Exploring post-Marxist theory: a reading of Jean Baudrillard

Richard G Smith

Department of Geography Leicester University Leicester LE1 7RH England Email: rgs10@le.ac.uk

A full version of this paper (with a response from Marcus Doel) is forthcoming as "Baudrillard unwound: the duplicity of post-Marxism and deconstruction" in Environment and Planning D: Society & Space (pages 1 - 44)

Abstract
The polarization of debate between Marxism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism is ill judged and unproductive. In contrast to this stand-off the case is made for a transgenic or transversal post-Marxism that opens up new possibilities and avenues for critical theoretical development. The argument is developed specifically through a reading of Baudrillard s oeuvre. It is argued that the oft-repeated claims for an epistemological break between an early, Marxian Baudrillard and a later, postmodern Baudrillard is not bourne out by his texts. Instead, Baudrillard's oeuvre is read to be structured by a 'double spiral' which involves an antagonism between the semiotic (or simulacrum) and the symbolic (that which stands to the side of the field of value and capitalist exchange). It is argued that Baudrillard's postMarxism contains many possibilites for the development of critical theory when the semiotic logic at the heart of the political economy of the sign is freed from the mystique of the unachievable utopia of symbolic exchange. In particular the paper points towards the contribution of Baudrillard's work for working out a general theory of the reproduction of space. Key words: post-Marxism, Baudrillard

Prolegomenon to post-Marxism

The critique slipped to the side by itself, not out of any decided intention. Baudrillard (1995: 17)

The so-called crisis of Marxism continues and consequently some intellectuals of the Left have begun to throw away past certainties, and think differently, through the philosophies of postmodernism and poststructuralism. Through various critiques of Marxist theory, politics, and practice, the possibility has emerged of somehow being between Marxism, postmodernism, and

poststructuralism. Despite the apparent mutual exclusivity of epistemes and the risk of being misunderstood, a number of people are working out their own combinations of Marxism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism (e.g. Callari and Ruccio, 1996; Jameson, 1991; Ryan, 1982; Soja, 1996). Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to justify abandoning either Marxism, postmodernism, or poststructuralism. Within a non-exclusive logic of both-and that eschews the immutable terms of 2

either/or one is free to experiment. For example, while one may argue that some form of Marxist class theory is central to understanding social inequality in latecapitalism, that does not prevent one from recognizing that Foucault s historical analyses have succeeded in casting a far darker shadow of suspicion over liberal society than Althusser s laborious analyses of Marx s Capital (Lilla, 1994: 13). Indeed, it is clear that many postmodernists and poststructuralists have extended or reacted to Marxism in a number of useful and interesting ways which do not necessarily mean the jettisoning of a radical left-wing politics.

Sim (1998) draws a distinction between post-Marxist and post-Marxist positions. On the one hand, post-Marxists graft the critical-theoretical insights of, say, deconstruction, feminism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism onto classical or neo-Marxism (e.g. Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). This amalgamation of isms means Marxism can be made relevant to a new cultural climate that is no longer responding to classical Marxist doctrine (Sim, 1998: 2). While sympathetic to these endeavours we can read an allegory by Baudrillard (1990: 206) as a critique of such an expansive post-Marxist project of nuts-and-bolts reassembly.

The daughter of the famous Winchester ... heard a prediction that she would die when her house was completed just revenge for the thousands of victims which the only too famous carbine had created in the West over a century. Then, like Penelope, she began to build a house without end, interminably adding bedrooms, staircases, annexes. She died in the end, in the 1930s, leaving behind a monstrous 150-bedroom house as a memorial to the holocaust of the nineteenth century.

On the other hand, post-Marxists are those who, while being perceived to have turned their backs on Marxism, remain haunted by Marx (cf. Derrida, 1994; Lyotard, 1993). This can be said for Baudrillard. For while he is viewed as having broken

with Marx, Baudrillard has maintained a certain nostalgia for him. There is a continuity to Baudrillard s oeuvre that demonstrates a ceaseless drive towards a post-Marxist position.

In my reading of Baudrillard, however, the either/or distinction carved out by Sim does not hold: Baudrillard is both post-Marxist and post-Marxist. This makes him an exemplary figure with whom one can explore the space between Marxism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism. Furthermore, this demonstates the importance of reading for creating new ideas and understandings. For example, rather than resorting to a reconstruction of post-Marxism, what happens if one views Baudrillard s account of hyperreality as a remarkably elegant description of an ideology? What happens if one reads Baudrillard s rendition of simulacra and simulation through the lens of his re-theorisation of Marx s account of the commodity-form? Reading becomes vital as one cannot see the possibilities if one breaks Baudrillard s work into separate Marxist and postmodernist chapters. It is to such a reading that I turn.

Framing Baudrillard

You push and shove the material into the rigid area getting it into the boundary on one side, and it bulges out on another .... until finally almost everything sits unstably more or less in there; what doesn t gets heaved far away so that it won t be noticed. Nozick (1974: xiii)

When re-presenting ideas be honest. There s were I started, here s where I ended up; the major weakness in my work is that I went from there to here; in particular, here are the most noticeable distortions, pushings, shovings, maulings, gougings, stretchings, and chippings that I committed during the trip; not to mention the things thrown away and ignored, and all those avertings of gaze

(Nozick, 1974: xiii). Reading Baudrillard is to push and shove until a specified shape is revealed. To read Baudrillard as a post-Marxist is to press, push, shove, maul, and stretch, but also to throw away, abandon, clip, chip, and cut his thought towards a particular end. Beyond the perimeter there is always that which protrudes and remains, that which fails to be reduced to the over-arching narrative of a metatheoretical discourse holding to a grand or great referent all the real s big numbers (capital, democracy, justice, labour, sovereignty, use-value, utility, etc.). All those metanarratives, depth models , Grand Theories, hermeneutics of suspicion , specular watchtowers, and ways of reading the world that claim to be able to dig-out the truth: essence behind appearance; latent (unconscious desire) behind manifest (symptom); authentic behind inauthentic; production beneath superstructure; relations of force or power beneath the ideological or normative shell; signified behind signifier in short, all realities laid bare by an interpretative hermeneutic have a certain perimeter. However, this is not to say that the best way to read Baudrillard is not through a close critical reading that would reveal the overall structure of his philosophical system, the layers in his writing, the themes that span his texts, the debts to previous thinkers, his interventions in the politics of place, etc. After all, a critical , symptomatic or intensive reading of Baudrillard s oeuvre enables one to pick and choose,

avoiding any limitations or frivolities.

The historical and theoretical question of reading Baudrillard's oeuvre can be addressed through a denial of an epistemological break in his corpus which divides it into Marxist and postmodern chapters. Instead of promoting Baudrillard as a Marxist from a reading of his early writings or as a postmodernist through a reading of his later writings , I read Baudrillard as a post-Marxist where the two-camps are not opposed but reconciled. The bar that is read to divide is removed in an effort to encourage cross-theorization and fertilization between different epistemes. This cannot be done for all the so-called postmodernists and

poststructuralists. Unlike Baudrillard, Derrida did not start out from an explicitly Marxist position. Despite being haunted by Marx, Specters of Marx (1994) represents Derrida s first major statement on Marx (his earlier publications investigated the history and nature of writing). Similarly, Deleuze s initial works, while considerations of key figures in the history of philosophy, such as Hume, Nietzsche, and Kant, were not on Marx, and his subsequent works were deeply indebted to Nietzsche, Leibniz, Bergson, and Spinoza. However, Lyotard was an active Marxist in his early academic career. Between 1956 and 1966, he was on the editorial committee of the socialist journal Socialisme ou Barbarie and involved with the socialist newspaper Pouvoir Ouvrier which emerged from the schism of the earlier group in 1964. Furthermore, he opposed the French government over the war in Algeria, and participated in the events of 1968. However, he is then said to have rejected totalitarian thought (a category in which he would include Marxism because, like Arendt, Marxism for Lyotard is equated as belonging to the same logic that led to the Stalinist death camps) to become perhaps the key non-Marxist philosopher of post-modernity in the 1980s. It is proposed that Lyotard started his epistemological break in his doctoral thesis Discours, figure (1971) and then broke in Libidinal Economy (1993) where he attempted to escape Marx through Freud s economy of libidinal energy and the notion of the primary process. Lechte (1994: 246) argues that [t]his extreme break with Marxism in Economie libidinale becomes much more nuanced in the philosophy of postmodernism. In fact, neither Lyotard nor Baudrillard are ex-Marxist ; they are post-Marxist .

Post-Marxism: exploring the spaces between

The word exploration is appropriately chosen. One view about how to write a philosophy book holds that an author should think through all of the details of the view he presents, and its problems, polishing and refining his view to present to the world a finished, complete, and elegant whole. This is not my

view. At any rate, I believe that there also is a place and a function in our ongoing intellectual life for a less complete work, containing unfinished presentations, conjectures, open questions and problems, leads, side connections, as well as a main line of argument. There is room for words on subjects other than last words. Nozick (1974: xii)

Jameson (1991: 297) observes that people often find the combination of Marxism and postmodernism peculiar or paradoxical and somehow intensely unstable, so that some are led to conclude that, in my own case, having become a

postmodernist I must have ceased to be a Marxist in any meaningful (or in other words, stereotypical) sense. Similarly, Gregory (1989: 356) observes that

postmodernism needs to be seen not as a negation of everything that went before but rather as a critical commentary upon it. In Geographical Imaginations, Gregory (1994: 317-318) confesses that: I should say at once that I find myself caught in the middle: still very much interested in the development of historical materialism; suspicious of claims that it provides the single master key to unlock human history and geography; yet sceptical of some of the assumptions and implications of postmodernism . Furthermore, Graham (1988: 63) argues postmodernism is more than an anti-Marxist critique levelled at Marxism from outside, it is an emerging tradition within Marxism. Marxism is dead. Long live Marxisms ; and even Peet (1998: viii) now describes himself as a materialist poststructuralist who has been largely persuaded by socialist feminism and partly persuaded by poststructuralism, yet remain[s] unconvinced by most of postmodernism, except Baudrillard, with whose notions of sign-domination [he] basically agree[s] .

It is not easy to refuse to think in boxes, to refuse to accept that there is one box called Marxism and others called postmodernism and poststructuralism . You cannot win against the compartmentalization of knowledge, the binary

thinking of those who see things clearly as either/or ( GET LEFT OR GET RIGHT demands Harvey (1996: 3)), rather than both-and. You are either a vulgar Marxist (the criticism from postmodernists and poststructuralists) or a turncoat who has abandoned the project of the Left (the criticism from Marxists). This is how the Left has caricatured Baudrillard. He was a brilliant Marxist who lost his way, seduced by postmodernism; From a radical position on the Left, he gradually moved towards a right-wing poststructuralism and postmodernism (Sarup, 1993: 163). If only things were that simple!

One of the main myths about Baudrillard is that there are two profound breaks in his oeuvre. The prevailing view that Baudrillard broke with Marx in The Mirror of Production (1975), as Kellner (1989: 48) argues, is questionable: In Mirror, Baudrillard makes a definitive break with Marxism for the first time though one can read his earlier works in retrospect as leading up to this break and presents his own theory as providing superior perspectives on contemporary society . Furthermore, the logical corollary of this view is that Baudrillard paved the way for an epistemological break in his subsequent text, Symbolic Exchange and

Death (1993), which led towards a postmodern position (e.g. Gottdiener, 1995; Kellner, 1989). This is equally questionable. Just because Baudrillard describes the end of modernity this does not mean he is proclaiming its end. For example, Kellner (1994: 7) quotes Baudrillard on his ends from Symbolic Exchange and Death (1993: 8): The end of labour. The end of production. The end of political economy. The end of the signifier/signified dialectic the end of the exchangevalue/use-value dialectic The end of the linear dimension of discourse. The end of the linear dimension of the commodity. The end of the classical era of the sign. The end of the era of production. For Kellner, the discourse of the end

signifies Baudrillard s announcement of a postmodern break or rupture in history . However, it is a very strange logic that sees an end as a break . An end is just an end ! It is not the case of something existing and then no

longer existing, rather these things have surpassed themselves. Baudrillard is more Marxist than Marx (who, of course, said he wasn t anyway); post-Marxist.

In 1995, I suggested that one should not undertake a reading which views Marxism, postmodernism, and poststructuralism as separate epistemes. This has been argued more recently by Soja (1996), who proposes a Radical postmodernism, whose non-exclusive logic would eschew the immutable

Aristotelian terms of either/or to explore the space between Marxism and postmodernism through the logic of both-and. Thus, my reading of Baudrillard will mind the gap , as Lyotard would say. It will collapse the bar (/) through, across, and in Baudrillard s writings to bridge the gap between two imaginaries in an epistemology which knows the difference: In the consciousness of our failures, we risk lapsing into boundless differences and giving up on the confusing task of making partial, real connection. Some differences are playful. Some are poles of world historical domination. Epistemology is about knowing the difference

(Haraway, 1985: 79). In this reading the binary separating epistemes is rejected and the bar collapsed in an effort to encourage cross-theorization and crossfertilization between the different epistemes which hitherto have been hastily polarised and marketed as hermetically-sealed entities. My desire is to inhabit the tense and creative spaces between different and dissonant theoretical traditions (Barnes and Gregory, 1997: 3).

Mind the gap

I do not believe in decisive ruptures, in an unequivocal epistemological break .... Breaks are always, and fatally, reinscribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone. ... And this in no way minimizes the necessity and relative importance of breaks, of the appearance and definition of new structures. Derrida (1981: 24)

In For Marx (1979), Althusser noted a clear epistemological break in Marx s oeuvre. A young Marx (of the 1844 Manuscripts and The Holy Family), a humanist who wrote within an Hegelian-Feuerbachian problematic, and a mature Marx, who finally, after a period of theoretical transition (with the Manifesto of the Communist Party, the Poverty of Philosophy, and Wages, Price and Profit), developed a science of historical materialism after 1857. For Althusser, the humanist and utopian imaginary evident in Marx s earlier work could not be traced consistently in his later work. Althusser argued that the epistemological break in Marx s oeuvre was 1845, with his Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology, and some two years after his Critique of Hegel s Philosophy of Right, which, for Althusser, was more akin to a Feuerbachian critique of Hegel.

The consensus on reading Baudrillard is analogous to Althusser s reading of Marx. Gottdiener (1994: 24) writes of a critical disjuncture in Baudrillard s

oeuvre. He draws a distinction between Baudrillard s early effort to study the relationship between semiotics and the commodification of everyday life, and the later effort which abandons that project and replaces it with an impressionistic, idealized and jargon-laden discourse . Numerous writers have identified this coupure pistmologique in Baudrillard s oeuvre between a young Baudrillard (who wrote within a neo-Marxist problematic) and a mature Baudrillard (who writes with a postmodern imagination). Symbolic Exchange and Death (1993) is regarded as the site of Baudrillard s postmodern turn where, after criticizing Marx in The Mirror of Production (1975), he elaborated his emerging position which was to become compatible with much postmodern thinking. For example, Kellner (in Baudrillard, 1993: book cover) writes that Symbolic Exchange and Death is easily Baudrillard s most important work. It is a key intervention in the debates on modernity and postmodernity and the site of his postmodern turn . Similarly, Best (1989: 36) argues that [t]he difference between Critique of the Political Economy

10

of the Sign and The Mirror of Production was indeed sharp, but the real break in Baudrillard s work did not occur until Symbolic Exchange and Death (1993), for it is there that he made the transition (conceived on his own terms) from a modern to a postmodern theorist . However, one should be suspicious of analyticallyacclaimed ruptures profondes and I would argue that Baudrillard s most

popular ideas can only be understood through his earliest writings. So, one can both agree and disagree with Vine s (1989: 41) suggestion that fifty consecutive pages of Baudrillard are essentially the whole of Baudrillard , because although one cannot understand Baudrillard from reading just fifty pages (that would be an unprecedented reiteration), it is the case that all of Baudrillard is present in those pages.

Not reading Baudrillard through an epistemological break leads to the question of how one can read his works to produce a post-Marxism. The answer lies in two parts: first, reading symptomatically, which gets at the continuities that weave together Baudrillard s oeuvre; and, second, by viewing his oeuvre as a double spiral , rather than through the before and after of an epistemological break . These led me to the dramatic discovery of the possibilities for new theoretical development by reading Baudrillard as one, rather than two. Reading Baudrillard without an epistemological break means that one can begin to produce a

general theory of the reproduction of space. One can see how Baudrillard s general theory of the political economy of the sign is the basis of his ideas about simulacra, simulations, reproductions, and hyperreality. A post-Marxist theory developed from Baudrillard can give us a starting point from which to develop a general theory of the reproduction of space in late-capitalist societies. However, that is another story and we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let me explain symptomatic reading before turning to the double spiral.

11

Surface and symptomatic reading

The distinction Althusser (1979) draws between surface

reading and

symptomatic reading is useful for reading Baudrillard because it helps us to see the continuity of his thought . For example, Baudrillard s America (1988a) has an invisible structure that consists of several theses from earlier works. This structure has been deliberately overlooked by other commentators who we can call (without any offence) surface readers . Gane (1991: 182), reads America not symptomatically ... but as a mirror of Baudrillard s own form of writing, that is fatally, or poetically, for the text of America ... does not aim at depth or at a dialectical analysis. The problem for the reader is to find, therefore, an appropriate superficial form of reading. However, in Cool Memories (1990: 219) Baudrillard writes that [f]or America, only one method: given a certain number of fragments, notes and stories collected over a given time, there must be a solution which integrates them all, including the most banal, into a necessary whole, without adding or removing any: the very necessity which, beneath the surface, presided over their collection . It is therefore necessary to read not only with breadth (as the text has a wide extent) but also with depth, to undertake a symptomatic reading of America which looks beneath the surface to

distinguish a word from a concept, to distinguish the existence or non existence of a concept behind a word, to discern the existence of a concept by a word's function in the theoretical discourse, to define the nature of a concept by its function in the problematic, and thus by the location it occupies in the system of the theory (Althusser, 1979: 39). This combined reading could be termed an extensive-intensive reading which is alert to Tournier s observation that [i]t is a strange prejudice which sets a higher value on depth than on breadth, and which accepts superficial as meaning not of wide extent but of little

12

depth whereas deep , on the other hand, signifies of great depth , and not of small surface (quoted in Deleuze, 1993: 261-262).

An extensive-intensive reading sees links across the so-called break

in

Baudrillard s oeuvre. However, a transversal or post-Marxist reading of Baudrillard is achieved not only by extensive and intensive reading, but also by seeing the structure of the double spiral which serves to unite Baudrillard s thinking throughout his writings. In this paper I am pushing away and forgetting one half of the double spiral for the sake of clarity. Concentrating on the spiral of the code throughout his work enables us to see the remarkable contribution that Baudrillard has made to extending Marx s description of the commodity: by noting that it is structurally homologous with the Saussurian sign and by developing all of the consequences of this insight.

Double Spiral

M b ius

Rather than reading Baudrillard through an epistemological break he could be read, as he himself says, through a double spiral :

The double spiral moves from Le Systme des Objets to the Fatal Strategies: a spiral swerving towards a sphere of the sign, the simulacrum and simulation, a spiral of the reversibility of all signs in the shadow of seduction and death. The two paradigms are diversified in the course of this spiral without altering their antagonistic position. On the one hand: political economy, production, the code, the system, simulation. On the other hand: potlatch, expenditure, sacrifice, death, the feminine, seduction, and in the end, the fatal (Baudrillard, 1988b: 79).

13

If one reads all of Baudrillard, then one can see that the spiral of the semiotic is described by Baudrillard as the code of social standing in 1968, the code in 1970, the political economy of the sign in 1972, the structural law of value in 1976, and as hyperreality , simulation , and simulacra from around

1981. Similarly, the spiral of the symbolic can also be seen to have evolved during this time from the gift and ambivalence to seduction, fatal strategies, evil and death. The spiral of the symbolic traces the complete history of Baudrillard s opposition to the code as a Pataphysician at twenty situationist at thirty utopian at forty transversal at fifty and viral and metaleptic at sixty (Baudrillard, 1996a: 83).

So, Baudrillard provides the means to divide his oeuvre without resorting to an Althusserian-style epistemological break between Marxism and

postmodernism/poststructuralism. The double spiral traces the destruction of the symbolic by the semiotic and the ironic eruption of the former in the latter. Gane (1993) first highlighted this aspect of Baudrillard s imaginary, and Genosko (1994: 164) made a book of it, finishing with the opinion that Baudrillard is primarily concerned with struggling against signification in the name of symbolic exchange .

The double spiral is a metaphor for the opposition of the semiotic (the code, etc.) to the symbolic (ambivalence, etc.). Let me explain: 1) symbolic exchange; 2) the code; and 3) how the code destroys symbolic exchange (although vestiges survive):

1. Symbolic exchange: Baudrillard mobilizes against the hegemonic system of the code not class conflict or even consumer resistance but symbolic exchange. He thinks of the symbolic, not as an analogical variant of the sign in the classic semiolinguistic sense (like allegory, icon, indication or signal), but as an anti-

14

semiological device: signs must burn (Baudrillard, 1981: 163). For Baudrillard, the symbolic (a form of exchange that is ambivalent, non-equivalent, and nonreductive) is what opposes the authority of the code, resisting integration into the capitalist system of exchange and the field of value. Symbolic exchange is for Baudrillard a revolutionary project that can transgress and deconstruct the hegemonic discourse of the code because it is external to the collapsing of the signifier and signified which excludes the possibility of judgement and criticism (the code is in this respect analogous to Lefebvre s signal ). For me, however, this is at best quixotic and at worst utopian. Baudrillard s anti-semiology is a hollow gesture that falls all too easily into a utopia of the peaceful surrender of the means of (re)production by capitalists. In For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1981), before developing a full-blown theory of symbolic exchange in Symbolic Exchange and Death (1993), Baudrillard notes, in my view correctly, that the structural relation between commodity-form and sign-form is a system in the framework of political economy and so is susceptible to a critique in the same way as classical political economy because their form is the same, not their content: sign form and commodity form (Baudrillard, 1981: 126). Thus, symbolic exchange is a utopia, another possible world, and is not adequate as a critical politics and practice. (For more on the origins of the idea of symbolic exchange as utopia from Baudrillard s early writings in the journal Utopie, see Smith 1995, 1997.)

2. The code is derived from both the commodity-form described by Marx and the sign described by Saussure, and is synonymous with hyperreality , simulacra and simulations , and the structural law of value in Baudrillard s oeuvre. In this way, Baudrillard s earliest works on the system of objects are related to his later writings on virtual reality and cyberspace. Baudrillard first described a code of social standing in The System of Objects (1996b), where he postulated that consumer society is not defined by the quantity of goods, nor the satisfaction of

15

needs although these are obviously preconditions but by the organization of consumption as a signifying substance. He argued that the object or commodity must become a sign that is never consumed in its materiality, but in its difference (Baudrillard, 1968: 277). In his next book, Consumer Society (1998), Baudrillard continued to speak of consumption as a code defined by a structural and differential logic of signs rather than of human needs and pure commodities. Here Baudrillard begins the systematic critique of needs (a phenomenology of pleasure) and use-value (both of which belong to the epistemology of political economy), enabling him to argue in terms of the domination of the code (hyperreality) in late-capitalism without relying on a reduction of society to a putative utilitarian base. He continues to argue that consumption can be historically and structurally defined as the exaltation of signs based on the denial of the reality of things (Baudrillard, 1970: 148). In a consumer society, where needs no longer serve as the defining structural axiomatic, the code is

substituted for all other would-be referents. In a telling paragraph for anyone who has read his later texts, Baudrillard (1970: 195) observes:

An immense process of simulation has taken place throughout all of everyday life .... One fabricates a model by combining characteristics or elements of the real; and, by making them act out a future event, structure or situation, tactical conclusions can be drawn and applied to reality. It can be used as an analytical tool under controlled scientific conditions. In mass communications, this procedure assumes the force of reality, abolishing and volatilising the latter in favour of that neo-reality of a model materialised by the medium itself. As always, Baudrillard recognizes that the most important change occurs at the structural level, and not at the quantitative level. This interest in simulation as encroaching on society is what Baudrillard becomes renowned for in his later texts which explore hyperreality.

16

3. Destruction of symbolic exchange by the code : Harvey (1989: 287) reads Baudrillard s For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1981) as if it were arguing that Marx s analysis of commodity production is outdated because capitalism is now predominantly concerned with the production of signs, images and sign systems rather than with commodities themselves . This is not the case. Baudrillard draws our attention to the fact that the logic of the commodity and of political economy is at the very heart of the sign while the structure of the sign is at the very heart of the commodity form (Baudrillard, 1981: 146). The key chapter is For a General Theory , where the logic of the commodity-sign form is unfolded. It is this which structures Baudrillard s oeuvre as a double spiralling (and not as an epistemological breaking ) of the semiotic (code) and the symbolic. The chapter opens by proposing four logics:

the functional logic of use-value (UV) the economic logic of exchange-value (EcEV) the differential logic of sign-value (SgEV) the logic of symbolic exchange (SbE)

These have the respective principles of: utility (satisfaction of needs); equivalence; difference (distinction); and ambivalence. From these Baudrillard proposes a general anthropology of values based on the permutation and transformation of these forms. There are 12 moments:

(1) UV - EcEV (2) UV - SgEV (3) UV - SbE

(4) EcEV - UV (5) EcEV - SgEV (6) EcEV - SbE

(7) SgEV - UV (8) SgEV - EcEV (9) SgEV - SbE

(10) SbE - UV (11) SbE - EcEV (12) SbE - SgEV

This structural schema is an extension of Marx s logic. Moments (1), where exchange-value is produced, and (4), where exchange-value is turned into use-

17

value during consumption, are two moments in the classical Marxist cycle of political economy. However, to this Baudrillard adds his theory of the political economy of the sign. In moments (2) and (5) the commodity gains sign-value, and we have the ascension of the commodity form into the sign form, the transfiguration of the economic into sign systems and the transmutation of economic power into domination and social caste privilege (Baudrillard, 1981: 124). In short, moments (2) and (5) are the transfiguration of use-value and exchange-value into sign-value (the transformation of the object/commodity-form into the sign-form), which, as models of social distinction and cultural

capital , may be converted back into use-value, moment (7), and exchange-value, moment (8).

Outlined above are Baudrillard s code(s) of value (use-value, exchange-value, sign-value) which constitute the political economy of the sign. This is one side of the double spiral . Moments (3), (6), and (9) mark the transgression of the signform towards symbolic exchange via the destruction of use-value, exchange-value, and sign-value, respectively. This does not produce a sign-value (as in moments (2) and (5)) but a transgression of the field of value as such towards symbolic exchange in the manner of the gift or festival. By contrast, moments (10), (11), and (12) chart the process of breaking and reducing symbolic exchange, and the reintroduction of economic and semiotic calculation:

the objects involved in reciprocal exchange, whose uninterrupted circulation establishes social relationships, i.e., social meaning, annihilate themselves in this continual exchange without assuming any value of their own (that is any appropriable value). Once symbolic exchange is broken, this same material is abstracted into utility value, commercial value, statutory value. The symbolic is transformed into the instrumental, either commodity or sign. Any one of the various codes may be specifically involved, but they are all joined in the single

18

form of political economy which is opposed, as a whole, to symbolic exchange (Baudrillard, 1981: 125).

Such is the erosion of the symbolic by the semiotic which defines and structures all of Baudrillard s oeuvre. It is very important to realize that symbolic value does not exist. For Baudrillard, symbolic exchange is outside of the field of value, since value as such belongs to political economy and the code . Only the radical rupture of the field of value can inaugurate symbolic exchange. To summarize, consider the following equation:

EcEV = Sr UV Sd

/ SbE

where the vertical implication is that exchange-value is to use-value as signifier (Sr) is to signified (Sd), while the horizontal implication is that exchange-value is to signifier as use-value is to signified. This is the homologous relation of the commodity-sign form which describes general political economy. The bar (/) shows that the ambivalent logic of symbolic exchange is excluded from the whole field of value. Therein lies its revolutionary potential.

Overall, then, the double spiral is how Baudrillard reconstructs the shape of his oeuvre in 1987 (Baudrillard, 1988b). Given that this structure appeared back in 1972 (Baudrillard, 1981), long before the so-called epistemological break , you will understand why my overall reading of Baudrillard is asynchronic.

The other, by another1

If I am not mistaken, you were not disinclined to me and you would have liked to like some piece of my work. That never happened; but this time you

19

turn the pages and read approvingly a verse here and there perhaps because you have recognized your own voice in it, perhaps because deficient practice concerns you less than solid theory. Borges (1991: 21)

Reading Baudrillard in the way outlined above is my prolegomenon to future explorations into the space between Marxism, postmodernism, and

poststructuralism. When one looks at the detail one sees that conceptual blocks are not separate blocks at all. We must be innovative and flexible if we are to develop fresh insights and move on from the current impasse in contemporary geographical thought between Marxists, postmodernists, and poststructuralists.

In my reading a crime was committed for the purpose of clarity: Baudrillard was framed. I heaved far away and abandoned the spiral of symbolic exchange to visibly and honestly force a spiral that is always already related to the other spiral apart. Ignoring symbolic exchange brings into focus the code as an interesting and truly remarkable post-Marxist description (here base does not determine superstructure in some teleological dialectic) of both the commodity-form (which becomes the commodity-sign) and ideology (of which, through this reading, hyperreality is a remarkable description) in late-capitalism. This paves the way for other discoveries, such as a general theory of the reproduction of space. Now read Baudrillard s books from right to left.

FLASH

Quickly, you find an angle from which it looks like an exact fit and take a snapshot; at a fast shutter speed before something else bulges out too noticeably. Then, back to the darkroom to touch up the rents, rips, and tears in the fabric of the perimeter. All that remains is to publish the photograph as a

20

representation of exactly how things are, and to note how nothing fits properly into any other shape (Nozick, 1974: xiii).

Endnote

1 Baudrillard s L Autre par lui-mme (1987), which Semiotext(e) published as The Ecstasy of Communication (1988b), can be translated as The other, by himself .

References
Althusser L, 1979 For Marx (Verso, London) Althusser L, Balibar E, 1979 Reading Capital (Verso, London) Barnes T, Gregory D, 1997 Reading Human Geography: The Poetics and Politics of Inquiry (Arnold, London) Baudrillard J, 1968 Le systme des objets (Gallimard, Paris) Baudrillard J, 1970 La socit de consommation (Gallimard, Paris) Baudrillard J, 1975 The Mirror of Production (Telos, St. Louis) Baudrillard J, 1981 For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (Telos, St. Louis) Baudrillard J, 1987 L Autre par lui-mme (ditions Galile, Paris) Baudrillard J, 1988a America (Verso, London) Baudrillard J, 1988b The Ecstasy of Communication (Semiotext(e), New York) Baudrillard J, 1990 Cool Memories (Verso, London) Baudrillard J, 1993 Symbolic Exchange & Death (Sage, London) Baudrillard J, 1995, Jean Baudrillard, in Conversations with French

Philosophers Ed. F Rtzer (Humanities Press, New Jersey) pp 17 29 Baudrillard J, 1996a Cool Memories II (Polity, London) Baudrillard J, 1996b The System of Objects (Verso, London) Baudrillard J, 1998 Consumer Society (Sage, London)

21

Best S, 1989, The commodification of reality and the reality of commodification: Baudrillard and postmodernism Critical Perspectives in Social Theory 19: 23 51 Borges J L, 1991 Dreamtigers (University of Texas Press, Austin) Callari A, Ruccio D F (Eds), 1996 Postmodern Marxism and the Future of Marxist Theory: Essays in the Althusserian Tradition (Wesleyan University Press, London) Deleuze G, 1993 The Deleuze Reader Ed. C V Boundas (University of Columbia Press, New York) Derrida J, 1981 Positions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) Derrida J, 1994 Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International (Routledge, London) Gane M, 1991 Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory (Routledge, London) Gane M (Ed.), 1993 Baudrillard Live (Routledge, London) Genosko G, 1994 Baudrillard and Signs: Signification Ablaze (Routledge, London) Gottdiener M, 1994, The system of objects and the commodification of everyday life: the early Baudrillard , in Baudrillard: A Critical Reader Ed. D Kellner (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 25 40 Gottdiener M, 1995 Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life (Blackwell, Oxford) Graham J, 1988, Postmodernism and Marxism Antipode 20(1): 60 66 Gregory D, 1989, The crisis of modernity? Human geography and critical social theory , New Models in Geography: Volume II Eds R Peet, N Thrift (Unwin Hyman, London) pp 348 385 Gregory D, 1994 Geographical Imaginations (Blackwell, Oxford) Haraway D, 1985, A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s Socialist Review 80: 65 107 Harvey D, 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity (Blackwell, Oxford)

22

Harvey D, 1996 Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (Blackwell, Oxford) Jameson F, 1991 Postmodernism or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Verso, London) Kellner D, 1989 Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond (Polity, Cambridge) Kellner D (Ed.), 1994 Baudrillard: A Critical Reader (Blackwell, Oxford) Laclau E, Mouffe C, 1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London, Verso) Lechte J, 1994 Fifty Contemporary Thinkers: From Structuralism to Postmodernity (Routledge, London) Lilla M, (Ed.), 1994 New French Thought: Political Philosophy (Princeton University Press, Princeton) Lyotard J-F, 1971 Discours, figure (Klincksieck, Paris) Lyotard J-F, 1993 Libidinal Economy (Indiana University Press, Bloomington) Nozick R, 1974 Anarchy, State and Utopia (Blackwell, Oxford) Peet R, 1998 Modern Geographical Thought (Blackwell, Oxford) Ryan M, 1982 Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore) Sarup M, 1993 An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism (Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead) Sim S (Ed.), 1998 Post-Marxism: A Reader (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh) Smith R G, 1995 Baudrillard s Geographical Imagination: An Enquiry into the Space Between Marxism and Poststructuralism (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bristol) Smith R G, 1997 The end of geography and radical politics in Baudrillard s philosophy , Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 15: 305 320 Soja E W, 1996 Thirdspace (Blackwell, Oxford)

23

Vine R, 1989, The ecstasy of Baudrillard New Criterion 7/9: 39 48

24