1431176

Explore Jean Baudrillards treatment of differentiation AND/OR personalisation in

La Socit de consommation

William Pawlett describes personalisation, as the word is used within La Socit de

consommation, as referring to ways in which society offers consumers differentiation,
distinctiveness or uniqueness through product choices,1 while Baudrillard himself calls
differentiation the means by which each member of the consumer society aligns themself
with a specific ideology, class or group of people. It is shown as the desire which controls
the way in which we consume, in order to present a specific set of signs to the world, with
the intention of displaying who one truly is. Due to the closeness of the relationship
between these two terms, this essay will look at them both within the context of
Baudrillards general philosophical standpoint, which was at the time associated with poststructuralism and, to a lesser extent, Marxism. The former philosophy builds on
structuralist ideas of the arbitrary nature of language, which show that there is nothing
natural in the relationship between a tangible signified and the signifier which conveys
the concept. According to structuralism, it is this relationship which forms a sign, which
post-structuralism claims then forms either the signifier or the signified for a new sign, in a
never-ending chain. Though it is often argued that Marxism played a smaller role in
Baudrillards writing, it will still be vital to this essay. While La Socit de consommation

1 Pawlett, William, Jean Baudrillard: Against Banality (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), p.
152.

1431176

places a greater emphasis on consumption than production, which traditional Marxism

shows to be the driving force of Capitalism, the two are heavily interlinked. Due to this, and
the language with which Baudrillard describes the concepts of differentiation and
personalisation, this essay will take the view that, in La Socit de consommation,
capitalism (and by extension consumerism) are values which must be overthrown in order
for a more balanced society to exist. It will first examine how differentiation is used as an
integral part of the consumer society in order to maintain the overall social order, before
looking at how it it perceived by the individual. Next, as a product of differentiation,
personalisation of the self will be examined, and finally how the two are presented to the
general public in the form of advertising

Baudrillard defines the society about which and in which he is writing as a growth
society, which is not to say that it is an affluent one, as Baudrillard points out that growth
produces both poverty and affluence in equal measure. Within this framework, goods and
needs may be produced simultaneously, but not at the same speed, since production is
reliant on the economy and limited by the productivity of industrial processes, while needs
are governed by la logique de la diffrentiation sociale.2 This logic is explained by
Baudrillard as the way in which people consume pre-personalised commodities, offered
with multiple small differences, with the aim of differentiation themselves, of setting

2 Baudrillard, Jean, La Socit de consommation (Paris: ditions Gallimard, 1970), p. 83.

1431176

themselves apart from other members of society by displaying a unique set of signs in their
manner of consumption. Importantly, the system of differences is one built on
differentiation which has little or no functional impact on the product, such as a slight
cosmetic change. It is therefore a change which either does not affect cost of production,
or which can be offset by an increased markup in retail price, while allowing the producer
to provide a commodity which appeals to a much wider audience. Evidently, therefore,
differentiation is extremely important for the maintenance of a consumer society, as it is
partially responsible for ensuring that production stays at a high level, which strengthens
and upholds the consumer society. Both Richard J. Lane in his guide to Baudrillard and
George Ritzer in his introduction to the 1998 English translation of La Socit de
consommation that the work maintains the traditional Marxist principle that production is
the cornerstone of Capitalism, a view which is reinforced by Richard G. Smith in The
Baudrillard Dictionary, when he states that La Socit de consommation was written at a
time before Baudrillard began to move away from traditional Marxism, and so was still a
proponent of the idea that production must be the main impetus behind capitalism. Since
Marxism expounds the overthrow of Capitalism in order to liberate the workers, it is clear
that Baudrillard wishes to present differentiation as a process which maintains a morally
bad society and is by extension a bad structure. This view can be seen throughout La
Socit de consommation, most starkly when he says that le consommateur vit comme
libert, comme aspiration, comme choix ses conduites distinctives, il ne les vit pas comme
contrainte de diffrentiation et obissance un code (Baudrillard, p. 80.) Evidently, to the

1431176

reader, the fact that the consumer doesnt experience their acts of differentiation as an act
of submission to the greater system doesnt change the fact that it is such an act.
Additionally, the fact that the consumer believes themself to be acting freely further
condemns the social logic of differentiation because it is a method of control intended
specifically to disguise from consumers that they are being controlled at all. Baudrillard
uses postmodernist techniques to draw the reader into the conversation on the issue.

As a basic requirement for what Baudrillard calls the system of needs, one of the most
vital functions of both production and differentiation is in the creation of excess. This, he
claims, is something common to all societies, providing the example of the so-called
primitive potlatch ceremonies of the indigenous peoples of North America, wherein
aristocratic members of tribes gave away or destroyed large quantities of wealth, in order
to display their power to other clan leaders. He states that waste is a way of maintaining
the hierarchy, as the rich and affluent members have enough money to spend on non-vital
consumerism, while working-class people do not. It is important here to examine
Baudrillards writing on aspiration, which affects the products which people consume so
that those at the lower end of the social scale do not consume high-end commodities,
even if they have sufficient means to do so. This is due to Baudrillards principle of signvalue, which shows that all products, services and comestibles have a certain social value,
so that consumption of them affords prestige to the consumer (this is generally, though not
always, linked with the price of that commodity). Since a consumers aspirations are,

1431176

according to La Socit de consommation, directly proportional to the actual social status

of that person, the working classes are limited to aspire to what they might realistically
expect to achieve, which is only un peu au-del de leurs chances objectives (Baudrillard,
p. 84,) or, in other words, not very much. Members of the bourgeoisie, on the other hand,
are able to aspire to things considerably above their status, because they are better able to
imagine having high social prestige. He states that this is a form of status differentiation, in
which every consumer places themself somewhere within the social hierarchy, by relating
themselves to every other consumer through the signs which they display. This result of
entering into the hierarchical scale by differentiation is either as important as, or more
important than, the economic benefits for producers which come from consumption of
personalised goods, as Baudrillard discusses in the chapter on mtaconsommation, in
which he talks about how the haute-bourgeoisie may begin to differentiate themselves from
the petite-bourgeoisie by not purchasing expensive commodities and rejecting excessive
consumerism. This would seem to be contrary to the aims of a consumer society, but, as is
pointed out, these anti-consumers are still very much engaged in the consumption of
signs, and of differences, which makes their actions le fin du fin de la consommation
(Baudrillard, p. 130.) This theory of differentiation as an implementation of social hierarchy,
upon which Baudrillard later develops in Pour une critique de leconomie politique du
signe, reinforces his view that differentiation is a vital component to the survival of the
Capitalist consumer society, and one from which the average consumer cannot escape, as
the concepts which govern it chappent pour lessentiel aux individus (Baudrillard, p. 80.)

1431176

It is heavily influenced by Georges Batailles 1949 work La Part maudite, which itself
suggests that it is necessary for humans to expend their energy in wastage, for example by
investment in the arts. The key element, as Pawlett points out, is that there must not be a
reciprocal exchange: the person must not receive anything of equal value in return. In La
Socit de consommation, Baudrillard illustrates this by stating that nul besoin na de
chances dtre satisfait massivement que sil ne fait dj plus partie du modle suprieur
(Baudrillard, p. 82.) On one level, this shows that mass-production can only take place
once the bourgeoisie (or more accurately the haute-bourgeoisie) has moved on to other
goods, since the commercialisation of products reduces its sign-value and therefore the
prestige it affords the consumer. To a working-class consumer, whose social status is low
in comparison with other members of society, the prestige imparted by a mass-produced
product has a much greater effect than for someone who is already much higher up the
social scale, as it increases that persons status by a greater percentage. On another,
more basic level, it suggests that needs, insofar as they are useful to a consumer society,
cannot in fact be true needs, which are vital for survival, but must be manufactured. Any
difference associated with true needs would, says Baudrillard, create contradiction and
therefore, presumably, friction between members of society, which would lead to
destabilisation and probable collapse of the social order. In order that this be avoided,
then, the differentiation experienced in these situations has to be used as a form of social
control. These differences, which he describes as personalising, nopposent plus les
individus les uns aux autres, elles se hirarchiesent toutes sur une chelle indfinie

1431176

(Baudrillard, p. 126) and as such cannot be described as differences, since the process of
self-differentiation is the act of making oneself similar to other members of a socio-cultural
group, and therefore placing oneself in a specific place on the scale. This shows that the
system of differentiation must, says Baudrillard, be in fact dependent on the lack or
suppression of actual differences within society.

Since Baudrillard has shown that the individual consumer is neither aware of the
aforementioned overall social aspect of differentiation, nor capable of escaping from the
constraints it imposes, the end result of this process from their point of view is that of
personalisation of the self. According to Baudrillard, this is vital because it is the process of
creating oneself within the language of signs, by choosing (as far as possible) how one is
perceived by others. He states that modern culture no longer recognises la personne
en valeur absolue (Baudrillard, p. 125.) This is due to the fact that people no longer
interact directly, but rather engage with each other by consuming and judging the signs
which are being displayed, again showing the complete necessity of differentiation as the
means by which members of society rank themselves against others. It is vital that
consumers differentiate themselves from others in order to personalise themselves, or to
create a version of themselves entirely constituted in signs, which may be understood by
other consumers. By using the term personalisation, after having described it as
something which happens at the level of production and not of consumption, Baudrillard
shows that he believes this act to be a commodification of the self. Since the precise sign-

1431176

value of an object exists only as it is perceived by the person in relation to their own social
prestige, and one sign may have a different signification for different people, selfpersonalisation suggests that the image one projects through the language of signs is,
once constituted, no longer under the control of the person, but open to interpretation by
anyone with whom that person comes into contact. If this is the only way two members of a
consumer society may interact, it is obvious that self-personalisation as a direct product of
all accumulated acts of differentiation has become an integral part of ones identity as a
consumer. Despite treating the lack of direct interpersonal interaction as a loss, Baudrillard
does not provide an example of a society in which this is not the case. Every time he
mentions more primitive societies, it is to show how they too are victims to the same
constraints as posed in his own consumer society, which suggests that the intertwined
concept of differentiation and personalisation are human characteristics, which can be
neither good nor bad, and not merely evil products of a Capitalist society, as would be
implied by a traditionally Marxist philosophy. This would appear to contradict the point
which has been previously made that differentiation in particular is a pillar of Capitalism
and as such should be overthrown, however it is possible to reconcile the two by
concluding that the two mechanisms are themselves without moral association, but that
the manner in which they are manipulated by producers within the consumer society is
very much something which is morally reprehensible within Marxism and, therefore, to
Baudrillard. He also shows that personalisation is required on a personal level in his
conclusion. Here, he discusses the film Ltudiant de Prague (Der Student von Prag),

1431176

showing that the students image in the mirror can be seen as an allegory for the self
which the consumer creates through engaging with the system of differentiation. The deal
the student, Balduin, strikes with the Devil for gold which allows him to enter high society is
shown to be symbolic of consumption of commodities with high sign-value in order to
increase ones social status, just as the Devil giving form to Balduins reflection is symbolic
of the loss of control of what Pawlett calls the commodity-form as soon as it is created. As
points out in Against Banality, this is where Baudrillard departs from a Marxist view of
alienation, and describes this commodity-form set free as an evil facsimile of the human,
placed in opposition to the true self. Here, then, it is clear that personalisation is extremely
dangerous to the individual, which presumably one can expect to lead to a downfall of
similar proportions to those presented in the film. Baudrillard does not mention the fact
that, if this form is commodified, it may be consumed by the individual in exactly the same
manner as would anyone else, and that one may then judge the signs and adjust them in
order to better present who they truly are. This may seem as though the individual does
not therefore lose full control of their commodity-form, but extending Baudrillards theory
shows that this is not the case. Once two people have interacted, the commodity-forms
have been consumed and are then irretrievable as each person inserts themself into the
hierarchy relative to the other. By refining oneself through differentiation, the consumer
creates a new version of the form, which will again be consumed upon a new interaction
with a fellow member of society, but this must be seen as separate from any previous
instances, as each time the consumer positions themself on the social scale anew. In

1431176

10

showing how personalisation and differentiation are inter-related, Baudrillard uses one of
the most fundamental principles of structuralism and post-structuralism: the never-ending
chain of significations. Production (especially mass-production) allows for differentiation, or
the consumption of signs. The result of this is that the consumer personalises themself,
displaying their own unique set of signs, which are then in turn consumed by people with
whom this consumer interacts. By electing to interact with certain people, the next
consumer is personalising themself and, again, displaying a different set of signs to the
world. This ties in with Jacques Derridas affirmation that il ny a pas de hors-texte,3 which
implies that there is no escaping the chain of significations, and therefore within this work
that differentiation and personalisation are processes which all members of society carry
out with every action or lack of action.

As has been mentioned already in this essay, the consumer experiences the act of
constituting themself within the language of signs as becoming who they truly are, which
is an idea enforced heavily by advertising. Baudrillard shows this by examining two
advertisements aimed at women, one for a car, and the other for a hair dye. The
testimonial-style wording of the latter focuses very much on how the use of this blonde tint
has allowed the woman in question to finally become who she is. He says that the use of
language in these adverts demonstrates the ridiculous, contradictory nature of the very

3 Derrida, Jacques, De la grammatologie (Paris: Les ditions de minuit, 1967), p. 227.

1431176

11

idea that one can become oneself through consumption, as if it is possible to

simultaneously be, without being oneself. This, as Elizabeth Rose McFall clarifies, is
necessary within a consumer society because of the aforementioned necessities of
product differentiation. Producers need to maintain their sales, and so adverts suggest that
the consumer will find themself in a purchase, while the real origins of identity are
obscured by the distortions imposed by the distortions imposed by consumption.4
Therefore, the use of this piece of advertising in La Socit de consommation reinforces
the idea of differentiation as a negative force which is used to fuel social control, as natural
identity is superseded by a manufactured form of personalisation, suggesting that identity
within a consumer society is a fake concept, which is liable to crumble if one does not
continue to differentiate oneself through continued consumption. However, Baudrillard
does not mention the differences between audiences in these two advertisements: while
the second one is clearly intended for female consumption, as it comes from a womens
magazine, the first was found in Le Monde, which did not have an entirely, or even
predominantly, female readership. From the language it uses, it seems obvious that this
piece is supposed to be read by a man: though the 1998 English translation of this work
renders femme as woman, the woman in question is clearly here a wife before all else,
and by describing her as demanding, the adverts taps into a supposedly common
complaint that men have about their wives, creating solidarity between the husband and

4 McFall, Elizabeth Rose, Advertising: A Cultural Economy (London: Sage, 2004), p. 19.

1431176

12

the producer. It then goes on to show that men are more concerned about the technical
side of the vehicle, but that it is still desirable for them to engage with the offered
differentiation, if only for the sake of their wives. This advert, then, shows how advertising
encouraged (and still does, though to a lesser extent) men to purchase differentiated
items, because it would satisfy their wives. This was necessary at the time because
socially-imposed gender roles taught that interest in superficial aspects of a commodity
where they did not offer any functional improvement was a feminine pursuit, and it would
be emasculating for a man to show interest in this (we still see this today in products
marketed for men, and sold in grey packaging despite their being exactly the same as the
womens version). As such, this provides men with a reason and an excuse for consuming
something for its appearance, while acting as a social control mechanism to place readers
in categories based on their gender. Baudrillard again shows how differentiation is really
used to remove difference among social groups, specifically women, and place all
individuals either within or without this category. He quotes velyne Sullerot in saying that
women are sold the idea of womanhood, so each act of differentiation takes them closer to
the homogenised ideal of femininity, and places them in the social hierarchy. Here again,
he speaks about consumption of the self, and states that, while actual aspects of the self,
such as physical appearance and personality, are interacted with on a natural level, the
signs of personalisation can only be consumed. As previously shown, this is how interpersonal relationships are built within the language of signs, and thus personalisation
becomes more important than actual personality.

1431176

13

Throughout La Socit de consommation, Baudrillard shows the reader that what he

calls the culte de la diffrence is treated as a malignant facet of society, designed to lull
the consumer into believing that they are enacting their freedom from higher control in
choosing precisely how to spend their time and money, in order to stop them inspecting the
culture of commerce too closely and attempting to go against the proscribed order.
Perhaps the most evident example of this is in the chapter La Vitrine, where he describes
the selection of products displayed in shop windows as a ferie calcule (Baudrillard, p.
265) which is created ingeniously to suggest that one should purchase not only one
product, but the an entire set of furnishings to complement it. The purely economical
purpose of this is to imply that, for example in home furnishings, there is nothing one might
already possess which would go as well with that chair or that table quite as well as what
has been placed alongside it by a professional, and so to encourage people to spend more
money in one establishment. However, it also has the secondary effect of confining
personalisation. Because it is visible to everyone walking past, it is seen by hundreds of
people on a daily basis, and so is perfect for enforcing this homogenisation on society.
Much as has already been discussed in terms of advertising, where women are
encouraged to make themselves into the perfect woman, these shop windows encourage
consumers to align themselves as closely as possible with a certain point on the
hierarchical scale of values, though one thing which Baudrillard does not mention explicitly
at this point is how the shop window is often a very perfect capsule to encourage

1431176

14

aspiration. In a shop window display, both higher- and lower-end products are arranged
together harmoniously so the business can appeal to the aspirations of all classes of
society. For working-class individuals, they may see products they can afford, or can aspire
to afford, alongside those which they cannot reasonably hope to get, but their association
with cheaper goods makes them seem more attainable and so consumers are encouraged
to spend outside their means in order to increase production. Similarly, the lower-end
products gain an increased sign-value by their association with more prestigious
commodities, and so those higher up the social hierarchy are more likely to purchase
these. This shows once again that differentiation and personalisation work together to
maintain the social and economic order, by hiding from consumers that they are being
manipulated.

In conclusion, it is impossible to separate the concepts of differentiation and

personalisation within La Socit de consommation, and the two work together to provide
a system which helps drive consumption and keep production rates high. Regardless of
whether one sees one or the other of these as the foundation of Capitalism, Baudrillard
shows the overall system of differentiation to be something implicit within a consumer
society, from which the individual cannot hope to escape, and his Marxist leanings leave
little room for doubt that this means it should be toppled to liberate the working classes.
While he does not make clear whether or not he believes these two aspects of society to
be inherently evil, he does harshly criticise their use by the bourgeoisie to control all

1431176

15

members of society, in particular those near the bottom of the social hierarchy and by so
doing allow those at the top to maintain their position of wealth.

4,005 words

1431176

16

Bibliography

1. Bataille, Georges, La Part maudite (Paris: Les ditions de minuit, 1949)

2. Baudrillard, Jean, La Socit de consommation (Paris: ditions Gallimard, 1970);
translation (London: Sage, 1998)
3. Derrida, Jacques, De la grammatologie (Paris: Les ditions de minuit, 1967)
4. Lane, Richard J., Jean Baudrillard (Routledge Critial Thinkers) (London: Routledge,
2007)
5. McFall, Elizabeth Rose, Advertising: A Cultural Economy (London: Sage, 2004)
6. Pawlett, William, Jean Baudrillard: Against Banality (London and New York:
Routledge, 2007)
7. Smith, Richard G., The Baudrillard Dictionary (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press, 2010)