Introduction
The society of the spectacle belongs to the important theoretical reflections of the twentieth century. Its author is Guy Debord, a French philosopher, writer, poet and artist. Debord can without a doubt be considered a revolutionary of his time, who went down in history primarily with his sharp criticism of consumerism, capitalism and consumer society as such. Debord was the most prominent figure of the Situationist International, a movement that equally criticized consumerism and capitalism, while their criticism was primarily based on a Marxist and avant-garde perspective (Bartošek, 2008).
In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord criticizes the structure, functioning and values of modern Western capitalist society, in which truth and reality seem to no longer matter. They have ceased to exist objectively and have been replaced by a spectacle. It no longer matters what things really are - what they appear to be is much more important. The term "spectacle" plays a key role. It represents a kind of theatre, theater or theatrical performance. If we talk about the society of the spectacle, we are talking about a society that is somehow theatrical, dramatized, or theatrical (Petrusek, 2020). According to Debord, our authentic experience of life has been replaced only by its representation. In the fourth thesis of The Society of the Spectacle, Debord says that "A spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relationship between persons, mediated by images" (Debord, 2007, p. 4). Thus, social and interpersonal relationships are increasingly mediated by images, which leads us to mutual alienation and commodification of our lives.
Although Debord came up with the theory of the Spectacle Society in 1967, we can still consider it current and relevant today. Many of its theses and messages are perhaps even more valid today, since the company has since undergone further development in the field of technology, but also changes in the field of value direction. In today's Western world, people are consumed by consumerism and often seek satisfaction in the material world. However, he does not find satisfaction, so he remains unhappy. He alienates himself and others. By means of Debord's ideas and the analysis of selected theses, in the article we reflect on how the person of the consumer world got into this abyss and whether he can get out of it.
Theory of Spectacle Society
Debord (2007, p. 4) defines spectacle as social relations between people that are mediated by images. The basic thesis of his theory is that in modern Western capitalist society we no longer experience our relationships directly, but through images and representations that are conveyed to us primarily by the media and popular culture as such. They have the power to shape our understanding of reality to a great extent, and therefore also how we live our daily lives. If the real reality is replaced only by its representations, then our lives become only something abstract, while we become passive observers of a world in which everything is commodified.
Debord's theory of commodification of life and interpersonal relations is based on Marx's concept of commodity fetishism, which Marx developed primarily in his work Das Kapital (1867). It describes the way in which commodities in our world acquire a kind of mystical value, which is, however, separate from the labor that went into their production. According to Marx, this occurs because the social relationships between the people involved in the production of these commodities are obscured by the relationship between the commodities themselves. The exchange of these commodities on the market creates the impression that the products have value in themselves, when in fact their real value is the result of labor and social relations without which these products could not have come into being (Marx, 1976, pp. 163-177). Marx therefore calls this phenomenon commodity fetishism – the commodities themselves overflow with imaginary value, even though it actually lies in human labor, which remains hidden.
As Debord (2007, p. 11) states in his thirtieth thesis, the more a person recognizes himself in dominant images of need, the less he understands his own existence and desire. Therefore, the more a person is absorbed in consumerism and the more he is drawn into consumer society as such, the more he ceases to understand the meaning of his own existence, his own life, and therefore himself. Although he may find satisfaction, satisfaction, or imaginary happiness in the material world, on the other hand, he feels as if he is losing himself and his human essence.
The society of the spectacle thus represents a state where society has created a false awareness of reality and of itself. Authenticity and the real experience of reality have been replaced by marketable images and artificial substitutes – an adventure film, artificial plants or a stuffed dog (Kalabus, 2020). As an example from the present, one can especially imagine films, series or shows in the style of "reality shows" - all of these are imaginary substitutes for reality, which, however, have gradually become part of our everyday life. Perhaps the most explicit expression of this false reality are "reality shows", which try to convince the viewer that this is real reality with just the name alone. However, the actors of these shows are usually placed in various artificially created situations, which they would hardly get into in real life or in a normal environment, so it is difficult to talk about depicting reality. Just as most women in ordinary life do not find themselves locked up in a modern Western version of a harem, fighting for the favor of a single man, neither do lonely farmers on their farm routinely host a group of random women in the hope that one of them will become their bride. Even in this way, today authentic life is being replaced by an artificially created reality.
In today's modern consumer society, how things appear on the outside is much more important than what they really are. Our authentic living of life has gradually been replaced by a representation of a kind of "ideal" form of it. Real human relations took a back seat and were replaced by relations between commodities and material things as such. It is no longer important to "be", it is much more important to "have". When a person has something, owns something, he buys his own being, which he then presents to his surroundings. Today it can be seen, for example, in people's obsession with branded clothes, electronics, or cars. Through them, we create a certain image of ourselves, thus becoming actors in the given spectacle. The more society moves away from its nature, the more it needs different substitutes for reality. Nowadays, they are mass-produced and then mass-consumed. This is how we find ourselves in a kind of vicious circle of consumer society.
The question "to have or to be" is also asked by the German-American psychoanalyst, social psychologist, sociologist and philosopher Erich Fromm in his work with the same title - To have or to be. Fromm shows us two mutually contradictory models of existence. One focuses on "having," meaning material possessions, power, and aggression. According to Fromm, this model is the basis of universal evil, greed, envy and violence. The second model of "being", on the other hand, is based on love, the real perception and experience of life and the pleasure of sharing it with others.
"In a culture in which the ultimate goal is to have—and to have more and more—and in which someone can be said to be 'worth a million dollars', how can there be an alternative between having and being?" asks Fromm. However, as he adds, on the other hand, it might seem that the very essence of our being is to have, because if someone has nothing, he is nobody (Fromm, 2020, p. 35).
If a person lives in the way of "having", he wants to have everything for himself. It gives him pleasure to have and not to share. Therefore, he must become greedy, because if his goal is to have, the more he has, the more he has. He must feel hostile towards everyone else - they represent competition. He can never be satisfied because his desires never end. He envies those who have more and fears those who have less. At the same time, however, he must suppress all his feelings in order to present himself in a good light to himself and others – as sincere, smiling or rational (Fromm, 2020, p. 23).
Three types of spectacle
In The Society of the Spectacle, Debord defined several types of spectacles.
The concentrated spectacle uses a certain ideology and power is concentrated in the hands of a dictatorial personality or political group. According to Debord, it is typical of authoritarian regimes and is implemented through a cult of personality, using force and various means of coercion. Examples of the functioning of a concentrated spectacle are totalitarian regimes, Stalinism, Nazi Germany and the like (Morgan, Purje, 2016). The ruling power here has control over all media and communication, and thus also over the information and images that are presented to the people. In a concentrated spectacle, the ruling power does not shy away from using force, coercion, violence or very conspicuous propaganda. In this way, the concentrated spectacle creates its own controlled and altered reality, which often glorifies the regime itself or the totalitarian leader. The most important thing is to get people to follow the ruling ideology in this spectacle (Eagles, 2012).
In contrast to the concentrated spectacle, Debord defines the dispersed spectacle. He associates it with advanced capitalist societies in which consumerism is increasingly on the rise. Unlike the concentrated spectacle, control here is not achieved by force or coercion, but by a kind of seduction. This seduction is carried out through consumer culture - the spectacle here manifests itself in the number of images and commodities it offers to people. The scattered spectacle seduces and draws people into the cycle of consumption and never-ending needs (Hearse, 2021). As an example, one can imagine various advertisements in which competing products are fighting with each other, trying to win over the consumer at any cost. These ads stimulate viewers to exercise their freedom of choice within consumerism and thereby integrate themselves into it. At the same time, they integrate into consumer society in this way (Morgan, Purje, 2016). The scattered spectacle offers the audience an infinity of possibilities and promises them liberation and satisfaction. Satisfaction does come, but it lasts too short. After fulfilling one need, others immediately arise. This is how a seemingly free person finds himself caught in the vicious circle of consumerism and becomes a slave to the spectacle.
In 1988, when Debord published his Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle, he introduced a third form of the spectacle. It is an integrated spectacle, with which he pointed out that the previous "worldwide division of spectacular tasks" between the competing realms of "concentrated spectacularity" and "dispersed spectacularity" has collapsed in the meantime and it has merged into a common form of "integrated spectacularity" (Debord, 2007, p. VIII). Thus, in the integrated spectacle, only one system no longer prevails, but a more advanced level of social control begins, in which the elements of both previous types of spectacle are combined. According to Debord, the integrated spectacle is a highly sophisticated form of social control that combines authoritarian elements with the alluring seduction of consumer capitalism. It represents a world in which information, images and commodities are interconnected, allowing them to manipulate public opinion. The integrated spectacle therefore represents one of the most pervasive forms of control in contemporary modern society (Eagles, 2012). Even if the totalitarian regime no longer works in the integrated spectacle and no force or direct coercion is used, people are indirectly and subtly forced to accept certain social values under the guise of democracy. If he decides to criticize this spectacle, he is often perceived as if he is also criticizing the values that every "right person" should profess (Morgan, Purje, 2016).
According to Debord, the integrated spectacle can be demonstrated on the example of the fight against terrorism: "Such a perfect democracy creates its own unimaginable enemy, terrorism. It wishes to be judged by its enemy rather than by its results. The story of terrorism is written by the state, and therefore very instructive. The audience must certainly never learn everything about terrorism, but they must always know enough to convince them that everything else must be compared to terrorism." more acceptable and in all circumstances more rational and democratic” (Debord, 1990, p. 24). So the audience is never shown the whole truth. However, it is enough for them to believe that terrorism is something really bad and very dangerous, that it represents a very real threat to society, and that it is therefore necessary to eliminate it. It does not matter in what way or by what means it will be eliminated. Even if the blood of innocent people were to be spilled, it would still be a "lesser evil" and would be "much more democratic, justified and humane" than terrorism itself. This is how it is possible to limit basic human rights and murder innocent people under the guise of terrorism. The fight against terrorism thus suppresses exactly the same values that it appeals to and fights for. If the viewer opposes this spectacle, he also opposes the general values of democracy. In this way, he risks becoming an outcast or a renegade of society.
Analysis of selected theses
The fourth thesis, which represents one of the key theses of the Society of the Spectacle, says that "The Spectacle is not a set of images, but a social relationship between persons, mediated by images" (Debord, 2007, p. 4). Here, Debord points out how the spectacle changes interpersonal relationships and the overall way of interaction and communication between people. The images that are presented daily in the media and advertisements greatly influence our lives and beliefs, but also our desires and needs. The aim of advertising in the spectacle is to systematically create new desires and needs in people. Through them, we get the feeling that we constantly need something, and unless we get it, we will not be complete and happy. A person finds himself in a vicious circle of never-ending needs and never-satisfied desires. The illusion that we always need something different, something new or something better prevents us from being fully satisfied.
Christopher Lasch, an American cultural historian and social critic, states in his book The Culture of Narcissism that, although in the past advertisements were originally just to draw attention to a product and its benefits, today they are producing their own product. It is the consumer himself - eternally dissatisfied, impatient, eager and bored. Advertising no longer serves to advertise products, but to promote a consumer lifestyle. It "teaches" people to desire not only goods, but also personal fulfillment. It promotes consumption as an answer to eternal dissatisfaction, but at the same time it creates new forms of dissatisfaction. Consumption promises to fill the void, but in reality it deepens it (Lasch, 2016, p. 88-90).
The various new products brought by today's modern times are changing the way we live our lives to a great extent. Debord's ideas can also be applied to today's modern technologies. People today prefer to rely on them rather than relying on others. If a person got lost in a foreign country or a foreign city a few decades ago, he would not hesitate to approach locals or passers-by and ask them for directions. Nowadays, if you just pull out your smartphone and open a map app, you'd probably look like a fool asking someone for directions. Although these technologies are extremely useful on the one hand and greatly simplify our lives, on the other hand they shape new forms of human behavior and mutual interaction. As Debord predicted, our lives are thus reduced to a kind of commodity barter, while interpersonal relationships and communication take a back seat.
The same is the case with the phenomenon of social networks. Thanks to the development of modern technologies, their consumption has become a daily part of our lives, and sharing our thoughts, feelings and emotions on them is nothing special. However, we rarely think about the fact that social networks monetize our opinions, friendships or love in this way. They are profiting from our privacy and intimacy, which has become a public matter.
Debord was very critical of technology and considered it as a tool that enhances the power and functioning of the spectacle. His critique of technology is deeply connected to the critique of the spectacular and consumerist society as such. Although technologies, especially media and communication technologies in the spectacle create a feeling of immediacy and closeness, in reality they deepen separation and alienation between people. At the same time, they strengthen power and social control in capitalist society. They transform real human experiences and feelings into their commodified representations, thereby significantly supporting the superficial reality in which consumerism reigns (Raine, 2024).
The twenty-eighth thesis also aptly reflects today's times: "An economic system based on isolation is a circular production of isolation. Isolation establishes technology, and the technical process in turn isolates. All goods selected by the spectacular system - from the automobile to the television - are also its weapons serving to permanently strengthen the conditions of isolation of the "lonely crowds." The spectacle becomes more concrete and encounters its own assumptions" (Debord, 2007, p. 11). The thirtieth thesis, which we mentioned above, says that "The alienation of the spectator in favor of the viewed object manifests itself as follows: The more he looks, the less he lives; the more he accepts that he will be recognized in the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own existence and desire" (Debord, 2007, p. 11). The thirty-third thesis closes an imaginary vicious circle: "Although man is separated from the product of his work, nevertheless, with ever greater efficiency he produces every detail of his world, the more and more he begins to be separated from his world. The more his life now becomes its product, the more markedly man separates himself from his life" (Debord, 2007, p. 12).
Here, Debord uses the conjunction "lonely crowds", referring to the American sociologist David Riesman, who used this term to describe the fragmentation of our society. In his most famous and influential 1950 work, The Lonely Crowd, Riesman, along with authors Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney, explores changes in American society, focusing on changes in people's personality types as well as changing social structures.
With the concept of lonely crowds today, one can imagine, for example, a bus ride that is full of people. Instead of looking at one of them, making eye contact or speaking, we prefer to look at our smartphones and ignore everyone around us. We fear strangers and fear live interaction with them. In the online world of social networks and dating apps, it's quite common to strike up conversations with complete strangers. We can casually converse with them, flirt or even fall in love with them. We can also insult them, argue with them and block them. But in the real world, it becomes a problem. The easier it is for us to "connect" with someone online, the harder it is for us to do so in real life. Modern technologies and means of communication, on the one hand, are presented as wanting to connect people, on the other hand, they create a huge gap between them. This is how we alienate ourselves and each other. As Debord pointed out, we are gradually separating ourselves from real life and from what was once directly experienced.
In the online world and social networks, everything seems to be easier. In addition to not having to face direct communication, we can embellish or completely change who we really are. We ourselves choose how we will present ourselves and what information or photos we will publish. So we choose only certain parts of our personality and our life, those that are worth showing to others, those that we ourselves like. However, it simply doesn't work that way in real life. People can catch us in different situations and thus reveal our ugly sides or parts of life that are not too ideal or worthy of sharing. However, we are not in danger of this on social networks, because we can easily construct the ideal form of our personality and our life - simply who we would like to be. So our "virtual self" is just a certain embellished representation of ourselves.
Here we come to Debord's very first thesis, which states that "All the life of societies governed by modern conditions of production appears as a vast accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was previously experienced directly has become distant in representation" (Debord, 2007, p. 3). Since in the online space we have the opportunity to adjust our personalities as we like and reveal only the good about ourselves, we protect ourselves from a certain risk of being judged and not fitting in with the imaginary crowd. This is how we protect ourselves from the risk of loneliness. At the same time, however, the real version of ourselves is weakened, thereby losing our authenticity. This causes us to stop fitting in with the "real crowd", among real people, in real life. That is why we become lonely in crowds.
In the sixty-sixth thesis, Debord also pointed out the absurdity of the materialistic world: "Every single commodity fights for itself, cannot recognize other commodities and wants to establish itself everywhere as if it were the only one" (Debord, 2007, p. 30). As viewers, we regularly encounter various advertisements for competing products - Pepsi and Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Burger King, X-Factor and The Voice, and the like. However, each of these products is promoted as if nothing else existed in the world. This is how individual products try to conquer the consumer, attract them to their side and completely discourage them from competing products or brands. At the same time, we viewers are often presented with various contradictory images, messages or values. Therefore, it may happen that a dramatic film depicting a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous will be interrupted by an advertisement for vodka (Morgan, Purje, 2016). These logical inconsistencies, paradoxes and contradictory properties of the spectacle are presented to us daily, so we don't even pay much attention to them anymore. We are already so absorbed in consumption that we don't even realize how absurd the images of the spectacle that make up our everyday life and its reality are often.
Conclusion
Guy Debord suffered from depression throughout his life and was a heavy drinker. It was his addiction to alcohol that later became fatal. Frequent drinking brought on neuritis - a disease causing inflammation of nerves throughout the body. It is believed that it was on the basis of these health problems that he decided to end his life in 1994, at the age of 62. His death remains partly unclear and controversial to this day, as it was rumored that his suicide was some kind of last revolutionary act or cry (Byrd, 2014). Even if this statement is difficult to confirm or refute today, the unchanging fact remains that Debord made a great contribution to the field of his activity and his legacy does not lose its relevance even today. However, in order to keep his legacy alive, it is important to realize the scope of the spectacle.
As we have shown in the article, the theory of the Spectacle Society is more relevant today than ever before. Social networks, virtual reality or ubiquitous advertising - the spectacle conquered us and we lived with it. Today's society has moved miles away from its nature and instead of reality it only gives us a representation of its ideal form. The more distant we are from nature and reality, the more we need different substitutes from the material world for them. These substitutes for reality are mass produced and we consume them en masse. We have become consumers in a consumer society, allowing it to function and control our lives. Omnipresent alienation lurks at us from television, magazines, the Internet, and advertising banners. However, we have gotten used to it to such an extent that we consider these substitutes for reality to be the real reality. The representation of life has become life itself. Can we still get out of this abyss into which we have been dragged? The answer is hidden in each of us.
Author: Mgr. Stanislava Baranová Department of Ethics and Aesthetics, Faculty of Arts, University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra. The paper was created thanks to the support of the project VEGA 1/0158/23: Non-religious spiritual literacy: origin, development in childhood and significance in adulthood and thanks to the support of the project UGA II/1/2024: Ethical and gender aspects of partner relations.
List of references
BARTOŠEK, P. 2008. The most radical artistic avant-garde. (online) (cited 15.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://www.advojka.cz/archiv/2008/8/nejradikalnejsi-umelecka-avantgarda
BYRD, CH. 2014. Guy Debord: The life, Death, and Afterlife of a Brilliant Crank. (online) (cited 17.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://hazlitt.net/feature/guy-debord-life-death-and-afterlife-brilliant-crank
DEBORD, G. 1990. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. London: Verso, 1990, 94 p. ISBN 0-86091-302-3.
DEBORD, G. 2007. Society of Spectacle. Prague: Intu, 2007, 157 p. ISBN 978-80-903355-5-4.
EAGLES, J. 2012. Guy Debord and the Integrated Spectacle. (online) (cited 16.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://fastcapitalism.uta.edu/9_1/eagles9_1.html
FROMM, E. 2020. To have or to be. Bratislava: Citadella Publishing, 2020, 292 p. ISBN 978-80-8182-144-8.
HEARSE, P. 2021. Guy Debord and the Spectacle. (online) (cited 17.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://anticapitalistresistance.org/guy-debord-and-the-spectacle/
KALABUS, E. 2020. Greed and peace are mutually exclusive. A carnival of illusions, the cult of celebrities and the society of the spectacle. (online) (cited 16.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://www.czechfreepress.cz/emil-kalabus/chtivost-a-mir-se-navzajem-vylucuji-karneval-iluzi-kult-celebrit-a-spolecnost-spektaklu.html
LASCH, CH. 2016. The Culture of Narcissism. Prague: Triton, 2016, 304 p. ISBN 978-80-7553-000-4.
MARX, K. 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume One. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1976, 1136 p. Available online: https://www.surplusvalue.org.au/Marxism/Capital%20-%20Vol.%201%20Penguin.pdf
MORGAN, T. - PURJE, L. 2016. An Illustrated Guide To Guy Debord's 'The Society of the Spectacle'. (online) (cited 15.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://hyperallergic.com/313435/an-illustrated-guide-to-guy-debords-the-society-of-the-spectacle/
PETRUSEK, M. 2020. Spectacular company. (online) (cited 16.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://encyklopedie.soc.cas.cz/w/Spole%C4%8Dnost_spektakul%C3%A1rn%C3%AD_(PSpol)
RAINE, S. 2024. What is Guy Debord's Theory of the Spectacle? (online) (cited 17.05.2024) Available on the Internet: https://www.perlego.com/knowledge/study-guides/guy-debord--defining-the-spectacle/