Idea of the Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord - Essay Example

Society of the spectacle’, does the concept seem relevant to you? of due: Introduction An article from European journal of cultural studies states that Guy Debord’s first translated book into English in 1977 has obtained the status of a cult classic in critical cultural analysis, increasingly influential and increasingly cited. In the year 1931, Guy Ernest Debord came to being and died in France in 1994 at the age of 62. He lived in the 20th-century era as a philosopher. Guy Debord’s work forced on the school of, Marxism, letterist international and situationist. Theories included: social theory, reification, commodity fetishism and class struggle. During World War II, Guy Debord left home and travelled throughout the country of France. He began schooling in Cannes, where his interest in film and vandalism was discovered. As a young man, Debord was an active opposer of the French war in Algeria. Moreover, he joined in mass movements in Paris against it. Guy Debord joined the letterist internationally. Debord was the head of the situationist international group, which influenced the Paris rebellion of 1968; commonly known as: “The Society of the spectacle." The society of the spectacle and experts from the group, the situationist began to form their own theory of the spectacle, which explained the nature of the capitalism historical decay. In Guy Debords terms, the spectacle was to be defined as an assemblage of social relationships transmitted through the imagery of class power, and as the period of capitalist development where all that once lived has to be represented by an image. It is my argument that both of Debord’s terms alienated masses and revolutionary collective are secretly dependent upon the atomized perspective of liberal individualism. Both terms abstract the individual from subtending cultural traditions and the over-arching social relations in which they are embedded. Thus, this article seeks to explore the logic of Debord’s influential theory, propounding its insights and exposing the deficiencies of its underlying theoretical foundations. In The Society of Spectacle, Debord talks about the concept of the Spectacle. He also writes of: degradation of human life, commodity fetishism, mass media, and the difference between religion and marketing. The society of the spectacle is an essential text and the main work of the situationist. The work of the political and cultural theory has been provocative from its publication. In communities dominated by contemporary situations of production, life is viewed as an immense accumulation of spectacle. Everything directly lived is receded into a representation. The representations are images of every aspect of life making to a common stream can no longer be recovered (Klossowski & Smith 2005: 100). This spectacles the concrete version of life. The spectacle asserts itself simultaneously as the society itself. The spectacle is the very heart of the societies and reality. In all of its manifestations, the spectacle symbolizes the dominate module of life. We are conditioned from childhood to deem that what appears to be good is as good as it appears. Perceive acceptance is demanded by the spectacle monopoly of appearance (Beller, 2006: 26) The concept of Guy Debord’s idea of the ‘society of the spectacle’ seems relevant to me in that, in modern western society dominated by production, everything that once lived has become a mere representation. Life is represented as an accumulation of spectacles. All media worked to solve it completely, and they are so pervasive in that they become personal, political, economic, sociological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they lead no part of these untouched or unaltered. Mass media and commodity fetishism The spectacle is the capital accumulated to the point that it becomes images; it reflects the social division and inequalities in the modern state. The Society of the Spectacle critiques mainly of contemporary consumer culture and commodity fetishism topics. Before globalization was popularized Debord argued that issues such as class alienation, reduction of cultural diversity and mass media. The knowledge that the commodity in its abundance can no longer be given by the virtue of its use value is known as an acknowledgement of its value qua commodity. A use of the commodity rises to the sufficient on its self. What this means to the consumers is the opening on a religious deal in honor of the commodities freedom. Waves of enthusiasm for a particular product boosted by the communication media are propagated with the speed as the mass of the commodity become more and more absurd; this becomes a commodity in its own right. Key chains that are not paid for they become free gifts with the purchase of some luxury product or trade back and forth in the sphere far removed from that of their original use. In a consumer culture, social life is not all about living, rather but about having; the spectacle, which uses the image to portray what the community needs. In addition, social life is molded further, leaving the condition of "having" and developing into a state of "appearing." This explains the appearance of the image presented (Debord 1998: Thesis 17). In societies influenced by up to date situations of production, life is viewed as a menace accumulation of spectacle. Everything that was directly lived has since proceeded into representations. The spectacle is capital that can be summed up to the point that it develops into images. The spectacle is the period when the product has reached the limit known as the occupation of social life commodities for Debord are embraced like geological strata, with the spectacle on top. If the initial industrial revolution forced the human race to physical commodities, and alienated them from the product of their own sweat. Moreover, the preceding development of capitalism has pushed humans further from the more developed product once again of their own labor. Which can be seen as the representation of their lives. In the beginning, the concept of capitalism cared only about the laborer and not his free time, but with more surplus obtained, it now seeks his cooperation not as the only producer, but also as a customer or purchaser. Here is where the spectacle comes into action. The economic situation will never defeat privation but can only get further from it, by complicated nurturing acts. The new necessity is no longer (materially) related to survival, but to something more inflated, something of a "false privation." The real consumer becomes a customer of illusions. The commodity is this factually real delusion, and the spectacle is its general manifestation." Comparison between religion and marketing The spectacle has power based on the fact that it requires obedience. That is, looking at things the way they seem, but its one-sidedness rules out any possibility of dialogue. According to Debord, The Spectacle also has a nonreligious facet to it in being "the technical realization of the exile of mans powers into a beyond. This implies that we give the meaning of our life on earth to something which is beyond our immediate life; to the point that we are enslaved to its representation. Religion came into being and founded their roots deep into the souls of men (Debord 2009: thesis 20). However, human beings still preserve themselves in radical opposition to history." Debord calls them as Semi-historical religion (Debord 1992: thesis 136). The development of knowledge about society, which includes the comprehension of history as the core of culture, originates from itself an undestructive knowledge, which is expressed by the destruction of God (Debord 1992 thesis 182; Horner, 2001: 19). Degradation of human life The boundaries between media, life, and consumer culture are guided and urged sinuously into a single entity which is the spectacle. The spectacle does not refer to several images, rather, and it refers to the social link between people that is mediated by images. It is not a new decoration added into the world, and it is the very hard of this the real society and the reality in all particular manifestations, news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment extra. The spectacle represents the dominant module of life because after all one cannot beat the real thing. It is just the affirmation of the choices that are already been made by the ruling systems. The cycle is familiar; people develop needs which then are superficially met leading to more needs, because consumption presents nothing but an expanded repetition of the past and dead labor persists to dominate living labor in spectacular time, as the past continued to dominate the present. Since the spectacle introduces these needs and offers superficial solutions, it serves as a total justification of the existing system. The disputable falsifies reality, unfortunately, real life is invaded and altered through the understanding of the spectacle and ends up a lining itself with it (Wark 2013: 22). A new reality emerges within the spectacle as life irritates it, and the spectacle becomes real. At first the spectacle is an affirmation of appearances. The spectacle outlines itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Since everyone is a part of it and wants to be a part of it, no one asks questions. The acceptance into the many of us is already effectively imposed by its manipulation in appearances. Popular culture in the society in general is one way discourse. In the spectacle which is the visual reflection of the ruling economic order, goes to nothing. The development is everything. The spectacle aims at nothing but itself. The spectacle is able to subject man to its self because of the economy have already subjugated them (Osborne 2002: 269. It is nothing rather than the economy developing its self. When all the experiences in this world are displayed into images, these images become real human beings, dynamic fictions that provide the direct motivation for peoples hypotonic behaviors (Debord 1967 thesis 17). Everyone is preoccupied in looking for happiness in the cycle of desire purchases and appearances. They do not want to wake up and deal with the real elusive world issues such as environment and poverty or war. Conflict is at the beginning of everything in the world of social organization and appearances. Spectacular power and its means of one way communication corrupt those who manifests it because they are dissembled towards the masses because disagreement and lack of respect between classes obviously lead to conflict (Dahms 2008: 177). The spectacle is the ruling orders nonstop discourse about itself. It is never-ending monologue of praise. It is self-portrait, the stage of the total terrain domination of all aspect of life. The raising economic system is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technology enrolls a carefully designed to serve its purpose and based on isolation. In the spectacle part of the universe represents itself as its superior. The spectacle is the common language of desperation. This language of desperation is what passes as our culture (Stanley 2001: 57). Spectators are linked sourly by their one-way relationships to the center that keeps them isolated from each other. This is because the spectacles main social function is the manufacture alienation. The growth developed by an economy improving for its own sake can be nothing but the growth of the very alienation that was there at the origin. Conclusion To sum it up, having at our disposal power of technology in the form of personal computers, laptops, phones along with the largest database of information in history, it is possible know to use spectacles own weapon against it. This may be by interfering with the system. The unique concept of electronic medium is its activity, and it is this characteristic that can be used to over through the spectacle. The only way the spectacle can be resisted is through production of new modules of humiliation. Today, they are separated from what they produce; never the fewer people produce every detail of the world with ever increasing power. Economies and government that rely on this power of production also rely on our minders consumption. If people choose to remain to being part of this spectacle, if they do not question the cycle they are born into, they will find themselves increasingly separated from the world they produce. The closer their existence comes to being their unique creation, the more they will be excluded from their lives. This individual experience of the disconnected Here in the west the society is so comfortable that people spend their lives in the race for money and dreams, dreams which are nothing more than visions. Bibliography BELLER, J. (2006). The cinematic mode of production attention economy and the society of the spectacle. Hanover, N.H., Dartmouth College Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=458632. DAHMS, H. F. (2008). No social science without critical theory. Bingley, JAI. DEBORD, G. (2009). Society of the spectacle. Eastbourne, Soul Bay Press. DEBORD, G. (1998). Comments on the society of the spectacle. London, Verso. DEBORD, G. (1992). Society of the spectacle and other films. London, Rebel Press. HORNER, R. (2001). Rethinking God as Gift Marion, Derrida, and the Limits of Phenomenology. Bronx, Fordham University Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=476667. KLOSSOWSKI, P., & SMITH, D. (2005). Nietzsche and the vicious circle. London, Continuum. OSBORNE, P. (2002). Conceptual art. London ;New York, Phaidon. SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE. (1977). Society of the spectacle. Detroit, Black & Red. STANLEY, W. B. (2001). Critical issues in social studies research for the 21st century. Greenwich, Conn, Information Age Pub. WARK, M. (2013). The spectacle of disintegration situation passages out of the twentieth century. London [etc.], Verso. http://www.contentreserve.com/TitleInfo.asp?ID={015BEA62-23E2-4235-960C-A2FD256B15B0}&Format=410. Read More