Reading 3

"The System of Objects" by Jean Baudrillard.

This was definitely a tough read, but I was able to put parts of it together better and better each time I re-read it.  Baudrillard begins by asking if the system of objects that man has created can be inventoried similarly to the way that man has inventoried all species of the natural world.  Although I often dislike classifying things by grouping them based on similarities, I appreciate Baudrillard's exploration of weather or not our system of objects is possible to classify with an 'adequate system of description'. He brings to light the meaning that objects hold to us beyond their general function, such as their cultural meaning they bring with their everydayness and how people relate with them and consequently, each other. Through the breakdown of the concepts that would need to be evaluated in a system classification, Baudrillard delves deep into the meaning of objects on both concrete and abstract levels.

I found the excerpt he includes from Gibert Simondon's account of the petrol engine to be especially intriguing.  Simondon explains the difference between today's engines and earlier ones, using two categories: concrete and abstract.  He states that today's engines are 'concrete' in that each part is closely associated with the others, working with them, and would not exist without the other parts.  Each component is precisely made to interact with the whole.  Earlier engines were 'abstract' in that each part had it's own task to complete, and had no impact on the other parts.  He compares this to "people, each doing their job without ever getting acquainted with their co-workers".  Before Simondon had even brought of this metaphor I had already begun comparing his description of machine parts to humans.  This may be because I have lately been occupied with the idea that humans are all connected, even though we seem to fancy forced independence.  He continues to delve into the meaning of machine parts and their individual functions in relation to the whole.  As the 'whole' evolves, individual parts will accomodate, sort of like the way that the natural world adapts to survive the given environment. In this way, the abstract becomes the concrete because of the relationships that are forced by the 'whole'.

Anyways, Baudrillard uses this analysis as a basis for his argument that objects have so many hidden components to their effects on us that they cannot be classified.  He uses the idea of language as a comparison by giving the name "technemes" to the technical elements of an object.  In the way that we create technology to serve its' objective function, we give it meaning much like syllables create words, which creates a sentence, which creates meaning.  But objects carry much more than these simple functions in their meaning, and therefore we cannot use a system like that of language in building a description of them.

Another interesting point.... we "meet successive needs by introducing new objects.  The result is that each object added to the sum of objects may be adequate to its own function but work against the whole."  This made me think of everything detrimental that humans are doing to themselves and the planet in order to gratify instant "needs".  We "need" to get places fast, so we need to use cars everyday, which are polluting the world and creating a much larger detrimental effect that isn't immediately realized in by us in our daily lives.  There are countless examples of this contradictory creation of objects.  I'm having a hard time understanding the following sentence though...."It even happens that a new object will be adequate to its function while at the same time working against it."  Does this relate to the first sentence I discussed?  If anyone can think of an example of this or help explain I'd be interested in hearing it.

Overall this article was very interesting, but I feel like a discussion of it with others who have read it would help me to better grasp the deeper meaning that Baudrillard is getting at.  It will be nice to read how others have interpreted it.

Clare