guy debord's "the society of the spectacle": C/D?

http://www.ubu.com/film/index.html

"The Society of the Spectacle" by Guy Debord was key in shaping the student sit-in at the Sorbonne University during the Paris riots of 1968. Interest in the text has lately re-emerged - so much of it relates to contemporary society. Please join our reading group which examines its concepts, its debt to Marxism and its critique of art. We will take a chapter every other Tuesday 6-7.30pm, Summer term, Russell Square. Please contact XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX for details at XXXXXXXXXXXXX✧✧✧@hotm✧✧✧.c✧✧

uh, "sit-in"? go back to coll... OH YOU'RE ALREADY THERE

fucking hell.

Que?

it's actually one of the more literate bits of academic spam i get in my inbox

but calling it a "key text" already misses the point

plus -- it shaped the sit-ins during the riots? wtf

Ah. I'd just written a post calling you incredibly nit-picky, but actually you are completely right. There was certainly Debord's influence on (some of the participants of) the riots themselves, and the occupation of the University, but occupation is an active co-opting of power. I think possibly the author of the invitation was concerned about the connotations of the different words - there are a large number of student sit-ins going on at the moment, so maybe it will appeal more to those people, whereas 'occupation' or 'strike' or 'riot' may put people off.

Hope that makes sense, I've been completely distracted by hating on Teddy for being a misanthrope.

occupation is an active co-opting of power

well, you know, in theory. i.e. no it isn't, the police will come and evict you. i wouldn't take it too seriously tbh.

but the idea of a university seminar on debord's "key text" about the insidious "power" of the university is kind of retarded, isn't it? will attendance count towards the seminarians' end-of-year score? if they occupied the seminar room, that'd be ok i guess.

i.e. no it isn't, the police will come and evict you

Logically, this doesn't mean it isn't, rather it means it is temporary. Which Debord completely recognised himself.

And why is it retarded to study the book? To propose studying something is not the same as condoning its contents and suggesting that one lives by its tenets. (Also, it isn't about 'the insidious power of the university', really.)

you're the one who said that occupying the university was a matter of actively co-opting power!

i don't think it's anything that grand.

it feels like a played-out thing to be studying, really, but also it will inevitably get you into tedious meta-arguments about whether the book has been "recuperated" by being put into a university context.

you're the one who said that occupying the university was a matter of actively co-opting power!

Wait, not sure what you're responding to here. If the bit about it being temporary, then yes, just because it's temporary doesn't mean it's not co-opting power, it's just co-opting power temporarily. If the bit about The Society of the Spectacle not really being about 'the insidious power of the university', then uh, even though the book is not really about that in any specific sense, we can still claim a) Debord's work influenced many of the students, and b) the process of occupying a university is a matter of actively co-opting power.

it feels like a played-out thing to be studying

So's Shakespeare, dude. What do you want to do about it?

it will inevitably get you into tedious meta-arguments about whether the book has been "recuperated" by being put into a university context.

Those meta-arguments can lead to interesting thoughts, though. But yeah, the potential for ending up in a circular discussion that goes nowhere is certainly real - on the other hand, that potential is there with a whole shitload of philosophy, and at least Society of the Spectacle is fun to read.

i know the book isn't about the insidious power of the university; but the occupations it helped inspire were, as you say -- occupation is a matter of "co-opting power".

and obviously the soi-disant soixhante-huitards in the long-term at once limited their activities to higher education -- climbed the greasy pole there -- and reckoned that by revolutionizing it (insofar as they did) they would be revolutionizing society. beginning to sound a bit like allan bloom here.

but my main point is:

the process of occupying a university is a matter of actively co-opting power

no it isn't!!

Who are you calling a huitard?

no it isn't!!

Why not? The only reason you seem to have given is that the police will come and evict you, to which I have already given a response. So... why not?

soixante-retards, more like

Yeah, I think that was the joke. To be honest, I'm not particularly happy with the bandying about of the words 'retard' and 'retarded' on this thread.

well, the onus is on you to explain what kind of power the university represents. i obviously think it represents a power in the land -- but we have to specify of what kind. it disseminates certain forms of knowledge; it helps shape the business and political and ideological elites.

but having done that, we then have to show that to occupy university buildings "co-opts" that power.

and it doesn't.

sorry

debord is lame I dunno why people read him

good graffiti slogans

it's because people are lame

well, the onus is on you to explain what kind of power the university represents. i obviously think it represents a power in the land -- but we have to specify of what kind. it disseminates certain forms of knowledge; it helps shape the business and political and ideological elites.

but having done that, we then have to show that to occupy university buildings "co-opts" that power.

and it doesn't.

Ah, okay. So would you agree that it removes that power temporarily from the institution (taking 'institution' loosely, here, to cover a general 'those who usually have this power')? That would not necessarily imply that the occupiers themselves take ownership of/co-opt the power, but rather impose themselves between it and the institution.

I *might* agree with you that in order to co-opt the sort of power you have specified one would have to achieve more than a temporary inhabitation (though I need to go away and think about this more, as I have doubts). I would still disagree that occupation was not an active attempt to gain this form of power, and therefore a successful occupation would co-opt it - we haven't really defined whether we're talking about the specific occupation of '68 or the paradigm case/Platonic ideal of occupation, which would obviously have to be successful (unless you want to argue that actually the paradigm is failure... I'd be interested in this argument.)

However, there is also 'power' in the sense of agenda-setting, in the sense of imposing structure (even structure as banal as class timetables!), in the sense of having 'the voice of the intellectuals' (which is pretty important). These elements of power would certainly be co-opted, even temporarily, by a student occupation. A less complete operation, of course, but still within the remit of what we are discussing.

debord is lame I dunno why people read him

Whereas reading this post has illuminated and stimulated my very senses, my soul, rendered my being effervescent with joy, at long last the scales have fallen from my heretofore pustulent eyes, and now, indeed, I must go forth and embrace the world. Hussar!

:) glad I could halp

So would you agree that it removes that power temporarily from the institution (taking 'institution' loosely, here, to cover a general 'those who usually have this power')?

not really. i mean, the occupation lasted about a week. the system rubbed along okay i think. the general strike was a bigger deal.

when you talk about co-opting power, do you mean that the students now control the dissemination of knowledge, the formation of the power elite, etc...? would the occupied university continue to operate, but using new criteria set by students and sympathizers? kind of academic (geddit) because this was never likely.

we haven't really defined whether we're talking about the specific occupation of '68 or the paradigm case/Platonic ideal of occupation

er, yeah, im not talking about the platonic ideal of occupation. gd continental bs.

However, there is also 'power' in the sense of agenda-setting, in the sense of imposing structure (even structure as banal as class timetables!), in the sense of having 'the voice of the intellectuals' (which is pretty important). These elements of power would certainly be co-opted, even temporarily, by a student occupation.

i don't understand this. the students (especially sorbonne students) are already part of "power", already budding intellectuals. you'd have to explain why them setting timetables was significant, or why we'd side with the students. i don't udnerstand how you occupy a university and then set the timetable. occupation sort of means no more classes. except from preferred candidates -- always a good way to go about intellectual enquiry.

The NYU students who occupied their student center last year did nearly zero to "coopt power." A massive movement of student protests and sit-ins with a bit more of an organized mode and agenda might be able to do more - not necessarily coopt power but at least force it to make some concessions or slight shifts.

Otherwise I agree that you shouldn't confuse occupation of the physical space of a university with occupation of its control.

er, yeah, im not talking about the platonic ideal of occupation. gd continental bs.

I'm not sure how considering paradigm cases is specific to continental philosophy. Hell, I'm not sure how Plato is specific to continental philosophy. But seeing as you've clarified that you are only talking about the occupations of 1968, then we might as well not continue discussing general principles at all.

Will just answer these two things, though:

the students (especially sorbonne students) are already part of "power", already budding intellectuals

Yes, but do you really think that students get to set the agenda, the terms on which they are taught or represented? They do not have that power unless they act to take it.

i don't udnerstand how you occupy a university and then set the timetable. occupation sort of means no more classes

Well, exactly. It is a demolition of that structure.

It's fantastic! But as always I don't remember a word of it. :-( I just remember the book being very slim and I read it in a couple of days. I think I read Attali's Noise not soon after that. Equally great. :-)

I wonder why I read, hardly remember a word of it. :-(

Now reading a Foucault book. Why bother?

foucault is awesome - with debord I got the sense that he was just gussying up relatively simple interpretations of marxism with really obtuse academic language, the kind of language that is used to show "hey I went to university too"... been a long time since I read him though, maybe I should revisit?

Student occupation kicking off right here right now. All on the roof of the refectory with their red flags.

Yes, but do you really think that students get to set the agenda, the terms on which they are taught or represented? They do not have that power unless they act to take it.

you're interpreting power here as i would not. id pretty much accept the "power" of the teacher over the student. ideally it should be a two-way street. but i don't think the student can "co-opt" the "power" of the lecturer. even in the ideal paradigm, let alone irl.

"i don't udnerstand how you occupy a university and then set the timetable. occupation sort of means no more classes"

Well, exactly. It is a demolition of that structure.

yeah this is where i begin to sympathize with the lecturers -- which is unusual for me. im basically fine with occupations, if they have popular support, that aim to (say) change university investment policy, or, as in columbia '68, stop weapons research on campus. but destroying the power structure that inheres in a timetable? really? why not unpack the sinister implications of potty training while you're about it.

I wasn't trying to say that the timetable itself is an evil structure, but rather that within the process it is an element of power that can be co-opted. One would think that you were willfully misunderstanding, there.

marcuse agrees w/ me but i can't be arsed to find the reference (subverting the power of evidence-based argument)

xpost

really don't understand how you can "co-opt" a timetable. kind of need to get the agreement of the lecturers, or do away with lecturers.

anyway where'd all the ethics go? is replacing one "power" with another what this is all about?

circles within circles all alone

what do we think about this book in 2016?

Dud

Classic obv but what a weird thread this is.

very useful for explaining Facebook in 2017

And Trump.

also this paragraph from Raoul Vaneigem's 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' re: Trumpism -

Once in a while, too, an individual at the vanishing point takes it into their head that they have a world to conquer, that they need more Lebensraum, a vaster ruin in which to engulf themself. The rejection of Power easily comes to embrace the rejection of those things which Power has appropriated e.g., the rebel's own self. Defining oneself negatively by reference to Power's constraints and lies can result in constraints and lies entering the mind as an element of travestied revolt generally without so much as a dash of irony to give a breath of air. No chain is harder to break than the one which the individual attaches to themself when their rebelliousness is lost to them in this way. When they place their freedom in the service of unfreedom, the resulting increase in unfreedom's strength enslaves them. Now, it may well be that nothing resembles unfreedom so much as the effort to attain freedom, but unfreedom has this distinguishing mark: once bought, it loses all its value. even though its price is every bit as high as freedom's.

the process of occupying a university is a matter of actively co-opting power

i didn't pore over the argument upthread but i just wanted to interject, i don't think the terminology of 'power' really got it off on the right foot and it never seems to have recovered from that. protests of universities by students can have consequences for the power that universities have, but the most immediately 'power'-relevant ones (enrollments, state support, etc.) do not seem all that much within the reach of building-occupiers. that would be vying with the university's power within the state, which students as a class ('class'?) are probably rarely in a position to do. (thus the relevance of university protests in some countries, i guess, where a smaller or less-distributed university system largely under state control provides better opportunities for direct actions to reap political effects beyond university walls by appealing to other political powers?)

i would rather say that lots of university 'occupation'-style protests function more like democratic political protests in miniature, with the university itself taking on the role of society-and-the-state. and there the protest is not so much about co-opting power - like history mayne says, the university by and large retains it and can be made to alter nothing, whereas without its special credentialing and certifying functions, and power to enroll and expel, students are nowhere - as it is making a show of withdrawal of consent (so in the quasi-democratic setting of the university, i'd grant, there's an indirect connection to power via the idea of a people's sovereignty), so as to prompt new conversation about the content of that consent (what kind of a university, curriculum, faculty, education, preparation for life etc. they are consenting to receiving).