Whatever its political, pedagogical, cultural content, the plan is
always to get some meaning across, to keep the masses
within
reason; an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the
constantly repeated imperative to moralise information: to better
inform, to better socialise, to raise the cultural level of the masses,
etc. Nonsense: the masses scandalously resist the imperative of rational
communication. They are given meaning: they want spectacle. No effort
has been able to convert them to the seriousness of the content, nor
even to the seriousness of the code. Messages are given to them, they
only want some sign, they idolise the play of signs and stereotypes,
they idolise any content so long as it resolves itself into a
spectacular sequence. What they reject is the "dialectic" of meaning.
Nor is anything served by alleging that they are mystified. This is
always a hypocritical hypothesis which protects the intellectual
complaisance of the producers of meaning: the masses spontaneously
aspire to the natural light of reason. This in order to evade the
reverse hypothesis, namely that it is in complete "freedom" that the
masses oppose their refusal of meaning and their will to spectacle to
the ultimatum of meaning. They distrust, as with death, this
transparency and this
political will.They scent the simplifying
terror which is behind the ideal hegemony of meaning, and they react in
their own way, by reducing all articulate discourse to a single
irrational and baseless dimension, where signs lose their meaning and
peter out in fascination: the spectacular.
-- Jean Baudrillard. "The Abyss of Meaning," In the Shadow
of the Silent Majorities ... Or The End Of The Social, And Other
Essays (1983).