‘Many, many years ago lived an
emperor, who thought so much of new clothes that he spent all his money in
order to obtain them; his only ambition was to be always well dressed. He did
not care for his soldiers, and the theatre did not amuse him; the only thing,
in fact, he thought anything of was to drive out and show a new suit of
clothes. He had a coat for every hour of the day; and as one would say of a
king “He is in his cabinet,” so one could say of him, “The
emperor is in his dressing-room.”
We
all know how this story continues. Two swindlers arrive in the kingdom,
persuading the emperor that they are great tailors. For a fabulous fee, they
dress the emperor in --- nothing. Stupefied and cowed by the tailors’
reputation, no-one – not the emperor’s most trusted advisers, nor
the emperor himself – has the courage to point to the king’s
nakedness. No-one that is, except a little boy who, in his naïve
fearlessness, cries out, but ‘The emperor has nothing on!’ The
boy’s revelation is passed in whispers around the crowd until the whole
crowd is echoing it.
Andersen’s
is a story about prestige, which is the central real theme of Baudrillard’s For
a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. Prestige, which cannot be reduced to
political power or economic domination, even if it may presuppose them.
Prestige, which is, more or less, what Baudrillard means by sign value.
Critical
theorists, Baudrillard might say,
have liked to put themselves in the position of Andersen’s little boy:
the epistemological vanguard who will cut through the ideological veils to
expose the reality beneath. The Emperor, they will say, has wasted his money.
And here is the nub
of the matter: what is it, after all, that people think they are saying when
they claim that the Emperor has ‘wasted’ his money?
Surely that the
Emperor has swindled into ascribing an absurdly inflated exchange value to what
is functionally useless.
But isn’t,
after all, the little boy a little too credulous? Is he really so clever? And
is Andersen right to call the emperor’s tailors ‘swindlers’?
What, in the end, is the difference between them and ‘proper’
fashion designers?
To answer these
questions takes us to the heart of Baudrillard’s analysis in FACPES.
The problem with the
little boy theorists, from Baudrillard’s point of view, is that they
don’t understand fashion – which is to say, they do not understand
sign value.
The logic of fashion
is the logic of sign value. It is a logic of pure differentiation, a system
without any positive terms. Baudrillard’s own example is the mini-skirt. The mini-skirt becomes
beautiful simply by virtue of its difference from the maxi-skirt, which, when the cycle turns again, as
it inevitably must, will be deemed beautiful only because of its difference
from the mini-skirt. The material features of the two types of skirt are of no
significance; or rather, they are only important as the material for
signification. And nakedness, nakedness would be the degree-zero of the fashion
system: to wear no clothes at all could be the height of fashion, the acme of
discernment, if the system deigned it to be.
This is why the
Emperor has not been swindled.
Why, the emperor has wasted his money, shout the little boy-critical
theorists. Not so, Baudrillard would reply. Exorbitant expenditure, the
conspicuous consumption of the functionally useless: these are in every culture
a sign of privilege. As such, it might seem that it is impossible for the
Emperor to waste his money. Conspicuous wastage, sumptuary expenditure: these are
the very marks of prestige. All the Emperor can do, in fact, is convert his
wealth from exchange value to sign value. The exorbitant fee he bestows upon
the foreign designers is already a sign. Sign value proliferates after this act
of economic exchange: the designers increase their status (their designs now
appear by royal appointment), the Emperor increases his prestige, even if
– no especially if – it is realized that what he has bought is
functionally useless.
To make
Andersen’s story more Baudrillardian we would have to change its ending.
Andersen’s story concludes with the chastened emperor recognizing that
the people are right; he has been swindled, but nevertheless, to save face, he
continues to act as if he is wearing the finest suit of clothes. In the version
of the story that Baudrillard would write, the exact opposite would occur.
We can imagine
another section of the story, in which, in the days after the Emperor’s
procession, people queue up at the designers’ studio to be fitted for a
set of clothes like the Emperor’s. For prestige is not accorded on the
basis of the views of the majority. On the contrary, in fact. As Baudrillard
says:
‘beautiful,
stylized, modern objects are subtly created …. In order not to be
understood by the majority
– at least not straight away. Their social function is first of all to be
distinctive signs, to be objects which will distinguish those who distinguish
them. Others will not even see them.’ (FACPES, 48)
What
is left out of the little boy theorists’ accounts is sign value. They
only factor in exchange value and use value.
Baudrillard’s
aim in FACPES is to re-focus analysis on the essentially political character of
the sign. That aim is spelled out in the title of the book, which purports to
be simultaneously a politicization of semiology (which, Baudrillard said, was
like bourgeois political economy prior to Marx, in that it was satisfied to
analyse rather than critique signs) and semiotization of political theory
(which has failed to adequately deal with signification as a political process
in its own right).
So
let’s turn now to Baudrillard’s critique of Marx, the grandfather
of all those little boys in the crowd.
Baudrillard
is concerned to do three things here:
So Baudrillard identifies four distinct
logics:
1.
A
functional logic of use value
2.
An
economic logic of exchange value
3.
A
logic of sign value
4.
A
logic of symbolic exchange
Let’s
turn first of all to Baudrillard’s critique of use value. To do that, we
must reconstruct Marx’s account of use value and exchange value from
Baudrillard’s point of view.
Baudrillard
cites Capital Volume 1:
‘So
far as (a commodity) is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it,
whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is
capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point of view that these
properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon that man, by
his industry, changes the form of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a
way to make them useful to him.
The
mystical character of commodities does not originate, therefore, in their use
value.’ (qtd FCPES 140)
Exchange
value presupposes use value, but there is no essential relation between the
exchange value assigned to an object and its particular function. To be
necromantically transtormed into a commodity, it is only necessary that the
object have a use value of some kind.
As Marx says, ‘It suffices that before it is a commodity –
in other words, the vehicle (support) of exchange value – the article
satisfy a given social need by possessing the corresponding useful property.
That is all.’ (qtd FCPES 130)
Use
value is totally contingent upon the particular qualities of the object.
‘Lard is valued as lard, cotton is cotton: they cannot be substituted for
each other, nor thus “exchanged”.’ (qtd FCPES 130) Exchange
value, on the other hand, is abstract and general. It is assigned – and
can only be assigned – on the basis of a general system of equivalence.
So
Marx’s story is predicated
upon the idea of a primordial use value which commodification subsequently
distorts. Use value comes first. Only later does exchange value arrive to do
its mystificatory work.
Baudrillard,
naturally, thinks that this logic is not so much an analysis of the system as
its alibi. In failing to identity that it is the system itself which produces
needs, that
what the system does is make objects useful.
It is
important to distinguish Baudrillard’ s position from the standard
sociological story, which at times it may superficially resemble. Baudrillard
himself is at pains to differentiate what he is saying from such
‘culturalist platitudes’ as ‘man is the product of
society’. (FCPES, 86) This culturalism still maintains that there are
primordial needs, common to all humanity, which are simply treated differently
by each culture. A fixed repertoire of human needs is given different social
expression.
There
are no such ‘needs’, Baudrillard insists. Summoning Bataille, Baudrillard dismisses the
‘bio-anthropological postulate’ of ‘primary needs’.
Primary needs, it is assumed, are orientated towards survival and concern food,
drink, shelter, sexuality etc. It is only ‘beyond this threshold’,
Baudrillard says, that ‘man’ becomes ‘properly
“social” for the economist: i.e. vulnerable to alienation,
manipulation, mystification. On one side of the imaginary line, the economic
subject is prey to the social and the cultural; on the other, he is an
autonomous, inalienable essence.’ (FCPES, 80)
In
fact, there is no ‘vital anthropological minimum’. In all
societies, Baudrillard says, it is the ‘pre-dedication of luxury that
negatively determines the level of survival’. (FCPES, 80) The production
of the surplus – the ‘divine or sacrificial share’ in
theistic societies; ‘economic profit’ in capitalism – fixes
and regulates what will count as the ‘vital minimum’. ‘The
Siane of New Guinea, enriched through contact with Europeans, squandered everything
without ceasing to live below the ‘vital minimum’. It is impossible
to isolate an abstract, ‘natural’ stage of poverty or to determine
absolutely ‘what men need to
survive.’’ (FCPES, 81)
And
just as there is no delimitable base level for consumption, so the
‘threshold of obligatory consumption can be set well above the strictly
necessary.’ (FCPES 81) In our society, ‘no-one is free to live on
roots and water.’ (FCPES 81) ‘The vital minimum today, the minimum
of imposed consumption, is the standard package. Beneath this level, you are an
outcast. Is loss of status – or social non-existence – any less
upsetting than hunger?’ (FCPES 81)
This critique of modern ‘economic
rationality’ is a rehearsal of themes familiar from Bataille. Yet it is
important to recognize that Baudrillard goes all the way with it. Human
survival is not the unnegotiable bottom line beyond which the system cannot go
and upon which the system must base all its calculations. It is perfectly
possible to imagine a situation, Baudrillard says, in which ‘there will
be no survival at all: the newborn will be liquidated (like prisoners of war,
before a new constellation of productive forces made slavery
profitable).’ (FCPES 81) In other words, we only survive because the system
allows us to. There is no pre-existent human need which is subsequently
socialized. Indeed, there are only any human ‘needs’ – and
human beings at all - because the
system requires them. In this sense, ‘we are all survivors.’
Man is not reproduced as man: he is simply regenerated as a
survivor (a surviving productive force). If he eats, drinks, lives somewhere,
reproduces himself, it is because the system requires his self-production in
order to reproduce itself: it needs men. If it could function with slaves, there
would be no ‘free’ workers. If it could function with asexual
mechanical robots, there would be no sexual reproduction. If the system could
function without feeding its workers, there would be no bread. (FCPES, 86)
The needs that are generative, those needs
that are occluded and mystified by commodification, are not human needs, but the inhuman needs
of the system itself. In the process of commodification, its needs, the
system’s needs, are mistaken for – taken for – the needs of
human individuals. Again, let us pause here, so that we don’t mistake
what Baudrillard is saying for a form of humanist sociology. The opposition
between the inhumanity of the system and human beings is the illusion, the
ideological veil, generated by the system itself. There are no primitive humans
whose needs are manipulated by an inhuman system; there is only an inhuman
system of which human beings, with all their alleged needs, are the product.
Let us be clear then. Human needs are produced
by the
system, and insofar as we need something or we use it, we are complicit with the
system’s logic. Take Baudrillard’s analysis of media, for example.
Baudrillard rejects Enzensberger’s utopian claim that media are for the
first time enabling the masses to participate in a ‘productive social
process’. Not at all, says Baudrillard. Or rather: OK, so media now
enable us to join in – and this is of course even true in 2003 than it
was in 1973 - but this ‘participation’ – a term which
Baudrillard invariably uses ironically – is only the following of the
logic of the system through to its limit. Baudrillard is scathing:
As if owning a TV set or a camera
inaugurated a new possibility of relationship and exchange. Strictly speaking,
such cases are no more significant than the purchase of a refrigerator or a
toaster. There is no response to a functional object: its function is already there, an
integrated speech to which it has already responded, leaving no room for play,
or reciprocal putting in play. (FCPES 171)
The proliferation of reality TV shows
which include an interactive, referendum component – ‘You
decide’ – reinforces Baudrillard’s point. People are
increasingly involved in such shows, to the degree that they are integral
components of them, but such ‘interactivity’ is really only allows
you to answer the system in its own terms. To vote on Big Brother is to
‘use’ the show in exactly the same way as putting bread in a
toaster is using it.
Here, implicitly, we see
Baudrillard’s opposition between the logic of the system as such –
which includes use value, exchange value and sign value – to the logic of
symbolic exchange.
Symbolic exchange is what constitutes the
system’s radical outside. And the work of the system consists in
‘the semiological reduction of the symbolic.’
What, then, does Baudrillard mean by
symbolic exchange?
In essence, he is drawing upon
Mauss’s concept of the gift. The gift, for Baudrillard, is an act of
personal communication which is radically ambivalent. Ambivalent in that it
combines affection and aggression. Ambivalent in that it is both positive and
negative at the same time, and necessarily so. Constituitively ambivalent in
that the gift has no equivalent: it cannot be exchanged for anything of equal
value. Nothing could substitute for it.
As Baudrillard explains:
In symbolic exchange, of which is the
gift is our most proximate illustration, the object is not an object; it is
inseparable from the concrete relation in which it is exchanged, the
transferential pact that it seals between two persons: it is thus not
independent as such. It has, properly speaking, neither use value nor economic
exchange value. The object given has symbolic exchange value. This is the
paradox of the gift: it is on the one hand, relatively arbitrary: it matters
little what object is involved. Provided it is given, it can fully signify this
relation. On the other hand, once it has been given – and because of
this –
it is this object and not another. The gift is unique, specified by the people
exchanging and the unique moment of the exchange. It is arbitrary, and yet
absolutely singular. (FCPES 64)
So then, to differentiate exchange from
the values of the system, let us compare the logic of the gift to the
system’s logic.
Use value. Logic of functionality.
Function prescribes a determinate use for and of an object, and ascribes value
to it on this basis. The gift has no use, or is not valued because of its use.
Economic exchange value. Logic of the
market. Exchange values the object according to a medium of equivalence
(money). As regards the gift, however: there is no amount of money that can substitute
for it.
Sign value. Logic of status. Sign value
is ascribed both indifferently and differentially . It is a matter of
indifference what the actual qualities of the object are; the level of sign
value is determined purely differentially, in terms of the object’s
difference from other objects. The
gift, on the other hand, is singular: its value emerges from the unique,
unrepeatable situation.
Sign value encastes to encode: the capitalist
system (though not exclusively the capitalist system) freezes out the
possibility of response and of singularity. To overcome the sign is
simultaneously to overcome the needs it articulates and generates.