “true.” To Guy Debord, consumerism orientated our lives (which used to exist) into fictional representations. It is the decline of being into having and having into appearing. In other words, the authentic social life has been replaced with its representation.

       To further articulate this phenomenon, Guy Debord introduces a term, spectacles. A spectacle is the inverted image of a society where the relations between commodities have replaced relations between people. Guy Debord argues the passive identification of spectacles replaced the actual interaction of people. Individuals’ identities have been replaced by identifying images instead of what they are. For instance, people now see others in the form of the products they own, an identity is no longer a name or a personality, but now is a symbol represented by a commodity, such as Air Jordan shoes or a Chanel purse. A note to bear in mind is that a spectacle is not the commodity itself, but the symbol of the commodity, what the commodity is to us. A spectacle is a subjective term, it relates to experiences rather than solid material. Therefore, a spectacle only exists in interactions between subjects.

The form of existence of the spectacle is the exact reason it jeopardizes the social relationship, as it originates from us, not exterior sources. Note here that the spectacle has a similar property to the hyperreal¸ that is both notions originate and exist among subjects, not materials. This is where Guy Debord’s theoretical framework is similar to Baudrillard's. Both philosophers proposed that society exists in the same “inauthentic” and “false” state. Both notions take away the factual and real interactions between the subject and the world. In both frameworks, the subject is placed under an “unconscious state”, not aware of its situation. In Baudrillard’s framework, the subject is unaware of its imprisonment in the hyperreal. In Duy Debord’s framework, the subject is unaware of its authentic experiences being taken away from itself by the spectacle.

However, Guy Debord’s theory does have one critical deviation from Baudrillard’s theory, which is that the subject can “escape” the spectacle. Guy Debord posits that through positive movements (movements that add substance), the negative effects of the spectacle in modern society can be removed. Even if the spectacle originates from the subject, the subject can precisely levitate itself from the effects of the spectacle. From this claim in his theory, Guy Debord extends to political movements, where he and others who possess similar beliefs to him argue that through political movements spectacles’ influence would dimmish. For example, if a group of people in society revolts against traditional consumerism and media-projected images, that group can reverse the degradation of their social identity, they can be referred to by their names, not the commodity they own.

Baudrillard, however, proposes an entirely different thing. To Baudrillard, any action seeking to invert, overthrow, or escape the hyperreal through any means (especially political or civil movements) would eventually get integrated into the hyperreal. Since any event brings identity and any identity captures subjects into the hyperreal, there is no way for any individual to escape it. A very lively example is the current leftist movements, they try to break free from traditional symbols (that is to “escape” from what they think as hyperreality), but they orientate themselves back into the hyperreality of their symbols. To them, the world has more than two sexes and that fact makes a difference. But in reality, no matter whether two sexes or ten sexes are all ontologically the same, there exists no “New World” it is just land that has already been there for thousands of years. Therefore, to Baudrillard, Guy Debord’s attempts to break free from the spectacle orientates itself as another identity, just a new identity, but ontologically the same. Just as “Neopronouns” are simply “Pronouns” but spelled and said differently.

Though we see the difference between Baudrillard and Guy Debord, it is important to remember that the two differ in content. That is spectacles do not and cannot equate to the hyperreal. So, in terminology, we can break free from a spectacle (such as pronouns) by jumping into another spectacle (such as Neopronouns). Therefore, the hyperreal “consists” of spectacles. The two notions do not conflict with each other. The difference critical between Guy Debord and Baudrillard is that Guy Debord argues we can entirely break away from Spectacles, while Baudrillard argues we cannot because it is all weaved together.

Here we see that the critical difference between Guy Debord and Baudrillard lies in the definition of their respective key terms. Baudrillard’s hyperreal is holistic, it encompasses all in society. The hyperreal is a total and encompassing term, it discusses society in general, while the spectacle is merely a cross-section of society, a phenomenon that exists in it. Therefore, it appears to Guy Debord and anyone who reads him that we can cast away spectacles like how we cast away trash from our households; since it is the trash that we throw away, not the house, we can perform that action. It is different to Baudrillard; to him, casting out the hyperreal is like casting out the entire house, hence, we cannot perform that action.

In other words, both Baudrillard and Guy Debord discuss the same topic: the decline of authentic function in products and interactions in society. But Baudrillard analyzes the topic from a more holistic perspective and discusses society and the phenomena in it through one term, hyperreal. In contrast, Guy Debord analyzes the topic using a more Neo-Marxist perspective, which analyzes the entire topic using one section of it, the spectacle. It is this perspective difference that resulted in the divide in the conclusion of escaping the hyperreal/spectacle between the two philosophers. Baudrillard concludes that the hyperreal is inescapable, and Guy Debord argues that we can remove spectacles and their influence on society as a whole.