Debord & Bauldrillard

Debord focuses quite a lot on the idea of the spectacle, which he defines as "a social relationship between people that is mediated by images" (12) and epitomizes the prevailing model of social life" (13). I found the idea of the spectacle a difficult one to understand as Debord suggests it is made up of a series of contradictions - for example, spectacle is subordinate to social practice, but also appears to be the goal of social practice. He writes that the spectacle says "'Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear'" (15). The prompt for this week asks why Debord finds the modern electronic media and perhaps Debord believes that the spectacle is a direct result of modern media, capable of distorting the human senses and controlling the way things are viewed. On page 17, he identifies a person's sense of sight as being the most easily deceived, therefore it is the job of the spectacle to "elevate" a person's sense of sight to the realm, which their sense of touch used to control.

The spectacle seems to encompass a variety of meanings and suggestions, in one paragraph on page 18 Debord states that "at the root of the spectacles lies...the specialization of power," and then later suggests that the spectacle is not inevitable, more of a result of a society that chooses its 'technical content' (19). The spectacle results also from a loss of unity, as he says, and thrives or exists most successfully in a society that is fragmented or separated. When the way people understand society and begin to perceive the world as one of commodity, then the spectacle again becomes apparent (29). Debord writes, "the spectacle is another facet of money, which is the abstract general equivalent of all commodities" (32); his discussion of the economy and spectacle indicate that the spectacle forces the world to be perceived in terms of economic value and can only exist as long as the economy survives as well. Though I'm still very confused about Debord's spectacle, what I understand is that Debord believes that actual human interaction in society has been replaced by images and duplications of this interaction, understood as the spectacle. The mass media facilitates this degradation, perhaps a reason Debord seems to condemn the mass media as it exists today.

Baudrillard disagrees with Enzenberger's claim that the mass media attempts to manipulate mass culture and cannot be understood by the Left "because the Left has failed to conceive of them as a new and gigantic potential of productive forces" (279). Like Debord, Baudrillard writes that the mass media 'fabricates non-communication,' perhaps it attempts to replicate ideas of communication, but it actually prevents reciprocal communication" (280). The very position that communication holds in society is potentially what disturbs Baudrillard because it is revered as something necessary that allows for free exchange of information, but in reality, it is the media that holds the power. He disagrees with Enzenberger's assertion that mass media allows for a great number of people to participate in a 'productive social process' because "there is no response to a functional object" (281). In response to the prompt, I would say that both Baudrillard and Debord find the modern mass media's attempts to replicate communication problematic in that it alters the way that people understand their relationship with the media and with other people. They begin to see their relationship with other people as a series of images and they believe an interaction with mass electronic media to be reciprocal, when in fact Baudrillard identifies it as a relationship between unequal power.

Barthes & Foucault

Barthes' discussion of mythology and semiotics seems to be timeless in that it applies to any point in history (that had a language) without difficulty. He mentions that any object is essentially fair-game for being made into a sign or symbol of mythology, which he explains when he writes, "Every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law...which forbids talking about things" (Barthes 94). I admit I found his arguments regarding the differences between the sign and the signifier and the signified (around page 98) to be quite confusing although perhaps what he intends to show his readers is that the way that the relationship between all of these different functions and roles create a mythology around the meaning of a specific sign or symbol. Barthes writes, "...myth hides nothing; its function is to distort, not to make disappear" (107). I guess this makes sense, but wouldn't giving some kind of seemingly false mythology about anything essentially erase it's 'actual' meaning, if there is one? If a mythology cannot make something disappear, what can?

Barthes goes on to say that "myth is a value, truth is no guarantee for it" (109). I thought his example about the newspaper heading on page 117 to be quite interesting. He states that the headline, in this case, "The Fall in Prices: First Indications. Vegetables: Price Drop Begins" will immediately lead consumers to the conclusion that these price drops are due to action by the government. However, this myth can immediately be destroyed if the consumer decides to read the sub-heading, which attributes price-drops to seasonal abundance of vegetables. Apparently, it doesn't matter that this myth can be so quickly seen through, what is important is that the message about the government was received at all. I would say that the message is definitely given and received, but I am less sure about the actual impact it has. Barthes writes, "...a myth is at the same time imperfectible and unquestionable; time or knowledge will not make it better or worse" (118).

I saw a similar argument appear in Foucault's essay "What is an Author?" For example, when he mentions how some names are endowed with meaning (he uses Aristotle, Shakespeare, etc), this is certainly a form of mythology.  Foucault writes, "...an author's name is not simply an element of speech....Its presence is functional in that it serves as a means of classification...finally, the author's name characterizes a particular manner of existence or discourse" (452). It is interesting to think about how actual role an author plays in their own writing and how a mythology about their abilities or writings, etc can affect how their work is received. Indeed, Foucault suggests that how literary discourse depended heavily on the author, date it was written, etc, "the meaning and value attributed to the text depended on this information" (454). Barthes' definitions of the sign, signifier, and signified could be applied in this scenario...is the name of the author the sign, the actual author the signified, and the text the signifier? I honestly don't know, since Barthes believes that these definitions change when language becomes myth, but I wonder if Barthes believes language can exist without myth?

McLuhan

I found McLuhan's idea that the medium is the message to be quite a challenging idea, depending on the media in question. For example, as McLuhan describes on page 9, the electric light is not often thought of as a communication medium because the content of the message is difficult to unveil and when the content is not obvious, how can there be any message? He writes, "..it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action" (9). He brings up this point again in chapter two "Media: Hot and Cold" when he explains the difference between hot and cold media. I understood hot media to be, as he states, a form that requires little participation, and one that "extends one sense in 'high definition'" (21). Conversely, the cold media is one that is high in participation and completion, which he seemed to relate with the types of people who are interested in increasing knowledge and education. I wonder if he explains in this chapter (and perhaps I missed it) why the two different types of media are identified in this way. Perhaps it can be understood in this quote "Intensity or high definition engenders specialism and fragmentation in living as in entertainment, which explains why any intense experience must be 'forgotten,' 'censored,' and reduced to a very cool state before it can be 'learned or assimilated" (23-24).McLuhan's point about how the print culture of a country or society homogenizes its people is still a very relevant concept, he writes, "...men in such a culture who have to be homogenized Dagwoods in order to belong at all" (17). The print culture gives the people a sense of individuality as well as bringing them all together in innovative "patterns of enterprise and monopoly" (23).

To address the prompt of why Marxists might have a problem with McLuhan's ideas about the "medium being the message," I have to admit that I had some difficulty in coming to any reasonable conclusion. Perhaps by ignoring (or devaluing) the content of the media and focusing instead on the media itself, people lend themselves more easily to manipulation or control. It seems that those who control the media (the bourgeoisie) simply use the power of their control of the medium itself to influence others. McLuhan seems to predict a future, if it is not here already, where people don't even understand the way they are receiving information or entertainment and blindly accept it as something they earned or deserve. Does this mean that Marxists value the message more than the medium, even if this message is directly given by the bourgeoisie? I suppose that as more people gain access to print (and other forms of media) the content and media begin to change in a way that reflects a greater scope of a social public.