s fluidity which enables them to be articulated in multiple ways (Barthes, 1973, pg 122). Eco argues that the viewers determination to decode the message in aberrant ways are to be found in the readers general framework of cultural references such as his ideological, ethical religious standpoint, value systems, etc, (Eco, 1998, 141).
Following the same path of consumption and ideology, Baudrillard follows Althuesser in arguing that the subject is constituted through social classifications and ideological processes. Ideology converts humans into subjects. Ideology lets us mistakenly recognize ourselves as autonomous self-determining agents, whereas in fact we are subjects formed through a social physic processes. Ideology therefore is not the mirrored inversion of the real but our imaginary or symbolic to our shared conditions of existence. Watching the latest Levi jeans advertisement we are addressed as individual consumers with our own unique passion and desires. The ideological effect of the ad lies in its ability to interpellate us in this way. Althusser complicates Marx beautifully by not accepting the concept of ideology as false consciousness. It is material practice produced by ideological state apparatuses. It makes us think are sovereign consumers rather than a member of social class. (Stevenson, 2002,150)
In the age of postmodernism where the product is a sign instead of a commodity, as Baudrillard argues, the way in which adverts are consumed by television viewers depend on the very same framework Eco talks about. Jean Baudrillard’s essay “The Ecstasy of Communication” evokes TV and its technologies as a metaphor for the regime of simulation in the contemporary western culture.
A TV screen cannot be thought simply as an object to be looked at, with all the old forms of psychic projection and investment; instead, the screen intersects responsively with our desires and representation and becomes an embodied from of our psychic worlds. What happens on the screen is neither on the screen nor in us, but in some complex, virtual space between the two. Marshall McCluhan’s notion that the “medium is the message” is clearly related to consumption theory. McCluhan argues that television influences viewers’ thinking processes and leads to alienation and individualism. But McCluhan sees this not as the result of television content but rather caused by the sensory nature of the medium itself. It is the form of the medium, according to McCluhan, and not its content that influence viewers (Mcluhan, 2002, pg7).
TV advertising is a representative part of the arena where the post-modern scene of simulation takes on the relationship between the product and consumer. Baudrillard has contributed significantly towards the theory of consumption. He abandoned Marxist analysis after his book called the ‘Symbolic Exchange and Death’ (1976). He argues that through a more explicitly post-industrial analysis the real relations of production and consumption have been replaced by a sign system. According to Baudrillard the arrival of consumer society requires a radical reconstruction of critical theory. Baudrillard argues that before goods (objects) can be consumed they must become signs (Baudrillard, 1988, pg 23). The meaning of the objects is established through the organisation of signs into codes. It is only through these codes that people realise their sense of self and their needs. The codes themselves are hierarchically ordered, being used to signify distinction of statue and prestige. As Baudrillard argues “a need is not for a particular object as much as it is a ‘need’ for difference (the desire for social meaning) only then we will understand that satisfaction can never be fulfilled, and consequently that there can never be a definition of needs”. A subject whose needs are fixed by human nature does not consume the object. Social goods are consumed not to satisfy pre-existing needs but to signify social distinctions.
We have become completely absorbed by adverts, images and simulation. Baudrillard would call this simulation as an 