Общество потребления

by Jean Baudrillard

Жан Бодрийяр (1929 – 2007) – изобретатель терминов "гиперреальность" и "симулякр", "великий провокатор" современной философии, автор произведений, совершенно изменивших само отношение к жизни современного общества, один из самых значимых мыслителей эпохи постмодернизма, которого, собственно, многие исследователи считают ни более ни менее как "отцом-создателем" постмодернистской философии. Политика и экономика, культура и масс-медиа, искусство и даже мода – вот лишь немногое, на что, вольно или невольно, удалось радикально повлиять Бодрийяру.

Общество потребления – общество самообмана. Общество, которое гонится за бессмысленной и бессознательной иллюзией счастья. Общество, в котором сама необходимость потребления давно уже стала иррациональной самоцелью, "индустрия красоты" приравняла женское тело к "товару", а "философия успеха" обесценивает человеческую индивидуальность.

Работа Жана Бодрийяра, вышедшая в 1970 году, в буквальном смысле взорвала мироощущение молодых интеллектуалов всего мира. Абсолютную справедливость этой книги ежедневно доказывает в наше время сама жизнь современных цивилизованных стран – с ее дауншифтингом и "осознанным потреблением", неприятием "культа роскоши", возвращением к нематериальным ценностям, расцветом феминизма и даже медленной смертью "индустрии высокой моды" и "индустрии красоты".

Genres: Philosophy, Sociology, Nonfiction, Theory, Politics, Economics, Society

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Jean Baudrillard was a French sociologist, philosopher and poet, with interest in cultural studies. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as hyperreality. Baudrillard wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, critique of economy, social history, aesthetics, Western foreign policy, and popular culture. Among his most well-known works are Seduction (1978), Simulacra and Simulation (1981), America (1986), and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991). His work is frequently associated with postmodernism and specifically post-structuralism. Nevertheless, Baudrillard had also opposed post-structuralism, and had distanced himself from postmodernism.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This guy is perhaps best known for having said that the Gulf War never happened or having one of his books read by Neo in the first Matrix film. I’ve finished the bit of that book I wanted to read too – and will probably review it soon as well. But this one was a bit of a surprise to me. I was expecting it to be, well, you know, a bit nutty. And it is anything but.

This is a slamming together – or perhaps a ‘talking back to’ a range of sociologists, economists and philosophers. Firstly, Marx, but also Galbraith, Riesman, Saussure and Freud. This book covers a lot of ground – but its main message is relatively simple.

Let’s start with Marx. To Marx commodities have two attributes that he wants to distinguish immediately – their use-value and their exchange-value. In the life and death stakes of existence bread has more use-value than gold in virtually all circumstances. Some people can go their whole life without ever having touched gold, whereas doing without bread is much less likely. That said, there are very few occasions when bread has a higher exchange-value than gold. Marx’s explanation for this discrepancy is related to his theory of value – not that gold is ‘rarer’ than bread, which would just mean the problem is one of demand and supply, but rather that more human labour needs to go into retrieving a certain quantity of gold compared to a certain quantity of bread, and it is the quantity of labour contained within the commodity that determines its value.

This distinction between use-value and exchange-value is focused on throughout this book. This is the main criticism that is levelled against Galbraith, particularly Galbraith’s Affluent Society. Baudrillard wants to argue that there is no such thing as an affluent society – that such a thing is impossible when a society is based on commodity production. And this is mostly because commodities are not ‘use-values’ but rather symbols that enter into exchanges and gain their ‘value’ by their relative rarity – that is, precisely the opposite of what Marx claimed. Nevertheless, what is interesting here is that both Marx and Baurdrillard are focused on ‘exchange-value’ and not use-value. Galbraith sought to define capitalism as an affluent society by focusing on use-values. If Capitalism could meet all of the ‘needs’ of humans – and in terms of absolute poverty, capitalist society has certainly done this in spades – then if people would simply moderate their desires, as a society, capitalism can provide abundance.

But Baudrillard attacks this argument at exactly this point. Capitalism doesn’t remove needs, it creates them. Capitalism can only exist on the basis of accelerating growth – but growth is only possible if capitalism generates desires and wants. In doing so it does not create abundance or affluence, but rather penury, and this, ironically enough, in the midst of abundance. It is impossible that capitalism could ever provide a truly affluent society, its only means of continued existence, and this is definitional, is to endlessly provide discontentment. There can be no point when people say, under capitalism, ‘enough’. Growth is the defining motive force of capitalism and ‘enough’ would kill growth.

And this is where Saussure comes in. For Saussure there can be no true synonyms in a language. Language is a system of differences. Words get their meanings from their not being other words. It is because cat is different to dog that we need both words and both words only have meaning because they slice off part of the world from that which is sliced off by the other word. If this were not the case we would have no need for both words, but to understand any words we need to understand how all words relate to one another – even the ones that have not been used in a particular sentence, as why we choose one word over another is equally important.

What has that got to do with commodities and the consumer society? Well, for Baudrillard commodities are also in a very similar relationship as words are to each other in that large system of meaning we call language. Commodities are not defined by their use-value, but rather their exchange-value – and that exchange is a kind of symbolic exchange. He doesn’t quite want to say that we are defined by the commodities we choose – he actually wants to say much, much more than this – it wants to say that this is actually a very dialectical process, one in which we are both defined by the commodities that we choose, but also that we are almost forced by these commodities to choose them. We are not the entirely free agents that capitalism presents us as – but rather, we are also what Galbraith says of us, encouraged endlessly to buy the latest thing so as to become what we truly are. This idea from advertising that we need to buy things to become what we have always already been is played with throughout this book and is such a constant in advertising that it is a wonder how we seem to constantly fall for this particular three-card trick. To be ourselves we need to change and the means to the change that makes us finally truly ourselves is the commodity which seeks to sell our true selves to ourselves.

There are endless paradoxes and contradictions involved in all this. Not least is the lovely French term that is used here, ‘recycling’ – that is, what has become known as ‘life-long-learning’. Not only do we need to constantly be on the lookout for the latest iPhone or jacket and shoes that will alert everyone to who we really are, but to truly be ourselves we can only achieve that by constantly upgrading ourselves in all senses – learn new skills, have a sexier body, buy a faster car, even if the speed limits never allow you to drive at anywhere near the car’s capabilities. The point isn’t need, isn’t use-value, it is status, it is exchange-value, it is symbolic representation and conspicuous display in a society defined by competition.

There is a wonderful part of this where he discusses Riesman’s idea of ‘other-direction’ from The Lonely Crowd – but again we are immersed in paradoxes. We are now in a world of ‘services’ – where even the most mundane product has been carefully designed with YOU in mind. You are the centre and reason for everything. So much effort has gone into finding out what your real needs are and how the product can strive to meet those needs. Except that you are other directed – not just in keeping up with the Jones’s, but also in not standing out from the crowd too much. In the grand competition that is finding distinction within society, even that distinction needs to be contained within constraints. It is the top of society who decide fashions, and they do this on the basis of the most exclusive commodities, but once they have set these fashions the rest of us imitate them for some of their distinction to rub off on us. There is a story told here (who knows if it is true) of an employee being sacked because he bought the same model car as his boss. Symbols matter, we are told, and usurping your betters in the symbolic race that is car purchases disturbs that natural order.

There are statistics that are used early in this to show that lower class and upper class people don’t really spend all that much more than each other on say food. But that this isn’t true of other ‘luxuries’, such as housing or vacations. We are less interested in ‘meeting our needs’ than in ‘displaying our distinction’ and we do this in so many ways. He points out that even our holidays – when we think we are most free and mostly ‘doing nothing’ is actually a form of conspicuous consumption of time. Free time is anything but, and how it is spent is yet another means of asserting distinction.

The thing that really surprised me about this book is that it was first published in 1970. So many of the themes and ideas – about life-long learning or obesity – seem so much more recent issues. This book feels much more ‘recent’ than it actually is.

Some quotes:

Strictly speaking, the humans of the age of affluence are surrounded not so much by other human beings, as they are in all previous ages, but by objects. Page 25

We live by object time: by this I mean that we live at the pace of objects, live to the rhythm of their ceaseless succession. Page 25

‘Affluence’ is, in effect, merely the accumulation of the signs of happiness. Page 31

So we live, sheltered by signs, in the denial of the real. Page 34

Now, it seems that this ‘redistribution’ has little effect on social discrimination at all levels. Page 37

Does the flourishing mineral water industry permit us to speak of a real increase in ‘affluence’ since, to a large extent, it is merely a response to the deficient quality of urban water? Page 39

Tell me what you throw away and I’ll tell you who you are! Page 42

It is generally the same people who maintain the myth of the inevitable coming of affluence who deplore waste Page 43

This is why destruction remains the fundamental alternative to production: consumption is merely an intermediate term between the two. Page 47

Happiness has to be measureable. Page 49

All men are equal before need and before the principle of satisfaction, since all mean are equal before the use-value of objects and goods (whereas they are unequal and divided before exchange-value). Page 50

Equilibrium is the ideal fantasy of economists which is contradicted, if not by the very logic of society as a condition, then at least by all known forms of social organisation. Every society produces differentiation, social discrimination, and that structural organisation is based on the use and distribution of wealth (among other things). Page 53

The view that the system survives on disequilibrium and structural penury, that its logic is totally ambivalent, and that it is so not mere conjuncturally but structurally. The system only sustains itself by producing wealth and poverty, by producing as many dissatisfactions as satisfactions, as much nuisance as ‘progress’. Page 55

Knowledge and power are, or are going to become, the two great scarce commodities of our affluent societies. Page 57

Objects are less important today that space and the social marking of space. Page 57

The difference in expenditure between workers and senior managers on essential goods is 100:135, but it is 100:245 on household equipment, 100:305 on transport and 100:390 on leisure. Page 58

The ‘right to clean air’ signifies the loss of clean air as a natural good, its transition to commodity status and its inegalitarian social redistribution. Page 58

It is their constellation, their configuration, the relation to these objects and their overall social ‘perspective’ which alone have a meaning. And that meaning is always a distinctive one. Page 59

The consumer experiences his distinctive behaviours as freedom, as aspiration, as choice. His experiences is not one of being forced to be different, of obeying a code. Page 61

It is within the upper echelons of society, as a reaction against the loss of earlier distinctive markers, that innovation takes place, in order to restore social distance. Page 63

One of the contradictions of growth is that it produces goods and needs at the same time. Page 63

The industrial system itself, which presupposes the growth of needs, also presupposes a perpetual excess of needs over the supply of goods. Page64

The strategic value of advertising – and also its trick – is precisely this: that it targets everyone in their relation to others, in their hankerings after reified social prestige. Page 64

All this defines the growth society as the opposite of an affluent society. Page 65

It is our social logic which condemns us to luxurious and spectacular penury. Page 68

Or, to put it sociologically, a particular individual is a member of a particular group because he consumes particular goods, and he consumes particular goods because he is a member of a particular group. Page 70

Man only became an object of science for man when automobiles became harder to sell than to manufacture. Page 72

The consumer is sovereign in a jungle of ugliness where freedom of choice has been forced upon him. Page 72

The circulation, purchase, sale, appropriation and differentiated good and signs/objects today constitute our language, our code, the code by which the entire society communicates and converses. Pages 79-80

Consumerist man (I’homme-consommateur) regards enjoyment as an obligation. Page 80

It is important to grasp that this personalization, this pursuit of status and social standing, are all based on signs. Page 90

Kitsch is the equivalent of the ‘cliché’ in speech. Page110

The machine was the emblem of industrial society. The gadget is the emblem of post-industrial society. Page 111

Advertising is based on a different kind of verification, that of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Page 127

The body is a cultural fact. Page 129

The female body as privileged vehicle of Beauty, Sexuality and managed Narcissism. Page 136

(half of the money spent on medicines is on non-prescription items, and this goes even for those covered by the welfare system). What prompts such behaviour other than the deep-seated belief that it has to cost you something (and it is enough that it costs you something) for health to be yours in exchange? This is ritual, sacrificial consumption rather than medication. Page 140

Much more than in hygiene, it is in the ascetic practice of ‘dieting’ that the aggressive drive against the body is to be seen, a drive ‘liberated’ at the same time as the body itself. Page 142

An American study has shown that 300 adolescent girls out of 446 are on a diet. Page 142

It is estimated that 30 million Americans either are, or believe themselves to be, obese. Page 143

Everything offered for consumption has a sexual coefficient. Page 144

Thus, the whole of advertising and modern erotics are made up of signs, not of meaning. Page 148

Leisure is a collective vocation. Page 156

Objects no long serve a purpose; first and foremost they serve you. Page159

This huge system of solicitude is based on a total contradiction. Not only can it not mask the iron law of market society, the objective truth of social relations, which is competition. Page 162

The tired pupil is the one who passively goes along with what the teacher says. The tired worker or bureaucrat is the one who has had all responsibility taken from him in his work. Political ‘indifference’, that catatonia of the modern citizen, is the indifference of the individual deprived of any decision-making powers and left only with the sop of universal suffrage. Page 183

Fatigue is an activity, a latent, endemic revolt, unconscious of itself. Page 183

[Bekhradaa · Rating 5 out of 5]

79
مردمان ممالک "کم توسعه یافته"، "کمک" غرب را چیزی قابل انتظار �� طبیعی می دانند که از دیرباز حق آنان بوده و از آنان دریغ می شده است. کمک غرب از نظر این مردمان، نوعی درمان جادویی است - بدون ارتباط با تاریخ، تکنیک، پیشرفت مداوم و بازار جهانی. اما اگر نگاهی دقیق تر داشته باشیم، آیا معجزات غرب در خصوص رشد اقتصادی نیز به همین شیوه از سوی مردم درک نمی شود؟ آیا توده مصرف کنندگان، وفور اجناس و کالاها را امری طبیعی تلقی نمی کنند، بویژه آن که در محاصره تصاویر خیالی ... قرار دارند، و در نتیجه سیل بی امان تبلیغات، باور کرده اند که همه چیز از پیش به آنان داده شده و این وفور نعمت حق مشروع و مسلم آنان است

73
تفکر جادویی بر مصرف حاکم است. ذهنیتی جادویی بر زندگی روزمره سیطره دارد. ذهنیتی که بدوی است. بدوی به این مفهوم که بر اعتقاد به قادر مطلق بودن افکار استوار است. همچنین اینجا اعتقاد به قادر مطلق بودن نشانه ها در کار است: رفاه، کثرت، کالاها و اجناس. در واقع چیزی جز انباشت نشانه های خوشبخثی نیست... همگی آفریننده امیدی واهی هستند که آدمی را به زندگانی پرابتذال دل خوش می کنند

۴۱
از این پس شاهد مدفوع‌وارگی کنترل شده، روغن کاری شده و مصرف شده در همه چیز خواهیم بود. این مدفوع‌وارگی در همه جا با عدم تمایز چیزها و روابط اجتماعی انتشار خواهد یافت. ... در مراکز خرید بزرگ ما ... کلیه خدایان یا سلاطین مصرف گرد آمده اند. به عبارتی کلیه فعالیت ها، امور، تضادها و فصول مختلف به شکل انتزاعی در هم حل شده اند... در این ملغمه همگانی دیگر معنا جایی ندارد... در آنجا تنها چیزی که وجود دارد، جانشینی دائم عناصر همگون است. نقش نمادین دیگر محلی از اعراب ندارد و تنها چیزی که به چشم میخورد، ترکیب جاودانه محیط در بهاری همیشگی است

۴۰
امروزه تعداد اندکی از اشیا به تنهایی برای عرضه وجود دارند، و ما با بافتی از اشیا مواجهیم که به آنها معنا می دهند. بدین ترتیب، رابطه مصرف کننده با شی تغییر کرده است. مصرف کننده دیگر به فلان شی برای فایده خاص آن مراجعه نمی کند.، بلکه به مجموعه ای از اشیا با دلالت کلی آنها روی می آورد... ویترین ها، آگهی های تبلیغاتی، بنگاههای تولیدی و مارکها که در اینجا نقشی اساسی دارند، دیدگاهی منسجم و جمعی از این وسایل ارائه میدهند و آنها ار مانند یک "کل" تقریبا جدایی ناپذیر با زنجیره ای درنظر می گیرند. که رشته ای به هم پیوسته از اشیای ساده نیست،.... و برای مصرف کننده انگیزه های پیچیده تری پدید می آورند

33
مفاهیم محیط و فضا بی شک از زمانی رواج بیشتری یافتند که در واقع ما از دیگر انسان ها فاصله گرفتیم، در نتیجه حضور آنها را کم تر احساس می کنیم و چندان طرف گفتگوی آنها واقع نمی شویم و در عوض بیشتر زیر نگاه ساکت اشیای مطیع و توهم انگیزی قرار داریم که همواره یک چیز را برای ما تکرار می کند و آن چیزی نیست جز بهت و حیرت، فراوانی مجازی و فاصله گرفتن مجازی و نیز فاصله گرفتن از دیگران... ما نیز آرام آرام حالت ابزاری پیدا می کنیم

[Iman Rouhipour · Rating 5 out of 5]

"انسان تنها از زمانی موضوع علم قرار گرفته است که فروش اتومبیل از ساخت آن دشوارتر شده است."

بودریار بررسی می‌کنه که در یک جامعه‌ی مصرفی همه چیز - و نه فقط کالایی که پشت ویترین مغازه می‌بینیم - وارد چرخه‌ی تولید و مصرف میشه، چه‌طور ازخودبیگانگی نه فقط در حوزه‌ی کار بلکه حتی در زمان فراغت هم متجلی می‌شه و این که چه طور عشق و دوستی و روابط انسانی و خشونت و هنر هم مصرفی می‌شن .

مصرف در عصر ما، نه به سیاق مصرف انسان در عصر گذشته و برای برطرف کردن نیاز، بلکه در واقع برای تمایزگذاری اجتماعی انجام می‌شه.

در دوره‌ای زیست می‌کنیم که بشریت تصور می‌کنه از تمام ایدئولوژی‌های غلط گذشته رها شده در حالی که با شدتی بیشتر در ایدئولوژی مصرف سقوط کرده.
میلیونها تومن (یا دلار و غیره) برای آرایش و جراحی زیبایی و لاغری خرج کردن همون‌قدر مضحکه که رقص آیینی یک قوم بدوی دور آتش.

بخونید حتماً. از واجباته.

[Mehmet · Rating 5 out of 5]

tam adıyla tüketim toplumu söylenceleri ve yapıları olarak dilimize ayrıntı yayınları tarafından kazandırılan la societe de consommation; milenyuma ve kapitalizmin geldiği noktaya dair gerçekçi bir bakış sunuyor.

kitap dostoyevski’nin şu sözleriyle başlıyor:

bütün maddi tatminleri sağlayın ona, öyle ki uyumak, çörek yemek ve dünya tarihini sürdürmeyi dert edinmekten başka yapacak bir şeyi kalmasın: yeryüzünün tüm mallarına boğun ve saç diplerine kadar mutluluğa gömün: bu mutluluğun yüzeyine küçük kabarcıklar çıkacaktır, suyun üzerinde olduğu gibi. (dostoyevski, yeraltından notlar)

çağdaş sosyolojiye çok önemli katkılar sunan bu kitap, batı toplumunu inceliyor. tüketimin obje üzerindeki tek yönlü biçiminin giderek çift yönlü bir bağımlılığa dönüştüğü en temel vurgusu.

onun “bolluk toplumu” olarak tanımladığı günümüz toplumu sadece kendisine vaat edileni almak üzere programlanmış ve her zaman daha fazla tüketmeye çalışan robotlara dönüşmüşler. marx’ın “üretim araçları mülkiyetine sahip olan” kavramıyla kast ettiği kapitalist yönetim; baudrillard’a göre değişime uğradı. artık önemli bir mülkiyet daha var: tüketim araçları mülkiyeti.

“ama bu, bir göstergeler güdümlenmesi düzeni olan bir tüketim düzeninin üretim düzenine karıştığını söylemektir…” (sf. 25)

kitapta çok sert bir söylem var:
“kitle iletişimin bize verdiği gerçeklik değil, gerçekliğin baş döndürücülüğüdür.” (sf. 27)

gerçeklik ve simülasyon ikilemi baudrillard’ın üzerinde çok fazla çalıştığı bir konu aslında. özellikle simülasyon ve simülakr kitabında olduğu gibi bunda da yeniden yaratılan gerçeklikten bahsediyor. ona göre, medyayla, iletişim araçlarıyla gerçeklik defalarca yaratılıyor. içine reklamlar, subliminal mesajlar ve çeşitli komutlar da karıştırılarak bireye ulaştığında bireye para verdiği ve karşılığında tatmin aldığı bir tablo çiziyor. birey para veriyor, tatmin alıyor. ancak bu giderek gelişiyor, bireyin belli bir kalıba uyması da dahil olmak üzere kendi üzerindeki düşünceleri de yönlendiriliyor. bireye aç olduğu direktifi verilerek gıda satılıyor, çirkin olduğu direktifi verilerek güzellik.

baudrillard, bolluk toplumu için israfın zorunluluğundan bahsediyor. ona göre her ne kadar enflasyonist baskı oluştursa da, toplumda gerçek manada bolluktan sözedebilmemiz için israfın olması gerektiğini söylüyor. ne kadar tüketim o kadar refah değildir. ne kadar israf varsa o kadar refah vardır.

yine markalar bizim için belli başlı sosyal statü araçlarına dönüşüyorlar. tükettiğimiz şey ile kimlik inşa ediyoruz. ne kadar kaliteli ürün tüketirsek, o kadar yüksek statüye sahip oluyoruz. bu, paranın yarattığı statüdür ve paranın bize temelde verdiği yapay mutluluktur. aşk, tv ile şekillendirilir. ideal aşk, ideal evlilik ve ideal yaşam için ev, araba, kaliteli bir parfüm şarttır. mutluluk yine şekillendirilir, mutlu olmak istiyorsanız tatile ihtiyacınız vardır tatil içinde filanca oteli şarttır. bu şekilde en temel insani güdülerimiz, ihtiyaçlarımız tüketim amacıyla şekillendirilir.

bu korkunç tablonun en kötü sonucu bireyin kendi kendini tahrip etmesidir. baudrillard bunu şöyle bir örnekle özetler: “zencilerin isyan ettiklerinde ilk kendi mahallelerini yakmaları gibi, birey de bu baskıya karşı ilk kendini tahrip eder ve bu da depresyondur.” modern zaman hastalıklarından olan depresyon, bireyin kaybettiği mutluluk, güzellik gibi anlamların kargaşasıdır. birey, iletişim araçlarıyla bize sunulan mutluluk ile kendi arayışları arasında yiter. sonunda aşırı yorgunluk, aşırı stres ve bilgi bombardımanı bireyi korkunç bir boşluğa sürükler. o artık tüketim toplumunun çöpüdür.

“parayla mutluluk olmaz” mutluluk paranın satın aldığı şeylerdedir tüketim toplumuna göre. ve iyi bir viski içiyorsan, statün yüksektir. kaliteli bir cep telefonu kullanıyorsan özgüvenin yükselir. işte bu, bireylerin özel mülkiyet ile ilişkisini değiştirmiştir. bir anlamda, artık özel mülkiyet’in mülk alanı haline gelir birey.

mutlaka okunması gereken tam bir başyapıt!

M. B.

[Costas... · Rating 3 out of 5]

Δύσκολο βιβλίο. Πολλή τροφή για σκέψη σερβιρισμένη με περίσσεια δόση μποντριγιαρικών ακροβατισμών. Ο συγγραφέας καταπιάνεται, με φαινομενικά νηφάλιο αλλά κατά βάθος σκληρό τρόπο, με τον μύθο της κατανάλωσης στις δυτικές ή εκδυτικισμένες κοινωνίες της δεκαετίας του '60 (δηλαδή στα τελευταία στάδια ακμής της χρυσής εποχής που έφερε η κεϋνσιανή συναίνεση του μεταπολεμικού κόσμου), και τον περνάει από το μικροσκόπιο αναλύοντας με κάθε λεπτομέρεια το φαινόμενο. Το βιβλίο κυκλοφόρησε το 1970 και τα προϊόντα, οι υπηρεσίας, οι ορολογίες, οι λέξεις γενικότερα που χρησιμοποιεί ο Μποντριγιάρ για να καταδείξει τον μύθο και κατ' επέκταση το λάιφστάιλ της εποχής δεν παρουσιάζουν καμία διαφορά με τη σημερινή εποχή, με εξαίρεση την λογική απουσία αναφορών στο ίντερνετ που ήρθε μια εικοσαετία αργότερα ή στην παγκοσμιοποίηση που επεκτάθηκε ακόμη περισσότερο σαν αποτέλεσμα των, μεταγενέστερων της κυκλοφορίας του παρόντος βιβλίου, κοσμοϊστορικών γεγονότων της ανάδυσης του νεοφιλευθερισμού και της της πτώσης του Σοβιετικού μπλοκ μέσα στις δύο επόμενες δεκαετίες. Πέραν τούτων, κυριολεκτικά σαν να μην πέρασε μια μέρα!

[Asher Deep · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, let me confess that this is the first philosophy book I've finished, and that this is my first Baudrillard. Yes, the prose is at times quite dense and Baudrillard will come across as cynical at times--well, because he somewhat is. He does take quite a few jabs at economists and advertising. The book attempts at diagnosing the problems with the consumer culture, and does not provide many solutions--if a book like this should.

But beyond all the jabs and dense prose and cynicism, when you read stuff like:

"Happiness has to be measurable; it has to be a 'well-being' in terms of objects and signs. Happiness as (on the ideology and myth of happiness) total or inner enjoyment --that happiness independent of the signs which could manifest it to others and to those around us, the happiness which has no need of evidence--is therefore excluded from the outset of the customer ideal in which happiness must always signify with 'regard' to visible criteria"

"You never consume the object in itself (in its use-value); you are always manipulating object (in the broadest sense) as signs which distinguish you either by affiliating you to your own group taken as an ideal reference or by marking you off from your group by reference to a group of higher status."

Or things like:

"The consumerist man sees to it that all his potentialities , all his customer capacities are mobilized. And if he forgets to do so, he will be gently and persistently reminded that he has no right not to be happy. It is not, then, that he is passive. He is engaged in--has to engage in--continual activity. If not, he would run the risk of being content with what he has and becoming asocial."

"You have to try 'everything,' for the consumerist man is haunted by the fear of 'missing' something, some form of enjoyment or other. You never know whether a particular encounter, a particular experience will not elicit some 'sensation.' It is no longer desire or even 'taste,' or a specific inclination that are at stake, but a generalized curiosity, driven by a vague sense of unease--that it is the 'fun morality' or the imperative to enjoy oneself, to exploit to the full one's potential for thrills, pleasure or gratification."

Baudrillard's book is precise and mind-bogglingly relevant 45 years later.

Being a millennial and belonging to a generation that's annoyingly hubristic about its ostensible affluence and smugness, its hegemony over previous generations, and its notions of happiness . . . I can't help but relate to Baudrillard and love him, if he's a little cynical.

The Consumer Society also perfectly nails part of why I read books; why--regardless of all the distractions and "cool" things around--I think books are gems can't be paralleled.

[Tuncay Özdemir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tüketim toplumu, ilk versiyonu 1970 yılında çıkmış bir kitap. Baudrillard, dilimize çevrildiğinde ağır bir dile dönüşen anlatımıyla günümüz toplumunu tüketim ve büyüme ekseninde anlatıyor. Büyümenin getirdiği mal ve ihtiyaç üretiminin farklı sınıflardaki farklı yansımasının (farklılaşma ihtiyacı ve talebi) yarattığı gerginliğin sistemin devinim gücü olduğu çok iyi tariflenmiş. Bir kısır döngü gibi. Büyüme mal ve ihtiyaç üretiyor; bunun etkisi farklı sınıflarda farklı farklı oluyor, farklı farklı özlemler ve ihtiyaçlar yaratıyor, bu tüketimi hızlandırıyor, tüketim tekrar büyümeyi diri tutuyor.

İlginç bir nokta var mesela. Baudrillard diyor ki “hiçbir ürün, hiçbir ihtiyaç eğer zaten üst modelin bir parçası değilse ve mesafenin korunması için yerine bu üst modelde ayırt edici başka bir mal ya da ihtiyaç geçmemişse kitlesel olarak diziselleşme ve tatmin edilme şansına sahip değildir”. Bu üretim ve tüketimin ritminin ne kadar farklılaştığını gösteren bir tespit. Üretim tamamen sanayisel ve ekonomik bir üretkenliğin sonucuyken; tüketim toplumsal farklılaşma mantığının bir işlevi olarak öne çıkıyor. Dolayısıyla insanlar kendi konumlarını ayırt edici şekilde tüketmeye eğilimli oluyor, bu da adeta bir köşe kapmaca gibi tüketimi tetikleyen bir unsur oluyor.

İhtiyacın asla ve asla bir nesneye değil de farklılık ihtiyacına yönelik olduğu iddiası önemli. Daha öncesinde Veblen, üst sınıfların diğer sınıflardan farklı olduklarını göstermek için bariz ve aşırı tüketim yapma ihtiyaçlarını açıklamıştı. Günümüzde ise paradoksal bir biçimde üst sınıflar kendini gösterişle ve lüksle değil, sadelik ve ölçülülükle farklılaştırmaya çalışır hale geliyor. Aşırı tüketimi ve gösterişi reddetme üst sınıfların prestij farklılaşması olarak öne çıkıyor. Hatta birden zengin olan insanların abartılı tüketimleri bu sınıflar tarafından küçümseniyor.

Günün sonunda tüketim toplumu, farklılaşma ihtiyacıyla tüketme, bu farklılıkların yarattığı gerilim ve enerjiyle büyüme ve tüm bunların yan etkisi olarak ortaya çıkan nedensiz şiddet, yabancılaşma ve yorgunlukla bizim toplumumuzdur, modern toplumun kendisidir.

[Gabrielė Bužinskaitė · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let’s buy things and activities to signal the happiness and uniqueness we don’t have! And so we do, because…what else?

“So we live, sheltered by signs, in the denial of the real.”

After reading this book, I feel disturbed. Disturbed not in a challenging, perspective-changing way. But in a way that makes me think “oh, so we are doomed-doomed”.

Baudrillard philosophises how society makes us naive consumerists and manipulates us by inducing fear (of missing out on joy, pleasure, sensation). If it sounds radical, it’s because it is. The author has no time for ifs or maybes. Deceived marionettes we are. No exceptions. Case closed.

“The successful advertiser is the master of a new art: the art of making things true by saying they are so. He is a devotee of the technique of the self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Why did I take away two stars?

Difficult language. The author tries to sound trustworthy, I guess, so he complicates his wording. It’s the lamest trick in the book. If you’re assured of your ideas, you can explain them simply. What’s there to hide under complex language and long, boresome sentences?

Politically biased. Karl Marx, the father of communism, influenced Baudrillard a lot. So, some of author’s points, despite being strong, are unthinkingly one-sided. For example, while many of his capitalism's critiques are fair and deserved, his general view on it seems predisposed rather than well-thought-of.

Overall, it’s worth reading. Despite the flaws, the author offers a deep analysis of the matter.

[Yann · Rating 1 out of 5]

J'ai malheureusement trouvé ce texte mal écrit et abscon. Au lieu d'éclairer son sujet, l'auteur semble prendre plaisir à l'obscurcir d'épaisses ténèbres en faisant tout à tour référence aux mythes de Barthe (sic), à Freud, à Marx, au structuralisme, à la dernière publicité à la mode, au dernier film qu'il a vu, sans serrer suffisamment sa réflexion. Les anglicismes, barbarismes et répétitions qui jonchent ce kaléidoscope indigeste ont achevé de me remplir d'amertume, car les quelques idées qu'on y trouve récompensent insuffisamment la patience qu'elles épuisent

[Ayda · Rating 5 out of 5]

هر صفحه‌ی بودریار خوندن، فرو ریختنه؛ تعجب کردنه؛ متحیر شدن از نبوغ این شخصه و در پایان انگار هنوز هم کم ازش یاد گرفته بودم...

[Tvrtko Balić · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've seen this mention as some people's least favourite book by Baudrillard with the explanation that it is not very original. If that is the only thing wrong with it, it is very deserving of a five star rating. This is only Baudrillard's second book so the complaint doesn't really hold anyway, the book is a good continuation of his first book (The System of Objects) from which he elaborates more specific phenomena and when it comes to taking ideas from other people, he mentions an overwhelming number of other authors and theorists, it is certainly not plagiarization, but rather interpretation of those authors. If anything that is a positive because it is interesting seeing the influences that shaped early Baudrillard. Even if he is not 100% original, Baudrillard's interpretations are still valuable and not just because they come with rants about commercials, media, culture etc. that one is to expect from him. The book is dense however, if you don't take time to read it properly a lot of it will go over your head. Or even if you do take the time to read it. I can recognise the value in it, but I am sorry that I did not soak it in. This and maybe a couple of small complaints are not enough to detract for it, but it is also certainly not the best book for one to get into Baudrillard, both because of its difficulty and its content, so I wouldn't recommend it to people interested in general Baudrillardian thought, there are better book for that and this is a book for people who are already considering reading it for one reason or another.

[Diego F. Cantero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cuando se lee un trabajo de sociología que se escribió hace más de 50 años, uno tiene todo ese tiempo de ventaja sobre el autor a la hora de valorar la calidad de sus diagnósticos, lo trascendente de su teoría.
El libro presente de Baudrillard no envejece; apenas tres o cuatro páginas con datos sobre el consumo francés de finales de los sesenta quedan obsoletas, el resto dan ganas de pegarse un tiro en las pelotas por su “actualidad”.

Hoy, uno lo visita con el neocórtex amputado y lee que el diagnóstico del mal estaba hecho hace tiempo. La radiografía perfectamente tomada. El paciente sin intenciones de mejorar.
Baudrillard escribe desde el estructuralismo y por más que su prosa pueda resultar farragosa, sus análisis son brillantes y sus conclusiones, para mí, muy acertadas.

Doy cinco estrellas y pongo la etiqueta de “imprescindibles” a este tipo de obras de No Ficción que, además de estar muy bien pensadas, construidas y escritas, las extrañé en mi educación.
Suelo pensar que son herramientas necesarias para poner los pies en la Tierra o para nadar en este océano de mierda. Para vivir una vida medianamente consciente de lo que se está haciendo con ella.

[Foad · Rating 4 out of 5]

آیا در حال حاضر کارمند هستید؟
آیا در طول هفته مثل خر کار می‌کنید که در نهایت بتوانید مرخصی بگیرید و یک روز از هفته را از چنگ صابکار خود بیرون بکشید؟
آیا پول خود را صرف خرید چیزهایی می‌کنید که فکر می‌کنید «بازتاب بیرونی خود حقیقی شما» هستند؟
اگر در چنین موقعیتی قرار دارین پیشنهاد می‌کنم از این کتاب تا می‌تونین فاصله بگیرین. چون خوندنش با شرایطی که شما دارین، اعصاب پولادین می‌خواد. چون قراره برینه به سبک زندگی و درکی که از خودتون دارین.
قراره حالتون رو بد کنه و کاری کنه که ساده‌ترین کنش‌های شما تو نظام سرمایه داری براتون شرم‌آور بشه.

بخش‌هایی از کتاب:

انسان مدرن باید به بسیج دائمی کلیه ظرفیت ها و قابلیت‌های مصرفی خود اهتمام ورزد. اگر او این امر را فراموش کند، بلافاصله با مهربانی به او یادآوری خواهد شد که حق ندارد سعادتمند باشد. بنابراین این واقعیت ندارد که او منفعل است. او به فعالیتی مستمر اشتغال دارد و باید به این فعالیت ادامه دهد. در غیر این صورت، او این خطر را به جان هواهد خرید که به آن چیزی که دارد قانع شود و به موجودی غیر اجتماعی تبدیل شود.
_________________________________

حق برخورداری از فضای مناسب زمانی پدید می‌آید که همگان از این حق برخوردار نباشند و فضای مناسب و سکوت و آرامش برای بعضی افراد امتیاز محسوب شود. امتیازی که به بهای سلب حقوق دیگران به دست آمده است. همان گونه که حق مالکیت تنها زمانی پدید آمد که دیگر زمین به اندازه‌ی کافی برای همگان موجود نبود. حق برهورداری از شغل نیز هنگامی به وجود آمد که کار در چهارچوب تقسیم کار به کالایی قابل معاوضه تبدیل شد. یعنی اینکه دیگر به خود افراد تعلق نداشت.
حق برخورداری از هوای پاک دلالت بر از دست رفتن هوای پاک به عنوان یک کالای طبیعی، گذار آن به حالت تجاری و بازتوزیع اجتماعی نابرابر آن دارد.
________________________________

آرامش در زندگی روزمره، نیاز به سرسام واقعیت و تاریخ دارد. این آرامش برای دستیابی به میزانی از هیجان نیاز به این دارد که به طور دائم به مصرف خشونت بپردازد. این جنبه‌ی بی‌شرمانه‌ی زندگی روزمره است. زندگی روزمره، مشتاق بروز وقایع و خشونت است، به شرطی که اینها را در چهاردیواری خانه دریافت کند. به گونه‌ای مضحک، تماشاگر تلویزیون در برابر تصاویر جنگ ویتنام آرامش اعصاب پیدا می‌کند.... هدف مصرف آن است که به خوشبختی سلبی از رهگذر رفع تنش‌ها نایل آید، اما در این راه به تناقض برخورد می‌کند: از یک سو تناقض بین انفعال ناشی از این نظام جدید ارزش‌ها و از سوی دیگر هنجارهای اخلاق اجتماعی که اساسا بر پایه‌ی اراده، عمل، اثربخشی و فداکاری استوار است.

[Katja · Rating 4 out of 5]

Omg….Baudrillard would have loved YouTube video essays

[Rıdvan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Zor anlasilir. Ceviriyi begenmedim. Kotu.

[Amirhossein Zarifian]

جامعه‌ی مصرفی بودریارد برای من تا حد زیادی یادآور جامعه‌ی نمایش دبور بود. لحن کتاب، مثال‌ها و مصادیق این مصرف مثل نمایشیه که دبور ازش حرف می‌زنه. از خودبیگانگی‌ای که در انتهای کتاب بر اساس فیلمی اکسپرسیونیستی بودریارد تعریفش می‌کنه شباهتشو با از بیرون به تماشای خود نشستن گی دبور بیشتر از قبل کرد واسم. در کل من با این تصور به سمت این کتاب رفتم که بیش از هر چیز احتمالاً ایده‌های اقتصادی و کالایی رو بخواد درباره‌شون بحث کنه ولی بعد از یک سوم ابتدایی کتاب به این سمت می‌ره که چطور در جهان اطراف ما همه چیز به معنی واقعی کلمه مصرفی تلقی می‌شه. از مد‌ها، اشیا، اخلاق و... تا زمان و اوقات فراغت

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

For Baudrillard, "consumption" does not merely designate the aggregate consumption of material goods, but also society's self-represention of consumption, namely, the myth of consumption and affluence.
The field of the social logic of consumption is such that objects in it are wholly and infinitely exchangeable in terms of sign value, and thus in spite of the differences in function and utility (i.e. use value). Moreover, Baudrillard sees this logic as insatiable and the whole of regime of "needs" itself as proactively organized and produced "There are only needs of growth (65)"
Baudrillard is at his most analytically rigorous in part 1 and 2. At times it reads as though he's channeling his inner BT Heidegger. While Part 3 feels a bit out of place, the section on "leisure time" could very serve as an extended sociological footnote to Marx's own analysis of abstract labor and time.
I don't claim to have read a lot of Baudrillard, but this is definitely one of his more analytical pieces where he doesn't take as much sumptous liberty with the language.

[Kaplumbağa Felsefecisi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baudrillard, tek bir şeyi asla tek kitabıyla açıklamayan bir adam o kesin... Onu ve felsefesini okumak tüm yazdıklarıyla gerçekleşebilir ancak. Ben kendimce kitaplarını yazıldığı tarih ile sıraya koydum. Bende olanlarını o sıraya göre okumak derdindeyim.
Tüketim toplumu kitabı diğer okumalarını yaptıktan sonra sonra tekrar okumam gereken bir kitap benim için bunu aklımın bir köşesine not ederek okudum diyebilirim.
Toplumun iktisadi-ekonomik temellerle açıklanır yanlarına çok aşina ve hakim olmamam dolayısı ile bazı kısımları anlamakta zorlandım.
Tüketim hakkında konuşurken bile tüketen bir toplum olmanın ötesinde, kaçınılmaz tüketim nesnesi olduğumuz da doğruya doğrudur.

[مجید اسطیری · Rating 5 out of 5]

بعد از دکترین شوک این کتاب رو هم میتونم در فهم نظام سرمایه داری "هیولا" خطاب کنم. البته هر چقدر اون کتاب وسعت پژوهش داشت این کتاب عمق بینش داره.
چنان تکان دهنده س که هیچی نمیتونم در موردش بگم.
فقط پیشنهاد میکنم این مطلبی که در موردش توی اینستام نوشته م رو ببینید و بخونید:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C4KJ9ZUom...

[Milica · Rating 5 out of 5]

upomoć, progutala sam crvenu pilulu

[Ekaterina Haiduchik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Давно прочитала книгу, вынесу сюда несколько запомнившихся тезисов:
1. Общество порождает неравенство. Несмотря на массовое и дешевое производство почти чего угодно, люди находят объекты, благодаря которым они получат статус выше (*лучше*, *здоровее*, *успешнее*) других. Наличие односемейной квартиры из величайшего достижения становится обыденностью в вашем обществе? Дифференцирующая черта проявится в зелени и воде за окном, чистом воздухе, тишине. (кто вспомнит, что ранее эти вещи были доступны всем?)

2. Дифференцирующее (символичное) потребление распространяется на все. Консьюмеризация касается даже межличностных отношений, здоровья. Как потенциального партнера, так и таблетки мы выбираем как продукты на витрине, повинуясь рекламе, гласящей, как будем выглядеть после покупки. А корпорации и государства давно несут многие экономические расходы только ради поддержания мифа о росте или силе.

3. Приобретая товары и услуги, люди приобретают себя. Дифференцироваться — значит сближаться с моделью, определять себя в зависимости от нее и в силу этого отказываться от всякого реального различия. Автор указывает, как люди общества потребления перестают различаться по внутренним характеристикам, а делают это по внешним через товары и услуги. "Стань собой, купив этот телефон/сделав эту прическу/отдохнув на этом курорте" - подставьте свои значения для того, чтобы приблизиться к той абстрактной модели, в которой, чувствуете, обретете себя. Инфоцыганство как будто берет ростки именно отсюда.

Еще запомнилось как общество потребление превращает отдых в труд. Необходимость загара, подвижности в плане правильных занятий, посещенных мест, благодаря которой туристы "делают" Италию, Францию, 100+ фотографий конкретного образца - свидетельствует о подчиненности долгу, жертвенности ради желаемой репрезентации себя. При этом из-за все большей доступности отдыха, утверждает автор, знаком отличия и привилегий может стать... труд: "таково напускное рабство высших кадров и генеральных директоров, которые обязаны трудиться пятнадцать часов в день".

Книга читается сложно, язык неприятный: 5 деепричастных и еще 5 причастных оборотов по скидке в одном предложении. А все-таки вытянуть из нее можно многое. Но второй раз заниматься этим вряд ли буду.

[Ceena · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب با مرثیه ای تلخ برای آنچه آینده ی "جامعه مصرفی" می خواند به پایان می رسد: "ما در انتظار عصیان های وحشیانه و فروپاشی های ناگهانی ای هستیم که به اندازه مه 1968 غیرقابل پیش بینی و قطعی هستند. حوادثی که این عشای ربانی سفید را در هم خواهند شکست" گویی تمام کتاب مقدمه ای بود برای ادای این جمله. کتاب تحلیلی جالب از رمزگان جامعه مصرفی ارائه می دهد. جامعه ای که هر چیزی را می بلعد و به ضد خودش تبدیل می کند، با این تفاوت که زرق و برق آن چیز دیگری به شدت وسوسه انگیز است و دامن همه کس را خواهد گرفت.

کتاب سرشار از نکات جالب و مثال های درخور است و مطالب زیادی را در تعداد صفحات محدودش در برگرفته. به نظرم خوب بود اگر هر کدام از این مطالب را بیشتر بسط می داد. در فصل دوم حجم زیاد ایده ها کمی سردرگمی و پراکندگی ایجاد می کرد و موضع تاریک بودریار بیش از حد غالب بود.

[Gürcan Öztürk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tüketim olgusunun bir endüstri haline dönüşmesi, büyülenen toplumlar, eksik bilinç ve kendine yabancılaşma üzerine bir başyapıt. Adını lisans eğitimim boyunca sık sık duyup bir türlü okuyamadığım Tüketim Toplumu'nda Baudrillard'ın aynası hiç de iç açıcı şeyler göstermiyor. Nesneden, bilince... Bilinçten, bedene... Bedenden, ruha kadar tüketim kölesi oluşumuzun kitabı bu. İçinde yaşadığı çağa ve öyle ya da böyle dahil olduğu düzene dair bilinçlenmek isteyen herkesin mutlaka okuması gerekli.

[א · Rating 4 out of 5]

جامعه مصرفی از معدود کتاب‌های فلسفی است که خواندش بر هر انسان معاصر واجب شرعی و عرفی است. نه به خاطر درون‌مایه فلسفی‌اش به خاطر توان‌اش در دگرگون ساختن نگاه ما به مقوله تملک اشیا و مقهور آن‌ها شدن.

[Nazlınur Karaağaçlı · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hepinizden nefret ediyorum. :(

[Arno Mosikyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"tell me what you dump into the garbage, and I will tell you who you are..." interesting proposition. this was my first encounter with Jean Baudrillard, will continue for sure

[Adam P]

We do be consuming

[✨ Anna ✨ | ReadAllNight]

Recommended by Trevor in relation to surveillance capitalism.

[Pedro Pirata]

Tremendo. Otro día hago la reseña :)

[Tintarella]

وقتی می‌گوییم این جامعه‌ی فراوانی خود یک اسطوره‌ی خاص است، منظور ما این است که این جامعه در سطحی سراسری این شعار تبلیغاتی قابل ستایش را به نفع خود مصادره می‌کند که می‌توانست تحت این عنوان درآید: «بدنی که شما در رویاهای خود می‌بینید، بدن شماست.» نوعی خودشیفتگی جمعی عظیم جامعه را به این سمت سوق می‌دهد که در تصویری که از خود ارائه می‌دهد، مخلوط، مستحیل و متقاعد شود. همان‌طور که تبلیغات مردم را در مورد بدن و پرستیژ خود متقاعد می‌کند... خلاصه این‌که باید بتواند خودش را پیش‌گوئی کند. مانند تمام اسطوره‌ها این اسطوره نیز در پی آن است که خود را بر مبنای یک رویداد اولیه استوار سازد. در این‌جا به ا��طلاح «انقلاب فراوانی»، انقلاب تاریخی رفاه، آخرین انقلاب انسان غربی پس از نوزایی، اصلاح، انقلاب صنعتی و انقلابات سیاسی مطرح می‌شود. بدین ترتیب مصرف طلیعه‌ی یک عصر جدید و آخرین آن است، یعنی عصر تحقق آرمان‌شهر و پایان تاریخ.