Text by Sven-Olov Wallenstein

Guy Debord and the the Society of the Spectacle
Text: Sven-Olov Wallenstein

Guy Debord’s analysis of the spectacle is presented in his famous and influential 1967 book, La société du spectacle. The theory is rooted in the Situationist movement, within which Debord for a long time was a dominant figure, and which ever since its first beginnings in the 1950s developed an analysis of the role of fantasy and artistic practices in the modern consumer society that emerged after the Second World War.

The book draws on Marx’s Capital and its analysis of the commodity and the alienation produced by modern capitalist societies, although Debord gives this a new twist by emphasizing the role of images, and the way in which power relations in contemporary society are mediated through what he calls the ”spectacle,” which was form was a predominant feature just as much in the capitalist West as in the socialist East.

All the things that used to be experienced immediately – events, personal relations – are today mediated through the spectacle, Debord claims, which has fatal consequences for politics, and for our capacity to grasp and transform society. This is less a consequence of the technological development of the media (whch in this respects has by far superseded anything imaginable in 1967), rather they result from how modern capitalism organizes and exerts domination over social relations. In the spectacle everyone plays their preset parts, and we are made into passive spectators, while we derive a perverse pleasure from seeing the rituals repeated over and over: the star or politician elevated and then thrown down only to satisfy our sadism, and the enjoyment to be had from a just revenge (“he got what he deserved”) makes the thought impossible that the structures producing the spectacle themselves ought to be transformed. The spectacle is a generalized passivity—it is, Debord says, “the sun that never sets in the kingdom of modern passivity,” or, with a similar expression coined by Slavoj Zizek, with reference to the demands for “interactivity” in modern digital culture, fundamentally an “interpassivity.”

Every experience is a surrogate experience, every contact with reality is itself already mediated through a set of clichés—a “simulation” or a “hyperreality,” as the sociologist Jean Baudrillard suggested in an analysis from the same period, although without the romantic appeals to the discovery of unearthing an authentic life behind the spectacle, which are what ultimately motivated the work of the Situationists, both theoretically as well as in their artistic and political interventions.

For Debord, the society of the spectavle constitutes the ultimate triumph of the logic of commodities and commodity fetishism, where society begins to perceive itself as a commodity; the images of advertising promise a more true world, while human relations become increasingly reified. The “star” or “celebrity” thus becomes the perfect screen for the projection of a better life, in a compensatory fantasy within which our desires may come true, while this life on the everyday level appears even more impossible. In the same way politics is absorbed in the spectacle and stars from entertainment an media penetrate into politics, providing us with a magic fascination before the ritual fight over mediatic space, while all alternatives become increasingly “unrealistic,” i. e foreign to the reality that has been cut and edited according to a media logic. This is why Debord can claim that the spectacle is ideology par excellence: it fulfills the innermost desire of all ideologies, to subject everyday life to its operations, so that it eventually appears as a bi-product of ideology itself, and the idea of society becomes sovereign in a kind of absolute idealism: the spectacle “does not realize philosophy, it philosophizes reality.”

Debord’s analyses may seem nightmarish, and to some extent they are. But this book must also be seen as a culmination and a summary, in some respects reductive, of the long trajectory of Situationism from the early 1950s onward (the movement was officially founded in 1957, through a merger of various earlier avant-garde groups), within which many productive counterstrategies had been developed, which allowed the cracks in the universal “system” to be read as strategic openings. So for instance the technique of “détournement,” i.e., to use and infiltrate existing imagery and messages from the spectacles of advertising and politics by turning the power of the spectacle back on itself (the ideas on “appropriation” that would later be developed in the ‘80s are deeplu indebted to Situationism, even though was strangely enough rarely mentioned). Similarly, the methods of “drifting” (derive) in the city in order to map its “psychogeography” could become a way to trace and uncover hidden social force fields beyond the functional grid, and open for what the sociologist Henri Lefebvre, one of the movement’s great sources of inspiration, called a “critique of everyday life” (to be understood as a discovery of those potentials for revolt and disruption that exists in the moments of ordinary life once we learn to seem them as potential “situations”). In their fascination with the potentials of urban space, the Situationists were the heirs both of the 19th century flâneurs as they have been analyzed from Baudelaire to Benjamin, and of the attempts in Surrealism to read the city as a piece of magic nature, and their influence on contemporary theories of urban space is as vast as it diffuse.

The concept of the “society of the spectacle” has also exerted a vast influence on contemporary media theory, even though often in a way that makes Debord’s intentions difficult to recognize. A pervasive tendency has however been that the utopian dimension, the belief that there somewhere exists a pure and true life that would somehow precede medialization and that could be rediscovered behind its clichés, today has been displaced by the idea of a continual mediation, within which the position of “nature” is something unceasingly recreated as a fantasy and a vanishing point inside each system. The true life is not to be found somewhere else, in another time and another space, it is a function the present spaces and times that we inhabit, and it must constantly be invented anew.

And yet, this turn away from a residual romantic may be understood as a development of the artistic, practices of Situationism, within which the issue was to locate vanishing points in our present condition, and to create situations with a transformational potential. Guy Debord’s Society of the Spectacle is in this sense a highly ambivalent document, and it must be read with caution, with an eye to what it does not contain: written at a time when the movement was disintegrating and its influence was about to become extinct (the role of Situationism in May 69 is highly apocryphal), not least because of Debord’s own dictatorial leadership, it may appear as one of the most pessimistic documents of modern utopianism. In its theoretical closure, it risks entrenching the highly multifaceted practices of Situationism in a theoretical model that renders them invisible, while these practices today more than ever remains to be rediscovered and reinvented in a world increasingly dominated by the power of images.

Sven-Olov Wallenstein is a lecturer and researcher in philosophy and aesthetics at University of Södertörn, and the editor-in-chief of Site.