Sociological Theory: A Skeleton Key to Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle (1967), [© Dan Krier]

This video describes how Marx's writings provide a skeleton key to Debord, arguing that the "Society of the Spectacle" is a pacifying political weapon of capital that forestalls class consciousness, worker solidarity, political potency, and effective revolutionary action. Though imperfect, Debord's work remains relevant and insightful for comprehending society, politics, and capitalist dynamics.
[© Dan Krier]
Dan Krier
Iowa State University
Sociology

[@vanyasingh5581]

This is so concise and well presented but also love the Good Omens shoutout

[@danieldeelite]

Love the enthusiasm of delivery. It shows that you care and genuinely enjoy the material

[@inbfu1513]

It was very useful, thank you! I would also like to hear about what you mentioned at the beginning regarding why you don't like the book.

[@rundtosset4576]

I was wondering the same thing!

[@Powderfinger07]

Excellent presentation. Screen technology has dominated human consciousness since the 1950s. It serves as a centralized authority in the home. A specific way to know about the world and feel connected to something bigger, and feel *guided* by the slick production methods, showing us the experts on all things that we should know about. And there’s never a pause. Every second is filled with content, keeping this kind of buzz going on in our lives. “We’re all on this together, as I sit alone on my living room.” Bottom line, we are creatures of habit addicted to comfort, and this technology allows the ruling predator class to keep us sedated with endless entertainment. The medium is the massage.

[@aWomanFreed]

The monolith from that Kubrick movie

[@socialtheory]

I am so glad you found this helpful - Dan

[@stephenloy3535]

yes,social atomization complete---or just turn the box off

[@gqbriel11]

Thanks so much Dan, this is an amazing resource! I really like your way of presenting with handwritten notes/drawings.

[@airportbokeh]

This was an amazing video that I first watched last year after failing to grasp Society of the Spectacle the first time I read it. Your explanation of how images become capital really stuck with me, and it's really informed how I go about understanding how the quality of how modern society has changed from the late 1800s to now. Thank you for making your videos public.

[@socialtheory]

You are welcome --glad it was useful to you.

[@skiphoffenflaven8004]

Daniel Boorstin’s book (The Image) is also incredible. I bought it from the Ames Public Library in 1997.

[@balsarmy]

Not bragging, but I read it very fast, it's easy and outstanding book

[@airportbokeh]

@@balsarmy That's good to hear, but it's also worth taking more time than is absolutely necessary in order to fully appreciate the contours of a text, whether it is "theory," a literary novel, or anything in between. I'm a sparse annotator, so slow reading and referring back to related passages seems natural especially for this kind of text, and it helps me solidify what is being said. Video lectures like this help add on new layers of perspective.

[@Cody-yg7gl]

Since i formed my ego ive only thought of myself in relation to the spectacle, since i clued into it, i hit a phase of dissociation and am still grasping for where reality is.

This video really helped me apply this text to my present hyperreality. The view of expert discourse and mass entertainment as a shock absorber for the injuries of class is something I see everywhere. Any plans to do a follow-up video on Debord's reconsideration of SOTS?

[@inbfu1513]

Would you please mention which part of the book is emphasized that "Content doesn't matter"? Thank you! Hope you answer it

[@viditsinghchhikara1086]

This is so well explained that it inspires me to be citially concious of my actions around the spectacle of this digital era.

[@OSNLebuna]

Not your spelling though

[@CaroleMora22]

Excellent, generous presentation--thanks so much!

[@socialtheory]

You're very welcome!

[@BlueRockBill]

This is the best explanation of this book I've come across. Well done!

[@socialtheory]

I'm glad you found it helpful.

[@alpha-to--zero]

Thank you for this analysis. I understand its absurdity (as a text) from Debord's background on the LI and SI, but its a very interesting critique of daily life.

[@wyleong4326]

Great lecture. Students are lucky to have you.

[@socialtheory]

So nice of you to say.

[@eightiefiv3]

Excellent!! Thanks for uploading this. Very useful!!

[@socialtheory]

You're very welcome!

[@KirillKovalevskiy]

Excellent video! Very helpful. Than you for putting it together.

[@socialtheory]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mlzplayer9243]

Brilliant! Not a student but I enjoy a lot of the theory provided, thank you so much. I found fishers ideas helped with breaking from the notion that the content so much as the way humans relate provides indoctrination, and that the spectacle and capitalist culture are simply an extension of capitalist development.

[@rare.and.important.content]

Excellent breakdown. This is incredibly powerful content. I shared a link to this work so more people can get a handle on it.

[@socialtheory]

Much appreciated!

[@anacidcommie382]

Great stuff, and thanks for clearing up the issue of ideology, cause I always considered the spectacle as the neoliberal form of ideology until now. So thanks for that!

[@anacidcommie382]

@@afish4447 Because the content of the spectacle tends to be ideological most of the time, so it's not exactly difficult to conflate the 2. I don't understand what a big galaxy brain like you is doing on a channel meant to teach people who want to learn. Sounds utterly illogical. Respectfully.

[@socialtheory]

I am glad that the recording's emphasis on the structure of the passive society of spectatorship -- rather than the ideological content of spectacle -- was helpful. Ideological content matters, of course, but changing the content will have limited effect so long as the pacifying structure dominates.

[@markabolivie3181]

thanks,Dan

[@blairhakamies4132]

Brilliant 😊

[@dominic9983]

This is an excellent summary but I do wish you’d dedicated some discussion to Debord’s treatment of time; that’s the portion I’m having the trouble with :(

[@socialtheory]

To Debord, the "time-ways" of the society of the spectacle are "pseudo-cyclical time." There are multiple resonances to the concept, but when I teach the book I emphasize the governing idea that the content of the spectacle varies (there is a new episode of a series, a new football game, another World Series, another evening of news commentary) while the spectator does not. Passive spectators cyclically consume spectacular images night after night, with shallow variations, which distracts them and prevents them from actively participating in events of historical moment. The spectators are not participating in a sacred ritual associated with the cyclical timeways of traditional society, but are instead isolated in their consumption of ever-recurring content. In this way, the potential revolutionary energies of workers are drained away in stupefied consumption.

[@dominic9983]

@@socialtheory That’s excellent, much clearer, thank you so much, Dan! Startlingly relevant 50+ years on!

[@marlie4872]

25:47 32:00 37:20 39:56

[@dedg0st]

you only access reality through the “spectacle” - dr. haz

[@thefilthyamerican3538]

So, since the issue is with the superstructure of Capitalism and less with the content of the spectacle, does that mean that the Spectacle is inescapable? That there’s no way to resist the Spectacle nor opt out of it?

[@thefilthyamerican3538]

Or is building Class Consciousness a way to resist the spectacle?

[@NicolasKiroy]

Realigning your personal values in a way that offsets the pressure of the spectacle can help at an individual level, but considering so much of modern society is a consequence of that superstructure, not really. That being said, trying to escape the world as it is still limits the freedom of an individual, because it enforces a dialectical construction of individuality. Personally, I believe absurdist or Nietzschean ideas apply best here: learn to accept the world as it is first, then go about making change as you see fit. Educating ourselves after that acceptance is a great start, and the end is what it will be regardless.

[@socialtheory]

... this answer to your earlier question seems right to me. Class consciousness and active participation in class movements works against the pacifying and deanimating logic of the spectacle.

[@mogourmetzulu213]

What we need is collective awakening!

[@tuutuutuuttuutuutuut2244]

one of my favorite 'books' but a hard read indeed.

[@fahrenheit8084]

Why book in quotes

[@ianpatton632]

Fabulous interpretation thanks

[@socialtheory]

It's an important book -- glad that the recording helped.

[@SK-le1gm]

“You gotta keep em separated”

[@burellix]

thank you very much for this video! extremely clear and well explained. I agree about the prophetic tone and language which is also common to Baudrillard. However I kept asking myself what the difference is between capitalist spectacle and precapitalist spectacles. Romans were famous for saying panem et circenses: give people (the plebs) bread and entertainment. I think this is basic human psychology and it has been around for millennia. Do blue-collar workers really want to go to a union or communist meeting after a 10 hours shift to discuss political revolutions? I don't think so. Furthermore there is an uncritical assumption that IF spectacle didn't distract workers, they would NATURALLY achieve class consciousness by willingly meet after work to discuss how they are exploited. This assumption seems to me irrealistic. Rather, workers achieve class consciousness because a 'prophetic' leader, whether Marx, Mao or Debord, makes them realise and then instantiate that consciousness. But isn't this what religious prophets and political leaders have always done? Finally who is 'they', the capitalists? Who is this invisible class that coordinate all these distractions to defuse the revolutionary potential of united workers? aren't the people who produce the spectacles also workers? Is there a REAL Kabbalah of capitalists that conspire to distract workers from uniting? I wonder if Marxist theory isn't actually distracting social scientists from looking at humanity for what it is....

[@nigelhornberry8062]

Interesting comments. I think generally speaking Marxist theory is most valuable when it is entertained and applied to observed phenomena, but not in a doctrinaire or all-encompassing fashion. To adopt wholesale Debord’s lens as written in ‘The Society of the Spectacle’ and use it as a singular framework for analyzing the world around you would be overly simplistic. But I think that the inherent challenge offered by the critique is as you concede prophetic and in some way profoundly true, in that the better challenge offered is itself valuable. Isn’t that what matters most? As for the modern nature of the spectacle, I think that modern mass communications technology completely changes the game in a number of ways. Firstly, you can bombard your your subjects with distractions and injunctions for a much larger share of their waking existence. I mean when are we not being advertised to or being asked to passively spectate capital’s self-reinforcing, self-justifying self-presentation? When we’re driving. When we’re listening to music. When we’re on our phones. When we’re on our sofas. When we’re on our laptops. The Romans never imagined that sort of reach. Remember also that our society is one of mass surveillance, the data of this surveillance being commoditized and wielded as yet another weapon against us. This is another power that the Romans never had. Further, the ubiquitous nature of modern communications is such that an ever shrinking horizon of increasingly bland and self-reinforcing presentations of capital will be the likely natural development of the spectacle. This would coincide with the spectacle capturing a larger and larger audience, theoretically extending to every human being on the planet. This totalitarian reach will almost certainly have a homogenizing effect on the species, constraining our agility to even access psychological frameworks that might threaten the reign of capital. So I think that modern technology serves as a lever which multiplies the force of the bread & circus’s concept by many factors. So many in fact so as to render the current iteration different in kind, not only in degree. As for who “The Ominous ‘They’” are? It’s hard to say. Firstly, I would revisit my opening statement about taking the theory with a grain of salt. I’ll build on that by suggesting that Marxism is perhaps most valuable as one of several frameworks you can adopt to rigorously analyze phenomena, with the best results likely coming from consideration of multiple viewpoints. But I think we both agree that the value of this framework is tremendous. Back to your question. It’s sometimes difficult to pick out where exactly intention and individual agency begins when one conducts a systemic analysis. Systemic analysis inherently diffuses the concept of intention into the realm of function. Does the capitalist class “intend” to put homeless people on the streets? Are billionaires and wealthy corporations explicitly instructing the police to criminalize poverty and harass these people? Is it consciously orchestrated that these things happen in full visibility of the emiserated labor forces so as to scare workers into accepting shit conditions? Or is it a necessary element of the capitalist system that incidentally (but NOT coincidentally) serves that function and can always be expected to develop in a capitalist society? I don’t know, because I’m not a lizard person. I’m never in the room where it happens. But honestly, why are we wondering about this? I don’t understand how the world I live in is any different if it’s the one or if it’s the other. I see how the intention implied by Debord’s presentation can come off as conspiratorial, but I tend to receive it with a more dispassionate frame of mind, thinking about it on the level of function more so than on the level of design. Further, systems can contain within them functional elements that protect and perpetuate the system. The system might have a logic that operates on its own accord without humans needing to make these conscious decisions. The introduction of computational technology makes this more true than it has ever been before. You could draw an analogy to evolution by natural selection. We often describe our bodies or certain organs as being “designed” for this or “meant” for that. When in reality, it would be more accurate simply to describe their function. Because we know that evolution by natural selection is built on random mutations, which are not meant or designed for anything. Similarly, it’s not a stretch to assert that, provided certain mass communication capability, capital will accumulate to a point such that it will generate a pacifying self-reinforcing and self-justifying self-representation.

[@artiexus]

@@nigelhornberry8062 To extend your natural selection analogy, though, there could be elements we dislike about our bodies/organs and wish to desperately change, without realizing the reasons that they exist the way they do. I haven't read the book, but judging by this presentation, Debord seems naive to me in his vision of how people work. It's almost as if he doesn't consider the fact that a politically charged meeting where everyone puts their heart and soul into participating would be an overwhelming chaotic mess-doubly so for revolutionary activity. Why is he expecting people to play nice and take everyone's needs into consideration? Is it just because they're all workers and in the same boat? I can guarantee that there are many workers who would tyrannize their comrades and squeeze them dry at the first opportunity. But let's say that Debord got his wish and people staged a revolution-what are people doing with their free time afterwards? Is revolution a neverending process of everyone negotiating their will to power with everyone else, and political meetings are a constant feature of life? How do they decide who does the dirty, difficult jobs? I'm not sure if you've seen clips from the 2019 DSA convention, having that as a regular occurrence would be a cruel punishment. My guess is that most people are going to just want to perform their obligations to society and get home to their family-where they will be spectators of the fruits of culture. Maybe Debord's point is simply that things won't get better for you if you just sit around watching movies and shows, that you have to fight for your interests?

[@calebscarberry]

no humans coordinate the spectacle, the spectacle independently reinforces and directs itself as an incidental (but NOT coincidental as a previous comment stated) byproduct of capital also, the development of proletarian consciousness is not so easily boiled down to your “attending a meeting after work to discuss revolution”. in my eyes, developing consciousness is a personal, at times secluded, effort toward understanding history, philosophy, the Self, and how modern society has reduced all of these ideas to dwindling remnants of themselves

[@obban12]

The spectacle is generated by our inherent unwillingness, or fear of, full participation in our own lives. We love to day dream about objects that will satisfy our existential yearning, commodities, experiences, relations. This underlying and mostly unnoticed malcontent with the actuality of real life and its content; chores, pains, pleasures, work, learning, forgetting, highs and lows - is what feeds our belief that some materiality will eventually complete us, when in fact such comfort can't serve that need. Two world wars didn't solve it, Socrates' defense didn't solve it and neither did Mao, needless to say late capitalism isn't going to either no matter how many eggs we place in this basket. The increased alienation is the outcome of our collective subconscious fear of the reality of living truly invested in normal day-to-day life. Debords defetishization of the dominant stricture is striking, but yet an elaboration out of the same mechanism that put the spectacle in place and is itself spectacular in nature.

[@billguschwan4112]

35:52 homo spectator : homo fab passive receptivity of images and relates to others through images

[@billguschwan4112]

37:37 injunctions : not work not political potent action not relating authentic but content of spectatorship itself

[@__Mike__2000]

Is Homo-Spectacle similar to Nietzsche's Last Man?

[@socialtheory]

... this would make a fine essay topic.

[@CrimsonMaplesofAutumn]

The content does matter. A TV channel showing endless lectures/shows on The Spectacle would eventually end The Spectacle.

[@obban12]

No, sweeping your carpet and calling your grandma will, though.

[@fahrenheit8084]

I disagree. This might actually be one of its most drastic methods of survival and Debord’s entire critique confirms this.

[@Smonsequenses]

It clearly does not, you can watch this on KZbin right now and none of the 11k other people who watched this have formed a meaningful, organised group with you.

[@Smonsequenses]

Additionally, you cannot overcome the problem of passivity through changing the content. In the end you will always need people to organize collectively and spent their time on other things than spectating. At best, a change in content can serve as an inspiration, but it cannot ever end the spectacle. The spectacle can only end when the means of production are seized by the proletariat and capital, which produced the spectacle, is abolished entirely. Perhaps we can never meet that condition, but regardless you cannot simply hope to end the spectacle by keeping capitalist relations intact and changing the content of the spectacle.

[@SK-le1gm]

The Society of the Blue Pill