(All)-Consuming capitalism?
Choose one of DeBord's theses (I suggest number 42, 43, 44, 47 or 48) and do your best to put it in your own words. Then tell us what you think of it. Please, as always, try to read what other students have put and make connections to their entries, if possible.
April 05, 2007
The Science of Domination OBE#5
Debord # 41
What is the value of a dollar? Before it became "all-mighty" people knew what the things they owned were worth. A pair of socks meant a winter's worth of wool from a sheep, twelve or more hours of carding and spinning and six hours of knitting. Maybe you had a big marsh of rice and your neighbor had a forest of bamboo and you could trade the two. Maybe you worked as a cobbler and a pair of shoes was worth a new roof on your cottage from the local roofer, since it would take you twice as long to do it yourself than it would to make the shoes and vice versa on making the shoes for the roofer.
However what is an hour's worth of work worth today? Well, that depends on who you are. If you're a cog in the machine of production your hour is worth whatever the worker next to you is willing to take.( thanks Marx and Engels) If you're the production manager your hour is worth a bit more and if you're the owner of the company your hour is worth a ridiculous amount of money that's often negatively correlated with the amount of energy expended to get it.
What about the value of a dollar on the consumption side of things? Well, if you work at a Target store as a cashier, you probably make around $8 an hour so you might be able to afford a $5 meal at Arby's on your lunch break. If you work at Target Corporate downtown you probably make about $28 an hour so you can afford to go to Rock Bottom Brewery for a $15 lunch. Is the food really worth more money? Is it more nutritionally sound? Does what you can afford determine the value of your dollar?
Also, if you go to Target to buy a DVD it might cost $12 but at Walmart the very same DVD would cost you $10. Is your dollar worth more at Walmart? A lot of people seem to think so. That’s what Walmart would tell you, or have you believe. They are masters in "the science of domination".
The commodity is an illustration of its owner's income and status. The value of a dollar is flexible and intangible. The value of a commodity is what you're willing to do to "own" it. Yet, the dollar is the medium through which the commodity is purchased.
So, what Debord is saying here in my assessment is simply that to the general populous “the economy” is a meaningless political term that remains invisible to them in spite of its various connections to their world through social interactions and practices. Like in Jacobs how the store and small business owners are invested in the neighborhood because the people in the neighborhood buy the commodities that they sell. The people don’t consciously think about how their purchases create community, they think more about the social aspects of the economic relationship that exists between them and the store owners. Big businesses have learned, through the “science of domination” (which is, of course, the “dominant science” or political science?) how to catch consumers in their unaware state and appeal to their need for the social side of the economic exchange.
Posted by Tav at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Yes, how much is one hour of your life worth? Even throughout history, as you mentioned, it's quite fluid, but the amount of time and effort something cost was much more evident. Today it's often masked by the ol' dollar. It's still possible to think of the time and effort that was spent in order to buy something, but I think that money can distract one from that. It probably also allows those whose time is much more valuable to ignore how asymmetrical their social position is in comparison to others. I like the target/walmart comparison too. Many people are willing to shell out 2 more dollars for that dvd just to buy it in surroundings that are more aesthetically pleasing to them, despite that Target is not a whole lot better than Wal-Mart in some regards (like contributing about 5 times more money to the republican party than the democrats, not that either are great). Nice one Tav.
Posted by: Justin S. | April 9, 2007 11:26 PM
April 07, 2007
0BE 6-DeBord Manifesto No. 43
Ok, let me start by saying that if I can glean anything that’s coherent from this crazed Marxist/post-Marxist(?) babble, I’ll consider myself lucky. Since these pieces are so short, a loose interpretation of each line seems appropriate. The first line appears to be stating that in capitalism’s infancy, the bourgeoisie saw the proletariat in predominately utilitarian terms. Of primary concern was, how can we extract as much productivity from the worker with as little cost to us in terms of his maintenance? They were uninterested in any other facets of his life at this point, namely “his leisure and humanity”. This stage could not last, as evidenced by the excess of commodities produced which needed a market. Production was up, but who was going to buy all this crap? Aha! If we can talk the worker into buying all these commodities, hey it’s a win-win for all. Turning Cyndi Lauper into a Marxist for a sec, once the working day is done, the proletariat will just wanna have fun (as long as that fun involves his meager earnings flowing back into our bottomless pockets). Brilliant! So, in order to do this, that previously scorned facet of the worker’s existence, his leisure and humanity, must be inhabited “with zealous politeness”. If one were to treat him like the scum that he is, we would get nowhere. Hence, the importance of “the humanism of the commodity” begins to become foregrounded in a myriad of ways. Customer service departments, marketing that tries to appeal to how this or that commodity will enrich your life, the conflation of culture with commodity in general (paying to go to a cultural event, drinking in a café or bar, traveling to foreign lands, etc.) all establish the prerequisite of a monetary exchange to gain access to culture. This imperative to infiltrate all spheres of the worker’s existence results in what DeBord refers to as the “perfected denial of man”. What he seems to be positing is that within this ideological framework, man no longer exists, and what remains is solely poly-dialogues between commodities, both organic and inorganic.
Whew, now for the tough part, do I buy it? Well, DeBord is definitely out of my grasp in terms of absolute intelligibility, but from what I can understand, he does seem to hit quite a few nails on the head. His delineation of a shift from our capitalist state, much to the chagrin of Marx’s ghost, to a post-capitalist state of a service economy, is most certainly true. The theorists we have been discussing over the course of the past month have certainly elucidated a variety of nuances that have come as a result of our post-capitalist epoch. For Castells, it’s the urban dichotomy known as the space of flows vis-á-vis the space of places which has created the dual city. Zukin’s accounts of the symbolic economy and it’s manifestations in the implicit racial and class boundaries many urban spaces have put in place as a result of the influence of BIDs is another example. While looking at the work by all these theorists can easily make one feel overwhelmed and subsequently apathetic/hopeless (myself included), once you realize how intertwined all of these institutions are, the better chance one has of beginning to untangle them and make sense of where you want to place yourself within the infinite spheres that have been created. It would be naïve to think that one could upon reading any structuralist/post-structuralist literature all of a sudden transcend this matrix of pressures(duh, I guess). Nevertheless, while readings such as this are often too dense for me to fully comprehend, they do have a certain edifying effect which I appreciate. Ok, final thought: while absolute freedom in all aspects of life is impossible and not even that appealing, the more aware one is of how one is being controlled, the more one can appreciate life in a certain sense (this probably reeks of privileged white male ruminating, but hey, at least I’m copping to it).
Posted by Justin S. at 03:54 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (5)
Comments
Great blog, Justin. You translated Debord into my level of English. I agree that he makes some very good observations. I plan to try to translate some more of his stuff later and I hope that I can do it as well as you have. Good job recognizing your priviledge. We are still all "oppressed" to a certain degree.
Posted by: Tavia | April 8, 2007 07:43 PM
Wow - Good job Justin! I was just about to make a comment about how I was lost after the first sentence, but you did a good job simplifying it for people like me. And I agree with your last comment too - its definitely a privelege, but its helpful to learn about the ways in which consumerism, etc. trys to control our thoughts and behavior. I feel like it give me back some of that control.
Posted by: Rachel | April 8, 2007 10:36 PM
im loving the cyndi lauper reference. your obe is definitely helpful in turning this really wordy reading into something i can actually get a grip on. this reading really does present some big connections with other authors that we have read this semester. great job on translating and really understanding this reading.
Posted by: amber | April 9, 2007 03:48 PM
The first connection I made with Debord was with Marx too! This article is small, but full of post-capitalistic remarks as Marx predicts will happen. Good job on translating the reading!
Posted by: Kari | April 9, 2007 10:52 PM
Wow this is good, your explanation makes the reading easy. This is truely how Debored would explain his writing
Posted by: Denny | April 10, 2007 12:53 PM
April 09, 2007
Ahhhh...42
No. 42 speaks of the ultimate commodification of social life and space. Everything we see and do as humans is tied into the complex web of imagery and propaganda that promotes the consumption and production of these commodities. The spectacle blinds us, distracts us, feeds us, so that we continue to produce and consume individualistically. “The world one sees is its world,” is a statement that refers to our alienation and fragmentation as humans. A person tends to see only what is in front of them.
For example, in McDonald’s, a person is so displaced and alienated as a consumer, surrounded by alienated workers and nameless faces, gazing at the dollar menu, checking the battery level on their cell phone, hearing the beeping, seeing the line of workers (each putting together a tomato, cheese, patty, bun) to make some billionth copy of this famous image of a hamburger, that has even become a person (the ham burglar). And there are the people all over the world in factories working for nothing, perhaps to put together a toy for the next happy meal.
Debord describes the contrast between the least industrial cities and post-industrial cities being that the post-industrial cities space is made up of “a continuous superimposition of geological layers of commodities”. Large cities have transformed severely in the age of technology so that commercials are ever-present. The cycle that drives us to believe in these commodities is based upon the fragmented division of labor in the post-industrial economy and also the fragmented and specialization of science. Debord is still speaking of the Second Industrial Revolution around the 1870’s until around 1914. Currently, this post-modern/post-city/post-industrial age is deeply connected with specialization and commodification. For example, western medicine has separate institutions for healing the ear and the eye, the skin and the heart, the foot and the lung. Debord mentions that the schools of sciences are becoming split so that we remain a specialized population. In our education, we can only understand one world of thought, so that we remain fragmented in thought and space.
The point is: we are all buying into this spectacle, because it is right before us, and it has invaded our space to the point where we become walking commodities, advertising on our clothing, with our makeup, our hairstyle, our beverage of choice, etc. Each commodity that we wear and consume is most likely detached from the process of the production, and the cycle goes on. Globally, there are so many individuals working to keep the spectacle alive, but locally we cannot see this. Locally, we can only see our own world. We only see what we buy, most likely not the workers who put the commodity together.
Because of the drastic changes in our economy, we have lost our connection with our self-sufficient past. We have lost our identities on so many levels because of the fragmentation within ourselves, because of the commodification of ourselves. This leads into the lives of the proletariats that Justin explains. Because of this cycle of the spectacle, the proletariats are only seen as arms and legs, as an extension of the machine that spits out a thousand pieces by the minute, so that millions of workers can add to the next geological layer of commodities.
Posted by Christina Barber at 01:09 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (5)
Comments
Gosh Christina, you are so right about the whole walking commodities and advertisers. It's not very settling, is it? I wish we were better as a society at seeing the global aspect of our daily lives. Good obe!
Posted by: kaitlin | April 9, 2007 07:28 PM
Great OBE. I understand what the heck he is saying now in #42. You made it pretty straight-forward. 2 brownie points for Christina.
Posted by: Kathy | April 9, 2007 10:13 PM
I agree, our society is so demanding for goods! They want it RIGHT NOW and at a cheap price. Well, this cycle of capitalism takes away jobs from America and also exploits the people and land of third world countires. While the consumers are getting their goods at a cheap price, the quality isn't as great and the items need to be replaced often. It is extrememly frustrating to know that a lot of people don't have any clue as to where their clothing comes from, and the hardships people had to endure while making them. Again, Great OBE!!
Posted by: Kari | April 9, 2007 10:48 PM
Truck Yeah, Chrissi!
We ARE literally worlds apart from where the commodities we purchase are produced, for the most part.
"geological layer of commodities"
Are you a poet?
Posted by: Tavia | April 9, 2007 11:18 PM
no he said that...i forgot to put it in quotes again. ahhhhh...i'm no poet.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 10, 2007 12:37 AM
Debord #47-Swiffer Mops? Really?
Wow, this Guy guy is tough. I mostly feel like I have no idea what the hell he is saying, so bare with me while I chop my way through this. I have chosen to analyze #47. What I believe he is saying is that if you wish to apply capitalism to a poor society you will only continue to impoverish those citizens. When ‘wage workers’ have to sludge through the workday doing hard labor yet mindless work and not make anything for it, only those in economic control have gained anything. It reproduces hierarchal dichotomies of good/bad, rich/poor, conformity/rebel etc. He continues to explain how the production of these capitalist societies where there are always unfair levels of power create somewhat of a normalcy, or maybe acceptance to the fact that it is proper to consume. From my understanding, the “spectacle” that Debord talks about is a how people view one another based on what they see. I think that reality TV in a sense is a good example of this. I mean, people come home from work each day not very satisfied with their own lives. They decide that to ‘improve’ their life (in a way), by watching reality TV where boring people perform boring task. The irony though is that when watched on TV this boringness become more than the mundane tasks that the viewer partakes in, even though they are virtually the same tasks. So maybe I digress a little, but the fact is that this capitalistic world that Debord talks about creates in these wage workers this sense of wanting what the others have, even though the lives of the corporation leaders are no more exciting than the wage workers themselves. Yes, I have digressed. I wonder if this is actually what Debord would agree with. Anyway, back to thesis #47, he states that there are really only a few commodities that are essential (food and lodging) and yet we all yearn for the ownership of these illusions of happiness we find in expensive things. We want the big huge house, the gas-guzzling car, and the unproductive diamonds and not because they improve our lives but because we see them on people in leadership positions.
Did I just make that up? Anyway, if this is at all what he is saying, then yes, I agree with him. Our society, US society, thrives on consumption. To some degree this makes sense and to most degree it’s absurd. Think about what our ‘wonderful’ president said after directly after 9/11 about how citizens could be helpful in the time of such crisis. Go out and buy stuff was his recommendation. It’s true that to keep up our economy in times of crisis is important. What is NOT true is the fact that we really need all the shit we buy. I mean, it’s so interesting to talk to people who really believe they need an SUV, or a 3-bedroom house for one, or a damn Swiffer mop!! Think about all of the packaged things that we depend so heavily on…even simple things like 8oz size servings of yogurt. (buy the big thing and take what you need out!! Put it in reusable plastic hardware if you need individual servings!) The horrendous amount of garbage/plastic/paper that we waste everyday is worth far more than we even consume in dollars each day. What I mean by that is that the amount of paper we waste each day costs more, (provides the economy with less), than worth it to cut down the beautiful trees that improve the quality of all our lives. Does that make sense? I have been fortunate enough to travel to South America on several occasions and in the impoverished cities I have visited I’ve seen far less frivolity for obvious reasons, but I’ve also seen so much reservation and appreciation for important things. The consumerist society we live in is quite a contrast to those whom have nothing. Of course I realize that we are privileged and with privilege should come responsibility, but instead usually provides irresponsibility…
Posted by Kait at 06:45 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
What I believe he is saying is that if you wish to apply capitalism to a poor society you will only continue to impoverish those citizens. When ‘wage workers’ have to sludge through the workday doing hard labor yet mindless work and not make anything for it, only those in economic control have gained anything. It reproduces hierarchal dichotomies of good/bad, rich/poor, conformity/rebel etc. He continues to explain how the production of these capitalist societies where there are always unfair levels of power create somewhat of a normalcy, or maybe acceptance to the fact that it is proper to consume.
I'm not trying to repeat after you, but that point you just made hit a soft spot on me. ouch. Anyways, I can definitely see the Marxist attitude of the bourgeoisie at work here... capitalizing on the proletariat in every which way so they can get the big bucks while the proletariat get put into a system of poverty. I can really see this idea of capitalizing on the poor in Engel's account of poor housing in Manchester when the poor were paying more than what their 'homes' were worth and with rents getting generated back into the pockets of their 'bosses.' Anyways, I'm probably not touching up on anything too obvious, but I just sensed some overarching similarities when it comes to the relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariat of our time and during marx and engels' time.
Posted by: Kathy | April 9, 2007 11:59 PM
OBE # 4 - Necessity vs. Desire...(updated)
Wow. Debord is rough. I’m glad that I’m not the only one that thinks so, too.
Debord’s Society of the Spectacle #44 focuses on consumer goods and the illegitimate decoy that every tangible object is vital to life. From what I understand, he argues that people are mentally linking the contentment that they get from purchasing a consumer good to their continued existence in the world. We’ve all heard the whiney teenage girl on TV contest to her mom’s refusal to buy her a new shirt. “But, MOMMM…if I don’t get this I’ll just DIE! Anyone who’s anyone has this shirt!” This is the same concept that Debord is trying to portray, but in a more refined and polished manner. He calls attention to the fact the consumers procure frivolous products at incredibly high rates. People then equate their fulfillment in life with the acquisition of these goods; they associate their survival with their collection of commodities that will only momentarily alleviate their trivial worries. By buying these unnecessary items, consumers feel a temporary high that makes them feel good about their purchase, leading them to do it more often; by the time that buyer’s remorse sets in, it’s time to go out and buy something new, and the cycle starts yet again. People have developed a mental block that hinders the ability to discriminate between what they need and what they want.
The act of privation that Debord mentions is an important term, meaning having a lack of the vital requirements for life. He argues that the excessive consumerism is not due to the fact that people are experiencing extreme privation, but rather that the sheer opposite is occurring. They want more in order to fill the voids in their lives that are created by buying unnecessary goods. People feel that they need to have tangible goods in order to fulfill the American dream. In essence, the American dream is to be able to consume more than we can pay for. In turn, people acquire debt and lose sight of what is really important. In the long run, will it really be imperative to have that new shirt, or is it more crucial to have a solid relationship with friends and loved ones? The superficial connection that people have with their consumer goods leads to shallow relationships with people.
Allison
Posted by Allison Tierney at 09:16 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
I think a 'commodity' is something "rare or unusual" as in the part I wrote about. (#41) It might also be more valuable or neccessary. A 'good' is just anything that is produced and sold, I think.
Posted by: Tavia | April 9, 2007 11:21 PM
OBE #4 - Who Knew Consumption Was So Yummy?
Debord’s perspective is that of a neo-Marxist. He explains that the new Marxism redefines roles played by the proletariat and bourgeoisie by shifting from modes of production to abject consumption. His usage of ‘the spectacle’ is to describe the process of abject consumption. The proletariat is no longer at the behest of the bourgeoisie to produce goods; it is now required to consume them. Because the bourgeoisie was reliant on the subjugation of the lower classes as the means of production, often pushing them beyond the breaking point, it is likewise now reliant on the lower classes as a means of consumption. Due to the increased mechanization of labor, the necessity of proletariat labor declined. As this trend continued the time considerations of the proletariat shifted from production to consumption. Take for example the eight hour work day: prior to federal labor laws mandating a forty hour work week, there was less time for proletariat consumption. After WWII there was a marked increase in consumption as well as the expectation of consumption. The bourgeoisie needed the proletariat to consume the excess production.
The advertising society is the proof of this conceptualization. If there had been less production than consumption, there would have been less need to advertise; no Yellow Pages, no highway billboards, no Times Square. Because of this production-consumption shift and the rise of Admerica (clever?), the proletariat is supposedly treated as humanity now. However, Debord describes the spectacle as an opiate, one of his more lucid thoughts. The proletariat is subjugated in the mind now, taught to equate physical goods with ethereal commodities and that survival is equitable to satisfaction; a simple derivative of classic Marxism. The guise under which this process happens is money: inherently valueless green pieces of paper on which we place value.
However, people are still expected to work long hours (women entering the workplace effectively doubled available person-hours of labor) and they are also expected to consume (twice as much production feeds and necessitates an increase in consumption). The proletariat is now more deprived of time, money and their actual life than when Marx wrote on strictly production means of deprivation. Instead of a lessening of burden Marx would have expected with mechanization, the proletariat is now stuck between two fronts in the war waged by the bourgeoisie: production and consumption. It helps little that the proletariat is more than willing to exchange their time for trinkets, the exchange of monetary value in the production-consumption cycle only enriching the bourgeoisie more and enabling rampant cyclic growth.
Debord paints a bleak outlook for the proletariat society that is blackmailed into this system of consumptive survival. By equating intangible commodities as necessary for existence, the proletariat is forced to conform to the will of the bourgeoisie in their now dual front capitalist attack of consumption and production. However, Debord also assumes that this process has no end. While it may have no end on a long enough timeline, it does have hiccups (popular revolutions) and taking into account the finite length of human lives, some of the proletariat may experience a world without this production-consumption illusion forced on them.
Posted by David Hauser at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (1)
Comments
Dave, that's a pretty interesting way of looking at what Debord had to say. It was interesting for you to point out that the proletariat had shifted from production to consumption... never would have seen it that way. Always good points, Dave. 2 brownie points.
Posted by: Kathy | April 9, 2007 11:48 PM
OBE #4 iPod Euphoria
DeBord’s proposition of commodities and satisfaction explains the constant purchases of material goods by consumers. This concept can be directly related to Herbert Marcuse’s critical theory on commodities in the piece “One Dimensional Man”.
First I think the word privation needs to be defined since it has two different meanings. The first is that there is a lack of basic necessities and the second is the lack of comfort in life. DeBord speaks of privation in the later since people are not searching for necessity but status through comfort. He points this out by stating “if there is nothing beyond increasing survival […] it is because of enriched privation”. Consumers are not purchasing for comfort by quenching their deprivation through commodities.
Both theorists describe consumers in a sense that they purchase to subside a ‘false need’ through a momentary euphoria. Marcuse describes this as “The Pleasure principle absorbs The Reality principle.” DeBord places Marcuse’s description in relation to an ‘opium war’. The theoretical state of war produces soldiers (consumers) in the battle to concur the state of deprivation to fulfill the ‘false need’. Once the object is obtained, the solider is excited and on a natural high over the concurring of this object. The high then begins to subside and the solider is in need to gain that euphoric state again through another battle. Basically, the consumer purchases a commodity and after that commodity is no longer as valuable; the consumer needs another to make their status better.
Now I’d like to talk about this sense of euphoria through ‘false needs’ within advertising. Marcuse’s idea of Pleasure principle lies with advertising by seducing people to buy things. DeBord would describe this as the start to a new war. This seduction exploits people without knowing because they buy into the ads. Consumers then become alienated from themselves because they are only satisfied by the new product. For instance, my homepage on the internet is msn.com and today one of the main articles was “iPod sells it’s 100 millionth iPod”. Here the seducing voice is saying, “Everyone else has one, now it’s time to take your ordinary mp3 player and upgrade. This will satisfy you like the other 100 million people it satisfied.” The iPod has become a commodity of wealth. A person might have started the ‘war’ with a cassette player. The new invention of portable c.d. players created a new desire which then turned into a desire for mp3 players. Finally iPod had a hold on the consumers for mp3 players making it a category of its own. Now it is marketing to you to be the 101 millionth iPod owner.
In the end, society will always be privatized by commodities in the search for satisfaction, but the satisfaction will never stay because it is only a ‘false need’.
Posted by AbbyS at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE 6 - Debard, Automation or Corporate Profits?
“Automation, the most advanced sector of modern industry as well as the model which perfectly sums up its practice, drives the commodity world toward the following contradiction: the technical equipment which objectively eliminates labor must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity and as the only source of commodity” If the social labor (time) engaged by the society is not to diminish because of automation (or any other less extreme form of increasing the productivity of labor), then new jobs have to be created” (45 Debord).
As I read over section 45, I have come to the following conclusion. Machines have indeed helped people come along way in our society, but we still need people to fix them. This then leads to a deskilling a labor force that was once able to do great work that provided for their family. For example, we can look at the auto industry which was heavily centered in Detroit. When the computer age came about, so too did robots. An ordinary person prior to the robot era was paid to make 4 arch welds on the frame of the body of a car. With the rise of the robot came the fall of the man. He was simply no longer needed, where a computer educated college technician was. These robots could work long hours with minimal wear and tear and save the corporations millions in operation costs. Now with minimal overhead costs, cars were being produced at an even quicker rate and in greater quantities. Did the prices of the vehicles decline? No, they went up as America’s tastes for luxury went up. And what about the one who was put out of work by the machines? He took on a job as a janitor at the factory, well that is until the major auto industry moved its major production plants to Mexico. It is now known that one car has parts made in over 15 different countries but the final assembly takes place in one plant. It is clear that we are not preserving labor as a commodity in the new America. Without any type of some degree, which you have to pay money for, sometimes even too much, it is hard to get any type of job including low level ones. It is very clear that the uneducated are having their jobs stripped away from them at high rates. There is simply no work for this group, and I think that this is evident in our criminal justice system. The US boasts about it low unemployment rate, however, we need to take into account the incarceration rates.
“Prison and jail inmates are invisible in the official labor statistics that describe the economic well-being of the population. Once the penal population is added to statistics on joblessness, the prevalence of employment can be seen to be significantly overestimated among young, less-skilled black men…as the unemployment rate sank to historically low postwar levels in the 1990s, jobless rates among noncollege black men in their twenties rose to their highest levels ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by historically high incarcerations rates” (Western 97).
I think that it is quite clear in our conquest to be automated has help reduce overhead costs, but at what human cost? We are obviously not creating more jobs which Debord thinks is necessary for our society to flourish. Our vital labor statistics are masked by our desire to control the underclass by placing them in state custody.
Posted by Jesse Kortuem at 11:52 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #6 – Debord: Whats it worth? 43 & 46
Guy Debord appears to be a man with similar ideologies as Marx, but I think he strives to bring into perspective the toll commodities have taken on our lives, rather than the bourgeoisie. When Debord talks about the “primitive phase of capitalistic accumulation,” and “the conservation of labor power,” he refers to Marx and the power struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Then, Debord discusses the transformation of our society to post-capitalism.
Picture the society, a healthy, diverse population in which people do not interact, because there is simply no need. Groceries can be bought online, cell phones allow for text-messages, and papers can be posted on online blogs (I just had to say it, but it does save on paper)! Marx talks of the post capitalistic society where our own society can’t even function without reliance on other third world countries. In my perspective relating to Debord and Marx, they are similar in their ideas, but opposite in their time of writing. Marx made a prediction, and Debord is telling the truth of what Marx predicted.
Debord startles me, even though I can see the reality in his words. “Humanism of the commodity takes charge of the worker’s ‘leisure and humanity.” Comodification has completely consumed our lives, leaving us to drool over new goods and constantly dreaming of new wants. Debord says that we can’t even relax without commodities. While I can consider laying on my parents front lawn in the North country, watching shooting stars relaxing, many people watch television for enjoyment and relaxation. Or, how about sitting on Facebook or Myspace reminiscing in old pictures, do real photo albums exist anymore?
Our society has gotten to the point where we apply a use and exchange value to everything, even education! Starting in pre-school, only those that can afford the programs can go, in elementary, middle and high school parents can choose private schools and boarding schools. Then, college, the prestigious resume builder that leaves so many students in thousands of dollars in debt! We have put such a high price on everything that just increases the gap between those who can…fill in the blank and those who can not!
I see struggle everyday with making choices involving money. I make some of my own, but I am so aware as to what others are doing, and it bothers me and it should bother you too! The question is, how do we change it?
Posted By: Kari J.
Posted by Kari Johnson at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
April 10, 2007
OBE-5 Attempt to bring Debord's theses #45 to reality
What I am about to do is interpret the 45th these of Debord’s “The Society of the Spectacle” to the best of my ability. I actually think I understand it quite clearly, and can hopefully give insight to further interpretation. While it talks about automation, it has to do a lot with the division of labor that began a few millenia ago, as well as the loss of jobs with technological advancement that is a bit more modern. The theory is very precise and broad at the same time as it describes how society adjusts around automation taking over industry. The reason I say that the wording of this concept is very broad is because Debord tries to make it seem like a major sociological theory that is generalizable to all of humanity. Other than this, the point is very precise in that it focuses on the ‘contradiction’ of how technological advances causing many to lose jobs must also ‘support labor as a commodity’. I think what he means is that when a ton of people lose jobs essentially due to technology making few people required to do the job, these machines must create jobs some other way. I think what he describes as happening is that they are filled in service jobs, as well as distribution. So all of the jobs in shipping industry, repairs, machine design, computers to operate machines and more efficiently determine what products are in demand, are all examples of these new labor forms of commodities. I dont think that over the course of time is exactly what would have happened to an individual, but to society as a whole this is pretty much what has happened. The funny thing, I think, is when he mentions these types of jobs as being “suitable for the organization of redundant labor required by the artificial needs for such commodities.” I believe what he is getting at is how there are so many jobs that are just fillers to give people jobs, and they are pointless. Sure, it seems that there are very few jobs that exist that don’t need to be filled by someone, but I think Debord is saying that to maintain a functional society, we have to give many jobs like this to people. Debord seems to say that most of it comes from automation creating jobs, like the larger amount of production that machines can do make for a great need for a large number of shippers and handlers. I just think it is funny that he also makes a point of these jobs being “artificially needed,” because often times, certain lower class peoples work seems so useless and made just to give people a job, but the large number of these jobs are truly necessary. The “artificial” aspect comes from the entire situationalist idea of Debord that while they may be doing one thing, it is only representational of another. Such as a person who sits on a computer entering information, like order forms, which end up only being representative of an actual order for product which then gets shipped out after being created by a machine to the person who they were on the phone with. Anyways, I tried to make one of Debord’s theses a little bit more understandable and to put it into real context, feel free to comment and tell me what you think.
Nich
Posted by Nich at 01:45 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE#4-Another stab at Debord...in progress..
(43) When there is a surplus of commodities, workers become recognized as potential consumers, and it is only in the role of a consumer is one “seemingly treated as an adult, with zealous politeness.” The roles individuals take on as alienated consumers supplement their duty as alienated laborers in that they are disconnected from the commodities they consume just as they are from those they manufacture and/or help to sell. Also, the commodities they buy serve the purpose of demonstrating that their labor was worthwhile, justified. The spectacle is sustained by people working to continue the cycle of production and consumption. The spectacle plays upon illusions of a good economy equaling a good society, and it also plays upon a sense of emptiness and insecurity that stems from an induced sense of need that cannot be satisfied . (44) “the spectacle is a permanent opium war which aims to make people identify goods with commodities and satisfaction with survival that increases according to its own laws.” Debord's comparison of "the spectacle" to the opium wars interesting as it refers to a historical instance of rather selfishly ruthless commerce, which I think is indeed comparable to the spectacle of the modern society we live in where there is no concern about selling customers a good, quality product, just concern about making the sale. Drug abuse is similar to materialism and greed; both involve a promise of instant gratification; but likely at a cost that is not readily observable; and the pleasure that it brings will always be illusory. Both hint at the absence of any real kind of pleasure that is self-sustaining. When Debord writes of the spectacle as being "enriched privation" I think he is referring to a sort of state of abundance that lacks any real nourishment; we are constantly encouraged to stuff ourselves with crap that is meant to keep us coming back for more until the point we forget what it is to truly be nourished.
Posted by Erica Jensen at 02:07 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Debord #44.....i'll try my best
In this paragraph Debord seems to allude to an ever changing and "modern"
form of privation. This change occurs from the ability for some humans to
exist without worries of actual survival, those dealing with issues of life
and death, to new type of privation that is based on a system of wants that
stem from materials and economic status. With the spectacle fulfilling
those "needs" created out of this changing privation, he seems to suggest
that the new privation still needs to create sense of survival. This new
idea of survival directly relates the notion that people relate goods with
satisfaction. There seems to be a focus on the fact that the consumable
idea of "survival" will always increase, because the notion of privation is
mixed in survival and will continue to contain ideas of commodities as a
mean of making oneself happy. Furthermore, later in paragraph # 47 he goes
on to mention that this new idea privation leads humans to follow a cycle
of work and consumption beyond the means of food and shelter for survival,
thus creating a cycle where people will always want something more because
they associate a sense of satisfaction in the notion of consuming
I agree with Debord about this idea that people don't live to survive, but
rather focus on life of excess that continually lead to other problems in
society. I find it interesting that he shows that this system continually
builds upon itself because it creates no human sense of fulfillment, or
enlightenment. Rather the ever building concept of survival bogs us down
with so much stuff (clothes, electronics, jewelry...etc) that we tend to
become blinded of reality. I found a general sense of disconnection of
humans from any sense of nature because we are striving beyond the survival
and creating a new man made synthetic "survival." While I know the idea of
the world economy brings everyone together, it seems like these notions of
“enriched privation” would only occur in wealthier nations, while in
reality there are still millions who are actually struggling to survive.
Posted by Tyler Hallett at 02:20 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #4 - Debord No. 42
Here, in my own words, is what I believe Guy Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42. Before I begin, it’s important for me to note that I believe, while he never really says it, that Debord is completely railing against capitalism in No. 42.
Enjoy:
The spectacle of capitalism happens when things (by things I mean attainable objects that one can purchase) take up a person’s entire life. The only thing people see, and the only thing they care about, are things. Capitalism is the chief power and it’s a brutal power. In the places that aren’t as far along, industrially, capitalism is still known to be powerful because people know about the places where capitalism is powerful. In the places that are far along, peoples’ lives are taken up by multiple layers of capitalism. In those places, buying things – even if people aren’t sure why they’re buying them -becomes a job of sorts. This form of slavery must become global if the capitalism is to survive and for that to happen, the people have to reach some form of success, but not too much success. To ensure that people never get too successful, capitalism has to keep them at a certain low level, as humans, through every area (psychologically, socially, etc.).
If this were indeed what Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42, then it would seem to me that he is right with some of his points and off-base with others.
He is right to say that, in a capitalistic society, people can become completely infatuated with the idea of getting stuff, that it almost becomes a second job. You only need to watch an episode of MTV’s “Cribs” to find that out. He is also correct to say that people in less industrialized countries are well aware of the power of capitalism precisely because of the countries where capitalism is the reigning power. People in third-world countries know how powerful capitalism is because, after all, they’ve heard of the United States of America, haven’t they?
However, Debord is wrong to say that capitalism is a brutal power. In fact, it is very much the exact opposite. Sure, people who are living a lower-class lifestyle might not have a good life at the moment, but in a capitalistic society like ours, the chance always exists for them to turn things around. If capitalism were truly brutal, as he claims, then how would he explain all the stories of people who came from nothing and turned themselves into success stories?
He is also wrong to say that capitalism, through every imaginable area (psychologically, etc.) works to ensure that people never get too successful. Look at Bill Gates, for example – it is hard to say that he didn’t get too successful.
I also take issue with what I believe to be a major underlying theme in Debord’s thesis, the idea that capitalism is almost too strong a force for people to withstand, that all people in a capitalistic society are these zombie-like creatures who are all consumed with stuff. Sure, there are some people like that, but not everyone is like that. The fact that certain people become that way is a price you have to pay to live in a society where the opportunities are more abundant. I have no problem paying that price.
Posted by Chris L. at 03:14 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #4 - Debord No. 42
Here, in my own words, is what I believe Guy Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42. Before I begin, it’s important for me to note that I believe, while he never really says it, that Debord is completely railing against capitalism in No. 42.
Enjoy:
The spectacle of capitalism happens when things (by things I mean attainable objects that one can purchase) take up a person’s entire life. The only thing people see, and the only thing they care about, are things. Capitalism is the chief power and it’s a brutal power. In the places that aren’t as far along, industrially, capitalism is still known to be powerful because people know about the places where capitalism is powerful. In the places that are far along, peoples’ lives are taken up by multiple layers of capitalism. In those places, buying things – even if people aren’t sure why they’re buying them -becomes a job of sorts. This form of slavery must become global if the capitalism is to survive and for that to happen, the people have to reach some form of success, but not too much success. To ensure that people never get too successful, capitalism has to keep them at a certain low level, as humans, through every area (psychologically, socially, etc.).
If this were indeed what Debord was trying to say with thesis No. 42, then it would seem to me that he is right with some of his points and off-base with others.
He is right to say that, in a capitalistic society, people can become completely infatuated with the idea of getting stuff, that it almost becomes a second job. You only need to watch an episode of MTV’s “Cribs” to find that out. He is also correct to say that people in less industrialized countries are well aware of the power of capitalism precisely because of the countries where capitalism is the reigning power. People in third-world countries know how powerful capitalism is because, after all, they’ve heard of the United States of America, haven’t they?
However, Debord is wrong to say that capitalism is a brutal power. In fact, it is very much the exact opposite. Sure, people who are living a lower-class lifestyle might not have a good life at the moment, but in a capitalistic society like ours, the chance always exists for them to turn things around. If capitalism were truly brutal, as he claims, then how would he explain all the stories of people who came from nothing and turned themselves into success stories?
He is also wrong to say that capitalism, through every imaginable area (psychologically, etc.) works to ensure that people never get too successful. Look at Bill Gates, for example – it is hard to say that he didn’t get too successful.
I also take issue with what I believe to be a major underlying theme in Debord’s thesis, the idea that capitalism is almost too strong a force for people to withstand, that all people in a capitalistic society are these zombie-like creatures who are all consumed with stuff. Sure, there are some people like that, but not everyone is like that. The fact that certain people become that way is a price you have to pay to live in a society where the opportunities are more abundant. I have no problem paying that price.
Posted by Chris L. at 03:27 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #4 Debord... complicated
whoops apparently this didnt work before.
Here is my stab in the Dark:
Dabord appears to feel rather strongly of the commodity’s affect on our social world, particularly in advanced societies. He states, “social space is invaded by a continuous suuperinmposition of geological layers of commodities.” This phrase encompases the complicated idea that Dabord is wanting to explain. All commodities alter and shift themselves to fit to eachother . This, however, is not necessarily true of more primitive phases. This is focused more on the labor, and this labor being the main aspect of a proletariat- not him as a human being.
I found Dabord’s coined term, “opium war,” to describe people’s need for constant, increasing satisfaction quite intriguing. It makes sense in the way of greed, and people wanting for a better and better feeling seemingly only achievable through these commodities (the “opium”). This attempt to make people relate these materials to contentment is clearly seen in everyday life in store displays, ads, and even through our social involvement with others. The pressure to buy this and it will increase your happiness or that will make life’s problems go away, is everywhere we look. There is no telling to what extent this “opium war” might go to.
Relating to this, Dabords theory that counterfeit life requires a pseudo-justification appears to be the resulting effect of this “opium war.” People get so caught up in this need for things that they truly do not need, that when they finally do obtain them, they are able to relish in a false sense of gratification, at least for a while.
Posted by Angela Mulcahy at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE#5
After this short but dense reading, I was confused. I think the remedy to most confusion is Google. Obviously, this reading had Marx written all over it, but a 20th century extension of Marx. After reading a little on Debord’s background, I was not surprised to find that he was a depressed alcoholic who killed himself (I would be too if I saw the world as he did in such absolute terms). He also led a movement and or group called the “Situationists International” in France who rebelled in 1968. In addition to writing “Society of the Spectacle”, he made a movie version of this book. I watched about 15 minutes of this movie (which is available on Google video in two parts), which was Debord (I think) speaking over various video and images of war, political leaders, semi-nude women, cities, and police beating citizens. The movie also had clips from old black and white films that I did not recognize and was not able to find the names of. For me, this did little in the way of clarification.
As I understood the readings, Debord is extending on Karl Marx’s ideas and theories of alienation, but Debord extends that beyond paid wage labor. As the “spectacle” is the way people socialize which is controlled by images, this extends into all aspects of life. Its modernization that is our oppressor but it controls public and private life. It also sounds as if he is against not only capitalism, but industrialism as well. He writes, “…the technical equipment which objectively eliminates labor must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity and as the only source of commodity (#45)”. From what I know, Marx saw capitalism as the main source of oppression, not industrialism. If I am correct on this (which I may very well not be), I am surprised as Debord is heavily influenced by Marx. I know that human labor became a commodity because of industrialism, but I do not think Marx directly blamed one on the other.
Debord sees the “spectacle” as all consuming power that is cyclical. It is all part of a larger and powerful picture. Moreover, I get a sense of hopelessness that society is in such a cycle and system of extreme modernization. I also think he sees capitalism as being on the same plane as a dictatorship. However, as modernity has created a society of automation, I think that pre-modernized society has too, just in the form of religion. Religion and the “spectacle” serve the same purpose, which is to have society norms and controls which keep citizens under their thumbs. They are both to keep people working and to keep the peace so to speak. I do think that today’s society has its values backward and are values are misdirected (money being our end all be all) but at the same time the spectacle serves a purpose, just as religion served the same purpose before industrialism. Our world is one that depends on commodity and the pre-modern world is one that depended on being self sufficent and religion. Furthermore, I think there are plenty of examples today of people who recognize that there are these controls and that they have negative affects on people. Not everyone accepts the abuses of human labor power and not everyone socializes in a way that is mediated by the “spectacle”. Not everyone has a cell phone or a computer, but the powers that be are making it increasingly difficult for anyone to go with out cell phones or computers. These cooperations and media have such a "purchasing" power over the public which fabricates our wants and "needs".
Posted by Ashley Day at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
Found on nothingness.org--a "situationist international" web site
Posted by Ashley Day at 01:25 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
OBE #4 - #45 of Debord
Ok, so here is Debord’s 45th theory on the Society of Spectacle in the way I interpret it:
In our history there was a time when factories needed a large amount of people to perform different steps in an assembly line to create just about any given commodity. Over time technology improved and machine technology became faster, more precise, and could perform repetitive tasks without tiring as no human ever could. As we developed machines which automate nearly every step of nearly every manufacturing assembly line, the human jobs which at one time performed these tasks have been eliminated. In essence, these new machines enable the production of far more of any given commodity than ever before while at the same time cutting down on the number of individuals with the money to pay for these commodities due to the job loss. As a result of this tremendous job loss, jobs were needed in order to make a justification for mass-production; otherwise no one would be able to afford the commodities which were manufactured. This resulted in the creation of service jobs as opposed to factory commodity jobs.
Taking this one step further, as services were being provided more and more often, quality of service became a big issue because of the abundant competition in the field. Therefore Americans (specifically anyways) came to expect a certain level of service in their everyday lives that was not apparent in earlier years. Because of this, services have become expected instead of having them only as options (if that even). As service jobs usually pay better than factory jobs, the amount of expendable capital accumulated by the general populace went up so the invisible economy flourished as people spent money on the new services that were created as well on as the mass-produced commodities which became more available. Culturally, availability of great services of all kinds and the pursuit of the accumulation of commodities became the norm and anything less than that became substandard and unacceptable. Thus, we have become lazy consumers whose goal is to have as many services provided to us as possible while accumulating as many commodities which can make our life easier as we can afford. Basically, we have shifted in our history from hard-working drones in factories to consumers who do as little as possible who are force-fed entertainment which diminishes imaginative and innovative thought.
Obviously I am extrapolating a great deal from the specifics presented in number 45, but I think it is the next logical step in Guy Debord’s thinking process. The actual paragraph by Debord only covers my first full paragraph above, but since the time of Debord I believe things have progressed through what I described in my second paragraph. I admit that I am pretty general in my argument, and I know that America is a large body of land which is diverse in its’ thinking, but through my own experience as a city and suburb dweller, I believe at least in my lifetime that things have progressed to where there are a good number of consumers out there whose focus is to make lots of money fast and spend it on luxury (just hang out in Carlson for a while and you’ll see). Personally, I think that life is about experiences rather than things, but that’s just me…
Posted by Eric Tissot at 01:28 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
The Commodified Commode
In this reading by DeBord, there clearly existed an overlying theme of commodities. He argued that commodities were acquired to build towards a level of privatization. There also exists an illusion of perceived commodities. These are things that are not necessary for survival, but rather as a measure of success, as everyone else seems to need them.
When I was reading this, multiple things came to mind as examples of this “illusion of commodities.” An example of acquiring commodities to build towards privatization is represented by peoples’ desire to obtain automobiles. If a family of drivers has enough cars for each person, then they need not rely on anyone else for transportation. They don’t have to take the city bus or even pool with other family members. They are within their own private cocoon of glass and steel. Taking it an extreme step further, if someone is successful enough, they can acquire their own private jet, which takes out the entire facet of the airport. Accelerated commodification at it’s finest.
Other people will look at this family of drivers who have a car per person, and wonder how living could be done any other way. They do as any human does in a society and compare themselves. Suddenly, cars are not longer a luxury, they are a necessary commodity. Before you know it, going on the bus is taboo, and if you don’t have your own car you are a social reject, isolated within your pathetic home.
In this reading, money is said to be the emissary of something much graver. Currency is the middleman for commodification. Worthwhile experience that would enrich lives is suddenly slapped with a dollar amount. The beautiful scenery of a forest is gated off and pawned off as a service, because people are charging to protect it. Suddenly nature is a commodified service, something that needs to be kept up rather that occurring naturally.
Back to toilets. Society frowns on one urinating or defecating (‘wizz’n’ or ‘drop’n a deuce’ in laymen’s terms) in public. So how does someone cash in on this social norm? In Europe they do so by commodifying the toilet. Now the toilet is another commodified service. Society is providing a service by charging natural human facility. What is next, fines for orgasms and tax reductions for abstinence?
What DeBord as implicitly stated here is that anything can be commodified, and that instead of finding another way, humans simply work towards acquiring those commodities. By putting a price on necessary things that should be free, and creating an illusion of necessity for those things that are trivial.
Tim Turi
Posted by Timothy Turi at 01:34 PM | Permalink | Add a Comment (0)
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.