Tom Bunyard

Guy Debord’s famous concept of ‘spectacle’ is perhaps one of the most widely misunderstood and misappropriated ideas in contemporary theory. This essay will respond to that problem by offering a clarification of the concept, advanced via a discussion of the philosophical positions that inform Debord’s often dense formulations. Through doing so, the essay will show that the conceptual framework that the theory rests upon possesses far greater sophistication and complexity than is often acknowledged, insofar as it contains the following, still largely ignored components: 1) a philosophical anthropology; 2) a speculative philosophy of history; 3) the rudiments of an epistemology; 4) an implicit ethics; 5) a dialectical conception of strategy. Through outlining those elements the essay will advance the following, broader argument. Debord’s work is best understood as a 20th Century re-articulation of the classical 19th Century concern with realising philosophy in lived praxis; after all, the heralded supersession of spectacular representation, in all of its various formulations within his thought, essentially revolves around the need to begin consciously making history, as opposed to merely admiring and interpreting its results. Therefore, if his theory is indeed to be viewed as having become ‘more relevant than ever’, as many of his more enthusiastic commentators would have it, then that key orientation towards praxis should form part of its purported relevance. The essay will show that such a claim to pertinence can indeed be made: that whilst the theory may be of limited value as an account of modern capitalism, the model of praxis that one can draw from its conceptual mechanics – a model that amounts, we will argue, to a highly politicised ethics – may, nonetheless, be of contemporary interest.

In Debord, Time and SpectacleTom Bunyard provides a detailed philosophical study of the theoretical work of Guy Debord and the Situationist International. Drawing on evidence from Debord’s books, films, letters and notes, Bunyard reconstructs the Hegelian and Marxian ideas that support Debord’s central concept of ‘spectacle’. This affords a reconsideration of Debord’s theoretical claims, and a reinterpretation of his broader work that foregrounds his concerns with history and lived time. By bringing Situationist theory into dialogue with recent reinterpretations of Marx, this book also identifies problems in Debord’s critique of capitalism. It argues, however, that the conceptions of temporality and spectacle that support that critique amount to a philosophy of praxis that remains relevant today.

This text address critically addresses claims concerning the contemporary relevance of the theoretical work produced by Guy Debord and the Situationist International. Through highlighting some of the key aspects of Debord's views on temporality, and by connecting those views to his concerns with strategic thought, the essay argues that Debord's theoretical work is supported by a philosophy of praxis that implies the need for continual innovation and intervention. The essay contends that those underlying ideas are inherently opposed to any attempt to simply transpose Debord and the S.I.'s theories onto our present moment, and that they instead imply the generation of new theoretical positions.

The aim of this chapter is to present a critical overview of the interrelations, echoes and distinctions that can be identified between critical theory and cultural studies. Concentrating primarily upon its British and American instantiations, the chapter outlines the emergence and development of cultural studies, and places this tradition in relation to Frankfurt School critical theory. Having noted some initial differences and similarities between the two bodies of thought, particularly vis à vis their differing approaches to mass culture, the chapter then draws on Horkheimer’s definitions of ‘traditional’ and ‘critical’ theory, and considers how they might pertain to cultural studies’ various contributions, contemporary relevance, and current forms.

This book considers whether critical theory is up to the task of addressing our contemporary crises, including the question of 'post-truth' discourse, psycho-social pathologies, the rise of right-wing populism, the Covid-19 pandemic, the anticolonial deficit in critical theory, and the neo-liberal management of the academy. The contributors offer a series of timely and complex reflections on the nature of critical theory, its role in contemporary society, and its various developments since the early twentieth century. In doing so, they analyse a variety of contemporary issues that, through critical reflection, can help us to navigate these problems. This volume seeks to highlight problems and possibilities within this field of thought, and endeavours to contribute towards reconsidering its capabilities and relevance. Denis C. Bosseau is a Doctoral Candidate affiliated with the Research Centre for Social & Political Thought (SPT) at the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. Tom Bunyard is Senior Lecturer in Humanities at the University of Brighton, UK, where he teaches philosophy, critical theory, cultural studies and aesthetics..

This book is an attempt to reconstruct the philosophical ideas that support Guy Debord's theory of 'spectacle'. By drawing on a wide range of textual evidence from across Debord's oeuvre, and by reading that evidence in the light of the philosophical and theoretical texts that informed his claims, the book develops a holistic interpretation of his work, and frames the latter as being primarily concerned with time, history and historical agency. Through doing so, the book advances an interpretation of Debord's Hegelian Marxism, and contends that the latter can be seen to afford a philosophy of praxis that merits further scholarly attention. The book also offers a detailed critique of Debord's engagements with Marx's mature value theory, and proposes that the conception of historical time that supports Debord's work may in fact be of greater interest than the more overtlly Marxian elements of his thought.

Book-review of Ernesto Screpanti’s Libertarian Communism: Marx, Engels and the Political Economy of Freedom. In this book, Ernesto Screpanti questions the nature and status of freedom within both Marx’s thought and possible forms of communist organisation. By way of an argument which contends that communism should be understood as a theory of freedom, he extracts a deliberately individualistic version of communism from Marx’s work, and proceeds to develop this into a series of recommendations for practical-organisational forms. These forms, and the notion of freedom that they arise from, are, however, closely related to Screpanti’s adoption of an economic approach that consists of the quantification of freedom. This prompts a number of political and theoretical problems.

This essay places the work of the art historian TJ Clark in relation to the social and political philosophy of Gillian Rose. It develops an interpretation of the ideas that inform his art history, and of the ways in which they inform his advocacy of a ‘tragic’ approach to what he calls ‘Left’ politics. The latter approach is intended to avoid the dangers that Clark takes to be inherent in the Left's classical focus on shaping the social conditions of the future. The essay shows that Rose's philosophy is also sensitive to such concerns, and that it echoes aspects of Clark's position. In her work, however, this does not come at the cost of abandoning an orientation to the future. These points are developed via a discussion of the two writers’ respective conceptions of modernity, and via a consideration of their differing readings of two paintings by Nicolas Poussin.

This essay argues that modern demagogy can be understood as a symptom of a kind of social pathology, combining Wendy Brown's account of neoliberal subjectivity with elements of Robert Pippin's interpretation of Hegel to do so. I begin by focussing on Brown's contention that neoliberal society has bred forms of individual subjectivity that are inherently attuned to right-wing rhetoric. Drawing on Pippin's reading of Hegel, the essay casts these modes of individual subjectivity as aspects of a flawed mode of collective subjectivity; the contemporary rise of demagogic politics is thereby presented as a symptom of a pathological failure of collective self-determinacy, caused by inadequacies within the normative structures that articulate social activity.

Amy Wendling contends in this book that Marx’s concern with alienation is not restricted to his early, more explicitly Hegelian writings, and that it can be seen to evolve throughout his work in tandem with his interest in technology. This evolution, according to Wendling, is marked by his transition between two successive scientific paradigms, both of which pertain to the status of labour and machinery within society. Wendling claims that Marx uses the distinction between them as a means of conducting an immanent critique of capitalist ideology. Consequently, although it is primarily a work of intellectual history, this book offers an interesting contribution to the hermeneutics of Marx’sCapital. In addition, it also bears relation to contemporary discussions concerning real subsumption and the abolition of labour. The book’s general argument raises questions as to the degree to which a conception of alienation must rely upon notions of human essence, and upon an idea of a ‘natural’ and ‘authentic’ humanity. Wendling’s responses to those questions are described as problematic within this review, but they are also acknowledged to be both pertinent and intriguing.

This essay reads Guy Debord's theoretical work through its primary philosophical and theoretical influences, and in doing so draws attention to his concerns with time and history. These concerns are used as a means of clarifying Debord's theory of 'spectacle' and of highlighting its virtues and failings. The essay uses Debord's remarks on subjectivity and temporality to pursue the theoretical dimensions of his interest in strategy, and thereby addresses his Hegelian Marxism via his comments on the relation between strategy, history and dialectics. His concerns with temporality are however also shown to pertain to the theory of spectacle's shortcomings as an account of capitalist society. The essay thus attempts to draw out some of the more neglected foundational material upon which the theory of spectacle rests, contending that the former may be of greater contemporary interest than the latter.