the spectacle

What does it mean to say that “everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation? What does it mean that we now live in a “pseudo world?”
Every event or activity that we once had to live in order to experience is now simplified into an image or collection of images. For example, rather than enjoying a concert, some feel it necessary to constantly take pictures of themselves at the concert. Essentially this cheapens the fun experience of attending a concert with a preoccupation centered around producing images that are meant to represent “having fun at a concert.”
Given these images, we tend to live in relation to representations rather than experience life. We’d rather take pictures than simply enjoy the party, we’d rather spend time dressing the table and setting the menu according to the image of our party than simply follow our own instincts and operate independently of an image. This is difficult to do because of our association of images with experience. Fun is contingent on elements of a “fun” image. The same can be said about parents attempting to experience child rearing. The camera is constantly out, attempting to capture the experience of having a child with images that we typically associate with it.
Where does this impetus come from? Is it bred into us via the consumer culture, or is it simply a futile attempt to freeze moments in time to save them from the high paced world? Maybe by rejecting the pace set by the economy, we can fully enjoy life without being caught up in images.

What does Debord mean when he says that the spectacle is “a social relation between people that is mediated by images?”
We have social relations through shared experience of images. However, this socialization is empty as the experience is separate. We are separated by the television or the computer screen. This doesn’t stop us from talking about what so and so posted on facebook, or what happened on last night’s episode of “24.” But the fact remains that these social relations are empty because they’re based on a separation made possible by the images of the spectacle, rather than real reality with real people and real interactions.
Additionally, social perceptions are continually based on images. In this way, images become the governing structure of interaction and social relations. These images are flow from the same source: the spectacle, so that even though these images are different and produce different interactions, the interactions remain empty. Through our empty socialization, we become reunited, but only in our separateness. We can relate to mutual images, but we experienced each of these images separately. The facade of the spectacle puts this concept out of reach. If I were to talk to you about a common place we visited at different times, the conversation may be interesting, but altogether empty because of our separateness. In the spectacle, where everyone can experience the same thing at the same time individually, there is an illusion of camaraderie.
No one is unaffected by the spectacle. The opposition to the status quo is as much a child of the spectacle as the status quo itself. The opposition operates under the same rules and norms, and is as much dependent on image as the status quo. Emo kids aren’t rebelling against conformists, they’re simply forming another subculture to conform to. We see this in policy as well. The U.S. cultural hegemony and terrorism are both consequences of globalization, yet they are pitted against one another as thesis and antithesis. Truly, neither would exist without the inciting factor.

What does it mean to say that the spectacle “separates what is possible from what is permitted?”
Social interaction, in turn, is governed by the rules and norms of the images emanating from the spectacle. The spectacle goes so far as to limit actions on the basis of their projected image. Essentially, the implication of the spectacle limits our actions and interactions to only those that can maintain an image. Therefore, we all experience a type of self-alienation.
We participate in images all the time. Our actions no longer can be called our own, but instead are based on participating in the scheme of an image. We buy jeans not based solely durability or comfort, but if they’re fashionable or not. The spectacle creates the image of fashion. The spectacle of fashion creates images of “styles.” Stiletto heels on women’s shoes are perfect examples of this. No one will say that they’re comfortable. In fact, they’re almost devoid of any function except to perpetuate a particular image. In this way, our actions cease to be our own and instead are governed by the images that are in turn governed by the spectacle.
Consumption is also contingent on the spectacle. We participate in the image of eating hershey’s chocolate, and the participation makes the chocolate taste better than it would if it stood alone. In that sense, we’re rejecting a natural bodily response and replacing our desire with participation in an image. This causes self-alienation.


In thinking about the elements of a spectacle, we may see how 9/11 was a spectacle. Our sense of national unity and terrorism’s rallying cry all stemmed from a separated common experience of a shared image for all except those at ground zero, the pentagon, and the field in pennsylvania. Our policy became based on the spectacle. What of those opinions stemming from exact experience? What are the implications of basing policy on spectacle? The implication is that the spectacle continues to bear more fruit due to our actions. Instead, we should uproot the spectacle itself.