Acknowledgments … viii 致谢 ... viii
Sources and Abbreviations … ixIntroduction1 资料来源和缩略语...... ix引言1
1 Commodities, Needs and Consumption in the Consumer Society … 7
1.1 Starting Point: The System of Objects … 8 1.1 出发点：对象系统...... 8
1.2 The Consumer Society … 12 1.2 消费社会...... 12
1.3 For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign … 19
1.4 Baudrillard and Political Economy … 27 1.4 波德里亚与政治经济学...... 27
2 Beyond Marxism … 33 2 超越马克思主义...... 33
2.1 Marx, Needs and Use Values … 34
2.2 Marx and The Mirror of Production … 39 2.2 马克思与《生产的镜子》...... 39
2.3 Baudrillard’s Politics and the Critique of French Communism … 54
3 Media, Simulations and the End of the Social … 60 3 媒体、模拟与社会的终结...... 60
3.1 On the Way to Postmodernity … 61
3.2 McLuhan, Media and Information … 66
3.3 Simulation, Hyperreality and Implosion … 76
3.4 The End of the Social? … 84 3.4 社会的终结？... 84
3.5 Baudrillard, Poststructuralism and Nietzsche … 89
4 The Postmodern Carnival … 93
4.1 Fashion, the Body and Sexuality … 94
4.2 Life, Death and Sign Fetishism … 102 4.2 生命、死亡与符号迷信...... 102
4.3 Postmodern Art, Architecture and Sign Culture … 108
4.4 Nihilism and Postmodernity … 117
5.1 Beyond Freud and the Mirror of Desire 124 5.1 超越弗洛伊德与欲望之镜 124
5.2 Forget Foucault 5.2 忘记福柯
5.3 Baudrillard’s Affront to Feminism: De la séduction 5.3 波德里亚对女性主义的冒犯：De la séduction
5.4 Baudrillardian Polemics and the French Cultural Scene 5.4 波德里亚理论与法国文化界
6 The Metaphysical Imaginary 6 形而上学的想象
6.1 Fatal Strategies and the Supremacy of the Object 6.1 致命策略与客体至上
6.2 America 6.2 美洲
6.3 ‘Forget Baudrillard’ and L’autre par lui-même 6.3 "忘掉鲍德里亚 "与《我与他人》（L'autre par lui-même
6.4 Baudrillard and the Return of Metaphysics 6.4 波德里亚与形而上学的回归
7 Beyond Baudrillard 7 波德里亚之外
7.1 The Divine Left 7.1 神圣的左翼
7.2 The Ecstasy of Baudrillard 199 7.2 波德里亚的狂喜 199
7.3 For Radical Social Theory and Politics 210 7.3 激进社会理论与政治学 210
But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence . . . illusion only is sacred, truth profane. Nay, sacredness is held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness. 当然，在当今时代，人们更喜欢符号而非被符号的事物，更喜欢摹本而非原物，更喜欢幻想而非现实，更喜欢表象而非本质......只有幻觉才是神圣的，真理才是亵渎的。不，人们认为神圣性会随着真理的减少和幻觉的增加而增强，因此，最高程度的幻觉就是最高程度的神圣。
Ludwig Feuerbach 路德维希-费尔巴哈
As long as humanity has existed, its progress, its acquisitions have all been of the order of sensibility. Each day, it becomes nervous, hysterical. And in regard to this activity . . . are you certain that modern melancholy does not result from it? Do you know if the sadness of the century does not come from overwork, movement, tremendous effort, furious labor, from its cerebral forces strained to the breaking point, from overproduction in every domain? 只要人类存在，其进步和获得都是感性的。每一天，人类都变得紧张、歇斯底里。关于这种活动......你确定现代的忧郁不是由此产生的吗？你知道本世纪的忧伤不是来自过度劳累、运动、巨大的努力、狂热的劳动、脑力消耗到极限、各个领域的生产过剩吗？
The Goncourt Brothers 龚古尔兄弟
‘Why so hard?’ the charcoal once said to the diamond; ‘for are we not close relations?’ 木炭曾对钻石说：'为什么这么难？
Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: for are you not - my brothers? 为什么如此软弱？我的兄弟们啊，我这样问你们：你们不是我的兄弟吗？
Why so soft, unresisting and yielding? Why is there so much denial and abnegation in your hearts? So little fate in your glances? 为什么如此软弱、不抵抗和屈服？为什么你们心中有那么多的否定和放弃？你们的眼神中为何没有命运的眷顾？
And if you will not be fates, if you will not be inexorable: how can you conquer with me? 如果你们不是宿命，如果你们不是无情：你们怎能征服我？
And if your hardness will not flash and cut and cut to pieces: how can you one day - create with me? 如果你的坚硬不闪烁，不切割，不碎裂，有朝一日，你怎能与我共同创造？
Friedrich Nietzsche 弗里德里希-尼采
All things considered, the century of the end will not be the most refined or even the most complicated, but the most hurried, the century in which, its Being dissolved in movement, civilization, in a supreme impulse toward the worst, will fall to pieces in the whirlwind it has raised. 综上所述，终结的世纪不是最精致的世纪，甚至不是最复杂的世纪，而是最匆忙的世纪，在这个世纪里，文明在运动中消解，在向最坏的方向发展的最高冲动中，在它掀起的旋风中粉身碎骨。
E. M. Cioran E.M. Cioran
‘Le cristal se venge’. Le cristal se venge".
Jean Baudrillard 让-鲍德里亚
Acknowledgments 致谢
For discussion and helpful critical remarks on earlier versions of this text I am grateful to Robert Antonio, Stephen Bronner, Judith Burton, Harry Cleaver, Robert Fernea, Beldon Fields, Gloria Gannaway, Robert Goldman, Catherine Ploye, Jonathan Ree, Rick Roderick and Michael Ryan. Mike Featherstone encouraged me to write a critique of the English-language reception of Baudrillard’s work for Theory, Culture and Society which helped mobilize and organize my thoughts for this project. My appreciation and critique of Baudrillard’s theory of the consumer society is indebted to Robert Goldman’s work and our discussions on these topics, while discussions with Harry Cleaver helped clarify the limitations of Baudrillard’s interpretation of Marx. Discussions with Mark Poster, Jacques Morrain, Arthur Kroker, Charles Levin, Scott Lash, Jonathan Friedman, Gail Faurschou and Steve Pfohl helped clarify my understanding of Baudrillard and provided useful information and illuminations of ‘the Baudrillardian scene.’ Jean van Altena performed superb copy-editing. I am especially indebted, however, to Steven Best, with whom I struggled to come to terms with Baudrillard in our discussions and collaborations over the past three years. 迈克-费瑟斯通（Mike Featherstone）鼓励我为《理论、文化与社会》（Theory, Culture and Society）撰写一篇关于鲍德里亚作品在英语中的接受程度的评论，这有助于调动和组织我对本项目的思考。我对鲍德里亚的消费社会理论的欣赏和批判得益于罗伯特-戈德曼（Robert Goldman）的著作和我们就这些主题的讨论，而与哈里-克里弗（Harry Cleaver）的讨论则帮助我澄清了鲍德里亚对马克思解释的局限性。与马克-波斯特尔、雅克-莫瑞恩、阿瑟-克罗克、查尔斯-列文、斯科特-拉什、乔纳森-弗里德曼、盖尔-福尔斯丘和史蒂夫-普佛的讨论有助于澄清我对鲍德里亚的理解，并提供了有用的信息和对'鲍德里亚场景'的启示。让-范-阿尔特纳（Jean van Altena）进行了出色的文字编辑工作。不过，我尤其要感谢史蒂文-贝斯特（Steven Best），在过去三年的讨论与合作中，我一直在努力与波德里亚达成共识。
I have dedicated the book to T. W. Adorno, whose critical and polemical spirit animated my encounter with Baudrillard. 我将此书献给 T. W. 阿多诺，他的批判和论战精神激励着我与鲍德里亚的相遇。
The author and publishers are grateful to Editions Grasset and Fasquelle for permission to reproduce material from Jean Baudrillard, La gauche divine, Paris, 1985. 作者和出版商感谢 Grasset 和 Fasquelle 出版社允许转载让-鲍德里亚：《神圣的上流社会》（La gauche divine），巴黎，1985 年。
A Note on Sources and Abbreviations 关于资料来源和缩略语的说明
I will refer to Baudrillard’s major writings within the text using the abbreviations listed below. I shall use English translations where they exist, though I occasionally modify them. Citations and page references from the French are from the original publication, and all translations from French, German and Spanish texts not yet translated are my own. 我在文中引用鲍德里亚的主要著作时将使用下面列出的缩写。我将使用已有的英文译本，但偶尔也会对其进行修改。法文中的引文和页码参考均来自原出版物，所有来自法文、德文和西班牙文的译文均为我自己的译文。 {:[" ALM "," America "],[" L'autre par lui-même "]:}\begin{array}{ll}\text { ALM } & \text { America } \\ \text { L'autre par lui-même }\end{array}
CM Cool Memories CM 清凉回忆
CPES For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign CPES 符号政治经济学批判
EC The Ecstasy of Communication 欧共体 《交流的狂喜》
ES L’échange symbolique et la mort ES 象征性交换与死亡
FF Forget Foucault FF 忘记福柯
GD La gauche divine GD 神圣的左翼
MoP The Mirror of Production MoP 生产之镜
SES Simulacres et simulation SES 仿真和模拟
SC La société de consommation SC 消费者社会
SED De la séduction SED 简化
SF Les stratégies fatales SF 致命策略
SIM Simulations SIM 模拟
SO Le système des objets SO 物件系统
SSM In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities 沉默多数阴影下的 SSM
SW Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings SW 让-鲍德里亚著作选
In the spirit of T. W. Adorno 本着 T. W. 阿多诺的精神
Introduction 导言
Signs of the times: a new wave of New French Theory has appeared. After the often fervent reception and heated debates over the works of Sartre, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault and others, Jean Baudrillard is now sliding toward center stage of the cultural scene in some circles. In a number of ‘postmodern’ journals and grouplets, Baudrillard is being proclaimed as a fundamental challenge to our orthodoxies and the conventional wisdom in Marxism, psychoanalysis, philosophy, semiology, political economy, anthropology, sociology and other disciplines. A growing number of books and articles contain copious references to his work, and it is de rigeur in some cultural and art journals to cite Baudrillardian quotes and references. A Canadian journal devotes a special issue to him, and presents Baudrillard as ‘a talisman: a symptom, a sign, a charm and above all, a password to the next universe.’ An Australian anthology introduces the ‘Baudrillard scene,’ and a German text presents a transcription of discussions with Baudrillard and celebrates him as the theorist of ‘the death of modernity.’ Journals and publishers throughout the English-speaking world rush his work into translation in a variety of journals, including Semiotext(e), Telos, October, Artforum, The Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, Thesis Eleven, Z/G, On the Beach, Theory, Culture and Society and others. Baudrillard’s name appears ever more frequently in the cycle of conferences promoting postmodernism, and a Baudrillard reader is produced in a copublication by Stanford University Press and Polity Press. ^(1){ }^{1} 时代的标志：新法国理论的新浪潮已经出现。在萨特、列维-斯特劳斯、巴特、德里达、福柯等人的作品受到热捧并引发激烈争论之后，让-鲍德里亚（Jean Baudrillard）现在正滑向某些圈子文化舞台的中心。在一些 "后现代 "期刊和小组中，鲍德里亚被宣称是对我们的正统观念以及马克思主义、精神分析、哲学、符号学、政治经济学、人类学、社会学和其他学科的传统智慧的根本挑战。越来越多的书籍和文章大量引用波德里亚的作品，一些文化和艺术期刊引用波德里亚的名言和参考文献已成为一种惯例。加拿大的一份期刊专门为他出了一期特刊，并把鲍德里亚说成是'护身符：一种症状、一种标志、一种魅力，最重要的是，是通往下一个宇宙的密码'。澳大利亚的一本选集介绍了'鲍德里亚场景'，德国的一篇文章介绍了与鲍德里亚的讨论记录，并将他赞誉为'现代性死亡'的理论家。整个英语世界的期刊和出版商纷纷将他的作品翻译成各种期刊，包括《Semiotext(e)》、《Telos》、《十月》、《Artforum》、《加拿大政治与社会理论期刊》、《Thesis Eleven》、《Z/G》、《On the Beach》、《理论、文化与社会》等。鲍德里亚的名字越来越频繁地出现在推广后现代主义的各种会议上，斯坦福大学出版社和Polity出版社联合出版了《鲍德里亚读本》。 ^(1){ }^{1}
Although English-language translations of Baudrillard’s texts are rapidly proliferating, few, if any, serious critiques of his work have appeared in English. ^(2){ }^{2} Thus questions arise: is Baudrillard simply the latest faddish import from France, or is he an important theorist whose novel and provocative ideas deserve serious study? Is his current vogue a quick blip on the cultural screen, soon to be replaced by the next turn of cultural fashion, or has he posed problems and offered positions that are likely to concern us for some time? Does Baudrillard provide new beginnings and perspectives for our contemporary theoretical and political concerns or merely a series of 尽管鲍德里亚著作的英文译本迅速增加，但用英语对他的作品进行认真评论的却寥寥无几。 ^(2){ }^{2} 由此产生的问题是：鲍德里亚只是法国最新的时髦舶来品，还是一位值得认真研究其新颖而富有启发性的思想的重要理论家？他目前的流行是否只是文化屏幕上的昙花一现，很快就会被下一轮文化时尚所取代，还是他提出的问题和立场可能会在一段时间内引起我们的关注？鲍德里亚为我们当代的理论和政治问题提供了新的开端和视角，还是仅仅提供了一系列的......？
ultra-radical gestures that portend the collapse of both critical social theory and radical politics? 极端激进的姿态预示着批判性社会理论和激进政治的崩溃？
Baudrillard has certainly produced an imposing and impressive body of work during the past twenty years, which has opened up new lines of thought and discourse, while putting in question many of the Marxian, Freudian and structuralist positions which characterized the previous era of radical social theory. Today, Baudrillard is being celebrated as one of the master thinkers in the discourses of poststructuralism and postmodernism. Yet reception of his thought has been remarkably uncritical and resolutely ahistorical. There has been little analysis of his complex intellectual trajectory, his involvement in a series of debates within the French post-May 1968 intellectual scene or the dramatic transformations in his writing and thinking in the 1970s and 1980s. Instead, Baudrillard appears as if by magic on the ‘postmodern scene’ to do battle with the Marx, Freud, Foucault, French feminists, Socialists and Communists. 在过去的二十年里，鲍德里亚无疑创作了大量令人印象深刻的作品，开辟了新的思想和论述思路，同时对马克思、弗洛伊德和结构主义的许多立场提出了质疑，而这些立场正是前激进社会理论时代的特征。如今，鲍德里亚被誉为后结构主义和后现代主义的思想大师之一。然而，人们对他的思想的接受却明显缺乏批判性，而且完全没有历史感。人们很少分析他复杂的思想轨迹、他参与 1968 年 5 月后法国思想界一系列争论的情况，以及他在 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代写作和思想的巨大转变。相反，鲍德里亚却像变魔术一样出现在 "后现代舞台 "上，与马克思、弗洛伊德、福柯、法国女权主义者、社会主义者和共产主义者展开争斗。
In this book I will begin the process of mapping out, contextualizing and critically appraising Baudrillard’s work as a whole. First, I will indicate how Baudrillard’s thinking and writing were deeply influenced by a certain style of radicalism that appeared in France in the 1960s. The 1960s rebellions against the established society included revolts against the disciplines, methods, theories, styles and discourses of the university intellectual establishment. 1960s radicals both attacked conventional wisdom, and sought new critical theories and discourses. This led to a positive appropriation of Marxism, which, along with anarchism, emerged as a dominant critical discourse. It also led to a concern with Freud and sexuality, culture and everyday life, as well as to syntheses of Marx, Freud and the new cultural and political theories which proliferated in the highly volatile situation of the period. ^(3){ }^{3} 在本书中，我将开始对鲍德里亚的作品进行整体勾勒、背景分析和批判性评价。首先，我将指出鲍德里亚的思想和写作如何深受 20 世纪 60 年代法国出现的某种激进主义风格的影响。20 世纪 60 年代对既有社会的反叛包括对大学知识建制的学科、方法、理论、风格和话语的反叛。20 世纪 60 年代的激进分子既抨击传统智慧，又寻求新的批判理论和话语。这导致了对马克思主义的积极利用，马克思主义与无政府主义一起成为了一种占主导地位的批判性话语。它还引发了对弗洛伊德与性、文化和日常生活的关注，以及对马克思、弗洛伊德和新文化与政治理论的综合，这些理论在当时极不稳定的形势下大量涌现。 ^(3){ }^{3}
Baudrillard was part of this movement of French thought. Trained as a sociologist, in his 1960s and early 1970s work, he merged the Marxian critique of capitalism with studies of consumption, fashion, media, sexuality and the consumer society in texts which can be read as updating and reconstructing Marxian theory in the light of the new social conditions then appearing in France. From this perspective, Baudrillard’s early work can be interpreted as a response to neo-capitalism, which, in the 1960 s, came with a vengeance to France, with contradictory consequences. The Monnet Plan of the 1940 s had inaugurated state planning, and by the 1960 s modernization, technological development and the growth of both monopoly firms and a technocratic state sector were evident. ^(4){ }^{4} 鲍德里亚是这场法国思想运动的一部分。他是社会学家出身，在 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代初的创作中，他将马克思主义对资本主义的批判与对消费、时尚、媒体、性和消费社会的研究结合起来，根据当时法国出现的新的社会状况，对马克思主义理论进行了更新和重建。从这个角度看，鲍德里亚的早期作品可以被解释为对新资本主义的回应，新资本主义在 20 世纪 60 年代在法国肆虐，并带来了矛盾的后果。20 世纪 40 年代的 "莫内计划 "开启了国家计划的先河，到了 20 世纪 60 年代，现代化、技术发展以及垄断企业和技术官僚国家部门的增长显而易见。 ^(4){ }^{4}
In addition, new architecture, commodities and expressions of the consumer society such as drugstores, advertising, ubiquitous television and mass media were transforming everyday French life, and appeared to be ushering in a dramatically new social order. Social theorists and historians of a wide variety of tendencies agreed that the France of the 1960s was 此外，新的建筑、商品和消费社会的表现形式，如药店、广告、无处不在的电视和大众传媒，都在改变着法国人的日常生活，似乎正在开创一个崭新的社会秩序。各种倾向的社会理论家和历史学家一致认为，20 世纪 60 年代的法国是
Introduction 导言
qualitatively different from the France of the 1950s. ^(5){ }^{5} Baudrillard called the new social formation ‘the consumer society,’ while others referred to it as the ‘technological society’ (Ellul), the ‘post-industrial society’ (Aron and Touraine), the ‘society of the spectacle’ (Debord), or the ‘bureaucratic society of controlled consumption’ (Lefebvre). 与20世纪50年代的法国有着质的区别。 ^(5){ }^{5} 鲍德里亚将这种新的社会形态称为 "消费社会"，还有人将其称为 "技术社会"（埃卢尔）、"后工业社会"（阿隆和图瓦内）、"奇观社会"（德波）或 "控制消费的官僚社会"（勒费布尔）。
These socioeconomic developments stirred a remarkable series of attempts to reconstruct radical social theories to account for the changes in social conditions and everyday life, and spawned many new critical discourses. Roland Barthes explored the new consumer and media culture in his studies of ‘mythologies.’ Influenced by the French semiologist Ferdinand de Saussure’s call to study ‘the life of signs in society,’ Barthes analyzed the ways that the ‘mythologies’ of advertising, fashion, popular culture and the mass media attempted to transform 'petite-bourgeois culture into a universal nature. ^(6){ }^{6} Barthes saw these mythologies as naturalizing contemporary bourgeois society, making it appear that a historically produced society was an expression of nature by erasing and covering over nasty historical conflicts and conditions or making them appear accidental and ‘normal.’ 这些社会经济发展激起了一系列引人注目的尝试，人们试图重建激进的社会理论，以解释社会条件和日常生活的变化，并催生了许多新的批评话语。罗兰-巴特（Roland Barthes）在其 "神话 "研究中探索了新的消费文化和媒体文化。受法国符号学家费迪南德-德-索绪尔（Ferdinand de Saussure）呼吁研究 "社会中的符号生活 "的影响，巴特分析了广告、时尚、大众文化和大众传媒的 "神话 "如何试图将 "小布尔乔亚文化 "转变为 "普遍性文化"。 ^(6){ }^{6} 巴特认为这些神话将当代资产阶级社会自然化，通过抹杀和掩盖令人讨厌的历史冲突和条件，或使其显得偶然和'正常'，从而使一个历史上产生的社会看起来是自然的表现。
At the same time, new theories of language and culture were being developed to analyze various forms of discourse and culture. These theories ranged from Lévi-Strauss’s structural anthropology to Lacan’s structural psychoanalysis and from Althusser’s structural Marxism to the theories of textuality and deconstruction advanced by Jacques Derrida. The new structuralist, semiological and deconstructive theories focused attention on language, representation and the importance of discourses, images, codes and culture in everyday life. In particular, the new theories of representation and signification broke with conventional views of the relationship between language and reality. Drawing on Saussure’s structural linguistics, the semiological theories of language problematized relations between language and reality, words and things. Saussure saw the linguistic sign as consisting of a signifier (the acoustic or visual component) and a signified (the conceptual component). On this theory, meaning was primarily determined not by referring language to the world, but through differences within a system of language and with the structures and rules of signification responsible for the production of meaning. Relationships between words and things, signifiers and what they signify, were conceptualized as strictly arbitrary, there being no ‘natural’ links between language and the world. The statement ‘The sky is blue today’ relates an arbitrary signifier ‘sky’ to the heavens above, and uses the signifier ‘blue’ to denote the difference between the sky on a particular sunny, cloudless day and its grey, cloudy or nocturnal appearance.? 与此同时，新的语言和文化理论也在不断发展，以分析各种形式的话语和文化。这些理论包括从列维-斯特劳斯的结构人类学到拉康的结构精神分析，从阿尔都塞的结构马克思主义到雅克-德里达提出的文本性和解构理论。新的结构主义、符号学和解构主义理论重点关注语言、表象以及日常生活中话语、图像、代码和文化的重要性。特别是，关于表象和符号的新理论打破了关于语言与现实之间关系的传统观点。符号学语言理论借鉴索绪尔的结构语言学，将语言与现实、词语与事物之间的关系问题化。索绪尔认为，语言符号由符号者（声音或视觉成分）和被符号者（概念成分）组成。根据这一理论，意义主要不是由语言与世界的关系决定的，而是由语言系统内部的差异以及负责产生意义的符号结构和规则决定的。词语与事物、符号与符号所代表的事物之间的关系在概念上是完全任意的，语言与世界之间不存在 "自然 "联系。今天的天空是蓝色的 "这句话将一个任意的符号 "天空 "与头顶的天空联系起来，并用符号 "蓝色 "来表示某个晴朗无云的日子的天空与灰色、多云或夜间的天空之间的差异。
Whereas previous approaches to linguistics theorized language in diachronic, or historical, terms and as an aggregate of distinct words, Saussure argued that language should be studied as a synchronic structure, as a system 索绪尔认为，语言应作为一种同步结构、一个系统来研究。
whose individual parts function relationally, within the system of language. Semiology was conceived as a science which would study the system of language, and Saussure proposed that it be extended to social systems of signification, to study of ‘the life of signs within society.’ Barthes and others took up Saussure’s challenge, and applied semiological principles to the study of myths, ideologies, fashion, the media, images and other aspects of social life. Baudrillard was deeply influenced by the semiological revolution, which articulated the importance of signification, representation and systems of signs in social and domestic life. The semiological turn forced his generation to rethink relationships between language and other systems of representation like painting or cinema, as well as those between representation, language, power and social reality. These developments were part of a process of questioning the fundamental premises of language and thought, and contributed to the subsequent reconstruction of the disciplines of linguistics, anthropology, sociology, political economy, philosophy and cultural studies. 其各个部分在语言系统中发挥着关联作用。符号学被认为是一门研究语言系统的科学，索绪尔建议将其扩展到社会符号系统，研究 "符号在社会中的生活"。巴特等人接受了索绪尔的挑战，将符号学原理应用于神话、意识形态、时尚、媒体、图像和社会生活其他方面的研究。鲍德里亚深受符号学革命的影响，这场革命阐明了符号、表象和符号系统在社会和家庭生活中的重要性。符号学转向迫使他那一代人重新思考语言与绘画或电影等其他表征系统之间的关系，以及表征、语言、权力和社会现实之间的关系。这些发展是对语言和思想的基本前提提出质疑的过程的一部分，并促进了后来语言学、人类学、社会学、政治经济学、哲学和文化研究等学科的重建。
In addition, French theorists began taking seriously phenomena from everyday life which had been neglected previously and which tended to remain segregated from the domain of ‘high culture.’ Since the 1940s, Baudrillard’s sociology teacher, Henri Lefebvre, had been calling for a ‘critique of everyday life’ and the expansion of Marxism toward theorization of the conditions, problems and possibilities for change within everyday life. ^(8){ }^{8} Lefebvre had published a whole series of volumes on Marxism, including early texts written while he was a member of the Communist Party and later texts which attempted to reconstruct and develop Marxism in a creative way after his expulsion from the Party in 1956.^(9)1956 .{ }^{9} He greatly expanded the Marxian theory through his studies of consumption, architecture, urbanization and the multifaceted roles of language and culture in contemporary neo-capitalist societies. 此外，法国的理论家们开始认真对待以前被忽视的、往往与 "高雅文化 "相隔绝的日常生活现象。自20世纪40年代以来，鲍德里亚的社会学老师亨利-列斐伏尔（Henri Lefebvre）一直在呼吁 "日常生活批判"，并将马克思主义扩展到日常生活的条件、问题和变革可能性的理论化。 ^(8){ }^{8} 列斐伏尔出版了一整套关于马克思主义的著作，其中包括他作为共产党员时撰写的早期文章，以及他于 1956.^(9)1956 .{ }^{9} 年被开除党籍后试图以创造性的方式重建和发展马克思主义的晚期文章。他通过对消费、建筑、城市化以及语言和文化在当代新资本主义社会中的多重作用的研究，极大地扩展了马克思主义理论。
Lefebvre’s project deeply influenced Baudrillard, though we shall find that the latter’s approach to these phenomena differed significantly from that of his teacher. Baudrillard was much more sympathetic to structuralism and semiology than Lefebvre, whose Marxism was more orthodox and more critical of competing theoretical systems. ^(10){ }^{10} During the 1960 s, other French radicals were questioning and, in many cases, moving beyond the Marxism that remained the theoretical framework for Lefebvre and for Baudrillard’s early works. The group of theorists associated with the journal Arguments were studying the impact of new technologies on the labor process, class structure and political system, and were rethinking Marxism in the light of these transformations. New theories of class and the new working classes emerged along with new theories of technology, the media, language and culture. These theories also considered new strategies of social transformation, and ranged from class theories of social change which looked beyond the Marxian proletariat to the ‘new working class’ to the works of 列斐伏尔的计划深深影响了鲍德里亚，尽管我们会发现后者对这些现象的处理方法与他的老师大相径庭。鲍德里亚比列斐伏尔更同情结构主义和符号学，后者的马克思主义更为正统，对相互竞争的理论体系更具批判性。 ^(10){ }^{10} 20世纪60年代，其他法国激进分子开始质疑马克思主义，并在很多情况下超越了马克思主义，而马克思主义一直是列斐伏尔和鲍德里亚早期作品的理论框架。与《论据》杂志有关的理论家们正在研究新技术对劳动过程、阶级结构和政治制度的影响，并根据这些变革重新思考马克思主义。关于阶级和新工人阶级的新理论以及关于技术、媒体、语言和文化的新理论应运而生。这些理论还考虑了社会变革的新策略，从超越马克思无产阶级的社会变革阶级理论到 "新工人阶级 "理论，再到 "马克思主义者 "的作品，不一而足。
Guy Debord and the ‘situationists’, who were developing theories of ‘the society of the spectacle’ which focused on image production, spectacle and new forms of domination and alienation in the consumer society. The situationists searched for new strategies of revolt and revolution, while criticizing Marxist-Leninist theories of the party and holding on to the proletariat as the revolutionary subject. ^(11){ }^{11} 居伊-德波（Guy Debord）和 "情境主义者 "发展了 "奇观社会 "理论，其重点是消费社会中的图像生产、奇观和新形式的统治与异化。情境主义者在批判马克思列宁主义政党理论、坚持无产阶级作为革命主体的同时，也在寻找新的反抗和革命策略。 ^(11){ }^{11}
The period was a time of ferment, experimentation, novelty and synthesis that combined theories from diverse fields. At the time, Baudrillard was a teacher of sociology at Nanterre, and was seriously engaged in the study of Marxism, anthropology, history, culture and politics. During the 1960s, before publishing his first book on Le système des objets (see 1.1), he translated some plays by Peter Weiss, Brecht and others, a book on Third World revolution and a collection of photographs of Germans. ^(12)He{ }^{12} \mathrm{He} was on the Left politically and supported the established and emerging revolutionary tendencies in France and elsewhere in the world. 这一时期是发酵、实验、新颖和综合的时期，综合了来自不同领域的理论。当时，鲍德里亚是楠泰尔社会学教师，认真研究马克思主义、人类学、历史、文化和政治。20 世纪 60 年代，在出版他的第一部著作《物体系统》（见 1.1）之前，他翻译了彼得-魏斯、布莱希特等人的一些剧本、一本关于第三世界革命的书和一本德国人照片集。 ^(12)He{ }^{12} \mathrm{He} 在政治上属于左翼，支持法国和世界其他地方既有的和新兴的革命倾向。
The revolutionary ferment in the intellectual world exploded in the political and social sphere in France, in May 1968, when for a few heady weeks it looked as if revolution was in the making for the first time in an advanced capitalist country. ^(13){ }^{13} Students began agitating for reforms in March, and went on strike and took over their universities in early May; their example was followed by the workers, who occupied their factories in mid-May. Production and the routines of everyday life came to a halt. De Gaulle mysteriously left the country at one point, and it appeared that a radical overthrow of the entire system was taking place. 1968年5月，思想界的革命浪潮在法国的政治和社会领域爆发，在几个令人兴奋的星期里，革命似乎第一次在一个先进的资本主义国家酝酿之中。 ^(13){ }^{13} 学生们从3月开始鼓动改革，5月初举行罢课并占领了大学；工人们以他们为榜样，在5月中旬占领了工厂。生产和日常生活陷入停顿。戴高乐一度神秘地离开了这个国家，整个体制似乎正在被彻底推翻。
By June, however, ‘normality’ had returned. De Gaulle promised new elections and reforms, the workers returned to work (with the support of the Communist Party and the trade unions); and the students went on vacation. Some reforms were effected, but by and large, France returned to business as usual and the old routines. Still, the events deeply influenced their participants, who for some years after continued to live and think in their revolutionary and utopian ambiance. Although Baudrillard was part of this situation, he has never really analysed or discussed how all these contradictory factors and influences shaped his thought and writings. Indeed, simply to list the ‘influences’ on a complex thinker like Baudrillard is itself misleading. My purpose here is simply to enumerate some of the forces in the intellectual and political field that constitutes Baudrillard’s ‘scene,’ forces that are evident in his writings. To continue the list would require discussion of Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction, Andy Warhol’s pop art, Marcel Mauss’s theory of the gift, George Bataille’s theory of expenditure and symbolic exchange, Lacan’s revision of Freud, LéviStrauss’s structuralism, Althusser’s structuralist reading of Marx, the work of American writers on the consumer society and Critical Theorists like Herbert Marcuse, T. W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin. A full inventory of the influences on Baudrillard, however, would not only be tiresome, but 然而，到了 6 月，"正常 "又回来了。戴高乐承诺进行新的选举和改革，工人们（在共产党和工会的支持下）重返工作岗位；学生们也开始放假。虽然进行了一些改革，但总的来说，法国又恢复了正常的工作和生活。不过，这些事件还是深深地影响了参与者，他们在之后的一些年里继续在革命和乌托邦的氛围中生活和思考。尽管鲍德里亚也是其中的一员，但他从未真正分析或讨论过所有这些矛盾的因素和影响如何塑造了他的思想和著作。事实上，仅仅列举对鲍德里亚这样一位复杂思想家的 "影响 "本身就是一种误导。我在此只是列举构成鲍德里亚 "场景 "的思想和政治领域中的一些力量，这些力量在他的著作中显而易见。要继续列举下去，就需要讨论雅克-德里达（Jacques Derrida）的解构主义、安迪-沃霍尔（Andy Warhol）的波普艺术、马塞尔-莫斯（Marcel Mauss）的礼物理论、乔治-巴塔耶（George Bataille）的支出和符号交换理论、拉康（Lacan）对弗洛伊德的修正、列维-斯特劳斯（LéviStrauss）的结构主义、阿尔都塞（Althusser）对马克思的结构主义解读、美国作家对消费社会的研究，以及赫伯特-马尔库塞（Herbert Marcuse）、T. W. 阿多诺（T. W. Adorno）和沃尔特-本雅明（Walter Benjamin）等批判理论家。然而，全面盘点对鲍德里亚的影响不仅会让人厌烦，而且也会让人感到乏味。
would be beside the point, since Baudrillard increasingly came to think against and oppose most of the major influences on his early work. By the 1970s, it appeared to one interpreter that 'Baudrillard is against any thinker whose ideas he takes seriously. ^(14){ }^{14} 但这并不重要，因为鲍德里亚的思想越来越多地与影响他早期创作的大多数重要思想相悖和对立。到了 20 世纪 70 年代，在一位解释者看来，"鲍德里亚反对任何他认真对待其思想的思想家。 ^(14){ }^{14}
Still, Baudrillard’s texts emerged from a specific historical matrix, and it is useful to recall this matrix before beginning to analyze and criticize the texts themselves. The following chapters, then, will start with Baudrillard’s early writings, although the organization will not be strictly chronological. After attempting to establish his early problematic and examining his studies of the ‘system of objects’ and the consumer society, which form the original matrix of his thought, I will proceed thematically, albeit without ignoring chronology and context. In particular, I will analyze his early exercises within neo-Marxian social theory, his break with Marxism, his turn to ‘postmodern’ positions and the surprising developments in his works of the 1980s. Throughout I will attempt to contextualize, present and critically appraise the works discussed. Since Baudrillard’s project remains unfinished, I cannot claim to present final perspectives on his work, though I do hope to provide comprehensive critical views of the entirety of his published work to the present time. 尽管如此，鲍德里亚的文本还是产生于一个特定的历史矩阵，在开始分析和批判文本本身之前，回顾一下这个矩阵是非常有用的。因此，以下各章将从鲍德里亚的早期著作入手，但并不严格按照时间顺序编排。在尝试建立他早期的问题体系并考察他对 "物的体系 "和消费社会的研究（这些研究构成了他思想的原始矩阵）之后，我将按主题展开论述，但不会忽略时间顺序和背景。特别是，我将分析他早期在新马克思主义社会理论中的实践、他与马克思主义的决裂、他对 "后现代 "立场的转向以及他在 20 世纪 80 年代作品中的惊人发展。在整个过程中，我将尝试对所讨论的作品进行背景分析、介绍和批判性评价。由于鲍德里亚的计划尚未完成，我不能声称对他的作品提出了最终的观点，但我确实希望对他迄今为止发表的全部作品提出全面的批评意见。
matter of the reading of a monthly good book or a trip to the drive-in’ is 'in the very element of consumer society itself; no society has ever been saturated with signs and messages like this one. ^(2){ }^{2} On this view, the cultural sphere - mass culture, advertising, information and communication technologies and so forth - had a direct role in production and economic management, as well as in socialization, education, acculturation and leisure. 每月读一本好书或去汽车影院看电影 "是 "消费社会本身的要素；从来没有一个社会像现在这样充斥着各种标志和信息。 ^(2){ }^{2} 根据这一观点，文化领域--大众文化、广告、信息和通信技术等--在生产和经济管理中，以及在社会化、教育、文化适应和休闲中都发挥着直接作用。
Baudrillard, anticipating this trend, made the role of the cultural sphere in everyday life the main focus of both his earlier and his later work. His first three books focus on the ways in which culture, ideology and signs functioned in everyday life, while his later work continues his groundbreaking forays into the life of signs in society. His early investigations ranged from explorations of the consumer society to study of a wide variety of cultural phenomena within social life, especially the media, art, sexuality, fashion and technology - which themselves were becoming forms of commodification and consumption. 鲍德里亚预见到了这一趋势，将文化领域在日常生活中的作用作为其早期和晚期作品的重点。他的前三部著作主要探讨了文化、意识形态和符号在日常生活中的作用，而他的晚期著作则继续对符号在社会中的生活进行了开创性的探索。他早期的研究包括对消费社会的探索，以及对社会生活中各种文化现象的研究，尤其是媒体、艺术、性、时尚和技术--它们本身正在成为商品化和消费的形式。
Lefebvre, Baudrillard and others claimed that the contemporary stage of capitalism is distinguished from earlier socioeconomic formations precisely by the increased importance of commodity culture within both production and social reproduction - the ways in which society reproduces itself in individual thought and behavior. On this view, one cannot properly understand history, politics, economics or any social phenomenon without grasping the role of culture and commodification within the social logic of contemporary capitalist societies. 列斐伏尔、鲍德里亚等人声称，当代资本主义阶段有别于早期的社会经济形态，正是因为商品文化在生产和社会再生产--社会在个人思想和行为中自我再生产的方式--中的重要性增加了。根据这一观点，如果不掌握文化和商品化在当代资本主义社会的社会逻辑中的作用，就无法正确理解历史、政治、经济或任何社会现象。
1.1 STARTING POINT: THE SYSTEM OF OBJECTS 1.1 出发点：物体系统
Baudrillard’s first published book, Le système des objets (1968), investigates the new world of objects bound up with the explosive proliferation of a brave new world of consumer goods and services. The project operates within the framework of a subject-object dialectic in which the subject faces a world of objects which attract, fascinate and sometimes control his or her perception, thought and behavior. The analyses given presuppose the theory of the commodification of everyday life under capitalism advanced by Marxists like Lukács and semiological theories in which objects are interpreted as signs which are organized into systems of signification. ^(3){ }^{3} 鲍德里亚出版的第一部著作《物体系统》（1968 年）研究了与消费品和服务的爆炸性增长紧密相连的新物体世界。该项目在主客体辩证关系的框架内运作，在这个框架内，主体面对的是一个由物品组成的世界，这些物品吸引着、迷惑着，有时甚至控制着他或她的感知、思想和行为。分析的前提是卢卡奇等马克思主义者提出的资本主义下日常生活商品化的理论，以及符号学理论，在符号学理论中，物体被解释为符号，并被组织成符号系统。 ^(3){ }^{3}
The ambitious task which Baudrillard set himself was to describe the contours and dominant structures of the new system of objects and at the same time indicate how they condition and structure needs, fantasies and behavior. The book itself is highly systematic; it starts with an exploration of the system of functional objects (consumer goods), then proceeds to a series of studies of systems of seemingly nonfunctional objects (antiques, collections) and metafunctional objects (gadgets and robots), and concludes with an inquiry into ‘the socio-ideological system of objects and consumption.’ 鲍德里亚为自己设定的宏伟任务是，描述新物品系统的轮廓和主导结构，同时指出它们如何制约和构建需求、幻想和行为。这本书本身具有很强的系统性；它首先探讨了功能性物品（消费品）系统，然后对看似非功能性物品（古董、收藏品）和元功能性物品（小玩意儿和机器人）系统进行了一系列研究，最后对 "物品和消费的社会意识形态系统 "进行了探究。
Baudrillard combines structuralist analysis of systems of objects with Freudian analysis of the hidden meanings in the life of objects and Marxist ideology critiques of dominant ideological legitimations of the consumer society. 波德里亚将结构主义对物品系统的分析与弗洛伊德对物品生命中隐藏意义的分析，以及马克思主义意识形态对消费社会主流意识形态合法性的批判结合起来。
Le système des objets is animated by Baudrillard’s sense that he is describing a new social order, one which he variously describes as a ‘new technical order,’ ‘new environment,’ ‘new field of everyday life,’ ‘new morality’ and new form of ‘hypercivilization.’ He frequently uses the terms ‘modernity’ and ‘modern’ to describe the new environment; thus he interprets the rise of the system of objects and consumer society under the sign of modernity (whereas later he will describe the genesis and contours of what he will eventually call a ‘postmodern’ world). The text is full of interesting insights and anticipations of his later work. Indeed, the framework of a perceiving, desiring subject facing a world of objects and signs defines the trajectory of Baudrillard’s thought right up to the present. Thus his first book begins his project of describing the ways in which subjects relate to, use, dominate or are dominated by the system of objects and signs which constitute our everyday life. 波德里亚认为自己正在描述一种新的社会秩序，他将这种秩序描述为 "新的技术秩序"、"新的环境"、"新的日常生活领域"、"新的道德 "和新形式的 "超文明"。他经常使用 "现代性 "和 "现代 "来描述新环境；因此，他在现代性的标志下解释了物品系统和消费社会的兴起（而稍后他将描述他最终称之为 "后现代 "世界的起源和轮廓）。文中充满了有趣的见解和对其后期作品的预言。事实上，一个感知、渴望的主体面对一个由对象和符号组成的世界，这一框架决定了鲍德里亚直至今日的思想轨迹。因此，他的第一本书开始了他的项目，即描述主体与构成我们日常生活的对象和符号系统的关系、使用、支配或被支配的方式。
The starting point of Baudrillard’s oeuvre is thus our familiar system of objects. Individuals in all societies have always organized their everyday life through the production, arrangement and use of objects, and Baudrillard describes what he sees as the characteristic features of our contemporary system of objects and what distinguishes it from that of previous societies. He begins by describing the structures of organization of the objects of everyday life (SO, pp. 21 ff .). Furniture in a traditional environment tended to be personalized, expressive and symptomatic of familial history, taste and tradition. Modern furniture, by contrast, he claims, is more functional, mobile, flexible and stripped of depth, symbolism and personal style. Modern interiors ‘liberate’ objects from expressive functions, and allow them to be arranged in various functional combinations; thus a table can be eaten on, written on or used to organize books and papers, whereas a multipurpose couch can be used to seat guests or to sleep on as a bed. New functional interiors and furniture displace the enclosed space of walls through the arrangement of objects, windows and lighting. Thus, modern home environments open up functional space by creating diffuse zones of angles and combinations of objects illuminated by new sources of lighting and more and larger windows which open up the closed and well-ordered space of the bourgeois interior which had previously constituted domestic space (SO, pp. 27-30). 因此，鲍德里亚作品的出发点是我们熟悉的物品系统。所有社会中的个人总是通过生产、安排和使用物品来组织他们的日常生活，鲍德里亚描述了他所认为的当代物品系统的特征以及与以往社会物品系统的区别。他首先描述了日常生活物品的组织结构（《社会科学》，第 21 页及以下各页）。传统环境中的家具往往是个性化的、富有表现力的，是家族历史、品味和传统的象征。他认为，相比之下，现代家具更加实用、机动、灵活，没有深度、象征意义和个人风格。现代室内装饰将物品从表达功能中 "解放 "出来，使其能够以各种功能组合的方式摆放；因此，一张桌子可以用来吃饭、写字或整理书籍和文件，而一张多功能沙发则可以用来接待客人或当床睡。新的功能性室内装饰和家具通过物品、窗户和照明的布置，取代了墙壁的封闭空间。因此，现代家居环境开辟了功能空间，通过新的照明光源和更多更大的窗户，创造出角度和物品组合的漫射区，打开了资产阶级室内封闭而有序的空间，而这正是以前的家庭空间（《苏》，第 27-30 页）。
The reduction and diminution of mirrors and the decline in the presence and prominence of family portraits are also indicative of a new style and ‘modern order,’ as is the disappearance of large, ticking living-room clocks (SO, pp. 31-4). In the new organization of objects and interiors, objects are no longer as subjective, expressive, familial, traditional and decorative as 镜子的减少和萎缩、全家福的减少和重要性的下降也表明了一种新的风格和 "现代秩序"，正如大型滴答作响的起居室时钟的消失一样（《设计手册》，第 31-4 页）。在新的物品和室内装饰组织中，物品不再像以前那样具有主观性、表现性、家庭性、传统性和装饰性。
they once were. They are more functional, more homogeneous, artificial and without depth. The new world of objects requires an ‘organizational man’ who is able to master, control and order the objects in varying combinations and permutations (SO, pp. 37ff.). The new ‘mode of living in the technical era’ (SO, p. 38) calls for individuals capable of manipulating objects, arranging them and producing systems of order which are themselves replicative of social models and systems (in technical discourses, home fashion magazines, architecture and design and so on). 它们曾经是。它们更加实用、更加单一、人为且缺乏深度。新的物品世界需要一个 "组织者"，他能够掌握、控制和安排物品的不同组合和排列组合（《论语》第 37 页及以下各页）。新的 "技术时代的生活模式"（《社会》，第 38 页）要求人们有能力操纵物品、安排物品和制造秩序系统，而这些系统本身又是社会模式和系统（技术话语、家居时尚杂志、建筑和设计等）的翻版。
The technical order requires a technical language to describe the new system of objects and their relations, their organization into ensembles, structures and significations. This system of technical objects, Baudrillard claims, is ‘essential’ by comparison with the subjective system of needs and values (SO, pp. 12ff.), although he frequently interprets the creation of the object world in Freudian terms, as the projection of subjective impulses, wishes and so on. The thrust of Baudrillard’s analysis is that the new technical world of objects leads to new values, modes of behavior and relations to objects and to other people. The modern individual is portrayed as a ‘cybernetician’ (SO, p. 41) who is induced to order objects into environments and to produce new ambiances and styles in accord with the imperatives of the technical world. After describing the structures of organization of objects, Baudrillard then describes the ‘structures of ambience’ (SO, pp. 42ff.). Here he discusses how color, material, form and style are combined to produce a new mode of living and a new type of environment. While traditional colors were expressive, much like traditional furniture, more modern pastel colors are detached from nature and are more artificial and free from traditional systems of signification. Thus colors too are more functional and lose their singular value by being organized into systems that are relative to each other and to the ensemble as a whole (SO, p. 49). New artificial materials like plastic, synthetics, stucco and glass replace natural, ‘living’ material like wood or cotton; they are ‘homogeneous as cultural signs and can be instituted in a coherent system. Their abstraction permits combining them as one wishes. . . The entire modern environment thus passes globally into a system of signs’ (SO, pp. 54-5). We see here how Baudrillard uses semiological theories of the sign to interpret the structure of everyday life. Henceforth the organization, nature and effects of the life of signs in society will be a major focus of his work. 技术秩序需要一种技术语言来描述新的对象系统及其关系，将它们组织成组合、结构和意义。鲍德里亚声称，与主观的需求和价值体系相比，这种技术对象体系是 "基本的"（《社会科学》，第 12 页及以下），尽管他经常用弗洛伊德的术语来解释对象世界的创造，即主观冲动、愿望等的投射。鲍德里亚分析的要旨是，新的物品技术世界导致了新的价值观、行为模式以及与物品和他人的关系。现代人被描绘成一个 "网络人"（《网络世界》，第 41 页），他们被诱导着将物品排列到环境中，并按照技术世界的要求创造出新的环境和风格。在描述了物体的组织结构之后，鲍德里亚接着描述了 "氛围结构"（《论》第 42 页及以下各页）。在这里，他讨论了色彩、材料、形式和风格如何结合在一起，产生一种新的生活模式和新型环境。传统色彩具有表现力，就像传统家具一样，而现代的粉彩则脱离了自然，更加人工化，摆脱了传统的符号系统。因此，色彩的功能性也更强，并被组织成彼此相对的系统和整体的系统，从而失去了其单一的价值（SO, 第 49 页）。塑料、合成材料、灰泥和玻璃等新型人造材料取代了木材或棉花等天然 "有生命 "的材料；它们 "作为文化符号具有同质性，可以被纳入一个连贯的系统。它们的抽象性使人们可以随心所欲地将它们组合在一起。. . 因此，整个现代环境在全球范围内变成了一个符号系统"（SO, pp.54-5）。在这里，我们看到了鲍德里亚如何运用符号学理论来解释日常生活的结构。此后，符号在社会生活中的组织、性质和影响将成为他的主要研究方向。
To the technical organization of objects there corresponds a systematic cultural organization of ambiance, which imposes a ‘new morality,’ which in turn structures modern life in its totality, with regard to eating, sleeping, procreating, smoking, drinking, receiving people, communicating, observing, reading and so on (SO, p. 65). In short, the system of objects leads people to adapt to a new, modern world which represents a transition from a traditional, material organization of the environment to a more rationalized and cultural one. Baudrillard provides a multidimensional analysis of this 与物品的技术组织相对应的是环境的系统文化组织，它强加了一种 "新道德"，进而构建了现代生活的整体，包括饮食、睡眠、生育、吸烟、饮酒、接人待物、交流、观察、阅读等等（《社会》，第 65 页）。简而言之，物的系统引导人们适应一个新的现代世界，它代表着从传统的物质环境组织向更加合理化的文化环境组织的过渡。鲍德里亚对这一现象进行了多维分析
new world, and attempts to elucidate the ways in which objects and individuals are ‘liberated’ from traditional systems and usages, yet constrained by the technical imperatives of the new environment. 新世界，并试图阐明物体和个人如何从传统系统和用法中 "解放 "出来，但又受到新环境技术要求的限制。
Although Baudrillard describes the system of objects as a system of commodities which constitute a consumer society, and focuses his description on types of commodities, advertising, credit, modes of consumption and so on, there is little discussion of the emergence of the system of objects in the course of the development of capitalism. In several discussions (SO, pp. 175ff., 204ff., and passim), Baudrillard poses the question of whether it is the imperatives of production, technical imperatives or psychological projections - or a combination thereof - which is the motor behind the proliferation of the new world of objects. On the whole, he seems to give more weight to technical imperatives and psychological projections than to production itself in the creation of the system of objects, although he claims that it is an ‘open question’ as to what forces are primary in overthrowing one mode of civilization and producing another (SO, p. 188). In any case, Baudrillard’s analysis suggests that the Marxian problematic of revolution is severely undermined in a technological society in which change and revolution are integral to the system itself: ‘Everything is in motion, everything is changing, everything is being transformed and yet nothing changes. Such a society, thrown into technological progress, accomplishes all possible revolutions but these are revolutions upon itself. Its growing productivity does not lead to any structural change’ (SO, p. 217). 尽管鲍德里亚将物的系统描述为构成消费社会的商品系统，并着重描述了商品的类型、广告、信贷、消费模式等，但却很少讨论物的系统在资本主义发展过程中的出现。鲍德里亚在多处论述（《社会科学》，第 175 页及以下，第 204 页及以下，以及各处）中提出了这样一个问题，即究竟是生产的需要、技术的需要还是心理的投射，抑或是三者的结合，才是新物世界激增背后的动力。总体而言，在创造物品系统的过程中，他似乎更看重技术要求和心理投射，而不是生产本身，尽管他声称，究竟是什么力量在推翻一种文明模式并创造另一种文明模式，这是一个 "未决问题"（《社会》，第 188 页）。无论如何，鲍德里亚的分析表明，在一个技术社会中，马克思的革命问题受到了严重破坏，因为在这个社会中，变革和革命是系统本身不可或缺的一部分："一切都在运动，一切都在变化，一切都在被改造，但什么都没有改变。这样一个社会，在技术进步的推动下，完成了所有可能的革命，但这些都是对自身的革命。它不断增长的生产力并没有带来任何结构上的变化"（《社 会》，第 217 页）。
Baudrillard’s Le système des objets is thus closely related in spirit to the theories of the ‘technological society’ which were circulating in France at the time. ^(4){ }^{4} On this model, the rapid development of science and technology was the prime motor of social development, and the result was a qualitatively new form of technological society. Baudrillard’s study is distinguished from these studies by a critical scrutiny of the structure of the system of objects and the ways in which it differs from the traditional object worlds. He also carries through cultural analyses of the mythologies surrounding such objects as mirrors, clocks, colors, glass, collections, automobiles, gadgets, robots and so on. Also of interest in his discussion of the ways in which consumption, credit and advertising have produced a new morality, one based on a consumerist (leisure) ethic of fun and gratification rather than a productivist (work) ethic. These analyses permit discussion of the subjective projections and responses involved in the system of objects, and provide a framework for the analysis of the consumer society which would occupy him in his next book. 因此，鲍德里亚的《物体系统》在精神上与当时在法国流传的 "技术社会 "理论密切相关。 ^(4){ }^{4} 在这一模式中，科学技术的飞速发展是社会发展的主要动力，其结果是一种全新的技术社会形式。鲍德里亚的研究有别于这些研究，他对对象系统的结构及其与传统对象世界的不同之处进行了批判性的审视。他还对镜子、钟表、颜色、玻璃、收藏品、汽车、小玩意、机器人等物品的神话进行了文化分析。此外，他对消费、信贷和广告如何产生了一种新的道德观的讨论也很有意义，这种道德观是建立在娱乐和满足的消费主义（休闲）伦理而非生产主义（工作）伦理基础之上的。通过这些分析，他可以讨论物品系统所涉及的主观预测和反应，并为他下一部著作中对消费社会的分析提供了一个框架。
1.2 THE CONSUMER SOCIETY 1.2 消费社会
Baudrillard’s second book, La société de consommation, continues his systematic theoretical and empirical investigations of objects and activities in the new world of consumption and technique. Whereas his first book contains rather theoretical studies of the world of objects, his second book presents a sketch of the nature and structures of the new worlds of leisure and consumption for a more popular audience. The book begins with a preface by the social theorist J. P. Mayer, who compares the work to Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society, Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class and Reisman’s The Lonely Crowd. Advertising hype aside, the book is probably both Baudrillard’s most accessible text and the one most easily assimilated to conventional (or Marxian) sociology. Baudrillard draws on such theorists of the consumer society as Daniel Boorstin, Guy Debord, John Kenneth Galbraith, Henri Lefebvre, Herbert Marcuse, Marshall McLuhan, Edgar Morin, Vance Packard, David Riesman and Thorstein Veblen (all cited, with others, in the bibliography of his book, pp. 317-18). 鲍德里亚的第二部著作《消费社会》（La société de consommation）继续对消费和技术新世界中的物品和活动进行系统的理论和实证研究。他的第一本书包含了对物品世界的理论研究，而第二本书则为更多的读者勾勒出了休闲和消费新世界的本质和结构。社会理论家 J. P. 梅耶为该书作序，将其与杜克海姆的《社会分工》、维布伦的《有闲阶级理论》和雷斯曼的《孤独的人群》相比较。撇开广告炒作不谈，这本书可能既是鲍德里亚最通俗易懂的著作，也是最容易被传统（或马克思）社会学吸收的著作。鲍德里亚借鉴了丹尼尔-布尔斯坦、居伊-德波、约翰-肯尼斯-加尔布雷思、亨利-列斐伏尔、赫伯特-马尔库塞、马歇尔-麦克卢汉、埃德加-莫林、万斯-帕卡德、大卫-雷斯曼和索斯泰因-维布伦等消费社会理论家的研究成果（在本书的参考书目第 317-18 页中均有引用）。
La société contains analyses of the structure and nature of commodities and objects, a theory of consumption and studies of the mass media, sex and leisure; it concludes with some observations concerning the nature of contemporary alienation. The project is animated by the conviction that a deeper understanding of consumption is needed to comprehend the fundamental dynamics of neo-capitalist societies. Whereas capitalism focused its energies on developing a system of mass production during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, beginning in the 1920s the issue of mass consumption and the management of consumer demand became an issue of paramount importance. ^(5){ }^{5} Although the introduction of a consumer society was postponed by the Depression and World War II, its emergence after the war was one of the defining features of the contemporary situation which Baudrillard undertakes to theorize. La société 包含对商品和物品的结构与性质的分析、消费理论以及对大众传媒、性和休闲的研究；最后还对当代异化的性质提出了一些看法。该项目基于这样一个信念：要理解新资本主义社会的基本动态，就需要对消费有更深入的了解。资本主义在 19 世纪和 20 世纪初将精力集中在发展大规模生产体系上，而从 20 世纪 20 年代开始，大众消费和消费需求管理成为一个至关重要的问题。 ^(5){ }^{5} 尽管大萧条和第二次世界大战推迟了消费社会的引入，但战后消费社会的出现是鲍德里亚所要理论化的当代形势的决定性特征之一。
His analysis begins with a description of the new world of consumption: ‘We are surrounded today by the remarkable conspicuousness of consumption and affluence, established by the multiplication of objects, services and material goods, all of which constitutes a sort of fundamental mutation in the ecology of the human species. Strictly speaking, these affluent individuals are no longer surrounded by other human beings as they were in the past, but by objects’ (SC, p. 17; SW, p. 29). Everyday life, Baudrillard suggests, is determined more by the manipulation of commodities and messages and the organization and display of domestic goodshence by interaction with objects - than by social interaction with other people. This continual interaction with objects has a powerful impact on human life: 他的分析始于对新消费世界的描述："今天，我们被消费和富裕的显著特征所包围，这些特征是由物品、服务和物质产品的倍增所建立的，所有这一切构成了人类生态学的某种根本性变化。严格地说，这些富裕的人不再像过去那样被其他人类所包围，而是被物品所包围"（SC，第 17 页；SW，第 29 页）。鲍德里亚认为，日常生活与其说是由与他人的社会交往决定的，不如说是由对商品和信息的操纵以及对家庭用品的组织和展示决定的。这种与物品的持续互动对人类生活产生了强大的影响：
Just as the wolf-child becomes a wolf by living among them, so we are ourselves becoming functional objects. We are living the period of objects: that is, we live by their rhythm, according to their incessant succession. Today, it is we who are observing their birth, fulfillment and death; whereas in all previous civilizations, it was the object, instrument and perennial monument that survived the generations of men. (SC, p. 18; SW, p. 29) 就像狼孩在狼群中生活而成为狼一样，我们自己也正在成为功能性物体。我们生活在物的时代：也就是说，我们按照物的节奏生活，按照物的不断更替生活。今天，是我们在观察它们的诞生、完成和死亡；而在以往的所有文明中，是物体、工具和常年的纪念碑在人类世世代代的生活中存活下来。(SC, 第 18 页；SW, 第 29 页）
Baudrillard’s key point is that commodities are part of a system of objects correlated with a system of needs: 鲍德里亚的关键观点是，商品是与需求系统相关的物品系统的一部分：
Few objects today are offered alone, without a context of objects to speak for them: And the relation of the consumer to the object has consequently changed; the object is no longer referred to in relation to a specific utility, but as a collection of objects in their total meaning. Washing machine, refrigerator, dishwaster and so on have different meanings when grouped together than each one has alone, as a piece of equipment. The display window, the advertisement, the manufacturer and the brand name here play an essential role in imposing a coherent and collective vision, of an almost inseparable totality. (SC, p. 20; SWS W, p. 31) 如今，很少有物品是单独提供的，没有物品的背景为其代言：消费者与物品之间的关系也随之发生了变化；物品不再是指某一特定用途，而是指其整体意义上的物品集合。洗衣机、电冰箱、洗碗机等组合在一起时，其意义不同于单独作为一件设备的意义。在这里，橱窗、广告、制造商和品牌名称发挥着至关重要的作用，它们构成了一个连贯的、集体的、几乎不可分割的整体。(SC, 第 20 页； SWS W , 第 31 页）
Participation in the consumer society thus requires systematic purchase and organization of domestic objects, fashion and so on into a system organized by codes and models. 因此，参与消费社会需要系统地购买和组织家庭用品、时装等，并将其纳入一个由代码和模型组织的系统。
In this society, consumption has become the center of life: 在这个社会中，消费已成为生活的中心：
We have reached the point where ‘consumption’ has grasped the whole of life, where all activities are connected in the same combinatorial mode. . . . In the phenomenology of consumption, this general climatization of life, goods, objects, services, behaviors and social relations represents the perfected, ‘consummated’ stage of evolution which, through articulated networks of objects, ascends from pure and simple abundance to complete conditioning of action and time and finally to the systematic organization of ambience, which is characteristic of the drugstores, the shopping malls, or the modern airports in our futuristic cities. (SC, pp. 23-4; SW, p. 33) 我们已经达到了 "消费 "涵盖整个生活的地步，所有活动都以相同的组合模式联系在一起。. . ..在消费现象学中，这种生活、商品、物品、服务、行为和社会关系的普遍气候化代表了进化的完美、"圆满 "阶段，通过物品的衔接网络，从纯粹和简单的丰富上升到对行动和时间的完全调节，并最终达到对环境的系统化组织，这是药店、购物中心或未来城市中现代机场的特征。(SC, 第 23-4 页；SW, 第 33 页）
In his early works, Baudrillard generally takes a critical Marxian posture toward the consumer society, suggesting that consumption constitutes a total homogenization and organization of everyday life (SC, pp. 25ff.; SW, p. 34) which veils the material underpinnings and the social labor which 在早期作品中，鲍德里亚对消费社会普遍采取了马克思主义的批判姿态，认为消费构成了日常生活的全面同质化和组织化（SC，第 25 页及以下；SW，第 34 页），掩盖了消费社会的物质基础和社会劳动。
produces the consumer society and its goods. ‘One should never forget,’ he warns, ‘that these goods are the product of a buman activity and that they are dominated not by natural ecological laws but by the laws of exchange value’ (SC, p. 18; SW, p. 30). Then, signaling that he is writing under the sign of Marx, Baudrillard quotes a passage from Marx’s Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy about the profusion of commodities in the London of his day (SC, p. 18). Yet Baudrillard adds a cultural dimension to the Marxian critique of political economy in his interpretation of the consumer society as a system of signs. In his analysis, consumption of commodities signifies happiness, well-being, affluence, success, prestige, eroticism, modernity and so on. He describes the consumer mentality as a form of ‘magical thought which reigns over consumption. It is a miraculous mentality which rules everyday life, a primitive mentality in the sense that it is defined as belief in the omnipotence of thoughts: in this case, belief in the omnipotence of signs’ (SC, p. 27). For the consumer believes that possession and display of the signs of affluence, prestige and so on will bring real happiness and real social prestige. 生产消费社会及其商品。他警告说："我们永远不要忘记，这些商品是人类活动的产物，它们不是受自然生态法则的支配，而是受交换价值法则的支配"（SC，第 18 页；SW，第 30 页）。然后，鲍德里亚表示自己是在马克思的标志下写作，他引用了马克思《政治经济学批判的贡献》中的一段话，讲述了当时伦敦商品的泛滥（SC，第 18 页）。然而，鲍德里亚将消费社会解释为一个符号系统，为马克思的政治经济学批判增添了一个文化维度。在他的分析中，商品消费意味着幸福、安康、富裕、成功、声望、情色、现代性等等。他将消费心理描述为一种 "统治消费的神奇思想"。这是一种主宰日常生活的神奇心态，是一种原始心态，因为它被定义为相信思想无所不能：在这里，是相信标志无所不能"（SC，第 27 页）。因为消费者相信，拥有和展示富裕、声望等标志会带来真正的幸福和真正的社会声望。
In La société de consommation Baudrillard utilizes a much more explicit Marxian framework than in his previous and succeeding books. He criticizes ideologies of growth, progress and happiness through consumption, as well as ideological claims concerning the overcoming of class in the consumer society, and thus provides a neo-Marxian critique of the contemporary stage of capitalism. Moreover, contrary to his first and later books, he frequently conceptualizes the development of the consumer society in terms of the system of production, and thus assigns the logic of production an important role. Yet he argues that with the emergence of the consumer society, ‘production is entangled with an order of consumption, which is an order of the manipulation of signs’ (SC, pp. 29-30). 在《消费社会》一书中，鲍德里亚采用了比他之前和之后的著作更为明确的马克思主义框架。他批判了通过消费实现增长、进步和幸福的意识形态，以及关于在消费社会中克服阶级的意识形态主张，从而对当代资本主义阶段进行了新马克思主义批判。此外，与他的第一部著作和后来的著作不同，他经常从生产体系的角度来构思消费社会的发展，从而赋予生产逻辑以重要的角色。然而，他认为，随着消费社会的出现，"生产与消费秩序纠缠在一起，而消费秩序是一种操纵符号的秩序"（SC，第 29-30 页）。
In developing his own theory, Baudrillard criticizes the standard, mainstream view which conceptualizes consumption in terms of a rational satisfaction of needs with the aim of maximizing utility. Against this view, Baudrillard posits a ‘socio-cultural’ approach which stresses the ways in which society produces needs through socialization and conditioning thereby managing consumer demand and consumption. Although he shares with American theorists such as Packard, Riesman and Galbraith a critique of the assumption of a free, rational, autonomous ego which satisfies ‘natural’ needs through consumption, he criticizes Galbraith’s model of the production of artificial needs and management of consumer demand. Baudrillard’s argument is that critics of the ‘false,’ or artificial, needs produced by the consumer society generally presuppose something like true human needs or a stabilizing principle in human nature that would maintain a harmonious balance and equilibrium were it not for the pernicious artificial needs produced by advertising and marketing. Yet, Baudrillard claims, there is no way to distinguish between true and false needs - at least from the 在发展自己的理论时，鲍德里亚批判了标准的主流观点，即从理性满足需求的角度来理解消费，以实现效用最大化为目标。与这种观点相反，鲍德里亚提出了一种 "社会文化 "的方法，强调社会通过社会化和条件化生产需求的方式，从而管理消费者的需求和消费。尽管他与帕卡德、雷斯曼和加尔布雷思等美国理论家一样，对通过消费满足 "自然 "需求的自由、理性、自主的自我假设进行了批判，但他批评了加尔布雷思的人为需求生产和消费需求管理模式。鲍德里亚的论点是，对消费社会产生的 "虚假 "或人为需求的批判，一般都预先假定了某种类似于人类真实需求的东西，或者人类本性中的稳定原则，如果不是广告和营销产生的有害的人为需求，人类本性就会保持和谐的平衡和均衡。然而，鲍德里亚声称，没有办法区分真正的需求和虚假的需求--至少从以下方面来看是如此
standpoint of the pleasure or satisfaction received from various goods or activities of consumption. In addition, he maintains that 从各种商品或消费活动中获得的快乐或满足的角度出发。此外，他还认为
Galbraith does not take into consideration the logic of social differentiation. Hence he is forced to represent the individual as a completely passive victim of the system. These processes of class and caste distinctions are basic to the social structure and are fully operational in ‘democratic’ society. In short, what is lacking is a sociologic of difference, of status, etc., upon which needs are reorganized in accordance to the objective social demand of signs and differences. Thus consumption becomes, not a function of ‘harmonious’ individual satisfaction (hence limited according to the ideal rules of ‘nature’), but rather an infinite social activity.’ (SC, p. 102; SW, p. 4) 加尔布雷思并没有考虑到社会分化的逻辑。因此，他不得不将个人表述为制度下完全被动的受害者。这些阶级和种姓区分的过程是社会结构的基本要素，在 "民主 "社会中完全可以运作。简而言之，我们缺乏的是一种差异、地位等社会学，在此基础上，需求根据社会对标志和差异的客观需求进行重组。这样，消费就不是一种'和谐'的个人满足功能（因此受到'自然'理想规则的限制），而是一种无限的社会活动。(SC, p. 102; SW, p. 4)
In this and his next book Baudrillard focuses on the ‘logic of social differentiation’ whereby individuals distinguish themselves and attain social prestige and standing through the purchase and use of consumer goods. He argues that the entire system of production produces a system of needs that are rationalized, homogenized, systematized and hierarchized. Rather than a consumer being seduced into purchase of a single commodity which Baudrillard equates with the primitive notion of mana, he or she is induced to buy into an entire system of objects and needs through which one differentiates oneself socially, yet integrates oneself into the consumer society. Baudrillard suggests that this activity can best be conceptualized by seeing the objects of consumption as signs and the consumer society as a system of signs: ‘In this way a washing machine serves as equipment and plays as an element of comfort, or of prestige and so on. It is the latter that is specifically the field of consumption… A need is not a need for a particular object as much as it is a “need” for difference (the desire for social meaning)’ (SC, pp. 106-7; SW, pp. 44-5). 在这本书和他的下一本书中，鲍德里亚重点探讨了 "社会分化的逻辑"，即个人通过购买和使用消费品来区分自己并获得社会声望和地位。他认为，整个生产系统产生了一种需求系统，这种需求被合理化、同质化、系统化和等级化。消费者不是被诱导购买单一的商品（鲍德里亚将其等同于原始的 "法力 "概念），而是被诱导购买一整套物品和需求系统，通过这些物品和需求系统，消费者可以在社会上区分自己，同时又将自己融入消费社会。鲍德里亚认为，将消费对象视为符号，将消费社会视为符号系统，可以最好地将这种活动概念化：这样，洗衣机既是设备，又是舒适或声誉等的元素。后者才是具体的消费领域......需求不是对特定物品的需求，而是对差异的 "需求"（对社会意义的渴望）"（SC，第 106-7 页；SW，第 44-5 页）。
Baudrillard presents consumption as an unending activity of forward flight and unlimited renewal of needs, suggesting that the imperatives of an entire system of needs and objects require a vast labor to learn about the products, to master their use and to earn the money and leisure to purchase and use them. Consumption is thus productive activity which requires education and effort. Consequently, Baudrillard proposes that consumption is not to be interpreted primarily in relation to pleasure or the satisfaction of needs, but as a mode of social activity whereby one inserts oneself into the consumer society, conforming to socially normative behavior and signifying that one is a member of this society. 鲍德里亚将消费视为一种无休止的向前飞奔和无限更新需求的活动，认为整个需求和物品系统的迫切需要要求人们付出巨大的劳动来了解产品，掌握产品的使用方法，赚取购买和使用产品的金钱和闲暇。因此，消费是需要教育和努力的生产活动。因此，鲍德里亚提出，消费不应主要解释为快乐或需求的满足，而应解释为一种社会活动模式，人们通过这种模式将自己融入消费社会，遵守社会规范行为，并表明自己是这个社会的一员。
In this view, 从这个角度看
consumption is a system which assures the regulation of signs and the integration of the group: it is simultaneously a morality (a system of 消费是一种制度，它保证了符号的规范和群体的融合：它同时也是一种道德观（一种关于 "消费 "的制度）。
ideological values) and a system of communication, a structure of exchange. . . . According to this hypothesis, as paradoxical as it may appear, consumption is defined as exclusive of pleasure. As a social logic, the system of consumption is established on the basis of the denial of pleasure. Pleasure no longer appears as an objective, as a rational end, but as the individual rationalization of a process whose objectives lay elsewhere. Pleasure would define consumption for itself, as autonomous and final. But consumption is never thus. Although we experience pleasure for ourselves, when we consume we never do it on our own (the isolated consumer is the carefully maintained illusion of the ideological discourse on consumption). Consumers are mutually implicated, despite themselves, in a general system of exchange and in the production of coded values. (SC, p. 109; SW, p. 46) 意识形态价值观）和一个交流系统，一个交换结构。. . .根据这一假设，消费被定义为对快乐的排斥，尽管这看起来有些自相矛盾。作为一种社会逻辑，消费体系建立在对快乐的否定之上。快乐不再是目标，不再是合理的目的，而是一个过程的个人合理化，而这个过程的目标却在别处。快乐将消费本身定义为自主的和最终的。但消费从来不是这样的。尽管我们自己体验到了快乐，但当我们消费时，我们从来都不是在独自消费（孤立的消费者是消费意识形态话语精心维护的假象）。尽管消费者自身存在问题，但他们却相互牵连，共同参与到一个普遍的交换体系和编码价值的生产中。(SC, 第 109 页；SW, 第 46 页）
In the language of Lévi-Strauss, Baudrillard is suggesting that consumption is not derived primarily from the realm of nature but from the realm of culture, and that it should be interpreted as a system of signs organized by codes and rules, rather than on the basis of a ‘natural’ satisfaction of needs through goods. Thus, for Baudrillard, commodities and consumption constitute a ‘global, arbitrary and coherent system of signs, a cultural system which substitutes a social order of values and classifications for a contingent world of needs and pleasures, the natural and biological order’ (SC, p. 111; SWS W, p. 47). Thus, ‘Marketing, purchasing, sales, the acquisition of differentiated commodities and object/signs - all of these presently constitute our language, a code with which our entire society communicates and speaks of and to itself’ (SC, p. 112; SW, p. 48). The consumer, therefore, can not avoid the obligation to consume, because it is consumption that is the primary mode of social integration and the primary ethic and activity within the consumer society. The consumer ethic and ‘fun morality’ thus involve active labor, incessant curiosity and search for novelty, and conformity to the latest fads, products and demands to consume. Consequently, 用列维-斯特劳斯的话来说，鲍德里亚的意思是，消费主要不是来自自然领域，而是来自文化领域，消费应该被解释为一个由代码和规则组织起来的符号系统，而不是通过商品 "自然 "地满足需求。因此，在鲍德里亚看来，商品和消费构成了一个 "全球性的、任意的和连贯的符号系统，一个用价值和分类的社会秩序取代需求和快乐的偶然世界，即自然和生物秩序的文化系统"（SC，第111页； SWS W ，第47页）。因此，"营销、购买、销售、获取有区别的商品和物品/标志--所有这些目前都构成了我们的语言，是我们整个社会与自己交流和对话的代码"（SC，第 112 页； SWS W ，第 47 页）。因此，消费者无法回避消费的义务，因为消费是社会融合的主要方式，也是消费社会的主要伦理和活动。因此，消费伦理和 "趣味道德 "涉及积极的劳动、不断的好奇心和对新奇事物的追求，以及对最新流行、产品和消费需求的顺从。因此、
We don’t realize how much the current indoctrination into systematic and organized consumption is the equivalent and the extension, in the twentieth century, of the great indoctrination of rural populations into industrial labor, which occurred throughout the nineteenth century. The same process of rationalization of productive forces, which took place in the nineteenth century in the production sector, is accomplished, in the twentieth century, in the consumption sector. Having socialized the masses into a labor force, the industrial system had to go further in order to fulfill itself and to socialize the masses (that is, to control them) into a force of consumption. The small investors or the sporadic consumers of the pre-war era, who were free to consume or not, no 我们没有意识到，在整个十九世纪，对农村人口进行的工业劳动大灌输在二十世纪是多么的等同和延伸。十九世纪在生产领域进行的生产力合理化进程，在二十世纪同样在消费领域完成。在将大众社会化为劳动力之后，工业体系必须更进一步，以实现自身的发展，并将大众社会化（即控制大众）为消费力量。战前的小投资者或零星消费者可以自由消费，也可以不消费。
longer have a place in the system. . . Production and consumption are one and the same grand logical process of reproduction of the expanded forces of production and of their control. (SC, p. 115; SW, p. 50) 在系统中不再有一席之地。. ..生产和消费是扩大的生产力量的再生产及其控制的同一大逻辑过程。(SC, 第 115 页；SW, 第 50 页）
Thus, on this view, consumption is not the free activity of an autonomous subject; rather, it is constrained by the order of production, which gives rise to and manages a system of needs, and by the order of signification, which determines the relative social prestige and value of the system of goods. Yet the effects of organizing consumers politically could be tremendous, Baudrillard suggests, since consumer revolt could bring to a halt the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. However, such revolts have been manifested only 因此，根据这种观点，消费不是自主主体的自由活动；相反，它受到生产秩序和符号秩序的制约，前者产生并管理着需求体系，后者决定着商品体系的相对社会声望和价值。然而，鲍德里亚认为，将消费者政治化的效果可能是巨大的，因为消费者的反抗可能会阻止当代资本主义的发展。然而，这种反抗只表现为
in a few strikes among American housewives and in the sporadic destruction of commodities (May 1968, the No Bra Day where American women publicly burned their bras). ‘What does the consumer represent in the modern world? Nothing. What could he be? Everything, or almost everything. Because he stands alone next to millions of solitary individuals, he is at the mercy of all other interests.’ . . . In general the consumers, as such, are unconscious and unorganized, just as workers may have been at the beginning of the nineteenth century. As such, consumers have been glorified, flattered and eulogized as ‘public opinion,’ that mystical, providential and ‘sovereign’ reality. (SC, pp. 121-3; SW, pp. 54-5). 在美国家庭主妇的几次罢工和对商品的零星破坏中（1968 年 5 月，美国妇女在 "无胸罩日 "公开焚烧胸罩）。消费者在现代世界代表什么？什么也代表不了。他能代表什么？一切，或者几乎一切。因为他孤零零地站在数百万孤独的个体旁边，所以他受所有其他利益的摆布'.. .总的来说，消费者是无意识的、无组织的，就像 19 世纪初的工人一样。因此，消费者被美化、奉承和讴歌为 "公众舆论"，一种神秘、天意和 "至高无上 "的现实。(SC，第 121-3 页；SW，第 54-5 页）。
The consumer society also has its negative effects, such as ‘anomie in the society of abundance,’ subcultural and criminal violence, and fatigue with the demands of labor, leisure and consumption (SC, pp. 278ff.). Drawing on journalistic sources, Baudrillard points to contemporary manifestations of irrational violence erupting within the consumer society, which he interprets as a kind of social revolt. He also claims that the constant labor of production and consumption have led to a situation in which ‘the heroes of consumption are fatigued.’ Production and consumption are tiring, and the growing competition for more goods and services also wears out the heroic producers and consumers. Baudrillard describes fatigue itself as a 消费社会也有其负面影响，如 "丰裕社会中的反常现象"、亚文化暴力和犯罪暴力，以及对劳动、休闲和消费需求的厌倦（SC，第 278 页及以下各页）。鲍德里亚通过新闻报道，指出了消费社会中爆发的非理性暴力的当代表现形式，并将其解释为一种社会反抗。他还声称，生产和消费的持续劳动导致了 "消费英雄疲惫不堪 "的局面。生产和消费让人疲惫，对更多商品和服务日益激烈的竞争也让英勇的生产者和消费者疲惫不堪。鲍德里亚将疲劳本身描述为一种
larval contestation, . . . a latent revolt, endemic and unconscious of itself. . . . Because it is a (latent) activity, it can suddenly reconvert itself into open revolt, as May '68 demonstrated everywhere. The spontaneous contagiousness . . . of the movement of May can only be understood on this hypothesis: what was usually perceived as lifelessness, disaffection and generalized passivity was in fact a potential of active forces in their very resignation, in their fatigue, in their ebb and therefore were immediately available. (SC, p. 294) 幼年时期的争斗，......一种潜在的反抗，地方性的，自身却不自知。. . .正因为它是一种（潜伏的）活动，它可以突然重新转化为公开的反抗，正如 68 年 5 月在各地所展示的那样。五月运动的自发传染性......只有在这种假设下才能理解：通常被视为无生气、不满和普遍被动的东西，实际上是一种潜在的积极力量，在它们的逆来顺受中、在它们的疲惫中、在它们的衰退中，因此是立即可用的。(SC, 第 294 页）
Baudrillard concludes by valorizing ‘multiple forms of refusal,’ which can be fused in a ‘practice of radical change’ (SC, p. 295); and he alludes to the expectation of ‘brutal eruptions and sudden disaggregations’ which, 'in a fashion as unforeseeable but certain, as in May ‘68, will come to shatter this white mass’ (of consumption) (SC, p. 316). On the other hand, in the conclusion, Baudrillard also describes a situation in which alienation is so total that it cannot be surpassed, because ‘it is the very structure of the consumer society’ (SC, p. 307). His argument is that in a society in which everything is a commodity that can be bought and sold, alienation is total. Indeed, the term ‘alienation’ originally signified ‘to sale,’ and in a totally commodified society in which everything is a commodity, alienation is ubiquitous. Moreover, the conclusion describes 'the end of transcendence’a phrase borrowed from Marcuse, a state in which individuals can perceive neither their own true needs nor another way of life (SC, pp. 307ff.). 最后，鲍德里亚肯定了 "多种形式的拒绝"，它们可以融合在 "激进变革的实践 "中（SC, p.295）；他还暗指 "野蛮的爆发和突然的分解 "的预期，"就像 68 年 5 月那样，以一种不可预见但又确定无疑的方式，来粉碎这个白色的群体"（消费）（SC, p.316）。另一方面，鲍德里亚在结论中也描述了这样一种情况：异化是如此彻底，以至于无法超越，因为 "它是消费社会的结构本身"（SC，第 307 页）。他的论点是，在一个一切都可以买卖的商品社会中，异化是全面的。事实上，'异化'一词的原意是'出售'，而在一个一切皆商品的完全商品化社会中，异化无处不在。此外，结论还描述了 "超越的终结"--一个借用自马尔库塞的短语--一种个人既无法感知自身真正需求，也无法感知另一种生活方式的状态（《圣雄甘地》，第 307 页及以下）。
Consequently, Baudrillard distances himself from the Marxist theory of revolution and instead postulates only the possibility of revolt against the consumer society in an ‘unforeseeable but certain’ form. He thus has an ambivalent relation to classical Marxism at this point. On the one hand, he carries forward the Marxian critique of commodity production which delineates and criticizes various forms of alienation, reification, domination and exploitation produced by capitalism. At this stage, it appears that his critique comes from the standard neo-Marxian vantage point which sees capitalism as blameworthy because it homogenizes, controls and dominates social life while robbing individuals of their freedom, creativity, time and human potentialities. On the other hand, he cannot point to any revolutionary forces, and in particular does not discuss the situation and potential of the working class as an agent of change in the consumer society. Indeed, Baudrillard has no theory whatsoever of the subject as an active agent of social change (thus perhaps following the structuralist and poststructuralist critique of the subject popular at the time). Nor does he have a theory of class or group revolt, or any theory of political organization, struggle or strategy. 因此，鲍德里亚远离了马克思主义的革命理论，而只是假设了以一种 "不可预见但确定无疑 "的形式反抗消费社会的可能性。因此，在这一点上，他与经典马克思主义的关系是矛盾的。一方面，他继承了马克思对商品生产的批判，对资本主义产生的各种形式的异化、再统一、统治和剥削进行了描述和批判。在现阶段，他的批判似乎来自标准的新马克思主义视角，认为资本主义应受到指责，因为它使社会生活同质化，控制和支配社会生活，同时剥夺了个人的自由、创造力、时间和人的潜能。另一方面，他无法指出任何革命力量，尤其是没有讨论工人阶级在消费社会中作为变革推动者的处境和潜力。事实上，鲍德里亚并没有任何关于主体作为社会变革的积极推动者的理论（因此，他或许是在追随当时流行的结构主义和后结构主义对主体的批判）。他也没有关于阶级或群体反抗的理论，也没有任何关于政治组织、斗争或策略的理论。
Baudrillard’s problematic here is particularly close to that of the Frankfurt School, especially that of Marcuse, who had already developed some of the first Marxist critiques of the consumer society. ^(6){ }^{6} Like Lukács and the Frankfurt School, Baudrillard employs a mode of thought according to which commodification constitutes a totalizing social process that permeates social life. Following the general line of critical Marxism, Baudrillard argues that the combination of homogenization, alienation and exploitation constitutes a process of reification in which objects come to dominate subjects, thereby robbing them of their human qualities and capacities. For Lukács, the Frankfurt School and Baudrillard, this process of reification, whereby human beings become dominated by things and themselves become more thinglike, comes to dominate social life.? 鲍德里亚在这方面的问题与法兰克福学派，尤其是马尔库塞的问题尤为接近，后者已经对消费社会提出了一些最早的马克思主义批判。 ^(6){ }^{6} 与卢卡奇和法兰克福学派一样，鲍德里亚也采用了一种思维模式，即商品化构成了一种渗透社会生活的总体化社会过程。按照批判马克思主义的一般思路，鲍德里亚认为，同质化、异化和剥削的结合构成了一个再化的过程，在这个过程中，客体支配着主体，从而剥夺了他们作为人的品质和能力。在卢卡奇、法兰克福学派和鲍德里亚看来，人被物所支配，自身也变得更像物的这一再化过程主导了社会生活。
In a sense, Baudrillard’s work can be seen as rendering an account of a higher stage of reification and social domination than that described by the Frankfurt School. Baudrillard goes beyond the Frankfurt School by utilizing the semiological theory of the sign to describe the world of commodities, media and the consumer society, thus, in a sense what he does is to take the Frankfurt School theory of ‘one-dimensional society’ to a higher level. Eventually, his analysis of domination by signs and the system of objects leads him to even more pessimistic conclusions; for he sees the problematic of the ‘end of the individual’ sketched by the Frankfurt School as having reached its fruition in the total defeat of the subject by the object world (see chapter 6). Yet in his early writings Baudrillard has a somewhat more active theory of consumption than that of the Frankfurt School, which generally portrays consumption as a passive mode of social integration. By contrast, consumption in Baudrillard’s early writings is itself a kind of labor, ‘an active manipulation of signs,’ a way of inserting oneself into the consumer society and working to differentiate oneself from others. Yet this active manipulation of signs does not imply an active subject who could resist, redefine, or produce his or her own signs and consumer practices; thus Baudrillard fails to develop a genuine theory of agency (see 1.4 for an alternative model of consumption and agency). 从某种意义上说，鲍德里亚的作品可以被视为是对比法兰克福学派所描述的更高阶段的再化和社会统治的描述。鲍德里亚超越了法兰克福学派，利用符号学理论来描述商品世界、媒体和消费社会，因此，从某种意义上说，他将法兰克福学派的 "一维社会 "理论提升到了更高的层次。最终，他对符号和客体系统支配的分析使他得出了更加悲观的结论；因为他认为法兰克福学派所勾勒的 "个人的终结 "问题已经在客体世界彻底击败主体的过程中得到了实现（见第 6 章）。然而，与法兰克福学派的消费理论相比，鲍德里亚在其早期著作中的消费理论更为积极，法兰克福学派一般将消费描绘成一种被动的社会融合模式。相比之下，在鲍德里亚的早期著作中，消费本身就是一种劳动，是 "对符号的主动操纵"，是将自己融入消费社会并努力将自己与他人区分开来的一种方式。然而，这种对符号的积极操纵并不意味着存在一个积极的主体，可以抵制、重新定义或生产自己的符号和消费实践；因此，鲍德里亚未能发展出真正的代理理论（关于消费与代理的另一种模式，见 1.4）。
In the consumer society, consumption thus replaces production as the central mode of social behavior from which standpoint the society can be interpreted and critically analyzed. Baudrillard thus conceives consumption as a mode of being, a way of gaining identity, meaning and prestige in the contemporary society. In Baudrillard’s later works, he further elaborates neo-Saussurean theories of signs and signification, which he then uses to analyze and critique the consumer society, thus adding a semiological dimension to previous neo-Marxian critiques of the consumer society. Building on his earlier work, he develops a much more elaborate and sophisticated theory of the life of signs in society, which he uses to criticize both establishment and Marxian political economy. 因此，在消费社会中，消费取代了生产，成为社会行为的核心模式，可以从消费的角度对社会进行解读和批判分析。因此，鲍德里亚将消费视为一种存在方式，一种在当代社会中获得身份、意义和声望的方式。在鲍德里亚的后期著作中，他进一步阐释了新索绪尔的符号和象征理论，并以此来分析和批判消费社会，从而为之前新马克思主义对消费社会的批判增添了符号学的维度。在其早期著作的基础上，他对社会中的符号生活提出了更为详尽和复杂的理论，并以此来批判建制派和马克思主义政治经济学。
1.3 FOR A CRITIQUE OF THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE SIGN 1.3 对符号政治经济学的批判
Baudrillard continued his exploration of the consumer society while beginning to criticize the Marxian critique of political economy during the early 1970s. Some articles from this period were subsequently collected in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign (1972), in which he discusses problems with both standard bourgeois and Marxian analyses of commodities, consumption and needs, while arguing that a sociologically oriented semiology could help to develop more adequate perspectives. Though critical of classical Marxism, these studies are less dismissive than his later works, starting with The Mirror of Production (1973); indeed, they can 20 世纪 70 年代初，鲍德里亚在继续探索消费社会的同时，开始批判马克思主义的政治经济学批判。这一时期的一些文章后来被收录在《对符号政治经济学的批判》（1972 年）一书中，他在书中讨论了标准资产阶级和马克思主义对商品、消费和需求的分析所存在的问题，同时认为以社会学为导向的符号学有助于发展更充分的视角。虽然这些研究对经典马克思主义持批评态度，但与他后来的作品（从《生产的镜子》（1973 年）开始）相比，这些研究并不那么轻蔑；事实上，它们可以
be read as an attempt to strengthen and reconstruct the Marxian critique of political economy - even though, as I shall indicate, Baudrillard was already beginning to distance himself from Marxism in the Critique. 尽管正如我将要指出的，鲍德里亚在《批判》中已经开始远离马克思主义。
Consequently, while Baudrillard’s problematic is always significantly different from classical Marxism and eventually was to break with Marxism altogether, I would argue that his first three books can be situated within a neo-Marxian framework which supplements and updates the Marxian critique of political economy. Baudrillard’s analyses concentrate on phenomena which were either neglected by Marx or had not yet appeared during Marx’s lifetime. For instance, since Marx’s own work focuses primarily on the production process, Baudrillard’s early analyses of consumption concretize and develop themes in ways that I believe can be assimilated to the Marxian critique of capitalism. Thus, while Baudrillard also makes some sharp criticisms of classical Marxism, much of his early work can be incorporated in the Marxian theory and critique of capitalism. 因此，尽管鲍德里亚的问题始终与经典马克思主义大相径庭，并最终与马克思主义彻底决裂，但我认为，他的前三本书可以放在新马克思主义的框架内，补充和更新马克思主义的政治经济学批判。鲍德里亚的分析集中于被马克思忽视或在马克思有生之年尚未出现的现象。例如，由于马克思本人的著作主要侧重于生产过程，鲍德里亚对消费的早期分析以我认为可以与马克思的资本主义批判同化的方式具体化和发展了主题。因此，尽管鲍德里亚也对经典马克思主义提出了一些尖锐的批评，但他早期的许多著作都可以纳入马克思主义理论和对资本主义的批判中。
In view of Baudrillard’s later rejection of Marxism, it is important to see that his vision in his early writings, that of the triumph of the market and commodification, is an important part of Marx’s world view, and indeed, was sketched out by Marx himself. A passage in The Poverty of Philosophy, quoted by Baudrillard, allows us to grasp both his similarities and his differences with classical Marxism. Marx wrote: 鉴于鲍德里亚后来对马克思主义的否定，我们有必要看到，他在早期著作中的观点，即市场和商品化的胜利，是马克思世界观的重要组成部分，事实上，马克思本人也曾勾画过这一观点。鲍德里亚在《哲学的贫困》一书中引用的一段话，让我们了解了他与经典马克思主义的异同。马克思写道
There was a time, as in the Middle Ages, when only the superfluous, the excess of production, was exchanged. 曾几何时，就像在中世纪一样，只有多余的、生产过剩的东西才能进行交换。
There was again a time, when not only the superfluous, but all products, all industrial existence, had passed into commerce, when the whole of production depended upon exchange. . . . 曾几何时，不仅是多余的东西，而且所有的产品、所有的工业存在都进入了商业，整个生产都依赖于交换。. . .
Finally, there came a time when everything that men had considered as inalienable became an object of exchange, of traffic and could be alienated. This is the time when the very things which till then had been communicated, but never exchanged; given but, never sold; acquired, but never bought - virtue, love, conviction, knowledge, conscience, etc. - when everything finally passed into commerce. It is the time of general corruption, of universal venality, or, to speak in terms of political economy, the time when everything, moral or physical, having become marketable value, is brought to the market to be assessed at its truest value. ^(8){ }^{8} 最后，当人们认为不可剥夺的一切都成为交换和交易的对象，并可以被转让的时候，一切都来临了。在这一时期，那些在此之前一直被传递，但从未被交换；被给予，但从未被出售；被获得，但从未被购买的东西--美德、爱、信念、知识、良知等等--最终都变成了商品。- 一切最终都变成了商业。这是一个普遍腐败、普遍堕落的时代，或者，用政治经济学的术语来说，这是一个道德或物质的一切都成为市场价值的时代，被拿到市场上以其最真实的价值进行评估。 ^(8){ }^{8}
Baudrillard claims that Marx correctly perceived the radical discontinuity between stages one and two (that is, feudalism and early capitalism), but failed to see the fundamental cleavage between stages two and three) that is, early and later capitalism) (MoP, pp. 120ff.). For Marx, stage three is only a quantitative extension of market relations and commodification, whereas 鲍德里亚声称，马克思正确地认识到了第一阶段和第二阶段（即封建主义和早期资本主义）之间的根本不连续性，但却没有看到第二阶段和第三阶段（即早期资本主义和后期资本主义）之间的根本分裂（《实践论》，第120页以下）。在马克思看来，第三阶段只是市场关系和商品化在数量上的延伸，而
Baudrillard claims that it is fundamentally different due to a new logic of sign value and fetishism. Under the reign of sign value, consumption and display become a central locus of value, and are as important as production in determining the logic, nature and direction of social processes. 鲍德里亚认为，由于符号价值和拜物教的新逻辑，这两者有着本质的不同。在符号价值的统治下，消费和展示成为价值的中心，在决定社会进程的逻辑、性质和方向方面与生产同等重要。
Sign Value 标志值
Baudrillard’s argument is that the ‘conspicuous consumption’ and display of commodities analyzed by Veblen in his Theory of the Leisure Class has been extended to everyone in the consumer society. Conspicuous consumption for Veblen is linked to expenditure, display and the establishing of style, taste and the social power of wealth. Whereas such display is confined to the upper classes in Veblen’s book, Baudrillard sees the entire society as organized around consumption and display of commodities through which individuals gain prestige, identity and standing. In this system, the more prestigious one’s commodities - houses, cars, clothes and so on - the higher one’s standing in the realm of sign value. Thus, just as words take on meaning according to their status in a differential system of language, so sign values take on meaning according to their place in a differential system of prestige and status. 鲍德里亚的论点是，维布伦在《有闲阶级理论》中分析的 "显性消费 "和商品展示已经扩展到消费社会中的每一个人。在维布伦看来，"炫耀性消费 "与支出、展示以及风格、品位和财富的社会权力的确立有关。在维布伦的书中，这种展示仅限于上层阶级，而鲍德里亚则认为整个社会都是围绕着商品的消费和展示而组织起来的，个人通过商品的消费和展示获得声望、身份和地位。在这个体系中，一个人的商品--房子、汽车、衣服等--越尊贵，他在符号价值领域的地位就越高。因此，正如词语根据其在不同语言系统中的地位而具有意义一样，符号价值也根据其在不同声望和地位系统中的地位而具有意义。
Baudrillard’s early writings are thus characterized by the attempt to combine semiological theories of the sign with Marxist critiques of capitalism. For Baudrillard, the crucial feature of the consumer society is the proliferation of commodity signs through which commodities take on ever new and ever greater significance for those for whom consumption is a way of life. Whereas in his first two books Baudrillard resisted interpreting the consumer society as a linguistic system, as a language (see, for example, SW, pp. 14ff.), in his collection of essays For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, he appropriates Saussure’s semiological theory of language, which conceptualizes language as a differential system of signs, for his analysis of the system of commodities. 因此，鲍德里亚早期著作的特点是试图将符号学理论与马克思主义对资本主义的批判结合起来。在鲍德里亚看来，消费社会的关键特征是商品符号的激增，通过这些符号，商品对于那些将消费视为一种生活方式的人来说，具有了越来越新、越来越重要的意义。在前两本书中，鲍德里亚拒绝将消费社会解释为一种语言系统，一种语言（例如，见 SW, 第 14 页及以下），而在他的论文集《对符号政治经济学的批判》中，他采用了索绪尔的语言符号学理论，将语言概念化为符号的差异系统，用于对商品系统的分析。
Baudrillard thus joined in the semiological revolution which was interpreting all aspects of social life as a system of signs. Commodities for Baudrillard, like language for Saussure, are both signifiers and signifieds, with the features of abstraction, equivalence and interchangeability which Saussure ascribed to the linguistic sign. That is, just as words for the semiologist are abstract concepts which can be bought together in linguistic structures according to specific rules of equivalence, exchange, substitutability and so forth, so commodities constitute a system in which exchange values - their prices, market value and so on - and commodity signs form systems of values in which one individual or good can be substituted for another. Thus, Baudrillard, building on his earlier analysis of the system of needs, suggests that commodities are structured into a system of sign values governed by rules, codes and a social logic. 因此，鲍德里亚加入了符号学革命，将社会生活的方方面面解释为一个符号系统。对鲍德里亚来说，商品就像索绪尔的语言一样，既是符号也是被符号，具有索绪尔赋予语言符号的抽象性、等价性和互换性。也就是说，对符号学家来说，词语是抽象概念，可以根据特定的等价、交换、可替代性等规则在语言结构中买到一起，商品也是如此，它构成了一个交换价值系统--它们的价格、市场价值等--商品符号构成了一个价值系统，在这个系统中，一个个体或物品可以被另一个个体或物品所替代。因此，鲍德里亚以他早先对需求体系的分析为基础，提出商品被构造成一个由规则、准则和社会逻辑所支配的符号价值体系。
To Marx’s analysis of the commodity in terms of use value and exchange value, ^(9){ }^{9} Baudrillard thus proposes adding the further feature of sign value. His project of supplementing Marxist approaches is sketched out in ‘The Ideological Genesis of Needs,’ in which he calls for development of ‘1. A functional logic of use value; 2 . An economic logic of exchange value; 3. A logic of symbolic exchange; 4. A logic of sign value. . . . Organized in accordance with one of the above groupings, the object assumes respectively the status of an instrument, a commodity, a symbol, or a sign’ (CPES, p. 66). These distinctions allow Baudrillard to point to certain limitations in Marx’s theory and the need for a semiological supplement. First he suggests that Marx’s analysis of the commodity fails to address ‘sign value’ (CPES, pp. 66ff.66 \mathrm{ff} ., passim). The commodity was analyzed by Marx primarily in terms of the relationships between exchange value and use value. Use value was defined by the use and enjoyment of a commodity in everyday life, whereas exchange value was defined by its worth in the marketplace. Capitalism produced commodities primarily for exchange value, and capitalists, Marx claimed, were more concerned with the profit extracted from production and exchange than with the actual uses of commodities. 在马克思从使用价值和交换价值的角度对商品进行分析的基础上，鲍德里亚又提出了符号价值。他在《需求的意识形态起源》中勾画了他对马克思主义方法的补充计划，呼吁发展 "1. 使用价值的功能逻辑；2.交换价值的经济逻辑；3.符号交换的逻辑；4.符号价值的逻辑。. . ......."（CPES，第 66 页）根据上述分类之一，物品分别具有工具、商品、符号或标志的地位。通过这些区分，鲍德里亚指出了马克思理论的某些局限性以及符号学补充的必要性。首先，他认为马克思对商品的分析没有涉及 "符号价值"（CPES, pp.）马克思主要从交换价值和使用价值之间的关系来分析商品。使用价值由商品在日常生活中的使用和享受来定义，而交换价值则由商品在市场上的价值来定义。马克思认为，资本主义生产商品主要是为了交换价值，资本家更关心的是从生产和交换中获取的利润，而不是商品的实际用途。
For Marx, commodity fetishism referred to a mode of perception which perceived commodities simply as natural fulfilments of human needs and failed to see the social labor that produced them or the exploitation involved in this process. ^(10){ }^{10} Commodity fetishism thus projects values onto objects that are socially produced, mystifies them and fails to see their socialmaterial underpinnings, just as in pre-capitalist societies individuals fetishized natural objects like trees or the moon as divine or supernatural, failing to see that they were simply products of nature. 在马克思看来，商品拜物教指的是一种认识模式，它把商品简单地视为人类需求的自然满足，而没有看到生产商品的社会劳动或这一过程中所涉及的剥削。 ^(10){ }^{10} 因此，商品拜物教将价值投射到社会生产的物品上，将它们神秘化，看不到它们的社会物质基础，就像在前资本主义社会中，人们将树木或月亮等自然物奉为神物或超自然物一样，看不到它们只是自然的产物。
Baudrillard believed that in contemporary capitalist society, fetishism had expanded, and that Marxian theories of value, commodities and fetishism must be further developed. Consumption in contemporary capitalist societies, Baudrillard argued, should be conceived of primarily as a process in which sign values are conspicuously consumed and the fetishism of commodities is not simply a projection and investment of values in certain privileged goods, but rather concerns fetishism of an entire system of social prestige and differentiation. Thus for Baudrillard fetishism involves entanglement in a whole system of (arbitrary, artificial) social differentiations organized and functionalized by the code of political economy social distinctions and prestige (CPES, pp. 88ff.). 鲍德里亚认为，在当代资本主义社会，拜物教已经扩大，必须进一步发展马克思关于价值、商品和拜物教的理论。鲍德里亚认为，当代资本主义社会的消费应主要被视为符号价值被明显消费的过程，商品拜物教不仅仅是价值在某些特权商品上的投射和投资，而是涉及整个社会声望和差异化体系的拜物教。因此，在鲍德里亚看来，拜物教涉及到整个（任意的、人为的）社会分化体系的纠葛，而这一体系是由政治经济学的社会分化和声望准则所组织和功能化的（CPES, pp.88ff.）。
In Baudrillard’s theory, the capitalist mode of production thus produces a system of fetishized exchange values, use values and sign values through which commodities are displayed in consumption. Sign values are generated through hierarchical ordering among commodities, in which, for instance, certain types of cars or perfumes attain varying prestige through signifying the rank, social position and status of their owners or consumers. Sign values are thus characterized by differences and hierarchy, and are produced bv 在鲍德里亚的理论中，资本主义生产方式因此产生了一个迷信化的交换价值、使用价值和符号价值系统，通过这些价值，商品在消费中得以展示。符号价值是通过商品之间的等级排序产生的，例如，某些类型的汽车或香水通过标志其所有者或消费者的等级、社会地位和身份而获得不同的声望。因此，符号价值以差异和等级为特征，通过以下方式产生
what Baudrillard calls a ‘sumptuary’ operation connected to expenditure and social prestige. Sign values are thus linked to fashion and to what Veblen, one of Baudrillard’s acknowledged influences, called ‘conspicuous consumption.’ 鲍德里亚称之为与支出和社会声望相关的 "奢侈 "行为。因此，符号价值与时尚和鲍德里亚公认受其影响之一的维布伦（Veblen）所谓的 "显性消费 "联系在一起。
The analysis of sign values, Baudrillard believes, provides important insights, neglected by most Marxists, into the ways in which dominant sumptuary values are established, and thus into the ways in which the dominant class instils its tastes, values and privileges so as to achieve class domination (CPES, p. 115). He suggests that sign value is governed and organized by a code of political economy that marks the differences and establishes equivalences and a hierarchy of values. In Baudrillard’s view, ‘it is the code that is determinant: the rules of the interplay of signifiers and exchange value. Generalized in the system of political economy, it is the code which, in both cases reduces all symbolic ambivalence in order to ground the “rational” circulation of values and their play of exchange in the regulated equivalence of values’ (CPES, pp. 146-7). It appears that by ‘code,’ Baudrillard is referring to the semiological structure of political economy - that is, to the rules which organize objects and meanings into a hierarchical system of prices, uses, values and prestige. The code manages the exchange of values just as language manages the interplay of signifier and signified (CPES, p. 146). That is, just as the rules and system of language determine meaning, reduce symbolic ambivalence and make possible communication, so the code of political economy determines the needs, uses and values possessed by various commodities and types of consumption. The code ‘rationalizes and regulates exchange, makes things communicate, but only under the law of the code and through the control of meaning’ (CPES, p. 147). 鲍德里亚认为，对符号价值的分析提供了被大多数马克思主义者所忽视的重要洞察力，使人们得以了解占统治地位的享乐主义价值观是如何确立的，从而了解占统治地位的阶级是如何灌输其品味、价值观和特权以实现阶级统治的（CPES，第115页）。他认为，符号价值受政治经济学法则的支配和组织，政治经济学法则标志着价值的差异、等同和等级。在鲍德里亚看来，"起决定作用的是代码：符号和交换价值相互作用的规则。在政治经济学体系中，正是代码在这两种情况下减少了所有符号的矛盾性，从而将价值的 "合理 "流通及其交换游戏建立在规范的价值等同性基础之上"（CPES，第 146-7 页）。看来，鲍德里亚所说的 "代码 "指的是政治经济学的符号学结构，也就是将物品和意义组织成价格、用途、价值和声望等级体系的规则。代码管理着价值的交换，正如语言管理着符号和被符号的相互作用（CPES，第 146 页）。也就是说，正如语言的规则和系统决定意义、减少符号的矛盾性并使交流成为可能一样，政治经济学的准则也决定了各种商品和消费类型的需求、用途和价值。准则'使交换合理化并加以规范，使事物得以交流，但只有在准则的法则下并通过对意义的控制才能实现'（CPES，第 147 页）。
Baudrillard’s key distinction is between the realm of value - produced and regulated by the code of political economy - and what he calls ‘the symbolic’ or ‘symbolic exchange.’ Whereas the latter is ineluctably ambivalent, thereby escaping regulation and control by any system or code, value is subject to a logic of equivalents, differentiation, substitution, order and control. In the next chapter (in 2.2), I shall further discuss the importance for Baudrillard of ‘symbolic exchange,’ which is opposed to all economic exchange governed by the ‘the fundamental code of our society’ that refers to the entire system of rules within political economy (CPES, p. 147). 波德里亚的关键区别在于价值领域--由政治经济学准则产生和规范--与他所称的 "象征 "或 "象征性交换 "之间的区别。后者不可避免地具有矛盾性，因而逃脱了任何制度或准则的规范和控制，而价值则受制于等价物、区分、替代、秩序和控制的逻辑。在下一章（2.2）中，我将进一步讨论 "符号交换 "对鲍德里亚的重要性，它与所有受 "我们社会的基本法则"（指政治经济学的整个规则体系）制约的经济交换相对立（CPES，第 147 页）。
Baudrillard’s argument here is that the system of objects and signs produces homogenized, equivalent, rationalized and systematized needs for a world of objects that are the same for everyone. The result is a tautology of systemic power whereby the subject exhibits needs produced by the system, and the system satisfies these needs, reproducing them and thereby continuing the chain of consumption. Subjects are thus reduced to a socially produced system of needs, while objects are reduced to a homogenized system arranged in terms of sign values. Subjects, for Baudrillard, became mere ‘productive forces.’ His argument is that just as a subject is reduced to 波德里亚在这里的论点是，物品和符号系统产生了同质化、等价化、合理化和系统化的需求，而这些需求对于每个人来说都是一样的。其结果是一种系统权力的同义反复，即主体展示由系统产生的需求，系统满足这些需求，复制这些需求，从而继续消费链。因此，主体被简化为一个由社会生产的需求系统，而客体则被简化为一个按符号价值排列的同质化系统。在鲍德里亚看来，主体变成了单纯的'生产力'。他的论点是，正如主体被简化为
abstract labor power in production, carrying out social labor that any (exchangeable, equivalent) other person could do just as easily, so too the subject of consumption is reduced to a system of homogenized, rationalized and generalized needs. A ‘logic of equivalence’ thus rules the consumer society in which objects function equivalently as signs and have equivalent uses, values and purposes for all consumers, while all consumers have equivalent needs. 因此，消费主体也被简化为一个同质化、合理化和普遍化的需求体系。因此，"等价逻辑 "统治着消费社会，在这个社会中，物品作为符号具有等价的功能，对所有消费者具有等价的用途、价值和目的，而所有消费者具有等价的需求。
In this analysis, Baudrillard goes quite far with the structuralist critique of the subject as a mere product of the social system: ‘The division of labor, the functional division of the terms of discourse, does not mystify people; it socializes them and informs their exchange according to a general abstract model. The very concept of the individual is the product of this general system of exchange’ (CPES, p. 147). Individual needs - and the individual him or herself - are thus viewed as a product of the system of needs: 在这一分析中，鲍德里亚对主体仅仅是社会制度的产物这一结构主义批判走得很远，他说："劳动分工、话语术语的功能分工并没有使人们神秘化；它使人们社会化，并根据一般的抽象模式指导他们的交换。个人的概念本身就是这种一般交换体系的产物"（CPES，第 147 页）。因此，个人需求--以及个人本身--被视为需求体系的产物：
Far from the individual expressing his needs in the economic system, it is the economic system that induces the individual function and the parallel functionality of objects and needs. The individual is an ideological structure, a historical form correlative with the commodity form (exchange value) and the object form (use value). The individual is nothing but the subject thought in economic terms, rethought, simplified and abstracted by the economy. The entire history of consciousness and ethics (all the categories of occidental psychometaphysics) is only the history of the political economy of the subject. (CPES, p. 133) 与其说是个人在经济体系中表达自己的需求，不如说是经济体系诱发了个人的功能以及物与需求的平行功能。个人是一种意识形态结构，是与商品形式（交换价值）和物品形式（使用价值）相关联的历史形式。个人不过是用经济术语思考的主体，被经济重新思考、简化和抽象。整个意识和伦理学的历史（西方心理形而上学的所有范畴）都只是主体政治经济学的历史。(CPES，第 133 页）
On Baudrillard’s view, the analyses of sign values and fetishism will provide new insights into how social domination takes place. He suggests that neglect of these phenomena by most Marxists vitiates their understanding of how capitalism achieves power and control over individuals who allegedly fall prey to the values and practices of the consumer society and come to value objects according to that society’s hierarchies and commodity sign values. Polemicizing against the alleged primacy of use value in the Marxian theory, Baudrillard writes that ‘objects never exhaust themselves in the function they serve and in this excess of presence they take on their signification of prestige. They no longer “designate” the world, but rather the being and social rank of their possessor’ (CPES, p.32). Commodities are therefore not so much the locus of the satisfaction of needs, as classical political economy claims, but ‘confer social meaning and prestige,’ which serve as indices of social standing in the consumer society (CPES, p.33). 鲍德里亚认为，对符号价值和拜物教的分析将为我们提供关于社会统治如何发生的新见解。他认为，大多数马克思主义者对这些现象的忽视，削弱了他们对资本主义如何实现对个人的权力和控制的理解。据称，这些人沦为消费社会价值观和习俗的牺牲品，并根据该社会的等级制度和商品符号价值对物品进行估价。针对马克思理论中所谓的使用价值的首要地位，鲍德里亚写道："物品在其服务的功能中永不枯竭，在这种存在的过度中，它们获得了声望的象征。它们不再 "指定 "世界，而是指定其拥有者的存在和社会地位"（CPES，第 32 页）。因此，商品并不像古典政治经济学所说的那样是满足需求的场所，而是'赋予社会意义和声望'，作为消费社会中社会地位的指标（CPES，第 33 页）。
Consequently, Baudrillard believes that, without a theory of sign value, political economy cannot explain why commodities become such objects of desire and fascination, why certain types of consumption take place (as, for example, conspicuous consumption), why certain commodities are preferred 因此，鲍德里亚认为，如果没有符号价值理论，政治经济学就无法解释为什么商品会成为人们渴望和着迷的对象，为什么会发生某些类型的消费（例如显性消费），为什么某些商品会受到青睐。
Commodities, Needs and Consumption 商品、需求和消费
25
to others, and why consumption can take on such an important function in contemporary capitalist societies. The theory of sign value, Baudrillard argues, combined with what he calls a ‘political economy of the sign,’ explain these phenomena by pointing out that socially constructed prestige values (sign values) are appropriated and displayed in consumption. This theory implies that certain objects or brands are chosen over others because of their sign value - that is, their relative prestige over other brands or types of commodities - and because consumer societies are constituted by hierarchies of sign values in which one’s social standing and prestige are determined by where one stands within the semiological system of consumption and sign values. 在当代资本主义社会中，消费为何能发挥如此重要的作用？鲍德里亚认为，符号价值理论与他所谓的 "符号政治经济学 "相结合，可以解释这些现象，指出社会构建的声望价值（符号价值）在消费中被挪用和展示。这一理论意味着，某些物品或品牌因其符号价值（即相对于其他品牌或商品种类的相对声望）而被优先选择，还因为消费社会是由符号价值等级构成的，其中一个人的社会地位和声望取决于他在消费和符号价值的符号学系统中所处的位置。
Baudrillard implies that members of the consumer society have some sense of the code, or system, of sign values, and thus can interpret other members’ standing through the sign values they exhibit. Yet such a code of standing is somewhat indeterminate and ambiguous. In fact, Baudrillard is not as interested in sketching empirically the actual system of hierarchized consumer values in a given society as in investigating its social logic. Moreover, he admits the possibilities of some ambiguity within this system: ‘A correct sociological analysis must be exercized in the concrete syntax of object ensembles . . . and in the lapses, incoherencies and contradictions of this discourse’ (CPES, p. 37). 鲍德里亚暗示，消费社会的成员对符号价值的代码或系统有一定的了解，因此可以通过他们表现出的符号价值来解释其他成员的地位。然而，这样的地位准则具有一定的不确定性和模糊性。事实上，鲍德里亚并不热衷于根据经验勾勒特定社会中实际的消费价值等级体系，而是研究其社会逻辑。此外，他还承认这一体系中可能存在一些模糊性："正确的社会学分析必须在对象组合的具体语法中进行......以及在失误中进行......"。......以及这种话语的失误、不连贯和矛盾"（CPES，第 37 页）。
Toward a Semiology of Consumption and the Domestic Environment 消费与家庭环境的语义学研究
In order to explore and map out the world and logic of consumption more fully, Baudrillard proposes a ‘more subtle semiology of the environment and of everyday practices.’ He believes that one can study the logic of consumption as a system, since 为了更全面地探索和描绘消费世界和消费逻辑，鲍德里亚提出了一种'更微妙的环境和日常实践符号学'。他认为，我们可以将消费逻辑作为一个系统来研究，因为
objects, their syntax and their rhetoric refer to social objectives and to a social logic. They speak to us not so much of the user and of technical practices, as of social pretension and resignation, of social mobility and inertia, of acculturation and enculturation, of stratification and of social classification. Through objects, each individual and each group searches out her/his place in an order, all the while trying to jostle this order according to a personal trajectory. Through objects a stratified society speaks and, if like the mass media, objects seem to speak to everyone (there are no longer by right any caste objects), it is in order to keep everyone in a certain place. In short, under the rubric of objects, under the seal of private property, it is always a continual social process of value which leads the way. And everywhere and always, objects, in addition to utensils, are the terms and the avowal of the social process of value. (CPES, p. 38) 这些对象、它们的语法和修辞涉及社会目标和社会逻辑。它们向我们讲述的与其说是使用者和技术实践，不如说是社会的自命不凡和逆来顺受、社会的流动性和惰性、文化适应和文化强化、社会分层和社会分类。通过物品，每个人和每个群体都在一种秩序中寻找自己的位置，同时又试图按照个人的轨迹改变这种秩序。通过物品，一个分层的社会在说话，如果像大众传媒一样，物品似乎在对每个人说话（理所当然不再有任何种姓物品），那也是为了让每个人都处于特定的位置。总之，在物品的名义下，在私有财产的印记下，始终是一个持续的社会价值过程在引领着前进的方向。在任何地方、任何时候，除了用具之外，物品都是社会价值过程的条件和证明。(《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》，第 38 页)
Baudrillard’s most substantive sketch of this project is found in ‘Sign Function and Class Logic.’ He suggests here that a semiology of objects and consumption would analyze interiors and domestic spaces and the distribution of objects within them, as well as doing a ‘vertical’ analysis that would look at the hierarchical scale of each category of objects within the social universe (CPES, pp. 34ff.). Such a semiology of consumption would involve what he calls a ‘rhetorical and syntactic analysis of the environment,’ which would examine hierarchies of models and series of goods, as well as the organization and social use of objects. 鲍德里亚在《符号功能与阶级逻辑》中对这一项目进行了最实质性的勾勒。他在这里提出，物品和消费符号学将分析室内和家庭空间以及其中物品的分布，并进行 "纵向 "分析，研究社会宇宙中各类物品的等级规模（CPES, pp.34ff.）。这种消费符号学涉及他所说的 "对环境的修辞和句法分析"，它将研究模型和商品系列的等级，以及物品的组织和社会使用。
This project is similar in some ways to Roland Barthes’s analyses of fashion and food in Système de la mode. ^(11){ }^{11} Baudrillard suggests that after analyzing the structure of the system of objects in the consumer society, the social semiologist next move toward explicating the social logic of consumption by carrying out a ‘strategic analysis of the practice of objects’ (CPES, pp. 35ff.). Here objects are taken as ‘indices of social membership’ and ‘as the scaffolding for a global structure of the environment, which is simultaneously an active structure of behavior’ (CPES, p.35). ‘At bottom, individuals know themselves (if they do not feel themselves), to be judged by their objects, to be judged according to their objects and each at bottom submits to this judgment, though it be by disavowal’ (CPES, p. 40). The middle classes in particular, he suggests, are forced to gain public recognition and legitimacy through consumption, precisely because of a deficit of prestige in their cultural, political and professional lives. But this fact in turn renders their prestige through commodities and consumption ambiguous, for ‘behind their triumph as signs of social promotion they secretly proclaim (or avow) social defeat’ (CPES, p. 40). 这一计划在某些方面类似于罗兰-巴特在《Système de la mode》一书中对时尚和食品的分析。 ^(11){ }^{11} 鲍德里亚建议，在分析了消费社会中物品系统的结构之后，社会符号学家接下来要通过对 "物品实践的策略分析"（CPES, pp.35ff.）来阐释消费的社会逻辑。在这里，物品被视为 "社会成员的指数 "和 "环境全球结构的支架，同时也是一种积极的行为结构"（CPES，第 35 页）。从根本上说，个人认识自己（如果他们感觉不到自己的话），被他们的对象评判，根据他们的对象被评判，每个人从根本上都服从这种评判，尽管是通过否认的方式"（CPES，第 40 页）。他认为，正是由于中产阶级在文化、政治和职业生活中缺乏声望，他们不得不通过消费来获得公众的认可和合法性。但这一事实反过来又使他们通过商品和消费获得的声望变得模棱两可，因为 "在他们作为社会进步标志的胜利背后，却暗地里宣告（或宣扬）社会的失败"（CPES，第 40 页）。
Demystifying what he calls the ‘democratic alibi,’ or ‘universal,’ of consumption, Baudrillard argues that, in fact, analysis of consumption provides indices of the extent to which the consumer society is stratified by class, as well as a sense of the immense differences between social classes in capitalist society. The analysis also suggests some of the ways in which class conflict is displaced as exploited classes succumb to the allures of consumption. Here Baudrillard sarcastically suggests that the consumer ethic among these subordinate classes functions as a new ‘slave morality’ whereby the frantic consumption of these classes is itself ‘a sign of their social relegation,’ which ‘marks the limit of their social chances’ (CPES, p. 61). 鲍德里亚揭开了他所谓的 "民主托辞 "或消费的 "普遍性 "的神秘面纱，他认为，事实上，对消费的分析提供了消费社会阶级分化程度的指数，以及对资本主义社会各社会阶层之间巨大差异的认识。这种分析还表明，随着被剥削阶级屈服于消费的诱惑，阶级矛盾也会以某种方式被取代。在这里，鲍德里亚讽刺地指出，这些从属阶级的消费伦理是一种新的 "奴隶道德"，这些阶级的疯狂消费本身就是 "他们社会地位下降的标志"，"标志着他们社会机会的极限"（CPES，第 61 页）。
While ‘Sign-Function and Class Logic’ is one of Baudrillard’s most stimulating articles, it also contains quite problematical perspectives on consumption which I shall criticize in the next section. Part of the problem is that in this and in his following works, Baudrillard carried out little phenomenological explication of his semiology of the environment and everyday life; thus his programmatic project set out in ‘Sign-Function’ is somewhat formal and abstract, and is not really carried through. One senses 虽然《符号功能与阶级逻辑》是鲍德里亚最有启发性的文章之一，但它也包含了相当有问题的消费观点，我将在下一节对其进行批评。问题的部分原因在于，在这篇文章及其后的作品中，鲍德里亚几乎没有从现象学的角度阐释他对环境和日常生活的符号学；因此，他在《符号功能》中提出的纲领性计划有些形式化和抽象化，没有真正得到贯彻。让人感觉到
that Baudrillard is both fascinated and repelled, interested and then bored, by the object world that he confronts and describes in his early essays. Patience and immersion in the particular do not seem to be his particular virtues. Consequently, in his early essays - indeed throughout his work - he often opens interesting lines of thought and research and then jumps into something else - though, as we shall see, certain themes permeate his work and define its general contours. 波德里亚在其早期文章中面对和描述的客体世界，让他既着迷又厌恶，既感兴趣又厌烦。耐心和沉浸于特定事物似乎并不是他的特殊优点。因此，在他早期的文章中，甚至在他的整个作品中，他经常会开启一些有趣的思考和研究思路，然后又跳到其他方面--不过，正如我们将看到的，某些主题贯穿于他的作品中，并确定了作品的总体轮廓。
Many other essays in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign contain illuminating insights into the constitution and structure of everyday life in the consumer society. Most of the essays focus on the general logic of signification in political economy and especially on how consumption produces sign values. I shall discuss some of these essays in later chapters; but now I want to give a critical discussion of the contributions and limitations of the three books which mark the first stage of Baudrillard’s work. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign》一书中的许多其他文章都对消费社会日常生活的构成和结构提出了富有启发性的见解。这些文章大多关注政治经济学中符号的一般逻辑，特别是消费如何产生符号价值。我将在后面的章节中讨论其中的一些文章；但现在我想对标志着鲍德里亚第一阶段工作的三本书的贡献和局限性进行批判性的讨论。
1.4 BAUDRILLARD AND POLITICAL ECONOMY 1.4 波德里亚与政治经济学
While Baudrillard’s theory of sign value provides some important insights into the dynamics of consumption in the consumer society, it also provides a rather limited, one-sided theory of consumption. For Baudrillard, consumption consists more in the appropriation and display of sign values than in the use and enjoyment of objects as characterized by Marx. ^(12){ }^{12} Baudrillard, by contrast, argues that capitalism establishes social domination through the imposition of a system of sign values whereby individuals are situated within the consumer society and submit to its domination through the activity of consumption. This model rules out in advance, however, the possibility that consumption might be a sphere of self-activity, of self-valorization, of the use and enjoyment of objects for one’s own ends, and instead conceptualizes it solely as a locus of class domination where individuals submit to the dictates of capital and assimilate its values and practices. 尽管鲍德里亚的符号价值理论为消费社会的消费动力提供了一些重要的启示，但它也提供了一种相当有限的、片面的消费理论。在鲍德里亚看来，消费更多的是对符号价值的占有和展示，而不是马克思所说的对物品的使用和享受。 ^(12){ }^{12} 相比之下，鲍德里亚认为资本主义通过强加符号价值体系来建立社会统治，个人置身于消费社会之中，并通过消费活动服从其统治。然而，这种模式事先排除了消费可能是一种自我活动、自我价值实现、为个人目的使用和享受物品的可能性，而将其仅仅概念化为阶级统治的场所，个人在其中服从资本的支配，并吸收其价值观和实践。
An alternative perspective on consumption is found in the work of Michel de Certeau. ^(13){ }^{13} In his book The Practice of Everyday Life and in other studies of oppositional practices, he shows various ways in which consumption can serve the interests of self-valorization and be used to promote the interests of individuals and oppositional groups against the hegemony of capital. Certeau points out that the French notion of ‘usage’ can mean ‘custom’ in the sense of traditional, predefined, inherited patterns of use and behavior. Or it can signify ‘the manner of employment,’ the particular ways in which individuals use objects (as in the sense of ‘customized’ when individuals use, modify and perhaps transform objects to suit their needs and desires). ^(14){ }^{14} 关于消费的另一个视角见于米歇尔-德塞多（Michel de Certeau）的著作。 ^(13){ }^{13} 他在《日常生活的实践》一书和其他关于对立实践的研究中，展示了消费服务于自我价值实现的各种方式，以及消费被用来促进个人和对立群体的利益、反对资本霸权的各种方式。塞尔托指出，法语中的 "使用 "概念可以指 "习俗"，即传统的、预定义的、继承下来的使用和行为模式。它也可以指 "使用方式"，即个人使用物品的特殊方式（如 "定制 "的含义，即个人使用、修改甚至改造物品，以满足自己的需求和愿望）。 ^(14){ }^{14}
Such a perspective is foreclosed in advance by Baudrillard, who assumes that all needs, use values and consumption are entirely produced and 鲍德里亚预先排除了这种视角，他认为所有的需求、使用价值和消费都是完全生产出来的，并且
controlled by the system of the consumer society. Baudrillard denies all human agency and creativity, and fails to analyze any of the ways in which commodities can be integrated into our own projects and self-valorization. While people and societies have always organized their lives around objects, Baudrillard makes it appear that in the consumer society, objects organize people’s lives and are demiurges of social domination that individuals cannot use for their own purposes, enjoyment or projects. 被消费社会体系所控制。鲍德里亚否认人的所有能动性和创造性，没有分析商品如何融入我们自己的项目和自我价值的实现。虽然人和社会总是围绕着物品来组织自己的生活，但鲍德里亚却让人觉得，在消费社会中，物品组织着人们的生活，是社会统治的赝品，个人无法将其用于自己的目的、享受或项目。
Certeau, on the contrary, suggests exploring the ways in which the ‘consumer sphinx’ produces its own practices, styles and uses of objects. This would involve drawing up the repertoire on which the users draw to make up their own performances. . . . [which] form the lexicon for the users’ practices. ^(15){ }^{15} This project would then carry out such studies of how individuals watch, listen to and use films, television and popular music; how they decorate and structure their homes to serve their own needs and interests; and how inventiveness and creativity is possible in cooking and other consumer practices. 相反，塞尔托建议探索 "消费狮身人面像 "产生自己的实践、风格和使用物品的方式。这就涉及到使用者在表演时所依据的剧目。. . .[它们]构成了用户实践的词典。 ^(15){ }^{15} 该项目将对以下方面进行研究：个人如何观看、收听和使用电影、电视和流行音乐；他们如何装饰和布置自己的家，以满足自己的需要和兴趣；以及在烹饪和其他消费行为中如何发挥创造性和创造力。
Now obviously the consumer industries have attempted to manage and control all the spheres of consumption and to control leisure activity to promote their aims and interests; but Certeau suggests that individuals can and do resist the objects and practices of the cultural and consumer industries. He proposes developing strategies and tactics for waging commodity struggle in ways such that individuals, and not corporations or corporate capital, primarily benefit. These tactics would range from ‘borrowing’ - a euphemism for ripping off objects from work for use at home-to producing one’s own food, clothes and objects, thus circumventing commodification and the market. 现在，消费产业显然试图管理和控制所有消费领域，并控制休闲活动，以促进其目标和利益；但塞尔托认为，个人可以而且确实在抵制文化和消费产业的对象和做法。他建议制定战略战术，以个人而非公司或企业资本为主要受益者的方式开展商品斗争。这些策略包括 "借用"--这是一种委婉的说法，指从工作中窃取物品回家使用--生产自己的食物、衣服和物品，从而规避商品化和市场。
For Baudrillard, by contrast, consumption is solely a mode of commodification, social integration and domination. To be sure, this is how the consumer society manages to assert its power over many individuals, and Baudrillard provides some valuable insights into how this takes place. But in a curious way he projects the fantasy of capitalists - what we might call the capitalist imaginary - as the governing principle of the consumer society. ^(16){ }^{16} In other words, Baudrillard describes precisely how capitalists would like the world to be. He assumes that the consumer society and consumption are managed and controlled by capital merely to ensure the maximization of profits and power by the capitalist class. Further, he sees consumption and sign values as the ways in which the capitalist class controls society. Baudrillard rules out the possibility of consumption being used in ways that would serve individual needs and interests or of it being structured by individuals as a sphere of opposition (to work, to exploitation, to repression, to production) which might actually create new problems of management for capital (as when workers’ demands for higher wages for more consumption cut into profits and so on). ^(17){ }^{17} 相比之下，在鲍德里亚看来，消费只是一种商品化、社会融合和统治的模式。可以肯定的是，这就是消费社会如何对许多个人行使权力的方式，而鲍德里亚对这种方式提供了一些有价值的见解。但是，他以一种奇特的方式将资本家的幻想--我们可以称之为资本家的想象--投射为消费社会的统治原则。 ^(16){ }^{16} 换句话说，鲍德里亚描述的正是资本家希望世界变成的样子。他认为，消费社会和消费受资本的管理和控制，只是为了确保资本家阶级的利润和权力最大化。此外，他认为消费和符号价值是资本家阶级控制社会的方式。鲍德里亚排除了消费被用于满足个人需求和利益的可能性，也排除了消费被个人构建为反对领域（反对工作、剥削、压迫、生产）的可能性，而这种反对实际上可能会给资本的管理带来新的问题（如工人要求提高工资以获得更多消费，从而削减利润等）。 ^(17){ }^{17} .
Thus, as Harry Cleaver insists in Reading Capital Politically, all social 因此，正如哈里-克利弗在《从政治角度解读资本论》一书中所坚持的那样，所有的社会
phenomena should be analyzed both from the standpoint of the working class and from the standpoint of capital, or, using Antonio Negri’s term, from the standpoint of self-valorization versus that of capital-valorization. ^(18){ }^{18} On this view, consumption - or any activity - can be directed toward selfvalorization if the subject realizes his or her goals or receives selfgratification from the process and if the activity undermines capital realization rather than contributing to it. However, Baudrillard’s analysis analyzes consumption solely from the standpoint of the capitalist class, by describing only how consumption serves to integrate individuals into the consumer society so that they may serve the interests of class domination. While this procedure provides valuable insights into some of the mechanisms of class domination, it is one-sided, and fails to conceptualize ways in which class conflict, resistance and oppositional practices are also bound up with the sphere of consumption. Thus he completely rules out oppositional practices or self-valorization in this sphere. 我们应该从工人阶级的立场和资本的立场来分析这些现象，或者用安东尼奥-奈格里的话来说，从自我价值化的立场和资本价值化的立场来分析这些现象。 ^(18){ }^{18} 根据这一观点，如果主体在消费过程中实现了自己的目标或得到了自我满足，如果消费活动破坏了资本的实现而不是促进了资本的实现，那么消费--或任何活动--都可以指向自我价值的实现。然而，鲍德里亚的分析仅仅从资本主义阶级的角度来分析消费，仅仅描述了消费如何将个人融入消费社会，从而为阶级统治的利益服务。虽然这种方法对阶级统治的某些机制提供了有价值的洞察，但它是片面的，未能将阶级冲突、反抗和对立实践与消费领域联系在一起的方式概念化。因此，他完全排除了这一领域中的对立实践或自我评价。
Moreover, a central theoretical problem emerges in Baudrillard’s work from this period. For Baudrillard never clearly or systematically defines his central semiological categories of the ‘code’ which determines the hierarchy of sign value within what he calls ‘general political economy.’ Thus, although he constantly claims that sign values are determined by a ‘code,’ he neither clearly defines the code which determines the hierarchy of sign values in the system of commodity signification in the consumer society nor indicates how it is produced or who produces it. ^(19){ }^{19} There is no institutional analysis in (any of ) Baudrillard’s works; nor does he assign determination or control of the code to any specific class, groups or individuals. Moreover, he uses the term ‘code’ in a sometimes confusing multiplicity of ways. Usually it refers to the structure of the entire system of political economy in which all commodities are assigned certain sign values through the system as a whole, just as exchange value is determined in Marx’s theory. In other places, where he claims that the ‘commodity is a code,’ Baudrillard uses the term to refer to the imposition of the code of the commodity on social life as a new model of social organization, and thus refers simply to what Marxists call ‘commodification.’ Still later in his work (see ch. 3), Baudrillard detaches code from the general system of political economy and uses it to refer to a variety of simulation models which are imposed upon and thus come to structure and organize social reality. 此外，波德里亚在这一时期的作品中还出现了一个核心理论问题。因为鲍德里亚从未明确或系统地定义过他的核心符号学范畴，即在他所谓的 "一般政治经济学 "中决定符号价值等级的 "代码"。因此，尽管他不断声称符号价值是由 "代码 "决定的，但他既没有明确定义在消费社会的商品符号系统中决定符号价值等级的代码，也没有指出代码是如何产生的或由谁产生的。 ^(19){ }^{19} 鲍德里亚的（任何）作品中都没有制度分析；他也没有将代码的决定权或控制权分配给任何特定的阶层、群体或个人。此外，他使用 "代码 "一词的方式有时令人困惑。通常，它指的是整个政治经济学体系的结构，其中所有商品通过整个体系被赋予一定的符号价值，就像马克思理论中决定交换价值一样。在其他一些地方，鲍德里亚声称 "商品是一种代码"，他用这个词来指商品代码作为一种新的社会组织模式强加给社会生活，因此只是指马克思主义者所说的 "商品化"。在其著作的稍后部分（见第 3 章），鲍德里亚将 "代码 "从政治经济学的一般体系中剥离出来，并用它来指各种被强加在社会现实之上，从而成为社会现实的结构和组织的模拟模式。
Yet in his first three books, Baudrillard generally seems to use the term ‘code’ in the singular to stand for the system of political economy as a whole and the rules and the hierarchies through which differences and sign values of commodities are produced and regulated. The analogy would then be to the semiological theory of language, which produces meaning through differences, rules of the interplay of signifiers, rules relating signifiers to the signified, and so on. Yet it is not clear that this linguistic analogy is particularly appropriate on a theoretical level; for it is difficult to imagine 然而，在波德里亚的前三部著作中，他似乎通常使用单数 "代码 "一词来代表整个政治经济学体系，以及商品的差异和符号价值赖以产生和规范的规则和等级制度。与此相类比的是语言符号学理论，它通过差异、符号相互作用的规则、符号与被符号相关的规则等产生意义。然而，在理论层面上，这种语言学的类比显然并不特别恰当；因为很难想象