In a little nugget, I think it just means basically the condition of society that emerged between 1920-1950 which is further separated from the material forces (in the Marxist sense of means of production, the political structure and things), to such a degree that we became spectators of a sort of pseudoreality which capitalism has been producing.
On the cover of my copy, there is a picture from the 1950's with an audience full of people wearing 3-D glasses, all looking at a movie screen. With the historic failure of the Left capitalism has spread farther into the non-material aspects of lives, separating us from authentic experience (an extension of the Marxist idea of alienation of labor) even further to the point of a generalized practice of consuming "spectacles" whether it be movies, cruise vacations, products (which are always displayed spectacularly in advertising), or even history itself (think of how 9/11 became an iconic image through the TV). Something like that. Hope this helps.
Could never get my head round Debord et al. Always struck me as a load of wordwank straight out of the 'pseuds corner' column in Private Eye. Then along came Larry Law's Spectacular Times and made it all so much easier to grasp.
Other than what has been said previously, generally speaking it's an attempt at translating Marx's terms into a slightly different parlance, but this is also hidden behind a persistent guise of novelty in order to seem dramatic or accessible, when generally speaking it doesn't go particularly far beyond a brief blurb of things that Marx had already written in their time. It usually refers, as the name might suggest, to the detaching of appearances from essence in capitalist society, and the active role these merely apparent forms had to play in order for capitalist society to continue functioning. Hence, for instance, consider the legal sphere, which was wholly based on these illusion. In general, then, it refers to how people's lack of comprehension of the system and their action based on this was nonetheless treated as a norm.
This is something that Marx had already criticised in some ways in terms of vulgar economy, but had perhaps not been as serious about when it comes to portraying. A society where the general norm and expectations were based on such illusory relations to the conditions of production and human action generally was of course one which was hostile to 'humans' in the limited sense of Marx's early works, and other than being 'dehumanising' meant that communists and others such were in genuine terms detached from such a society. Others, however, were tasked with enforcing and normalising it, etc.
Nonetheless, it was covered in a certain gauze of novelty and detachment from orthodoxy which might have meant that it was forced to invent too many categories and so on that were out of keeping with its Marxist 'base,' or this detachment opened the door for that. Likewise, it was hence directed unlike Marx towards trying strenuously to avoid characterising the actual society and its functioning. Due to this, it in the sense conjured up a spectre that it could not defeat, or something which was based on 'modern society' of the time, but whose problem is to be its obscuring this society. It remained uncertain in their works whether it wished to prioritise the opposition of capital's continuance and socialism as the primary factor of society as a form, seeping to all parts of social action, or alternatively place this in the background, manufacturing various classes to obscure this. They presupposed Marx's critique, which went beyond this society and to its necessary abolition, and only thus could criticise its 'spectacle,' but then attacked Marx precisely for going this far, which undermined the general foundations of their criticism. Hence, for instance, they were forced into accepting Bakunin's partial critique of Marx, and only Marx's criticisms of Bakunin insofar as they contradicted the main stream of Bakunin's thought, therefore being absorbed politically in relation to the rest of the revolutionary left into merely 'Bakounism' in practice.
It did occasionally lead to humorously translated segments like, "The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images."
Thanks for the explanation Zeronowhere, but that went totally over my head. Anyway you can make that a bit more accessible for the layman? In particular what do you mean by 'appearances' and 'essence'?
Otherwise thanks for the links everyone else, will do some reading.
Situationism can be useful in practice. You observe something absurd occurring in society and you create a Situation (sort of like a spontaneous play) that mocks that absurdity. Spontaneity is crucial; without it, the Situation becomes start of the Spectacle.
Like most serious theory that tries to make sense of a very complex world the situationists reflected that complexity in their writing. But theory that repays more investigation than one simple reading is not necessarily worth less for it. As with other theory the interpretation is often disputed and also often misunderstood or misrepresented (often by dullards who insist on only One True Interpretation). But briefly, one way of looking at it;
In capitalism’s early period workers earned wages of subsistence level or a little above. They were exploited as labourers primarily (labour power) who consumed mainly just the necessities to reproduce themselves as wage slaves and producers of commodities. As a mass consumer society developed the working class began to have access to cheap mass produced goods and increased leisure time. Workers then also became exploited as consumers of commodities and the images that sell them – exploited partly as consumers of images in commodity form; advertising, fashion, visual & aural media etc. But also in the form of spectacles – spectacular staged events in general; cultural & sports events, political rallies etc which embody the logic and hierarchical relations of class society and showcase its seemingly unchallengeable rule (as they'd like us to believe).
The passive nature of this consumption of images of commodities and of commodified images was an extension of the alienation of the worker from their own labour and creative activity; in wage labour s/he creates and reproduces the commodity form that perpetuates the class society and its market relations that dominates and exploits the worker. The creator is therefore alienated/divorced from their own creation. Within the spectacular society the consumption of commodities and their images achieves the same. Of course there is often much participatory energy & activity used in consumption; but it remains passive insofar as the function of the commodity and role of spectator/consumer is never challenged/subverted in the act of consumption – participation reinforces one’s own domination. “Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.”(Debord)
But the spectacle is not merely a consumption of images but a ‘social relation between people mediated by images’; eg, the present Euro football tournament is not merely a consumption of images of football games but a form of consumption of commodities that organises consumers in a certain way, determines limits of behaviour to what reproduces the spectacle/commodity society, makes the crowd of spectators part of the spectacle etc.
The spectator seeks realisation of alienated desire in the ‘fetishised’ commodity form and the limited choices it offers. We’re back to Marx here, who took the fetish concept from the god images created and fetishised by early humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sgl7Px_gEU&spfreload=5; ie, their own human qualities were projected onto the invented religious icon, so alienating their own powers and desires away from themselves to a fetishised representation. Class society has continued this alienation via representation in many forms; eg, via the aesthetics of art/culture/celebrity as consumption of images of desire/fulfilment unrealisable in present society; as political representation as a delegated power that rules over & above those it rules in the name of; party-state bolshevism, unions, parliamentary democracy etc – who all actually rule in the interests of the maintenance of class society.
Politics is here seen as a division of labour inherent to class society; just as the wholeness of creative activity has for the worker progressively fragmented into isolated repetitive partial tasks - so the possible organisation of a real human community is fragmented into specialised roles of representation; politics as hierarchical power, a spectacle of politics to be passively consumed. “But the spectacle is not identifiable with mere gazing, even combined with hearing. It is that which escapes the activity of men, that which escapes reconsideration and correction by their work. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever there is independent representation, the spectacle reconstitutes itself.” (Debord)
We give a short introduction
We give a short introduction to the situationists here which hopefully will be helpful: https://libcom.org/thought/situationists-an-introduction
there is a more detailed intro here: http://libcom.org/library/introduction-situationists-jan-d-matthews
In a little nugget, I think
In a little nugget, I think it just means basically the condition of society that emerged between 1920-1950 which is further separated from the material forces (in the Marxist sense of means of production, the political structure and things), to such a degree that we became spectators of a sort of pseudoreality which capitalism has been producing.
On the cover of my copy, there is a picture from the 1950's with an audience full of people wearing 3-D glasses, all looking at a movie screen. With the historic failure of the Left capitalism has spread farther into the non-material aspects of lives, separating us from authentic experience (an extension of the Marxist idea of alienation of labor) even further to the point of a generalized practice of consuming "spectacles" whether it be movies, cruise vacations, products (which are always displayed spectacularly in advertising), or even history itself (think of how 9/11 became an iconic image through the TV). Something like that. Hope this helps.
Could never get my head round
Could never get my head round Debord et al. Always struck me as a load of wordwank straight out of the 'pseuds corner' column in Private Eye. Then along came Larry Law's Spectacular Times and made it all so much easier to grasp.
Other than what has been said
Other than what has been said previously, generally speaking it's an attempt at translating Marx's terms into a slightly different parlance, but this is also hidden behind a persistent guise of novelty in order to seem dramatic or accessible, when generally speaking it doesn't go particularly far beyond a brief blurb of things that Marx had already written in their time. It usually refers, as the name might suggest, to the detaching of appearances from essence in capitalist society, and the active role these merely apparent forms had to play in order for capitalist society to continue functioning. Hence, for instance, consider the legal sphere, which was wholly based on these illusion. In general, then, it refers to how people's lack of comprehension of the system and their action based on this was nonetheless treated as a norm.
This is something that Marx had already criticised in some ways in terms of vulgar economy, but had perhaps not been as serious about when it comes to portraying. A society where the general norm and expectations were based on such illusory relations to the conditions of production and human action generally was of course one which was hostile to 'humans' in the limited sense of Marx's early works, and other than being 'dehumanising' meant that communists and others such were in genuine terms detached from such a society. Others, however, were tasked with enforcing and normalising it, etc.
Nonetheless, it was covered in a certain gauze of novelty and detachment from orthodoxy which might have meant that it was forced to invent too many categories and so on that were out of keeping with its Marxist 'base,' or this detachment opened the door for that. Likewise, it was hence directed unlike Marx towards trying strenuously to avoid characterising the actual society and its functioning. Due to this, it in the sense conjured up a spectre that it could not defeat, or something which was based on 'modern society' of the time, but whose problem is to be its obscuring this society. It remained uncertain in their works whether it wished to prioritise the opposition of capital's continuance and socialism as the primary factor of society as a form, seeping to all parts of social action, or alternatively place this in the background, manufacturing various classes to obscure this. They presupposed Marx's critique, which went beyond this society and to its necessary abolition, and only thus could criticise its 'spectacle,' but then attacked Marx precisely for going this far, which undermined the general foundations of their criticism. Hence, for instance, they were forced into accepting Bakunin's partial critique of Marx, and only Marx's criticisms of Bakunin insofar as they contradicted the main stream of Bakunin's thought, therefore being absorbed politically in relation to the rest of the revolutionary left into merely 'Bakounism' in practice.
It did occasionally lead to humorously translated segments like, "The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images."
Thanks for the explanation
Thanks for the explanation Zeronowhere, but that went totally over my head. Anyway you can make that a bit more accessible for the layman? In particular what do you mean by 'appearances' and 'essence'?
Otherwise thanks for the links everyone else, will do some reading.
The Spectacle is our false
The Spectacle is our false consciousness.
Situationism can be useful in practice. You observe something absurd occurring in society and you create a Situation (sort of like a spontaneous play) that mocks that absurdity. Spontaneity is crucial; without it, the Situation becomes start of the Spectacle.
Like most serious theory that
Like most serious theory that tries to make sense of a very complex world the situationists reflected that complexity in their writing. But theory that repays more investigation than one simple reading is not necessarily worth less for it. As with other theory the interpretation is often disputed and also often misunderstood or misrepresented (often by dullards who insist on only One True Interpretation). But briefly, one way of looking at it;
In capitalism’s early period workers earned wages of subsistence level or a little above. They were exploited as labourers primarily (labour power) who consumed mainly just the necessities to reproduce themselves as wage slaves and producers of commodities. As a mass consumer society developed the working class began to have access to cheap mass produced goods and increased leisure time. Workers then also became exploited as consumers of commodities and the images that sell them – exploited partly as consumers of images in commodity form; advertising, fashion, visual & aural media etc. But also in the form of spectacles – spectacular staged events in general; cultural & sports events, political rallies etc which embody the logic and hierarchical relations of class society and showcase its seemingly unchallengeable rule (as they'd like us to believe).
The passive nature of this consumption of images of commodities and of commodified images was an extension of the alienation of the worker from their own labour and creative activity; in wage labour s/he creates and reproduces the commodity form that perpetuates the class society and its market relations that dominates and exploits the worker. The creator is therefore alienated/divorced from their own creation. Within the spectacular society the consumption of commodities and their images achieves the same. Of course there is often much participatory energy & activity used in consumption; but it remains passive insofar as the function of the commodity and role of spectator/consumer is never challenged/subverted in the act of consumption – participation reinforces one’s own domination. “Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior.”(Debord)
But the spectacle is not merely a consumption of images but a ‘social relation between people mediated by images’; eg, the present Euro football tournament is not merely a consumption of images of football games but a form of consumption of commodities that organises consumers in a certain way, determines limits of behaviour to what reproduces the spectacle/commodity society, makes the crowd of spectators part of the spectacle etc.
The spectator seeks realisation of alienated desire in the ‘fetishised’ commodity form and the limited choices it offers. We’re back to Marx here, who took the fetish concept from the god images created and fetishised by early humans https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sgl7Px_gEU&spfreload=5; ie, their own human qualities were projected onto the invented religious icon, so alienating their own powers and desires away from themselves to a fetishised representation. Class society has continued this alienation via representation in many forms; eg, via the aesthetics of art/culture/celebrity as consumption of images of desire/fulfilment unrealisable in present society; as political representation as a delegated power that rules over & above those it rules in the name of; party-state bolshevism, unions, parliamentary democracy etc – who all actually rule in the interests of the maintenance of class society.
Politics is here seen as a division of labour inherent to class society; just as the wholeness of creative activity has for the worker progressively fragmented into isolated repetitive partial tasks - so the possible organisation of a real human community is fragmented into specialised roles of representation; politics as hierarchical power, a spectacle of politics to be passively consumed. “But the spectacle is not identifiable with mere gazing, even combined with hearing. It is that which escapes the activity of men, that which escapes reconsideration and correction by their work. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever there is independent representation, the spectacle reconstitutes itself.” (Debord)