Toward a Society of the Anti-Spectacle

Jonathan Bernstein asked for suggestions on 9/11 Reading/Viewing/Listening.  I suggested:

Ansary DESTINY DISRUPTED (A History of the World through Islamic Eyes)

Had to bite my virtual tongue not to include “Hegel/LECTURES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF WORLD HISTORY” and associated works.  Eventually, I’d have had to include my whole post-9/11 virtual bookshelf… and then my whole pre-9/11 virtual bookshelf, too… not because I take the view that the event itself – assuming there is such a thing as “the event itself” – was materially so greatly significant, but the attacks were, to say the least, spectacularly significant, significant as a multi-spectacle – spectacular negations of the society of the spectacle by would-be entrants into the history of that society at its global moment.

Gillespie’s work self-consciously represents that universalization of one society by adding al-Ghazali to the tradition of theological-philosophical-historical inquiry that “we” have tended to understand as “Western.”  I put “we” and “Western” in quotation marks because the identification of “us” and the characterization of “our” inquiry must be understood as targets of the 9/11 attackers, who may not have been qualified theologians or philosophers, but who, as far as we know, very much saw themselves as exponents of a theology.  The American-led reaction was only somewhat more subtly theological-philosophical – and also tended to be “expressed” in violence, “action” supplying the deficit between murderous offenses and any mortal comprehension of them.  The military ventures of the so-called War on Terror were paroxysms of the American Neo-Empire, not yet death throes, but, in their impotent destructiveness and distracted desperation, they remain premonitions of an inevitable historical moment that, though it may even be deferred for a longer time in years than the period of ascendancy, they also have brought nearer.

All of which is not exactly to say that, if it hadn’t been for 9/11, “we” would have had to invent it.  It is to say that 9/11 was, in a double sense, “our” invention:  E-vents “we” in-vented (necessary and inevitable remainders of the world we made in our image), and the invention of this “us,” this distressingly less national, less self-graspable, less univocal “us.”  With a closed comments section refusing to brook dissent, Paul Krugman blogged today that 9/11 “should” have been unifying, but he’s at best half right.  He seems to imply that 9/11 should and could have been nationally unifying.  It should have, he seems to be saying, re-Americanized us.  But it couldn’t quite do that.  The unity required would have had to have been a global unity, if an Americanism then a transformed or at least re-distilled Americanism, probably not the Americanism we got up with on the morning of September 11, 2001, but we seem nowhere near ready, as we showed and showed again and are still showing, to comprehend and embrace a fully globalized Americanism.  “We”- of the old, not yet discarded collective – feel that requirement as an imposition and set of affronts.  Most intolerably, it seems to imply the inclusion of a murderous enemy.

So we are left, choose to be left, to our own old devices – and find ourselves at a loss.

After expressing a fashionable distaste for all of the inescapable obligatory remembrances and think-pieces, Tom Ricks at his Best Defense blog asked two questions yesterday:  “Why haven’t there been any better 9/11 movies?” and “Did we panic?”  The two questions can be understood as the same question, or two aspects of the same question, but first we can observe that it was very hard for Hollywood to produce a 9/11 movie that could even have approached in effect the cinematic audio/video that virtually all of us who weren’t in the immediate vicinity of the WTC, the Pentagon, or United 93 already experienced, and have been experiencing and re-experiencing, and enjoying, ever since.  (Yes, enjoying:  Enjoyment remains an irreducible element of viewing skillful representations, including think-pieces and memorials, as highlighted in the three images I chose for this post’s gallery, but as ever-present in Greengrass’ frenetic FLIGHT 93, any given CNN survivor interview, the famous NYT obituary series, and on and on.)

The movies have an even deeper problem:  The movie is the typical expressive form of the era whose eclipse was marked by 9/11.  The movie is national, social, total, industrial, and collective:  Modern.  It is the art form of the national-social enterprise.  In this narrow sense, the hijackers were attacking the movie – the spectacle or society of the spectacle, as also embodied in its national, social, total, industrial, pre-eminently American-modern buildings, struck with another iconically American invention of the movie/modern era.  In part the hijackers were making their own movie, but the hijackers were also “making news,” constructing a spectacle for distributive hyper-cinema first to re-exaggerate in a kind of imitative self-annihilation, and then to fragment, disseminate, and endlessly re-cycle into dull sentimentalism and obligatory yet empty signs.

Ricks’ two questions can be seen as aspects of the same question because the successful anti-spectacle spectacle turned “us” upside down, blasted “us” into the air in myriad distorted fragments, objectified and forecasted (in principle ended) one era, one “we,” and its/our replacement by a different set of reference points almost incomprehensible from the prior perspective.  Panic may not have been the appropriate response to the events themselves, but it was the inevitable response to what the events revealed to that “us”:  that is, to them, those people, those Americans of September 11, 2001.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

20 comments on “Toward a Society of the Anti-Spectacle

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. @ fuster:
    3-dimensional tends to imply sympathetic, something untenable politically and otherwise for any 9/11 movie. Instead, characters in the very approximate position of the hijackers were allowed to be more human or rounded in films that touched on 9/11-relatable themes and predicaments – MUNICH, THE KINGDOM, even AVATAR.

  2. CK MacLeod wrote:

    3-dimensional tends to imply sympathetic, something untenable politically and otherwise

    precisely. I meant that it would be politically untenable and I meant that it would be factually impossible as well.

  3. @ fuster:
    Factual isn’t the question. If someone was of a mind to, it wouldn’t be difficult to come up with a way to raise questions about and on behalf of 1 of the 19, or a fictionalized version of him. It’s been done with similar character types. But no one is of a mind to do that, or has been. Maybe in about 10 to 25 years…

  4. Fiction does it better, Dan Silva gets at the motivation, of character like the Awlaki standin, in his latest, without denying his evil.

  5. I’d forgotten about that one, Caleb was like the eponymous jihadist in that other series, whose name escapes me, until they pulled the mcguffin,

    Well ‘Better Angels’ was prophetic in many ways, describing the way we would live now, Krugman’s peroration was right out of a Patrick Graham broadcast, he has a new book, ‘The Ark’ supposedly at the end of the year

  6. @ Sphinxter:
    thanks for the thumb, yaint seen nuthin yet. Did I change you to “Sphinxter” or did you do that yourself? You’re welcome to keep on posting under your real name… might even be preferable… it’s up to you… just don’t want you to think of it as a mandate…

  7. @ fuster:
    The “dilate” part was good. I think since the whole sphincter thing is already crude that it’s best to stay sort of prissy and avoid words like orifices as we follow where the theme takes us–so to speak. But don’t let me cramp your style. Wipe as you will.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins