Debord’s collection of theses presents an image of society in which human relationships are based on representations rather than genuine interactions. “Social relationships between people… [are] mediated by images,” this relationship is the spectacle (Debord, 12). The spectacle is a product of capitalism and the media. It is not about the relationship between goods and people, but about the relationship created between people as a result of goods.
The spectacle is very much connected to the concept of brands. When you buy a certain brand you are expressing aspects of your lifestyle. Brands do not exist in isolation, but in relation to each other. The idea is if you buy a certain brand of products (A), you also buy this other brand (B), because they both represent the same kind of lifestyle.
The brands that you wear define you. As a result, the spectacle has taken the place of genuine human interaction as individuals are judging each other based on the images that the brands of their possessions give off, and consider it a true representation of the person, instead of judgment based on genuine human interaction.
The idea of the spectacle is very much prevalent in society. Certain brands and types of possessions form images. As a result of these images judgments are made about people regardless of the fact that there hasn’t been any kind of real human interaction.
As discussed in the first couple of classes, many people felt as if there is a “Williams look.” This image includes wearing certain brands of clothing, carrying certain brands and types of tote bags, etc. It also implies a certain kind of lifestyle, generally that of being raised in New England in an upper middle class household, having attended a prestigious high school, etc.
Although I’ve adopted this “dress code” to a certain degree, that sort of implied lifestyle does not apply to me. However, as we do live in a society of the spectacle as much as we hate to admit, it does not matter. Many times after a couple of interactions with some people they are amazed to find out that the implied lifestyle associated with my style of dress does not apply nor do the judgments previously made about my attitude and personality apply.
Furthermore, this way of social interaction does actually degrade human interactions. Although I’m not very proud to admit it, I do allow images to mediate my relationships with other people. By observing the possessions of a person, I do make judgments about them, judgments about their personality, lifestyle, etc. As a result of my judgments, I usually choose whether or not to interact with that person and how I interact with them if I do.
It’s not uncommon for me to hear my friends judge others solely based on their images either. For example, if a person walks by with baggy pants, large t-shirts, and lots of flashy jewelry on, some of my friends would associate them with “ghetto” culture and suggest that they know about that person’s socio-economic status, their interests, their personality, etc. and choose not to interact with them. The danger in this particular case is in the assignment of an inferior social position to the individual, the reinforcement of social hierarchies and social cleavages.
The spectacle is very much connected to the concept of brands. When you buy a certain brand you are expressing aspects of your lifestyle. Brands do not exist in isolation, but in relation to each other. The idea is if you buy a certain brand of products (A), you also buy this other brand (B), because they both represent the same kind of lifestyle.
The brands that you wear define you. As a result, the spectacle has taken the place of genuine human interaction as individuals are judging each other based on the images that the brands of their possessions give off, and consider it a true representation of the person, instead of judgment based on genuine human interaction.
The idea of the spectacle is very much prevalent in society. Certain brands and types of possessions form images. As a result of these images judgments are made about people regardless of the fact that there hasn’t been any kind of real human interaction.
As discussed in the first couple of classes, many people felt as if there is a “Williams look.” This image includes wearing certain brands of clothing, carrying certain brands and types of tote bags, etc. It also implies a certain kind of lifestyle, generally that of being raised in New England in an upper middle class household, having attended a prestigious high school, etc.
Although I’ve adopted this “dress code” to a certain degree, that sort of implied lifestyle does not apply to me. However, as we do live in a society of the spectacle as much as we hate to admit, it does not matter. Many times after a couple of interactions with some people they are amazed to find out that the implied lifestyle associated with my style of dress does not apply nor do the judgments previously made about my attitude and personality apply.
Furthermore, this way of social interaction does actually degrade human interactions. Although I’m not very proud to admit it, I do allow images to mediate my relationships with other people. By observing the possessions of a person, I do make judgments about them, judgments about their personality, lifestyle, etc. As a result of my judgments, I usually choose whether or not to interact with that person and how I interact with them if I do.
It’s not uncommon for me to hear my friends judge others solely based on their images either. For example, if a person walks by with baggy pants, large t-shirts, and lots of flashy jewelry on, some of my friends would associate them with “ghetto” culture and suggest that they know about that person’s socio-economic status, their interests, their personality, etc. and choose not to interact with them. The danger in this particular case is in the assignment of an inferior social position to the individual, the reinforcement of social hierarchies and social cleavages.
No comments:
Post a Comment