Simulation vs Simulacra

In the article Simulacra & Simulation Jean Baudrillard goes through several examples that are meant to define and strengthen his idea of what a simulation is. The definitions of 'simulation' and 'simulacra' are very close, and could potentially be interchangeable in certain instances, and because of this not all of his examples help strengthen the idea. In fact, some work to further blur the distinction between them.

Within the article, Jean defines simulation as "the generation by models of a real without origin or reality." One of the best examples given towards this idea is his portrayal of Disneyland. The place exists outside of any origin of reality, it is purely fantastical and in doing so, allows its visitors to enter into a simulation of a life that is just that, not of reality. It is made even more extreme, as Jean explains, by the polarity of the park compared to the parking lot surrounding it. In the park the people are surrounded by incredible things and gadgets that are meant to pull you from reality. Conversely, the only gadget in the parking lot is the car the people drove in with, which is generally mundane.

Iconoclasm is another concept brought up that helps solidify Jean's idea of simulation. The general idea of iconoclasm is to actively reject a religious belief in some way. The way that he suggests this is done is by giving a face to a god. People feeling the need to create a character, or something to grasp, to be able to believe in the power behind their religion. This feeds into his idea of a simulation in that humans have based their personifications of their respective gods off of nothing. There is no origin to their ideas. It is created from nothing to satisfy a need for their beliefs to have a face.

Disneyland and Iconoclasm are good examples for the idea of simulation, "ethnology" and "mummies" are two examples that seemed to more be speaking towards the idea of simulacra than simulation, at least in the way Jean spoke of them. When he brings up the concept of mummies, he says that a mummy embodies the idea of the past and serves as a way for people to quantify the past and be able to look back and study it. While this seems very similar to the idea and argument he presented for iconoclasm, it differs in that a mummy is a physical object that can be inspected and observed. It has an origin and most certainly exists in exactly the way that it is seen. In this way, mummies seem to fit much better into the concept of a simulacra than a simulation. Similarly, ethnology also does not seem to represent a simulation. It is a study of something that is very much present and there in front of anyone to observe. However, Jean does bring up the point that in observing someone, the act of observing them changes how they would act had they not been observed. So in that aspect, the study of them creates a sort of simulation of themselves. It isn't a true representation necessarily.