Situationist beliefs

[Sand Castle]

OK, so I know that there is no "situationism" in the same sense as there is a Maoism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. Meaning no founding ideologue intended for there to be a Marxist-Situationist tendency. But for the sake of simplicity and understanding, let's just pretend it is an ideology in the same sense as the examples I gave.

I have bookmarked places where I can read Situationist works for free, including the Society of the Spectacle and The Situationist International Anthology. I haven't had a chance to start on them yet. Currently I am reading a book called The Situationist International, a User's Guide. I'm about a quarter of the way through, and so far it's just talking about their artistic work pre-SI. I understand the importance of the art, but I really wanted to get into their strategy and political philosophy.

So here are my questions.

When they talk about creating situations, what does that mean? Here is what I think, let me know if this isn't the right type of situation. Situationists create situations where people meet new people, interact, possibly start some quasi-community, and use this new network and relations to engage in struggle. Sort of like Occupy was a situation where new relationships were made, and people began to struggle. Even after it went away, the networks and relationships forged in Occupy continued to function and struggle against injustice in other ways.

So is my idea about creating situations right, sort of right, or wrong?

Where do situationists stand on identity politics? I understand that "identity politics" is a loaded term, and I don't want to come off as one of those people who neglects struggles against bigotry and institutional oppression. But at the same time, I notice most of the organizations in the US, as well as the unorganized and barely organized ideological groups, are becoming more and more like the tumblr identity politicians. If there is a group (of any tendency/ideology) free from the garbage oozing from tumblr, I'd like to hear about it in a private message.

I read some things on the Bureau of Public Secrets website that seemed to be critical of specifically named types of identity politics because such politics turn people into objects of their ideology (to oversimplify the argument).

I understand that last two paragraphs may anger some people. Sorry. All I can say is that politics is inevitably upsetting regardless of your position on the political spectrum. The day we stop being mad or offended at each other's beliefs is the day democracy stops and a problem begins. Hypothetically speaking, of course, none of us live in a real democracy. But still.

While I'm at it, I requested to join the Situationist discussion group on RevLeft a while ago, but my "application" is in limbo. So please, nobody say "just go read the posts there."

Thank you.

[subcp]

The Situationists, following their transition from an avant-guarde group of artists to a political organization, were archetypal councilists- arguing against the creation of permanent revolutionary communist organizations (they criticized every single tendency then extant, from trade unions to student groups to Maoists to left communists). They did have very lucid insights throughout the life of their journal (Internationale Situationniste), very penetrating critiques of USSR or PRC linked ideologies, groups and bureaucracies (such as critiques of the GPCR/Cultural Revolution, changes in the Eastern Bloc with the Prague Spring in 1968, etc.) and many relevant political ideas (Society of the Spectacle and On The Poverty of Student Life, not to mention The Beginning of an Era are all excellent texts).

Honestly I don't think a lot of their dynamism lies in the artistic experimentation period, but in the political period until their dissolution- where they were thoroughly councilists.

[Sand Castle]

But would one necessarily have to be a councilist to "follow" them? Would someone have to agree with their positions entirely in the same way a Marxist-Leninist must do with the party line or Lenin's works?

Now, I understand there is plenty of breathing room for independent thought in M-L theory, so don't take this as an insult. I'm an ex-Marxist-Leninist myself. Though maybe, after long reflections, I may find I still am. But that never happens.

[subcp]

You can take valuable ideas and theories and analysis from anywhere- it doesn't "make" you anything but a prudent and astute communist. They were quite outspoken about their opposition to a thing called 'situationism' that such a thing doesn't exist. I'd recommend reading all of their available work (I picked up a print copy of 'Situationist International Anthology' at a hole in the wall used bookstore in Cleveland- I'd highly recommend it) and taking from it what you think is useful (just like any other thinker or tendency). The BPS has a copy of their article on the Cultural Revolution online, a few places have archives of articles from the SI journal; read them and see what you think. But, I'd recommend skimming rather than giving full credence to the artsy articles, and sticking to the politically motivated ones.

[diagrammatic]

Hi. I'm new here. Pleased to meet you all.
Read La société du spectacle 15 years ago as a conservatory student. For a text that some consider "dry", the excitement and passion it evoked in me was real enough, even when hindsight proves my understanding incomplete and immature. It's a great work, and I recommend it wholeheartedly, particularly to comrades with an artsy side.

So here are my questions.

When they talk about creating situations, what does that mean? Here is what I think, let me know if this isn't the right type of situation. Situationists create situations where people meet new people, interact, possibly start some quasi-community, and use this new network and relations to engage in struggle. Sort of like Occupy was a situation where new relationships were made, and people began to struggle. Even after it went away, the networks and relationships forged in Occupy continued to function and struggle against injustice in other ways.

So is my idea about creating situations right, sort of right, or wrong?

A quick answer: "sort of right". My reading left me with the impression that the semantics of terms such as "situation" and "situationist" are deliberately withheld the reader so as to purposely remain both ambiguous and dynamic. Hence how members of the SI, as members of the SI, self-consciously vacillated between the (ostensibly) opposed intellectual stances of "pro-situ" and "anti-situ" so effortlessly, and with such co-ordination.

So where common sense might initially beg a simple answer to the questions: "What is a situation?", "What does it mean to be a situationist?", "What are all these terms?!", I suggest a different tack; to begin with the question: "What is the spectacle?"

And (thankfully!) La société provides an answer: (4) "The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images." Sounds familiar, right? Reading that years ago, I felt a profound cross-resonance between Debord and Adorno - one of whose existence I remain convinced.

Situationist praxis, grossly simplified, and only as I understand it, consists in interventions in the spectacle (détournment) followed by interventions in these very interventions (recuperation). Perhaps when these two stages become conceptually unified and activated (and my hunch is this activity is the essence of "situationism"), the resultant milieu interstitially situated between these first and second articulations can be understood as a "situation", proper.

So to return to your question: yeah, I could see Occupy as a situation, but I'd be surprised to see many situationists there.

Where do situationists stand on identity politics? I understand that "identity politics" is a loaded term, and I don't want to come off as one of those people who neglects struggles against bigotry and institutional oppression. But at the same time, I notice most of the organizations in the US, as well as the unorganized and barely organized ideological groups, are becoming more and more like the tumblr identity politicians.

Don't know; don't care. Feel free to ask around, though.

[Sand Castle]

I notice in the Situationist group here on RevLeft that they have a comic of two women talking. One is declining to join what appears to be a feminist movement because, although she realizes society has turned her into a sex object, she also does not want to be an object of (or subjected to) a rigid and dogmatic application of an ideology (feminism in this case, but it can easily be applied to others). I'm wondering if this is representative of the beliefs of the SI, or if it's just the individual artists' opinion.

It goes back to my question on identity politics too. I won't be mean to you all, even if I don't like your answer.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Metaphysical mescaline binging french philosophers who look down their horn-rimmed glasses at anyone who gets out of a chair.

[subcp]

I don't think they could be construed as positive toward identity politics- what makes you think they are? There are groups that oppose identity politics for the same reason as national liberation, and the Situationists were opposed to national liberation. I can't remember if it was in the Situ anthology or a different text that described capitalism utilizing identity politics/specific movements based on sexuality, gender, race, etc. to penetrate and commodify groups in a new or different way.

[Sand Castle]

I never thought they were positive to identity politics, which is why I find their ideas so refreshing in an otherwise stale world.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Metaphysical mescaline binging french philosophers who look down their horn-rimmed glasses at anyone who gets out of a chair.

Yo mescaline is real hard to get in France.
Also, the situ's probably did more revolutionary work than any of us will ever do, so wtf man

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yo mescaline is real hard to get in France.
Also, the situ's probably did more revolutionary work than any of us will ever do, so wtf man

You might think they did more revolutionary work, but from their juxtaposition in history, combined with a powerful reading of connoisseur unreadable and the utter realisation of human solipsism, It is in reality I who has done the most revolutionary work.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You might think they did more revolutionary work, but from their juxtaposition in history, combined with a powerful reading of connoisseur unreadable and the utter realisation of human solipsism, It is in reality I who has done the most revolutionary work.

.........qoui?

[subcp]

You might think they did more revolutionary work, but from their juxtaposition in history, combined with a powerful reading of connoisseur unreadable and the utter realisation of human solipsism, It is in reality I who has done the most revolutionary work.

They were involved in setting up the Committee for the Maintenance of the Occupations during May 1968; and theorized based on this real life experience of revolutionary ferment. A point they made earlier in their journal is to respond to "well you have to 'dumb it down' so it can be read by the workers" type criticisms with 'we don't have to dumb it down; our ideas and theories are being read just fine by regular workers'. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. The number of copies of their books, journals and leaflets sold or stolen seems to bear this out as well.

[l'Enfermé]

But would one necessarily have to be a councilist to "follow" them? Would someone have to agree with their positions entirely in the same way a Marxist-Leninist must do with the party line or Lenin's works?

Now, I understand there is plenty of breathing room for independent thought in M-L theory, so don't take this as an insult. I'm an ex-Marxist-Leninist myself. Though maybe, after long reflections, I may find I still am. But that never happens.

One can't be a Marxist-Leninist and agree with Lenin at the same time.

[black magick hustla]

You might think they did more revolutionary work, but from their juxtaposition in history, combined with a powerful reading of connoisseur unreadable and the utter realisation of human solipsism, It is in reality I who has done the most revolutionary work.

do u talk to ur mom like that with that dirty mouth

[Flying Purple People Eater]

do u talk to ur mom like that with that dirty mouth

My mom DEAD.

[l'Enfermé]

Aaaaaand that was the cue to get back on topic.

[human strike]

I think it's useful to compare this idea of creating "situations" with what others have said on a similar line since; Tiqqun's advocacy of creating "communes", Holloway and "cracks", even Hakim Bey and "TAZs". They all seem to be on the same wavelength (imo anyway).

A situationist text I highly recommend is Raoul Vaneigem's The Revolution of Everyday Life.

[Revenant]

Here is what I think, let me know if this isn't the right type of situation. Situationists create situations where people meet new people, interact, possibly start some quasi-community, and use this new network and relations to engage in struggle. Sort of like Occupy was a situation where new relationships were made, and people began to struggle. Even after it went away, the networks and relationships forged in Occupy continued to function and struggle against injustice in other ways.

It's reclaiming human life from the pre-prescribed, pre-ordained, roles and functions it has been reduced to, Occupy was reclaiming social space, Anon is reclaiming intellectual space, "derive" is reclaiming civil, environmental space, "detournement" is reclaiming culture, studying Marx on alienation early Marx, and critiquing Political Marxism is reclaiming Marxism etc.

The kind of situations I find most subversive of the economic paradigm are along the lines of seducing the manageress, and convincing her to stay in bed making love instead of bothering to go to work

[Revenant]

Everything that was formerly directly lived has receded into representation....
or something like that, he muttered aimlessly into a cold cup of tea