[STUDY GROUP] Society of the Spectacle

[coda]

Have we done The Society of the Spectacle? If not, we should.

I know FOB and a bunch of others was interested a few months ago.

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/4

and this should be in study groups, of someone can so kindly move it!

[Raúl Duke]

I've read "the society of the spectacle" (however, my copy is in the house in Miami...I'm currently in PR)

I would like there to be a study group on it...I found it very difficult to understand.

[apathy maybe]

Treason (http://treason.metadns.cx/) publish a pamphlet called an imbecile’s guide to the Spectacle (http://ledland.pollon.com.au/Treason/Pamphlets/ImbecilesGuideToTheSpectacle_consecutive.pdf) (alternative link at libcom.org (http://libcom.org/files/Imbeciles%20Guide%20to%20the%20Spectacle1.pdf)(war ning PDF!)) which is apparently quite good. It is recommended that it is read before actually reading Society of the Spectacle, because it explains things quite well.


Edit: Fixed the link so that it is easier to read on the screen, the other link went to the print version. You can still find the print version by following the links from the Treason website above.

[coda]

Cool. Thanks Apathy Maybe.
Are you going to read along with us?

I think 3 minimum to run the group.

So, we'll keep this post up for a week, and in 7 days, Tuesday the 24th, we'll start reading-- given there are three or more people.


Can one of the administration people move this to the Study Forum. Thank you!

[apathy maybe]

Meh, while I do have time for this sort of thing, I dislike reading texts such as this online. If I had access to an off line copy...

I'll skim through http://ledland.pollon.com.au/Treason/Pamph...consecutive.pdf (http://ledland.pollon.com.au/Treason/Pamphlets/ImbecilesGuideToTheSpectacle_consecutive.pdf) again as well. It'll help me decide whether or not to join in.

[which doctor]

I'm in.

[rouchambeau]

Count me in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Count me out.

[bcbm]

I've never been a fan of Guy DeBoring. Always prefered Vaneigem.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 18, 2007 09:41 pm
I've never been a fan of Guy DeBoring. Always prefered Vaneigem.
i like vaneigem more too.

what happens is that vaneigem takes the subjective and personal side of why capitalism sucks. debord is more objective.

but at the end, it is our subjective desires what would encourage us to inflict change.

[Janus]

Moved.

[midnight marauder]

i'm in, if you couldn't tell by my profile pic.

[The Feral Underclass]

Count me in.

[cenv]

Me too.

[coda]

Some different translations

Translated by Vox Fux
http://www.voxfux.com/features/situationis...s/soschap1.html (http://www.voxfux.com/features/situationists/sos/soschap1.html)

Nothingness.org
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/pub_contents/4

Ken knabb Translation
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/

translation by Black & Red, 1977; (marx internet archives)
http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

[tarendol]

The Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (http://www.notbored.org/commentaires.html) that he wrote in 1988 (21 years after The Society of the Spectacle itself) is worth reading.

To understand the first book, knowing about Rosa Luxemburg, Socialisme ou Barbarie, and the young Marx is quite necessary since it's the political basis for Debord.

[coda]

The group starts reading today.

There are 9 short chapters. The longest about 9 pages, the shortest 1 page.
Reading one chapter per/week would run about 9 weeks. 2 chapters/week 4 weeks.

to lessen bureaucracy, i'll just say, start reading Chapter 1; The Culmination of Separation (about 7 pgs) and come back in a few days to post questions and discussion.

Agree/object?

[cenv]

Sounds good. I'll go get my copy of SoS.

Let's not let this thread die out!

[coda]

okay Cenv.

That's two, for sure.

I've read the first chapter and the translations. Just been waiting to see if there is a couple or any other people reading.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I was just re-reading this one

[which doctor]

Well I just read the first chapter. Does anyone have any questions or comments on it?

A good supplement to it is Cyberspace and the Lonely Crowd. Selected theses are taken from SotS and applied to cyberspace and the internet.
Available here: http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI...ay_printable/77 (http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display_printable/77)

[BreadBros]

Hey, I've read this book. I thought it was most intriguing, so if I can I'd like to join ya'll. I actually read it here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle It's a slightly different translation and in my opinion it's also cleaner in format.

If we're talking about the 1st chapter, it's probably important to talk about the basics: what is Debord talking about? What are the basic ideas of the text? etc.

In my personal opinion, what Debord is describing can best be described as simply "post-modernity". What makes his text unique is that hes attempting to define the objective economic aspect that gives rise to postmodernity, he is looking at it as a economic phase of capitalism that provides distinct differences from the previous phases.

For those who are unfamiliar with the idea of "postmodernity" or vague on it's definition, I would strongly recommend reading this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/.../us/jameson.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm) It's only an excerpt from Jameson's book but it gives a pretty good overview and I think you will recognize some similarities between what he is describing and what Debord is analyzing. Jean-Luc Baudrillard is also discussing the same topic(s) in "Simulation and Simulacra". I actually think those texts might even be easier to understand than Debord for a newbie, but thats besides the point.

I actually disagree with any attempt to pin "the spectacle" as either technologically based or even as the mass media/images. When Debord says "images" I usually read it as "representation". It is an image in that it is projecting one conception or "view" of lived life. So I would consider a book to be an "image" in that sense.

I think one of the most important passages in Chapter 1:

Understood in its totality, the spectacle is both the result and the goal of the dominant mode of production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all of its particular manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment — the spectacle represents the dominant model of life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere of production and in the consumption implied by that production. In both form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system. The spectacle also represents the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes the majority of the time spent outside the production process.

So hes describing how the Spectacle is the "goal and result" of capitalist production. Capitalist society creates an "image" (again, read as 'representation') of what life should be like (albeit it presents itself as being what life is actually like). Under "the spectacle" that image begins to materialize as we physically shape our world according to it. This could be as simple as post-modern architecture but it really manifests itself in all aspects of life.

Anyway, thats my reading of the first part of the first chapter. He obviously goes onto other topics later in the book. I posted this to hopefully get some feedback and spark up debate since this thread seemed like it was dying. BUT that might be over the heads of some people, Debord is dense as fuck and it took me multiple readings to begin to understand it, so if anyone has very basic questions don't be afraid to ask!!

[Don't Change Your Name]

The first chapter is probably the easiest one to understand, in some of the others he pays more attention to less relevant ideas.

[Volderbeek]

Does anyone wanna get this one going again? I'll start:


The spectacle is the flip side of money. It, too, is an abstract general equivalent of all commodities. But whereas money has dominated society as the representation of universal equivalence — the exchangeability of different goods whose uses remain uncomparable — the spectacle is the modern complement of money: a representation of the commodity world as a whole which serves as a general equivalent for what the entire society can be and can do. The spectacle is money one can only look at, because in it all use has already been exchanged for the totality of abstract representation. The spectacle is not just a servant of pseudo-use, it is already in itself a pseudo-use of life.

I'm a tad befuddled on this one. Is the spectacle supposed to be GDP? :lol:

[Volderbeek]

This is from Commentaries:


And on the diffuse side, the spectacular influence has never before put its mark to such a degree on almost the totality of socially produced behavior and objects.

Is this supposed to mean the neoliberal consensus that capitalism will always produce the most for everyone? Seems like it, but I'm not entirely sure.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

What the hell happened to this group?

[Art Vandelay]

It looks like it ended almost 7 years ago....

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

It looks like it ended almost 7 years ago....

I know that, but why? The post-mortem hasn't arrived yet and I was wondering if there could be any attempt to revive the group.

[Art Vandelay]

Study groups fizzle out sometimes, they could of continued their correspondence elsewhere, maybe they got through as much of the work as they wanted or found necessary, etc. It would probably be better to create a new user group for the discussion and invite those who are interested (you could even copy and paste the comments here into a discussion in the group), rather than reviving a thread this old.