Race and Difference

• Commented on Habeeba Rasools weblog

This lecture was based around Baudrillard. We first looked at Baudrillard, with William Pawlett, in terms of terrorism, which linked in with Meena’s lecture on race and difference. William explained the laws of value and its 3 levels that Baudrillard uses: Sign exchange, Economic exchange, and Symbolic exchange. He further claimed that sign exchange is predominant in consumer society, as this is the new level of control through signs and images which predefines us or even places us in a social category. These signs are profound, being that they psychological ‘trick us’. He used the example of McDonald’s incorporating the colour green to manipulate the public into thinking it is healthy. As green is commonly associated with being fresh, healthy and environmental friendly – this is in fact far from reality. He explicitly claims ‘affluence and violence go together; they have to be analysed together’ (Baudrillard C.S.1970:175). In this way the signs of violence are signs to be consumed i.e. cinema, news etc. Society loves to watch gore, but yet when it happens in real life it is frowned upon – but this violence ultimately is ‘uncontrollable, unobjectless, aimless violence.

More specifically he argues that terrorism mirrors the consumer society because the consumer society predefines freedom/liberation for women – not taking in consideration that white women maybe be different to that of say Iraqi women etc. Women terrorist in particular refuse this sign made by the western media.

According to Baudrillard ‘racism does not exist so long as the other remains the other’. Habeeba I think that you are right in your view in that other can not remain the other and that even if they did racism would still be a problem. In post-industrial societies thing is impossible, although we may be the same biologically (if that’s how you want to justify ‘equality’) the truth remains that our cultures, religions, race etc define us to a large degree. However, I do believe in, Baudrillard’s ‘foreignness and seduction’, that for one to understand the ‘other’ one must engage and play an active part in the ‘others’ life, so that the other is no longer the ‘other’ but their own.

Personally, I take a communitarian standpoint that your background is very important in determined not only your personal identity but your future. I do not think that the ‘equality’ that the law, order and consumerism sets are prompting people to learn about all the other different kinds of ‘others’ but the law in the west (which is most ‘Multicultural’). This quote by Hayek (Sandel, 1984) bring this to light, ‘it should treat all people alike, the desire of making people more alike in their conditions can not be accepted in free society.

Check out the link below. It focuses on all kinds of issues about race: biological, historical, geographical…There is also a survey to see what nationalities are ‘white’. Have a go and see how many you get right. Guck luck! http://www.understandingrace.org/home.html