Baudrillard, Hardt and Negri: analysis of key arguments

Baudrillard's "Paroxysm" and "Spirit of Terror," and Hardt and Negri's "Empire" and "Multitude" are works that examine in one degree or other the condition of the world in which we as human beings live today. While the arguments are about as interesting as the times in which we live, some of them are less convincing than others. Indeed, I find Baudrillard's "Spirit of Terror" somewhat less convincing than any of the other works, followed at only a slight distance by his "Paroxysm."

In "Spirit of Terror," Baudrillard considers the nature and effects of terrorism upon the Western world. While I tend to agree that there has seldom before or since been an event of such shocking magnitude, I have rather a difficult time with his claim that we "wished for it" (p. 5). I fail to see that not acknowledging such an absurdity could make the event one of pure "accident" or indeed simply "arbitrary." Perhaps it is just an unfortunate choice of words, which could be better expressed as "certain American actions caused this as a retaliation." While admittedly this does not have the flair of Baudrillard's claim, it is certainly much closer to the truth. I fail to see how anybody could wish for the 9/11 disaster.

What I find rather more convincing is Baudrillard's understanding of the Islamic paradigm as one to "radicalize the world by sacrifice" (p. 10). This seems not only to extend to Islamic sacrifice, but also to any of the other lives that such sacrifice destroys.

Slightly less unconvincing is Baudrillard's interviews with Philippe Petit in "Paroxysm," where he considers the state of the world in more general terms.

Most convincing of his arguments in these conversations, I find Baudrillard's views on the universal. He argues that universalization has the same effect upon American culture as assimilation does for the foreign nations entering America. It is a type of cultural death. Values are neutralized by becoming universally common, which leads to their demise.

On the other hand, I do not agree that there is no "history in progress" (p. 24). How could the modern human being see history being made while being part of it? I am sure that Baudrillard is simply too close to events today to see that they indeed form part of our future history books. Surely these books will be more interesting and inclusive of all nations and their concerns than those of the past, but this makes them no less tangible.

In "Multitude," Hardt and Negri consider the nature of war in chilling tones. I find their argumentation deadly and convincing, particularly in comparing previous forms of war with that found today. Whereas previous wars could be delineated in terms of their location or at least their participants (p. 3), this is not the case today. Indeed, according to the authors, it has become as intangible as the air we breathe - omnipresent and impossible to pin down and therefore also impossible to terminate. A further chilling factor the authors mention is the fact that democracy is more likely than not to be destroyed by today's ongoing warfare. Indeed, the United States appears to be a case in point. Citizens are enjoying fewer and fewer freedoms in the very name of democracy.