5 ms·

I've read quite a bit of this book, and situationalism is awesome - though I do find this writing style quite...fatiguing. Part of me can't work out whether it'

I've read quite a bit of this book, and situationalism is awesome - though I do find this writing style quite...fatiguing. Part of me can't work out whether it's written like this to fit a huge amount of meaning into one paragraph or whether it's just being flash or whether it's also a postmodernist nod to postmodernism itself (which...isn't all postmodernism?).

Hermitian909 5y ago
While Philosophy is often split along analytic/continental lines, another way to split it is along the lines of whether the philosophers feel it is important to use precise language that tries to improve mental clarity and shared understanding and those who feel that there are certain ineffable qualities to ideas that are lost when you attempt to make that level of precision, both because of laziness in readers and because of inherent qualities to the ideas. Situationalists are very much in the latter camp and have said that at times they were deliberately obtuse so as to avoid being misunderstood.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Wait, they thought that being obtuse would reduce misunderstandings? That seems... unlikely to work as intended.
0xADADA 5y ago
> it's just being flash or whether it's also a postmodernist nod to postmodernism itself (which...isn't all postmodernism?). Keep in mind that Debord was familiar with Lyotard, but postmodernism had only just recently started when this book was written. That said, Debord specifically refutes postmodernist tendencies in [thesis 179](https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-179 https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-179) Note that Debords concept of Spectacle had *Three Degrees* the concrete reality of the spectacle, as opposed to its relatively superficial existence as a set of mediatic and ideological practices, ‘can only be justified by reference to these ^^three degrees: simple technico-ideological appearances / the reality of the social organisation of appearances / historical reality^^’ On the first of these three ‘degrees’, or levels – that of ‘simple technico-ideological appearances’ – the spectacle is simply an ideological and media-driven ‘part of society’: something very much akin to Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘culture industry’. Seen in these terms, the spectacle is the sector of society ‘where all attention, all consciousness, converges’. This is the level of Debord’s analysis upon which much of the academic work referred to earlier has tended to focus. Social media, TikTok, Facebook and the issues you discuss concern this level. On the *second level* of this schema, however, and thus ‘behind the phenomenal appearances of the spectacle’, such as ‘television, advertising, the discourse of the State, etc.,’ we find what Debord refers to as ‘the general __reality __of the spectacle itself’, understood as ‘a moment in the mode of production.’ The concept of spectacle, addressed on this second, deeper level, pertains to the social operation of capitalist value, and to the manner in which society has been ordered to suit capital’s continued operation. On the first, more ‘superficial’ level of this schema, spectators contemplate the fads, fashions, adverts and trinkets that celebrate this social order; on this second, more profound level, they become contemplative observers of their own lives, because their social activity has become so thoroughly governed and shaped by that same order. This is the dimension of Debord’s theory that has been addressed by the best studies of his work. Anselm Jappe’s excellent __Guy Debord __(1993, in Italian; 1999 in English) is of particular significance here, as it deals with this theme in detail. The second level entails that the concept of spectacle also operates on a *third level*: that of ‘historical reality’. In this regard, spectacle needs to be understood as __a relation to historical time__. For Debord, the articulation of all social existence via capitalist social relations involves the separation of human subjects from their own lived activity. The result is a historical moment characterized by a loss of historical agency; or, as Debord puts it in another letter: modern capitalism has produced the paradox of a ‘historical society that refuses history’. Thus, this third and deepest level of Debord’s tripartite schema concerns a state of separation from history itself. Although we will touch on the first level of Debord’s theory in later chapters, and although we will also discuss the technicalities of its second level at some length, this book will focus primarily on its third, ‘historical’ level.
ttoinou 5y ago
I tend to agree, though it has the form of détournements of Marxist writing and others stuff like Lautréamont, his pals like Raoul Vaneigem were also into détournements I appreciate it a lot and there is still a big culture of it in France as of now
ATsch 5y ago
It's important to note the target audience of these writings are usually academics who already familiar with the field. This means they get to use a lot of jargon and concepts established by their peers without having to explain them first. There are definitely other texts (such as the YouTube video linked in another thread) that are easier to understand as a casual observer. However the other aspect is that as you alluded to, a strong poststructuralist belief is that common language, by nature of being made to describe the current world, always makes it easiest to express ideas that are already commonplace. Thus to create new ideas one must also create new language.
- lil_dispaches 5y ago
  "What is considered academic discourse within the spectacular society is nothing but false consciousness—spectacular thought, the official lies sponsored by the spectacle." https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-210 https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-210
  - 0xADADA 5y ago
    Translator here, thanks for referring to this one, its one of my favorites
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Also apparently Foucault could explain his ideas much more clearly in person, and when asked why he didn't write the same way, said that to be taken seriously as a French continental philosopher at least 2/3 of what you write must be incomprehensible. Most of the semiotics and sociological content of postmodernism (ie the majority of it) is really simple and intuitive - it's just wrapped in layers of reference to obscure philosophy, invented terms, and overly complicated language.
  - kelseyfrog 5y ago
    I read part of SotS with my partner outloud. It became obvious, while apprehending the text's ideas, that internet denizens are already intimately familiar with them even to the point of DeBord's perspective as being a bit dated. Social media, and TikTok in particular, push the limits of SotS which is mainly mass media focused. The opportunity for a critical theory of social media is ripe. In this thread, I will 1/13738
lbotos 5y ago
I always thought it was a stylistic aspect of "critical theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Critical theory is a subset of postmodernism (a form of sociological systems theory), and a lot of postmodern texts are written this way.

Hermitian909 5y ago

While Philosophy is often split along analytic/continental lines, another way to split it is along the lines of whether the philosophers feel it is important to use precise language that tries to improve mental clarity and shared understanding and those who feel that there are certain ineffable qualities to ideas that are lost when you attempt to make that level of precision, both because of laziness in readers and because of inherent qualities to the ideas. Situationalists are very much in the latter camp and have said that at times they were deliberately obtuse so as to avoid being misunderstood.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Wait, they thought that being obtuse would reduce misunderstandings? That seems... unlikely to work as intended.

0xADADA 5y ago

> it's just being flash or whether it's also a postmodernist nod to postmodernism itself (which...isn't all postmodernism?). Keep in mind that Debord was familiar with Lyotard, but postmodernism had only just recently started when this book was written. That said, Debord specifically refutes postmodernist tendencies in [thesis 179](https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-179 https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-179) Note that Debords concept of Spectacle had *Three Degrees* the concrete reality of the spectacle, as opposed to its relatively superficial existence as a set of mediatic and ideological practices, ‘can only be justified by reference to these ^^three degrees: simple technico-ideological appearances / the reality of the social organisation of appearances / historical reality^^’ On the first of these three ‘degrees’, or levels – that of ‘simple technico-ideological appearances’ – the spectacle is simply an ideological and media-driven ‘part of society’: something very much akin to Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘culture industry’. Seen in these terms, the spectacle is the sector of society ‘where all attention, all consciousness, converges’. This is the level of Debord’s analysis upon which much of the academic work referred to earlier has tended to focus. Social media, TikTok, Facebook and the issues you discuss concern this level. On the *second level* of this schema, however, and thus ‘behind the phenomenal appearances of the spectacle’, such as ‘television, advertising, the discourse of the State, etc.,’ we find what Debord refers to as ‘the general __reality __of the spectacle itself’, understood as ‘a moment in the mode of production.’ The concept of spectacle, addressed on this second, deeper level, pertains to the social operation of capitalist value, and to the manner in which society has been ordered to suit capital’s continued operation. On the first, more ‘superficial’ level of this schema, spectators contemplate the fads, fashions, adverts and trinkets that celebrate this social order; on this second, more profound level, they become contemplative observers of their own lives, because their social activity has become so thoroughly governed and shaped by that same order. This is the dimension of Debord’s theory that has been addressed by the best studies of his work. Anselm Jappe’s excellent __Guy Debord __(1993, in Italian; 1999 in English) is of particular significance here, as it deals with this theme in detail. The second level entails that the concept of spectacle also operates on a *third level*: that of ‘historical reality’. In this regard, spectacle needs to be understood as __a relation to historical time__. For Debord, the articulation of all social existence via capitalist social relations involves the separation of human subjects from their own lived activity. The result is a historical moment characterized by a loss of historical agency; or, as Debord puts it in another letter: modern capitalism has produced the paradox of a ‘historical society that refuses history’. Thus, this third and deepest level of Debord’s tripartite schema concerns a state of separation from history itself. Although we will touch on the first level of Debord’s theory in later chapters, and although we will also discuss the technicalities of its second level at some length, this book will focus primarily on its third, ‘historical’ level.

ttoinou 5y ago

I tend to agree, though it has the form of détournements of Marxist writing and others stuff like Lautréamont, his pals like Raoul Vaneigem were also into détournements I appreciate it a lot and there is still a big culture of it in France as of now

ATsch 5y ago

It's important to note the target audience of these writings are usually academics who already familiar with the field. This means they get to use a lot of jargon and concepts established by their peers without having to explain them first. There are definitely other texts (such as the YouTube video linked in another thread) that are easier to understand as a casual observer. However the other aspect is that as you alluded to, a strong poststructuralist belief is that common language, by nature of being made to describe the current world, always makes it easiest to express ideas that are already commonplace. Thus to create new ideas one must also create new language.

lil_dispaches 5y ago
"What is considered academic discourse within the spectacular society is nothing but false consciousness—spectacular thought, the official lies sponsored by the spectacle." https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-210 https://unredacted-word.pub/spectacle/#section-210
- 0xADADA 5y ago
  Translator here, thanks for referring to this one, its one of my favorites
beaconstudios 5y ago
Also apparently Foucault could explain his ideas much more clearly in person, and when asked why he didn't write the same way, said that to be taken seriously as a French continental philosopher at least 2/3 of what you write must be incomprehensible. Most of the semiotics and sociological content of postmodernism (ie the majority of it) is really simple and intuitive - it's just wrapped in layers of reference to obscure philosophy, invented terms, and overly complicated language.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  I read part of SotS with my partner outloud. It became obvious, while apprehending the text's ideas, that internet denizens are already intimately familiar with them even to the point of DeBord's perspective as being a bit dated. Social media, and TikTok in particular, push the limits of SotS which is mainly mass media focused. The opportunity for a critical theory of social media is ripe. In this thread, I will 1/13738

lbotos 5y ago

I always thought it was a stylistic aspect of "critical theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory

beaconstudios 5y ago
Critical theory is a subset of postmodernism (a form of sociological systems theory), and a lot of postmodern texts are written this way.