Although it didn’t seem to fit into the discussion at the time, I still wonder about the ‘end of history’ and Mosco’s choice to end Ch. 3 with Baudrillard: “We shall be spared the worst – that is History will not come to an end – since the leftovers, all the leftovers – the Church, communism, ethnic groups, conflicts , ideologies – are indefinitely recyclable. What is stupendous is that nothing one thought superseded by history has really disappeared. All the archaic, anachronistic forms are there ready to reemerge, intact and timeless, like viruses deep in the body. history has only wrenched itself from cyclical time to fall into the order of the recyclable.”
The sublime may become banal, but the myth never fades. The privation of history may well be an endpoint where irresponsability exists within the digitized realm of the recycled past and the prerendered future. The end of chronological history, however, does not eliminate history or its ability to shape current culture. Is the myth fanciful? Could it become a reality? Along with the privation of history, is the end of history when the past is broken from its confines and is experiencable in the present in all of its entirety? Can the historical ideologies transcend bonds of cultural difference and, through a vivid experience of the past, reemerge as dominant? In any case, those are some of the thoughts that the quote provoked for me.