
An Illustrated Guide to Guy Debord’s ‘The Society of the Spectacle’ - chippy
http://hyperallergic.com/313435/an-illustrated-guide-to-guy-debords-the-society-of-the-spectacle/
======
nefitty
I've felt endless frustration with Debord's and SI's ideas since I stumbled on
them about 10 years ago. I know there is something hidden beneath this life,
and these works are simply pointing in its general direction. For a long time
I thought truth was encompassed by the concept of "authenticity", in terms of
expression and being as a human. That idea of mine was struck down pretty
swiftly by a simpatico social theorist I admired on Twitter, he responded to
my question, "What is authenticity, exactly?" with the answer "Don't worry,
nothing is real. Everything is constructed."

~~~
wry_discontent
Should I live in the woods as a hermit? Not engage with consumerism? What do I
do with this information?

~~~
nefitty
These questions have been the main source of my frustration. The closest
lifestyle I've encountered that jibes with these ideas is punk. Even then,
taking on the identity of "punk" is like putting on a funny mask over your
original mask and yelling, "Look everyone, it's really me!"

~~~
brbrodude
Have you read up on Moxie Marlinspike stuff? He's an anarchist, sailer,
security researcher, runs WhisperSystems & etc(there's also a documentary he
did on getting an old boat, fixing it, and go sailing with his friends). To me
that's what a non-alienated life looks like, you do stuff you want and love(my
main issue with working for others is that it kills my enjoinment of
programming!).

I think the issue is not about "what lifestyle", thinking is lifestyle terms
seems to be a byproduct of living in the spectacle society itself! To me this
stuff is first and foremost about truth in life, true freedom, but of course
this path is arduous, there are uncountable layers of overly-simplified semi-
truths over us.

------
force_reboot
The problem with the Situationists is that they have _no_ political program.
They refuse to describe how they would like the world to be, instead coming up
with convoluted explanations for why doing so is unnecessary and
counterproductive. The assertion is basically that capitalism is so terrible
that once we get rid of it, things will _obviously_ be much better.

Apologists have tried to fill in the gaps with a utopian vision [1] where we
maintain the a similar standard of living but without wasting energy on
conspicuous consumption. I agree that developing a culture that avoids
conspicuous consumption would probably mean we could get by with less work.
However there would still be enough work leftover to either require
capitalism, or socialist style forced labor, both of which situationists
explicitly reject.

[1] see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Widmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Widmer)

------
mordae
Hmm,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhheiPTdZCw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhheiPTdZCw)
anyone?

(Finish the video before replying.)

------
neilellis
I absolutely loved this when I first read it in the early 90s, it's amazing
how it seems _more_ accurate as time has gone on.

Don't dream here, be-he-here ... ;-)

~~~
MWil
Is that a modified Rocky Horror reference?

------
meatsock
for an excellent and knowledgable look at the si, its origins and legacy read
The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the
Situationist International by McKenzie Wark [1], author of the si influenced
look at technology 2004's A Hacker Manifesto

[https://www.versobooks.com/books/1869-the-beach-beneath-
the-...](https://www.versobooks.com/books/1869-the-beach-beneath-the-street)

------
JohnLeTigre
Thanks :)

This reminded me of the Spectacular Time by Larry Law

------
nils-weiher
Jesus is the only way to a real life

------
JimboOmega
I feel like this XKCD strip is basically Debord's argument in modern terms and
a response it: [https://xkcd.com/1314/](https://xkcd.com/1314/)

And yes in a sense it's strangely prophetic that we now live in a world where
we feel compelled to do things like tweet and instagram and facebook and etc
etc etc.... That we seek out experiences to make a spectacle of them, and that
we see the world that way(e.g.): [https://xkcd.com/77/](https://xkcd.com/77/)

But what I really take issue with is this need to blame it on capitalism, and
not human nature.

We constantly strive to compete with each other, socially - and now we have
means to do so on a much broader scale before. I don't think capitalism has
some sort of "dark agenda" that pushes this forward. Advertisers use this
against us, Facebook taps into it, etc, but it's human nature; one of those
many cognitive biases that causes us to seek what we think we want, not what
will actually make us happy.

Pre historic people were almost certainly showing off to other pre historic
people - and others were watching. Let's not pretend it's just because of
Capitalism we feel compelled to do this.

~~~
samirillian
I do believe that debord was aiming for more than shallow moralizing about the
evils of capitalism. Marx certainly considered capitalism a step forward. But
if we use the word capitalism at all, we are assuming that it constitutes a
useful independent variable for analysis; cultural, sociological, or
otherwise. Debord does a deft job at this analysis, irreducible to the average
complaints about Facebook or twitter. For example, how might Debord's
critiques be applied to the phenomena constituting the Arab Spring? Think
about what sparked the Arab spring. Think about the Egyptian revolutionaries'
adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask. Juxtapose those 'spectacles' against Debord's
observation that 'the "society of the spectacle" offers false models of
revolution.'

imho, these illustrations are probably counter-productive insofar as they turn
debord into a parody of himself, a straw man to knock over, rather than what
he was: a truly dangerous thinker.

