Critical Response No. 2 - Guy Debord

After the Second World War, Europe experienced a rapid influx of ‘modern’ American culture and technology that had been developing overseas since the turn of the century. For many, these changes resulted in a minor sense of culture shock, but for a few, the growing presence of capitalist values was much more salient. True to the Marxist tradition, Guy Debord and his peers feared and criticized the capitalist society. Although they were also critical of the Soviet Union, the focus of Debord tended to emphasize the perils of a commodity-based culture rather than the totalitarian state. His generation saw the rise of what Marx might have deemed ‘commodity fetishism’, and the trend towards placing value on the sign rather than the signified. The human relationship to the product was lost with the industrial revolution, they argued, and these products were contributing to the growing power of the spectacle. Debord states: “the worker does not produce himself; he produces an independent power” (Debord 31). The product enters our trading floors or department stores and the worker’s involvement in that product is lost. The worker, feeling no connection to the items he/she produces, will continue to contribute to the spectacle both in the realm of work and personal life.

Debord seems not only to have been influenced by Marx and his followers, but by more romantic and idealistic thinkers. Perhaps his rhetoric, which seems almost poetic when compared with some Marxist literature, is swaying my opinion on the matter. He seems not only concerned with the political risks of the rise of the commodity-based society of the spectacle, but with the impacts of such a culture on individuals and on human relationships. In thesis 17 he explains how he believes economy has come to dominate social life. With recent innovations, he argues, humans moved away from a state of simply ‘being’ into one of ‘having’ or wanting, buying, etc. The worship of the spectacle, he claims, takes this a step further, to the point that humans are acquiring products for the sake of appearances, and thus perpetuating the notion that human identity must be manufactured (Debord 17).

This is a 46 second long trailer for a 2009 film called Logorama. This short clip illustrates the type of culture Debord would have abhorred, as anyone living in a Western nation would recognize and relate to many of the brands and logos featured.  

The Situationist International movement attempted to discourage citizens from passively partaking in the creation and worship of the spectacle. Through the spontaneous and often artistic actions of the group, members aimed to bring people to the realization that they were contributors to this trend. Debord was not convinced, however, that simple awareness of this fact would liberate citizens from the society of the spectacle. He believed this phenomena had evolved to a point where it was deeply embedded in human interaction, “the spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images” (Debord 4). I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Technology and capitalist society have indeed led us to value a product by virtue of its appearance rather than its function, and we have adopted the notion that identity is something that may be created through the purchase of said products. Our relationship to the product is lost as what once would have been classified as a creation is now a commodity. As our attention is turned to the production and glorification of the spectacle, human interaction suffers.

Although at times his writing requires thoughtful translation in order to obtain his thesis, I find many of Debord’s thoughts inspiring and truthful. To paraphrase Debord, he views the spectacle as a ‘world vision’ that has been objectified or ‘materially translated’ (Debord 5). Even Debord and his colleagues noticed the role consumers played in the perpetuation of the spectacle; with the advent of the Internet and Web 2.0 I would argue we have become more active participants in its existence. 

What would Debord and his peers think of Web 2.0 and the way that his "society of the spectacle" has come to envelop our culture? Would he be optimistic about the apparent individualism promoted by accessible social media, or condemn these forms of expression as contributing to the spectacle?

Debord, Guy. “Separation Perfected.” Society of the Spectacle. Detroit: Black and Red, 1983. Sections 1-34.

Critical Response 1

In his article Warcraft and Utopia, Alexander R. Galloway describes two popular concepts of a utopian reality. The better known of the two comes up quite often in Marxist literature, and is often conceptualized as a far away but eventually attainable society free of the limitations of capitalism. For skeptics, this society seems like an unrealistic end because the means of achieving it are rather vague. As Galloway states, “there are promises made but forever deferred.” Naturally, the second utopia is also a society that functions without capitalism, although in contrast this “nostalgia utopia” is characterized by the minimalism associated with pre-Twentieth Century life. Galloway points out an interesting relationship between the shift toward classicism and conservatism and those who were challenging the rise of our consumer-driven spectacle society.

In order to understand Galloway’s argument I found it helpful to do some additional research on the theories of Friedrich Schiller, with particular attention to the play/drive concept he discusses in his text, On the Aesthetic Education of Man, in a Series of Letters. Schiller believed that a utopian state could best be achieved through the balance of the “Stofftrieb” (sensuous drive) and the “Formtrieb” (formal drive) in the individual. Galloway points to the game World of Warcraft as a possible embodiment of what Schiller might have viewed as a minimalist utopia.

The game is essentially set in a variation of medieval society, where quests are doled out and completed to gain status and material wealth. Galloway focuses on two aspects of the game in his essay: the emphasis on teamwork within the game, and the role that signs play in this virtual world. Indeed the game does encourage players to work together towards a common goal. Having played the game for two years myself I can attest to this. There are certain quests and ‘raids’ that can only be achieved with a group of players. These goals and their rewards are, naturally, facilitated by the creation of guilds: groups of players with common interests. Galloway argues that this aspect of the game bears resemblance to Marxist ideals of cooperative and collaborative labour practices. I would not disagree with this statement, however I think that this group work would not exist within the game were the players not benefitting on an individual level.

In my experience, WoW players use guilds and other players to obtain material goods and skills that will boost their status within the realm. Contrary to Galloway’s impression of the game, I find it mimics capitalist society in many ways. Players not only complete objectives to gain material goods, but go on to exchange these goods for other products and services. There is an in-game auction house that functions similarly to eBay, and players are also able to advertise and sell their belongings outside of the auctions. Although ‘play’ and, in this case, playing WoW, fosters social interaction, it is not usually the focus of the players but rather a means towards a more self-centered end.

A screen shot of the "Auction House" listings in WoW.

Photo: "That Warcraft Blog"

I find Galloway’s ‘third utopia’ to be the most intriguing. He argues that capitalist rhetoric perpetuates the belief that the present state of society is the optimal state; that capitalism is the end towards which humanity has been working throughout history. Proponents of capitalist society must discourage citizens from idealizing either past or possible future. Marxist theorists, aware of the potential danger in a content and comfortable population, place emphasis on history in order to both learn from past mistakes and to reaffirm the notion that social and political evolution is an important aspect of human development. 

One question I might pose to students reading this blog would be what are the ways in which supporters of capitalist culture attempt to reinforce the present as a utopian state? As a consumer bombarded daily with images and advertisements, I would argue that these 'distractions' satiate the general population and all but eliminate critical thought. The more we become enveloped by these unfortunate traits of our societies the more difficult it becomes to process events of history as they pertain to our current situation. Are there more direct ways we are being discouraged from discontent with our present 'utopia'?

Galloway, Alexander R., Ed. Arthur Kroker and Marilouise Kroker. Warcraft and Utopia, 1000 Days of Theory, February 16, 2006.