In this article, Guy Debord argues a few different points, the most predominant being that social life no longer exists, except in images and representations. He describes this new society as that of a series of spectacles or appearances, rather than real relationships with people.
“…all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation” [1]
“The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images” [4]
This issue is of significance to us now, in terms of living through an ‘Internet Revolution’, because Debord viewed the advancement of media technologies within society as a means for the spectacle to become our society, rather than to supplement our lives within our society. He viewed the spectacle as “the main production of present-day society” [15], meaning we are not producing goods and services anymore, but rather more spectacle, or the images that represent the commodities. He sees the advancement in communications technologies as a very visual shift, which he deems as negative since this visuality leaves us with one-way communication that shifts us from being an active member of a society to an increasingly passive consumer of the spectacle. He describes this in paragraph 18,
“The spectacle, as a tendency to make one see the world by means of various specialized mediations (it can no longer be grasped directly), naturally finds vision to be the privileged human sense which the sense of touch was for other epochs” [18]
“It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever there is independent representation, the spectacle reconstitutes itself.” [18]
This argument gets more convincing the more I put it into terms of today’s society. I do not fully agree with Debord’s Marxist point of view, but I do see where he is coming from. To look at society as a compilation of images and representations, rather than experiences and relationships, requires a more pessimistic way of thinking. Debord described everything we do; products we consume; methods of developing and retaining relationships; as nothing more than a means of feeding the spectacle which is in itself our society. I feel that although this does hold some truth in that we do passively consume a lot more than we realize through various communications technologies, such as television, radio, and the internet, that such technologies, namely the advancement of the internet and Web 2.0, have allowed us to participate in society more so than when Debord was constructing his thesis his 1967.
As I referenced in my post for the Weekly Discussion on Guy Debord, “the internet does allow us as consumers to feel as though we are a part of the bigger picture. Web 2.0 has allowed us to not just see what we consume, but we can voice back our feelings about it in hopes that we may have an effect on the evolution of the product”.
The discussion on this article has been amazing in that it has helped answer a lot of the questions and confusions I had after reading through the article myself. However, if I am to ask one question of my fellow classmates, it is this:
If the Internet is simply another means for the spectacle to grow and engulf us as a society, is there anything we can do to change this? Can we flip the Internet back on the spectacle and change the direction in which our society is heading, to involve more interaction and less passivity within our economy?
I have found a few websites that helped illustrate Guy Debord’s point, and offer up some more background on him as a Situationist. About half way down the page of this kagablog entry, as well as on the next page, there are images to represent each paragraph of Debord’s Society of the Spectacle. As well, I found the psychogeographic map of Paris that Debord compiled to be quite interesting. It helps illustrate his thinking as part of the Situationist Movement. Lastly, 'avoiding the void' offers a great explanation of Debord’s work, and assisted my understanding of this article.
Debord, Guy. “Separation Perfected.” Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red, 1983. Sections 1-34. (CanCopy Course Kit)
Abraxas. "Kagablog." Society of the Spectacle. December 2007 - January 2008. 26 January 2011.
<http://kaganof.com/kagablog/category/categories/society-of-the-spectacle/>.
Imaginart Museum Projects. Guy Debord 1957: Psychogeographic Guide of Paris. 26 January 2011.
<http://imaginarymuseum.org/LPG/Mapsitu1.htm>.
Avoiding the Void. "Guy Debord." The Society of the Spectacle. 16 June 2010. 27 January 2011.
<http://avoidingthevoid.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/notes-guy-debord-society-of-the-spectacle/>.
This is my Critical Response #1 for the Philosophy and the Internet course I am enrolled in.
ReplyDeleteIn order to resist the spectacle, we must look beyond representation. I love the Internet, love using it, but I'm often cynical because of how much of the Internet is devoted to complaining without acting, discussing without doing. Countless blogs, YouTube channels, and forums revolve around a myriad of voices yammering into digital oblivion without translating this power into action. This is the lure of the spectacle and its effect: we watch and perceive; even when we "participate," our contributions are hollow.
ReplyDeleteTo move beyond this with the Internet, I think we have to keep two goals in mind. Firstly, we have to act. Discussion and debate is great, and the Internet as a communications tool provides an excellent platform for that. But we can't stop there; otherwise we are armchair philosophers! However, what stymies a lot of people (myself included) is the idea that actions must be loud and large. That too is a legacy of the spectacle, this idea that if your actions aren't seen and heard and relayed by other people, then does it really count?
Which brings me to the second point: that action should be concentrated and directed. It's great that the Internet, particularly social networking sites like Facebook, assist in spreading freedom to countries like Tunisia and Egypt. But we aren't all Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg; most of us don't have the ability to affect quite so many people. With that in mind, we have to remember that we can still act within the scope of our own communities.
Here's a concrete example to demonstrate what I mean. Thunder Bay has a freecycling group on Yahoo!. People from around Thunder Bay can post items they need or items they want to dispose, and other members of the group can volunteer items or take them away, respectively. This is an example of the Internet connecting people in a local way that seems to bypass the sensation of the spectacle (although I have to admit, it is kind of fun to go through the list and see what crazy stuff people are giving away).
Ben! I LOVE the idea of freecycling!! I didn't know it was a "thing"! My friends and I organize what we call "Thing Swaps" where we all bring things (clothes, movies, trinkets, etc) we no longer want or need, and then pick from each other's discarded things, and whatever is left over we donate to the Salvation Army. Man, I wonder if Barrie has a freecycling group! I will be looking into that for sure :)
ReplyDeleteOn an academic note, I do see how your freecycling point exemplifies how the Internet can connect people locally without falling victim to the spectacle. I like your point about being an armchair philosopher as well. And I agree, a huge reason for people's like of acting would be that they fear that they will not be heard unless they organize some sort of international revolt. It's so easy to sit on your couch and complain, but putting those complaints into action is what we need to see more of. Like you said, the Internet is an invaluable tool that we have at our fingertips (well, most of us do...), it's time to use it.
Thanks for your comments, Ben.
I like the link to the psycho-geographic map of Paris as I'm interested in representations of space. Another thing to think about regarding the passivity of the internet is addressed in your second critical response, and that is the bi-directionality of the internet. Does bi-directionality make the internet fundamentally different than other media?
ReplyDelete