In Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, he argues that life is no longer lived but rather experienced from a distance as a spectacle, which he defines as, “the production of present day society.” (Debord, 15). The spectacle is a representation and a generator of social reality that places a strong importance on appearances…especially appearances through commodities. In the sense, our society no longer produces commodities; it reproduces the spectacle because it is in the appearance of the commodity that the individual acquires immediate prestige. Debord describes this process as, “the degradation of being into having…[which] leads to a generalized sliding of having into appearing” (Debord, 17). Thus, the relationships between commodities become so important that society becomes dominated by the economy in order to gain prestige through a commodity’s appearance, which is the spectacle. Furthermore, from a Marxist perspective, Guy argues that people forget that human labour goes into commodities and this creates an alienation and isolation from the individual and the product and depreciates human interaction. Also, when we look at commodities as appearances the commodity becomes a fetish and therefore its production has a mastery over the passive consumer enveloped in the spectacle.
The passivity of consumers is exemplified through the power relations in the economy, communications, and media. He says, “[the spectacle] is the diplomatic representation of hierarchic society to itself, where all other expression is banned.” (Debord, 23). Only a small ruling class of society, which owns the media, has influence on the spectacle. This communication to the consumer is uni-linear and the consumer is passive in accepting the superficial perfection suggested by the spectacle. The consumer further perpetuates the spectacle in their everyday life through the commodities they own that alienate and socially isolate them; such as cars and television. Leisure time has become obsolete, as it is a labour to buy these cultural products (cars, designer jeans, smart phones) and contribute to capitalism. Even social relations have become commodified and materialistic as people relate to one another through mass-produced cars, movies, music, and television shows.
Debord’s arguments in Separation Perfected are important because he promotes the awareness of the mystification of the spectacle, in which the spectacle masks the capitalist degradation of reality. However, he feels that potential revolutions in protest would be absorbed by the spectacle. As an influential figure in the situationist movement, Debord and other situationists saw art as a means of resistance to the spectacle, using an artistic shift to transform and generate situations. Situationist art uses images produced by the popular culture and turns them against themselves, or rather the spectacle. A popular form of expression of situationist art is graffiti because it is viewable to the public and usually the creator is anonymous. As a result, this form of art can be criticized based on its message and not the creator. So, the importance of Debord’s arguments are to make us less passive as consumers and more aware of the hold the spectacle has on our everyday lives in the economy, media, commodities, and social relations.
The Society of the Spectacle’s arguments have convinced me, for I am starting to see more and more how the spectacle is perpetuated through every aspect of modern society. For example, even childbirth has become a spectacle in some sense. Ultrasound technology has instructed new mothers to doubt their instinctive motherly senses, as there is less emphasis on what the mother is feeling and more emphasis on visibility to determine the health of a child. Also, the spectacle has completely taken over sports television. A hockey game is no longer just a hockey game, but instead a spectacle that features behind the scenes locker room going-ons, commercials that feature rivals preparing for games or that poke fun at the sport, shot competitions at intermissions for fans to win vehicles, and jumbo screens in the arenas so that the fans do not have to watch the actual game but can watch what is going on before their eyes on a screen above them.
What I still do not completely understand is why isolation is such an imminent factor to the spectacle and economy, mentioned in number 28 of Debord’s book. Is it that the feeling of isolation propels us to purchase more commodities, which further isolate us but give us the ‘appearance’ of belonging? This and the following are questions for consideration. Street art has been identified as an opposition to the spectacle, are there any other examples of resistance to the spectacle in modern society?
Supplementary resources:
The film version of the Society of the Spectacle
Background information on Debord and situationism, as well as a critique of Debord’s ideas and death.
Examples of Situationist Art
Isolation goes hand-in-hand with spectacle because the spectacle is a many-to-one interaction, not many-to-many. Large groups of people might be engaged with the spectacle, but they are engaged by themselves. The spectacle connect people through each other by encouraging participation. Instead, it isolates people. Yet at the same time, society encourages more and more people to partake of the spectacle. As a result, we get this idea of "the lonely crowd."
ReplyDeleteI think you're right when you talk about isolation driving us toward more consumption. We want to belong, which means we need commodities that allow us to identify as being a part of a certain group.
I'm having a hard time coming up with an example of resistance to the spectacle. I think they exist, but they are fragile, and media coverage has a tendency to assimilate such resistance into the spectacle itself by focusing our attention on the resistance. But I shall try, since it's a good question.
How about tweetups? A tweetup is a meeting of local Twitter users. It offers people who might otherwise only interact online the chance to interact in person, and so form new personal connections. Twitter itself seems to fall under the definition of the spectacle, because it allows us to isolate ourselves in our own little world of narcissism. The tweetups resist this spectacle, because they are all about removing isolation. Suddenly you're no longer a voice yelling into the ocean; you are one person talking to other people.
Tweetups are a great example of how people are using the Internet to thwart the efforts of the spectacle by decreasing social isolation and promoting communication apart from the virtual world. As a Twitter user who had no previous knowledge of Tweetups, I agree that it is a useful tool in creating new relationships and strengthening existing ones.
ReplyDeleteIn using the same logic, I would argue that Facebook places, like Tweetups reduces physical isolation and promotes social interaction in the real world. With Facebook places on makes a 'status-like' update to inform their friends where they are at a given time. For example, "John Smith has checked into the Outpost." While it is not necessarily an open invitation, it certainly encourages communication away from the computer chair.
-Ashley Van
And another interesting example of the spectale in the NHL
ReplyDeleteWww.guardianproject30.com.
Ashley Van
I like your example of ultrasound as an example of the spectacle, where the photo is literally a commodity (I think most hospitals charge to print a copy for parents), I don't think I would have thought about it that way. I can also see how childbirth is a spectacle in other ways such as how the 'look' of the nursery or getting the right 'baby gear' is clearly fetishized by the media (but that example is more obvious).
ReplyDelete