Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Spectacle and Détournement : The Situationists' Critique of Modern Capitalist Society

2012; Routledge; Volume: 40; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00111619.2012.664726

1748-8605

Julian Eagles,

Art, Politics, and Modernism

Abstract The rise of the so-called ‘anti-globalization’ movement saw a renewed interest, amongst some sections of this movement, in the ideas of the Situationists. The Situationists developed a global critique of modern capitalist society. With this in mind, this article assesses the coherence of the Situationists' critique as a global theory of social change. In the article I examine the Situationists' concept of the spectacle by undertaking an ‘immanent critique’. The article argues that a tension exists between the two central claims of Situationist theory: that modern capitalist society, compared with capitalist society prior to its emergence as ‘the spectacle’, has stronger powers of domination and mystification; and, that proletarian revolution is highly likely to take place against spectacular society. It is suggested that, within the framework of Situationist theory, this tension can be lessened provided proletarian revolution is considered as a process that is not entirely spontaneous. Further, it is argued that, if Situationist theory is to account not only for a transient ‘proletarian revolution’, but also for the possibility of a revolution that endures, then a (nonspectacular) revolutionary avant-garde would need to be conceptualized as an organization that intervenes more than the Situationists suggest. Keywords: SpectacleSituationistsDebordVaneigemAlienationConsumptionFreud's Theory of the InstinctsProletarian RevolutionDétournement Notes 1The Situationist International (SI) was founded in 1957 and dissolved itself in 1972. It was formed by ‘artists’ who had previously been members of various European artistic avant-garde organizations. The group initially concerned itself with culturally subversive activities. By the early 1960s a more ‘politically’ orientated strategy was developed in a quest to realize the unification of art and life. Throughout the group's existence, 12 issues of the magazine Internationale situationniste appeared. Just prior to the May 1968 uprising of students and workers in France, the group's two major theorists, Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem, published the following books: Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, transl. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Zone Books, 1995 [1967]) (also transl. Ken Knabb (London: Rebel Press, 2004 [1967])); and Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution of Everyday Life, transl. Donald Nicholson-Smith (London: Left Bank Books and Rebel Press, 1994 [1967]). 2See Norman Geras, ‘Essence and Appearance: Aspects of Fetishism in Marx's Capital’, New Left Review, 65: (1971) 69–85, for a discussion of commodity fetishism and its imposition on people as domination and mystification, which he suggests are ‘intimately related’. 3Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 256–258. 4Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., paras 36–38; Ken Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology (Berkeley, CA: Bureau of Public Secrets, 2006 [1981]), pp. 167–168, 179. Within the Situationists' oeuvre both the claim that the spectacle dominates all lived experience and the claim that the spectacle dominates almost all lived experience are made. When the thought of the various Situationist thinkers—whilst the Situationist International remained in existence—is taken into consideration, I think that the broad thrust of Situationist theory suggests that the spectacle dominates almost all lived experience. Indeed, Debord, commenting on his book The Society of the Spectacle 20 years after its publication, summarized his earlier view of the spectacle and remarked that in its diffuse form ‘a small part’ of society ‘escaped it’ (Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, transl. Malcolm Imrie (London: Verso, 1990 [1988]), p. 9). Although we must bear in mind that Debord made this comment 20 years after his book was published, I think that it does nevertheless encapsulate the general stance of the Situationist group. 5Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., paras 40, 41. 6Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 42. 7Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, op. cit., p. 8. In this article I shall not, owing to limitations of space, deal with Debord's thought following the dissolution of the Situationist International (SI); or, indeed, the post SI thought of Vaneigem. 8Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 65. 9Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 64. 10Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 64. 11Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 25. 12Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 20. 13Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., paras 20, 25. 14Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., paras 20, 25. 16Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 20. 15Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, op. cit., p. 3. 17Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 31. 18As regards the distinction between commodity fetishism and reification, Adam Schaff lucidly comments on this as follows: ‘The categories “fetishism” and “reification” are organically linked with each other; are, in fact, different expressions of the same social relationship which consists in the obscuring of relations between persons by the relation of things. The theory of fetishism declares that the commodity takes on the traits of a fetish when the value-relation appears on the surface as a relation between commodities and not between the persons creating these commodities whose labour is the basis of the exchange value of the commodity. The theory of reification proclaims that relations between people appear on the surface as relations between things and in this sense become “reified”. Both theories speak about the same thing, with the difference that the theory of fetishism deals with this relation from the aspect of the commodity-thing which assumes a human trait alien to it and becomes a type of fetish; the theory of reification approaches this same relationship from the aspect of relations between persons which have been endowed with a thing-like character, which have been reified’ (Adam Schaff, Alienation as a Social Phenomenon (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980), pp. 80–81). 19Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., p. 11. 20The Situationists took the concept of ‘everyday life’ from Henri Lefebvre—see his Critique of Everyday Life Volume 1: Introduction, transl. John Moore (London: Verso, 1991 [1947]). 21Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 197. 22Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 51. 23Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 40. 24Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 47. 25Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 42. 26In The Revolution of Everyday Life Vaneigem quotes what he believes to be an apposite remark by General Eisenhower: ‘To save the economy, we must buy, buy anything’ (1994, p. 67). 27Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 121. 28Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 159. 29Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 49. 30Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 15. 31Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 6; Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 128. 32Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 25. 33Ken Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology (Berkeley, CA: Bureau of Public Secrets, 1989 [1981]), p. 104. 34This is not to suggest that the Situationists believe all images are false. To quote Debord: ‘The reigning deceptions of the time are on the point of making us forget that the truth may also be found in images. An image that has not been deliberately separated from its meaning adds great precision and certainty to knowledge’ (Guy Debord, Panegyric Volumes 1 & 2, transl. James Brook and John McHale (London: Verso, 2004 [1989]), p. 73). 35Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 2004, op. cit., para 49. 36Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., paras 46, 47, 48, 49; Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 136. Note that for Marx exchange-value is the form of appearance of value, and abstract labour is the substance of value. Abstract labour refers to ‘human labour in general’ (Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990 [1867]), p. 142), which is represented in commodities—‘their common quality’ (ibid.), and enables each commodity to exchange with other commodities as equivalents. 37Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 49. 38Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 49. 39For a reference in Marx's writings to the inverting power of money see his 1844 ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’ in Early Writings (London: Penguin 1992 [1974]), pp. 375–379. 40Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 81, 191; Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., para 69. There is, however, one role, that is above all other roles, which gives access to the whole realm of consumption and appears to bring forth total fulfilment; this is the role of the consumption celebrity. By identifying with stars of consumption, people live vicariously through them and attain some compensation for their fragmented lives (Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., paras 60, 61). 41Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995 and 2004, op. cit., para 69. 42Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 138. 43Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 66. 44Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 253. 45Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 252. 46Vaneigem, op. cit., chap. 23. I think the Situationists' claim that inauthentic life in spectacular society feeds on authentically felt desires rests upon a conception of human nature which, to some extent, follows that put forward by Marx. The Situationists, following Marx, outline an ‘essentialist’ element to the nature of human beings—the need for food and shelter as well as the capacities for creativity and love. That said, the Situationists' remarks concerning the human ‘essence’ go beyond Marx given that they add the capacity to play as an aspect of human nature. In this regard, I think the Situationists assume that play becomes modified in different historical periods; that is to say, they believe the activity of play is not fixed throughout history. For a discussion of the issue of Marx and human nature see Ian Forbes, Marx and the New Individual (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), pp. 41–53. 47Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 237. 48Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 248. 49Creativity, for the Situationists, is something that all individuals possess, and it relates to ‘art’—that is, in the sense that everyone can become an artist—and a work of art relates to the construction of a passionate life (Vaneigem, op. cit. pp. 194, 202). As regards the notion of play, real play, as opposed to false or spectacular play, is, for the Situationists, an activity through which human beings can achieve self-realization. It is a pleasurable activity that entails ‘rejection of all leaders and all hierarchies; rejection of self-sacrifice; rejection of roles;’ and, the establishment of ‘transparent social relationships’ (ibid., p. 258). 50For references to ‘false desires’ in the Situationists' oeuvre see Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 223 and Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 429. 51Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 252–254. 52Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 133. 53Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 59; Vaneigem, op. cit., chap. 23. 54Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, para 29. 55Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 106. This claim is made in an unsigned article in the magazine Internationale situationniste. I assume that unsigned articles express the collective view of the Situationist group. 56René Viénet was a member of the Situationist International from 1963 to 1971. 57René Viénet, Enragés and Situationists in the Occupation Movement, France, May '68 (New York: Autonomedia, 1992 [1968]), p. 87. 58See Herbert Marcuse, One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (London: Routledge, 1991 [1964]). 59What I think the Situationists allude to, when they refer to spectacular society harnessing the pleasurable passions of creativity, play and love—so that individuals can experience ‘pseudo-gratification’ (Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 59)—is that the spectacle manipulates the sexual instinctual drive. 60Situationist theory, I think, alludes to the notion that it is the allure of pleasure in the realm of consumption that adds to the mystification of workers when in the domain of work—wage labour. As regards the idea that labour is not pleasurable, I think the Situationists believe that to the extent any labour would remain to be undertaken in a post-capitalist society, it could not become fully pleasurable and creative; and, hence, could not be transformed into the activity of real play—for further details, see my PhD thesis. J. Eagles, ‘Situationist Theory: its origins, concepts and place in modern European thought’ (PhD thesis, London School of Economics, 2005). 61The Situationists took the concept of alienation from Karl Marx—see the ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’ of 1844 (Early Writings (London: Penguin, 1992 [1974])); they also adopted his related concept of commodity fetishism outlined in Capital Volume One (Marx, Capital, op. cit., chap. 1). They took another related concept, reification, from George Lukács—see History and Class Consciousness (London: Merlin Press, 1983 [1923]). Lukács argued that it is only proletarians at the point of material production who are in a position to contest reification (ibid., pp. 171–172; Andrew Feenberg, Lukács, Marx, and the Sources of Critical Theory (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986 [1981]), pp. 161–162; Andrew Arato and Paul Breines, The Young Lukács and the Origins of Western Marxism (London: Pluto Press, 1979), p. 134). The Situationists, however, maintain that reification can be contested by proletarians (both worker-consumers and socially marginalized groups) whether within or outside the sphere of work. 62For references to the ‘distractions’ of spectacular society see Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 59; Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 67, 90, 231, 235; Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 94. 63Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 2004, op. cit., para 64. 64Vaneigem suggests that Freud made a ‘mistake’ with his later formulation of a death instinct (op. cit., 1994, p. 162). 65Debord maintains that the concentrated spectacle's bureaucratic economy ‘must be enforced by permanent violence’ (Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 2004, op. cit., para 64); I think this implies that fear assists with the reproduction of the concentrated spectacle. Furthermore, Vaneigem remarks that ‘a whole spectacle is organised around particular sufferings’, such as ‘asylums and prisons’, so that ‘those whose fear of going in there makes them rejoice to be on the outside’ (op. cit., 1994, p. 47); I think the implication here is that fear plays some role in the functioning of spectacular society—whether, it seems, in its concentrated or diffuse forms. 67Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 2004, op. cit., para 57. 66Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 2004, op. cit., para 111; 1995, op. cit., para 57. 68Debord also suggests that as the ‘global alliance of pseudo-socialist bureaucracies’ starts to disintegrate, the bourgeoisie in the diffuse spectacular societies begins to lose a pillar of its support (ibid., para 111). 69Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 135, 179–180. 70Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 111. 71Just how broad the Situationists' concept of the proletariat is, becomes clear in the following passage: ‘In the context of the reality presently beginning to take shape, we may consider as proletarians all people who have no possibility of altering the social space–time that the society allots to them (regardless of variations in their degree of affluence or chances for promotion). The rulers are those who organize this space time, or who at least have a significant margin of personal choice’ (Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 141). I think that the Situationists do not, however, consider the peasantry to be a part of the proletariat (Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 114). 72The Situationists—in general—consider that proletarian revolution will take place against a ‘well-functioning capitalist economy’ (Viénet, op. cit., p. 121). 73Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 168. 74Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 168. Implicit in this example is the notion that it is through ‘proletarian revolution’ that the individual's pleasurable (real) desires can be genuinely realized. 75Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 168. 76Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 15–16. 77Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 230. 78Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, pp. 14–21; Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., paras 206–208. 79Hans Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-Art (London: Thames & Hudson, 1978), pp. 88–89; Dawn Ades, Neil Cox and David Hopkins, Marcel Duchamp (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1999), pp. 122–131. 80Ades et al., op. cit., chap. 7. 81Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 62. 82Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 52. 83Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 10. 84Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, pp. 1–8, 38–39. 85The Situationists suggest that constructed situations are ephemeral moments of life which are ‘designed to be lived by … [their] … constructors’ (Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 40–42). They consider that, to the extent people consume the commodified goods and roles offered to them, they become passive spectators of their own lives. It is, however, through the construction of situations that people come to live life actively in accordance with their real desires. 86Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 191. 87Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 202. 88Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 429. 89Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 429. This notion of rebellion as a playful festival has been taken up and utilized by some sections of the ‘anti-globalization’ movement; for instance, the street parties and carnivals against capitalism seen in the protests against international gatherings of world leaders—such as at G8, World Bank and EU summits. 90Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 191–192. 91I think that, when Vaneigem uses the term ‘spontaneity’ in chapter 20 of The Revolution of Everyday Life, he alludes to détournement. 92Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 264. 93Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 194. 94For the Situationists' analysis of the riots that took place in the Watts district of Los Angeles in 1965 see ‘The Decline and Fall of the Spectacle-Commodity Economy’ in Knabb (ed.) Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 194–203; for their analysis of the May 1968 uprising in France see ‘The Beginning of an Era’ in ibid., pp. 288–325 and Viénet, op. cit. 95Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 289. 96Viénet, op. cit., p. 13. 97Viénet, op. cit., p. 13. To quote Viénet: ‘those who were able to develop the clearest consciousness recognized the total theory of the revolution as their own’. 98Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., paras 119–121; Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 199, 273; Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 112–113, 285–286, 380–382. At times, Vaneigem does make comments that, I think, are suggestive of the notion that proletarian revolution is a process that takes place in a purely spontaneous fashion; for example, he remarks in The Revolution of Everyday Life that ‘[t]he organisation of spontaneity will be the work of spontaneity itself’ (op. cit., p. 203). Now, these comments might appear to lessen the tension between the two central claims of Situationist theory (see above) so that the theory can account for the possibility of a revolution that endures. However, if we also take into account the Situationists' analysis of the Watts riots of 1965 and the May 1968 uprising in France—as I believe we must, given the importance that the Situationists place on these rebellions within their thought—then the notion that proletarian revolution takes place in a purely spontaneous manner cannot be considered a way that stabilizes Situationist theory. 99T.J. Clark, who was briefly a member of the Situationist International, has, together with a number of other members of the ‘Retort’ group, written about the 9/11 events. Retort put forward ‘the notion … of September 11 as a moment of image-defeat’ (Retort, T.J. Clark et al., Afflicted Powers: Capital and Spectacle in a New Age of War (London: Verso, 2006 [2005]), p. 200). For further details see ibid. I shall not, however, in this article, discuss the assessment of 9/11 by Clark et al. given that they state that they depart from Debord and ‘[t]he version of “spectacle” with which … [they] operate is minimal, pragmatic, and matter of fact’ (ibid., p. 19). It is because I am undertaking an ‘immanent critique’ of Situationist theory, as this was formulated in the group's heyday (during the 1960s), that I only deal with the 9/11 events vis-à-vis the Situationists' original formulation of the notion of spectacle. 100Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., pp. 288–289. 101Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 197. 102Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 121. 103Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 69. 104For a discussion of active nihilism see Vaneigem, op. cit., pp. 179–182. 105Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 164. 106Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 122. 107Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 175. 108Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 176. 109Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 110. 110Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, 2006, op. cit., p. 185. 111Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 111. 112Knabb (ed.), Situationist International Anthology, p. 317. 113I am indebted here to Brian Morris (Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom (Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1993)) for elucidating Bakunin's conception of a secret society. 114This would, of course, rule out an organization such as a Leninist party, as the Situationists consider such an organization to be part of the spectacle given its hierarchical structure, its opposition to the workers’ councils, and so on. For the Situationists, a revolutionary avant-garde organization strives for ‘revolutionary coherence’ (Vaneigem, op. cit., p. 273; Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 121). To quote Debord: ‘the revolutionary organization cannot allow the conditions of division and hierarchy that obtain in the dominant society to be reproduced within itself. It must also fight constantly against its own distortion by and within the reigning spectacle. The only restriction on individual participation in the revolutionary organization's total democracy is that imposed by the effective recognition and appropriation by each member of the coherence of the organization's critique, a coherence that must be borne out both in critical theory proper and in the relationship between that theory and practical activity’ (Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 1995, op. cit., para 121).