Situationism and Post-Modernism

[YSR]

Several times on this forum when I've made use of the word "spectacle," that word and the Marxist movement associated with it (Situationism) have been derided as "post-modern" in the worst sense of the word.

What I don't understand is this: what the hell does this have to do with post-modernism? I have a pretty good grasp of what post-modernism is, but I can't figure out how a modern Marxist critique of society and economics based on the Debordian concept of the spectacular society is at all post-modern.

Can someone (perhaps Permanent Revolution, who has done this frequently) clear this up and explain how these two concepts overlap?

[KC]

I don't get it, either. The spectacle is basically a part of cultural hegemony, which is a theory developed by Gramsci.

I think it might have to do with the idea that superstructure is more important than infrastructure, which is a set of theories developed by many "post-Marxists" such as the Frankfurt School and is commonly referred to as post-modern. However, I don't really see how it could be thrown in with these theories, as it's analyzing a part of superstructure and isn't putting it above infrastructure.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I learned the hard way that there's no such thing as Situation"ism" but there are Situationists. It's about building a self-theory rather than one cut-and-dried doctrine. (I think.)

[black magick hustla]

what happens is that some pomos like baudrillard argue that the line between reality and virtual reality is being blurred, and thus we are entering "hyperreality". for example, mmorpgs are a very good example of what hyperreality is.

this theory was developed from situationist analysis.

[SPK]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 24, 2007 01:49 am
What I don't understand is this: what the hell does this have to do with post-modernism? I have a pretty good grasp of what post-modernism is, but I can't figure out how a modern Marxist critique of society and economics based on the Debordian concept of the spectacular society is at all post-modern.
I'm not too familiar with situationism. What are its distinctive characteristics? In particular, what do you think makes it different from pomo theory?

[JazzRemington]

The Spectacle is a social relationship that is mediated by images. It's how you appear to others, or how closely you appear to the images. For example, how many times have you heard about how people look down on someone for not looking similiar to the latest fashion craze?

Second, it's the by-product of "reification," the defense mechanism of Capitalism where everything that is a challenge to it (read: anarchism, communism, the hippies, punk rock, etc.) is "captured," re-packaged, and re-sold as something safe and sedated. Thus, it is intergrated into the Spectacle.

[YSR]

Why the hell this got moved to learning is beyond me, but whatever. I'm asking this not because I want an answer but because I think there is no answer.


Originally posted by Juan+--> (Juan)I learned the hard way that there's no such thing as Situation"ism" but there are Situationists.[/b]

Yeah, I know. My point is that the spectacle, as a situationist concept, is derided as post-modern and I simply don't see what these two things have to do with each other.


Marmot
what happens is that some pomos like baudrillard argue that the line between reality and virtual reality is being blurred, and thus we are entering "hyperreality".

Okay, I'm not familiar with that particular thinker. In any case, isn't nearly all post-modernist thinking a product of Marxist thinkers?

[Adornian]

Depressingly, all of the arguments given so far are rather unsatisfactory. The issue at stake is a matter of the traditional dichotomy of form and content, whether that be expressed as a matter of society as a whole, or a particular political action. For situationists there is an identity of form and content in political action. The intention becomes the outcome, and within the context of a world in which all intentions are matters of some kind of false consciousness the outcome is falsified. Ok, so that's a bit problematic and complex, so we can look at it in relation to more orthodox Marxist theory. For the trotskyist, for example, we have the transitional demand, the obsession with the transformation of society such that there is a renewed sense of subjectivity (albeit a collective subjectivity). This type of demand necessitates the dichotomy of form and content. The content of the demand is that of subjectivity whilst the content is a critique of objectivity. The situationists make a logical leap that to critique an object one must approach it as a subject would. For them the criticism of the object (usually some monolithic model of society) is in itself the realisation of the subjectivity that the criticism demands. This is, of course, highly problematic, as it removes any serious analysis of the material conditions in which a critique of society come about.

In terms of relating to this to some kind of post-modern theory, what we can see in situationist analysis (or lack thereof), is a means of falsification of all forms of consciouness whether they be collective or not. The lack of transformatory demands leaves this kind of movement in a static 'space' in which critique simply becomes 'reified' and disempowered. You will hopefully see why this is so problematic for Marxists. The 'space' the situationist or spectacular critique is intentional to is the here and now, society 'as it is', whereas the space that marxist critique and social demands are intentional to is not really a space at all, but rather the dynamistic quality of a space (if that makes any sense).

[BreadBros]

Depressingly, all of the arguments given so far are rather unsatisfactory. The issue at stake is a matter of the traditional dichotomy of form and content, whether that be expressed as a matter of society as a whole, or a particular political action. For situationists there is an identity of form and content in political action. The intention becomes the outcome, and within the context of a world in which all intentions are matters of some kind of false consciousness the outcome is falsified. Ok, so that's a bit problematic and complex, so we can look at it in relation to more orthodox Marxist theory. For the trotskyist, for example, we have the transitional demand, the obsession with the transformation of society such that there is a renewed sense of subjectivity (albeit a collective subjectivity). This type of demand necessitates the dichotomy of form and content. The content of the demand is that of subjectivity whilst the content is a critique of objectivity. The situationists make a logical leap that to critique an object one must approach it as a subject would. For them the criticism of the object (usually some monolithic model of society) is in itself the realisation of the subjectivity that the criticism demands. This is, of course, highly problematic, as it removes any serious analysis of the material conditions in which a critique of society come about.

Well, I followed you up to the concluding sentence. I see the difference (between Situationism and Trotskyism) you're trying to clarify, but I fail to see how that prevents Situationists from "any serious analysis of material conditions". What constitutes a serious analysis of material conditions as opposed to a non-serious one in your view? Most Situationists would argue that the "unity of form and content" as you put it is precisely what allows a revolutionary analysis of society to not only exist but materialize. It seems like youre just elucidating a difference and then simply concluding that this difference proves "orthodox Marxist theory" is better without any explanation of why. Also, transitional demands were put forward by the Bolsheviks and others as necessities in light of the real revolutionary situations they were fighting in, necessary tactical manuevers. It seems to me that the elevation of transitional demands into some form of dogma related to any kind of dichotomy is more or less an invention of academics rather than anything in the Marxist tradition.


In terms of relating to this to some kind of post-modern theory, what we can see in situationist analysis (or lack thereof), is a means of falsification of all forms of consciouness whether they be collective or not.

How does Situationism falsify all forms of consciousness? It seems to be arguing to me that a revolutionary subjectivist viewpoint is a product of capitalist society. As to its collective nature - thats simply a product of the class makeup of any society, so I'm not sure how Situationist analysis could posit that nor how its related to Post-modernism.


The lack of transformatory demands leaves this kind of movement in a static 'space' in which critique simply becomes 'reified' and disempowered.

Okay, but you haven't explained how you came to this viewpoint. In fact Situationism argues that it is the dichotomy of form and content (transitional demands) that has made older leftist movements inert and subject to reification. Debord's idea of the spectacle directly talks about this.


You will hopefully see why this is so problematic for Marxists.

It doesnt seem to be problematic for most Marxists. In fact it seems to provide a clear, materialist understanding of cultural forces and how they involve politics. It IS problematic for some Marxists in that it would argue that their form of organizing or political action is essentially 'dead' or archaic, which is not something they would want to hear. To answer the original question of the thread, I think its quite simple:
-Situationist theory challenges many of the pre-conceived ideas the traditional left has, especially on political action and organization
-Post-modernism tends to be either not-understood by the public, or looked down upon because it is pretty elitist in language and based upon often meaningless abstractions
-Therefore the "pomo" label is easy to throw at any political opponents, hard to counter due to the vague nature of postmodernism and therefore a great weapon to use in propaganda, just like many Marxist groups try to use a critique of Proudhon's lifestyle and the such to discredit all of anarchism


The 'space' the situationist or spectacular critique is intentional to is the here and now, society 'as it is', whereas the space that marxist critique and social demands are intentional to is not really a space at all, but rather the dynamistic quality of a space (if that makes any sense).

No, im not really sure what the "dynamistic quality of a space" is. If you're simply referring to the historical or economic dynamics at work then that would seem to encompass any look at "the here and now". It also seems bizarre to argue that authentic Marxism looks at some abstracted vision of reality or "quality of space", while fake Marxism looks at the "here and now" (aka reality). Should be the reverse.

[Adornian]

Well, I followed you up to the concluding sentence. I see the difference (between Situationism and Trotskyism) you're trying to clarify, but I fail to see how that prevents Situationists from "any serious analysis of material conditions". What constitutes a serious analysis of material conditions as opposed to a non-serious one in your view?
The point is, that anyone can be a situationist. The impetus behind the action is unimportant. Marxists argue that the impetus for revolutionary actions is based in the material conditions, and some kind of collective consciousness derived from collective material conditions. For the situationist this is unimportant compared to the self-realisation of one's autonomy, and it is very difficult to pin down what can give rise to this, compared to the economic analysis that Marxists often give.


Most Situationists would argue that the "unity of form and content" as you put it is precisely what allows a revolutionary analysis of society to not only exist but materialize.
Yes, but my point is that they are wrong to believe this, as it ultimately results in an individualistic epistemology with reformist demands.


Also, transitional demands were put forward by the Bolsheviks and others as necessities in light of the real revolutionary situations they were fighting in, necessary tactical manuevers. It seems to me that the elevation of transitional demands into some form of dogma related to any kind of dichotomy is more or less an invention of academics rather than anything in the Marxist tradition.
There's a contemporary pamphlet by Trotsky on this. Hardly some anachronistic invention to explain away bits of early soviet policy.

How does Situationism falsify all forms of consciousness?
Situationism has a very weighty emphasis on the phenomenological. There is no 'immanent critique' of the system, rather there is the possibility of extracting oneself (through extracting one's consciousness) from the system in order to externally attack it. This means that the situationist consciousness is falsified by the system (although they will tell you that it means that the situationist consciousness can effectively undermine the system). It's a result of some rather ropey dialectical logic that says that whilst we remain in conflict with the system our ideas never achieve autonomy. The way to achieve autonomy then, for the situationists, is to avoid the system, whereas for the Marxists 'the point, however, is to change it' :P. To de-problematise the dialectic should be to achieve some kind of syntheses rather than to reify the two antitheses, undermine their dynamism, and then attack the hell out of the one you choose.

It doesnt seem to be problematic for most Marxists. In fact it seems to provide a clear, materialist understanding of cultural forces and how they involve politics.
Politics in the reformist sense, you mean???


No, im not really sure what the "dynamistic quality of a space" is. If you're simply referring to the historical or economic dynamics at work then that would seem to encompass any look at "the here and now". It also seems bizarre to argue that authentic Marxism looks at some abstracted vision of reality or "quality of space", while fake Marxism looks at the "here and now" (aka reality). Should be the reverse.
The question one is forced to ask is whether the current reality has been problematised enough. The answer, of course, is that it can never be problematised enough. Dealing with the here and now is all well and good as long as one understands (as the situationists refuse to) that modernity is, as Horkheimer put it, the totality of history. The weird abstraction is to see a space or category named 'here and now', in which ones attacks on authority can take place. The attacks on authority need to take place in a meta-category called 'heres and nows', that is, the impulse must be the demand of a systemic change rather than systematic opting out from the system. Let these two not be confused in what we regard as Marxist 'organisation' or praxis.

Can I just make this clear, I am not wholly against situationism, it has its place. I just think that its broadly undertheorised. As for post-modernism, I'm far more keen on bits of theory that most Marxists despise.

[The Grey Blur]

Can someone (perhaps Permanent Revolution, who has done this frequently) clear this up and explain how these two concepts overlap?
When have I done this?

...

[BreadBros]

The point is, that anyone can be a situationist. The point is, that anyone can be a situationist. The impetus behind the action is unimportant. Marxists argue that the impetus for revolutionary actions is based in the material conditions, and some kind of collective consciousness derived from collective material conditions. For the situationist this is unimportant compared to the self-realisation of one's autonomy, and it is very difficult to pin down what can give rise to this, compared to the economic analysis that Marxists often give.

Its to my understanding that any revolutionary impetus is the same in Marxism and Situationism. Debord and the rest all speak of alienation, exploitation and the traditional "economy of seperation" of capitalism, so I'm not exactly sure what leads you to think that "anyone can be a situationist", maybe a quote or something would clear that up.


Yes, but my point is that they are wrong to believe this, as it ultimately results in an individualistic epistemology with reformist demands.

How can any Situationism epistemology be individualistic? Its based upon social and economic conditions, therefore its inherently within the social sphere. As far as reformist demands, it seems to me that its major manifestation in 68 was anything but reformist, in fact it attacked the very reformist ostensibly-working class parties that eventually contributed to the destruction of the revolt. Post-1968 it seems to be one of the strain of thoughts that is most revolutionary in terms of it's demands. What are some examples of Situationists getting caught up in the unity of form and content and making reformist demands?


There's a contemporary pamphlet by Trotsky on this. Hardly some anachronistic invention to explain away bits of early soviet policy.

I don't think I said it was aimed at "explaining away bits of early societ policy". What I said is that academic thinkers have tended in the past to add metaphysical weight to revolutionary actions that were ultimately strategic/tactical. I could very well imagine Trotsky or Lenin urging a particular transitionary demand for strategic reasons (say, being to weak to win on an all-out battle with the bourgeoisie) and that consequently being canonized as some sort of comment on the dichotomy of form and content. I may be wrong about that (Im certainly no Trotsky expert) but a quote or source would be nice so we'd know what were actually talking about concretely.


Situationism has a very weighty emphasis on the phenomenological. There is no 'immanent critique' of the system, rather there is the possibility of extracting oneself (through extracting one's consciousness) from the system in order to externally attack it. This means that the situationist consciousness is falsified by the system (although they will tell you that it means that the situationist consciousness can effectively undermine the system). It's a result of some rather ropey dialectical logic that says that whilst we remain in conflict with the system our ideas never achieve autonomy. The way to achieve autonomy then, for the situationists, is to avoid the system, whereas for the Marxists 'the point, however, is to change it' :P. To de-problematise the dialectic should be to achieve some kind of syntheses rather than to reify the two antitheses, undermine their dynamism, and then attack the hell out of the one you choose.

Actually, I believe Situationists don't argue that consciousness is falsified. Most of the anti-work tracts and polemics on daily life argue that the consciousness of a worker is inherently set against capitalist production. The spectacle attempts to act against this by shifting ground and producing "spectacular" recuperation of any anti-capitalist attack, which also explains your bit about the different views on any dialectical struggle. Nor do Situationists argue to "avoid the system" really. They may argue to reject work, school, consumerism, etc. but the point of the action is to destroy those institutions, not to individually avoid them. Do you also consider strikes to be "avoiding the system" instead of changing them?


The question one is forced to ask is whether the current reality has been problematised enough. The answer, of course, is that it can never be problematised enough. Dealing with the here and now is all well and good as long as one understands (as the situationists refuse to) that modernity is, as Horkheimer put it, the totality of history.

Materially speaking, there is no "totality of history", at least not until humanity dies out or the world is destroyed. Ideas are products of material interactions, so as long as humans live, ideas will continue to be produced. Assuming humans continue a long stay in the universe and develop new material relations, ideas will likely continue to change as well.

Its a bit difficult to understand what you're saying since I've never read Horkheimer and "modernity" is a word with a very broad umbrella of meanings. Assuming he just means it in the cultural context, then hes been proved wrong already since his death by the emergence of post-modern cultural manifestations.

Nevertheless, it seems to be that the rejection of philosophy as dead and inert and adoption of a living materialist analysis of material society as it exists physically was one of the strengths of Situationism that granted them the success that they experiened. It also seems to be more genuinely in line with Marxism, of course it all depends on your conception of Marx. The Frankfurt School has accomplished very little outside of academia, and even some of that is fairly stale by now.


The weird abstraction is to see a space or category named 'here and now', in which ones attacks on authority can take place.

Its not a weird abstraction becaause its not an abstraction. The space or category "here and now" refers to the geophysical location I'm present in and the current moment of existence. Its called reality and I don't see whats so "weird" about assuming that we can only attack authority where we actually physically exist.


The attacks on authority need to take place in a meta-category called 'heres and nows', that is, the impulse must be the demand of a systemic change rather than systematic opting out from the system.

This sentence doesn't make much logical sense. OK, so you're arguing that we should "demand change" of the system rather than "opting out". Explain to me how that leads to the creation of a "meta-category" of existence, and more importantly, what that means? To be honest it sounds somewhat non-sensical.


Let these two not be confused in what we regard as Marxist 'organisation' or praxis.


Very few individuals advocate opting out of the system, mostly primitivists and some who believe mutualist societies can be brought into existence.



Can I just make this clear, I am not wholly against situationism, it has its place. I just think that its broadly undertheorised. As for post-modernism, I'm far more keen on bits of theory that most Marxists despise.

The metaphysical ones?