|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
“But for the present
age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the
original, representation to reality, appearance to essence . . .
truth is considered profane, and only illusion is
sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion
as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree
of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.” —Feuerbach,
Preface to the second edition In societies where modern conditions
of production prevail, life is presented as an immense accumulation of
spectacles. Everything that was directly lived is now merely represented
in the distance. The images detached from every
aspect of life merge into a common stream in which the former unity of
life can no longer be recovered. Reality viewed fragmentarily
regroups itself into its own new unity as a separate pseudoworld, an object
of mere contemplation. The specialization of images of the world culminates
in a world of autonomous images whose delusion deludes even itself. The
spectacle is a concrete inversion of life, an autonomous movement of the
nonliving. The spectacle appears simultaneously
as society itself, as a part of society, and as a means of unification.
As a part of society, it is the focal point of vision and consciousness.
Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is at the
same time the domain of delusion and false consciousness: the unification
it achieves is nothing but an official language of universal separation. The spectacle is not a collection
of images; it is a social relation between people that is mediated by
images. The spectacle cannot be understood
as a mere visual deception produced by mass-media technologies. It is
a worldview that has actually been materialized. Understood in its totality,
the spectacle is both the result and the goal of the dominant mode of
production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is
the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all its particular
manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment —
the spectacle represents the dominant model of life. It is the omnipresent
affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere
of production and in the consumption implied by that production. In both
form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the
conditions and goals of the existing system. The spectacle also represents
the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes
the majority of the time spent outside the production process. Separation is itself an integral
part of the unity of the world, of a global social practice split into
reality and image. The social practice confronted by an apparently autonomous
spectacle is at the same time the real totality which contains that spectacle.
But the split within this totality mutilates it to the point that the
spectacle seems to be its goal. The language of the spectacle consists
of signs of the dominant organization of production — signs
which are at the same time the ultimate end-products of that organization. The spectacle cannot be abstractly
contrasted to concrete social activity: each side of such a duality
is itself divided. The spectacle that falsifies reality is nevertheless
a real product of that reality. Conversely, real life is materially invaded
by the contemplation of the spectacle, and ends up absorbing it and aligning
itself with it. Objective reality is present on both sides. Each concept
established in this manner has no other basis
than its transformation into its opposite: reality emerges within the
spectacle, and the spectacle is real. This reciprocal alienation is the
essence and support of the existing society. In a world that is
really turned upside down, the true
is a moment of the false. The concept of “the
spectacle” interrelates and explains a wide range of seemingly
unconnected phenomena. The apparent diversities and contrasts of these
phenomena stem from the social organization of appearances, whose essential
nature must itself be recognized. Considered in its own terms, the spectacle
is an affirmation of appearances and an identification of all human
social life with those appearances. But a critique that
grasps the spectacle’s essential character
reveals it to be a visible negation of life — a negation of
life that has taken on a visible form. In order to describe the spectacle,
its formation, its functions, and the forces that work against it, it
is necessary to make some artificial distinctions. In analyzing
the spectacle we are obliged to a certain extent to use the spectacle’s
own language, in the sense that we have to move through the methodological
terrain of the society that expresses itself in the spectacle. For the
spectacle is both the meaning and the agenda of our particular
socio-economic formation. It is the historical moment in which we are
caught. The spectacle presents itself
as a vast and inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole
message is: “What appears is good, what is good appears.” The
passive acceptance it demands is already effectively
imposed by its monopoly of appearances, its manner of appearing
without leaving room for any reply. The tautological character
of the spectacle stems from the fact that its means and ends are identical.
It is the sun that never sets over the empire of modern passivity. It
covers the entire surface of the globe, endlessly basking in its own glory. The society based on modern
industry is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally
spectaclist. In the spectacle — the visual reflection of the ruling
economic order — goals are nothing, development is everything. The
spectacle aims at nothing other than itself. As indispensable packaging
of currently produced objects, as general articulation of the system’s
rationales, and as advanced economic sector that directly creates an ever-increasing
mass of image-objects, the spectacle is the primary product of
present-day society. The spectacle is able to subject
human beings to itself precisely because the economy has already totally
subjugated them. It is nothing other than the
economy developing for itself. It is at once a faithful reflection
of the production of things and a distorting objectification of the producers. The first stage of the economy’s
domination of social life brought about an evident degradation
of being into having: human fulfillment was no longer equated
with what one was, but with what one possessed. The present stage, in
which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions
of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to
appearing — all “having” must now derive its immediate
prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances. At the same time all
individual reality has become social, in the sense that it is shaped by
social forces and is directly dependent on them. Individual reality is
allowed to appear only if it is not actually real. When the real world is transformed
into mere images, mere images become real beings — dynamic figments
that provide the direct motivations for a hypnotic behavior. Since the
spectacle’s job is to use various specialized mediations in order
to show us a world that can no longer be directly grasped, it naturally
elevates the sense of sight to the special preeminence once occupied by
touch: the most abstract and easily deceived sense is the most readily
adaptable to the generalized abstraction of present-day society. But the
spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds.
It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical
reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever
representation becomes independent the spectacle regenerates itself. The spectacle inherits the
weakness of the Western philosophical project, which attempted
to understand activity by means of the categories of vision, and
it is based on the relentless development of the particular technical
rationality that grew out of that form of thought. The spectacle does
not realize philosophy, it philosophizes reality, reducing everyone’s
concrete life to a universe of speculation. Philosophy, the power of separate
thought and the thought of separate power, was never by itself able to
supersede theology. The spectacle is the material reconstruction of the
religious illusion. Spectacular technology has not dispersed the religious
mists where human beings had projected their own alienated powers; it
has merely brought those mists down to earth, to the point that even the
most mundane aspects of life have become impenetrable and unbreathable.
The fallacious paradise that represented a total denial of earthly life
is no longer projected into the heavens; it is embedded in earthly life
itself. The spectacle is the technological version of the exiling of human
powers into a “world beyond”; the culmination of humanity’s
internal separation. As long as necessity is socially
dreamed, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the
bad dream of a modern society in chains, and ultimately expresses nothing
more than its desire to sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep. The fact that the practical
power of modern society has detached itself from that society and established
an independent domain in the spectacle can only be explained by the fact
that that powerful practice continued to lack cohesion and had remained
in contradiction with itself. The root of the spectacle is
that oldest of all social specializations, the specialization of power.
The spectacle plays the specialized role of speaking in the name of all
the other activities. It is hierarchical society’s ambassador to
itself, delivering its official messages at a court where no one else
is allowed to speak. The most modern aspect of the spectacle is thus also
the most archaic. The spectacle is the ruling
order’s nonstop discourse about itself, its never-ending monologue
of self-praise, its self-portrait at the stage of totalitarian domination
of all aspects of life. The fetishistic appearance of pure objectivity
in spectacular relations conceals their true character as relations between
people and between classes: a second Nature, with its own inescapable
laws, seems to dominate our environment. But the spectacle is not the
inevitable consequence of some supposedly natural technological development.
On the contrary, the society of the spectacle is a form that chooses its
own technological content. If the spectacle, considered in the limited
sense of the “mass media” that are its most glaring superficial
manifestation, seems to be invading society in the form of a mere technical
apparatus, it should be understood that this apparatus is in no way neutral,
and that it has been developed in accordance with the spectacle’s
internal dynamics. If the social needs of the age in which such technologies
are developed can be met only through their mediation, if the administration
of this society and all contact between people has become totally dependent
on these means of instantaneous communication, it is because this “communication”
is essentially unilateral. The concentration of these media thus
amounts to concentrating in the hands of the administrators of the existing
system the means that enable them to carry on this particular form of
administration. The social separation reflected in the spectacle is inseparable
from the modern state — that product of the social division
of labor that is both the chief instrument of class rule and the concentrated
expression of all social divisions. Separation is the alpha
and omega of the spectacle. The institutionalization of the social division
of labor in the form of class divisions had given rise to an earlier,
religious form of contemplation: the mythical order with which every power
has always camouflaged itself. Religion justified the cosmic and ontological
order that corresponded to the interests of the masters, expounding and
embellishing everything their societies could not deliver. In this
sense all separate power has been spectacular. But this earlier universal
devotion to a fixed religious imagery was only a shared acknowledgment
of loss, an imaginary compensation for the poverty of a concrete social
activity that was still generally experienced as a unitary condition.
In contrast, the modern spectacle depicts what society could deliver,
but in so doing it rigidly separates what is possible from what
is permitted. The spectacle keeps people in a state of unconsciousness
as they pass through practical changes in their conditions of existence.
Like a factitious god, it generates itself and makes its own rules. It
reveals itself for what it is: an autonomously developing separate
power, based on the increasing productivity resulting from an ever more
refined division of labor into parcelized gestures dictated by the independent
movement of machines, and working for an ever-expanding market. In the
course of this development, all community and all critical awareness have
faded away; and the forces that were able to grow by separating from each
other have not yet been reunited. The general separation of worker
and product tends to eliminate any consistent sense of accomplished activity
and any direct personal communication between producers. With the increasing
accumulation of separate products and the increasing concentration of
the productive process, accomplishment and communication are monopolized
by the managers of the system. The triumph of this separation-based economic
system proletarianizes the whole world. Due to the very success of
this separate production of separation, the fundamental experience that
in earlier societies was associated with people’s primary work is
in the process of being replaced — at least in areas near the cutting
edge of the system’s evolution — by an identification of life
with nonworking time, with inactivity. But such inactivity is in no way
liberated from productive activity: it remains dependent on it, in an
uneasy and admiring submission to the requirements and consequences of
the production system. It is itself one of the consequences of that system.
There can be no freedom apart from activity; and within the spectacle
activity is nullified, all real activity having been forcibly channeled
into the global construction of the spectacle. Thus, what is referred
to as a “liberation from work,” namely the modern increase in
leisure time, is neither a liberation of work itself nor a liberation
from the world shaped by this kind of work. None of the activity stolen
by work can be regained by submitting to what that work has produced. The reigning economic system
is a vicious circle of isolation. Its technologies are based on
isolation, and they contribute to that same isolation. From cars to television,
the goods that the spectacular system chooses to produce also serve
it as weapons for constantly reinforcing the conditions that engender
“lonely crowds.” The spectacle recreates its own presuppositions
ever more concretely. The spectacle was born from
the world’s loss of the unity, and the immense expansion of the modern
spectacle reveals the enormity of this loss: the abstractification of
all individual labor and the general abstractness
of what is produced are perfectly reflected in the spectacle, whose manner
of being concrete is precisely abstraction. In the spectacle,
a part of the world presents itself to the world and is superior
to it. The spectacle is the common language of this separation. Spectators
are linked solely by their one-way relationship to the very center that
keeps them isolated from each other. The spectacle thus reunites the separated,
but it reunites them only in their separateness. The alienation of the spectator,
which reinforces the contemplated objects that result from his own unconscious
activity, works like this: the more he contemplates, the less he lives;
the more he identifies with the dominant images of need, the less he understands
his own life and his own desires. The spectacle’s estrangement from
the acting subject is expressed by the fact that the individual’s
gestures are no longer his own; they are the gestures of someone else
who represents them to him. The spectator feels at home nowhere, because
the spectacle is everywhere. Workers do not produce themselves;
they produce a power independent of themselves. The success of
this production, the abundance it generates, is experienced by the producers
as an abundance of dispossession. As their alienated products accumulate,
all time and space become foreign to them. The spectacle is the
map of this new world, a map that is identical to the territory it represents.
The forces that have escaped us show themselves to us in all their
power. The spectacle’s social
function is the concrete manufacture of alienation. Economic expansion
consists primarily of the expansion of this particular sector of industrial
production. The “growth” generated by an economy developing
for its own sake can be nothing other than a growth of the very alienation
that was at its origin. Though separated from what
they produce, human beings nevertheless produce every detail of their
world with ever-increasing power. They thus also find themselves increasingly
separated from that world. The closer their life comes to being their
own creation, the more they are excluded from that life. The spectacle is capital
accumulated to the point that it becomes images. Chapter 1
of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle (Paris, 1967).
Translated by Ken Knabb. This translation is not copyrighted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
