Notes from the spectacle

Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle:

The whole life of those societies in which modern conditions of production prevail presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. All that once was directly lived has become mere representation.

Something that's good to appreciate about the market economy, as Marx would say, is that it amounts to a dictatorship within the realm of production. Anybody who's ever had a boss understands what this means.

The same can be said for anybody who's never owned a solar-powered car.  Wouldn't you like to own a solar-powered car?  That's too bad, because the consumer isn't in a position to decide what gets made; the consumer is only in a position to consume what gets made.  And, as anyone who has ever contemplated a telephone, internet, or cable bill can tell you, even the terms of consumption are set in accordance to the whims of the producer.  After all, what are you going to do?  Attempt to live without something over which a particular industry exerts a complete monopoly?  Why, that just wouldn't be modern -- post- or otherwise!

You, the individual consumer, have no power except to ratify those choices already made within production.  In the vernacular of our day, this is called freedom; and, in fact, the principle can be seen hard at work in our political system as well.  No doubt Karl Marx is laughing very hard about it -- but don't get sore, there's more!

Just as we are forced to choose between commodities not of our choosing, that which has become commodified is also a heady trip when you get to thinking about it.  Guy Debord, that bastard Frenchman who wrote like an ass, wrote lyrically about what happens when reality itself is transformed into a commodity, which we must take on somebody else's terms if we want to experience it -- not to mention remain connected to that community of consumers who now make up the modern world.  In this case we are talking about mass media as it informs consumer culture more generally.

I have a younger colleague at one of my jobs.  When I am able to speak authoritatively on some matter of commercial urgency -- the release of a new movie or electronic product -- we enjoy a warm working relationship.  The rest of our time, however, is comprised mostly of crickets and tumbleweeds.  It is a sad testament to the fact that we don't consume enough of the same things with the same enthusiasm, for it is only in consuming things that one exercises that degree of individuality to which others can relate.

Divorced from its commercial utility, individuality does not translate well.  In fact, it is often met with silence and a horrified expression.  Anything which lacks its own promotional budget cannot be communicated intelligibly without enormous effort, because nobody enjoys a preexisting familiarity with it.  As Guy Debord would say, our social relationships are mediated by the Spectacle:  we can talk to each other about Haiti as long as it is made real by the TV.  The rest of the time Haiti does not exist, so we can't talk about it.  And that's because nobody will have anything to say about Haiti unless it is on the TV.  If you had something to say about Haiti before it was on the TV, then you are a very odd bird, indeed, because nobody else shared that experience.  Nobody knew it could exist, or why it should.

More to say on this.