SIGNS, SYMBOLS, AND SIMULACRA: ON BAUDRILLARD, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE VOID OF
MEDIATED REALITY
Editorial for Mesciu Gigi Fall / Winter 2023
The past 150 years have marked an unyielding alteration of our experience with the world around us. The proliferation of industrial society and modern technology throughout the 20th century begot an acceleration of political, economic, and social exchanges and developments that have propelled our existence into a semi-simulated realm of what sociologist Jean Baudrillard calls hyperreality. The birth of this illusory existence manufactured a widespread social condition predicated on signs, symbols, replication, and an overall mediated experience that has led to a departure from organic reality and the onset of irreversible identity reconstruction.
According to Baudrillard, hyperreality is a condition in which what is real and what is fiction are seamlessly blended together so that there is no clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins; the boundary between reality and simulation has become blurred. Hyperreality can be seen as a response to the severe societal changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution. With the advent of mass production and mechanization, reality became increasingly mediated and manufactured. In the 19th century, industrialization created a new urban landscape characterized by factories, railways, and massive population shifts. The factory itself can be seen as an early form of hyperreality where, within its walls, workers engaged in repetitive, monotonous tasks, and the products they created were often standardized and devoid of individuality. This environment represented a break from the traditional, artisanal modes of production, replacing them with a hyperreal world where reality was subsumed by the industrial process.
The growth of capitalism in the 20th century further entrenched the prevalence of simulacra and simulation. As capitalism expanded, it became increasingly reliant on mass consumption, the commodification of products and experiences, and the artifice of logos, symbols, and branding. The rise of high fashion and its concomitant implications on status and identity was a robust force in intensifying this continued departure from organic reality. High fashion brands like Louis Vuitton fostered a status-driven brand culture by linking their products to the construction of individual and societal identities. At its inception, their brand identity was solely buttressed by its craftsmanship and artistry. Louis Vuitton himself was a French craftsman who founded the company in 1854 in Paris. It was originally a workshop for manufacturing custom luxury trunks and luggage where Vuitton introduced innovative design elements, such as flat, stackable trunks and airtight, waterproof compartments, which were highly practical for travelers during that era. Over time, however, the brand has morphed into a domineering symbol of status and wealth. They predicate their public image and branding on their heritage and artistry to evoke an aura of authenticity, but are these virtues qualitatively merited? Does a rich history and meticulous craftsmanship warrant a $670 blank white cotton tee (currently on their website, called the ‘Inside Out T-Shirt’)? Or is the production and sale of this shirt permitted because they can harvest exorbitant profit margins from these pieces while continuing to augment their prestige and offer to their customers the opportunity to tell the world “I can afford a $670 blank cotton tee”? It seems that this is the direction that the high fashion industry went in the second half of the 20th century and where it continues to reside today.
This semiotic-oriented relationship with the material has precipitated a cultural epidemic of posturing and obfuscation. This is what Jean Baudrillard calls “the order of maleficence.” This stage of hyperreality is where a profound reality has become masked and denatured. In the case of Louis Vuitton, the profound reality of their brand is the “artistry” and “craftsmanship” that they have offered since their inception. This reality, however, becomes denatured when they leverage this rhetoric and public identity to convince consumers that their $670 blank cotton t-shirt is the consequence of such artistry and craftsmanship. The masking goes both ways though. For example, if a certain customer is relatively poor or merely spending money outside of their means to acquire this economically impractical t-shirt, they are most likely doing so in order to actually mask their poverty. In this case, that individual is employing an illusory symbol (the LV monogram is embossed in white, just protuberant enough for others to see) to obscure a reality.
Leveraging products as tools for deception also occurred in standard advertising and consumer culture during the 20th century. Advertisements depicted idealized versions of reality, promoting products as a means to attain happiness, success, and fulfillment. These representations often bore little resemblance to the authentic experiences of consumers, creating a hyperreal consumer culture where the simulated became more desirable than the real. For instance, the Marlboro Man cigarette campaign depicted rugged, traditionally masculine cowboys and (motor) bikers in many of their campaigns. Thus, smoking a Marlboro became associated with freedom and adventure, despite the health risks involved. In this case, the signs and images that Marlboro presented to consumers did not faithfully reveal reality. Do cowboys and bikers smoke cigarettes? Sure. Does it look cool? Sometimes. But the point is that, through clever marketing, Marlboro wasn’t selling cigarettes for the lure of nicotine. Rather, it was selling cigarettes for its aesthetic coefficient: the lifestyle, the romanticization, the fiction. Smoking a pack of cigarettes does not turn you into Buffalo Bill or Steve McQueen. And Marlboro knew that it didn’t need to sell you that possibility, merely the aspiration of it.
This masking of reality became particularly evident in the final decades of the 20th century with the dawn of the digital age, where technology ushered the social and economic ecosystem into a condition saturated with simulated experiences. In the pursuit of unattainable perfection, individuals and corporations began to project idealized versions of themselves in mass media, creating a mirage that deviates from authentic reality. Baudrillard's concepts are particularly illuminating when applied to this realm of personal identity. Social media platforms offer users a stage for the simulation of self, where identities are carefully crafted and presented. The technology-mediated self is not a faithful reflection of one's true identity but a curated simulacrum designed to align with societal expectations and online trends.
Concession to social conventions and a disparity between one’s private self and the self that they present to the public has always been a fact of our sociological condition. But in our modern age, the incongruity of these divergent selves has swelled to aberrant degrees. Projecting false, idealized identities online has distorted audiences’ conceptions of how others live, leading to a channel that can spiral from insecurity and low self-esteem into depression and suicide. A 10-year longitudinal study at BYU discovered that teenage girls as young as 13 who spent two to three hours daily on social media were at a higher risk for suicide than their peers. This is not surprising. Imposing oppressive, distorted standards on vulnerable, psychologically underdeveloped individuals will lead to mental unwellness. In these cases, the order of maleficence holds true. There is a reality that exists sometimes and in some places in which the appearance that social media users present to their followers is organic. But for the most part, the images presented on these platforms are staged and embellished. They capture something so fleeting and transient that to even hint at its naturalness is a lie unto their followers and, just as importantly, unto themselves.
According to Baudrillard, hyperreality is a condition in which what is real and what is fiction are seamlessly blended together so that there is no clear distinction between where one ends and the other begins; the boundary between reality and simulation has become blurred. Hyperreality can be seen as a response to the severe societal changes wrought by the Industrial Revolution. With the advent of mass production and mechanization, reality became increasingly mediated and manufactured. In the 19th century, industrialization created a new urban landscape characterized by factories, railways, and massive population shifts. The factory itself can be seen as an early form of hyperreality where, within its walls, workers engaged in repetitive, monotonous tasks, and the products they created were often standardized and devoid of individuality. This environment represented a break from the traditional, artisanal modes of production, replacing them with a hyperreal world where reality was subsumed by the industrial process.
The growth of capitalism in the 20th century further entrenched the prevalence of simulacra and simulation. As capitalism expanded, it became increasingly reliant on mass consumption, the commodification of products and experiences, and the artifice of logos, symbols, and branding. The rise of high fashion and its concomitant implications on status and identity was a robust force in intensifying this continued departure from organic reality. High fashion brands like Louis Vuitton fostered a status-driven brand culture by linking their products to the construction of individual and societal identities. At its inception, their brand identity was solely buttressed by its craftsmanship and artistry. Louis Vuitton himself was a French craftsman who founded the company in 1854 in Paris. It was originally a workshop for manufacturing custom luxury trunks and luggage where Vuitton introduced innovative design elements, such as flat, stackable trunks and airtight, waterproof compartments, which were highly practical for travelers during that era. Over time, however, the brand has morphed into a domineering symbol of status and wealth. They predicate their public image and branding on their heritage and artistry to evoke an aura of authenticity, but are these virtues qualitatively merited? Does a rich history and meticulous craftsmanship warrant a $670 blank white cotton tee (currently on their website, called the ‘Inside Out T-Shirt’)? Or is the production and sale of this shirt permitted because they can harvest exorbitant profit margins from these pieces while continuing to augment their prestige and offer to their customers the opportunity to tell the world “I can afford a $670 blank cotton tee”? It seems that this is the direction that the high fashion industry went in the second half of the 20th century and where it continues to reside today.
This semiotic-oriented relationship with the material has precipitated a cultural epidemic of posturing and obfuscation. This is what Jean Baudrillard calls “the order of maleficence.” This stage of hyperreality is where a profound reality has become masked and denatured. In the case of Louis Vuitton, the profound reality of their brand is the “artistry” and “craftsmanship” that they have offered since their inception. This reality, however, becomes denatured when they leverage this rhetoric and public identity to convince consumers that their $670 blank cotton t-shirt is the consequence of such artistry and craftsmanship. The masking goes both ways though. For example, if a certain customer is relatively poor or merely spending money outside of their means to acquire this economically impractical t-shirt, they are most likely doing so in order to actually mask their poverty. In this case, that individual is employing an illusory symbol (the LV monogram is embossed in white, just protuberant enough for others to see) to obscure a reality.
Leveraging products as tools for deception also occurred in standard advertising and consumer culture during the 20th century. Advertisements depicted idealized versions of reality, promoting products as a means to attain happiness, success, and fulfillment. These representations often bore little resemblance to the authentic experiences of consumers, creating a hyperreal consumer culture where the simulated became more desirable than the real. For instance, the Marlboro Man cigarette campaign depicted rugged, traditionally masculine cowboys and (motor) bikers in many of their campaigns. Thus, smoking a Marlboro became associated with freedom and adventure, despite the health risks involved. In this case, the signs and images that Marlboro presented to consumers did not faithfully reveal reality. Do cowboys and bikers smoke cigarettes? Sure. Does it look cool? Sometimes. But the point is that, through clever marketing, Marlboro wasn’t selling cigarettes for the lure of nicotine. Rather, it was selling cigarettes for its aesthetic coefficient: the lifestyle, the romanticization, the fiction. Smoking a pack of cigarettes does not turn you into Buffalo Bill or Steve McQueen. And Marlboro knew that it didn’t need to sell you that possibility, merely the aspiration of it.
This masking of reality became particularly evident in the final decades of the 20th century with the dawn of the digital age, where technology ushered the social and economic ecosystem into a condition saturated with simulated experiences. In the pursuit of unattainable perfection, individuals and corporations began to project idealized versions of themselves in mass media, creating a mirage that deviates from authentic reality. Baudrillard's concepts are particularly illuminating when applied to this realm of personal identity. Social media platforms offer users a stage for the simulation of self, where identities are carefully crafted and presented. The technology-mediated self is not a faithful reflection of one's true identity but a curated simulacrum designed to align with societal expectations and online trends.
Concession to social conventions and a disparity between one’s private self and the self that they present to the public has always been a fact of our sociological condition. But in our modern age, the incongruity of these divergent selves has swelled to aberrant degrees. Projecting false, idealized identities online has distorted audiences’ conceptions of how others live, leading to a channel that can spiral from insecurity and low self-esteem into depression and suicide. A 10-year longitudinal study at BYU discovered that teenage girls as young as 13 who spent two to three hours daily on social media were at a higher risk for suicide than their peers. This is not surprising. Imposing oppressive, distorted standards on vulnerable, psychologically underdeveloped individuals will lead to mental unwellness. In these cases, the order of maleficence holds true. There is a reality that exists sometimes and in some places in which the appearance that social media users present to their followers is organic. But for the most part, the images presented on these platforms are staged and embellished. They capture something so fleeting and transient that to even hint at its naturalness is a lie unto their followers and, just as importantly, unto themselves.