0

In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord contextualises the Modern life in his fourth thesis:

When Debord says that “All that was once directly lived has become mere representation,” he is referring to the central importance of the image in contemporary society. Images, Debord says, have supplanted genuine human interaction.

Thus, Debord’s fourth thesis is: "The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather, it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images."

This was written in the 60's - and was talking about people reading magazines and being influenced by print advertising.

My question is: Can we apply the ideas of The Society of the Spectacle to the Facebook era?

Community
  • 1
hawkeye
  • 423
  • 3
  • 10
  • 4
    I don't see any reason we cannot apply this framework to the facebook era, but is that the entirety of what you are asking? (What motivates you to think we could or could not apply it?) – virmaior Apr 21 '15 at 12:45
  • Sure, it is what motivates Barthes the death of reality... – Mozibur Ullah Apr 21 '15 at 13:43
  • And Deleuzes notion of virtuality. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 21 '15 at 13:46
  • I don't know enough on the literature to give an informed answer here, but presumably we're wondering whether the relationship between people has become secondary to our relationship to the images they present? That is, rather than people going on holidays and taking photos of their "great time" as a means to get one up over the Joneses, we in fact meet up with the Joneses over lunch dates as a means to take more photos to share online. – Paul Ross Apr 21 '15 at 14:10
  • yes but try and do so with intelligence :D !! –  Apr 21 '15 at 19:07
  • @ross: I think so; it's what some musicians complain of when playing at gigs and they're faced with sea of camera phones. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 21 '15 at 21:42
  • There is similarity between the quote and the current FB era state of affairs. But, When someone speaks of applying ideas to a specific topic, implicit in this is that the ideas in question provide a set of tools or a method which can be applied to the topic. It is also implied that the topic presents some sort of question or challenge which we hope to solve with these ideas. So: What is the method or tool from the Society of the Spectacle you want to use? What problem or question about the Facebook era do you want to solve? – Alexander S King Apr 22 '15 at 03:27
  • @king: my thoughts exactly - but see my answer. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 22 '15 at 09:55

2 Answers2

1

Here is a very provisional answer based on my own reading of Debords Spectacle.

  1. The Spectacle is not the mass dessimination of images...

So the technology is of no concern, and nor, surprisingly is the production of images and it's mass circulation.

It is better viewed as a Weltenschaung that has been actualised, translated into the material realm - a world-view transformed into objective force.

Now, Marx is popularly viewed as turning Hegel on his head ie Hegel saying that mind dictates how matter moves, whereas Marx said it was the material conditions (economics) that dictates.

Debord turns it around again; his point is that the spectacle has material force, it is the 'mind' of the productive forces; and this is confirmed in the preface when he states the Soviet Union crumbled due to the objective force of the Spectacle.

But this simple 'upturning' of Marx isn't correct; as thesis 8 shows:

  1. The spectacle cannot be set in abstract opposition to concrete social activity...the spectacle, though it turns reality on its head, is itself the product of real activity. Likewise lived reality suffers the material assaults of the Spectacles mechanism of contemplation, incorporating the Spectacular order and lending it positive support.

ie the they form a dialectic, and this should lead one to expect an intensification of the Spectacles 'mechanisms of contemplation' - which is what in one sense Facebook is.

Euclid draws Euclidean lines

In Euclidean sands

Mozibur Ullah
  • 1
  • 14
  • 88
  • 234
1

"Can we apply the ideas of The Society of the Spectacle to the Facebook era?"

Yes.

It's not accurate that Debord was talking only about people being influenced by print magazines and printed advertising. The critique is far more profound than that. On particular communications media, also be aware that thesis 172 of Society of the Spectacle contains a clear reference to television:

The same collective isolation prevails even within the family cell, where the omnipresent receivers of spectacular messages fill the isolation with the dominant images — images that derive their full power precisely from that isolation. [emphasis added]

In the same thesis, he also writes:

But the general trend toward isolation, which is the underlying essence of urbanism, must also include a controlled reintegration of the workers in accordance with the planned needs of production and consumption. This reintegration into the system means bringing isolated individuals together as isolated individuals. Factories, cultural centers, tourist resorts and housing developments are specifically designed to foster this type of pseudo-community. [emphasis in bold added]

Next year, 2017, will be 50 years after the book was published (1967), which is a full half of the 100 years that separated it from the first volume of Marx's Capital (1867), and we cannot expect to read it as a crystal ball where technologies are concerned. But it seems to me that the notions of the reintegration and pseudo-community of the isolated and alienated, the pseudo-activity of the passive, fit Facebook, "social media" and the widespread use of mobile phones very well indeed.