The Society of the Spectacle
- Downloads：8028
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-19 09:54:31
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Guy Debord
- ISBN：1922491284
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Few works of political and cultural theory have been as enduringly provocative as Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle。 From its publication amid the social upheavals of the 1960s up to the present， the volatile theses of this book have decisively transformed debates on the shape of modernity， capitalism and everyday life in the late twentieth century。 Now finally available in a superb English translation approved by the author， Debord's text remains as crucial as ever for understanding the contemporary effects of power， which are increasingly inseparable from the new virtual worlds of our rapidly changing image/information culture。
Reviews
Manel
，
Banger gigantesco， mantém-se verdadeiro 50 （？） anos depois， analisa e disseca a sociedade nos seus moldes atuais com uma acutilância brilhante。De difícil leitura （demorei uma semana a ler as 137 páginas da edição da Antígona）。
Andy
，
This is definitely a mixed bag of a book， I understood some of the points made and how he achieved that point， others， not so much。 Definitely a tough short book to understand。
Yordy
，
Un libro publicado en 1967， cuando el auge de la televisión y propaganda de masas iniciaba su apogeo de vender productos， servicios， bienes， estilo de vida， y creaba el momento de nuevas tendencia como adoctrinamiento social， el autor Guy Debord uno de los mejores que describe de una forma fácil de seguir y conecta varios puntos críticos hacía el movimiento social que él llamó “La Sociedad del Espectáculo”， una forma que las personas cada vez consumía más imágenes de una vida perfecta， productos Un libro publicado en 1967， cuando el auge de la televisión y propaganda de masas iniciaba su apogeo de vender productos， servicios， bienes， estilo de vida， y creaba el momento de nuevas tendencia como adoctrinamiento social， el autor Guy Debord uno de los mejores que describe de una forma fácil de seguir y conecta varios puntos críticos hacía el movimiento social que él llamó “La Sociedad del Espectáculo”， una forma que las personas cada vez consumía más imágenes de una vida perfecta， productos y servicios deseados para sí o familiares， en los cuales creaba a la vez una transformación en el espectador convirtiéndose en el producto， y conociendo a sí mismo cada vez menos en pró seguir las tendencias que se les entregaba por la propaganda。 Es un libro muy interesante， lo recomiendo para cultivar y formar bases sobre el pensamiento crítico， sobre el marketing， sobre las redes sociales， y en especial sobre lo que nosotros pensamos que creemos creer por nosotros， y cuando de esto siempre es recomendable vigilar para reducir el pensamiento automático， adoctrinamiento y sesgos cognitivos por asociación a personas e instituciones de autoridad en la actualidad que estás。Ahora más de 50 años han pasado a la fecha que leo por primera vez este autor， y vemos como la tendencia de formar parte de la sociedad del espectáculo es cada vez más accesible y se continúa con una gran banalización sobre los medios de comunicación， así como capturar la atención de las masas es cada vez más económico y segmentado， y las personas al seguir líneas de pensamiento， costumbres， ideales y valores por resultado de ciertas líneas de pensamiento y estrategia de un grupo de personas expertas en publicidad se desarrolla cada vez más plausible notar， e identificar como aquellos que se entregan a estos medios no tienen claridad de cuáles son sus verdaderos deseos， o por qué tienen inúmeras aspiraciones， alineándose en silencio de sus conciencias y moldeando a las perspectivas de las masas， esto es tán amplio y no es simple de escribir， no existe un pensamiento claro que diferencia entre lo bueno y malo， es más que tanto veo y comprendo el mundo y las tendencias para comprender en qué medida piensas y crees en valores y tendencias son realmente suyas o son producto del movimiento del espectáculo， el las redes sociales， y de todo el comercio que existe por la economía de masas。Al igual el libro sirve de alerta， sobre los medios de comunicación， sobre los cambios culturales que son resultado por seguir la moda， las tendencias y el marketing del momento， más allá de lo que algunos pueden nombrar como “conspiración”， este libro es una lectura inteligente y recomendada para dar a conocer los efectos de la mercadotecnia desde su publicación en 1967 y válido inclusive en nuestros tiempos。 。。。more
Petrus Mäkinen
，
Literally mee
Hannah
，
The spectacle has one of the best introductions to a book I ever read。 The all encompassing nature both overtook me and the way it described society was so accurate yet described so cryptically that it felt like I have somehow reached the riddled matrix of how the world worked。I read the spectacle on one chilled day at the park。 I got on the swingset and felt the cool air as I started the book blindly。 I was encapsulated by the strong opening and the beautiful book。 I was surprised later to see The spectacle has one of the best introductions to a book I ever read。 The all encompassing nature both overtook me and the way it described society was so accurate yet described so cryptically that it felt like I have somehow reached the riddled matrix of how the world worked。I read the spectacle on one chilled day at the park。 I got on the swingset and felt the cool air as I started the book blindly。 I was encapsulated by the strong opening and the beautiful book。 I was surprised later to see it was a political statement on communism。 Admittedly this is not a political ideology I agree with well。 But I still respect the book and Guy Debord as a writer。 And a fine writer he is。 I hope to read another of his books soon。 It made the day at the park very memorable and relaxed。 。。。more
Spencer
，
Spectacle—consumption is the ultimate valueThis is during the splitting of Neomarxism from traditional Marxism in 60s France and there’s rejection of Stalin and the Soviet Union generally early on throughout the text。For better or worse， there’s depth in this， probably attributed to the fact that there’s Hegel influence in Debord’s thinking and him being within French ‘intellectual’ culture。 This was also during the heyday of post-industrial modern capitalism so you can definitely see this being Spectacle—consumption is the ultimate valueThis is during the splitting of Neomarxism from traditional Marxism in 60s France and there’s rejection of Stalin and the Soviet Union generally early on throughout the text。For better or worse， there’s depth in this， probably attributed to the fact that there’s Hegel influence in Debord’s thinking and him being within French ‘intellectual’ culture。 This was also during the heyday of post-industrial modern capitalism so you can definitely see this being the beginning of slope descending into far worse aspects of spectacle dominant capitalistic cultures today， i。e social media， mediums based around rehashing and recycling images lacking any genuine authentic connection or substance。 “The present stage， in which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions of the economy， is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing — all “having” must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances。 At the same time all individual reality has become social， in the sense that it is shaped by social forces and is directly dependent on them。 Individual reality is allowed to appear only if it is not actually real”This is postmodern in the Frederic Jameson sense of late-stage capitalism， Debord was essentially pointing out the preconditions of late-stage capitalism。 “just as early industrial capitalism moved the focus of existence from being to having， post-industrial culture has moved that focus from having to appearing。”Use value → Exchange value， and eventually， → Sign value （in Baudrillard， although I haven’t read him yet） 。。。more
Industryscape
，
You already know this all。 Deep inside。
Albert Holloway
，
Amazing ideas but really annoying to read
Chris Bridges
，
it was becoming my favorite book until he started talking about hegel
Alexis
，
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS WORDING。 i read the analysis and it makes 1000000% more sense but guy's writing style is like "the beaurocracy that is the spectacle contradicts the facade that is the spectator" MADE ME FEEL LIKE A D U M B A S S 。 but after I read the analysis and understood the analysis I felt like the smartest person in the world tbfh。 WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS WORDING。 i read the analysis and it makes 1000000% more sense but guy's writing style is like "the beaurocracy that is the spectacle contradicts the facade that is the spectator" MADE ME FEEL LIKE A D U M B A S S 。 but after I read the analysis and understood the analysis I felt like the smartest person in the world tbfh。 。。。more
Aitor Vazquez
，
De vez en cuando viene bien leer a filósofos franceses para recordar por qué no es buena idea leer a filósofos franceses
Jesse Maritz
，
Should be required reading
Nat
，
I read this for an essay， it’s almost a cross between Marx and Orwell， would recommend
David
，
This review is probably influenced by the fact that I didn't do much of supplementary reading。 Maybe I should have read Marx and Hegel before this？ I don't know。 But at face value， this manifesto （is it even a manifesto？） really missed the mark with me。 Maybe I shouldn't have expected real and concrete criticism of capitalistic societies？ At its core， the book is a critique of Capitalism， but in a way， where it can be applied to every modern society。 But as it goes on， suddenly it can really be This review is probably influenced by the fact that I didn't do much of supplementary reading。 Maybe I should have read Marx and Hegel before this？ I don't know。 But at face value， this manifesto （is it even a manifesto？） really missed the mark with me。 Maybe I shouldn't have expected real and concrete criticism of capitalistic societies？ At its core， the book is a critique of Capitalism， but in a way， where it can be applied to every modern society。 But as it goes on， suddenly it can really be applied to pre-capitalistic societies as well？ A bothersome aspect was the author's constant reaffirming that living of life has been moved to the representation of life， and that life （and culture， and art etc。） itself has been negated。 Maybe I'm going crazy， but I do actually feel like I get to live life， and that Capitalism， with all its flaws hasn't really been able to stop me。 At least compared to other periods， where I'd realistically just be stuck on my farm。 And before that， where I'd realistically still be heavily limited by my immediate tribe （on which I rely on to survive）。 I generally wouldn't go to someone's wikipedia page， but this guy just screamed urbanite， longing for life， and projecting his inability to be fulfilled to everyone else。 Which would explain the need to deconstruct everything， old and new， and say it's awful and it always was awful。 Also explains why he focuses so hard on the proletariat （I guess the people producing food really aren't that important compared to the wage labor creating the so dreaded commodities）。It's not completely wrong in all aspects。 The few chapters where he actually delves into naming real people （like Russian revolutionaries， and their failure to implement a classless society） are enjoyable， and I'm sure many other people would have their eyes opened。 But generally， I don't see anything good evolving from someone that might get inspired by this。 And one concept that I definitely will be using in my every day life （well。。 when arguing with strangers on the internet）， is the fact， that workers are represented， not present in their societies。 Catchy， true and profound。 That said， it's short， so it wasn't that big of an investment， and I might revisit it with fresh eyes， and a better translation。 。。。more
André
，
4，5
Jindřich Mynarz
，
Once again I tried to overcome my aversion of French philosophy's poor writing。 I don't know if it is something in the French philosophy， its translations， or me that makes its style so annoying。 Parsing convoluted compound sentences is no fun。 I wonder if instead it is best to read the secondary sources this influential book spawned。 Once again I tried to overcome my aversion of French philosophy's poor writing。 I don't know if it is something in the French philosophy， its translations， or me that makes its style so annoying。 Parsing convoluted compound sentences is no fun。 I wonder if instead it is best to read the secondary sources this influential book spawned。 。。。more
Lukas Evan
，
5 bucks for anyone who can explain this to me。
Morgane
，
prescient to say the least
Dechen
，
content is superb and extremely relevant。 but I feel the translation might be a little to heavy。 If the book is actually meant for everyone， and for everyone to read and share and learn， perhaps the vocabulary could be made slightly more simple and more accessable for the "masses"。 content is superb and extremely relevant。 but I feel the translation might be a little to heavy。 If the book is actually meant for everyone， and for everyone to read and share and learn， perhaps the vocabulary could be made slightly more simple and more accessable for the "masses"。 。。。more
Andrea
，
en resumen: osea que todo es mentira
Leem
，
A short but difficult book which explains so much。
Jaredsouthern
，
Debord applies the dialectic to the spectacle， excelent
Matthew
，
Like it。 Will likely have to reread or look up better explanations to get a fuller picture。
Dan Raghinaru
，
One gets tired of the French and American re-interpretations of Marx after WW2; however this book is quite good and stands well in the Marxist and Hegelian tradition。
Ryan Blerblerio
，
Surprisingly current for a political and aesthetic book。 A must for those seeking to understand the situationists or France in 1968 and the social forces that directed the student movement。
ane
，
no ha sido una lectura facil ni considero q este escrito de una forma especialmente clara xro muy interesante igualmente
Sam Gunn
，
Beautifully written， insightful， prescient， and depressing。 I paired the audiobook with a full listen of Modest Mouse's "Lonesome Crowded West，" which was a potent combination for a road trip。 There was a good deal I did not understand; some aspects of Chapter 4 where he critiques the revolutionary movements of recent history as well as the final couple chapters on ideology and negation。What I understood I enjoyed greatly， such as the concepts of "cyclical" versus "irreversible" time， the commod Beautifully written， insightful， prescient， and depressing。 I paired the audiobook with a full listen of Modest Mouse's "Lonesome Crowded West，" which was a potent combination for a road trip。 There was a good deal I did not understand; some aspects of Chapter 4 where he critiques the revolutionary movements of recent history as well as the final couple chapters on ideology and negation。What I understood I enjoyed greatly， such as the concepts of "cyclical" versus "irreversible" time， the commodity as the absolute ruler of society through political economy， spectacular space and urbanism as a force of negating real life， and the discussion of "youth capital" as a signefier of one's ability to not disrupt the forces of production。 Oh， and the death of art。 That part was cool。 Since we can "understand" and "contextualize" all of art， there is no art which escapes this categorization to truly capture and communicate the current state of being。This is certainly a text I'll be returning to！ 。。。more
Elin Dahlsten
，
Situationisterna har haft stor påverkan på delar av vänstern och därav tycktes boken intressant då den behandlar rörelsen。 Däremot är den lite stolpigt skriven och inte så medryckande。
Naopako dete
，
Ova knjiga Gi Debora objavljena je prvi put 1967。 godine， a glavni predmet je， kao što i naslov sugeriše， analiza društva koje se nalazi pod jakim naletom tehnološkog razvitka， pa samim tim i neograničenog i neobuzdanog naleta procesa proizvodnje， u čemu Debor i vidi glavni uzrok za pojavu spektakla。 Gi Debor je bio kontraverzna figura， pravi ludak sa ulica Pariza i pored ostalog autor prvog grafita na svetu。 Jedan od njegovih kasnijih grafita glasi SPAVAŠ ZA SVOGA GAZDU。 Debor je pripadao letri Ova knjiga Gi Debora objavljena je prvi put 1967。 godine， a glavni predmet je， kao što i naslov sugeriše， analiza društva koje se nalazi pod jakim naletom tehnološkog razvitka， pa samim tim i neograničenog i neobuzdanog naleta procesa proizvodnje， u čemu Debor i vidi glavni uzrok za pojavu spektakla。 Gi Debor je bio kontraverzna figura， pravi ludak sa ulica Pariza i pored ostalog autor prvog grafita na svetu。 Jedan od njegovih kasnijih grafita glasi SPAVAŠ ZA SVOGA GAZDU。 Debor je pripadao letrističkom i situacionističkom pokretu， glavna borba ljudi okupljenih u ove dve grupe odnosila se na promenu svakodnevog života， i odbijanje životnih situacija koje se nameću spolja。 Treba stvarati sopstvene situacija， jedna je od parola Debora i njegovih sledbenika， koji su pored ostalog odrigrali i važnu ulogu u revoluciji iz 1968。 Debor je i autor nekoliko filmova， iako je se izrazito zalagao za smrt ove umetnosti， smatrajući je iskrivljenim vidom komunikacije， što je uostalom pokušao da predstavim u svojim filmskim radovima。Na Deborove ideje nastaviće se， takođe kontraverzni Bodrijar。 Knjiga je podeljena na devet poglavlja i napisana je u tezama kojih ima 221。 i uglavnom nisu duže od jednog pasusa。 U osnovi Debor se nastavlja na markističku teoriju， polazi od njene osnovne teze prema kojoj je ljudska svest oblikovana （i određenea） materijalnim svetom， u ovom slučaju robom kao i samim procesom proizvodnje。 Upravo proces proizvodnje， odnosno višak procesa proizvodnje， koji stvaraju višak i nagomilavanje robe jeste ono iz čega nastaje spektakl。 Spektakl takođe predstavlja vrstu proizvoda i to glavnu vrstu društvenog proizvoda koji svoje uporište nalazi u ekonomiji， na kojoj prema Deboru počiva ceo sistem i pod čijom dominacijom se društveni život nalazi。 Jedno od glavnih svojstava spektakla jeste delovanje na imaginarnom polju， odnosno proizvodnja slika koje dovode do otuđenja i to ne samo otuđenja čoveka od čoveka， već otuđenja čoveka i od robe koju proizvodi kao i od sistema u kojem se nalazi。 Iako donekle radikalna， Deborova teorija vrlo precizno mapira/proriče ono što će danas postati bit društvenog sistema， a što se može opisati baš rečju spektakl。 tEvo nekih izvoda iz knjiga : 14。 Moderno industrijsko društvo je suštinski， a ne slučajno ili veštački spektakularno。 Za spektakl – vidljivi odraz vladajućeg ekonomskog poretka – ciljevi su ništa， razvoj je sve。 Spektakl ne teţi ničemu drugom do sebi samom。 15。 Kao nezaobilazni pogon za pakovanje svega što se danas proizvodi， kao opšta artikulacija principa na kojima počiva sistem i kao razvijeni ekonomski sektor， koji direktno proizvodi sve veću količinu slika–stvari， spektakl je glavni proizvod današnjeg društva。17。 Prvi stepen u dominaciji ekonomije nad društvenim ţivotom ispoljava se kao očigledna degradacija biti u imati: ljudsko ostvarenje više se ne izjednačava sa onim što neko jeste， već sa onim što ima。 U sadašnjem stadijumu， kada društvenim ţivotom potpuno dominira akumulirana ekonomska proizvodnja， dolazi do opšteg pomaka od imati ka izgledati: Sveukupno ―imanje‖ sada mora da obezbedi prestiţ i da postigne krajnji cilj kroz svoj pojavni oblik。 U isto vreme， individualna realnost je postala društvena， u smislu da je potpuno zavisna od društvenih sila i oblikovana njima。 Individualnoj stvarnosti je dopušteno da se pojavi samo kada zapravo nije stvarna。18。 Kada se stvarni svet preobrazi u pűke slike， pűke slike postaju stvarna bića， koja efikasno podstiču hipnotičko ponašanje。 Pošto je zadatak spektakla da nam putem različitih， specijalizovanih oblika posredovanja pokazuje svet koji više ne moţe biti direktno doţivljen， on neminovno， na prostoru kojim je nekada vladao dodir， daje prednost pogledu: najapstraktnije i najnepouzdanije čulo najbolje se prilagoĎava opštoj apstraktnosti sadašnjeg društva。 Ali， spektakl nisu samo slike， niti samo slike i ton。 To je sve što izmiče čovekovoj aktivnosti， sve što ometa i zavarava njegovu sposobnost preispitivanja i korekcije。 To je suprotnost dijalogu。 Spektakl se regeneriše svuda gde predstavljanje postaje nezavisno。24。 Spektakl je neprestani govor vladajućeg poretka o sâmom sebi， njegov neprekidni monolog samouzdizanja， autoportret tog poretka u fazi njegove potpune dominacije nad svim aspektima ţivota。 Fetišistički privid čiste objektivnosti u spektakulranom odnosu prikriva činjenicu da se u stvarnosti radi o odnosima izmeĎu ljudi i izmeĎu klasa: kao da neka druga Priroda， sa svojim neumitnim zakonima， dominira čitavim našim okruţenjem。 Ali， spektakl nije neizbeţna posledica tog navodno ―prirodnog‖ tehnološkog razvoja。 Naprotiv， društvo spektakla je oblik koji sam bira svoj tehnološki sadrţaj。 Ako spektakl， shvaćen u ograničenom smislu ―masovnih medija‖， koji su njegova najpovršnija manifestacija， prodire u društvo u obliku čisto tehničke aparature， treba shvatiti da ta aparatura nikako nije neutralna i da je razvijena u skladu sa unutrašnjom dinamikom sâmog spektakla。 Ako društvene potrebe epohe， u kojoj su te tehnologije razvijene， mogu biti zadovoljene samo uz njihovo posredovanje， ako su upravljanje društvom i svi kontakti meĎu ljudima postali potpuno zavisni od tih sredstava za trenutnu komunikaciju， onda je to zato što je ta ―komunikacija‖ suštinski jednostrana。 Svi mediji preporučuju se vladarima postojećeg poretka kao sredstvo za 9 sprovoĎenje posebnih oblika upravljanja。 Društvena podela izraţena kroz spektakl neraskidivo je vezana za modernu drţavu – taj proizvod društvene podele rada， koji je u isto vreme glavni instrument klasne vladavine i koncentrisani izraz svih društvenih podela。27。 Zahvaljujući uspehu takvog načina proizvodnje， čiji je glavni proizvod samo odvajanje， konkretno iskustvo， koje je u ranijim društvima bilo vezano za ljudski rad， zamenjuje se， makar duţ ivica sistema， izjednačavanjem ţivota sa neradnim vremenom， sa neaktivnošću。 Ali， takva neaktivnost ni u čemu nije osloboĎena od proizvodne aktivnosti: ona je i dalje potpuno zavisna od nje， kao nelagodno i opčinjeno pokoravanje zahtevima i posledicama proizvodnog sistema。 Sâmo to stanje jeste jedna od posledica sistema。 Nema slobode izvan ţive aktivnosti; spektakl zato poništava svaku aktivnost， pošto je sva stvarna aktivnost prisilno stavljena u funkciju globalne izgradnje spektakla。 Na taj način， ono što se naziva ―osloboĎenjem od rada‖， slobodno vreme， nije ni osloboĎenje od rada， niti osloboĎenje od sveta oblikovanog tim radom。 Nijedna aktivnost koju je rad oteo ne moţe biti ponovo osvojena ako ostajemo podreĎeni proizvodima tog rada47。 Stalno opadanje upotrebne vrednosti， koje je oduvek pratilo kapitalističku ekonomiju， dovelo je do pojave novog oblika siromaštva u okviru pojačanog preţivljavanja。 To siromaštvo postoji uporedo sa starim oblikom siromaštva， koji još istrajava i koji se ogleda u činjenici da je ogromna većina ljudi primorana da prihvati ulogu najamnih radnika， u neprestanoj potrazi za ciljevima koje im nameće sistem i da svako od njih zna da tome mora da se potčini ili da umre。 Stvarnost te ucene – činjenice da čak i u najsvedenijim oblicima （hrana， sklonište） upotrebna vrednost ima sopstvenu egzistenciju samo u okviru iluzije obilja povećanog preţivljavanja – objašnjava opšti pristanak na iluziju modernog oblika robne potrošnje。 Stvarni potrošač postaje potrošač iluzija。 Roba je materijalizovana iluzija， a spektakl njen opšti izraz。49。 Spektakl je naličje novca。 Spektakl je i sâm apstraktni， opšti ekvivalent za sve vrste roba。 Ali， dok je novac dominirao društvom kao izraz opšte ekvivalencije i sredstvo za razmenu različitih dobara čije se namene ne mogu porediti， spektakl se javlja kao moderna dopuna novca: izraz sveta robe kao celine， koji sluţi kao opšti ekvivalent za sve što taj svet moţe da bude i što moţe da postigne。 Spektakl je novac koji moţe samo da se gleda， jer je u njemu sva upotrebna vrednost već razmenjena za totalitet apstraktnih predstava。 Spektakl nije samo sluga laţne korisnosti， već je i sam laţna upotreba ţivota。Itd， itd。 。。。more
Ali Almatrood
，