Fatal extremes: An
analysis of contemporary dystopia as third order simulacra.
Utopia
is a constantly shifting and distorted mirror that metamorphosizes the
real world we inhabit into an imagined reflection of what could be.
Although it is a dream with a multiplicity of options, it is not an
artifice of chaos; beneath the façade of the fantastic there is law
and purpose; its aim is to explore political and social structures.
But as the desires and anxieties of society develop, so too must the
techniques used in the utopian portrayal. This essay will analyse
these changes and reveal a new type of dystopia which coincides with
the rise of post-modernism and late capitalism. I will argue these
new type of dystopia are third order simulacra - simulacra of
simulation. They adopt fatal strategies which cause the utopian space
to be no more than a hyper-real simulation of our own world. They
show an awareness of the differend, and this awareness leads to the
collapse of the dialectical structure found in traditional utopian
texts. Particularly they represent our own loss of faith in the
meta-narratives of modernity. In order to do this a wide variety of
text will be examined including Utopia,
Gulliver's
Travels,
A
Brave New World,
Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and
Oryx and Crake.
The films Idiocracy,
Southland
Tales
and Gamer
will be discussed because of their emphasis on specific forms of
hyper-reality.
The
utopian space is an imagined no-place which contrasts the real world,
as such all utopia are simulacra to some degree. In order to
understand the development of Utopian literature Jean Baudrillard's
essay 'Simulacra and Science Fiction'1
will be examined. His essay describes three orders of simulacra, the
first is “natural,
naturalistic simulacra: based on image, imitation, and
counterfeiting. They are harmonious, optimistic, and aim at the
reconstitution, or the ideal institution, of a nature in God's
image... the separation from the real world is maximal—it is the
utopian island in contrast to the continent of the real.”
(121-122). In the first order signs do not reflect basic reality but
rather mask or pervert it. The island of Utopia and the lands visited
in Gulliver’s
Travels
are separated from the real world by geography, although the time
period is the same as the author’s it is clearly a made-up place, a
fake. First order utopia present a dialectic of propositions in order
to find an ideal society; the reader is invited to accept a
proposition or form a synthesis. The second order of simulacra is
science fiction - “productive, productionist simulacra: based on
energy and force, materialized by the machine and the entire system
of production. Their aim is Promethean: world-wide application,
continuous expansion, liberation of indeterminate energy” (121).
Science fiction represents an extension to the production power of
the real world, it “is most often nothing other than an unbound
projection of the real world of production, but it is not
qualitatively different from it... To the potentially infinite
universe of production, science fiction adds
the multiplication of its own possibilities.” (122). In science
fiction we imagine a world which could almost be possible if we had
the technology and production power. A
Brave New World portrays
this imaginary projection of production power, it is a
technologically and biologically advanced world where people are
produced in the factory. Do
Androids
shows a world of flying cars and androids; A
Player of Games
has spaceships and drones. The second order represents possibilities;
it is a copy of the real world with more advanced productions. The
third order is ‘simulacra of simulation’, the “collapse of the
real with the imaginary and the true with the false. Simulation does
not provide equivalents for the real nor does it reproduce it instead
it reduplicates and generates it.” (121-122). The media
reduplicates information; television news reports show a collage of
non-linear images where the real is mixed with the imaginary and the
stories may be true or false. Virtual reality creates an entirely new
world independent of reality or reason. The definition of real
becomes whatever is possible to simulate. The contemporary world is
filled with simulations which are a part of our everyday life. The
imagined dystopia cannot invert a simulation because its opposite is
reality, instead they are taken to their extreme becoming more real
than real or hyper-real. Gamer
questions the role of virtual reality in society by portraying a
hyper-real version where gamers control a real living avatar in a
virtual world. Southland
Tales
portrays a world where the media has gone into overdrive. The film is
a comment on both the news media and the virtual social space filled
with mobile phones, portable screens, YouTube clips, Facebook pages
and celebrity-tracking paparazzi. As Steven Shaviro explains in
'Post-Ceinematic Affect'.
Despite
the emphasis upon surveillance and security, the mediascape explored
by Southland
Tales is
not in the least bit hidden or secretive. It is rather a vast, open
performance space, carnivalesque, participatory and overtly
self-reflexive. Not only do we see multiple, heterogeneous screens
within the movie screen; we also see the characters in the movie
appearing on these screens, creating content for them, and watching
them – often all at the same time. If the government isn’t
recording your actions with hidden cameras, then perhaps someone else
is, for purposes of blackmail. But more likely, you are making and
distributing videos of yourself, in a quest for publicity and profit.
In any case, your mediated image is what defines you. If you aren’t
already an actor or a celebrity – as most of the characters in
Southland
Tales are
– then you probably have a business plan to become one. Every
character in the movie seems to be frantically engaged in
exhibitionist
display, outlandish performance, and ardent networking for
the
purpose of self-promotion. The world of Southland
Tales has
become what
Jamais Cascio, inverting Foucault, calls the Participatory
Panopticon.
(68-69)
In
order to deal with simulated media forms the film must create a
hyper-real version of the media which is more real than real.
“Paradoxically, it is the real that has become our true utopia -
but a utopia that is no longer in the realm of possible, that can
only be dreamt of as one would dream of a lost object.”
(Baudrillard 123). First order utopia imagines an ideal fake, second
order is a technologically advanced copy while the third order
dystopia are a ‘desperate rehallucination’ of the past and
present.
Third
order dystopia do not invent a new world instead they exaggerate the
existing world; they adopt fatal strategies where the utopian space
enters the realm of hyper-reality.
Traditionally utopia presents a dialectic of propositions and
counter-propositions; commonly the real world is the thesis and the
imagined world is the antithesis, it is left to the reader to form a
synthesis. This represents a teleological search for an ideal society
and the synthesis is a road-map or meta-narrative which will take us
there. In a post-modern world we accept that there are no absolute
meta-narratives which can conform to everybody's ideal; there is no
correct synthesis. As Baudrillard writes2:
“The
universe is not dialectical: it moves toward the extremes, and not
toward equilibrium; it is devoted to a radical antagonism, and not to
reconciliation or to synthesis.” (185) The solution is not to
provide an antithesis but rather to take the thesis to an extreme.
“Things have found a way to elude the dialectic of meaning, a
dialectic which
bored them: they did this by infinite proliferation, by
potentializing themselves, by outmatching their essence, by going to
extremes, and by obscenity which henceforth has become their immanent
purpose and insane justification.” (185). When we find a flaw in a
system we do not contrast it with opposites rather we use fatal
strategies to 'combat obscenity with its own weapons'. For
example in a liberal post-Freudian society sex is considered good
while repression is considered bad. “Sex is no longer opposed by
repression or morality but inverted by pornography: the more sexual
than sexual.” Fatal extremes have replaced the dialectic. “Social
is not opposed by anti-social but escalated by the hyper-conformity
of the masses - the more social than social. The Real is not opposed
by the imaginary but accelerated into hyper-reality: the realer than
real. Truth is not opposed by falsity but the truer than true:
simulation.” (Horricks and Jevtic 146). By taking society to a
fatal extreme in the dystopian text we see the potential disaster
waiting for us and thus can avoid it. This does not represent a fear
of the future but rather an awareness of the limitless possibilities
available to us. The traditional utopia asks “where can we go?”
the dystopia as a fatal extreme asks “where should we stop?”
Third
order dystopia are distinct from traditional utopia or science
fiction because they show a lack of separation. Traditionally the
utopian & dystopian space is totalized; it portrays a society
with completely different structures and laws, a new world order
separated from the real world by location or time. Examples include:
Utopia, The Country of the Houyhnhnms, Erewhon; and the dystopian
societies portrayed in A
Brave New World,
1984,
The
Handmaiden's Tale.
Although many contemporary dystopian texts still present a totalized
vision there are some in which the wall between the imagined 'no
place' and the real world starts to erode. The new world order is not
so new, there are no major paradigm shifts, the imagined world still
operates under familiar political systems. The films Gamer,
Idiocracy
and Southland
Tales
all portray societies which operate under democracy. In Oryx
and Crake (before
the apocalypse) and Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
capitalism is clearly the dominant form of economy and because the
government is rarely or never mentioned we can presume it is not
drastically different. Contemporary dystopia show a lack of any new
world order because rather than acting as an antithesis of the real
world it becomes a
hyper-real simulation inseparable and unsurpassable from that which
it is commenting on.
The
use of fatal strategies to portray a common motif found in utopian
literature illustrates why it is a more effective tool to analyse
contemporary society. In almost all utopian
and dystopian literature there are ideologies governing sex and
marriage. But sex itself is rarely banned, what is repressed are the
emotions of love and passion. Utopia
and Gulliver's
Travels
are first order simulacra, where emotion is repressed in order to
create an ideal society. On the island of Utopia pre-marital sex is
banned while in the Country of the Houyhnhmn marriage is arranged. In
the second order emotion is often repressed in order to maximise the
production power of reproduction. In A
Brave New World
the institutions of family, love, motherhood, and marriage are
considered cause for social instability and are repressed to ensure
maximum efficiency of the Hatchery and Conditioning Centres. In The
Handmaiden's Tale fertile
woman are forced to breed with powerful men in order to ensure human
reproduction continues. Second order dystopia emotion is not
necessarily repressed to create an ideal society but rather an
efficient one, which more often than not leads to a dystopia. In
third order dystopia sex and emotion is inverted by hyper-reality.
In the film Gamer
real
life avatars are forced to perform sexual acts in a virtual world
controlled by gamers sitting in the comfort of their own homes. The
gamer is sexually satisfied by the encounter and has entered
hyper-reality where the conscious is unable to distinguish reality
from the simulation of reality. Idiocracy
is set in the year 2505 where fast-food chains such as Starbucks, El
Pollo Locco and T.G.I. Fridays and public services such as FedEx
and Home Depot have become brothels for patrons to indulge in
hyper-real sexual encounters. In both films only the protagonists
experience real love or emotion, all the other characters are happy
to experience emotion in a hyper-real setting. This repression serves
no purpose; it does not create an ideal society and it does not
enable efficient production. Sexual emotion is commodified as an end
in itself there is no shadowy authority controlling the population
instead it is a consensual commercialisation by a society who no
longer differentiates between the real and the hyper-real. These
dystopia do not use traditional strategies of contrast instead they
must use fatal strategies which push the system to the extreme where
it collapses.
In
third order dystopia fatal strategies are employed to discuss the
world under late capitalism. In the post-modern period there has been
is
a shift away from class divided by production power to class divided
by consumer power and controlled or at least threatened by the
multi-national corporation3,
this is expressed in many dytopia. In Oryx
and Crake
there are two classes the Pleebs and those who live in the corporate
compounds. Corporations such as HelthWyzer and RejoovenEsense produce
consumer products such as Happicuppa and ChickenNobs. Processed food
is subjected to a fatal strategy where it is not inverted by natural
food but by hyper-real genetically engineered products. The
BlyssPluss pill represents a hyper-real version of Viagra. It is
promoted as a drug that “a) would protect the user against all
known sexually transmitted diseases... b)would supply unlimited
supply of libido and sexual prowess, couple with a generalized sense
of energy and well-being... c) would prolong youth” This pill
moves emotion into hyper-reality “Endless high-grade sex, no
consequences.” In Gamer
people volunteer
to be controlled, they willingly participate as avatars. They are
aware they may have to take part in sexual acts or eat disgusting
food but they do it because they want to be paid. Death-row prisoners
volunteer to participate in the bloody game 'Slayer'
even
though they know there is very little chance they will survive. The
audience are willing consumers who have no qualms about subjecting
their real life avatars to violence. The society in Idiocracy
has become dystopic not because of some malevolent force but due to
their apathy and desire for immediate satisfaction which is shown in
their preference for the hyper-real. In Do
Androids Dream
people willingly repress or control their own emotions using consumer
products such as the empathy box or mood organ, they brainwash
themselves. Animals are a commodity people will spend large amounts
of money on, the possession of which serves little purpose other than
as a status symbol. These dystopia are third order simulacra of late
capitalism, where consumerism has been taken to a fatal extreme of
hyper-consumption portraying a society that 'consumes the process of
consumption4'
at such a level they become repressed by it.
When
third order dystopia adopt fatal strategies the dialectic argument
often loses its prominence, the irony loses its hierarchy and
degenerates into the sidelines or becomes hypocrisy. In traditional
irony or satire one point of view is privileged over the other, the
target of the irony is clear. In utopian literature this division has
always been less pronounced. It is hard to pin down whether More
advocates the system found in the island of Utopia. The target of
Swift's satire is clear in his presentation of the scientific
experiments in the Grand Academy of Lagado but his view of The
Country of the Houyhnhnm is not. Dialectic propositions are supplied
and it is left to the reader to choose one or form a synthesis. More
is proposing either a system based on private property or communal
property. Swift is presenting a society that represses emotion for
reason. I would argue the narrative in Utopia
or Gulliver's
Travels
does not function without considering its dialectic positions5.
Traditionally utopia presents an antithesis to the real world but
when the dystopia adopts a fatal strategy the antithesis disappears
and the dialectic is no longer central. In Idiocracy
the protagonist discovers the sports drink Brawndo has replaced
water, it is in all drinking fountains, it is used to feed livestock,
given to babies, used to wash cars, to water lawns and irrigate
crops. As a result there are food shortages and all farm land has
turned to dust bowls. The sports drink has been taken to a fatal
extreme, to a hyper-real position. The target of this irony is clear,
obviously it is ridiculous to use sports drinks to water crops. But
by moving the argument into the hyper-real the underlying dialectic
between the real benefits of drinking sports drinks over water is
implied but not discussed. There is no invitation to engage in this
argument, it is not central to the irony but instead hovers in the
peripheral. Gamer
uses ultra-violence and the virtual reality of film to discuss the
dangers of ultra-violence and virtual reality. It provides us a forum
to indulge in hyper-reality and then tells us to be weary of the very
thing it is promoting. The dialectic argument collapses into an
artifice of hypocrisy. The irony is not erased but neither does it
function as the central focus of the narrative, the dystopia is
simultaneously a shallow pastiche and full of deep irony, no
interpretation is dominant - anything goes. The third order no longer
represents a teleological quest for an ideal or advanced society, it
does not try to create grand narratives rather it regurgitates the
present in order to re-examine it.
In
traditional utopia the dialectic structure seeks to create of a grand
or totalized narrative, a recipe for an ideal or advanced society, in
third order dystopia this dream is lost because there is no single
criteria which to make judgments, one paradigm cannot fit all,
instead it must negotiate 'differends'. To explain how this works the
meaning of the differend
will be paraphrased6.
Lyotard rejects the idea of the master-discourse and argues questions
of justice and judgement arise in terms of language games. Because
reality is constituted by unique happenings, universal judgement must
be abandoned for specific, plural judgements; a justice of
multiplicities requires a multiplicity of justices. The differend
occurs when parties cannot agree on a rule or criterion by which
their dispute might be decided. The victim's wrong cannot be
presented, they are disempowered and a silencing occurs. The victim
may be silenced by threats, disallowed to speak or speech is unable
to present the wrong in the discourse of the rule of judgement. The
differend is a wrong which cannot be presented as a wrong. In
Gulliver's
Travels
we see this dynamic in the relationship between the Houyhnhnm and the
Yahoo, in
A
Brave New World
between the World State and the Savage Reservation. Do
Androids Dream shows
an excellent awareness of the differend. Androids are alive, they are
flesh and blood biological creatures who have feelings and desires
like humans. The dispute which rages in Dekard's mind is whether the
act of killing them is 'wrong'. Under the criterion of the law and
Mercerism it is not wrong because they are constructs and killers.
But
Dekard begins to feel empathy for female androids and his resolve is
weakened leading to him to have an affair with one. It seems as
though there may be a way the two discourses of human and android
could co-exist in a relationship. 'If
you weren't an android,' Rick interrupted, 'if I could legally marry
you, I would.' Rachael
said, 'Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive.' 'Legally
you're not. But really you are. Biologically. You're not made out of
transistorized circuits
like a false animal; you are an organic entity.'
(Dick 70) The
differend
between them soon becomes apparent when Rachael admits nonchalantly
that she has slept with numerous bounty hunters. 'Putting his hand
out he touched her cheek. 'You're
not going to be able to hunt androids any longer,' she said calmly.
'So don't look sad. Please.' He stared at her. 'No bounty hunter ever
has gone on,' Rachael said. 'After being with me.'...'How many times
have you done this?' 'I don't remember. Seven, eight. No, I believe
it's nine.'(70-71) As long as Androids do not feel empathy as humans
do there will never be a common rule or criterion between them with
which to understand one anothers position. In the mind of the
android, human empathy for lovers or animals makes no sense while to
the human mind, androids have no right to an autonomous life, in fact
without empathy the android's are not considered 'alive'. Swift,
Huxley and Dick use
the
differend
ironically but offer no possibility that two discourses could
co-exist equally while retaining their unique world-view. When a
differend is in play there is no way for a synthesis of equality to
occur. Examples
can be found in the feminism idea that the male and female experience
can not be synthesised but must exist as two equal but distinct
discourses7,
as with the Maori and pakeha discourse or that between the Islamic
and western world.
A feature of third order dystopia is the possibility that multiple
discourses can co-exist equally without synthesis, Dunja Mohr8
calls these dystopia 'transgressive'. “These 'dystopia' refuse the
logic of sameness, dissolve hierarchized binary oppositions, and
embrace difference, multiplicity, and diversity. Transgressive
utopian dystopian texts discard the polarization of static dystopia
and of static utopia, of thesis and antithesis, and thus never arrive
at a definite synthesis that compromises the classical notion of a
blueprint for perfection. In the logic of transgression, thesis and
antithesis do not exist; transgressive utopian dystopias are neither,
and in a movement of fluidity they describe the interplay and
incorporate both.” Oryx
and Crake
shows the potential for equal co-existence without synthesis in the
final chapters when human survivors arrive on the beach and are
confronted by the post-human Crakers.
“Some
others like you came here,” says Abraham Lincoln...
Snowman
jolts awake. “Others like me?”...
“One
was a female.” ...
“But
she smelled very blue. The men began to sing to her.”
“We
offered her flowers and signalled to her with our penises, but she
did not respond with joy.”
“The
men with the extra skins didn’t look happy. They looked angry.”
“We
went towards them to greet them, but they ran away.”
Snowman
can imagine. The sight of these preternaturally calm, well-muscled
men advancing en
masse,
singing their unusual music, green eyes glowing, blue penises waving
in unison, both hands outstretched like extras in a zombie film,
would have to have been alarming.
Snowman’s
heart is going very fast now, with excitement or fear, or a blend.
“Were they carrying anything?”
“One
of them had a noisy stick, like yours.” Snowman’s spraygun is out
of sight: they must remember the gun from before, from when they
walked out of Paradice. “But they didn’t make any noise with it.”
The Children of Crake are very nonchalant about all this, they don’t
realize the implications. It’s as if they’re discussing rabbits.
(Atwood)
The
Crakers and humans live by incompatible discourses there is no single
criteria under which they could operate equally, in order for there
to be a synthesis one would have to silence the other, but in the
description of their first meeting the possibility for co-existence
is implied. The human survivors are approached by the Crakers in a
manner that would seem strange if not threatening. The humans are
angered or surprised yet they do not react with hostility though they
posses a spraygun, instead they move on down the beach and set up
camp. It seems likely they will live as two separate people without
hierarchy as Mohr explains. “As much as it is unclear into what
kind of society the Crakers will develop, the potential contract
between human survivors remains equally indeterminate: “What would
they do? Scream and run? Attack? Open their arms with joy and
brotherly love? (OC 431)... Will they see the Crakers as “freakish,
or savage, or non-human and a threat” (OC 425)?... Mutual
understanding, the exchange of the verbal coin seems the most likely,
the third option, the one that could be the first step towards a
different kind of human contact.” (Mohr 22) Because the dystopia
described in Oryx
and Crake
provides a opportunity for utopian ideas to exist it is
transgressive, it purports the idea that two discourses separated by
a differend can co-exist equally without synthesis.
Because
third order dystopia often show an awareness of the differend there
is a resulting loss of faith in the meta-narratives of modernity
which were supposedly able to save humanity and lead to a kind of
utopia. Harvey David9
writes “post-modernism
can be described as a reaction to those parts of the enlightenment
project still present in modernity; "post-modernism"
rejects totalizing meta-language, meta-narrative, and meta-theory in
favour of constructs such as Lyotard's "language games" or
Foucault's "power-discourse" formations. This rejection of
totalizing narratives leads to an emphasis on the analysis of a
plurality of resistances to power in radical thought in place of
Marx's meta-narrative of a revolution of the proletariat.” Because
a
justice of multiplicities requires a multiplicity of justices ideas
such as Marxism create differends, one criteria cannot judge all
events. In traditional utopia and dystopia meta-narratives are
commonly called into question. Gulliver's
Travels
challenges the ideas of renaissance humanism, which argued that
humans were
separated from animals or machines by their ability to reason. Swift
asks us to consider that there must be more to being human than
simply reasoning. The Houyhnhnm use reason to justify acts of cruelty
which are inhumane - they lack empathy. This theme is exemplified in
Do
Androids Dream
where society justifies the killing of androids because they, like
the Houyhnhnm, lack empathy. But neither Swift nor Dick show a loss
of faith in humanism rather they are suggesting the ideology needs to
be developed. Other
utopian or dystopian texts promote these meta-narratives by
presenting a world which inverts them. A
Brave New World
can be seen as a kind of Marxist nightmare; although
it could be argued the population is happy, a Marxist revolution of
the proletariat would potentially 'cure' this world and make it more
equal. The
Handmaiden's Tale
presents a feminist nightmare highlighting the injustices of a
discourse dominated by patriarchy where feminism could provide
equality. In third order dystopia the meta-narratives of modernity
are taken to fatal extremes where they collapse; they are grand
narratives that cannot adequately judge a world of multiplicity and
consequently they become hypocritical, promoting the wrongs they are
meant to 'cure'. Southland
Tales
provides a perfect example of this dynamic. In this film the ‘war
on terror’ has been taken to a fatal extreme and blossomed into
World War III. American troops are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria, Iran and North Korea. The draft has been reinstated; martial
law has been declared. The Republican Party is firmly in control of
the country and is backing the sinister Treer corporation. “The
only opposition to this state of affairs comes from a comically
inept, confused and internally fragmented ‘neo-Marxist’
underground.” (Shaviro 66). The cliché of the liberal socialists
fighting the greedy capitalists is turned on its head. The actions of
the neo-Marxists are also sinister, they deal in weapons, kill
members who try to quit, use kidnapping, lies, propaganda, and
blackmail to achieve their aims. Although these actions could be
interpreted as the beginnings of a legitimate Marxist revolution the
text is filled with twists that make their position problematic. For
example in order to rig an election, where thumb prints are used to
place votes, neo-Marxists force members to partake in a lottery in
which the 'winner' has their thumb cut off so it can be used to make
multiple false votes, this contrasts a scene where board members of
the Treer corporation cut a Japanese C.E.O's hand off as part of a
deal to gain votes from the board. The neo-Marxists are a distorted
mirror of the Treer corporation, the are both engaged in very similar
techniques. Although the Treer corporation is greedy and capitalistic
the product they monopolise is cheap and clean alternative fuel
called 'Fluid Karma'. The neo-Marxists are fighting to destroy a
company that is trying to benefit humankind. The film is not asking
us to compare which ideology works best or how one could be improved
instead it is presents a situation where there is no common criteria
in which to make judgements. There is no hierarchy, no side is
favourable, there is no clear moral victor. This destablization
occurs in the meta-narrative of feminism. The
female protagonist Krysta Now
is a famous porn-star with ambitions, she has her own political TV
reality show, pop- album, jewellery, clothing line and an
energy-drink. She
is a prophet and
wields the most control over her own destiny unlike the other
characters who are all manipulated in some way. But the portrayal is
problematic because she is simultaneously portrayed as ridiculous or
deeply ironic depending on the criteria by which she is judged. This
is expressed in an early scene of the film: Fortunio has just
finished watching Krysta Now's TV show. In this show she has
explained that she loves sex but hates violence, which she relates to
her decision not to do anal sex in her films. When she walks into the
room Fortunio makes fun of her:
Fortunio
(sarcastic) “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great
social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval.”
Krysta
“Go ahead and make fun of my prophesies all you want Fortunio but
deep down inside everyone wishes they were a porn star.”
Fortunio
[nods sarcastically] “really?”
Krysta
“We're a bisexual nation living in denial all because of a bunch of
nerds, a bunch of nerds who got off a boat in the fifteenth century
and decided that sex was something to be ashamed of. All the pilgrims
did was ruin the American Indian orgy of freedom!”
Boxer
[enters the room and speaks to Krysta]: “You lied to me.”
Krysta:
“You have to trust me, I'm here to protect you.”
Boxer:
“From who?”
Krysta:
“There are people out there who want to destroy you.”
There
is no hierarchy, the character
is simultaneously exploited and liberated. We
are left to ponder is she
a empowered feminist
or is she simply conforming to the male fantasy. Anything goes
depending on the criteria by which we judge her. Her feminist
philosophies have both liberated and shackled her.
The film is not constructed in a way which asks us to question and
develop ideas of Marxism and feminism, rather it questions whether
the 'developments'
of these meta-narritives into neo-Marxism and post-feminism have been
successful or have they lead to a kind of self-destruction; an
unravelling of the very ideals they sort to promote. The film is not
diminutive of these meta-narratives but takes them to a fatal extreme
where they collapse. In a world of multiplicities every event needs
to be judged on a case by case basis. The is no grand cure, salvation
depends on context - one person's cure can become another's poison.
The
contemporary dystopia operates in a world where the grand narratives
of modernity have loss their permanence. This has serious
repercussions for utopian literature because one of its traditional
functions was to try to discover a narrative that could lead us into
an ideal society. In response to this problem the dystopia has
adopted fatal extremes. It does not contrast problems in the real
world with imagined antithesis instead it supercharges them by
positioning them in the hyper-real. It has become a third order
simulacra of simulation. As a result we see a lack of separation
between the real world and the imagined world. Revealed are the
anxieties of late capitalism, a consumer culture that threatens to
repress us if we let it. But traditional strategies of contrast will
not work, the dialectic argument is moved to the sidelines, and
instead there must be a negotiation of differends. Although there is
a loss of faith in the meta-narratives of modernity there is a new
kind of hope. We can become a fair society; a world of co-existence
in which different discourses exist equally without synthesis.
Bibliography
Atwood,
Margaret. Oryx
and Crake. Bloomsbury,
2003. Print.
Baudrillard,
Jean. Simulacra
and Simulation.
The University of Michigan, 1994. Print.
Chernus,
Ira. Fredric
Jameson's Interpretation of Postmodernism.
University of Colorado at Boulder.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~chernus/NewspaperColumns/LongerEssays/JamesonPostmodernism.htm
Dick,
Phillip K. Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Digital.
Harvey,
David. A summary of The
Passage from Modernity to Postmodernity in Contemporary Culture.
Digital.
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~patrickmooney/presentations/w10/harvey/reading-notes/frameset1.html
Horrocks,
Chris and Jevtic, Zoran. Baudrillard
For Beginners.
Icon Books, 1996. Print
Huxley,
Aldous. A
Brave New World.
Vintage Books, 2007. Print.
Jameson,
Fredric. Postmodernism,
or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.
Duke University, 1991. Print.
Lyotard,
Jean-Francois. The
Differend Phrases in Dispute.
The University of Minnesota, 1988. Print.
Mohr,
Dunja. “Transgressive Utopian Dystopias: The Postmodern
Reappearance of Utopia in the Disguise of Dystopia”. ZAA
(2007): 5 -24.
More,
Thomas. Utopia
A Dialogue of Comfort. Heron
Books. Print.
Poster,
Mark (Ed). Jean
Baudrillard Selected Writings.
Stanford University, 2002. Digital.
Shaviro,
Steven. “Post-Ceinematic Affect: On Grace Jones, Boarding
Gate and
Southland
Tales” Film-Philosophy 14.1
2010, 64-94.
Sim,
Stuart. Introducing
Critical Theory.
Totem Books, 2001. Print.
Sim,
Stuart (Ed). The
Routledge Companion to Postmodernism.
Icon Books, 1998. Print.
Swift,
Jonathan. Gulliver's
Travels. Heron
Books. Print.
Woodward,
Ashley. 'Jean Francois Lyotard (1924 - 199)'. Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Digital.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/#SH2c
Films
Idiocracy.
Dir. Mike Judge. Twentieth Century Fox 2006. Film.
Gamer.
Dir. Mark Neveldine. Lionsgate 2009. Film.
Southland
Tales.
Dir. Richard Kelly. Universal Pictures 2008. Film.
1from
Simulacra and Simulation
3What
marks the development of the new concept [late capitalism] over the
older one (which was still roughly consistent with Lenin's
notion of a "monopoly stage" of capitalism) is not merely
an emphasis on the emergence of new forms of business organization
(multinationals, transnationals) beyond the monopoly stage but,
above all, the vision of a world capitalist system fundamentally
distinct from the older imperialism, which was little more than a
rivalry between the
various colonial powers. Jameson 8
4We
must therefore also posit another type of consumption: consumption
of the very process of consumption itself,
above
and beyond its content and the immediate commercial products.
Jameson (275)
5The
2010 film version of Gulliver's Travels
is an example of what happens when the dialectical elements are
removed - it becomes a totally different story.
7see
Elam, Diane. Feminism and Deconstruction: Ms. en Abyme (1994
)
8Mohr,
Dunja. Transgressive Utopia Dystopia
No comments:
Post a Comment