- Title: In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities or, the End of the Social (Les Cahiers d’Utopie)
- Author: Jean Baudrillard
- Published: 1982
- Publisher: Semiotext(e), Columbia University (1993)
- ISBN-10: 0-936756-00-4
Mass
In this book, Baudrillard talks about the “mass”. Are the masses really as stupid as Nietzsche’s herd, or do they posses potential power to resist against oppression?
The “mass” cannot be defined or represented directly. It can only be surveyed and tested. It is located within the model, and the only simulation is available.
The masses cannot be manipulated. Even though it is said that they are stupid and dull, it is not possible to manipulate them directly. Baudrillard thinks the “mass” is like a gaseous nebula or spongy-like element. The masses absorb every message like a black hole without reflecting, refracting, or genuinely participating in it. The result the process cannot be guaranteed.
The End of the Politics & Sociology
Politics was revived during the Renaissance. Machiavelli was the key figure representing the change. With an emergence of the bourgeoisie class, politics were replaced by the “social”. And then, the traditional sociological concept of the “social,” envisioned by Karl Marx as the driving force of history, has dissolved into hyper-real simulation in the contemporary society.
It is the time of expansion. The “mass” destroyed both the “politic” and the “social.” This destruction is implosive rather than explosive. There are no more representative classes or power; only simulacra exist.
Instead of being alienated – explained by politics and sociology -, the silent majority is indifferent. It absorbs all political, social, and cultural messaging.
Reflections
Many attempts have been made to define the “mass”. Baudrillard points out that it is impossible to define the “mass.” It requires a change of “point of view”. You can think of the “mass” only as a model, or simulation.
Michel de Certeau looks at the positive energy of the masses, whereas Baudrillard looks at them from a different angle. Is he afraid of the unpredictability of the “mass”? Or does he just want to point out the wrong gaze towards the “mass”?
