back
13 comments
I think Guy Debord did a much better job finding the fundamental issues that give rise to these phenomena, namely, The Society of the Spectacle, it focuses on much the same dichotomies in a much more general and in depth way. To be fair to the author, Debord has 200 some odd pages to expound his views.

If anyone wants to read it... http://www.antiworld.se/project/references/texts/The_Society...

I"ll have to admit that I had my doubts before following the link...no more...

A very pleasant read with great insight, especially given that it was written back in 1992...

Thanks for posting!

It was actually first published in 1967. Debord's work was somewhat foundational among the Situationist International, who were highly involved in the unrest of May 1968 in France.
I stand corrected...thanks for pointing that out...

I mistakenly locked on to the date at the bottom of the preface on my scroll down to the meat of the article...

That this was written in 1967 is even more impressive...

If someone handed me this and told me that it was written just a couple of days ago to describe today's environment it would be plausible, believable in certain respects...

I think most of it is actually from the early sixties
What is the gist of this article?
If you're referring to The Society of the Spectacle, it's a book of 221 roughly paragraph-length theses. It really ought to be read/experienced first-hand.

However, in briefest and roughest form:

Relationships among commodities has replaced relationships among people, and authentic social life has been replaced by its representation—a spectacle. Where Tyler Durden reminds you that you are not your car, your job, the contents of your wallet, or your fucking khakis, the Spectacle reminds you that is, in fact, exactly who you are, where you find and express your authentic self—and provides a mass of imagery to help you find your true self in having instead of being.

Social life has declined from being into having, then further into merely appearing. Quality of life is impoverished, as people participating in the spectacle degrade knowledge, and impede and deteriorate critical thought.

It is an indictment of consumer culture, and the destructive nature of commodity fetishism, especially as it is celebrated and depicted in the imagery that surrounds us—assuring us that nothing is wrong, that we are at our most free when we have some thing (or appear to have it).

Thanks for that summary. I have been thinking about this. I wonder if part of the problem is that mass culture has largely displaced other means of cultural transmission (extended family, traditions, churches) with the vacuous culture we see. Short of a real eternal perspective and its aspirations (I'm a Mormon fwiw, aka member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), I wonder if in some scenarios this could be addressed by replacing the vacuous money-driven consumer culture with a better kind of humanism, based on 1) very high expectation of honesty, 2) the Golden Rule, and 3) a plan for balanced personal growth/learning/service/mentoring as a substitute for extreme narrow pursuits (fitness or pleasure above all, for instance), as I briefly discuss at http://www.onemodel.org (under "About OM", then "Future...", then "Maturity ...".
Well, Debord would likely specify that the root problem is not a displacement of cultural transmission, but a replacement of the authentic self. This replacement happens by the means of cultural transmission diverting one's self from being and living toward pursuing having and appearing. Moreover, he indicts religion as an equivalent of mass marketing; their images of cultural desire and individual/social aspiration are the vehicles through which one is alienated from an authentic self.
I agree that religion can do that. Mine doesn't. :) The aspiration I referred to is one of being and living in happiness that continues w/o end, very much over having and appearing. Or at least as individuals we can do our best, and try to help others also but never compel. It works very well.
This is honestly an excellent essay, and you if you jumped straight to the comments, take my word for it; its worth the long-form read. Robin is a noted intellectual historian and he draws a great deal on that in this essay in particular.
Not much on the disasters they've wreaked on society and for which we largely have bad memories.