As we've seen, theorists such as Benjamin and Adorno had already begun to describe what they called "spectacle"; their anxiety about the potential of mass media to produce and reproduce a docile, distracted public is palpable. And yet it's not until Guy Debord that the "spectacle" reaches its definable, almost tangible apotheosis: "The spectacle grasped in its totality is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society. In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertisement or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life."
'The heart of the unrealism of the real society' that phrase says (or seems to say) it all. Clearly, this is an ideological claim, related to Louis Althusser's nearly contemporary dictum that "ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence." And yet Debord has hold of something quite different here: in the 'society of the spectacle,' there is no one central or all-dominating ideology; no progressive sense of a newly empowered proletariat or enlightened bourgeoisie . The spectacle exists for itself; its ideological "work" (if that's the right word for it) is to reinforce the idea that we have moved beyond ideology, that for every view there is an equal and opposite view, and that, within this existential stasis, we might as well put on our 3D glasses, sit back and relax.
Which highlights another problem: what, stripped of its spectacular raiment and ideological armor, is the "real"? Ideological theorists would be loathe to allow that there is anything before or outside ideology, and yet they posit the function of ideology as being to hide this "real" from us, to distort or mask it in some way. So how would we know when -- if such were possible -- the mask were to be taken off? Such an act would seem impossible, and yet without it, what could be the point of a critique of the distortion?
It's a reasonable question, but to my mind, it's the result of seeing the situation as a "problem" in search of a "solution," rather than as a dynamic, a pattern, in search of an understanding. The society of the spectacle may well be unavoidable, but how we will position ourselves within it, how we will seek to correct for its distortions, how we will account for the ways in which the spectacle has or will be deployed, are essential, and do admit of considerable self-agency. In the case of the 'moral panic' over Hip-hop in the mid-1990's, I saw it this way:
In this 'society of the spectacle,' as Guy Debord has dubbed it, cultural myths rise and fall in an almost operatic struggle upon the electronic stages of television, radio, and compact disks. The myth of the 'concerned' liberal white goes toe-to-toe with hip-hop's carnivalesque mirroring of his/her own stereotypes; the Goats' "Uncle Scam" runs drug cartels, wars, and drive-by shootings like booths at an amusement park. If images of Willie Horton scared middle- class Americans into voting for George Bush, the images and words of Ice Cube, putting his gat in the mouth of Uncle Sam and shooting "'til his brains hang out'" will scare them more, and this fear in its turn will inspire laughter (as when Cube, on Predator, samples the voice of a young white girl in a talkshow audience and loops the results 'I'm scared . . . I'm scared . . . I'm scared')In this scenario, there are tactical ways in which the viewer/consumer/citizen can indeed both evade and come to critical grips with the logic of the Spectacle: he/she can shake off the spell of fear, see the soundbyte politics and crassly manipulative adverts for what they are, and tune in to an alternative channel where music and lyrics such as those of the Goats and Ice Cube are audible. "Tuning in" and "tuning out," "filtering," and "remixing" the purported news and views on the big screen, a citizen in a spectacular society can, by sheer mobility and agility, find a way to be a resisting subject.
These days, alas, another old set of by-words of the '90's have come back to haunt us. When I see people wearing those ear-mounted cellphones, I can't help think of these phrases, and wonder whether they have just as much -- or even more -- currency then or now: "You will be assimilated" and "Resistance is futile"
As technology expands and increases, the idea that the ‘society of the spectacle’ could actually exist, is increasing more and more each day. In an era were almost everyone has an iPhone, Beats headphones, and has style similar to each other, we are starting to create a culture of automatons. Although, if you were to ask them, they are all individuals, with their own interests, which are very different than their peers. Yet, that is not the case. Reading this blog post, the first thing that came to mind is our current presidency, the president himself, and the election process we went through. We as Americans boosted about our goals and how we are independent and stand for our rights, yet, the assimilated massed won the day and elected a president that “no one” wanted. Did we get so docile and lazy that we just allowed anyone to become president? Are we really individuals, if we all follow the same beliefs, guidelines, styles, and popularity of modern technology? I dont believe “Resistance is futile”, however, we need to work harder on remaining individuals, instead of becoming part of the masses.
ReplyDeleteAs individuals, we have the right to choose we are, what we stand for, what we believe, and what we say to others. While some people may believe that these rights do not exist for all people, in reality they exist for all. With this in mind, we can choose who we follow and believe in. We can choose how we dress, what activities we take part in, and how we present ourself to others. When there are so many choices available to us, why is it that so many people choose to essentially follow the leader? Dress alike, speak alike, act alike, and move through the world as everyone else- this is the current representation of the world. Even if we have different views and opinions as others, the fact that we may look the same puts us in a category, essentially within a stereotype. If we resist, will we be exiled or celebrated? Are we a spectacle if we follow the masses or if we are different- I guess this is open to interpretation.
ReplyDelete