Comments on the Society of the Spectacle

by Guy Debord

First published in 1967, Guy Debord's stinging revolutionary critique of contemporary society, The Society of the Spectacle has since acquired a cult status. Credited by many as being the inspiration for the ideas generated by the events of May 1968 in France, Debord's pitiless attack on commodity fetishism and its incrustation in the practices of everyday life continues to burn brightly in today's age of satellite television and the soundbite. In Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, published twenty years later, Debord returned to the themes of his previous analysis and demonstrated how they were all the more relevant in a period when the “integrated spectacle” was dominant. Resolutely refusing to be reconciled to the system, Debord trenchantly slices through the doxa and mystification offered tip by journalists and pundits to show how aspects of reality as diverse as terrorism and the environment, the Mafia and the media, were caught up in the logic of the spectacular society. Pointing the finger clearly at those who benefit from the logic of domination, Debord's Comments convey the revolutionary impulse at the heart of situationism.

“Guy Debord is a time bomb, and a difficult one to defuse.”—Michael Löwy.

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

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

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

[David Katzman · Rating 5 out of 5]

With the primaries in progress, and the battle approaching to save the pale semblance of a democracy that we live in from the fascist tyranny of Trump and the Republican party, I elected to repost this review that fits the spectacle of Trump oh so precisely.

Comments on the Society of the Spectacle is a must read. Although it enhances your understanding to read Society of the Spectacle first, it's not absolutely necessary. SotS is one of the most politically astute grand visions of the social order ever written. Revolutionary. Profound. Enlightening. (And admittedly somewhat difficult in its degree-of-esoteric-jargon. But if you can accept not understanding everything, it’s worth it.)

Debord was of course French and the original work inspired the student/union workers revolt that occurred in France in 1968. Debord and his fellow movement leaders were called The Situationists or Situationist International. It's rather amazing to think, from the current perspective of a relatively inactive, uninspired and uneducated American society, that an esoteric book of political theory inspired student to lead a mass strike involving up to 11 million workers for two weeks. This was roughly 2/3 of the French workforce. The closest thing that has occurred today is the revolution in Egypt.

The students and workers in ’68 were primarily revolting against modern consumerist and technologist society; the movement was anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist. Yes, it was grounded in Marxism, but it was quite opposed to both Communism and Capitalism. They were decidedly anti-Stalinist. Strangely enough, The Situationists married Marxist thinking with avant-garde art.

Debord advocated for businesses and industry to be run by individual workers' councils--the employees run their own companies, not executives or managers. Not a centralized Communist government, but local, autonomous collectives. I think this would certainly be a big improvement over the way our current society is run, but my biggest objection to Marxism has been the presumption that industry should exist at all. I think the unstoppable juggernaut which is global warming demonstrates that processing natural materials on an industrial scale is a suicidal practice. But despite my opposition to industrial product, Debord critique of civilization is invaluable as it demonstrates exactly how our self-destructive behavior is obscured and transformed by “The Spectacle.” Interestingly, in this book, the Comments on his original, he does not mention the workers' councils at all.

So, what is the Spectacle? It’s not just advertising, television and the media although those are significant tools and aspects of it. The Spectacle is the totality of methods, constructs and communications used in an advanced capitalist society to construct a false reality to mask the real one, the degraded reality created by Capitalism. Baudrillard is a good reference here, see Screened Out, who talks about how our experiences have been “virtualized.” All branding, for example, acts as a tool to distract consumers from reality and get them to focus on symbolism instead of concrete reality. Nike represents sports, endurance, overcoming challenges, grabbing what you want from life, athleticism and through celebrity endorsements, the peak that the body can achieve. The reality is that almost all Nike clothes and shoes are made by poor overworked children and adults in third-world countries who barely survive on poverty-maintaining wages. In another regard, why is one bag intended to carry supplies priced at $10 and the next one $500. Because it’s Land's End vs. Gucci. An illusion. It gets deeper and deeper the more you look at the illusions that motivate us. The fact that every time we drive our cars we’re spewing poison that contributes to global warming. These realities are constantly obscured and obfuscated along with many, many others. Our entire political system is based on falsification of the debate, side issues and distractions. We have dumb and dumber parties to choose from. For a reason…even when you support the lesser of two evils, you’re still supporting the system. Obama provided cover and bandaids to a system of control. Trump is pure spectacle and falsification married to aggressive plunder.

This particular book, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, published 22 years after Society of the Spectacle , is a thoughtful gloss on the original, updating Debord's views on how the Spectacle has evolved over the years, strengthened its grip on us, and continued to weave a web of lies that is nearly inescapable—because it benefits those who currently control the wealth and power. A valuable book and highly recommended.

[Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

oh man, this is so much better than the Society of the Spectacle. In The Society of the Spectacle Debord had kind of a naive optimism going on. This, on the other hand, is a wonderfully pessimistic critique of capitalism. Essentially claims that capitalism has absorbed all of its alternatives. There are no other options. We are all fucked. But the best part? Well, that would be Debord hinting to us that we still need to make the fuckers pay. Even if winning is impossible it is still worth it to try and destroy it all. I'm not sure exactly what his reasoning is, but I suspect it has something to do with sweet revenge.

It should also be noted that where the Society of the Spectacle was pretentious and somewhat unoriginal(what did Debord say that Marx had not already stated?), this book is very straight forward and free of confused hipster jargon. One gets the sense that Debord actually believes what he is saying this time and the conclusions he comes to are absolutely horrifying.

[Sean A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

i thoroughly 'enjoyed' this book so much as one can 'enjoy' such a probing analysis of the total daily misery we are subject to. debord famously called this misery 'the spectacle' in his 1967 work 'society of the spectacle', though it's been called society, capitalism, the totality, 'the media', 'the state' (according to anarchists), 'biopower' and even 'civilization/leviathan' (by freddy perlman and primitivists). so what's new with the spectacle in this book vs back in 1967? well here, debord makes a striking comparison between the spectacle and the mafia, shows how when some say 'the media' they mean the spectacle, various recupperation has been intensified (the most oblique of all arguments cus here debord deals with some of what would become his readership, so-called revolutionaries) and so forth.
i'm personally surprised it took myself so long to stumble upon this book since i was so touched and enthralled with society of the spectacle and found it more nuanced and relevant for modern american capitalism/spectacular culture than a lot of so-called radical shit being written to this day. also i can't help but wonder what such a hard-edged analysis of the spectacle would look like in 2012. certainly tiqqun/invisible committee has tried hard, and while i really love some of that stuff and am it least entertained in a weird subcultural way by all of it, it just doesn't resonate with me quite as faboulously as debord's books do. ah well!

so what would debord say about a review of his book 'comments on the society of the spectacle' by a boho-anarchist nobody on goodreads from a computer in a collective house in st. louis, america? who knows, tho probably, in his best vein nothing nice, but here is one of my little contributions to the spectacle nonetheless while at other times trying doggedly to break its spell.

[‍ΟυΛιΠο · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Στους καιρούς που διανύουμε, η απόδραση είναι ο μόνος τρόπος να μείνεις ζωντανός και να συνεχίσεις να ονειρεύεσαι'

~Henry Laborit

[Nils Brandsma · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is only January but I feel like I might've already read my favorite book of the year.

How about this ending quote:
“We must conclude that changeover is imminent and ineluctable in the coopted cast who serve the interests of domination, and above all manage the protection of that domination. In such an affair, innovation will surely not be displayed on the spectacle’s stage. It appears instead like lightning, which we know only when it strikes.”

Debord surely hoped that this innovation and lightning would strike from the left. Now, 30-something years later the lightning has appears to have struck from the right.

[A. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Een teleurstellende sequel op 'la société du spectacle' van 1967.

[John Madera]

On the whole, a fascinating extension of Debord's Society of Spectacle, its most significant contribution the delineation of something worse, namely, the "integrated spectacle" (which I see in conversation with Deleuze's notion of the "society of control" (where power not only disciplines, in the Foucauldian sense, but enforces an a priori internalisation of socio-political expectations) that muddies all reality: "There remains nothing, in culture or nature, which has not been transformed, and polluted according to the means and interests of modern industry."

One disappointing moment: Guy Debord's joke, one as racist as Alphonse Allais' A Battle of Negroes in a Cave on a Dark Night (a reproduction of a famous picture) (1897) and Kazimir Malevich's The Black Square (1915), under which the same joke may be found: "This tedious series of lifeless, inconclusive crime novels has all the dramatic interest of a realistically staged fight between blacks, at night, in a tunnel."

[Math le maudit · Rating 1 out of 5]

J'ai détesté lire ce livre... Debord maîtrise l'art d'employer un mot pour un autre à un tel niveau, que l'on finit par ne plus savoir où il voulait en venir. Son propos y perd en clarté. On me rétorquera que ce texte est un fondamental sociologique et que je n'y ai probablement rien compris. C'est probablement le cas, et c'est d'autant plus dommage...

Encore un livre trop intellectuel pour le commun des mortels et qui, donc, ne remplit pas correctement son rôle de diffusion du savoir. Il ne touche qu'un trop petit nombre d'élus qui peuvent du coup se sentir appartenir aux "happy few", c'est juste du gâchis...

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

A worthy sequel for anyone who liked SoS. Debord was prescient, predicting everything from
opinionated celebrities and the rise of influencers to fake news. The concept of the integrated spectacle is especially useful for orienting oneself in the era of social media.

[Noah WW · Rating 5 out of 5]

hrumphy french dude who figured out the 21st century before it happened

[Chad Deal · Rating 5 out of 5]

A more approachable follow-up to Society of the Spectacle, with Reagan-era observations that ring all too familiar in 2020.

[Dinis Contente · Rating 5 out of 5]

this motherfucker would fucking hate goodreads

[David Villar Cembellín · Rating 4 out of 5]

Regreso del autor a la sociedad del espectáculo —«el espectáculo no es un conjunto de imágenes, sino una relación social entre personas mediatizada por imágenes»— veinte años después de su famoso ensayo.

Más sencillo de entender que su predecesor, Debord regresa a sus ideas sobre la representación —«viviremos en un mundo sin memoria donde, como en la superficie del agua, la imagen hace desaparecer indefinidamente la imagen»—, nostálgico de un tiempo genuino, auténtico y libre que nunca existió. Reaccionario en cuanto a las artes clásicas, su diatriba contra el arte contemporáneo, esa otra forma de mercantilismo, es ambrosía:

«Así, en una época en que puede existir arte contemporáneo se hace difícil juzgar las artes clásicas. Aquí, como en todas partes, la ignorancia sólo se produce para ser explotada. Al mismo tiempo que se pierden simultáneamente el sentido de la historia y el gusto, se organizan redes de falsificación. Basta con tener a los expertos y a los tasadores, lo que es bastante fácil, y colarlo todo, porque, tanto en los asuntos de esta naturaleza como en definitiva en todos los demás, la venta es la que autentifica cualquier valor. Después son los coleccionistas o los museos, sobre todo americanos, quienes, atiborrados de falso, tendrán interés en mantener la buena reputación, al igual que el Fondo Monetario Internacional mantiene la ficción del valor positivo de las inmensas deudas de cien naciones».

Muy entretenido.

[Raúl Oyola · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesante lectura para culminar la anterior, que debiera ser —obviamente— 'La sociedad del espectáculo'. Sin embargo, no la considero imprescindible más allá que para tener en cuenta algunos términos nuevos como 'lo espectacular integrado'.

[Nirvana · Rating 4 out of 5]

if you read this book not having derived all of the content from first principles latest by the age of 15 you're really ngmi

[eight · Rating 5 out of 5]

on vit vraiment dans une société... quelle dinguerie, ça fait #réfléchir

[Jim Robles · Rating 4 out of 5]

How timely for the age of Trump Tweets. We cannot say we were not warned. A very good read indeed.

From the article below: :“The Society of the Spectacle” is still relevant today. With its descriptions of human social life subsumed by technology and images, it is often cited as a prophecy of the dangers of the internet age now upon us. And perhaps more than any other 20th-century philosophical work, it captures the profoundly odd moment we are now living through, under the presidential reign of Donald Trump."

We can only hope that, again from the article below: "The unfolding of national protests and marches, and more important the return to local politics and community organizing, may well succeed where the anarchic spasms of 1968 failed, and shatter the spell of the spectacle."

Four stars for this one. Although it is prescient on some aspects, it is purblind on others.

The xxiv discussion of how Prohibition empowered, and expanded the influence of, the Mafia is prescient on how our drug laws have created the cartels.

See xxix for thoughts on how we are driven by technology.

xxx failed to see how technology would enable the ability to watch everywhere all the time.

xxxx. "Going from success to success, until 1968 modern society was convinced it was loved."
Did Debord sleep through the First and Second World Wars? Was he oblivious of the Frankfurt School?

I found this one in:

The Opinion Pages. -- Trump and the ‘Society of the Spectacle’
by Robert Zaretsky. -- THE STONE FEB. 20, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/op...


I downloaded a .pdf file from http://libcom.org.libcom.org/files/Co...

[Esteban · Rating 2 out of 5]

Frente a un libro de crítica cultural de hace unas décadas (este de 1988, el ensayo original de 1967) es fácil formular todos los cambios que ocurrieron en tono de reproche. "¡No vio venir Internet! ¡No previó las redes sociales!" Así suele sonar la voz del que no distingue a un crítico de un early adopter. Es cierto, las tecnologías de comunicación de 1988 no hacían viables las estrategias de réplica, victimización, sousveillance, crowdsourcing ni censura descentralizada que ahora son ubicuas. Esa distancia histórica permite en cambio ver cómo y por qué envejece un ensayo sobre los efectos, digamos, fenomenológicos de la comunicación. A Debord le ocurre algo típico de los intelectuales públicos y muy común entre graduados de humanidades: identifican a las posibilidades sociales, políticas e intelectuales abiertas por una tecnología con sus manifestaciones más inmediatas. Cuando Debord afirma que "(l)a desaparición de la personalidad acompaña fatalmente las condiciones de la existencia sometida a las normas espectaculares y, de este modo, cada vez más alejada de la posibilidad de conocer experiencias auténticas y, por eso mismo, de descubrir sus preferencias individuales" uno encuentra un contraste brutal con el clima contemporáneo. Pero, ¿tiene eso una importancia tan grande? La condición del usuario final de un medio siempre es alienada en algún grado. Un análisis de su mundo de vida (por usar una jerga fenomenológica algo anticuada) no tiene porque señalar una salida. La falta de atención a la técnica podía disculparse en 1988, teniendo en cuenta la gran centralización de los medios tradicionales. Una obra actual de este tipo, sin embargo, debería estar más atenta a la infraestructura técnica y menos seducida por la ideación paranoica que estos Comentarios.

[Zarmina Khan · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord revisits and sharpens his original analysis of a society dominated by images and superficiality, delivering a scathing commentary on modern life’s descent into passive consumption and spectacle. Debord’s insights are piercing, diagnosing the ways in which media and consumer culture manipulate perception and dull critical thought. However, his terse, almost cryptic style can feel deliberately obscure, sometimes frustrating the reader’s efforts to fully engage with his arguments. The text’s tone is steeped in cynicism, with little offered in terms of actionable resistance, leaving readers with a bleak picture of society yet few avenues for change. Comments is as provocative and unsettling as it is challenging, a necessary read for those seeking a deeper understanding of modern alienation, though it risks alienating those looking for clearer solutions amidst the critique.

[nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Debord expands on one of the most compelling facets of Society—the damaged situation of basic functions of thought, logic, memory, history amid spectacular domination—within an updated context that only proves the validity of his original analysis. (Were I to assign this stuff I’d probably use these Comments as the primary text, next to crucial selections from the original.)

It’s worth considering how much environmentalism, a topic he had approached head-on in his 1971 pamphlet Sick Planet, inflects his reframing of spectacle: “in this world which is officially so respectful of economic necessities, no one ever knows the real cost of anything which is produced. In fact the major part of the real cost is never calculated, and the rest is kept secret” (56).

[Chris Balz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some interesting updates to the general theory laid out in "Society of the Spectacle". Expanding on his earlier ideas about "vacation", the late Debord notes the trend toward constant travel serving as the primary mark of an individual's membership in the elite class.

This is a good 1990s-era update to the older work from the 1960s. We're lucky to have it since Debord passed on a few years later. The book provokes us to ask, "has much changed?" and also to ask what we can do to break out of the society of the spectacle.

[Xavidavinxi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Los últimos reproches de un reaccionario a una sociedad que ya no puede reivindicar como suya en ningún caso, perdiéndose en las ensoñaciones de una antigua Arcadia. Cae en la denuncia de su falsedad sin darse cuenta de que, de esta forma, niega las propias categorías que la constituyen a ella y a su particular análisis. Este libro es, ante todo, una defensa del inmovilismo de lo espectacular que habla a partir de su crítica.

[Elías · Rating 5 out of 5]

Guy Debord tiene las mismas teorías que la parte más paranoide de mi personalidad. Me gusta leer este libro porque significa una actualización de la historia del espectáculo en relación al texto "La sociedad del espectáculo", al tiempo que cambia el estilo aforistico por una escritura más ensayística que se articula de forma distinta.

[Rui Coelho · Rating 3 out of 5]

The generalized rebellion of the 1960s forced capitalism to adapt. Twenty-one years after the acclaimed The Society of the Spectacle, Debord analyses the new capitalist social-form, the Integrated Spectacle.

[Severin M · Rating 4 out of 5]

a worthwhile and too often ignored corrective for some of Debord's misgivings within Society of the Spectacle. Unfortunately, the book's own conspiratorial leanings foretell Debord's own spiral later in life.

[Estelle McInnis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Debord very arrogantly overstates a few simple yet insightful points in this extension of an overly ambitious theory. frustrating and annoying to read.

[Tatjana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really great ideas but had to start skimming after two-thirds.

[Philip Sneed · Rating 1 out of 5]

Post-Modern, hopeless, and intentionally obtuse.

[Alex Khlopenko · Rating 3 out of 5]

TBH didn't comment or explain as much as I expected

[mmj · Rating 5 out of 5]

To me, Debord's concept of Spectacle astutely articulates and elaborates on integral issues that are often undiscussed in our daily lives.

We live with two distinct contradictions: our capitalist system equates progress with constant growth; and we live on a planet with finite resources edging on ecological collapse. We are told that capitalism is the best of all evils, yet we will probably not survive as a species because of it. There is no questioning or look at even tweaking (although Debord says, “one cannot reform the most trifling detail without taking the whole thing apart”) the operations and structure of the world economy in mainstream discourse. Mainstream news stations will talk about the stock market, then switch to the topic of climate change without ever acknowledging their connection.

Climate collapse is old news now, and only marginally talked about, due to the fact that climate collapse does not 'sell' within the for-profit media industry. As Debord points out, all issues disappear into the void of the Spectacle: “when the spectacle stops talking about something for three days, it is as if it did not exist.” p. 20. We move onto the next catastrophe/distraction.

We have become a docile population of passive consumers who relate to each other through "shared spectatorship". Fifty years later, this is even more true. Netflix, YouTube algorithms, etc all curate what we watch, and we often mindlessly concede to the trends of sensationalist, distracting entertainment. We are relating more and more to each other through our work or through media (celebrities, tv shows, news, social media), instead of directing to each other and our lived local environment.

Debord states that we live in an “eternal present”: “When social significance is attributed only to what is immediate, and to what will be immediate immediately afterwards, always replacing another, identical, immediacy, it can be seen that the uses of the media guarantee a kind of eternity of noisy insignificance” p.15.

Everything is devoured by the Spectacle, even for instance, anti-capitalist movements. The Spectacle will sell us an anti-capitalist appearance or any identity we want to associate with (the starter kit memes for identity are funny for good reason) and we consume that identity and get social points on social media for appearing and performing to our social groups and political associations. The big question to reflect on is how can we take agency back into our lives without it being mediated by the Spectacle? How can we create, rather than consume?

I very much recommend this book. There is a lot to unpack. Debord does have a way of writing at times like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, in particular when he talks about surveillance, lies and secrecy from the government and corporations. But when you think about what he says, these things are not only true, but very common place and normalized. Although the book leaves a bleak picture of reality (I believe the original Society of the Spectacle discusses more actionable ways of transgressing the Spectacle), I do find it empowering to have words that articulate these confusing, unfulfilled times we live in.