#55 = Volume 18, Part 3 = November 1991
Jean Baudrillard
Two Essays
Translated by Arthur B. Evans
1. Simulacra and Science Fiction
There are three orders of simulacra:
(1) natural, naturalistic simulacra: based on image, imitation, and
counterfeiting. They are harmonious, optimistic, and aim at the reconstitution,
or the ideal institution, of a nature in God's image.
(2) productive, productionist simulacra: based on energy and force,
materialized by the machine and the entire system of production. Their aim is
Promethean: world-wide application, continuous expansion, liberation of
indeterminate energy (desire is part of the utopias belonging to this order of
simulacra).
(3) simulation simulacra: based on information, the model, cybernetic play.
Their aim is maximum operationality, hyperreality, total control.
To the first order corresponds the imaginary of the utopia. To the second, SF
in the strict sense. To the third...is there yet an imaginary domain which
corresponds to this order? The probable answer is that the "good old" SF
imagination is dead, and that something else is beginning to emerge (and not
only in fiction, but also in theory). Both traditional SF and theory are
destined to the same fate: flux and imprecision are putting an end to them as
specific genres.
There is no real and no imaginary except at a certain distance. What happens
when this distance, even the one separating the real from the imaginary, begins
to disappear and to be absorbed by the model alone? Currently, from one order of
simulacra to the next, we are witnessing the reduction and absorption of this
distance, of this separation which permits a space for ideal or critical
projection.
It is at a maximum in utopias, where a transcendent world, a radically
different universe, is portrayed (its most individualized form remains the
Romantic dream, wherein transcendence is represented in all its depth, even unto
its subconscious structure; but, in all cases, the separation from the real
world is maximal—it is the utopian island in contrast to the continent of the
real).
It is diminished considerably in SF: SF only being, most often, an
extravagant projection of, but qualitatively not different from, the real
world of production. Extrapolations of mechanics or energy, velocities or powers
approaching infinity—SF's fundamental patterns and scenarios are those of
mechanics, of metallurgy, and so forth. Projective hypostasis of the robot. (In
the limited universe of the pre-Industrial era, utopias counterposed an
ideal alternative world. In the potentially limitless universe of the production
era, SF adds by multiplying the world's own possibilities.)
It is totally reduced in the implosive era of models. Models no longer
constitute an imaginary domain with reference to the real; they are, themselves,
an apprehension of the real, and thus leave no room for any fictional
extrapolation—they are immanent, and therefore leave no room for any kind of
transcendentalism. The stage is now set for simulation, in the cybernetic sense
of the word—that is to say, for all kinds of manipulation of these models
(hypothetical scenarios, the creation of simulated situations, etc.), but now nothing
distinguishes this management-manipulation from the real itself: there is no
more fiction.
Reality was able to surpass fiction, the surest sign that the imaginary has
possibly been outpaced. But the real could never surpass the model, for the real
is only a pretext of the model.
The imaginary was a pretext of the real in a world dominated by the reality
principle. Today, it is the real which has become the pretext of the model in a
world governed by the principle of simulation. And, paradoxically, it is the
real which has become our true utopia—but a utopia that is no longer a
possibility, a utopia we can do no more than dream about, like a lost object.
Perhaps the SF of this era of cybernetics and hyperreality will only be able
to attempt to "artificially" resurrect the "historical" worlds of the past,
trying to reconstruct in vitro and down to its tiniest details the
various episodes of bygone days: events, persons, defunct ideologies—all now
empty of meaning and of their original essence, but hypnotic with retrospective
truth. Like the Civil War in Philip K. Dick's The Simulacra; like a
gigantic hologram in three dimensions, where fiction will never again be a
mirror held to the future, but rather a desperate rehallucinating of the past.
We can no longer imagine other universes; and the gift of transcendence has
been taken from us as well. Classic SF was one of expanding universes: it found
its calling in narratives of space exploration, coupled with more terrestrial
forms of exploration and colonization indigenous to the 19th and 20th centuries.
There is no cause-effect relationship to be seen here. Not simply because,
today, terrestrial space has been virtually completely encoded, mapped,
inventoried, saturated; has in some sense been shrunk by globalization; has
become a collective marketplace not only for products but also for values,
signs, and models, thereby leaving no room any more for the imaginary. It is not
exactly because of all this that the exploratory universe (technical, mental,
cosmic) of SF has also stopped functioning. But the two phenomena are closely
linked, and they are two aspects of the same general evolutionary process: a
period of implosion, after centuries of explosion and expansion. When a system
reaches its limits, its own saturation point, a reversal begins to takes place.
And something happens also to the imagination.
Until now, we have always had large reserves of the imaginary, because the
coefficient of reality is proportional to the imaginary, which provides the
former with its specific gravity. This is also true of geographical and space
exploration: when there is no more virgin ground left to the imagination, when
the map covers all the territory, something like the reality principle
disappears. The conquest of space constitutes, in this sense, an
irreversible threshold which effects the loss of terrestrial coordinates and
referentiality. Reality, as an internally coherent and limited universe, begins
to hemorrhage when its limits are stretched to infinity. The conquest of space,
following the conquest of the planet, promotes either the de-realizing of human
space, or the reversion of it into a simulated hyperreality. Witness, for
example, this two-room apartment with kitchen and bath launched into orbit with
the last Moon capsule (raised to the power of space, one might say); the
perceived ordinariness of a terrestrial habitat then assumes the values of the
cosmic and its hypostasis in Space, the satellization of the real in the
transcendence of Space—it is the end of metaphysics, the end of fantasy, the
end of SF. The era of hyperreality has begun.
From this point on, something must change: the projection, the extrapolation,
this sort of pantographic exuberance which made up the charm of SF are now no
longer possible. It is no longer possible to manufacture the unreal from the
real, to create the imaginary from the data of reality. The process will be
rather the reverse: to put in place "decentered" situations, models of
simulation, and then to strive to give them the colors of the real, the banal,
the lived; to reinvent the real as fiction, precisely because the real has
disappeared from our lives. A hallucination of the real, of the lived, of the
everyday—but reconstituted, sometimes even unto its most disconcertingly
unusual details, recreated like an animal park or a botanical garden, presented
with transparent precision, but totally lacking substance, having been derealized and hyperrealized.
True SF, in this case, would not be fiction in expansion, with all the
freedom and "naïveté" which gave it a certain charm of discovery. It would,
rather, evolve implosively, in the same way as our image of the universe. It
would seek to revitalize, to reactualize, to rebanalize fragments of simulation—fragments
of this universal simulation which our presumed "real" world has now become
for us.
But where can one find fictional works which already incorporate this
condition of reversion? Clearly, the short stories of Philip K. Dick
"gravitate," one might say, in this new space (although it can no longer be
expressed as such because, in fact, this new universe is "anti-gravitational,"
or, if it still gravitates, it does so around the hole of the real,
around the hole of the imaginary). Dick does not create an alternate
cosmos nor a folklore or a cosmic exoticism, nor intergalactic heroic deeds; the
reader is, from the outset, in a total simulation without origin, past, or
future—in a kind of flux of all coordinates (mental, spatio-temporal,
semiotic). It is not a question of parallel universes, or double universes, or
even of possible universes: not possible nor impossible, nor real nor unreal. It
is hyperreal. It is a universe of simulation, which is something
altogether different. And this is so not because Dick speaks specifically of
simulacra. SF has always done so, but it has always played upon the double,
on artificial replication or imaginary duplication, whereas here the double has
disappeared. There is no more double; one is always already in the other world,
an other world which is not another, without mirrors or projection or utopias as
means for reflection. The simulation is impassable, unsurpassable, checkmated,
without exteriority. We can no longer move "through the mirror" to the other
side, as we could during the golden age of transcendence.
Perhaps an even more convincing example would be Ballard and his fictional
evolution from his earliest "fantasmagorical" short stories—poetic,
dream-like, alienating—to Crash, which (even more than High Rise
or Concrete Island) constitutes without doubt the contemporary model for
this SF which is no longer SF. Crash is our world, nothing is really
"invented" therein, everything is hyper-functional: traffic and accidents,
technology and death, sex and the camera eye. Everything is like a huge
simulated and synchronous machine; an acceleration of our own models, of all the
models which surround us, all mixed together and hyper-operationalized in the
void. What distinguishes Crash from almost all other SF, which still seem
to revolve around the old (mechanical/mechanistic) duo of function vs.
dysfunction, is that it projects into the future along the same lines of force
and the same finalities as those of the "normal" universe. Fiction can go
beyond reality (or inversely, which is more subtle), but according to the same
rules of the game. But in Crash, there is neither fiction nor reality—a
kind of hyperreality has abolished both. And therein lies the defining
character, if there is one, of our contemporary SF. The same may be said, for
example, of Bug Jack Barron or of certain passages in Stand on
Zanzibar.
In point of fact, SF of this sort is no longer an elsewhere, it is an
everywhere: in the circulation of models here and now, in the very axiomatic
nature of our simulated environment. What SF author, for instance, would have
"imagined" (although, to be precise, this is no longer "imaginable") the "reality" of West German simulacra-factories, factories which rehire
unemployed people in all the roles and all the positions of the traditional
manufacturing process, but who produce nothing, whose only activity
involves chain-of-command games, competition, memos, account sheets, etc., all
within a huge network? All material production is duplicated in a void (one of
these simulacra-factories even went into "real" bankruptcy, laying off a
second time its own unemployed workers). This, indeed, is simulation: not that
these factories are fake, but that they are real—or hyperreal—and that, by
being so, they send all "real" production, that of "serious" factories, into
the same hyperreality. What is fascinating here is not the opposition of fake
factories/real factories, but rather the indistinction between the two: the fact
that all the rest of production has no more referentiality or profound finality
than this "business simulacrum." It's the hyperrealist indifference that
constitutes the true "science-fictional" quality of this episode. And one can
see that there is no need to invent it: it is here before us, rising out of a
world without secrets, without depth.
Doubtlessly the most difficult thing today, in the complex universe of SF, is
to be able to discern what still corresponds (and this is a large part of it) to
the imaginary of the second order, the productive/projective order, and what is
already arising from this indistinction of the imaginary, from this flux
deriving from the third order of simulation. One can, for example, clearly
discern the difference between machine robot-mechanics (characteristic of the
second order) and cybernetic machines like computers which derive axiomatically
from the third. But one order can easily contaminate the other, and the computer
can very well function like a supermachine, a super-robot, a mechanical
superpower: exhibiting the productive genius of the simulacra of the second
order, not following the processes of pure simulation, and still bearing witness
of the reflexes of a finalized universe (including ambivalence and revolt, like
the computer in 2001 or Shalmanezer in Stand on Zanzibar). Between
the operatic (the theatrical status, fantastic machinery, the "grand
Opera" of technology), which corresponds to the first order, the operative
(the industrial status, production and execution of power and energy), which
corresponds to the second order, and the operational (the cybernetic
status, uncertainty, the flux of the "meta-technological"), which corresponds
to the third order, all kinds of interferences can be produced today within the
SF genre. But only the last order should be of any genuine interest to us.
2. Ballard's Crash
From the classical (and even the cybernetic) viewpoint, technology is an
extension of the body. It is the evolved functional capacity of a human organism
which allows it both to rival Nature and to triumphantly remold it in its own
image. From Marx to McLuhan, one sees the same instrumentalist vision of
machines and of language: relays, extensions, media-mediators of a Nature
destined ideally to become the organic body. In this "rational" view, the body
itself is only a medium.
Inversely, in its baroque and apocalyptic treatment in Crash,
technology is the deadly deconstruction of the body—no longer a functional
medium, but an extension of death: dismemberment and mutilation, not in the
pejorative vision of a lost unity of subject (which is still the perspective of
psychoanalysis) but in the explosive vision of a body given over to "symbolic
wounds," a body commixed with technology's capacity for violation and violence
and in the brutal surgery that it continually performs in creating incisions,
excisions, scar tissue, gaping body holes—of which sexual wounds and sensual
pleasures are only a case in point (and the mechanical servitude in the
workplace, the palliated caricature)—a body with neither organs nor organ
pleasures, entirely dominated by gash marks, excisions, and technical scars—all
under the gleaming sign of a sexuality that is without referentiality and
without limits.
Her mutilation and death became a coronation of her image at the hands of
a colliding technology, a celebration of her individual limbs and facial
planes, gestures and skin tones. Each of the spectators at the accident site
would carry away an image of the violent transformation of this woman, of
the complex wounds that fused together her own sexuality and the hard
technology of the automobile. Each of them would join his own imagination,
the tender membranes of his mucous surfaces, his groves of erectile tissue,
to the wounds of this minor actress through the medium of his own motorcar,
touching them as he drove in a medley of stylized postures. Each would place
his lips on those bleeding apertures...press his eyelids against the exposed
tendon of her forefinger, the dorsal surface of his erect penis against the
ruptured lateral walls of her vagina. The automobile crash had made possible
the final and longed-for union of the actress and the members of her
audience. (§20:189-90)1
The technological is never grasped except by (auto) accident, in other words
by the violence done to itself and the violence done to the body. It is all
identical: all shocks, all collisions, all impacts, all the metallurgy of
accidents is inscribed in a semiurgy of the body—not in anatomy or physiology,
but in a semiurgy of contusions, scars, mutilations, and wounds which are like
new sexual organs opened in the body. Thus, the codifying of the body as
workforce in the order of production is replaced by the dispersion of the body
as anagram in the order of mutilation. Gone are the "erogenous zones":
everything becomes a hole for reflex discharges. But above all (as in primitive
initiatory tortures, unlike our own), the entire body becomes a sign which
offers itself in the exchange of body language. Bodies and technology each
diffracting through the other their own frantic symbols. Carnal abstractions and
designs.
There is no affectivity behind all this: no psychology, no ambivalence or
desire, no libido or death-drive. Death is a natural implication in this
limitless exploration of the possible forms of violence done to the body, but
this is never (as in sadism or masochism) what the violence purposely and
perversely aims at, never a distortion of sense and sex (in comparison to
what?). There is no repressed unconscious (affective or representational)
therein, except via a second reading which would necessarily reinject still more
twisted meaning in order to conform to the psychoanalytical model. The
nonsensicalness, the brutality, of this mixture of body and technology is
totally immanent—it is the reversion of one into the other. And an
unprecedented sort of sexuality results from this, a kind of potential dizziness
linked to the pure inscription of the body's non-existent signs: a ritual
symbolism of incisions and brands, like in the graffiti of the subways of New
York.
Another point in common: in Crash, the reader needs no longer to
contend with accidental signs that would appear only on the margins of the
system. The Accident portrayed here is no longer the haphazard bricolage that it
still is in most highway accidents—the bricolage of the new leisure class's
death drive. The car is not the appendix of an immobile domestic universe: there
are no more private and domestic universes, only figures of incessant
circulation, and the Accident is everywhere as irreversible and fundamental
trope, the banalizing of the anomaly of death. It is no longer on the margins;
it is at the heart. It is no longer the exception to a triumphant rationality;
it has become the Rule, it has devoured the Rule. It's not even any longer the
"accursed part," the part conceded to fate by the system itself and calculated
into its general reckoning. All is inverted. Here it is the Accident which gives
life its very form; it is the Accident, the irrational, which is the sex of
life. And the automobile itself—this magnetized sphere which ends up
creating an entire universe of tunnels, expressways, overpasses, on and off
ramps by treating its mobile cockpit as a universal prototype—is only an
immense metaphor of the same.
There is no possibility of dysfunction in the universe of the accident; thus
no perversion either. The Accident, like death, is no longer of the order of the
neurotic, of the repressed, of the residual, or of the transgressive; it is the
initiator of a new manner of non-perverted pleasure (contrary to what the
author himself says in his introduction when he speaks of a new perverse logic,
one must resist the moral temptation of reading Crash as
perversion), of a strategic reorganization of life beyond the perspective of
death. Death, wounds, mutilations are no longer metaphors for castration—it's
exactly the reverse, or even more than the reverse. Only fetishist metaphors are
perversion: seduction by the model, by the interposed fetish, or by the medium
of language. Here, death and sex are read straight from the body, without
fantasy, without metaphor, without phraseology—in contrast, for example, to
the Machine in Kafka's The Penal Colony, where the body, via its wounds,
is still the locus of textual inscription. Therefore, on the one hand, the
machine of Kafka is still puritanical, repressive, "a signifying machine" as Deleuze would say, whereas the technology of Crash is glistening and
seductive, or unpolished and innocent. Seductive because it has been stripped of
meaning, a simple mirror of torn bodies. And the body of Vaughan is likewise a
mirror of twisted chrome, crumpled fenders, and semen-tarnished sheet-metal.
Bodies and technology fused, seduced, inextricable one from the other.
As Vaughan turned the car into a filling
station courtyard the scarlet light from the neon sign over the portico
flared across these grainy photographs of appalling injuries: the breasts of
teenage girls deformed by instrument binnacles, the partial mammoplasties of
elderly housewives carried out by the chromium louvres of windshield
assemblies, nipples sectioned by manufacturers' dashboard medallions;
injuries to male and female genitalia caused by steering wheel shrouds,
windshields during ejection...photographs of mutilated penises, sectioned
vulvas and crushed testicles passed through the flaring light....In several
of the photographs the source of the wound was indicated by a detail of that
portion of the car which caused the injury: beside a casualty ward
photograph of a bifurcated penis was an inset of a handbrake unit; above a
close-up of a massively bruised vulva was a steering-wheel boss and its
manufacturer's medallion. These unions of torn genitalia and sections of car
body and instrument panel formed a series of disturbing modules, units in a
new currency of pain and desire. (§14:134)
Every gash mark, every bruise, every scar left on the body is an artificial
invagination, like those of the ritual scarrings of aborigines which serve as a
vehement answer to the absence of body. Only the wounded body can exist
symbolically, for itself and for others; "sexual desire" is nothing but this
possibility of bodies to mix and exchange their signifiers. And these few
natural orifices which we are accustomed to associate with sex and sexual
activities are nothing in comparison to all these potential wounds, to all these
artificial orifices (but why "artificial"?), to all these openings through which
the body turns itself inside out and, like certain topologies, no longer
possesses an inside or an outside. Sex, as conceived here, is only an inferior
and specialized definition comprising all the symbolic and sacrificial practices
that a body can open itself up to—not via nature, but via artifice, simulation,
and accident. Sex is no more than the rarefaction of a drive called desire in
pre-prepared zones. It is largely surpassed by the wide range of symbolic wounds
which, in a sense, are the "anagrammatization" of sex over the
entire body. But then, of course, it is no longer sex; it is something else. Sex
itself is only the inscription of a privileged signifier and of a few secondary
marks—nothing in comparison to all the marks and wounds that a body is capable
of.
Aborigines knew how to use their entire bodies toward this end through
tatooing, torture, and initiatory rites: sexuality was only one of the many
possible metaphors of this symbolic exchange, and neither the most meaningful
nor the most prestigious (as it has become for us, in its realist and
obsessional referentiality, because of our organic and functional treatment of
it, including orgasms).
As the car traveled for the first time at twenty miles an hour Vaughan
drew his fingers from the girl's vulva and anus, rotated his hips and
inserted his penis in her vagina. Headlamps flared above us as the stream of
cars moved up the slope of the overpass. In the rear-view mirror I could
still see Vaughan and the girl, their bodies lit by the car behind,
reflected in the black trunk of the Lincoln and a hundred points of the
interior trim. In the chromium ashtray I saw the girl's left breast and
erect nipple. In the vinyl window gutter I saw deformed sections of
Vaughan's thighs and her abdomen forming a bizarre anatomical junction.
Vaughan lifted the young woman astride him, his penis entering her vagina
again. In a triptych of images reflected in the speedometer, the clock and
the revolution counter, the sexual act between Vaughan and this young woman
took place in the hooded grottoes of these luminescent dials, moderated by
the surging needle of the speedometer....As I propelled the car at fifty
miles an hour along the open deck of the overpass Vaughan arched his back
and lifted the young woman into the full glare of the headlamps behind us.
Her sharp breasts flashed within the chromium and glass cage of the speeding
car. Vaughan's strong pelvic spasms coincided with the thudding passage of
the lamp standards anchored in the overpass at hundred-yard intervals. As
each one approached his hips kicked into the girl, driving his penis into
her vagina, his hands splaying her buttocks to reveal her anus as the yellow
light filled the car. (§15:143)
Here, all the erotic vocabulary is technical: not ass, prick, or cunt, but
anus, rectum, penis, vulva. No slang, no intimacy in the sexual violence, only
functional language: equivalency of chrome and mucous membranes. And it is the
same with the congruity of death and sex: rather than being described with
pleasure, they are melded together into a kind of highly technical construct. No
sexual pleasure, just discharge, plain and simple. And the copulations and semen
which fill this book have no more sensual value than the outlines of wounds have
the value of violence, even metaphorical. They are only signatures. (In the
final scene, the narrator imprints a number of wrecked cars with his
semen-soaked hand.)
Sexual pleasure (perverse or not) has always been mediated by a technical
apparatus, by a mechanical process, of real objects but most often of fantasies;
it always involves an intermediary manipulation of scenes or gadgets. Here,
sexual pleasure is only climax; in other words, it operates on the same
wave-length as the violence of a technical apparatus; the two are homogenized by
technology and encapsulated into one object: the automobile.
We had entered an immense traffic jam. From the junction of the motorway
and Western Avenue to the ascent ramp of the flyover the traffic lanes were
packed with vehicles, windshields leaching out the molten colours of the sun
setting above the western suburbs of London. Brake-lights flared in the
evening air, glowing in the huge pool of cellulosed bodies. Vaughan sat with
one arm out of the passenger window. He slapped the door impatiently,
pounding the panel with his fist. To our right the high wall of a
double-decker airline coach formed a cliff of faces. The passengers at the
windows resembled rows of the dead looking down at us from the galleries of
a columbarium. The enormous energy of the twentieth century, enough to drive
the planet into a new orbit around a happier star, was being expended to
maintain this immense motionless pause. (§17:151)
Around me, down the entire length of Western Avenue, along both ramps of
the flyover, stretched an immense congestion of traffic held up by the
accident. Standing in the centre of this paralyzed hurricane, I felt
completely at ease, as if my obsessions with the endlessly multiplying
vehicles had at last been relieved. (§17:156)
However, there exists another dimension in Crash which is inseparable
from those mixing the technical and the sexual (united in this mourning-less
work of death): the dimension of photography and cinema. The shining, saturated
surface of traffic patterns and accidents is without depth, but it always takes
on depth in the lens of Vaughan's movie camera. He collects and classifies
stills of accidents, like ID cards. The continual rehearsal of the crucial event
that he is plotting (his automotive death and the simulated death of the movie
star Elizabeth Taylor in a crash involving her, a crash meticulously simulated
and perfected during the course of months) takes place within the focus of the
cinematographic. This universe would be nothing without this hyper-realistic
detached long-shot viewing angle. The added depth and the raising of the visual
medium to the second order can, by itself, suffice to fuse together technology,
sex, and death. But in fact, the photo here is neither a medium nor an order of
representation. It is neither a "supplementary" abstraction of the image, nor
a compulsion for spectacle, and the position of Vaughan is never that of a
voyeur or a pervert. The roll of film (like transistorized music in cars and
apartments) is part of the universal film of life, hyperreal, metallic, and
corporal, made up of movement and flux. The photo is no more a medium than is
the technology or the body—all are simultaneous in this universe where the
anticipation of an event coincides with its reproduction, and even with its
"real" occurrence. Depth of time is abolished as well: much like the past, the
future ceases to exist. Actually, it is the camera-eye which replaces time,
along with all other expressions of depth like affectivity, space, language. It
is not an alternate dimension; it simply signifies that this universe is without
secrets.
The mannequin rider sat well back, the onrushing air lifting his chin.
His hands were shackled to the handlebars like a kamikaze pilot's. His long
thorax was plastered with metering devices. In front of him, their
expressions equally vacant, the family of four manniquins sat in their
vehicle. Their faces were marked with cryptic symbols.
A harsh whipping noise came towards us, the sound of the metering coils
skating across the grass beside the rail. There was a violent metal
explosion as the motorcycle struck the front of the saloon car. The two
vehicles veered sideways towards the line of startled spectators. I regained
my balance, involuntarily holding Vaughan's shoulder, as the motorcycle and
its driver sailed over the bonnet of the car and struck the windshield, then
careened across the roof in a black mass of fragments. The car plunged ten
feet back on its hawsers. It came to rest astride the rails. The bonnet,
windshield and roof had been crushed by the impact. Inside the cabin, the
lopsided family lurched across each other, the decapitated torso of the
front-seat woman passenger embedded in the fractured windshield.
The engineers waved to the crowd reassuringly and moved towards the
motorcycle, which lay in its side fifty yards behind the car. They began to
pick up the sections of the cyclist's body, tucking the legs and head under
their arms. Shavings of fiberglass from its face and shoulders speckled the
glass around the test car like silver snow, a death confetti....
Helen Remington held my arm. She smiled at me, nodding encouragingly as
if urging a child across some mental hurdle. 'We can have a look at it again
on the Ampex. They're showing it in slow-motion. (§13:124-25)
In Crash, everything is hyper-functional: traffic and accidents,
technology and death, sex and simulation are all like one single, huge
synchronous machine. It is the same universe as the hyper-market, where
merchandise becomes hyper-merchandise—in other words, it and the entire
atmosphere surrounding it are always already caught up in the continuous figures
of circulation. But at the same time, the functionalism of Crash devours
its own rationality, since it does not treat the dysfunctional. It is a
radicalized functionalism, a functionalism that reaches its paradoxal limits and
then burns them away. Thus, it becomes an undefinable object, and hence
fascinating. Not good, not bad: ambivalent. Like death or fashion, it becomes a short-cut
(in contrast to the good old functionalism which, even while much debated,
is no longer one at all); in other words, a more rapid road than the main
highway, or going where the main highway doesn't go, or, better yet (to parody
Littré in a pataphysical manner2) "a road going nowhere, but going
there faster than the others."
This is what distinguishes Crash from most other SF works; the latter
still seem to revolve around the same old duo of function/dysfunction, which
they project into the future along the same lines of force and the same
finalities as that of the normal universe. Fiction going beyond reality (or the
inverse), but according to the same rules of the game. In Crash, there is
neither fiction nor reality—a kind of hyper-reality has abolished both. Even
critical regression is no longer possible. This mutating and commutating world
of simulation and death, this violently sexualized world totally lacking in
desire, full of violent and violated bodies but curiously neutered, this
chromatic and intensely metallic world empty of the sensorial, a world of
hyper-technology without finality—is it good or bad? We can't say. It is
simply fascinating, without this fascination implying any kind of value judgment
whatsoever. And this is the miracle of Crash. The moral gaze—the
critical judgmentalism that is still a part of the old world's functionality—cannot
touch it. Crash is hypercritical, in the sense of being beyond the
critical (and even beyond its own author, who, in the introduction, speaks of
this novel as "cautionary, a warning against that brutal, erotic and overlit
realm that beckons more and more persuasively to us from the margins of the
technological landscape": Introduction to Crash 6). Few books, few films
attain this level of absence of all finality and critical negativity, this
unpolished splendor of ordinariness and violence: Nashville, A
Clockwork Orange.
After Borges, but in a totally different register, Crash is the first
great novel of the universe of simulation, the world that we will be dealing
with from now on: a non-symbolic universe but one which, by a kind of reversal
of its mass-mediated substance (neon, concrete, cars, mechanical eroticism),
seems truly saturated with an intense initiatory power.
The last of the ambulances drove away, its siren wailing. The spectators
returned to their cars, or climbed the embankment to break in the wire
fence. An adolescent girl in a denim suit walked past us, her young man with
an arm around her waist. He held her right breast with the back of his hand,
stroking her nipple with his knuckles. They stepped into a beach buggy
slashed with pennants and yellow paint and drove off, horn tooting
eccentrically....This pervasive sexuality filled the air, as if we were
members of a congregation leaving after a sermon urging us to celebrate our
sexualities with friends and strangers, and were driving into the night to
imitate the bloody eucharist we had observed with the most unlikely
partners. (§17:157)
NOTES (by ABE)
1. J.G. Ballard. Crash. NY: Vintage Books, 1985.
Reprint of the first edition (NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1973) plus
author's introduction, which originally appeared in the first French edition
(Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1974).
2. Littré: a respected French dictionary. Pataphysical:
referring to Pataphysics, a parodic pseudo-science invented by the French
satirist Alfred Jarry, who defined it as "the science of that which is superinduced upon metaphysics, whether within or beyond the latter's
limitation....Pataphysics will examine the laws governing exceptions and will
explain the universe supplementary to this one; or, less ambitiously, will
describe a universe that can be—and perhaps should be—envisaged in the place
of the traditional one....Pataphysics is the science of imaginary solutions,
which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their
virtuality, to their lineaments." (Roger Shattuck & Simon Tayler, eds., Selected
Works of Alfred Jarry. NY: Grove Press, 1965, pp. 192-93).
Back
to Home