La società dello spettacolo

by Guy Debord

Come una sorta di silenziosa Invasione degli Ultracorpi, lo spettacolo si è impadronito delle nostre vite e dei nostri corpi, riducendoli a gusci vuoti. La realtà ormai esiste solo come immagine. Lo strapotere dei media, il fatto che certi eventi (come la guerra del Golfo) sembrino messi in scena per la televisione, ne sono la prova. Sono tesi apocalittiche che Debord aveva espresso con lucidità inquietante sino dalla fine degli anni Sessanta. Il libro è una riflessione acuta e disperata sul nostro tempo. E' un saggio che parla di televisione e di guerra, di pubblicità e di politica, di religione e di mass-media.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Theory, Sociology, Art, France

97 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

Guy Ernest Debord was a French theorist, writer, filmmaker, hypergraphist and founding member of the groups Lettrist International and Situationist International. In broad terms, Debord's theories attempted to account for the spiritually debilitating modernization of the private and public spheres of everyday life by economic forces during the post-WWII modernization of Europe. Alienation, Debord postulated, could be accounted for by the invasive forces of the 'spectacle'—"a social relation between people that is mediated by images." Central to this school of thought was the claim that alienation is more than an emotive description or an aspect of individual psychology; rather, it is a consequence of the mercantile form of social organization which has reached its climax in capitalism. Debord committed suicide, shooting himself in the heart at his property on November 30, 1994.

Reviews

[Benoit Lelièvre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Re-read this bad boy for research purposes. The spectacle is a concept that's very swanky to talk about in dinner parties like George Orwell's 1984, but it is often simplified and, ironically enough, objectified by its debaters. Everybody acknowledge we live in the society of spectacle, but either don't believe its rules apply to them or adopt a defeatist attitude towards it.

What is the spectacle, then? Debord has a great way of summarizing it: the colonization of human life by commodities. It's people arguing over iPhones vs Androids. People crafting their identity around fictional characters (* ahem * Tyler Durden * ahem * ) and shunning their relationship to their real environment. It's people thinking hard work alone will lead them anywhere they want because they've been told by people who haven't necessarily worked harder than them in order to become successful and who are very self-conscious about protecting the social order they prosper in. You get the gist.

We live in a neoliberalism economy where the most important think we can do is buy, so the best way we can turn the system around it by starting to think critically about your own consumerism. It's 2017. Let's make Guy Debord cool again.

[Clif · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gave this Guy a chance.

In any expository writing, particularly when persuasion is the goal, the writing should be as clear as possible to reach the widest audience.

This essay is laid out in numbered statements. Some are only a sentence long, others may run a page or two, but all are written in a style that tells me the author is more concerned with his style than the content. Perhaps this is the thing to do in intellectual circles, where stylish profundity that requires effort to decode is valued.

See if you can figure out what the following means. This is statement number 56:

"The spectacle, like modern society itself, is at once united and divided. The unity of each is based on violent divisions. But when the contradiction emerges in the spectacle, it is itself contradicted by a reversal of its meaning: the division it presents is unitary, while the unity itself is divided."

Say what? These are not the words of someone who is writing to the masses, the very masses that he is out support and enlighten! Debord is writing for the intellectual 1% of which he is a member.

It's not that he has nothing meaningful to say. If I can get anything out of what I have read, he believes in much of the socialist/communist bedrock - that people are alienated from the work they do and that we live in a word of products paraded before our eyes which induce us to spend our labor maintaining the system that produces them. Therefor, humanity supports a system, we do not have a system that supports our humanity. The goal is to keep us wanting and buying, while not paying attention to the fact that we are deluded.

I made it a third of the way through before looking on the shelf for another book to read. I enjoy intellectual challenge, but I appreciate clarity above all. There are many ideas that require mental effort to understand, that even the most lucid prose is hard-pressed to convey, but what Debord is taking on is not one of those ideas. To expect change, which I believe he does, is idle if you can't get people to understand the points you are trying to make to alert them to their plight.

So this book is an unintentional tragedy having nothing to do with the subject.

You will find that here and there one of Debord's numbered statements will ring perfectly true and make its point, but this is so rare that it isn't worth the effort to plow through all the rest.

One star for a book that commits suicide.

PS: there is a possibility that the translator mangled the translation from French to English, but that's a stretch.

[Szplug · Rating 3 out of 5]

I never went to university—nor did the majority of my friends—and so never received any manner of guidance or instruction, or even bar table theoretical bullshitting, at the academic level to go along with my burgeoning interest in philosophy, politics, and culture. For better and for worse (and mostly the latter) I have carved my own path through the tangled thickets of critical genius and doctrinal snares, a haphazard sampling of great minds from across the ages, non-systematic and initially stemming from the tutelary prose of Bertrand Russell. For this reason, I found myself coming to the Marxist exponents without a solid grounding in the master's thought—and, thus, ofttimes ended up more confused and/or led down erroneous trails than I presumably would have been with a sounder grasp of the theoretical details. Or not: mayhaps a certain amount of ignorance, or naïveté, actually allowed me to penetrate the occlusions or obfuscations that ensnared more deeply immersed adepts. Who, apart from The Shadow, knows?

In any case, Society of the Spectacle was amongst my first forays into the labyrinthine philosophical-cultural terrain of the postwar twentieth-century. I found it a tantalizing and mysterious conundrum, with moments of a profound and shocking clarity but, overall, quite difficult, a serious challenge to follow, unpack, and comprehend. As Jimmy Cline nicely puts it: Even for a theoretical text written by an extreme leftist, in the late sixties, in Paris, this is a convoluted read. The saying goes that life's a circus, but Debord seems to be addressing what exactly must constitute a (post)modern society such that the triumphal late-capitalist incarnation of the circus—with its gaudily omnipresent cultural, political, and economic performers, venues, and effects—need be generated and configured in order to mold and maintain it as such.

I read this back in the late-nineties, and truth to tell I can hardly remember any clear-cut details. Unless the book really gripped me, my shelf life for reliable reading memory is about, oh, five years, max. I would love to have another go at it soon—perhaps after I have finally gotten around to ingesting my electronic copy of Sadie Plant's Situationist exposition—as I would (hopefully) have a better understanding of what exactly Debord was trying to say and why he was trying to say it; determining its relevance in the new century—in relation to such a springboard effort as, say, Heath and Potter's collaboration—should prove an interesting task, especially now that the spectacle can be both more and less circumscribed with the advent of a vast array of media mediums that operate 24/7. As for the prose itself—these piquant poetic puzzles and artful allusions, these polished arrangements of a bespectacled, chain-smoking, Gallic sphinx—I trust they have lost none of their Gordian charm to the abrasions of time.

[Kelli Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very difficult to read for several reasons:

• It is a very direct translation from the original French text.
• The Situations had developed their own vocabulary to describe what were then new and unidentified sociological phenomena (we now have a different lexicon to describe this more widely acknowledged phenomena today.)
• Debord, in this book, practices what he preached with the Situationists in his use of detournment (the reuse of elements of well-known media to create a new work with a different message.) But in this case, the well-known works are the writings of Hegel and Marx. The book may be completely meaningless without this backdrop.

That said, the ideas within are also very rewarding.

I have studied the Situationists from an art historical perspective. My interest therefore lies primarily in Debord's writing about how images/mass media *literally* mediate our personal relationships and our fundamental understanding of reality to pernicious effect. Or, more accurately, he explores the contingencies of this phenomenon. He actually spends no time explaining the process of how this alienation occurs (ground already tread by Marx), but explores the consequences with astonishing discipline-- extrapolating and extending Marx and Hegel's contributions in an attempt to understand the entirety of the "mental environment" produced by the confluence of advanced capitalism, mass media, and govmnt complacency.

If you have an extraordinary amount of patience, an interest in Marx's concepts of alienation, and/or an interest in culture-jamming, Adbusters (or any other modern interpretation of Situationist ideas), this book is for you!

[Noel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential reading for anyone fed up with the state of things as they are. This Ken Knabb translation is much better than the Fredy Perlman one with the famous cover.

Summary of the first three chapters for my own records:



“In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.” The spectacle’s scope is total. It’s colonized all of life; the unity of a life “directly lived” has faded to a mythic memory. The spectacle isn’t merely the “mass media”—this is only a “limited” conception of the spectacle, its “most glaring superficial manifestation.” The corruption of mass communication doesn’t lie in the media per se, but in the way they reflect the whole of society. The spectacle is the materialization of the ideology (Weltanschauung) of economic production, having extended its mastery beyond production into consumption and finally into consciousness. The spectacle is the materialization of commodity relations, the ultimate instrument of hegemony. It veils the inequality of class power, extending to the masses only a “concrete inversion of life.” “It is the sun that never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It covers the entire surface of the globe, endlessly basking in its own glory.” It’s manifest in every sphere of life—from politics and sports to the arts and sciences. This very write-up is a manifestation of the spectacle—it’s perfectly Protean in its capacity for concealing itself and cloaking itself under every imaginable form, and defies every effort to elude it.

The spectacle represents a further stage in the development of alienation. The era of the degradation of being into having has passed. What’s taken its place is the degradation of having into appearing. The spectacle freezes the “fluidity” of life and shatters it, and then reassembles the fragments as a world above the world—“a separate pseudoworld”—that can only be looked at. Everything missing in life is to be found in the spectacle. As to this Debord invokes the celebrity: “As specialists of apparent life, stars serve as superficial objects that people can identify with in order to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations that they actually live. The function of these celebrities is to act out various lifestyles or sociopolitical viewpoints in a full, totally free manner. They embody the inaccessible results of social labor by dramatizing the by-products of that labor which are magically projected above it as its ultimate goals: power and vacations…” The spectacle is both the God-builder and the atom-splitter. It reduces multiplicity to unity and dissolves unity into multiplicity. It converts the many into the one and splits the one into the many. The spectacle is the “common language” of the atomization it engenders. “Spectators are linked solely by their one-way relationship to the very center that keeps them isolated from each other. The spectacle thus reunites the separated, but it reunites them only in their separateness.” The spectacle is “the opposite of dialogue”—“a never-ending monologue of self-praise”; that is, its arguments require no answer and don’t allow one. Thus the spectacle remains protected by a syntax which deprives the spectator of the right to speak. This silence is both the spectacle’s prerequisite and its goal.

The spectacle lifts sight—“the most abstract and easily deceived sense”—to the place of preeminence once occupied by touch. However, the spectacle emerges in the way that images become so free that they escape our own control, and turn our encounter with them into a monologue that we find ourselves unable to interrupt. From this the spectacle is evidently the heir to religion. “Spectacular technology has not dispersed the religious mists into which human beings had projected their own alienated powers, it has merely brought those mists down to earth, to the point that even the most mundane aspects of life have become impenetrable and unbreathable. The illusory paradise that represented a total denial of earthly life is no longer projected into the heavens, it is embedded in earthly life itself. The spectacle is the technological version of the exiling of human powers into a ‘world beyond’; the culmination of humanity’s internal separation.” Under the reign of the spectacle, as under that of religion, “the individual’s gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else who represents them to him. The spectator does not feel at home anywhere, because the spectacle is everywhere.”

During the Cold War when Debord was writing, there were two apparently warring spectacles—really one spectacle with different scepters. On the Eastern side was the “concentrated spectacle,” its ideology condensed around a dictatorial personality. On the Western side was the “diffuse spectacle,” the Americanization of the world, driven by “freedom of choice” in a glittering carnival of consumer products. Its motto: “Jump on the bandwagon, or be crushed under its wheels.” As in society, on the world stage the spectacle grounds its hegemony in an (engineered) split. A real conflict between the individual who wants to live and “the society of the spectacle, where the commodity contemplates itself in a world of its own making,” is veiled by spectacular conflicts between ideologies, “racisms,” that are in fact mutually reinforcing. However, these “sham” conflicts aren’t mere phantoms; they reflect the uneven, contradictory development of world capitalism. Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, it’s evident to Debord that the more flexible, diffuse spectacle will prevail. Under the diffuse spectacle, each commodity promises the heaven of the commodity-form itself, and at the inevitable moment of disillusion another commodity appears, promising the same thing. “Each individual commodity fights for itself. It avoids acknowledging the others and strives to impose itself everywhere as if it were the only one in existence. The spectacle is the epic poem of this struggle, a struggle that no fall of Troy can bring to an end. The spectacle does not sing of men and their arms, but of commodities and their passions. In this blind struggle each commodity, by pursuing its own passion, unconsciously generates something beyond itself…” Like a warring monarch, the commodity-form doesn’t enter into the thick of the fray. It sends forth each particular manifestation of itself to “[fall] in battle” and goes on to victory in its “absolute realization.”

57: “The society that bears the spectacle does not dominate underdeveloped regions solely by its economic hegemony. It also dominates them as the society of the spectacle. Even where the material base is still absent, modern society has already used the spectacle to invade the social surface of every continent. It sets the stage for the formation of indigenous ruling classes and frames their agendas. Just as it presents pseudogoods to be coveted, it offers false models of revolution to local revolutionaries. The bureaucratic regimes in power in certain industrialized countries have their own particular type of spectacle, but it is an integral part of the total spectacle, serving as its pseudo-opposition and actual support. Even if local manifestations of the spectacle include certain totalitarian specializations of social communication and control, from the standpoint of the overall functioning of the system those specializations are simply playing their allotted role within a global division of spectacular tasks.”

44: “The spectacle is a permanent opium war designed to force people to equate goods with commodities and to equate satisfaction with a survival that expands according to its own laws. Consumable survival must constantly expand because it never ceases to include privation. If augmented survival never comes to a resolution, if there is no point where it might stop expanding, this is because it is itself stuck in the realm of privation. It may gild poverty, but it cannot transcend it.”

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh Jeez.

This one hit pretty close to the bone.

I just finished it today (6/28/24) in the wake of last nights SUPREMELY DISCOURAGING CNN debate between TRUMP (an absolute lunatic) and BIDEN (an almost dead guy).

Society of the Spectacle is Guy Debord’s critique of:

CONTEMPORARY MEDIA CONSUMERISM.

AND IT SERVES.

ITS DEADLY.

Debord posits that, despite their apparent differences, Capitalist Democracy and a Communist Socialism are BOTH fictions that serve the illusion of participation, and use MEDIA SPECTACLE (PROPAGANDA/ADVERTISING) to DISTRACT attention away from the ELITE and to PACIFY citizens.

Debord asserts that:

IN A SOCIETY of SPECTACLE:

Most of us have bullshit jobs.

We feel FUNDAMENTALLY ALIENATED.

And we are DEEPLY UNFULFILLED.

So we CONSUME to FILL THE (GOD SIZED) VOID.

We CONSUME MEDIA SPECTACLES.

ONE AFTER THE OTHER.

Like last nights “DEBATE”.

We may fell ENTERTAINED.

We may feel DISGUSTED.

We may feel ENRAGED.

We may even feel like we made a DIFFERENCE if we POSTED something (like this review) on SOCIAL MEDA (like GR).

But we are ESSENTIALLY PACIFIED.

And the system remains INVISIBLE and UNCHALLENGED.

Debord published this thing in 1967.

Before SOCIAL MEDIA.

So you might assume it’s IRRELEVANT.

But it’s SPOT ON!

If ANYTHING it’s MORE RELEVANT NOW.

THE KEY CONCEPTS ARE:

1: THE SPECTACLE (of course)

Debord argues that the SPECTACLE is more than MEDA.

According to Debord, the SPECTACLE is the TOTAL MEDIATION AND COMMODIFICATION of all aspects of social LIFE, INCLUDING: DATING, CREATING, and PARTICIPATING.

2: COMMODITY FETISHISM

Debord builds on Marx’s concept of COMMODITY FETISHISM, whereby COMMODITIES are imbued with EXTRA MEANING and POWER beyond their UTILITY.

It’s NOT JUST A CAR/HOUSE/PHONE.

It’s a LIFESTYLE.

It’s a POLITICAL STATEMENT.

It’s a CREATIVE ACT.

WE BECOME SPECIALIST OWNERS OF COOL SHIT.

COMMODITIES DOMINATE OUR SOCIAL RELATIONS.

COMMODITIES DICTATE HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS.

Debord expanded on this IDEA.

Debord observed that in a MEDA CONTROLLED SOCIETY.

The SPECTACLE is the COMMODITY.

The SPECTACLE dominates SOCIAL RELATIONS.

MEDA CONSUMPTION DICTATES HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS.

WE BECOME SPECIALIST CONSUMERS OF THE SPECTACLE.

FULL TIME SPECTATOR/CONSUMERS (📱👀).

3: SEPARATION/ALIENATION

Debord asserts that the SPECTACLE creates a separation between INDIVIDUALS and OUR TRUE DESIRES.

LOVE, MEANING, CONNECTION.

COMMUNITY, FREDOM, ACCOMPLISHMENT.

All that.

As such we feel EMPTY/UNFULFILLED.

4: PSEUDO COMMUNITY

Debord asserts that the SPECTACLE fosters a FALSE sense of COMMUNITY whereby COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCES are MASSIVELY MEDIATED.

As such the SPECTACLE replaces genuine human CONNECTIONS with SUPERFICIAL and UNSATISFACTORY VIRTUAL and/or IMPERSONAL INTERACTIONS.

READIT, FACEBOOK.

TIC TOK, TRUTH.

INSTA, TINDER, GRINDR.

All that.

5: CONTROL

Debord observes.

THE SPECTACLE maintains the DOMINANCE of ELITES.

BEZOS, MUSK.

PAGE, BRIN.

ZUCK.

All those guys.

6: MEDIA

Debord asserts that MEDIA sustains the SPECTACLE by reinforcing CONSUMERISTIC VALUES and IDEOLOGIES.

The SPECTACLE kills CREATIVITY, CRITICAL THINKING and COMMUNITY via CONSUMPTION and MASS DISTRACTION.

Not much more to say about all that.

Except.

🤯

5/5 ⭐️

[Chris_P · Rating 4 out of 5]

*The Society of the Spectacle
Review in English below.*

Δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο ευθύνεται η μετάφραση του Μπαμπασάκη για την δυσκολία που παρουσιάζει το κείμενο του Debord, αλλά πρόκειται για ένα πολύ απαιτητικό ανάγνωσμα που για να το κατανοήσει κανείς, χρειάζεται απόλυτη συγκέντρωση και αφοσίωση. Πίσω όμως από την εξεζητημένη γραφή, βρίσκεται ένα ευαγγέλιο που γράφτηκε το '67 και ενέπνευσε τον γαλλικό Μάη του '68. Ένα έργο που, όσο περνούν τα χρόνια, μοιάζει να γίνεται όλο και πιο επίκαιρο. Το ερώτημα είναι γιατί δεν ενέπνευσε τον Μάη του '98 ή του '08 και πόσοι Μάηδες θα περάσουν ακόμα πριν η κοινωνία του θεάματος καταρρεύσει πάνω στο ίδιο της το πτώμα.

Πολλαπλές επαναναγνώσεις ενδείκνυνται.


I'm not sure to what extend this particular greek translation is responsible of the difficulty of Debord's text, but it's certainly a demanding read that takes all the focus and devotion one can give it. Yet, behind the writing style's excessive formality, lies a gospel which was published in '67 and inspired the French May of '68. A work that, today, seems to be more apt than ever. The question is why it never inspired a May of '98 or one of '08 and how many more Mays shall pass before this society of the spectacle collapses on its own dead corpse.

Multiple readings are necessary.

[Tosh · Rating 5 out of 5]

It only took 154 pages to change our world. Guy Debord's manifesto/book length essay that is truly a masterpiece of political writing that borders on the poetic. It is also a crystal clear view how culture is formed in the 20th (and of course the 21st) century.

The theater is built in front us and we are lead to believe that we actually participate in its adventure. As Johnny Rotten said at the last Sex Pistols concert in the late 70's "Have you ever felt the feeling that you have been had?" Well, something of that effect. Nevertheless the show goes on and on. It's wise to realize that it's a show... and nothing else.

[Fede · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spectacle is the image society creates in order to contemplate itself and legitimate its existence. When the abstraction is made real by the dissolution of reality, what we have is a Society of the Spectacle, where images are no longer the product but the producer of their own market.
In this beautifully written essay, poetic and conceptually rigorous at a time, French theorist Guy Debord demonstrates how and why economy has autonomously generated a dimension parallel to reality (the Spectacle) in order to establish a new order of things which is totally, absolutely and mercilessly self-referential.

The foundation of every society is the result of an arbitrary act: one of its parts takes control over the rest and (re)makes the world in its own image. Any sort of tribal, theocratic, feudal, political dimension in the history of our civilisation has indeed shaped reality according to its peculiar needs and aims, by means of a system of thought that could justify its permanence in time.
Scarcity and vulnerability made individualism hardly conceivable anyway, and forming some kind of community was not an option; economy was based on necessity and wasn't supposed to satisfy any need but pure survival. What basically kept humanity together was the shortage of nearly everything, as well as the difficulty to get hold of the little available.
It took two industrial revolutions and their intellectual premises of laissez-faire and Positivism for the masses to know what "superfluous" means and what the superfluous is like. In the 19th century economy escaped the rules of society by flooding it with an unprecedented flow of goods and an even more unprecedented sense of their availability. One century later, it was no longer a matter of creating a market to satisfy needs: the real task was creating new needs in order to satisfy the market.
Thus the society of the spectacle was born of unnecessary abundance.

The creation of artificial needs requires a distorted perception of inherent threshold values; otherwise, Debord says, we wouldn't be the well-oiled cogs we're expected to be in the machinery of the system.
The list of our natural needs is indeed quite short: only a few biological functions and a couple of psychophysical drives to be satisfied when necessary, such as sex and sociality. As a matter of fact, it doesn't take much for a human being to survive.
Modern society can't afford to accept the concept of 'strictly necessary' though, not after its very existence became anachronistic and even threatening to a world ruled by the market - a world that needs buyers and consumers in order to survive.
Buying only what we really need or genuinely like has something disquieting about it. It reeks of stinginess and misery; it makes us uncomfortable. That's why we buy more food than we can reasonably consume, clothes we never wear, cars we can't afford and technology we hardly ever use: because we're trained to do so and to feel like shit if we don't.
What Debord clearly points out is indeed the fake sense of freedom in our choices, the great lie presiding over our lives as consumers - a surrogate freedom that was bestowed upon us as yet another commodity. Even our dirtiest excesses are fed their daily fix of filth by the market; as long as our kinks imply some sort of purchase, we'll always find an industry willing to satisfy them. In fact we believe this to be an era of total liberation, whereas it's merely a time of limitless transactions orchestrated by "les machines de la consommation permise", the machines of permitted consumption.

One must certainly take into account the author's Marxist tendencies when it comes to his analysis of our social structures and their inner dynamics; nevertheless, his most objective vision is precisely the critic of Marxism and its ideological failures.
Forget all leftist rhetoric, apology and agiography: this book deals with reality, not utopia.
Debord wrote this essay in 1967, when the world was divided into the spheres of influence of Uncle Sam's Capitalism and post-Stalinist Communism. Although the imminent ruin of the latter was already obvious to any observer, the author focuses on an aspect that was - and still is - generally overlooked by most thinkers: the defeat of the workers on both sides of the barricade, due to the same deliberately induced alienation. What the workers still lack after two centuries of struggles and revolts is neither the will nor the chance to accomplish their revolution, but a reason to.
Why bother? After all, in the Society of the Spectacle one is supposed to be a spectator.
Till the day one can't afford the ticket anymore.


* see also Emmanuel Goldstein, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", in G. Orwell"s 1984.

[Hugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most important and scathing critiques of a pervasive culture of consumption, a disintegrated language and a unified series of isolated unseeing workers. I totally get why this dude killed himself.

[Asa · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE book about how the technological spectacle consumes us and gives us A.D.D. Excellent to accompany Manufacturing Consent and its analysis of information control?

The thing is Chomsky wouldn't recommend it.

Many of us are well-aware of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman and the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent, of how the media is pure propaganda. But the idea of 'spectacle' being something part of our daily lives, not just in the media, of our consumer society as one of consuming spectacles virtually everywhere, is under-studied, under-talked about and more relevant than ever. Guy Debord relates it all to technology, without bowing to a weak primitivist stance. He helps us realize that technology controls virtually everything now. He was prescient. Think mobile phones, internet, Blackberries, Facebook, Twitter, clictivism, Google, if you still that it's far-fetched.

The intellectual technologies and practices Google has pioneered promote the speedy, superficial skimming of information and discourage any deep, prolonged engagement with a single argument, idea, or narrative. ‘Our Goal,’ says Irene Au, ‘it to get users in and out really quickly. All our design decisions are based on that strategy.’ Google’s profits are tied directly to the velocity of people’s information intake. The faster we surf across the surface of the Web - the more links we click and pages we view - the more opportunities Google gains to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements. It’s advertising system, moreover, is explicitly designed to figure out which messages are most likely to grab our attention and then to place those messages in our field of view. Every click we make on the Web marks a break in our concentration, a bottom-up disruption of our attention - and it’s in Google’s economic interest to make sure we click as often as possible.”

In layman's terms, A.D.D. is rampant. (The main criticism of this book is it is most definitely not in layman's terms...) We need to be concerned, we need to reclaim the cyber commons and we need to read, slowly, and surely. This book is important in its understanding of how technology/spectacle when controlled by capital alienates, marginalizes, dissipates commonality, community. Google or capitalism does not intend to empower the individual with technology, they intened to make money. A consumer-oriented, historically amnesiac, attention deficit, and mobility addicted society of a never-ending cycle of spectacle is what they need.

This kind of book is what some people think we need. The things is most people can't read this. So it also kinda defeats the purpose.

Recommended related readings: Revolution of Everyday Life.

[Uroš Đurković · Rating 5 out of 5]

Znate kako, meni ovde sve štima.
Samo ne ono van granica teksta. Čuveno – a šta sad?

Jasno je da smo u društvu spektakla. Jasno je i kako ono funkcioniše. Takođe je jasno da nema bega od njega. Čemu onda teorija?

Meni je teorija kao kada igraš Ne-ljuti-se-čoveče i čekaš da dobiješ šesticu. Tek tada ulaziš u igricu. A kakav će tok igre biti, to niko ne zna. Možda te pojedu, pa opet bacaš kockicu. I tako više puta.

Ali bez kockice nema ni igre. Bez igre nema ni šanse za tok. A bez šanse za tok osećamo da nešto propuštamo.

A, istina, sloboda treba da bude (i) u odabiru onoga što propuštamo.

Elem, neka Gi Debor govori u svoje ime:

„U društvima u kojima preovlađuju moderni uslovi proizvodnje, život je predstavljen kao ogromna akumulacija prizora. (...) Spektakl je konkretizovana inverzija života, nezavisno kretanje neživota.”

„Spektakl se u isto vreme ispoljava kao sâmo društvo, kao deo društva i kao sredstvo objedinjavanja. (...) On nije samo dekor sveta, već sâmo srce nestvarnosti ovog društva. U svim posebnim aspektima – vestima, propagandi, reklami, zabavi – spektakl predstavlja vladajući oblik života. To je sveprisutna afirmacija već napravljenih izbora, kako u oblasti proizvodnje, tako i u oblasti potrošnje vezane za tu proizvodnju.”

„Prvi stepen u dominaciji ekonomije nad društvenim životom ispoljava se kao očigledna degradacija ʼbitiʼ u ʼimatiʼ: ljudsko ostvarenje više se ne izjednačava sa onim što neko jeste, već sa onim što poseduje.”

„Spektakl je materijalna rekonstrukcija religiozne iluzije.”

„Spektakl je neprestani govor vladajućeg poretka o sâmom sebi...”

„Opšte odvajanje radnika od proizvoda rada teži da eliminiše svaku zaokruženu svest o ostvarenoj aktivnosti i svaku direktnu, ličnu komunikaciju između proizvođača. (...) Zahvaljujući uspehu takvog načina proizvodnje, čiji je glavni proizvod samo odvajanje, konkretno iskustvo, koje je u ranijim društvima bilo vezano za ljudski rad, zamenjuje se, malar duž ivica sistema, izjednačavanjem života sa neradnim vremenom.”

„Spektakl je faza u kojoj roba uspeva da kolonizuje ceo društveni život.”

„Roba je materijalizovana iluzija, a spektakl njen opšti izraz.”

„Medijske zvezde su spektakularne predstave živih ljudskih bića, projekcija opšte banalnosti u slike mogućih uloga.”

„Zadovoljstvo više ne dolazi iz ʼupotrebeʼ roba proizvedenih u ogromnim količinama; u njima se uživa upravo ʼzato što su robaʼ.”

„Stvari koje spektakl predstavlja kao večne zasnivaju se na promeni i zato se menjaju zajedno sa svojom osnovom. Spektakl je totalno dogmatičan, a ipak nesposoban da isporuči bilo kakvu čvrstu dogmu.”

„Fašizam je (...) nasilno oživljavanje mita, koji poziva na učešće u zajednici zasnovanoj na drevnim pseudovrednostima: na rasi, krvi, vođi. Bio je to ʼtehnološki opremljeni primitivizamʼ.”

„Istorija je uvek postojala, ali ne uvek u svom istorijskom obliku. Temporalizacija čoveka, koja se odvija kroz društvo, isto je što i humanizacija vremena.”

„Prelazak iz pastoralnog nomadstva u sedelačku poljoprivredu označava kraj dokone i prazne slobode i početak mukotrpnog rada.”

„Spisi su misli države, arhive su njena sećanja. (Novalis)”

„Novo zaposedanje istorijskog života, renesansa, koja je videla svoju prošlost i svoje opravdanje u antici, donosi radostan prekid sa večnošću.”

„Ono što širom sveta izgleda kao isti dan, u stvari je samo vreme ekonomske proizvodnje...”

„Ono što je prikazano kao pravi život, pokazuje se samo kao ʼjoš spektakularniji životʼ.”

„Turizam – protok ljudi upakovan za potrošnju, nusproizvod protoka robe – prilika je da se negde ode i vidi ono što je već banalizovano. (...) Urbanizam, „gradsko planiranje” jeste metod kojim kapitalizam preuzima kontrolu nad celim prirodnim i ljudskim okruženjem- Sledeći logiku potpune dominacije, kapitalizam može, a sada i mora, da ceo prostor prekroji u svoj vlastiti dekor.”

„Dada je pokušala da ukine umetnost, a da je ne ostvari; nadrealizam je hteo da ostvari umetnost, a da je ne ukine.”

„Samooslobođenje našeg vremena je oslobođenje od materijalne osnovne izokrenute istine.”

[jeremy · Rating 5 out of 5]

9. in a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.

20. ...the absolute denial of life, in the shape of a fallacious paradise, is no longer projected onto the heavens, but finds its place instead within material life itself. the spectacle is hence a technological version of the exiling of human powers in a "world beyond" - and the perfection of separation within human beings.

67. ...a use of the commodity arises that is sufficient unto itself; what this means for the consumer is an outpouring of religious zeal in honor of the commodity's sovereign freedom. waves of enthusiasm for particular products, fueled and boosted by the communications media, are propagated with lightning speed. a film sparks a fashion craze, or a magazine launches a chain of clubs that in turn spins off a line of products. the sheer fad item perfectly expresses the fact that, as the mass of commodities becomes more and more absurd, absurdity becomes a commodity in its own right...

188. when a newly independent art paints its world in brilliant colors, then a moment of life has grown old. by art's brilliant colors it cannot be rejuvenated but only recalled to mind. the greatness of art makes its appearance only as dusk begins to fall over life.

[Fredrik deBoer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is exactly what it needs to be if you take it as it is intended to be taken. It's a series of aphorisms, like those written by Pascal, which revolve around a central theme of the distance between experience and the observation of experience, the intermediation that lies between modern man and the world he occupies thanks to layers of technology, culture, and media. We are unable to have unmediated experience and this leads to a sense of disconnection and permanent disassociation. And it's all very stylish and the aphorisms feel/are deep, well-expressed. The thing is, it's not a persuasive essay and it's not intended to provide compelling proof of its claims. It's not an academic monograph. You're free to say that it's therefore not worth taking seriously, but I don't see the utility of attacking it for not achieving what it doesn't intend to achieve. This book should be seen as a piece of complementary commentary to work by people like Lefebvre, McLuhan, and Marcuse, and as an object of poetry. And at that I find it profoundly readable and deeply inspiring. And sad. Very very sad.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

In theory I love this book, in it's actual form with words and a seeming intentional difficulty (ya know to avoid being co-opted by the spectacle of the totality of consumerist society) I'm only lukewarm about it. Give me Adorno any day over this.

[Emma Sea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eerily prescient, and still a brilliant read about the alienation of labor, the advertisement of time, and the banalization of space.

[Stefania · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ένα βιβλίο-φως!

[Walter Schutjens · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have long wanted to read about the Situationist movement, after having read some radical socialist texts and some radical postmodern texts... what better synthesis is there to be found? "Society of the Spectacle" is a philosophical work that describes the working of the "spectacle" as a product of modern consumerism that exists in social interaction through means of pseudo -representation (if that doesn't mean anything to you, dont worry it didn't to me either at first). In essence, everything that was once lived, had receded in consumption, with eventually only the representation of consumption being important in social interaction.

"... just as early industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having, post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing.”

This was written in the 1960's! far before the storm of social media that literally reduced all social interaction to simple representation through images. The work takes the implications of this phenomena and relates them to: the commodification of time, the isolation of the individual, the banalization of space, and the effect of modern economic production on the cultural domination of the proletariat. Another prediction was made that the production of wealth on the basis of knowledge instead of material good will become increasingly the economic engine of modern economies. We are now living in an economy where a large percentage of wealth is extracted from purely skill based abstract application onto material wealth.

I have long regarded my books as holy scriptures not to be: bent, scratched, torn, neglected, and certainly not written in. But in this dense scripture, where so many of what was of the critiques echoed as true in my ignorant perception on inherent cultural value, I was forced to make connotations and highlight passages that held importance to me.

I will give a short example, in which Debord applies the phenomena of the spectacle on the creation of urban civilization or the idea of 'urbanism'. This is known as the reactionary effect of modern society to most efficiently make use of its space in an exponentially growing population that seeks economic welfare in cities. However there is an inherent threat to the safeguarding of class power when workers are brought into close proximity in an urban working environment (the city). Sprawling isolation (urbanism) was then a more effective way in controlling the population. This individual isolation does however allow for a controlled reintegration of the working class for only the purpose of production and consumption, after which all return to their isolated existence far from the threshold of power or collective coercion. Only to now live their social lives in pure abstraction on an ether reality that is purely based on representation of consumption (having a job, having a family, a nice car, a big watch). The time spent participating in a regulated role of production and consumption can itself now be seen as a commodity, ("time is money").

These ideas are naturally much better explained in the book itself, yet even then are hard to wrap your head around. 'Surely I. ME. A TRUE INDIVIDUAL, cannot be part of this collective spectacle experiencing life in only an abstract form of social representation?!??!'. This too was for me hard to wrap my head around, yet one of the last passages nicely summarizes why this is the case,

"The task of the various branches of knowledge that are in the process of developing spectacular thought is to justify an unjustifiable society and to establish a general science of false consciousness. This thought is totally conditioned by the fact that it cannot recognize, and does not want to recognize, its own material dependence on the spectacular system."

I will leave it at that, and strongly recommend that you pick this book up at some point in your life. Although it says here that I have read it only once I feel as if I have read it at least three times. The ideas are so dense and at times hard to grasp, but grappling with these ideas and negating certain structural assumptions in society are what make this book a joy to read.

[Post Scriptum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zitti tutti, va in scena il Potere!

Non c'è dialogo. Non c'è scelta. Gli individui sono testimoni passivi, ammirano le immagini, scelte dal potere, che sostituiscono la realtà. Il pubblico guarda, non agisce e non reagisce. Reale e virtuale si confondono, perdono identità. Si assiste così alla “rimozione di ogni verità vissuta sotto la presenza reale della falsità assicurata dall'organizzazione dell'apparenza”. È vero ciò che il potere mostra. Il resto è impostura. Il reale perde consistenza, è annullato; lo stesso accade all'individuo, alle sue necessità e ai suoi desideri annientati per trasformare l'io in mero consumatore.
In questo modo il potere manipola. Continuo rinnovamento tecnologico; fusione economico-statale; segreto generalizzato; falso indiscutibile; eterno presente.
La società dello spettacolo schiaccia, imprigiona e domina l’individuo, oramai isolato, in una società che s’è fatta, essa stessa, spettacolo.

“La coscienza spettatrice, prigioniera di un universo appiattito, limitato dallo schermo dello spettacolo, dietro il quale la sua vita è stata deportata, non conosce più se non gli interlocutori fittizi che la intrattengono unilateralmente con la loro merce e con la politica della loro merce. Lo spettacolo, in tutta la sua estensione, è il suo «segno dello specchio». Qui si mette in scena la falsa via d'uscita di un autismo generalizzato”.

Viviamo in una società dove tutto è merce, spettatore compreso. Dall’essere all’apparire. Questa l’evoluzione dell’individuo nella società dello spettacolo. Non guardiamo più le cose, ma la rappresentazione delle stesse. Non siamo altro che consumatori d’illusioni.

Guy Debord scrisse La società dello Spettacolo nel 1967. Profetico, o acuto osservatore? Una critica aspra rivolta alla società capitalistica e alla sua cultura. Non si può evitare, leggendolo, di fare un parallelo con la società attuale. E sorge una domanda. È ancora possibile un cambiamento?

[Nate D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Probably the definitive summation of Situationist theory. Debord can get kind of caught up in his own terminology systems (probably the translation doesn't help here) and I definitely don't know enough Marx/Hegel/Russian History to follow everything, but definitely a pretty worthwhile and interesting take on 20th century culture and politics, even so.

[Nikos Tsentemeidis]

Δεν διαβάζεται με τίποτα.

[Naopako dete]

Ova knjiga Gi Debora objavljena je prvi put 1967. godine, a glavni predmet je, kao što i naslov sugeriše, analiza društva koje se nalazi pod jakim naletom tehnološkog razvitka, pa samim tim i neograničenog i neobuzdanog naleta procesa proizvodnje, u čemu Debor i vidi glavni uzrok za pojavu spektakla. Gi Debor je bio kontraverzna figura, pravi ludak sa ulica Pariza i pored ostalog autor prvog grafita na svetu. Jedan od njegovih kasnijih grafita glasi SPAVAŠ ZA SVOGA GAZDU. Debor je pripadao letrističkom i situacionističkom pokretu, glavna borba ljudi okupljenih u ove dve grupe odnosila se na promenu svakodnevog života, i odbijanje životnih situacija koje se nameću spolja. Treba stvarati sopstvene situacija, jedna je od parola Debora i njegovih sledbenika, koji su pored ostalog odrigrali i važnu ulogu u revoluciji iz 1968. Debor je i autor nekoliko filmova, iako je se izrazito zalagao za smrt ove umetnosti, smatrajući je iskrivljenim vidom komunikacije, što je uostalom pokušao da predstavim u svojim filmskim radovima.Na Deborove ideje nastaviće se, takođe kontraverzni Bodrijar.

Knjiga je podeljena na devet poglavlja i napisana je u tezama kojih ima 221. i uglavnom nisu duže od jednog pasusa.

U osnovi Debor se nastavlja na markističku teoriju, polazi od njene osnovne teze prema kojoj je ljudska svest oblikovana (i određenea) materijalnim svetom, u ovom slučaju robom kao i samim procesom proizvodnje. Upravo proces proizvodnje, odnosno višak procesa proizvodnje, koji stvaraju višak i nagomilavanje robe jeste ono iz čega nastaje spektakl. Spektakl takođe predstavlja vrstu proizvoda i to glavnu vrstu društvenog proizvoda koji svoje uporište nalazi u ekonomiji, na kojoj prema Deboru počiva ceo sistem i pod čijom dominacijom se društveni život nalazi. Jedno od glavnih svojstava spektakla jeste delovanje na imaginarnom polju, odnosno proizvodnja slika koje dovode do otuđenja i to ne samo otuđenja čoveka od čoveka, već otuđenja čoveka i od robe koju proizvodi kao i od sistema u kojem se nalazi. Iako donekle radikalna, Deborova teorija vrlo precizno mapira/proriče ono što će danas postati bit društvenog sistema, a što se može opisati baš rečju spektakl.

Evo nekih izvoda iz knjiga :

14. Moderno industrijsko društvo je suštinski, a ne slučajno ili veštački spektakularno. Za spektakl – vidljivi odraz vladajućeg ekonomskog poretka – ciljevi su ništa, razvoj je sve. Spektakl ne teţi ničemu drugom do sebi samom.

15. Kao nezaobilazni pogon za pakovanje svega što se danas proizvodi, kao opšta artikulacija principa na kojima počiva sistem i kao razvijeni ekonomski sektor, koji direktno proizvodi sve veću količinu slika–stvari, spektakl je glavni proizvod današnjeg društva.

17. Prvi stepen u dominaciji ekonomije nad društvenim ţivotom ispoljava se kao očigledna degradacija biti u imati: ljudsko ostvarenje više se ne izjednačava sa onim što neko jeste, već sa onim što ima. U sadašnjem stadijumu, kada društvenim ţivotom potpuno dominira akumulirana ekonomska proizvodnja, dolazi do opšteg pomaka od imati ka izgledati: Sveukupno ―imanje‖ sada mora da obezbedi prestiţ i da postigne krajnji cilj kroz svoj pojavni oblik. U isto vreme, individualna realnost je postala društvena, u smislu da je potpuno zavisna od društvenih sila i oblikovana njima. Individualnoj stvarnosti je dopušteno da se pojavi samo kada zapravo nije stvarna.

18. Kada se stvarni svet preobrazi u pűke slike, pűke slike postaju stvarna bića, koja efikasno podstiču hipnotičko ponašanje. Pošto je zadatak spektakla da nam putem različitih, specijalizovanih oblika posredovanja pokazuje svet koji više ne moţe biti direktno doţivljen, on neminovno, na prostoru kojim je nekada vladao dodir, daje prednost pogledu: najapstraktnije i najnepouzdanije čulo najbolje se prilagoĎava opštoj apstraktnosti sadašnjeg društva. Ali, spektakl nisu samo slike, niti samo slike i ton. To je sve što izmiče čovekovoj aktivnosti, sve što ometa i zavarava njegovu sposobnost preispitivanja i korekcije. To je suprotnost dijalogu. Spektakl se regeneriše svuda gde predstavljanje postaje nezavisno.

24. Spektakl je neprestani govor vladajućeg poretka o sâmom sebi, njegov neprekidni monolog samouzdizanja, autoportret tog poretka u fazi njegove potpune dominacije nad svim aspektima ţivota. Fetišistički privid čiste objektivnosti u spektakulranom odnosu prikriva činjenicu da se u stvarnosti radi o odnosima izmeĎu ljudi i izmeĎu klasa: kao da neka druga Priroda, sa svojim neumitnim zakonima, dominira čitavim našim okruţenjem. Ali, spektakl nije neizbeţna posledica tog navodno ―prirodnog‖ tehnološkog razvoja. Naprotiv, društvo spektakla je oblik koji sam bira svoj tehnološki sadrţaj. Ako spektakl, shvaćen u ograničenom smislu ―masovnih medija‖, koji su njegova najpovršnija manifestacija, prodire u društvo u obliku čisto tehničke aparature, treba shvatiti da ta aparatura nikako nije neutralna i da je razvijena u skladu sa unutrašnjom dinamikom sâmog spektakla. Ako društvene potrebe epohe, u kojoj su te tehnologije razvijene, mogu biti zadovoljene samo uz njihovo posredovanje, ako su upravljanje društvom i svi kontakti meĎu ljudima postali potpuno zavisni od tih sredstava za trenutnu komunikaciju, onda je to zato što je ta ―komunikacija‖ suštinski jednostrana. Svi mediji preporučuju se vladarima postojećeg poretka kao sredstvo za 9 sprovoĎenje posebnih oblika upravljanja. Društvena podela izraţena kroz spektakl neraskidivo je vezana za modernu drţavu – taj proizvod društvene podele rada, koji je u isto vreme glavni instrument klasne vladavine i koncentrisani izraz svih društvenih podela.

27. Zahvaljujući uspehu takvog načina proizvodnje, čiji je glavni proizvod samo odvajanje, konkretno iskustvo, koje je u ranijim društvima bilo vezano za ljudski rad, zamenjuje se, makar duţ ivica sistema, izjednačavanjem ţivota sa neradnim vremenom, sa neaktivnošću. Ali, takva neaktivnost ni u čemu nije osloboĎena od proizvodne aktivnosti: ona je i dalje potpuno zavisna od nje, kao nelagodno i opčinjeno pokoravanje zahtevima i posledicama proizvodnog sistema. Sâmo to stanje jeste jedna od posledica sistema. Nema slobode izvan ţive aktivnosti; spektakl zato poništava svaku aktivnost, pošto je sva stvarna aktivnost prisilno stavljena u funkciju globalne izgradnje spektakla. Na taj način, ono što se naziva ―osloboĎenjem od rada‖, slobodno vreme, nije ni osloboĎenje od rada, niti osloboĎenje od sveta oblikovanog tim radom. Nijedna aktivnost koju je rad oteo ne moţe biti ponovo osvojena ako ostajemo podreĎeni proizvodima tog rada

47. Stalno opadanje upotrebne vrednosti, koje je oduvek pratilo kapitalističku ekonomiju, dovelo je do pojave novog oblika siromaštva u okviru pojačanog preţivljavanja. To siromaštvo postoji uporedo sa starim oblikom siromaštva, koji još istrajava i koji se ogleda u činjenici da je ogromna većina ljudi primorana da prihvati ulogu najamnih radnika, u neprestanoj potrazi za ciljevima koje im nameće sistem i da svako od njih zna da tome mora da se potčini ili da umre. Stvarnost te ucene – činjenice da čak i u najsvedenijim oblicima (hrana, sklonište) upotrebna vrednost ima sopstvenu egzistenciju samo u okviru iluzije obilja povećanog preţivljavanja – objašnjava opšti pristanak na iluziju modernog oblika robne potrošnje. Stvarni potrošač postaje potrošač iluzija. Roba je materijalizovana iluzija, a spektakl njen opšti izraz.

49. Spektakl je naličje novca. Spektakl je i sâm apstraktni, opšti ekvivalent za sve vrste roba. Ali, dok je novac dominirao društvom kao izraz opšte ekvivalencije i sredstvo za razmenu različitih dobara čije se namene ne mogu porediti, spektakl se javlja kao moderna dopuna novca: izraz sveta robe kao celine, koji sluţi kao opšti ekvivalent za sve što taj svet moţe da bude i što moţe da postigne. Spektakl je novac koji moţe samo da se gleda, jer je u njemu sva upotrebna vrednost već razmenjena za totalitet apstraktnih predstava. Spektakl nije samo sluga laţne korisnosti, već je i sam laţna upotreba ţivota.

Itd, itd.

[muthuvel]

Spectacles are haunting and taunting modernity, the spectacles that are part and parcel of representing what it means to be human in the contemporary world. Written during the late 60s in France during the inclement political climate like new left movements, conflicts on the ideologies of existentialism, structuralism, this collection of thesis mainly takes the argument on critiquing then image-obsessed consumer culture through the ways of effective consumer, marketer and remain alienated all at the same time (most of which are more relevant now with our social media stricken lives lately).

The writing of Guy Debord here remains inclusive of giving criticism on the understanding and undermining of the institutions of public and personal consumption, on the historical materialism, on the malnourishment of certain ways of historiography visiting from works of Hegel and Marx especially. Writing content is abstract to some extent nevertheless it could be deeply disturbing otherwise. Imagine a world where even to feel connected requires centralized networks with myriads of political coercion to sell ourselves out and make performative rituals and call it whatever the people want to call it. Of course, generalization wouldn't work when there are peoples doing the same oblivious or remain apolitical about the layers of environment we have been living in.

As much as there are efforts to criticize the existing structures as well as the efforts to capture/dismantle them, the work is heavily inspired by Marxist tradition. I think its duly necessary for any sympathiser of left politics to read works like these unless they're okay with being a part of some performative stunts.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Just as Fight Club can be described as Twilight for boys, Society of the Spectacle can be described as Fight Club for young adults who have renounced their membership of Anonymous in order to focus on their careers as Social Justice Warriors.

Interesting for the historical context, but nothing more really. A redundant midway point between Marx and Baudrillard, in which the former's ideas are obfuscated for the purposes of pretension. Though I imagine translation is partly to blame for that. Its proponents would probably argue I'm not only made deluded by false consciousness but also missing the point. I understand the ultimately facile 'point', but it makes little impact.

Its historical observations are supposedly its most valuable, but they remain largely unsubstantiated, lacking academic practice. Maybe that's also the point. If it was published today one could imagine it being condemned to a fate of neglect on the archives of a Marxist Wordpress blog. Though of course it is unfair to judge the work with the prejudices of time, and it remains an interesting source for a Marxist critique of Leninism from just before the Prague Spring and the subsequent Warsaw-Pact invasion.

Debord's awkward poetry might appeal to insecure amateur intellectuals of the Marxist persuasion, who prefer the sentiments to the 'science' of Marx's work. But like most in its genre, due to the jargon it relies on as a crutch of legitimacy, it's pointless to read from a theoretical perspective if you don't have academic experience with Marxism or metaphysics, and mostly pointless to read if you do.

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

Can't imagine what put me on this book now except some weird venn-diagramish intersection of things I was reading about Trump, Suburbia, and Reality-TV, plus it was right there on one of my bookshelves with its seductive title. It's abstract and abstruse, full of dialectical jujitsu and Situationist private language, which makes it a difficult read. And it is oh so circular in its argumentation. Still, some nice turns of phrase, especially in the 50 or so statements about what the Spectacle is: "the existing order's uninterrupted discourse about itself," "a permanent opium war," "aims at nothing other than itself," and how it sets the stage with the "false exit of generalized autism." And etc. Would have been better with some concrete examples, hence Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation.

[Feliks · Rating 3 out of 5]

A strange work of social criticism. The cover is deceptive--this is not a book about mass media or audience behaviors. It is more like a history of socialist ideas; the author spends most of his time in this little volume analyzing subtle strands of Marxist thought. The format is also odd--the author writes in a 'diary' style, like a Wittgenstein or a Lichtenburg. It is not a continuous narrative, but rather a collection of tiny notes organized around the theme of consumerism and consciousness. This can be frustrating--'choppy' reading-- but I must also say that the eloquence of the writing is at a very high level. Exquisite verbosity on display, all the while explaining some very thorny economic principles. deBord is interested in the array of forces which shape and respond to society's needs; this book is just a starting point for all questions of modernism vs history, buyers vs sellers, masters vs slaves, speculators vs marginalized, commodities vs compradors.

[George-Icaros Babassakis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ὅ,τι πιὸ ἔγκυρο ἔντονο εὐφυὲς γιὰ νὰ κατανοήσει κανεὶς σὲ τί κόσμο ζοῦμε τὰ τελευταῖα 50 χρόνια.

[Eadweard · Rating 4 out of 5]

42
The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life. Not only is the relation to the commodity visible but it is all one sees: the world one sees is its world. Modern economic production extends its dictatorship extensively and intensively. In the least industrialized places, its reign is already attested by a few star commodities and by the imperialist domination imposed by regions which are ahead in the development of productivity. In the advanced regions, social space is invaded by a continuous superimposition of geological layers of commodities. At this point in the “second industrial revolution,” alienated consumption becomes for the masses a duty supplementary to alienated production. It is all the sold labor of a society which globally becomes the total commodity for which the cycle must be continued. For this to be done, the total commodity has to return as a fragment to the fragmented individual, absolutely separated from the productive forces operating as a whole. Thus it is here that the specialized science of domination must in turn specialize: it fragments itself into sociology, psychotechnics, cybernetics, semiology, etc., watching over the self-regulation of every level of the process.
---


43
Whereas in the primitive phase of capitalist accumulation, “political economy sees in the proletarian only the worker” who must receive the minimum indispensable for the conservation of his labor power, without ever seeing him “in his leisure and humanity,” these ideas of the ruling class are reversed as soon as the production of commodities reaches a level of abundance which requires a surplus of collaboration from the worker. This worker, suddenly redeemed from the total contempt which is clearly shown him by all the varieties of organization and supervision of production, finds himself every day, outside of production and in the guise of a consumer, seemingly treated as an adult, with zealous politeness. At this point the humanism of the commodity takes charge of the worker’s “leisure and humanity,” simply because now political economy can and must dominate these spheres as political economy. Thus the “perfected denial of man” has taken charge of the totality of human existence.
---


60
The celebrity, the spectacular representation of a living human being, embodies this banality by embodying the image of a possible role. Being a star means specializing in the seemingly lived; the star is the object of identification with the shallow seeming life that has to compensate for the fragmented productive specializations which are actually lived. Celebrities exist to act out various styles of living and viewing society unfettered, free to express themselves globally. They embody the inaccessible result of social labor by dramatizing its by-products magically projected above it as its goal: power and vacations, decision and consumption, which are the beginning and end of an undiscussed process. In one case state power personalizes itself as a pseudo-star; in another a star of consumption gets elected as a pseudo-power over the lived. But just as the activities of the star are not really global, they are not really varied.
---


69
In the image of the society happily unified by consumption, real division is only suspended until the next non-accomplishment in consumption. Every single product represents the hope for a dazzling shortcut to the promised land of total consumption and is ceremoniously presented as the decisive entity. But as with the diffusion of seemingly aristocratic first names carried by almost all individuals of the same age, the objects which promise unique powers can be recommended to the devotion of the masses only if they’re produced in quantities large enough for mass consumption. A product acquires prestige when it is placed at the center of social life as the revealed mystery of the ultimate goal of production. But the object which was prestigious in the spectacle becomes vulgar as soon as it is taken home by its consumer–and by all its other consumers. It reveals its essential poverty (which naturally comes to it from the misery of its production) too late. But by then another object already carries the justification of the system and demands to be acknowledged.
---


109
Between the two world wars, the revolutionary workers’ movement was annihilated by the joint action of the Stalinist bureaucracy and of fascist totalitarianism which had borrowed its form of organization from the totalitarian party tried out in Russia. Fascism was an extremist defense of the bourgeois economy threatened by crisis and by proletarian subversion. Fascism is a state of siege in capitalist society, by means of which this society saves itself and gives itself stop-gap rationalization by making the State intervene massively in its management. But this rationalization is itself burdened by the immense irrationality of its means. Although fascism rallies to the defense of the main points of bourgeois ideology which has become conservative (the family, property, the moral order, the nation), reuniting the petty-bourgeoisie and the unemployed routed by crisis or deceived by the impotence of socialist revolution, it is not itself fundamentally ideological. It presents itself as it is: a violent resurrection of myth which demands participation in a community defined by archaic pseudo-values: race, blood, the leader. Fascism is technically-equipped archaism. Its decomposed ersatz of myth is revived in the spectacular context of the most modern means of conditioning and illusion. Thus it is one of the factors in the formation of the modern spectacle, and its role in the destruction of the old workers’ movement makes it one of the fundamental forces of present-day society. However, since fascism is also the most costly form of preserving the capitalist order, it usually had to leave the front of the stage to the great roles played by the capitalist States; it is eliminated by stronger and more rational forms of the same order.
---


189
The historical time which invades art expressed itself first of all in the sphere of art itself, starting with the baroque. Baroque is the art of a world which has lost its center: the last mythical order, in the cosmos and in terrestrial government, accepted by the Middle Ages–the unity of Christianity and the phantom of an Empire has fallen. The art of the change must carry within itself the ephemeral principle it discovers in the world. It chose, said Eugenio d’Ors, “life against eternity.” Theater and the festival, the theatrical festival, are the outstanding achievements of the baroque where every specific artistic expression becomes meaningful only with reference to the setting of a constructed place, a construction which is its own center of unification; this center is the passage, which is inscribed as a threatened equilibrium in the dynamic disorder of everything. The somewhat excessive importance given to the concept of the baroque in the contemporary discussion of esthetics is an expression of the awareness that artistic classicism is impossible: for three centuries the attempts to realize a normative classicism or neoclassicism were no more than brief artificial constructions speaking the external language of the State, the absolute monarchy, or the revolutionary bourgeoisie in Roman clothes. What followed the general path of the baroque, from romanticism to cubism, was ultimately an ever more individualized art of negation perpetually renewing itself to the point of the fragmentation and complete negation of the artistic sphere. The disappearance of historical art, which was linked to the internal communication of an elite and had its semi-independent social basis in the partly playful conditions still lived by the last aristocracies, also expresses the fact that capitalism possesses the first class power which admits itself stripped of any ontological quality, a power which, rooted in the simple management of the economy, is equally the loss of all human mastery. The baroque, artistic creation’s long-lost unity, is in some way rediscovered in the current consumption of the totality of past art. When all past art is recognized and sought historically and retrospectively constituted into a world art, it is relativized into a global disorder which in turn constitutes a baroque edifice on a higher level, an edifice in which the very production of baroque art merges with all its revivals. The arts of all civilizations and all epochs can be known and accepted together for the first time. Once this “collection of souvenirs” of art history becomes possible, it is also the end of the world of art. In this age of museums, when artistic communication can no longer exist, all the former moments of art can be admitted equally, because they no longer suffer from the loss of their specific conditions of communication in the current general loss of the conditions of communication.

[Rêbwar Kurd · Rating 4 out of 5]

جامعه نمایش از گی دوبور، اثری است که حتی پس از نیم قرن، هنوز یکی از تأثیرگذارترین تحلیل‌ها درباره سرمایه‌داری مدرن و فرهنگ مصرفی محسوب می‌شود. این کتاب نه تنها نقدی فلسفی و اجتماعی بر نظام سرمایه‌داری ارائه می‌دهد، بلکه تصویری دقیق از نحوه تسلط تصویر و بازنمایی بر زندگی روزمره انسان‌ها ارائه می‌کند. دوبور با نگاهی مارکسیستی، نشان می‌دهد چگونه مناسبات اقتصادی سرمایه‌داری نه تنها تولید و مصرف را شکل می‌دهند، بلکه ادراک ما از واقعیت، روابط انسانی و حتی خود مفهوم آزادی را نیز تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهند.

دوبور مفهوم «نمایش» را به‌عنوان هسته مرکزی نقد خود معرفی می‌کند. منظور او از نمایش، چیزی فراتر از تئاتر یا سینماست؛ نمایش به معنای وضعیتی است که در آن تمامی جنبه‌های زندگی اجتماعی به تصویر و بازنمایی تبدیل می‌شوند. در چنین جامعه‌ای، واقعیت خودبه‌خود اهمیت خود را از دست می‌دهد و جای خود را به تصویری می‌دهد که اغلب توسط رسانه‌ها، تبلیغات و صنعت فرهنگ ساخته شده است. به زبان ساده، جهان واقعی جای خود را به جهان مصنوعی‌ای داده که در آن تصویر، کنترل‌کننده و معیار تجربه انسانی شده است. دوبور نشان می‌دهد که این نمایش نه تنها مصرف کالاها و خدمات را شکل می‌دهد، بلکه نحوه تفکر، تعامل و حتی حس و دریافت انسان‌ها را دچار تغییر می‌کند.

دیدگاه مارکسیستی دوبور در این اثر کاملاً مشهود است. او همان‌طور که مارکس مناسبات اقتصادی و تولیدی را بنیان تحولات اجتماعی می‌دانست، نمایش را نتیجه مستقیم ساختار سرمایه‌داری مدرن می‌داند. کالاها تنها به‌عنوان اشیاء مصرفی ظاهر نمی‌شوند، بلکه به نمادهایی تبدیل می‌شوند که زندگی اجتماعی و روانی انسان را شکل می‌دهند. این تبدیل کالا به تصویر، نقطه‌ای است که دوبور به‌ویژه بر آن تأکید دارد: در جامعه نمایش، هرچه جلوه و تبلیغ بیشتری داشته باشد، واقعی‌تر و قابل دسترس‌تر به نظر می‌رسد، حتی اگر هیچ پیوند واقعی با تجربه ملموس انسان نداشته باشد.

نمایش، به نظر دوبور، نمونه‌ای آشکار از کالاگرایی در جامعه سرمایه‌داری است؛ جایی که کالاها و روابط انسانی به تصویر و بازنمایی تبدیل می‌شوند. اما دوبور فراتر از مارکس می‌رود، زیرا نه تنها مناسبات اقتصادی، بلکه روان و ذهن انسان‌ها و ادراکشان از واقعیت را نیز در تحلیل خود می‌آورد.

در بعد فلسفی، دوبور با الهام از نیچه به بررسی قدرت، سلطه و ارزش‌ها می‌پردازد. همان‌طور که نیچه تحلیل عمیقی از اخلاق و اراده به قدرت ارائه می‌دهد، دوبور نیز نشان می‌دهد چگونه تصاویر و نمایش‌ها به ابزارهای قدرت و کنترل بدل می‌شوند. در جامعه نمایش، ارزش‌ها و اخلاقیات اغلب به واسطه تصاویر، تبلیغات و رسانه‌ها تعیین می‌شوند، نه تجربه واقعی یا بازتاب مستقیم نیازها و آرمان‌های انسانی. این نگاه نیچه‌ای به مسائل قدرت و ارزش، در کنار چارچوب مارکسیستی، به دوبور امکان می‌دهد تحلیل پیچیده‌ای از سلطه فرهنگی ارائه دهد.

از سوی دیگر، رابطه دوبور با بودریار نیز در کتاب کاملاً مشهود است، اگرچه جامعه نمایش پیش از بسیاری از نظریه‌های بودریار منتشر شده است. بودریار بعدها مفهوم شبیه‌سازی و فرا واقعیت را مطرح کرد؛ ایده‌ای که دقیقاً ادامه همان تحلیل دوبور درباره واقعیت و تصویر است. دوبور نشان می‌دهد که در جامعه سرمایه‌داری مدرن، تصاویر جای واقعیت را می‌گیرند و انسان‌ها به جای تجربه مستقیم، با بازنمایی‌ها مواجه می‌شوند. این ایده، به طور غیرمستقیم، زمینه‌ساز تحلیل بودریار درباره شبیه‌سازی و فقدان مرز میان واقعیت و تصویر شد.

با توجه به این مقایسه‌ها، می‌توان گفت که جامعه نمایش نقطه تلاقی نظریه‌های مارکسیستی، فلسفه نیچه‌ای و تحلیل فرهنگی پیشرو بودریاری است. دوبور با ترکیب این دیدگاه‌ها، تصویری بی‌رحمانه اما روشن از جامعه مدرن ارائه می‌دهد؛ جامعه‌ای که در آن سرمایه‌داری نه تنها تولید و مصرف، بلکه ادراک، تجربه و روابط انسانی را نیز در قالب تصویر و بازنمایی تسخیر کرده است.


یکی از نکات برجسته کتاب، تحلیل دوبور از زمان و فضا در جامعه مدرن است. او نشان می‌دهد که زندگی روزمره انسان‌ها به‌طور کامل در قالب نمایش درآمده است. رویدادهای تاریخی، سیاست، حتی فعالیت‌های تفریحی و فرهنگی، همگی در چارچوبی از تصویر و بازنمایی رخ می‌دهند. رسانه‌ها، از تلویزیون و سینما گرفته تا روزنامه‌ها و تبلیغات، واقعیت را به‌گونه‌ای شکل می‌دهند که انسان‌ها بیشتر با نمایش مواجه می‌شوند تا با واقعیت خود. این دیدگاه، اگرچه ریشه در نظریه مارکسیستی دارد، از یک نگاه بی‌طرفانه، نقدی دقیق به شیوه عملکرد رسانه‌ها و فرهنگ معاصر ارائه می‌کند، بدون آنکه بخواهد صرفاً به ارزش‌گذاری مثبت یا منفی بپردازد.

دوبور در بخش‌هایی از کتاب، با بیانی تیز و فلسفی، به نقد زندگی روزمره و مصرف‌گرایی می‌پردازد. او می‌گوید که انسان‌ها دیگر برای نیازهای واقعی خود زندگی نمی‌کنند، بلکه برای مصرف تصاویر و بازنمایی‌ها زندگی می‌کنند. حتی فعالیت‌های تفریحی و فرهنگی، از شرکت در مراسم و جشن‌ها گرفته تا بازدید از موزه‌ها و پارک‌ها، به‌نوعی در خدمت نمایش و بازتولید آن قرار گرفته‌اند. این تحلیل، اگرچه تلخ به نظر می‌رسد، ولی یک نگاه بی‌طرفانه و دقیق به واقعیت جامعه مدرن ارائه می‌دهد و خواننده را وادار می‌کند که به جای تجربه صرف، به ساختارهای پشت صحنه آن نیز بیندیشد.

یکی از ابعاد مهم دیگر کتاب، تحلیل دوبور از سیاست و قدرت است. او نشان می‌دهد که حتی اعتراضات و انقلاب‌ها نیز نمی‌توانند از دام نمایش خارج شوند. رسانه‌ها و نهادهای قدرت به‌سرعت هر شورش یا حرکت اجتماعی را به یک تصویر قابل کنترل تبدیل می‌کنند، به‌گونه‌ای که تأثیر واقعی آن بر ساختارهای اجتماعی و اقتصادی کاهش می‌یابد. این دیدگاه، خواننده را به تأمل درباره ماهیت مقاومت و آزادی واقعی وادار می‌کند و هشدار می‌دهد که حتی شورش‌ها نیز در جامعه نمایش می‌توانند به ابزار بازنمایی و کنترل بدل شوند.

همزمان، دوبور به نقد فرهنگ عامه و صنعت سرگرمی می‌پردازد. او نشان می‌دهد که فرهنگ مصرفی نه تنها به نیازهای انسانی پاسخ نمی‌دهد، بلکه آنها را شکل می‌دهد و جهت می‌دهد. موسیقی، سینما، تبلیغات و ورزش به ابزارهایی تبدیل شده‌اند که به‌جای تجربه واقعی، تصویر را به انسان‌ها ارائه می‌دهند. به این ترتیب، انسان‌ها بیش از آنکه با جهان واقعی مواجه شوند، با بازنمایی آن در رسانه‌ها و تبلیغات تعامل دارند. این تحلیل، با وجود اینکه از دیدگاه مارکسیستی بیان شده، بدون قضاوت اخلاقی مستقیم، صرفاً به تشریح عملکرد سیستم می‌پردازد.

خواندن جامعه نمایش تجربه‌ای تأمل‌برانگیز است، زیرا دوبور نه تنها ساختارهای اقتصادی و فرهنگی را نقد می‌کند، بلکه خواننده را وادار می‌کند که خود را نیز در این نظام بازنمایی‌شده ببیند. در این کتاب، ما می‌بینیم که حتی زندگی روزمره، روابط شخصی و تجربیات فردی انسان‌ها، تحت سلطه تصاویر و بازنمایی‌ها قرار گرفته است. این موضوع، با وجود گذشت دهه‌ها از انتشار کتاب، هنوز برای خوانندگان امروز که با شبکه‌های اجتماعی و رسانه‌های دیجیتال سر و کار دارند، بسیار ملموس است.

یکی دیگر از نکات برجسته کتاب، توانایی دوبور در ترکیب تحلیل فلسفی و جامعه‌شناختی با زبانی دقیق و شاعرانه است. او توانسته است مفاهیم پیچیده‌ای چون بازنمایی، سلطه تصویر و رابطه میان اقتصاد و فرهنگ را به شیوه‌ای روشن و قابل فهم بیان کند، بدون آنکه از عمق فلسفی و تحلیلی اثر کاسته شود. این ویژگی باعث می‌شود که جامعه نمایش نه تنها برای پژوهشگران و دانشجویان، بلکه برای خوانندگان عمومی که به درک جامعه مدرن علاقه دارند نیز جذاب و قابل استفاده باشد.

در نهایت، جامعه نمایش به ما یادآوری می‌کند که هیچ جامعه‌ای از تصویر و بازنمایی بی‌نیاز نیست و هر جا که تصاویر جای تجربه واقعی را بگیرند، سلطه و کنترل شکل می‌گیرد. این پیام دوبور، اگرچه با نگاه مارکسیستی بیان شده، بی‌طرفانه و بدون غرض، یک تحلیل روشن از نحوه عملکرد سرمایه‌داری و فرهنگ معاصر ارائه می‌دهد و خواننده را به تأمل درباره آزادی، واقعیت و هویت انسانی وادار می‌کند.

خواندن این کتاب به معنای مواجهه با دنیایی است که در آن مرز میان واقعیت و تصویر به‌طور مداوم در حال محو شدن است و انسان‌ها باید برای تشخیص حقیقت و تجربه واقعی خود، به چالش کشیده شوند. دوبور، با تحلیل دقیق و بی‌رحمانه‌اش، این فرآیند را به شیوه‌ای کاملاً روشن و متقاعدکننده شرح می‌دهد.

[Lee Foust · Rating 4 out of 5]

My reading and studies in philosophy aren't really in-depth enough, I don't think, for me to say anything particularly enlightening about Debord's most famous little book here. What I think I've understood from it is fascinating and I think still quite relevant--if not even more so than at the time of the book's composition. I think that the spectacle is still growing in its reification of social life, if perhaps a tad more interactive in the age of the web--or at least I hope that's the case.

I've had Zone Books big compendium of Situationist writing for some time and was going to settle in to read that to get a bigger picture of the group's thinking as a whole, so I thought I'd refresh my memory of Society beforehand--as I had read it back in the late 1980s when I was first led to the SI through Malcolm MacLaren, Jamie Reed, and the Sex Pistols. Now I kind of wish I'd started with the bigger book as much of Society, I fear, was over my head. The most challenging thing about the book, in a way, is figuring out precisely what Debord means by "the spectacle." I mean, I feel like I get it. Mass media, television, movies... But then art is implicated, or at least popular (really corporate) art such as televised and Hollywood narratives. It's a pretty broad concept in a single word. And, as a fiction writer, I began wondering what role art plays in this manifesto of a kind of praxis that might liberate humanity/break down the social classes that Debord outlines here. How much is my own writing a part of the spectacle and what can I do to liberate humanity from the a-historical spectacular class stasis? I wish Debord were still around to tell me.

OK, on to the greater book and, hopefully, greater comprehension on my part.