Spectacular Developments: Guy Debord's Parapolitical Turn
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GOLDSMITHS Research Online Thesis (PhD) Kinkle, Jeffrey Spectacular Developments: Guy Debord's Parapolitical Turn You may cite this version as: Kinkle, Jeffrey. 2010. Spectacular Developments: Guy Debord's Parapolitical Turn. PhD thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London. [Thesis]: Goldsmiths Research Online. Available at: http://eprints.gold.ac.uk/3225/ COPYRIGHT This is a thesis accepted for a Higher Degree of the University of London. It is an unpublished document and the copyright is held by the author. All persons consulting this thesis must read and abide by the Copyright Declaration below. COPYRIGHT DECLARATION I recognise that the copyright and other relevant Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of the above- described thesis rests with the author and/or other IPR holders and that no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. ACCESS A non-exclusive, non-transferable licence is hereby granted to those using or reproducing, in whole or in part, the material for valid purposes, providing the copyright owners are acknowledged using the normal conventions. Where specific permission to use material is required, this is identified and such permission must be sought from the copyright holder or agency cited. REPRODUCTION All material supplied via Goldsmiths Library and Goldsmiths Research Online (GRO) is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the Data Collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or for educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. http://eprints-gro.goldsmiths.ac.uk Contact Goldsmiths Research Online at: [email protected] Spectacular Developments Guy Debord’s Parapolitical Turn Jeffrey Kinkle Centre for Cultural Studies Goldsmiths College University of London 2010 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Cultural Studies Declaration This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed………………………………………………….. Date……………………………………………………. 2 Abstract Following the attacks of September 11th, 2001, Guy Debord’s concept of ‘the spectacle’ re-emerged in the work of a variety of theorists as a critical prism through which the attacks and subsequent ‘War on Terror’ could be approached. Debord’s first book on the spectacle (1967) was written in the context of France’s post-war boom; his later reflections, contained in a series of minor works written throughout the seventies and eighties, are heavily influenced by Italy’s ‘Years of Lead’ and a broader geopolitical climate of armed struggle, terrorism, counter-insurgency and espionage. Nearly all post-9/11 invocations of Debord’s concept draw on the version elucidated in Debord’s 1967 book, with its emphasis on commodity fetishism, ideology, and alienation, and fail to engage his later work and its focus on terrorism, secrecy, and conspiracy. Among those that do in fact reference Debord’s later work are several writers whose work could pejoratively be labelled ‘conspiracy theory’. Looking at Debord’s oeuvre as whole, and investigating how it combines a critique of late capitalism in its totality with parapolitcal concerns of ‘systemic clandestinity’, Spectacular Developments: Guy Debord’s Parapolitical Turn provides a bolstered conception of the spectacle that aims to reconfigure the conceptual foundations of this debate. This conception of the spectacle allows one to approach the 9/11 attacks and all that followed in their wake with both a precision and a breadth lacking in these other works, demonstrating the superficiality of readings that make the concept synonymous with the mass media or that attempt to unravel nefarious conspiracies of power. Simultaneously, this approach foregrounds the epistemological and strategic challenges faced by researchers, politicians and activists working in and on the society of the spectacle. 3 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 6 Introduction Chapter I 36 Spectacular Developments: The Theory of the Spectacle Chapter II 79 Spectacular Consequences: From the Cosmopolitan Conspiracy of Capital to the Conspiracy Theory of the Eternal Present Chapter III 165 The Real Report on the Last Chance to Save the New American Century Conclusion 255 The Disintegrated Spectacle and the Spectacle of Disintegration Bibliography 276 4 Acknowledgements Thanks to the faculty and students at the Centre for Cultural Studies who have given me valuable feedback and inspiration over the past few years, especially Tom Bunyard, Jennifer Bajorek, Andy Christodoulou, and Susan Schuppli. I owe a tremendous amount to my advisors, John Hutnyk and Alberto Toscano, who have both made working on this project a continually enjoyable experience. Thanks to the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Swedish state for helping fund my studies, and to Janina Pedan and my partner Emanuel Almborg at Sakerna for everything over the past few years. Thanks also to Julia for allowing me to sit with them while finishing writing and Clodagh Kinsella for the proofreading help. Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my parents for their constant support in every manner possible. 5 Introduction 6 ‘The conspiracy theory of history’ was in the nineteenth century a reactionary and ridiculous belief, at a time when so many powerful social movements were stirring up the masses. Today’s pseudo-rebels are well aware of this, thanks to hearsay or a few books, and believe that it remains true for eternity. They refuse to recognise the real praxis of their time; it is too sad for their cold hopes. The state notes this fact, and plays on it. –Guy Debord, 19881 Probably the most disquieting aspect of Debord’s books is the fact that history seems to have committed itself to relentlessly confirm their analyses. Twenty years after The Society of the Spectacle, the Commentaries (1988) registered the precision of the diagnosis and expectations of that previous book in every aspect. Meanwhile, the course of history has accelerated uniformly in the same direction: only two years after this book’s publication, in fact, we could say that world politics is nothing more than a hasty and parodic mise-en-scène of the script contained in that book. 2 –Giorgio Agamben, 1990 1 Guy Debord, Comments on the Society of the Spectacle, trans. Malcolm Imrie (London: Verso, 1998), p. 59. 2 Giorgio Agamben, Means without End. Trans. Vincenzo Binetti and Cesare Casarino (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), p. 80. Note: Commentaries refers to Debord’s Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. 7 There is a short chapter in Guy Debord’s Comments on the Society of the Spectacle (1988) dedicated to General Manuel Noriega of Panama.3 Debord writes that Noriega is ‘a perfect representative’ of the contemporary society of the spectacle and lists several reasons: his sudden emergence on the world’s stage; the fact that he governed a country carved into existence by a foreign power out of economic and geopolitical strategies; his imperial employment and simultaneous anti-imperialist rhetoric; his international security apparatus, and his status as a player on both the legal and black markets. Noriega, writes Debord, ‘sells everything and fakes everything, in a world which does precisely the same thing.’4 He is ‘a sort of statesman in a sort of state, a sort of general, a capitalist. He is the very mode of our modern prince, and of those destined to come to power and stay there, the most able resemble him closely.’5 Published in 1988, Debord’s considerations obviously did not take into account the failed coup attempt in Panama on 3 October 1989; the US invasion Operation Just Cause later that year on December 20; the US army psychop in which hard rock, including Guns N’ Roses’ ‘Welcome to the Jungle’, was blasted at the Vatican Embassy, where Noriega was hiding to avoid arrest; nor Noriega’s being sentenced to forty years in a US federal prison for drug trafficking in 1992. Even with his colourful biography, Noriega seems to be a surprising choice for the society of the spectacle’s poster boy.6 The term ‘the spectacle’ is more often than 3 Debord, Comments, pp. 57-8. 4 Ibid., p. 58. 5 Ibid. 6 Here we should of course keep in mind Ralph Miliband’s point that the state cannot be reduced to the government. It is an assemblage of various apparatuses – government, administrative, coercive, and judicial apparatus, and then subcentral (regional, state, city) governments – that can by no means be reduced to one figure, even if that figure is the head of the executive and/or military. See Clyde Barrow, ‘The Miliband-Poulantzas Debate’, Paradigm Lost (USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) p. 16. 8 not used to characterise a society drowning in consumer abundance – a world fascinated by celebrities and television, shopping and video games, millionaire athletes and pop stars, in which politicians throw millions into what are essentially marketing campaigns, and a multi-million dollar diamond-encrusted skull passes for avant-garde art. None of this seems to have much to do with the world of Noriega. Nicknamed ‘Pineapple Face’ for his bad acne scars, he was among the least telegenic world leaders of his era. He ruled more through his control of the National Guard and his paramilitary force the ‘Dignity Battalions’ than any kind of sophisticated PR campaign. In fact, his image on the world stage was largely out of his hands – generated in Washington more than anywhere else.