Society of the Spectacle

Society of the spectacle is a term deployed by Guy Debord (1931–1994) and members of the Situationist International during the 1960s to critique the alienating conditions of capitalist and state bureaucratic societies. Most fully addressed in a book with the same title, published by Debord in France in 1967, the concept was grounded in Marxist thought and was forged to confront a new stage in capitalist productive forces and the accumulation of capital in parts of social life that had come under the sway of the market and the commodity—or “colonized,” as the situationists put it—and in which subjects were increasingly rendered as passive and isolated spectators and consumers, contemplating what was presented to them, rather than active political [Page 752]agents who were collectively and freely able to shape their destinies. For the situationists, the concept of the spectacle addresses an image-saturated world in which authentic life is supplanted by appearances and in which control of the image realm is of vital political significance. Their aim in coining the term was, to echo Marx's famous line about the task facing philosophers, not merely to interpret the world but to change it. For them it was a weapon with which to combat dominant social powers and to seek alternatives.

The terminology, if not the theoretical and political force of this situationist critique, has since been widely taken up by commentators. Often this has been part of descriptions or theorizations of the role of the mass media and technologies such as television and electronic communication in mediating and shaping contemporary social and cultural life. The phrase “society of the spectacle” has thus featured occasionally with, but more often without, acknowledgment of Debord and the situationists, alongside a number of other terms within postmodern cultural theory since the 1980s. Jean Baudrillard, for example, was indebted to Debord in his writings on simulation and the simulacrum while at the same time arguing that the conditions of the spectacle have been surpassed at a time of hyperreality. Supposedly evaporating with those conditions, as Baudrillard and some postmodernists suggest, is the possibility of revolutionary critique and resistance that drove the situationist project, claims that were met with withering responses from Debord during his lifetime as he never wavered from his commitment to revolution.

Writings on the society of the spectacle by Debord and the situationists have influenced urban studies in a number of ways. Most directly this has been in relation to historical and contemporary accounts of the imaging of cities and the construction of spectacular urban spaces to be looked at and contemplated, from the remaking of nineteenth-century Paris to more recent redevelopment projects, expositions, and grand events. A sense of the spectacle as a mask that entertains and diverts its audiences, while it glosses over the social divisions and problems that remain underneath, has been prominent in much critical writing in this area. So too has the idea of the spectacle's depoliticizing and passifying qualities as a powerful means of ensuring the consent, or at least acquiescence, of the population. Many references to situationist ideas within this area of urban studies, however, neglect their radical and totalizing perspectives. To appreciate their distinctive power more fully it is necessary to acknowledge their rootedness in Marxist thought, especially in critical writings on commodity fetishism and alienation from within the Hegelian–Marxist tradition, and their inseparability from a revolutionary political project. The importance the situationists gave to urbanism within this project is of particular pertinence to those concerned with the politics of urban space today.

...