MEDIANZ � VOL 16 NO 2 • 2016 https://doi.org/10.11157/medianz-vol17iss2id206

- ARTICLE -

Baudrillard in a ‘Post-Truth’ World: Groundwork for a Critique of the Rise of Trump

Brett Nicholls

Abstract ThispapertakestheviewthatBaudrillard’sworkontheWest’sfascinationwithrealityisasinsightfulasever.Thepapertracestheriseofthisfascinationacrossfourareasofhiswork:the critique of the commodity form, the rise of objective reality, hyperreality, and integralreality.IthenarguethatBaudrillardprovidesuswithameansforadequatelyunderstandingandengagingwiththecurrentpost-truthscandal.Myclaimisthattheessenceof’‘Trumpism’isnottobefoundinalackofreality,thenotionthatthereisnotenoughtruthinplay;itistobe found in the overproduction of a surplus reality that veers out of control into hithertounknownformsofabsurdity,or,inBaudrillard’sterms,intointegralreality.

Ifmediaistobebelieved,realityisnowchoking.Therecent ‘post-truth’scandalsuggeststhatrealityhasbeenleftgaspingforairandis indesperateneedofresuscitation.AmidstvoluminousrecentwritingsandaTwitter stormon thesubject,KurtAndersonwarnsusthatAmericahasbecome‘untetheredfromreality’(2017).Itisthisuntethering,sincetheriseof1960scounter-culture,thathasallowedtheemergenceofanunhingedmiscreationsuchasDonaldTrump.Anderson’swarningechoesmanypunditsandintellectualswholaythis situation firmly at the feet of postmodernism. As Bruno Tertrais contends,‘postmodernism and French intellectuals paved the way for “post-truth” and “alt-facts”’(2017).Highly-esteemedhistorian,Richard J.Evans,also felt compelled to tweet: ‘If Iamwrong,andpostmodernistdisbeliefintruthdidn’tleadtoourpost-truthage,thenhowdowe explain the current disdain for facts?’ (2017). And consider the now commonplaceemphatictoneofheadlinessuchas ‘ElonMusk'sbigbatterybringsrealitycrashingintoa

BrettNichollsworksattheUniversityofOtago,NewZealand,intheDepartmentofMedia,FilmandCommunication.Hepublishesworkontechnology,mediaandpolitics,aswellaspostcoloniality.HeiscurrentlyworkingonJeanBaudrillard’srelationshiptoscience.Hecanbecontactedatbrett.nicholls@otago.ac.nz.

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

7

post-truthworld’(Hollo2017).AlongwiththeTwitterstorm,suchheadlinessuggestthatahighstakesbattlebetweentheobjectivelyrealandtheillusoryandfakeiswellunderway.

ThispaperwilltracethestakesofthisbattlebylookingatBaudrillard’swork.Intherecentpost-truthcontext,his long-termengagementwithWesternculture’s fascinationwiththereal isparticularlyprescient. Iwill focusspecificallyupon this fascinationand theriseofthegeneral imperativeofbeinginsynchwithrealityacrossfourareasofBaudrillard:thecritique of the commodity form, the rise of objective reality, hyperreality, and integralreality. I will argue that Baudrillard provides us with a means for adequatelyunderstanding and engaging with the current post-truth scandal. I will offer aBaudrillardian takeuponpost-truth andTrumpism, as it hasbeen constructed inmedia.ThistakefocusesupontheconditionsfortheriseofTrumpismandpost-truth.Myclaimisthat the essence of the presentmedia scandal is not to be found in a lack of reality, thenotionthatthereisnotenoughrealityinplay;itistobefoundintheoverproductionofasurplus reality thatveersoutof control intohithertounknown formsof absurdity,or, inBaudrillard’s terms, into integral reality. ‘The real does not’, Baudrillard tells us, ‘effaceitself in favourof the imaginary; it effaces itself in favourof themore real than real: thehyperreal’ (Baudrillard1990b,11), and,ultimately, integral reality. In a reversalofwhatmightbeconsideredtobecommonsenselogic,theproblemofTrumpismandpost-truthisnotthatrealityisdiminishing,itisthatthereistoomuch.

Iwouldhavetoadmitthat if theaforementionedpunditsandintellectualsareright, thensurely Baudrillard’s work should be abandoned at once. After all, is he notpostmodernism’s high priest! (Miles 2001, 86). But what better description could beofferedforthis‘post-truth’crisisotherthanBaudrillard’spointaboutthesurplusofreality,and that the ‘realityof theworld is…areassuringhypothesis’ that ‘dominatesourvaluesystemtoday’(2008,48).Thelaughteratandagainst‘Trumpism’,whichanimatesmuchofthe aforementioned Twitter storm, confidently asserts that there is a clear differencebetween objective knowledge and speculative constructions. For objective thinking,speculative ideas are dangerous. Knowledge of reality as it actually is, that is facts piledupon facts, provides a bedrock of security against this danger. As the well-knownastrophysicist,NeildeGrasseTyson,putsit,inanechoofMartinLutherKing,‘Idreamofaworldwhere the truth iswhatshapespeople’spolitics, rather thanpoliticsshapingwhatpeoplethinkistrue’(2017).

It is precisely Trumpism’s lack of objectivity that is at the centre of this public scorn(Swaine 2017). The problem is that in the post-truth situation objective facts about theworldarelessinfluentialthanfeelings,beliefs,andpersonalopinions(Instituteonequalityand democracy 2017). This situation is scandalous precisely because objective facts,seemingly,shouldbetakenasmorevalid,asmorerealthanfeelings,beliefsandopinions.HereinliesthevalueofBaudrillard’sthought.Ratherthantheproblemofvalidity,hiswork

Brett Nicholls

8

considers thepreconditions for such scandals. If reality is inneedof resuscitation, if thestakesaresohigh,doesthisnotsuggestthatrealityissuspect?Baudrillard’sworkcompelsustoconsiderhowrealityhasendedupbeingsovulnerable.

The Reality Compulsion WhatisinterestingaboutTrumpismisthatthesurroundingscandalisunexceptional.Itisunexceptional because the language of reality has begun to engulf us. From the rise ofreality television, to the political claim that ‘real Australians say welcome’ to refugees(Williamson 2017), to the branding claims of Pataks’ authentic Indian curry sauces andContinental’srealchickenstock,itwouldnotberemisstosaythatcontemporarycultureismarkedbyageneralfascinationwithwhatisreal.Ofcourse,IwouldbethefirsttoadmitthattheissuessurroundingAustralia’smythologisationofrefugeesaremorecriticalfromtheperspectiveofpoliticsandcommunicationthanthetritebrandingofContinental’srealchicken stock.Yet it is curious that the claim tobe realhas suchawidespreadpurchaseacross media culture and politics. This fascination with reality is expressed in theenthusiasmfortheauthenticoverthefake,thenaturalinsteadofthesynthetic,objectivityas opposed to feelings, use value over exchange value, and scientific truth rather thanpolitical ideology. Even though this is a diverse list of oppositions, each has a commonelement.Eachclaimthatitisimperativetoaccesstherealthingorsituation.Therealthinginsulatesus fromevil, savesus fromwrestlingwithuncertainty, andguarantees that thesocial order remains as it should be. Isness is immediate rather than mediated, and isconsidered to be that fully revealed ‘outside’ that is completely independent from therepresentationsthatdiscloseit.Thecurrentfascinationwithrealityisthusacontemporaryversionofnaiverealismthatnowtakestheformofasocialandpoliticalimperative.

It is precisely a fascination with authenticity, or the truth of reality that makes anycommodity genuine and any political claim formidable. The latter Freud of ‘Beyond thepleasure principle’ perhaps provides an apt basis for this fascination with what is.Trumpism’s assault upon reality has engendered a sense of loss and, perhaps, trauma.Alderson’sconcernaboutthegenuinenessofthesportcommodityalsobetraysasenseofpossible loss.Wecan thusread theTwitterstormaroundTrump,with itsexpressionsofunpleasure,disbelief,and(re)assertionof therealnessofreality,asa formofcompulsivebehaviour. Freud found in the unpleasures of the repetition-compulsion a serioustheoretical problem. While ‘there exists’, Freud writes, ‘in the mind a strong tendencytowards the pleasure principle’ there are ‘certain other forces or circumstances’ that‘cannotalwaysbeinharmonywiththetendencytowardspleasure’(Freud1955,9-10).ForFreud,thepleasureintheunpleasureoftheseotherforcessuggestagoverningprinciple,orperhapsthelackofagoverningprinciplebeyondthepleasureprinciple.Hethusasks,whatcanpossiblybegainedintherepetitionofunpleasure?Withthedominanceofthepleasureprinciple in doubt, as I read it, Freud promptly set about showing how the repetition-

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

9

compulsion relates to, and is constantly reinforced by, factors governed by the pleasureprinciple.Inonewell-knowninstance,therepetition-compulsionisstagedasafunctionofthe ego. In the child’s play of the fort-da game, repeating ‘unpleasurable experiences’enablesthemto‘master’thatunpleasure‘bybeingactive’ratherthan‘merelyexperiencingitpassively’(35-36).

Onlineexpressionsofrage,ridicule,anddismayaresurelyaformofrepetition-compulsion:Trump’s despicable postmodernismmust be stopped! However, Baudrillard complicatesthis compulsive process. Rather than the loss of reality, which results in theaforementionedfort-dagameofmastery,thepresentsituationisnotthatofloss,itis,asIhavesuggested, thatofexcess.Theaforementionedexamplesreveal thedrivethatmarksourtimetovaloriseeverythingthat isreal.Theworld issorted intothecategoriesof thedesirable and real and the less desirable and less real. This sorting — Is Trump trulypresidential?—takes the formofapanic. ‘Weseemtobedriven’,Baudrillardmaintains,‘by a huge and irresistible compulsion that acts on us through the very progress of ourtechnologies...—acompulsiontodraweverclosertotheunconditionalrealizationofthereal’ (2000,65). Wemight thussay that thiscurrent fascinationhas less todowith lossthanwith the repetition-compulsion to assume reality is vulnerable and that itmust beperpetuallymadetohappen.

Precisionisrequiredhere.Bytheunconditionalrealisationofthereal,BaudrillardmeansthattheWesternworldarrogantlyassumesithasdiscoveredanunassailablesenseoftherealityofreality.Mediarepresentationsneveraverfromthisview(Phelan2014).AsIhavesuggested,weare facedwith theabsurdsituation inwhichall interlocutorsandpoliticalopponentsstaketheirclaimuponthebedrockofthereal.BothTrumpandhisdetractorsmakeprecisely thisclaim.Bothclaimtheyare therealAmerica! Ifwe followBaudrillard,the crucial question here is, as I have suggested: what conditions have produced thisabsurd situation? Baudrillard’s claim is that current political and social phenomenademandtobeunderstoodandrespondedtointermsofthemeaningmakinglogicinwhichtheyareproduced.Inthemostrudimentaryofterms,hispositionisthattherehasbeenaprofound and elusive shift in the configuration of the real across time (even the term,‘reality’,itselfisoneoftheseeffects).

I want to turn now tomethodically trace Baudrillard’s engagementwith the fascinationwithrealityacrosshiswork.Theaimhereistwofold.Firstly,Iaimtoshowthattherootsofpost-truth and Trumpism can be found in the ongoing intensification of the West’sfascination with what is real. And secondly, I aim to show what a Baudrillardianperspectivecontributestoourunderstandingofthecurrentpost-truthsituation.Weneedtoconsider fourcritiquesofreality’sproduction: thecritiqueof thecommodity form, therise of objective reality, hyperreality, and integral reality. These areas can tentatively betakenasnodalpoints.Isaytentativelybecausethesepointsarenotrigidandlinear.They

Brett Nicholls

10

arepointsofintersectionandintensification,andareall,alongwithreversibility,tovaryingdegreesstillinplaywithinthecontextofcontemporarycapitalistsociety.Baudrillardisasmuch interested inthetensionsbetweenobjectivityandhyperreality(1997a,32-42)andthe returnof symbolic exchange (1993a), for instance, ashe is in the ‘hegemonyof totalreality’(2010,41).

Thetrajectoryofthefollowingargumenttakestheformofalong,non-continuousarc.TheinitialdiscussionfocussesupontheearlyBaudrillard,atablurrydistancefrompost-truthand Trumpism. This lays the groundwork for Baudrillard’s ongoing critique of thefascinationwiththerealityprinciple.AsIproceedtheTrump/post-truthobjectwillbegintoappearandbecomemoreinfocus.

The Authentic Commodity OneofBaudrillard’searliestforaysintothefascinationwithrealitycomesintheformofacritiqueofMarx’stheoryofthecommodity(thecontextinwhichBaudrillard’searlyworkis formed).What is at issue forBaudrillard isMarx’s appeal to anauthenticoutsideas ameans to critique the inauthentic commodityof capitalist exchange.Marxdoesn’t escapebeingfascinatedwithreality.ForMarx,use-valuerefersto ‘thephysicalpropertiesof thecommodity’ (Marx 1990, 126) that satisfies social needs, and ‘the exchange relation ofcommoditiesischaracterisedpreciselybyitsabstraction[intheformofmoney]fromtheiruse-values’ (127). Abstraction is a problem, forMarx, because in capitalist societies theproduction of useful commodities is eclipsed by the production of commodities forexchange.And since theworking classdonotown themeansofproduction, theydonotcontroltheproductionofuse-values.Instead,theymustselltheirlabourpowertoproducecommoditiesforexchangetoobtainthenecessarymeanstolive.Theyarethussubjecttoexploitation,andforcedtoproducecommodities thataredesignedforsaleabilityandtheproduction of surplus value rather than actual usefulness. Against the claims of politicaleconomists such as Adam Smith (1776, Book I, Chapter V), for Marx the saleability ofcommoditiesisnotameasureofusefulness.Thesituationcanthusbeoverturnedonlybytheworkingclassseizingcontrolofthemeansofproductionandproducingsociallyusefulproducts.Marx’sclarioncallisforasystemofproductioninwhichworkersproducegoodsto meet their objective needs. Use-value is clearly in an antagonistic relationship withexchangevalue.

BaudrillardproblematisesMarx’sappealhere to thereal in the formof theusefulnessofthe commodity. He claims Marx’s critique of the commodity does little to disruptcapitalism,sincecapitalismproduces theveryreality, theuse-values, thatMarxclaimsasthebasisofcritique.Capitalismproducesrealityasauthenticallyreal,asobjectivelyuseful,ratherthanavoidsit.Wethusneedtoengagewiththeproductionofthisreality.Ineffect,BaudrillardisarguingthatMarx’slogicmirrorsthelogicofthemarketingofContinental’s

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

11

realchickenstock.Itcouldbepointedout,ofcourse,thattheauthenticityofchickenstockbearslittleornoresemblancetotheclassicalpoliticaleconomists’viewsofusefulnessandsociallynecessary labour.ForAdamSmith,as it is forMarx,waterandshelterhaveverylittle exchangeable value but are very useful commodities. These are indisputablynecessary for life. Diamonds, on the other hand, serve no practical utility but aremorevaluable precisely because they are exchangeable for other commodities (1776, Book I,ChapterV). The key point is that there clearly is a distinction between value in use andvalue inexchange.FromSmith’sperspective, thismeans ifyouwant tomakemoneyyouhad better sell diamonds or some other exchangeable commodity. From Marx’sperspective,theaimtosellexchangeablecommoditiesispreciselytheproblemsince,asIhavestated,workersendupbeingalienatedfromthemeansofproduction.

It could also be countered thatwhenMarx is read in relation to Lacan, such as in SamoTomšič’s The Capitalist Unconscious (2015), use-value should not be understood asantagonistictoabstractexchangeandalienation.Instead,usevalueispostfactopositedbythe symbolic, andas such servesas a generatorofproduction.ForMarx, in this reading,production always produces a surplus in excess of usefulness, even when in its mostnatural state. Capitalism frees the productive forces and is, in Marx’s view, a gatewaytoward communism.Baudrillard'spoint, however, is that in the current techno-capitalistWest the division between usefulness and exchangeability is difficult to define. This haslesstodowithpostfactousevaluethanwiththelossofthecleardistinctionbetweenuseand exchange value. Despite Tomšič’s inversion of the standard reading of Marx, in hisreading use value remains as an alibi for production. Baudrillard argues that capitalistsimulationdisturbsthisrelation.

Consider a basic commodity such as drinking water. In the techno-capitalist West adistinctionbetween tapwater andbottledwater, andbetweenacidic and alkalinewaterhasemerged.Inbothexamples,theformerturnsouttobeaninferiorproduct.Inthecaseof thesuperiorproduct,bottled,alkalinewater,brandssuchFijiWater®claimthat theirwaterisnotsimplywater.Theirwateristhe‘Earth’sfinestwater®.Bottledatthesource,untouchedbyman’(FijiWater®).FijiWater®isnotordinary,weareinformed,‘becauseofits extraordinary source— a protected artesian aquifer found deep underground in theremoteFijiIslands’(FijiWater®).Leavingasidetheexoticismthatunderpinssuchclaims(seeConnell2006), thisnecessary commodity is anexampleofusefulness that takes theformof exchangeability. FijiWater® is an elite commoditywhich, as Jones,Murray, andOvertonpointout,aboundswith‘celebrityendorsements–reachingashighas[former]USPresident Barack Obama’ (2017, 112). This elite status derives, in large part, from theassumption that FijiWater® ismore real than ordinary water. The rather rudimentarydistinction between use value and exchange value doesn't seem to hold in anystraightforwardway.

Brett Nicholls

12

Baudrillard’sworkconnectswithBoltanskiandChiapello’scontentionthatthecommodityformno longerworks in the sense outlinedbyMarx. Boltanski andChiapello argue thatcapitalism responded to the 1960s demand for liberation from the standardisedcommodityofindustrialcapitalwith‘productsthatwere“authentic”and“differentiated”insuchawaythattheimpressionofmassificationwouldbedispelled’(2005,442).To‘earnthe label “authentic”’, they continue, ‘these goods must be drawn from outside thecommodity sphere, from the “sources of authenticity”’. The ‘authentic thus assumesreferencetoanoriginalthatisnotacommoditygood,butause-valuedefinedinauniquerelationship to a user’ (443). The use of commodities is thus authentic when the userexpressestheirrealself.Inotherwords,thecommoditybecomesauthenticwhenitlinesupwiththeculturalmeaningofauthenticity.FijiWater®isauthenticbecauseit isbotheliteandexcessivelynatural.

In this account of the commodity form, use-value is drawn from an original outside toauthenticatetheproductinrelationtotheuser.Continentalchickenstock,forinstance,isgenuine since it ismade from real rather than synthetic chicken, and the user is able toexpresstheirsociallydefinedskillfulnessincookingauthenticdishes.Use-valueisthusanoutside that underpins the commodity’s exchange-value. If we follow Boltanski andChiapello,theantagonisticrelationbetweenuse-valueandexchange-valuethatwascrucialfor Marx has thus collapsed. Under the conditions of the new spirit of capitalism, therelationship between use-value and exchange value shifts. Instead of conflict, ‘thecommodificationoftheauthenticmadeitpossibletorevivetheprocessoftransformationofnon-capitalintocapital’(ibid.).Inotherwords,capitalexpandsitshorizonsbycolonisinguse-valueandexploitingthisasamarkerofauthenticity.

AsBaudrillardputsit,inhisstandardreading,forMarxuse-value‘representsanobjective,final relation of intrinsic purpose ... which doesmask itself andwhose transparency, asform, defies history (even if its content changes continually with respect to social andculturaldeterminations)’.However,Baudrillardclaims‘use-value—indeed,utilityitself—isafetishisedsocialrelation,justliketheabstractequivalenceofcommodities’.Use-valuesare,infact,‘anabstractionofthesystemofneedscloakedinthefalseevidenceofaconcretedestination andpurpose’ (1981, 132). In otherwords, needs themselves,what counts asneed,cannotbeseparatedfromthesocialsystemthatproducesthem.Thisispreciselywhya value in use, such as water, directly links with abstract value in exchange. ‘To beabstractly and generally exchangeable’, Baudrillard explains, ‘products must also bethoughtandrationalisedintermsofutility’(131).FijiWater®isthoughtandrationalisedas a pristine natural substance that is more authentic than tap water. Consider thisbranding:

Tropicalrainfalls.Purifiedbyequatorialtradewinds.

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

13

Inapristinerainforest.Surroundedbyancient,dormantvolcanoes.

Slowly filtered by volcanic rock. It gathers minerals and electrolytes thatcreateFiji’ssoft,smoothtaste.

Collecting in a natural artesian aquifer. Protected and preserved fromexternalelementsuntilyouunscrewthecap(FijiWater®).

Here the utility of nature is fetishised. Fiji Water’s® natural authenticity and itsexchangeability as a commodity are clearly inseparable. There is no external objectiverealityinaformalantagonisticrelationshiptotheabstractterrainofcommodityexchange,eveninthecaseofsomethingasbasicaswater.IfwefollowBaudrillard,Marx’sappealtoutilityasrevolutionarygroundandgoalforworkersstruggleneedstoberethought.

Baudrillard’sreadingandcritiqueofMarxandMarxismhasbeenmuchdebated(KochandElmore2006).Itisnotmyaimtotakethisuphere.IaminterestedinchartingwhatItakearethecontoursofBaudrillard’sworkupontheWest’sfascinationwithreality.IntermsofMarx, Baudrillard (provocatively) contends that he falls into the trap of assuming thatrealityservesasagroundforpoliticalchange.Inthiswayofthinking,capitalistexchangeislessreal than thematerialityofutilityandsocialconditionsof theworkingclass.Politicsthus involves confronting capitalist abstractions with this material reality (today thispolitics takes the form of ‘speaking truth to power’). Baudrillard is arguing that Marx’sthinkingmisrecognises the political problem, and can only provide a limited critique ofcapitalism.Objectiveuse-valuesformthebasisforbothMarx’scritiqueandforcapitalism’sproductionof theauthenticityof thecommodity.Thiscongruousrelationshipmeans thatbothMarxandcapitalismareclaimingtobeauthenticallyreal.However,capitalismisnotlessreal,inthesenseimpliedbythisreadingofMarx.Baudrillardclaims:

Wewillneverdefeatthesystemontheplaneofthereal:theworsterrorofallour revolutionary strategies is to believe that we will put an end to thesystemontheplaneofthereal:thisistheirimaginary,imposedonthembythesystemitself,livingorsurvivingonlybyalwaysleadingthosewhoattackthe system to fight amongst each other on the terrain of reality,which isalwaystherealityofthesystem.(1993a,36)

ThestruggleenvisionedbyMarxtakesplaceontheterrainofrealitythatisalreadylaidoutin advance. On this terrain, resistance is absorbed and, quite possibly, even strengthenscapitalism’s grip. At any rate, as capitalism has become more deeply entrenched, theabsorptionofresistancenowseemstobemorefullydeveloped(Fisher2009,Bloom2016).What is required instead, Baudrillard maintains, is a shift in the way we approach theproblemofthereal.Iwilltakeupthispointintheconcludingsectionsofthepaper.Atthispoint,itwillsufficetosaythatitispreciselytheterrainofrealitythatisatthecentreofthe

Brett Nicholls

14

post-truth scandal. I will now turn to consider the production of reality itself, andBaudrillard’sargumentsabouttheeffectsofthisproduction.Thecurrentfascinationwithrealityderives,innosmallmeasure,fromtheriseofobjectiveformsofknowledge.

Simulation 1: Objective Reality and Its Effects The notion of reality, of the this is real rather than invented, coincides with thedevelopmentofobjectivethought(asopposedtoabstractbelief).Objectivityis,ofcourse,adifficult term to pin down. Objectivity in everyday life works in different ways fromobjectivityinthesciencelaboratory,orinpoliticsandart.Therearealsoseveralcompetingandoverlappingconceptsofobjectivity:as judgement free fromprejudice(Simmel1950,402-408), as judgement free from prior assumptions (Dworkin 1996), as a necessarycondition or instrumental set of established procedures for testing hypotheses (Popper1959), or as accurate representations (Russell 1971, 129). Nevertheless, despite thesedifferences,whichhingeupontheproblemofhowrealitycanbeaccuratelyapprehended,the realness of reality itself is rarely questioned. Today there is no doubt at all that theobjectiveanddiscoverableworldexistsoutsidesystemsofrepresentation.

The lampooning of Trumpism, for instance, seems to strike a chord with 17th CenturyphilosopherssuchasDescartes, forwhomobjectivetruth isastraightforwardmatter.Hewrites, ‘I have never had any doubts about truth, because it seems a notion sotranscendentally clear that nobody canbe ignorant of it ... theword “truth”, in the strictsense, denotes the conformity of thought with its object’ (1991, AT II 597). Descartesdevelopmentof the foundationsofepistemiccertaintywasakeyaspectof,asToniNegrireveals, the ‘historyof thebourgeoisie’shumanist revolution’ (2007,207).YetDescartes’radicalismhaslongsincesubsidedandsuchaviewisnowcasuallymaintained.TakeSokalandBricmont’s famous ‘challenge’tothesocalledpostmodernthreattotherationalreal.Theycalmlyassert,withnojustifyingargument,thatrealityisclearlyobjectivelyreal.Thisiswhy,theyproclaim,‘thescientificcommunity’come‘toconclusionXbecauseXisthewaytheworldreallyis’(1998,98).

For Baudrillard, however, objective reality, is not as straightforward as it appears.Following Hannah Arendt, he claims objective reality is a product of themodern age. Itemerges‘withtheinventionofanArchimedeanpointoutsidetheworld(onthebasisoftheinvention of the telescope by Galileo and the discovery of modern mathematicalcalculation)bywhichthenaturalworldisdefinitivelyalienated’(Baudrillard2009,10).Atthispointinhistory,itbecamepossibletounderstandknowledgeasadistinctentityfromboth thematerialworld of nature and from subjective influences such as our emotions,needs,anddesires.DonnaHarawaycallsthisArchimedianpoint,thisviewfromnowhere,‘the god trick’ (1988, 587). And in Foucault’s account of the rise of ‘man’ and modernscience, theArchimedeanoutside allowedpower to hide behindobjective knowledge. In

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

15

concertwithvariousarchitecturalinnovations,prisonreform,andpoliticaldevelopments,objectiveknowledgeaidedtheemergenceofdisciplinarycontrol(1977).

For his part, Baudrillard directly challenges the ontological certainty of objectivity. Heasserts:

theworld… is neverwhat it seems. It presents itself as one thing, but it’ssomethingelse…theworldplayswithus, inamannerofspeaking,andwehave a subjective illusion — the illusion of being a subject. Whereas theobjective illusionderives fromthe fact that theworldpresents itselfasonething,butitisnotreallythisatall.(1997a,40)

Weneedtotreadcarefullyhere.It ispossibletoreadthis ideaoftheobjectiveillusionofthe world as Baudrillard claiming that the material world is merely a product of theimagination, or, in his terminology, simulation and simulacra. In otherwords, the claimwouldbe therearenoobjects tobediscoveredoutsideofourcultural constructionsandsystems of representation. Theworld thus consists ofmere simulacra, that is, copies ofcopies of a reality that does not actually exist. It is precisely in terms of this denial ofobjectiverealitythatSokalandBricmontclaimBaudrillardisoneofthose‘French’authorswhomakeno‘pretenseat“scientificity”’,andwhose‘underlyingphilosophy(totheextentone can be discerned) tends toward irrationalism or nihilism’ (1998, 13). With his‘lackadaisicalattitude towardscientific rigor’ (1998,207),Baudrillard’swork ismerelyaformof ‘nonsense andword games’ that ‘displace[s] the critical and rigorous analysis ofsocialrealities’(206).However,contrarytosuchdenouncements,andothersthatclaimhisis a postmoderndenial of themateriality of theworld (Goldman andPapson2015, 248;Fuchs2016,338),Baudrillarddoesnotholdananti-sciencepositionordenythefactthat‘ourrealworld...obeysprecisephysicallaws...that,thankstotheprogressofanalysisandtechnique,weactuallydiscover’(Baudrillard2000,73,75).

WecouldthusarguethathisthoughtresonateswithAdorno’snon-identitythinkingand,toa lesser extent,withMorton’s object orientatedontology. Statements such as ‘Life formsrecede into strangeness the more we think about them’ (Morton 2011, 165) bear aresemblance to Baudrillard’s claim in the quotation above. At any rate, Baudrillard’s(perhapsNietzschean)positionisthatobjectivereality,asitisunderstood,isadiminishedformoftheworldofobjects.Hecallsthisrealworlda‘restrictedmateriality’whichclearly‘obeysprecisephysicallaws’(2000,73).However,thediscoveryofaphysicallawitselfis‘not enough to make it true, since this relative coherence is only the paradoxicalconsequenceofthis“ontological”simplification’(ibid.).Objectiverealityisthusaneffectofthe sign, a ‘truth effect’, that, as Baudrillard puts it, ‘hides truth’s non-existence’ (1990a,35).InanearlierworkBaudrillardstatesitthisway:therealisonlythe‘simulacrumofthesymbolic,itsformreducedandinterceptedbythesign’(1981,162).

Brett Nicholls

16

Tobeclear,Baudrillard’sworkthusdoesnotcontesttheexistenceoftheworldofobjects,or thatobjects canbestudied (afterall,hedoesmakestatementsabout theworld inhisbooksandphotographs).Ultimately though, thequestionofwhether thingsexistoutsideourrepresentationsornotisbanalandmeaningless(Baudrillard2005,39).BrianMassumiis, then, mistaken when he contends, ‘Baudrillard sidesteps the question of whethersimulationreplacesarealthatdidindeedexist,orifsimulationisalltherehaseverbeen’(1987,np).DefendingDeleuzeandGuattari’s affirmationofboth simulationand the realbeyond it, Massumi argues ‘simulation is a process that produces the real, or, moreprecisely,amore-than-realonthebasisofthereal.“Itcarriestherealbeyonditsprincipletothepointwhereitiseffectivelyproduced”’(ibid.).InthisreverseofthePlatonistviewofsimulation as an inferior copy of a real or original (which is how theWachowskis’TheMatrix conceives of it), for Deleuze ‘“real” entities are in fact undercover simulacra thathaveconsentedtofeignbeingcopies’(ibid.).Inthisview,simulacraareproductiveentities.AsDeleuze inTheLogicofSenseputs it, ‘simulacrumisnotadegradedcopy. Itharborsapositive power which denies the original and the copy, the model and the reproduction’(1990,262).

If we follow Massumi, the problem with Baudrillard’s work on simulation is that it isimpossible to determine if he is a vulgar Platonist or not. The assumption is thatBaudrillard argues that simulations are a copy of an original real which has becomesimulacrum,thatis,amerecopyofacopywithoutreferencetoanoriginalreal.However,Baudrillard actually departs sharply from the Platonic treatment of simulation. In themuch-citedSimulacra and Simulation, this clear explanation is offered: ‘simulating is notpretending’ (1994a, 3).This is preciselybecausepretending ‘ordissimulating, leaves theprinciple of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereassimulation threatens thedifferencebetween the “true”and the “false”, the “real”and the“imaginary”’ (ibid.). Baudrillard’s account of simulation thus bears a resemblance toDeleuze’s reverse Platonism, to the extent that simulations trouble the relationshipbetween the original and copy, but rather than producing an incompletemore-than-realreality (‘the actual’ in relation to ‘the virtual’ in Deleuze’s more developed conceptualvocabulary), Baudrillard contends simulations (reality) are a crime against theambivalenceofobjects.

Theproblemwiththefullyrealised,unambivalentobjectisnotitsincompletepotentialinrelationtoaninexhaustiblevirtuality,asDeleuze’sexpressionismwouldcontend,itisthatitisdead.Theontologicalcomplexityoftheobjectisreduced,andratherthananactiveanddynamic object we are left with a passive, inert mass. Herein lies the key differencebetween Deleuze and Baudrillard. Deleuze’s dualism consists of the positive and yetincompleteexpressionofthevirtualdimensionofrealityinthedimensionoftheactual(theobject is thusambivalent).Baudrillard’sdualism,or,moreaccurately,duelism consistsof

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

17

the negative relation between reality and the world of illusion. For Baudrillard, theproblemwithsimulationsisthattheynegatetheobject.SimulationsrepresentanoutsideTruthwhenall thewhilethere isnothingsavethe illusionof theworldofobjects. InThePerfectCrimeBaudrillardsetsforthhismoststraight-forwardaccountofthisposition.Theworldis,heannounces,aradicalandintolerable‘“illusion”thatwestrivetomakeexistandsignifyatallcosts’(2008,17):

[We] take from it its secret, arbitrary, accidental character, rid it ofappearances and extract itsmeaning, divert it from all predestination andrestore it to its end and itsmaximum efficiency, wrest it from its form todeliverituptoitsformula.Thisgiganticenterpriseofdisillusionment—of,literally,puttingtheillusionoftheworldtodeath,toleaveanabsolutelyrealworldinitsstead—iswhatisproperlymeantbysimulation.(ibid.)

The crucial point here is the inverse relationship between simulation and the secret,arbitraryandaccidentalcharacteroftheobject.Themorerealityisrealisedthemoretheobjectfades.Themoretheworldisexchangedforsignificationandmeaningthemoretheworlddisappearsfromview.

ItispreciselyintermsofthissenseofdisappearancethatBaudrillardcontroversiallystatesthatTheGulfWardidnottakeplace(1995).Heismakingthestraightforwardclaimthattheatrocities, human suffering, resistance and social upheaval that characterise war (as acomplexobject)havebeenoverwrittenby the slick simulationsof theAmericanmilitarymachine.Theobjectthusdisappears.Considerthemorerecentdevelopmentof‘warporn’,themilitary footageavailableviaYouTube.Thecamera locatedon theApachehelicoptercapturesimagesofactualairstrikesuponmilitarytargets.Thesoundtrackconsistsofthevoices of pilots and operatives engaged in the formulaic language of battle, deliberatingaboutthepossibleidentityofthetargets.Inatypicalexample,‘ApachehelicopterstakeoutTalibanfighters’(Broadbent,2017),‘insurgents’appearaspixelatedwhiteblobsinthelowresolution black and white image. In the later section, these blobs become engulfed inwhiteflashesanddustasthe‘hellfire’machinegunblastsatthem.Yet,thebloodyviolenceandhorrorofthisscenedoesnotappearonscreen. Inthese images, thesufferingpeopleliterally disappear beneath flashes of bright white and black pixels. As opposed to therequirements of accurate or realist representation, thesemilitary images serve the dualpurposeofhighfunctionalityandlowinformation(whatMcLuhanmightcallcoolmedia),as well as emotional distance from the ‘target’. In these images, human beings areontologicallysimplifiedbythesimulationsofthemilitarymachine.

Ascanbeseen,simulationsarenotwithouteffects;theyproduce,infact,particularkindsofmaterialeffects,suchasthedehumanisationoftheotherintheaforementionedexample.Ifweaccept theproposition that reality is a simulation,does thismean, therefore, thatwe

Brett Nicholls

18

have no grounds to challengeDonald Trump’s apparent disregard for facts? Canwe notquestionpropaganda,fakenews,andcampaignsofmisinformation?AsIhavestatedabove,Baudrillarddoesnotquestion theveracityof facts in themselves.There isnothing inhisthoughtthatwould invalidatechallengingTrump’sclaims.However, theproblemismorecomplex than simply combatting Trumpwith the truth. Trump’s supporters are, in fact,quitepreparedtoacceptthathisclaimscanbedemonstratedtobefalse,yetdespitethis,asNyhanetal.’scomprehensivestudyreveals,theysupporthimanyway(2017).Theproblemof Trumpism, from Baudrillard’s perspective as I see it, is thus not is Trump correct orincorrectonestablishedmattersoffact(abanalproblem),itiswhatdoesthisphenomenontell us about the contemporary principle or concept of reality itself. Itwould seem, as Isuggestedattheoutsetofthecurrentdiscussion,thatrealityisunderthreat.Therefore,theproblemtobeposedis:howisitpossiblethatrealitycouldbeplacedundersuchstrain?

To find thesolution to thisproblemweneed to lookcloselyat thegiganticenterpriseofdisillusionmentand itsparticulareffects.Reality ismade realvia thisenterprise,but theprocess of realisation also becomes an end in itself, so much so that the production ofrealityspiralsoutofcontrol.AsBaudrillardargues:

By our technical exploits, we have reached such a degree of reality andobjectivitythatwemightevenspeakofanexcessofreality,whichleavesusfarmoreanxiousanddisconcertedthanthelackofit.(2008,65)

Iwanttoturnatthispointinthediscussiontotheconceptofhyperreality.Thisistheeffectof the gigantic enterprise of disillusionment. Baudrillard tells us the reality hypothesiscontinuestobeproppedup,thoughinlessthanstraightforwardways,bytheorderofthehyperreal.Thehyperrealisarepresentationallogicinwhichtherealemergesasexcess,ormore real than the real.Thevariation in this formulation fromMassumi’s formulaof themore-than-real is important. In contrast with Deleuze’s expressionist dualism, whichconsists, as I have stated, of the virtual and actual, Baudrillard posits the hyperreal,wherebytherealexceedsitsownprincipleofobjectivity.

Simulation 2: Hyperreality ‘Therealdoesnot’,Baudrillard tellsus, ‘efface itself in favourof the imaginary; iteffacesitselfinfavourofthemorerealthanreal:thehyperreal.Thetruerthantrue’(1990b,11).Thecompulsivefascinationwithauthenticityandwhat isrealbecomeshyperbolicwithinthe orders of the hyperreal. The hyperreal, or hyperbolic real, can be found in thefascination with so-called superfoods, in the vitamin supplement that contains twelveorangesworthofvitaminC, inso-called ‘lifehacks’, inthediscoursesofsecuritisation(inwhich terrain is securedandmadepredictable through theapplicationofpredeterminedschemas), in opinion polls, in the continual appeal to nature and the natural, and in the

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

19

authenticityoftheartist,thepolitician,theItalianrestaurant,craftbeer,andsoon.Ineach,the ambivalent object disappears and is replaced by the calculable, meaningful, andprofitableobjectformoflatecapitalism.

Tobeprecise, the hyperreal is characterisedby the repetition-compulsion to perpetuatereality,tocontinuallyrealisethe‘thisis’.Thiscompulsion,however,unleashesanimplosivelogic. As reality is more andmore realised it becomes excessive and, paradoxically, theobjectivity of reality (the reality principle) is cast aside. The crucial point is that in thehyperreal situation the referential outside, that objective representation both posits andaimstomirror,isfoldedbackintorepresentationitself.Representationnolongermirrorsthereal.At thesametime, thedisappearanceof therealityprinciple isconcealed.This iswhatgivesrisetothefascinationwithreality.Thehyperrealactsasthoughthelossofthereality principle has not happened. As Baudrillard puts it: the ‘terms “simulacra” [and]“simulation” ... summarise this liquidation [of every possible value], in which everysignification is eliminated in its own sign, and the profusion of signs parodies a by nowunobtainablereality’(2010,35).Thismeansthattheperfectedrealityofthehyperrealcanappear tobeunheimlich [unhomely], touse the languageofFreud.Thehyperreal canbeunsettling, and this is not because it is strange but rather because it is a reality that isexperienced as genuine and real when it is merely a simulation. Hyperreality is tooproximatetoreality;itismorerealthanreal.

Exemplaryof this isPeterWeir’s film,TheTrumanShow(1998). Itwouldbetemptingtoread the film as a cynical statement about the rise of reality TV, in which a producer,Christof(EdHarris),enslavesanunwittingcharacter,TrumanBurbank(JimCarey),intheconstructed townof Seahaven.Unawarehe isbeingwatchedbymillionsof viewers, andthatthepeopleheencountersonadailybasisareactors,Trumanliveswhathethinksisanordinary middle-class suburban life. The audience is fascinated by Truman’s authenticresponses to thehighlycontrivedsituationsheencounters.However,amomentarises inwhichitoccurstoTrumanthattherealityinwhichhelivesseemsstrange.Thisisbecauseits everyday rhythms seem too regular, too perfect. This moment of unhomelinessprecipitatesaseriesofencounterswithhisentrapment,untilhefinallydiscoversthetruthabouthisconstructedworldandmanagestoescape.TheTVaudiencerapturouslyapplaudshisescapeandthen,predictably,quicklylosesinterest.Theaudienceitselfismerelycaughtupinthemediaspectacle.Whatthefilmrevealsisthatitispreciselytheexcessofrealitythatmarksthehyperrealanditsunheimlicheffects.Butthemostcrucialpointisstatedbytheproducer,Christof.BeforeTrumanescapesthroughthedoortotherealityoutsidetheTVstudio,Christofinsightfullypleads,‘there’snomoretruthouttherethanthereisintheworld I created foryou’ and, ‘you [Truman]were real.That’swhatmadeyousogood towatch’. Here, The Truman Show takes a more radical turn than The Matrix films. TheoutsideisnolesscontrivedthantherealityTVstudio,andifauthenticityistobefoundit,

Brett Nicholls

20

paradoxically, comes in the form of Truman being blissfully unaware of the simulatednatureof the town.Christof’s plea reveals the truthof the system.Authenticitydoesnotneed a real reality to function. In fact, the implicationof Christof’s insightful plea is thatauthenticityitselfismoreachievableinhissimulatedworldthantherealworldoutside.

IsitnotpreciselyTrump’slackofpresidentialityandpoliticalexperiencethatmakeshimamorerealpresident?ThescandalofTrumpisnotthathepervertstherealdimensionsoftheoffice(asifthisdimensionactuallyexists),anditisnotthisperversionitselfthatmakeshis presidency more real (as if there is such a dimension to pervert). CNN’s DeanObeidallah misses the crucial point when he declares, ‘we deserve a president who isthoughtful, informedand focusedonworking for allAmericans. InsteadwehaveTrump,who seems preoccupiedwith creating a televised spectacle’ (2017). The crucial point isthat the televised spectacle has long been a key feature of the presidency.What Trumpreveals is the centrality of this spectacle. AsBaudrillardpoints out, ‘all thosewhooutdothemselves with arrogance (Le Pen), cynicism (Le Lay), pornography (Abu Ghraib),mythomania (Marie L.) unmask the truth of the system in their abuse of it’ (2010, 39).SurelyTrump(corporatechauvinism)outdoeshimselfinthesamemannerandrevealsthetruthofthesystem.Trumpunmasksthespectacleandrevealsthatthereisnothingbeneathit.

Fromtheperspectiveofsocialtheory,theproblemofpoliticsasspectacleisalltoofamiliar.Žižek argues that contemporary capitalist culture is marked by the ideological slippagebetween knowledge and belief. Through processes of displacement and fetishisation,subjectssupplementknowledgewithbelief.Arguingfora‘newwaytoreadMarx’sformula“theydonotknowit,buttheyaredoingit”’(2008,29-30),Žižekexplainsthat,unlikeMarx,

theillusionisnotonthesideofknowledge,itisalreadyonthesideofsocialreality itself, ofwhat the people are doing.What they do not know is thattheir social reality itself, their activity, is guided by the illusion which isstructuringtheirreality, theirrealsocialactivity.Theyknowverywellhowthingsreallyare,butstilltheyaredoingasiftheydidnotknow.(ibid.)

This iswhybelief,Žižekmaintains, iscrucial.Subjectswithincapitalismtend toconsiderobjects as meaningful even when they objectively know that the object cannot possiblymeaninthisway.Thisisbecause,Žižektellsus,subjectsfetishiseobjects.Theobjectdoestheworkofmeaningforus,evenifweknowthismeaningisnotpossible.Inthisprocessagencyisdisplaced.TheTrumpsupporters,citedabove,canclearlybeunderstoodinthisway.TheyknowTrump is factually incorrectyet theysupporthimanyway!Fetishisationproduces strange phenomena such as coffee without caffeine, nutrition without food,exercise equipment that produces no pain, household cleaning products that eliminatework,apresidentwithoutapoliticalcareer,andsoon.Thecrucialpointisthatsubstances,

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

21

suchasdecaffeinatedcoffee,arestrippedoftheiractualityyetstillfunctionintheformofreality.

Thefetishisedobjectmayseemtrivialinrelationtodecaffeinatedcoffee.Inthecontextofpolitics,however,itproducesdetrimentaleffects.Forinstance,ratherthanengageinactualpolitical action that produces substantive change, subjects prefer, it would seem,expressingpoliticalopinionthroughsocialmedia.Hereagencyisdisplacedontothesocialmedia object, as if this object itselfwill do all of the politicalwork (Dean 2009, 31-42).Similarly,politiciansandcelebritiesbecomefetishobjectswhentheyspeakoutagainstthesystem.Thisspeakingoutsuggeststhatpolitics iswellunderway,andthepublicneeddonothingsincethesystem,aseveryoneknows,isbeingchallenged.Inthiswayofthinking,Trump is a fetishisedobject.Wemight thus say, alongwithPeterGordon, thatTrump is‘justanothername for theculture industry’ (2017,52).Thismeans ‘Trumpism, though itmasquerades as society’s rebellion against its own unfreedom, represents not an actualrebellion but the standardization of rebellion’ (ibid.). The standarization of rebellionmanifests in the ‘punchy sound bites [of journalists] and outraged tweets, and thepolarised, standardised reflection of opinion into forms of humor and theatricalisedoutragewithinnarrownichemarkets’(50).Trumpismisthusfetishisationparexcellence.

Just as decaffeinated coffee is coffee without caffeine, social media and other forms ofopinion, are democratic expressions without politics. Žižek thus usefully points to thedetrimental ideological effects of the compulsion for objects to bemeaningful, but, fromBaudrillard’s perspective, this doesnot go far enough. If for Žižek a political unreality isproduced through the fetishism of the interpassive subject, for Baudrillard the seemingunreality of politics is a feature of hyperreality. From this perspective, the problem ofdecaffeinatedcoffee, ifweuse thisasanexemplar, is less that it isa fetishisedcopyofapost facto original, as it is for Žižek, than this coffee unsettles this relationship. The keypoint is that the collapse of the real and copy results from the representational systemdrawn up around the commodity form. The consumer thus drinks, as all marketing ofdecaffeinatedcoffeehas it,acoffee just likeregularcoffeeexceptwithoutall thecaffeine.Forourpurposes, thismeans thatasopposed tobeingmarkedby theabsenceof reality,which the fetish compensates for, decaffeinated coffee is a formof reality that claims toharbour no sense of loss, lack or gap. This is the hyperreal. The coffee ought to beexperiencedascoffeeeventhough it isnotcoffee in itsoriginal form.Weshouldnote,aswell, that this does not mean that coffee in its original form literally ceases to exist.However,theoriginalbecomesirrelevantsincethe‘copyisnolongeracopy’(Baudrillard2005, 68). Baudrillard’s point is that the original is no longer necessary for what isconsidered tobe,whatought tobe, a real rather than fakeexperience. In fact, simulatedcoffee might possibly become the model against which the authentic taste of coffee isdefined.From thisperspective,decaffeinatedcoffee isa simulation that is,perhaps, even

Brett Nicholls

22

more real than the real (the authentic taste and thebenefits of antioxidantswithout theeffectsofcaffeine!).

Thecorrectformulaisthusnotthecynical‘theyknowitbuttheyaredoingitanyway’,itisthe anxious ‘they may or may not know it, at any rate it must be authentic’. In theBaudrillardianformula,theauthenticiscompulsivelyposited(‘must’isreadherenotasaformofknowledge,as‘is’,butastheimperative,shouldbe).Baudrillardcontends,infact,thattheoriginal,ultimatelyendsupbecomingtoolimitingforthefreecirculationofsignsandcommodities.Theoriginalgets in thewayof theauthenticity that isproduced in themorerealthanrealhyperreal.Hewrites:

…we immediately substitute a copy – the only version appropriate to ouruniverse, where every original constitutes a potential danger and allsingularity runs the risk of hindering the free circulation of value. … Wesecretlyprefernottobeconfrontedwiththeoriginalanylonger(1994b,75,76).

The illusionŽižek locates on the sideof belief, as opposed to knowledge, thusmakesnosense in the Baudrillardian formula. For Baudrillard, the key point is that despitesimulation,andevenpossiblybecauseofit,practicesareconsideredtobereal.Thismeansthat any slippagebetweenknowledgeof theoriginal, if Imaybepermitted toput it thisway, and the fetishbelief, or the copy, collapses.AsBaudrillardputs it, ‘it is not illusionwhichconcealsreality.Itisrealitywhichconcealsthefactthatthereisnone’(1997b,90).

It is precisely the disturbed relationship between the original and copy that helps usunderstandthephenomenonofTrumpism.AsIhavesuggested,Trumprevealsthetruthofthe system. Politics today is not grounded in an immutable reality. This claim does notmean,Imustpointout,thatTrumpissomehowdefendableandredeemable.Afterall,doeshenot showus the truthof the system!And it alsodoesnotmean thatwemight argue,along with Žižek, that Trump is muchmore preferable than what would have been theduplicitousinertiaofClinton(Žižek2016).TheclaimhereisthatthevirtueofTrump,ifanycanbefound,isthathemightpossibly ‘awaken’thefracturedleft.Inotherwords,heisatrue enemy, a real (in the sense of rupture) producer of antagonism. If we take theperspective of Baudrillard, the key point, one that might overlap with Žižek, is thatTrumpismtakestheformofobscenity.However,inthecurrentconjuncturethisobscenitydoesnotopenupthepotentialforatruerformofleftpolitics.WhatthescandalofTrumpdoesopenup is theshiftingterrainof thehyperreal.Therearekeyaspectsof theTrumpphenomenon that suggest a deeper analysis is required, one that cannot simply beundertaken via concepts of the hyperreal. We now need to turn to a discussion onBaudrillard’saccountofintegralreality,ashecallsit.

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

23

Beyond Simulation: Integral Reality (and to Conclude with the Problem of Trumpism) GrapplingwithBaudrillard’scomplexconceptsisliketryingtoputajigsawpuzzletogetherwithpiecesthatdon’tfit.Thisisnothelpedbyhisdireconclusionsaboutthedangersofthewidespread fascinationwith reality, which seem to be purposefully overstated. AsMikeGanesuggests, ‘Baudrillard isoneof theveryfewthinkerstohavetakenAlthusser’sownconception of philosophy at all seriously’ (2015, 28). This he explains, citing Althusser,comesintheformofaninjunctionto‘thinkinextremes...whichmeanswithinapositionfromwhich one states borderline theses, or, tomake thought possible, one occupies theplace of the impossible’ (ibid.). As such, we can read Baudrillard as an extreme thinkerattempting to shake critical thought away from its complacency with respect to thedisappearanceofthereal.

I want to turn now to consider post-truth and Trumpism more closely, in the light ofBaudrillard’s statements about integral reality. It would be tempting to understand theTrumpism scandal as a clash between postmodern hyperreality and objective reality.However,Ithinkthismissesthemark.Trumpismhasemergedinacontextinwhichrealityis troubled.The fact thatnewspapersannounce this inprecisely these terms—as in therecentGuardianheadline, ‘In the heat of the political battle, objective reality is having atoughrun’(Lewis,2017)—isaclearindicationthattherealityisundersiege.IfwefollowtheTwitterstormandpunditopinionpieces,withwhichthecurrentdiscussionbegins,theclear solution is to speak truth to power. Facts, it would seem, serve as a corrective toungrounded and corrosive effects of post-truth and the Trump regime. This correctivestrategy,however,misses themark,andperhapsevendeepens thebattle lines thathavebeen produced by the troubling of the reality principle. My contention, followingBaudrillard,isthatTrumpismexposestheungroundednatureofthepoliticalsystemitself.

WhatTrumpmakesexplicithas longbeenthecase—presidentiality is inseparable frommedia spectacle (Kellner 2005). In fact, even the notion that actually existing politics isunderpinnedbyanobjectiverelationtoaworldoffacts,asopposedtoideology,haslongbeenchallenged(Edelman1988,Debord1967).Moreover,Trumpalsomakesexplicitthedirect link between the White House and corporate capitalism. Rather than operatingthrough themore opaque and indirect route of career politicians, capital has now takendirectcontrol.Theopaquenessofbehindthesceneslobbyingandpartydonations,andthecorresponding political lip service declaring governance for all, has given way to thetransparencyandobscenityofTrump, thecorporatechauvinist. Iwant toargue that thisshiftfromtheopaquetothetransparentisasymptomofintegralreality.Ofcourse,inthespecific caseofTrump it couldbe that this shift is bynomeanspermanent.Theopaqueroute of capital could possibly be re-established, no doubtwith triumphant declarationsthatTrumpwasanaberration,everything isnowbacktonormal,andthere isnothingto

Brett Nicholls

24

see here. Nevertheless, Trumpism, I think, provides us with an important glimpse of apossibleobscenecorporatefuture,whichmayalreadyexist.

Integralrealitystemsfrom,whatIhavebeencallingtherealitycompulsion.Theproductionof reality has been so successful that a condition emerges in which it becomes tooexcessive.Therealityprincipleis,ultimately,Baudrillardmaintains,overbearingandlifeinafully-realisedworldendsupbeingintolerable.WecouldsaythattheunhomelinessofTheTrumanShowisageneralconditionofeverydaylife.Asheputsit, ‘wecannolongerbearthisworld,whichissopreytoreality,exceptbywayofaradicaldenial.Andthisislogical:sincetheworldcannolongerbejustifiedinanotherworld,ithastobejustifiedhereandnowinthisonebylendingitselfforceofreality,bypurgingitselfofanyillusion’(2005,26).Theonlywaytodealwiththesheerweightoftherealityprincipleistoeliminateit.Thisisaccomplished,asBaudrillardprovocativelyargues,throughthe‘murderofthesign’(2005,67).

If in simulation the referent – reality – is a compulsively produced effect of the sign, inintegralrealitytheillusionofreferencedisappearsaltogetherandthesignitselfbecomesthe referent. Today we have lost, he maintains, ‘the sign and artifice and are left withabsolutereality’ (2005,67).Whatthismeans is that insteadofstanding in foranoutsideobject,asinrealityandhyperreality,thesignitselfendsupbecomingtheobject.Inotherwords,theartificeofreferentiallythatcharacterisedthesignhasbeeneliminated.Allthatremains is a functional, instrumental sign, or, perhaps more accurately, the virtual orinformational sign. With integral reality, crisis gives way to the relentless positiveproductionofmeaning.Thesignnolongersimulatesadualrelationshipwiththereferent,itisthereferent.Theworldisthuscompletelyprogrammable.Init‘everythingisrealisedand technically materialised without reference to any principle or final purpose’(Baudrillard1993b,18).Baudrillardwrites:

We have found ourselves confrontedwith the undertaking of realising theworld,ofmakingitbecometechnically,integrallyreal.Now,theworld,evenfreed from all illusion, does not lend itself at all to reality. The more weadvance in this undertaking, the more ambiguous it becomes, the more itloses sight of itself. Reality has barely had time to exist and already it isdisappearing(2005,17).

The crucial point here is that it is not Trumpism’s fakeness or authenticity that is theproblem.Against the assumptions of his supporters, Trump is not a cynical subjectwhoblusters in public and then performs realwork behind the scenes (thiswould surely bepreferable).Thereisnothing,notrueself,behindtheTrumpmask.Hispronouncementsdonotrefertoareferent,theyarethethingitself.Heisconvincedthatthereisnodistinctionbetween what is pronounced and reality. In fact, reality and pronouncement, from this

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

25

perspective,areoneandthesame.Thisisthelogicatworkincorporatechauvinism.Trumpresidesintheworldofbigbusinessandfinancecapital,aworldinwhichrealityisroutinelyconstructed in image management and corporate branding (Klein 2010), investorconfidence(Lazzarato2014),and‘thinkinglikeabillionaire’.AsTrumpexplains:

[in]aworldofmorethansixbillionpeople, thereareonly587billionaires.It’sanexclusiveclub.Wouldyouliketojoinus?Ofcourse,theoddsagainstyouareabouttenmilliontoone.Butifyouthinklikeabillionaire,thoseoddsshouldn’tfazeyouatall.Billionairesdon’tcarewhattheoddsare.Wedon’tlistentocommonsenseordowhat’sconventionalorexpected.Wefollowourvision,nomatterhowcrazyoridioticotherpeoplethinkitis.

Trumpcontinues:

SometimespeoplearesurprisedbyhowquicklyImakebigdecisions,butI’velearned to trust my instincts and not overthink things. ... Whenever I’mmakingacreativechoice, I try tostepbackandremembermyfirstshallowreaction.ThedayIrealiseditcanbesmarttobeshallowwas,forme,adeepexperience.(TrumpandMcIver2005,xiii,xxii)

Leavingasidetheobviousnarcissismhere,thesestatementsrevealthreecrucialaspectsofthesubjectof thiscorporate integralreality.Firstly, this isachauvinistsubject forwhomseemingly insurmountable odds are a motivating challenge. The chances of becoming abillionairearesoslimthatsurelysuchasubjectisthemostuniqueandspecialofall.Andweshouldnotethattheverynotionofoddsitselfreducestheworldofbillionsofpeopletosimplecategories.Thebillionairedoesnotbelongwiththerest.Secondly,thisisasubjectforwhomsoleandvisionary ideasarebothnecessaryandpowerful.The task is toavoidthe trapof compromiseandunwaveringlyconvinceothers that theirvisionary ideasare,indeed,unstoppable.Herethesubjectmustbeafundamentalist,ofsorts.Purgedfromanyillusion they occupy a non-dual relationship with the world. They accept ideas andpracticesthatshoreuptheirvision,andrejectanythingandanyonethatchallengesit,evenexistingrulesandlaws.Andthirdly,thisisatransparentsubjectwhomakesnoapologiesforbeingauniquebillionaire.Theaimtobewealthyisnotcouchedinajustifyingdiscourse(tomaketheworldabetterplace),itisself-justifying.Thereisthusnodistinctionbetweenthe thought of the visionary and the world. The world is and will be as the corporatechauvinist imagines it to be. In fact, corporate image management and branding is an‘elusivetransparency’inwhichitisimpossibletodemarcatethedifferencebetweenimageandworld.Brandingworkswithout ironyviasignswithnoreferent,signsthatno longersimulate. The brand is the image and the image is the brand. For Trump ‘this elusivetransparency, which separates us definitely from the real, is as unintelligible as is the

Brett Nicholls

26

windowpane to the flywhich bangs against itwithout understandingwhat separates itfromtheoutsideworld’(Baudrillard2014,116).

AsIhavesuggested,suchapositionpresentsthornyproblemsforcriticalthought.NaomiKlein(2017)iscorrectwhenshemakesthepointthatTrumpisasuperbrandandsayingno to his regime’s shock tactics is simply not enough. Klein argues that a credible andcaptivating counter-plan, a yes, for the future is both urgent and necessary.WhatmightBaudrillard’sworkcontributetotheshapeofsuchafuture?Firstly,fromtheBaudrillardianperspectivepost-truth andTrumpism is not really a problem concerning a disregard forobjectivefacts(thisisnotsay,asIpointedoutabove,thatfactsarenolongerrelevant).Theproblemrelates,instead,totherealityprincipleitself.Howisitpossiblethatrealitycanbeundersiege?Themostobviousanswertothisisthatrealityhasbeendenied.Thisiswhypost-truth and Trumpism are scandalous. Trump’s disregard for facts has produced apoliticsthatiscaughtupinadangerousillusion,perhapsdelusion,thatthreatensthesocialfabric.However, the counter-intuitive response fromaBaudrillardianperspective is thattheproblemisthatillusionhasbeendispelled.ThescandalofTrumpisthatheisundernoillusionconcerningcorporatepowerand itscapacitytotransformtheworld.Against thislack of illusion facts are a rather weak weapon (just as use-value in Marx is a limitedcritiqueofcapital).

Trump’s non-dual relationshipwith theworld couldbedisruptedby rediscoveringwhatBaudrillard calls the vital illusion. ‘If there is a secret to illusion’ he writes, ‘it involvestakingtheworldfortheworldandnotforitsmodel.Itinvolvesrestoringtotheworldtheformalpowerof illusion,which isprecisely thesameasbecomingagain, inan immanentway, a “thing among things”’ (2008, 90). It is precisely such a restoration that woulddisrupttheWest’s,Trump’s,chauvinistictendencytodominate.Instead,thesubjecttakesupadualrelationshipwithothersandtheworld,rediscoverstheethical,theironic,andtheuncertain play of the imagination. A figure such as Trump would surely be unable toflourishinsuchacontext.

References Anderson,K.2017.‘HowAmericaLostitsMind’.TheAtlantic,September.Accessed1October2017.Availablefromhttps://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/?utm_source=twb

Baudrillard,J.1981.ForaCritiqueofthePoliticalEconomyoftheSign.St.Louis:TelosPress.

Baudrillard,J.1990a.Seduction.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress.

Baudrillard,J.1990b.FatalStrategies.NewYork:Semiotext(e).

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

27

Baudrillard,J.1993a.SymbolicExchangeandDeath.London:Sage.

Baudrillard,J.1993b.TheTransparencyofEvil:EssaysonExtremePhenomena.London:Verso.

Baudrillard,J.1994a.SimulacraandSimulation.Michigan:UniversityofMichiganPress.

Baudrillard,J.1994b.TheIllusionoftheEnd.Cambridge:Polity.

Baudrillard,J.1995.TheGulfWarDidNotTakePlace.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Baudrillard,J.1997a.ArtandArtefact.London:Sage.

Baudrillard,J.1997b.Fragments:CoolMemoriesIII,1991-1995.London:Verso.

Baudrillard,J.2000.TheVitalIllusion.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Baudrillard,J.2005.TheIntelligenceofEvilortheLucidityPact.NewYork:Berg.

Baudrillard,J.2008.ThePerfectCrime.Verso:London.

Baudrillard,J.2009.WhyHasn’tEverythingAlreadyDisappeared.Calcutta:SeagullBooks.

Baudrillard,J.2010.TheAgonyofPower.LosAngeles:Semiotext(e).

Baudrillard,J.2014.ScreenedOut.London:Verso.

Bloom,P.2016.BeyondPowerandResistance:PoliticsattheRadicalLimits.London:Rowman&Littlefield.

Boltanski,L.andE.Chiapello.2005.TheNewSpiritofCapitalism.London:Verso.

Broadbent,A.2017.ApachehelicopterstakeoutTalibanfighters[Videofile].Accessed1September2016.Availablefromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icqJYI3O7qI

Connell,J.2006.‘TheTasteofParadise:SellingFijiandFIJIWater’.AsiaPacificViewpoint.47(3):342–350.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00310.x

Dean,J.2009.DemocracyandOtherNeoliberalFantasies:CommunicativeCapitalismandLeftPolitics.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.

Debord,G.1967.Lasociétéduspectacle:l'extrémismecohérentdesSituationnistes.Paris:BuchetChastel.

Deleuze,G.1990.TheLogicofSense.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Descartes,R.1991.‘LettertoMersenne:16October1639’.InThePhilosophicalWritingsofDescartes,Vol.3.138-40.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dworkin,R.1996.‘ObjectivityandTruth:You’dBetterBelieveit’.PhilosophyandPublicAffairs.25:87–139.

Brett Nicholls

28

Edelman,M.1988.ConstructingthePoliticalSpectacle.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Evans,R.J.[@RichardEvans36].2017.‘IfIamwrong,andpostmodernistdisbeliefintruthdidn’tleadtoourpost-truthage,thenhowdoweexplainthecurrentdisdainforfacts?[Tweet].24January.Accessed20September2017.Availablefromhttps://mobile.twitter.com/RichardEvans36/status/823828364280664065

FijiWater®.nd.‘Fijiwater’.Accessed30August2017.Availablefromhttps://www.fijiwater.com/

Fisher,M.2009.CapitalistRealism:IsTherenoAlternative?.Winchester:ZeroBooks.

Foucault,M.1977.DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthofthePrison.London:PenguinBooks.

Freud,S.1955.TheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSigmundFreud,vol.XVIII.London:TheHogarthPress.

Fuchs,C.2016.ReadingMarxintheInformationAge:AMediaandCommunicationStudiesPerspectiveonCapital,Volume1.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Gane,M.2015.Baudrillard:CriticalandFatalTheory.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Goldman,R.andS.Papson.2015.‘ThePostmodernismthatFailed’,inPostmodernismandSocialInquiry,editedbyD.R.DickensandA.Fontana,224-254.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Gordon,P.E.2017.‘TheAuthoritarianPersonalityRevisited:ReadingAdornointheAgeofTrump’.boundary244(2):31-56.DOI10.1215/01903659-3826618

Haraway,D.1988.‘SituatedKnowledges:TheScienceQuestioninFeminismandthePrivilegeofPartialPerspective’,FeministStudies.14(3):575–599.

Hollo,T.2017.‘ElonMusk'sBigBatteryBringsRealityCrashingintoaPost-TruthWorld”,TheGuardian,7July2017.Accessed24August2017.Availablefromhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/elon-musks-big-battery-brings-reality-crashing-into-a-post-truth-world?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

InstituteonEqualityandDemocracy.2017.‘3TruthsaboutTrumpism’.[Videofile].Accessed23January2017.Availablefromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTnbA-hDxGM&feature=youtu.be

Jones,C.,W.E.MurrayandJ.Overton.2017.‘FIJIWater,WaterEverywhere:GlobalBrandsandDemocraticandSocialInjustice’.AsiaPacificViewpoint,58(1):112–123.doi:10.1111/apv.12144

Kellner,D.2005.MediaSpectacleandtheCrisisofDemocracy:Terrorism,War,andElectionBattles.Boulder:Paradigm.

Klein,N.2010.NoLogo:NoSpace,NoChoice,NoJobs.NewYork:Picador.

MEDIANZ � Vol. 16, No. 2 � 2016

29

Klein,N.2017.NoisNotEnough:DefeatingtheNewShockPolitics.London:AllenLane.

Koch,A.M.andR.Elmore.2006.‘SimulationandSymbolicExchange:JeanBaudrillard’sAugmentationofMarx’sTheoryofValue’.Politics&Policy.34:556–575.doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00028.x

Lazzarato,M.2014.SignsandMachines:CapitalismandtheProductionofSubjectivity.LosAngeles:Semiotext(e).

Lewis,P.2017.‘IntheHeatofthePoliticalBattle,ObjectiveRealityisHavingaToughRun’.TheGuardian:InternationalEdition.26September.Accessed28September,2017.Availablefromhttps://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/26/in-the-heat-of-the-political-battle-objective-reality-is-having-a-tough-run?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Marx,K.1990.Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy.Vol.1.NewYork:Penguin.

Massumi,B.1987.‘RealerthanReal:TheSimulacrumAccordingtoDeleuzeandGuattari’.Copyright1:90-97.Accessed25January2017.Availablefromhttp://www.brianmassumi.com/textes/REALER%20THAN%20REAL.pdf

Miles,S.2001.SocialTheoryintheRealWorld.London:Sage.

Morton,T.2011.‘HereComesEverything:ThePromiseofObject-OrientedOntology’.QuiParle,19(2):163-190.

Negri,A.2007.ThePoliticalDescartes:Reason,IdeologyandtheBourgeoisProject.London:Verso.

Nyhan,B.,E.Porter,J.Reifler,andT.Wood.2017.‘TakingCorrectionsLiterallybutNotSeriously?TheEffectsofInformationonFactualBeliefsandCandidateFavorability’.SSRNPapers.Accessed21September2017.Availablefromhttps://ssrn.com/abstract=2995128

Obeidallah,D.2017.‘WeDeserveBetterthanTrump'sPresidentialRealityShow’.CNN:InternationalEdition.30July.Accessed1September2017.Availablefromhttp://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/30/opinions/trump-reality-show-opinion-obeidallah/index.html

Phelan,S.2014.Neoliberalism,MediaandthePolitical.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan

Popper,K.1959.TheLogicofScientificDiscovery.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Russell,B.1971.ProblemsofPhilosophy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Simmel,G.1950.TheSociologyofGeorgSimmel.NewYork:TheFreePress.

Smith,A.1776.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations.London:W.StrahanandTCadell.

Sokal,A.andJ.Bricmont.1998.FashionableNonsense:PostmodernIntellectuals’AbuseofScience.NewYork:Picador.

Brett Nicholls

30

Swaine,J.2017.‘DonaldTrump’sTeamDefends“AlternativeFacts”afterWidespreadProtests’.TheGuardian.23January.Accessed25January2017.Availablefromhttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-inauguration-alternative-facts

Tertrais,B.[@BrunoTertrais].2017.‘HowpostmodernismandFrenchintellectualspavedthewayfor“post-truth”and“alt-facts”’.[Tweet]3April.Accessed4April2017.Availablefromhttps://twitter.com/BrunoTertrais?lang=en

Tomšič’,S.2015.TheCapitalistUnconscious:MarxandLacan.London:Verso.

Trump,D.andM.McIver.2005.Trump:ThinklikeaBillionaire:EverythingyouNeedtoKnowaboutSuccess,RealEstate,andLife.NewYork:BallantineBooks.

Tyson,N.D.[@neiltyson].2017.‘Idreamofaworldwherethetruthiswhatshapespeople'spolitics,ratherthanpoliticsshapingwhatpeoplethinkistrue’[Tweet].24January.Accessed3April2017.Availablefromhttps://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/823901333703032833

Weir,P.1998.TheTrumanShow.ParamountPictures/ScottRudinProductions,USA.

Williamson,B.2017.‘RealAustraliansSayWelcomeCreatorPeterDrewReturnswith‘AboriginalLand’ConversationStarter’.ABCNews.29January.Accessed1June2017.Availablefromhttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/real-australians-say-welcome-creator-peter-drew-returns/8222654

Žižek,S.2008.TheSublimeObjectofIdeology.London:Verso.

Žižek,S.2016.‘SlavojŽižekWouldVoteforTrump’.[Videofile].Accessed1September2017.Availablefromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA