Guy Debord’s “The Commodity as Spectacle” is a nice follow-up to McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message.” While McLuhan stated that the medium is a vehicle for the transportation of the message, Debord seems to be saying that there IS no message, and that only spectacle and show exist.
When I last met with Dr. Arnzen to discuss McLuhan’s piece, he told me that whenever he reads the word “media,” he replaces it with words like, “fireworks” or “spectacle.” As I read this selection from Debord’s Society of the Spectacle, I substituted words like “media” and “fireworks” whenever I saw “spectacle.” Doing so helped me to focus my understanding of Debord’s piece as a critique of media, and specifically of advertising.
What is the purpose of fireworks? They don’t accomplish much of anything – people just hang around outside, stuffing their mouths with picnic food while watching the sparkling lights. People observe media in the same way, often looking at but rarely observing and scrutinizing the spectacle before them.
The spectacle becomes a stand-in for real life. As the spectacle gains dominance (through television, radio, film, and print), people begin to flock to and accept it simply because it is ever present. Repetition is powerful, and after making multiple appearances, a spectacle wins over its audience that believes, “that which appears is good, that which is good appears.”
The more viewing a spectacle receives, the more power it gains. People idolize that which they see on television and often seek to recreate televised fantasies in their real lives. Television is an illusion of reality, but after so much exposure, we begin to see television AS REALITY, and we consequently shape our lives after television. The attractive, slender actresses that appear on television shows have achieved such a look with certain lighting and film tricks… but if you poll a group of teenage girls, they will probably express to you their desire to look like Hollywood Actress A or B. The power of the celebrity image as projected on film and television is particularly evident when you research the growing number of people who are seeking plastic surgeons and demanding that their facial features be reworked to resemble those of George Clooney or Julia Roberts.
Because of spectacle, life ceases to be life and instead becomes a mere representation. The spectacle draws people further away from the essence or reality of an object and brings them closer to an illusion. Such illusion makes it easy for people to lust after products, to develop consumption fetishism, and to forget the production process. Thus, products are not made – they are merely sought and owned – and Debord feared that in a spectacle-driven society, people lose their connection to their creative genius and power. Instead of actively producing life through their own intelligence and ability, people buy their lives.
People buy happiness in hundreds of ways. We might go out for dinner with friends, or perhaps we’ll treat ourselves to a movie to ease our minds. Happiness might come in the form of a shopping trip, or in the shape of a recently purchased CD. Advertisements target our need to achieve happiness through purchase; they make false claims that the product ensures happiness or the easing of some ailment. Single and unable to get a date? The smiling couple in the toothpaste commercial tells you that the guys/gals will love you if you brush your teeth with Crest. McDonald’s latest ad campaign promises you just about anything you might desire. “I’m lovin’ it.” Loving what? The smell of grease in the dirty restaurant? The french fries? The fat clogging your arteries? The fact that your children will entertain themselves in Playland while you savor your coffee? This ambiguous catch phrase promises satisfaction to any and all possible desires one can associate with the McDonald’s experience.
And yet, the slogan is not about McDonald’s at all. It says nothing about the food products, or of the convenient location, or of the restaurant’s facilities. The slogan is about the consumer’s satisfaction, or their own “love” for the McDonald’s experience. But the consumer will not actively pursue such happiness; they’ll just flock to McDonald’s because perhaps they once ate a Big Mac that satisfied their hunger.
According to Debord, spectacle threatens human intelligence and ability by brainwashing people with powerful images of products. The repeated images gain significance and power as entities independent of human touch, and people forget their own role in production and development of material goods. As a result, the good is worshipped and the power of the human hand and mind is forgotten.
Posted by Kate Cielinski at March 13, 2005 4:47 PMHi Kate!
New reader here. I found a link to your blog through your Professor's blog, and decided to read on.
This was a great post. A lot of my courses in grad school were on media criticism, popular culture and alternative media. It is overwhelming to think about how strongly the media affect our society (especially children). Kids see these actors, singers, and athletes as role models, or even worse, heroes. Why? Because they score lots of baskets? Because they have six custom Hummers and gold plated sinks at their house?
Have you read Douglas Kellner's "Media Spectacle"? That is a good book that follows along the lines of your discussion here. Also, if you can get a hold of the film "What a Girl Wants" (not the one with Amanda Byrnes ;)), that is pretty interesting too. It talks about how so many girls look up to the "bubblegum pop" singers, and how many of these singers' videos are produced by a guy who is famous for his "adult" productions...
Congrats on your acceptance to grad school. Once you get into it and eventually start teaching (will you be teaching during your grad program?), trust me, you will love it...even if you get stuck with the first-semester freshmen...;)
Best of luck!
Kaitlin
Hi Kate - another new reader here. I wanted to comment on a previous post you made, but figured you would be more likely to see it here.
I was so glad to see someone else pick up on the reversal of the "male psychotic" tendency in May - I found this film to be one of the most innovative and intriguing horror offerings of the past few years. Since I work primarily in Romanticism, I was, of course, thinking about Frankenstein - a novel that is often critiqued through similar terms (anxiety, the body, gender, etc.), and which the film also reverses in similar ways (vague, yes, but it's been awhile).
In any case, great blog!
Great review of "The Society of the Spectacle" ...and you're getting some wonderful feedback here from others! I think the Douglas Kellner recommendation is particularly useful, given that he edited the book you're using. I recommend you also check out his jazzy home page at http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/
Whenever I think of Debord, I think of two things: 1) "life imitates art," and , 2) the radical neo-marxist, Jean Baudrillard, who I believe we're going to be reading together in the future. If not, check him out some time, particularly his work on the "simulacra." He's a bit extreme and certainly "postmodern"...you'll like him.
I do think it's all fireworks, but remember that fireworks don't operate in a cultural vacuum. They reify war. Be sure to think about the context of consumption when it comes to images. Too many critics overgeneralize and ignore culture in their treatment of spectacle. You should consider what a feminist might have to say about some of this stuff, too. One good book you might want to review some day is Mary Russo's "The Female Grotesque"...it's right up your alley, given your adoration of Barbara Creed's Monstrous-Feminine.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to our face-to-face discussion!
-- Dr. A.
Posted by: Mike Arnzen at March 15, 2005 12:31 PM