Consumption constrains the individual in a code, closing off the opportunity of symbolic exchange which leads to immense forms of alienation.

The individual, as it appeared in Enlightenment philosophy, a creature of passion and character, is ‘swept out of our functional universe’ (ibid.). This ‘lost being’ is then reconstituted in coded, differential and semiotic form by the consumer system, resulting in ‘a synthetic individuality’ (ibid.). People as constituted by the system are not different or singular in any meaningful way. They are merely different from each other according to a coded system of marginal differentials: a ‘chav’ is not cultured, a ‘square’ is not fashionable, a ‘goth’ is not mainstream. These differences, no matter how marked or dramatic they seem at the level of content, represent conformity at the level of form; that is, at the level of the code, an ‘integration within a sliding scale of values’ (1998a: 89), the scale of identity/difference. Consumption, as a ‘generalised code of differentiation’ (1998a: 94), establishes a new and distinctive mode of exchange between individuals: ‘the unconscious discipline of the code’ is a system of ‘competitive co-operation’ (ibid.). Baudrillard insists that ‘the status of the individual is changing totally’: It is a move from an individual principle based on autonomy, character, the inherent value of the self to a principle of perpetual recycling by indexation to the code . . . of ‘personalisation’, which traverses each individual in his signified relation to others. (Baudrillard, 1998a: 170) Consumerism is saturated with ‘false spontaneity’ and ‘orchestrated emotions’: the ‘have a nice day culture’. It is certainly possible to move around within the code, there are freedoms within the code, and, of course, power relations and constraints. Indeed, we are enjoined to manoeuvre within it, to improve ourselves, to become more assertive, or more attractive in the career and relationship markets. Within the code everything is a market, an abstract system for the interactive exchange of goods, money, bodies and images: communications companies tell us that ‘It’s good to talk’, that we should ‘get closer’ (Wrigley’s chewing gum), celebrity chefs tell us how to cook, how to eat, government initiatives tell us how to parent, popular publications tell us how to flirt or perform cunnilingus. The code entreats us to ‘be’, to verify ourselves, to be through self-coding; indeed, to take responsibility for oneself is to be self-coding. These processes lead to new or deeper forms of alienation and to a ‘terrorism of solicitude’ (1998a: 167). The code presents a gift, but at the same time makes a request and demands a response. The response can only be made in the terms of the code; the code leaves ‘practically no way of saying “no” ’ (1998a: 168). This is the symbolic violence of the code; it closes off the possibility of symbolic exchange by giving a gift that cannot be reciprocated or annulled – the gift of self.