SACE – I & II

SOCIOLOGY

Submitted by: Navjot Sharma

Semester-II

Section-A; Roll No. 100

EMILE DURKHEIM’S LE SUICIDE IN THE CONTEXT OF INDIA
Emile Durkheim was always a proponent of totality of the social science in its rigorousness,
something that gives an explanation of what causes the behavior in certain social conditions.
His more refined and popular works came out in the later end of the 19 th century. At a time
when people equated a person committing to mental illness Durkheim, on the other hand, had
firm belief in the fact that suicide went deeper than this and that the external social forces had
a hand in spurring a person to end his/her life. The approach that Durkheim followed then
was based on classification then clarification then comparison and at the end defining suicide.
It is important at this point to internalize the social conditions during Durkheim’s research.
Rapid industrialization was all around him, as an exodus came in from the countryside and
rural areas to cities and towns – the volatile hubs of change. Their reasons for moving out can
be broadly classified into two groups: those who were pushed out and those who pulled
toward the cities, the former was the consequence (mainly) of lack of livelihood and the latter
of an allure to the abundance of labor required in the industries. This turned out be not only a
transfer of peoples but also of cultures, as one can’t be separated from the other. So, new
languages, ideals, people – the whole nine-yards of human existence – collapsed with the
natives of city and changed the social structure. This was a period of change in the way of life
for the people, as they left, what Durkheim called the “collective consciousness” of their
traditional lives – the norms and values shared among a collection of individuals as their
lifestyle makes them live in close groups in a mostly undifferentiated society where most of
the people were engaged in the basic act of survival. So, anything new and free would most
definitely come as a shock to this collective consciousness. And new did come when people
strayed far away from their groups and experienced a freedom whose existence they didn’t
know of, and this is no way means that all they experienced was good as leaving the people,
the values one knows, and going to a place with entirely new concepts of culture one would
always feel, at first, rootless. This is a phenomena that occurs every time one leaves his/her
home or city and moves into another – a feeling, that Durkheim called, anomie. People react,
at least in the beginnings, to their surrounding based on their now left-behind culture, and
slowly and steadily new sensibilities and new perspectives occupy the person. But what if it
is not only an individual but the whole of the population that feels this way (as during an
exodus, the existing cultures are changed too due to the incoming variables), as this new
culture is not new for a few but for most of the populace, an internal panic is inevitable. And
in this purposelessness would be a new solidarity.
For people who migrated from a rural economy, they were to witness the new ‘cash
economy’ of the city, and no longer would most of the people in this collective city-
consciousness would be equal as in their traditional culture, but they would also be held
together in the new dissimilarity of work: the division of labor. This new economy would see
each and every one of them to earn money and then spend it to sustain themselves –
something they had never even thought in their rural life of self-sustainment of growing one’s
own food. The new life of a newcomer, based on the division of labor and consumption of
various goods and services, is equated to the ‘organic process’ of human body by Durkheim –
a metaphor for how the new life would process out – as is seen in a human body that is made
of varied components and most of our lives we are unaware of each individuality yet our
body functions, and it stands in a stark contrast with the lifecycle of a robot (know that this is
in Durkheim’s era) which is designed to perform one single task and its components could be
counted out by the fingers of a hand. In the organic life of our bodies the whole comes out
above its constituent parts. So, Durkheim, in his explanation of the theory of suicide works
very closely to his social theory. He talks of a close solidarity among people of a collective
consciousness and this solidarity exists in the newly relocated populace too, but it is based
not on intimacy to culture or relatability in working divisions instead on the new industrial
ideals of diversity and freedom of thinking and choosing the way one decided to live and
spend the free time, since the people were alone in their experiences. But it was not so for all
the people, the extremely needy and poor were still bound by the weight of their life, working
tirelessly (in conditions that had no standards to maintain) and could not experience this new
freedom of choice.

The melting of ideals and cultures into something complex and altogether new from +its
original components, the transition towards a new society – Durkheim pinned as the cause
out of which a growth in suicides was a by-product. His hypotheses of suicide, rooted in his
social ideas and theories, was of a staggering change, a historic change, brought on by the
transformation of mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity which had changed the “glue
holding together the society”. The new economic division of labor had replaced a collective
consciousness of the rural living. And based on a rigorous data collection and cross-checking
in a time where it was extremely hard for an individual to so owing to either a lack of access
to information or simply a fault in data-collection and storage. His results were that out of the
new social groups the ones that were more individual in nature (freer and encouraging of
freedom in thought) had more suicide rates and were generally more prone to suicide;
similarly, he looked at data of married and single individuals and came to a conclusion that
designated the single people more prone to suicide. He looked at religion too, and the trend of
individuality inviting suicide was there to be seen too as the more individually functioning
Protestant denomination had more suicide prone individuals as compared to those in Catholic
or Judaism (or both).

Emile Durkheim’s theory can be compared with a story – a sprawling tale of change and
consequences. Beginning with simple and similar ideals and experiences shared among the
populace. Then comes change with the emergence of new economic ideas, the shared life that
was dominated by work and working no longer involves growing your own food in a small
patch of land, it meant to put one’s energy in keeping the economy by taking part in activities
of commerce, construction, textile, metallurgy, politics, law, science, sweeping the roads,
sewers, and farming but on a large enough scale to feed the force behind the economy. To
promote economy become the automatic and implied goal of every activity undertaken
(except if an individual resorted to criminal acts). The work is divided and interaction among
the populace involves interaction between people who only trifle know and understand one
another and probably little in common. The negative, Durkheim realized, was a by-product or
a side effect of the massive changes in the society. The structure of society changed and
became more individualistic, and Durkheim, in explaining a theory of suicide, studies the
changes and their effect on the individual caused by change in the behavior and beliefs.

Durkheim, following the methodology, divided suicide on the basis of how the victim went
through with it: either positive (ending one’s life by doing an act which he is sure of will
cause death – hanging oneself, for example) or negative (ending one’s life by not doing
something whose stoppage is fatal – refusing to eat, for example). But these distinctions did
not separate the people who killed themselves unknowingly, as one could be in a state of drug
induced ecstasy that he might jump of a building thinking he is on the ground, and what if
someone was actually suffering from a disease that caused him to act in such manners
without them knowing that they were about to end their own life. Also, another question
came up (as he also studied the military): whether a solider or any person out of love or
devotion let go of his life for the good of the other – would this be suicide. Intent, then,
turned out to be a factor in defining suicide.

To properly categorize suicide, Durkheim rejected the “presumed motive of suicide” as

stored in the official records, as these were, according to him, based on the point of view of
the investigators, how they saw the scene of the act; and that there is always a motive behind
the acts of suicide. He stated that while the “individual repercussions” might explain some
“weak points” in the psyche of the individual, the actual case (as said in preceding
paragraphs) was due to “states of the various social environments”. Ultimately, he classified
suicide into four types.

Beginning with Egoistic suicide, which Durkheim believed to be a cause of loss of previous
closely social and familial bonds and was seen mainly when the individual got separated
mentally and physically (sometimes) from his/her previous social circle. He analyzed
different the Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, and found out that the Protestants, a larger
sector of population had more cases of suicide. He denied the lower suicide rates in the other
groups as a cause of maintaining a rigorous moral code imposed efficiently due to their lesser
population, and came at the conclusion that the Protestants, harboring ideals of free will led
to a lack of tight-knit community, a lack of credo, due to it being very little integrated as
compared to the Jews or the Catholics. This collective safety then must be displayed in other
groups, and Durkheim was able to show it in the fact that the marriage had a preventive effect
on suicide (most of the times it only showed in men) and when the family increases in size,
this immunity is extended to the wife too. The reason behind individualistic tendency of those
with suicidal tendencies was a cause of losing the supposition that a society exists above us
and we are actively serving it, that is our acts need to have a transcendental effect on the
society above us – according to Durkheim. It is when a man leaves his society, he, ironically,
feels the society influencing him.

Altruistic Suicide, according to Durkheim, was a cause of “too little individuation”: as is seen
in closely knit societies where members give their own lives for the community. Men who
have lived into a ripe old age, women whose husbands just died, and slaves or followers upon
the death of their chiefs – all have had to let go of their lives under the force of duty. One
crucial factor as a precursor to this act must be that individuals have little value, Durkheim
argued. He designated this as the state of altruism and called this death the “obligatory
altruistic suicide.” This does not mean that the individual is not unhappy, it is the opposite, in
fact, and it is different than the unhappiness of an egoist – the latter is in the state of mind
because of his individuality growing larger than the society and not being able to see or feel
anything that has any real value and is not worth working for, on the other hand, the former
sees his/her own individual worth as too little or unreal compared against the society and to
give his/her own self a sense of worth an act of altruistic suicide seems the way to transcend -
the physical world becoming merely an obstacle. The egoist, in his melancholy, wearied and
depressed, by committing suicide lets go into a complete relaxation, and the altruist, existing
in the same melancholy, commits suicide as the ultimate act of happiness and hope. The raw
morality of society is on display in the case of an altruist. According to Durkheim, the
Military of suicide is a remanent of the primitive morality of the altruistic suicides.

The two types of suicide mentioned above are based around the individual and his/her
integration in the society, but Durkheim also believed that society had a role to play too by
regulation of its ideals and values, as he found out that a connection existed between the
suicide rate and regulation of the society to better suit its inhabitants. During the industrial
revolution a severe lack of wealth led to increase in suicide rate – pretty obvious – but this
rate increase in times of economic prosperity too (if a crisis exists). Durkheim puts it best:
“Every disturbance in equilibrium, regardless if it produces all around comfort and vitality, is
an impulse to voluntary death.” He delves into the philosophical, in order to explain the
human misery, and comes to the conclusion that men are always moved toward an
“awakened reflection” causing them to chase the ever-eluding desires and are in continuous
pursuit of the unattainable. So, constraints are required to keep us happy – at least to help us
stop from engaging in futile chases. During his time, the society was under a disturbance as it
was expanding its scale and internalizing new members, and a state of non-equilibrium came
into being with the constraint lowered on the individual as the society finds it difficult to
regulate. Anomie was what the members of the society feel during a period such as this,
hence, the suicide is Anomic. The anomia was not only economic but seen in domestic life
too: the widows and widowers being prone to it, but as already mentioned before, the
immunity of a marriage only extends to the man, and the reason Durkheim gives (is not
surprising given the conditions he lives in) that the woman has less restrictions on her sexual
urges as compared to a man and these needs greatly resemble their organism. But in this
observation he developed a new theory of marriage that stood opposite to his Victorian
prudishness about women’s role being advantageous in a marriage, as he came to the
conclusion that since women practically sacrifice everything without receiving anything
(where a man receives immunity) – a gratuitous act on woman’s part.

The fourth is the fatalistic suicide where the individuals could not escape their tightly
controlled lives. But Durkheim regarded this type as unimportant because it was phenomena
of the past.
How does it all tie in with the sensibilities of our nation? What we are witnessing in this
period is a forced individuation of the people, and according to Durkheim, letting one’s mind
run free in isolation without any constraint is related to higher suicide rates. The average
suicides daily in India in 2020 were close to four-hundred – an increase of 3.4% as compared
to the preceding year - an epidemic on its own. According to WHO our nation came in at 19 th
position in global suicide rates with a rate of 16.5 every hundred-thousand people.
Maharastra – the hub of the economy – records the highest number of suicides, and fresh off
of Durkheim’s theory one might see this as a result of too much individuation and both the
rich and poor being affected by it. Nationwide, those engaged in daily wagers are constitute
the highest number of suicide percentages, and seeing as they are spread pan-India it would
be hard to pin their miseries and act of suicide rooted in restraint, and the only common fact
existing is of economic wellbeing and they are severely lacking that aspect. Most of the other
suicides (student suicides in schools and colleges, domestic suicides etc.) are causes of outer
pressures on them – a state of unsatisfaction of desires as there is no restraint on actions (the
victims or some external entity) be it a pressure to get highest of the grades or being harassed
in public (ragging) or in person (dowry), they require societal constraint.

Thus, Durkheim’s Le Suicide is a compelling theory of suicide that is rooted more in the
social aspects, and in our nation the suicides corroborate with his theory given the varied
societal nature of our country.

REFERENCES
 Durkheim, E., 1897, Le Suicide, Paris: G. Baillière.

 (2021). Retrieved from https://www.afternoonvoice.com/upsurge-in-suicides-in-india-in-

2020-maximum-suicide-rate-in-maharashtra-ncrb.html
 GHO | By category | Suicide rate estimates, age-standardized - Estimates by country. (2021).
Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en
 Amid COVID-19 outbreak, India’s suicide epidemic remains unaddressed – these graphs
show how. (2021). Retrieved 9 May 2021, from
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/amid-covid-19-outbreak-indias-suicide-
epidemic-remains-unaddressed-these-graphs-show-how/652188
 Anand, A. (2021). Driving to Suicide: From bullying to psychological tortures - Law Times
Journal. Retrieved 9 May 2021, from https://lawtimesjournal.in/driving-to-suicide-from-
bullying-to-psychological-tortures/
 Chandra, P. (2021). Dowry Suicide on the Increase in India? | DESIblitz. Retrieved 9 May
2021, from https://www.desiblitz.com/content/dowry-suicide-on-the-increase-in-india
 Zoomers & Hyperreality

A Peek Into The Day Of One Navjot Sharma – A 24-Hour Long Log
(Starting From 11:00 Pm, 29 May, 2021).
11:00 PM: I sit down to finish off the remainder of Economics essay, and plan to finish it
off by 1:00 AM as I merely have to write the conclusion and then rewrite and edit to make it
more approachable and presentable – the phone notifies me: news about some electronic expo
about to begin in June. I read about, then check for some more news, football, specifically;
then onto Instagram, check out an ad for premium coffee, among other things; then onto to
YouTube, check out an ad about a laptop pc and even though I recently got a new one, I
check out its review (it’s not as good as mine, and affirms my purchase). An hour has
elapsed, and a new day begins.
1:19 AM: Trying to reorient myself took some time as I began by listening to music: I
chose a playlist of mellow songs, changed to something more instrumental, as the words
interfered with my efforts to focus, and, after some time turned it off and try to read. Ten
minutes in, I have begun typing words.

2:15 AM: The number of words go north of the minimum required and I stop writing.
Stand up and do some stretching. My circadian rhythm has been reversed, the realisation hits
me as I feel no fatigue or anything else that pushes me to sleep. But I have always been a
night-owl and a circadian rhythm is flexible. I sit down to edit and proofread my essay.

3:23 AM: Essay is complete. I check in on my friend through a text. The reply comes in
after ten minutes – all the while I surf the web on my laptop – and it is a voice call. I accept
and we talk for half an hour, the topics ranging from work to how my new headphones
haven’t been delivered yet due to the pandemic.

4:21 AM: I feel no need for sleep and am in a dilemma: should I watch a two-hour long
movie or a commentary on two-hour long I watched a week ago or just browse the internet
more.

6:00 AM: After a couple of how-to videos about something that I won’t do and a video-
essay on ludo-narrative dissonance, I am finally ready to sleep. I plug in my headphones, play
my sleeping playlist, and lie down. Dawn broke about an hour ago, and lie on my bed with a
cacophony of birdcalls and a hum of dying music all the while a sliver of light wiggles into
the room through the curtains.

8:39 AM: Woke up, eyes barely open, but enough for the putrid morning lights to dig in
and wreak havoc. My mother stands at the door and I remember that I had asked her to wake
me up early.

10:53 AM: I get called for breakfast. Scrambling together my morning routine takes me a
good twenty minutes. Watch the news on T.V. while eating.

1:00 PM: After phasing out during the filler hours. I decide to continue my reading of
Faulkner’s Intruder in the Dust. I sit down with my Kindle E-Reader, a diary, a notepad, and
my smartphone (the order of usage starting from this end) and check any and all emails,
notifications, and messages I received. Ninety percent are ads, some of them interesting, the
rest is a mixture of messages and reminders for the content posted on YouTube (I have an on-
off relationship my Instagram app, deleting it when after I realise that I have sunken hours
into it and reinstalling it the next day). I peruse through the videos, only to be interrupted by a
call. Turns out, I had planned, with some friends, to go trekking up the mountain. He had
called to cancel his inclusion due to work and I took a sigh of relief. Finally, before getting on
with my reading, I go through the news and register nothing of import.

4:12 PM: My lack of sleep became apparent fifteen minutes into reading as I kept zoning
out and reiterating the same two lines and the short nap I took was not enough to allay my
sleeplessness. But now, I feel ready to take the day head-on.

5:01 PM: I collected and organised my sources for the final essay while sipping tea and
texting and listening to metal headbangers. I feel ready to start writing.

5:10 PM: A friend came home. We talked and then headed out to meetup with a third, and
then, the triad complete, we hung out: talking about the past and mulling over the future and
recharging in the interspersion with a healthy dose of a cynic silence. One of guys shows me
a picture with a giant grin, I reply with a chuckle forced enough to qualify as a throat
workout, the third notices and smiles to himself. We part ways soon after.

7:03 PM: Back home, split between cold-coffee and normal coffee. Look up their effects
on the internet, end up making spiced tea.
7:30 PM: Praying and meditating. Sit down with no time constraints and end after seven
minutes. Reading afterwards until dinner at nine.

10:00 PM: Perusing through social media for one last time. Checking stuff, downloading a
movie, listen to something new or revisiting some old songs, tinkering with software, all
peppered with texting through my PC. Also, trying to think for a title, revising concepts about
the essay and arranging sources or asking for help – all so as to not get stuck while writing
due to lack of input and ideas. Also, through an app, check my social media usage, managed
to keep it under two-and-half-hours.

10:59 PM: Write and rewrite the title for half an hour.

Hyperreality & Post Postmodern Condition & I

In his philosophical treatise, Simulacra & Simulation, the French sociologist, Jean
Baudrillard, gave the concept of hyperreality: a period when representations have replaced
reality and the experiences have are all not real but copies with no original. Baudrillard
lamenting today’s over-abundance of the sign to the point where the sign does not represent
the truth but loses it and becomes the truth. I download an e-book whose physical copy I will
never hold, the physical book is meaningless for me, the same goes for downloading a music
file without ever hold the physical record. The idea did exist before him, as Walter Benjamin
in 1936 said that authenticity requires the presence of original. When we are mass producing
e-books and music and images, the authentic cannot exist and this culture of ours,
inextricably, condenses into what Baudrillard called the simulacra (copies with no original)
and the life that we live, being in constant contact with the simulacra becomes a simulation.
There is nothing separating the simulated from the real – apart from their nature, of course –
and we have come to a point where there is no real.

What is real and what is referential then, becoming one in the simulation, inevitably take up
new forms, larger than reality itself, transforming into the hyperreal. The hyperreal, according
to Baudrillard, is produced through the manufactured objects. He has tried to explain through
four stages of the image, the transformation of the real into hyperreal. First comes the basic
truth represented faithfully and truthfully, most of all, like the paintings of L.S. Lowry, a
painter who successfully depicted the realties of the early 20 th century England in all of its
repetitive and monotonous glory. Then, John Grimshaw, taking a step away from reality,
depicted the same grim and dullness of life in a romanticised and idyllic manner, then artists
like Rene Magritte depicted an image further removed from reality and only in some symbols
and representations we find the authentic and we find, more abundantly, signs with no
semblance in reality, and at last, like a Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko abstract piece that
has nothing do with reality – only existing in its representations with nothing to reflect.

To gain a more fundamental understanding, we should look it in the context of post-

modernism. Post-modernism, as an idea, is a question and rejection of modernism: a
collection of practices that would destabilize the ideas that were promoted in modernism,
particularly the ideas of history, identity, meaning, and overarching grand-narratives. For a
post-modernist, there is no essence to objects and are only defined through the conditions
surrounding its external. It is important to note that Baudrillard never called himself a post-
modernist, just acknowledged it as a condition. And the ideas that post-modernism concerns
itself with are: symbols, identities, subject, and text. Now, Baudrillard defined objects
through four apparent characteristics: functional value, exchange value, symbolic value, and
the sign value. The approach closely resembles that of Marx, but later Baudrillard separated
himself from it. What Baudrillard did differently from the others was that he hypothesised
that the post post-modern condition is upon us, when the all the notions of meaning, through
de-structuralism, don’t exist.

So, for the people living off of the grand-narratives that originated in 17th century Europe
with a resurgence of meaning, truth – a mass manufacturing of identities to attach themselves
to, the post post-modern age does away with all these, leaving behind a person, with no shell
of identity to give his life meaning, it would plunge him into a crisis. Then, in our need to
find meaning, Baudrillard said that the people will resort to mass consumerism, a frantic
effort to define who they are through the things that they buy, these goods becoming signs of
one’s values and ideas: identity. To Baudrillard, this is all happening right now, and a person
is what he buys. It is a response of a capitalist society to the fragmentation of its identities,
becoming obsessed with visual images and consumerism. At Baudrillard’s time, this boom in
consumerism began in the 1980s. But then, the question arises, who defined these symbols in
the first place?

The media.

This is where my average day could be made sense of. From the moment we wake up to
moment we go to sleep we are bombarded with visual images (in the 80s it was the
abundance of televisions) and the media reaches us through our phones or computers – in our
laps and pockets we are spoon-fed the constant stream of visual images. I was looking for
coffee that day, now I could have bought twenty small satchels of Nescafe for two rupees
each from a local shopkeeper, but instead I searched on the internet, and came upon Rage
coffee that advertised itself a premium coffee for the hard-working youth of India, also made
in India. And now I am faithful consumer of their product, what makes me not buy Nescafe?
I wanted to buy a laptop and bought one that is heavily advertised as one with extreme-
performance capabilities; or I want to spectacles because a character wore them in a T.V.
show. Baudrillard would have pointed out that all these acts are a method for me to define my
identity through comparisons to other. What would buying this coffee brand say about me?
That I am productive and if it means anything, that coffee has become my go to if I am to
engage in any kind of work that would exhaust me either physically or mentally or even in
both ways – because that is how it advertised itself as. As to the effects, I can’t say anything
substantial. That is only a single aspect of it. The images that the media puts forth then
become the only ways to experience them, as it is not uncommon for people to talk about
their feelings in a way comparing them to the media they saw on T.V e.g., planning weddings
in the image of what a person saw in a romantic movie. The Disneyland effect, one could call
it, as it produced some of the classics of the modern media, the images and ideas it
propagated became the social norms, that people would rather visit Disneyland version of
China rather visit the real country. Often times we hear people say how something they
experienced was nothing like how they saw it in the media. We have all heard the saying that
art imitates life and life imitates art: a media takes cues from subjective real-life experiences
and then people take cue from these media and then back to art and then to life, to
Baudrillard, this circle of imitation would create, inevitably: a copy of a copy of copy of copy
of a copy that in the first place was extremely subjective take on reality. When I tune in to
news, what do I have access to? The news channel flaunt their non-biasness, and Baudrillard
would ask biased against what? He explained through the famous words: “the Gulf war never
happened.” What he meant was that the majority of people have experienced this-wars
through signs in form of sounds and symbols from a thousand different news sources none of
which could ever relate to the actual brutalities of the warzone. The kind of humour I prefer is
lost to my friend and this choice extends to every aspect of our daily life as we have selected,
grabbed and held on to intangible constructs to define ourselves through it, trying to find
relatability and relation.
Thus, the symbols depict the simulation of the real-world events instead of reality. But
Baudrillard doesn’t criticise us for interacting with the media, because the hyperreal world is,
after all, our reality; neither is Baudrillard telling us that we are hopeless victims, if anything
we are active participants, as explained previously the media and us, through interaction, feed
into one-another.

Conclusion
The conclusion could be explained away with the Baudrillard’s analogy of a freeway as a
depiction of our life: what do we see on a freeway: thousands of people closed off from each
other in their cars not knowing where anyone other than themselves is going.

REFERENCES
Kellner, D. (2005, April 22). Jean Baudrillard. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard

The difference between representation and simulation — media|machines. (2017, September 23).
https://mediamachines.org/log/2017/8/9/the-difference-between-representation-and-simulation

Kirkwood, M. (2021). Hyperreality and the Consumption of the Subject as Object in "Black
Mirror." Retrieved 31 May 2021, from
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1771/hyperreality-and-the-consumption-of-the-subject-
as-object-in-black-mirror

Postmodernism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (2021). Retrieved 31 May 2021, from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

Introduction to Jean Baudrillard, Module on Simulacra and Simulation. (2021). Retrieved 31 May
2021, from
https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudlldsimulTnmainfram
e.html

Philosophize This!. (2018). Episode 124....Simulacra and Simulation [Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCgoKIT0Ufc&t=156s

Mambrol, N. (2021). Baudrillard’s Concept of Hyperreality. Retrieved 31 May 2021, from

https://literariness.org/2016/04/03/baudrillards-concept-of-hyperreality/