This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
In the legacy section this is said: "Andrew Hussey claims in his biography of Debord that the term spectacle began life not in a Marxist context, but was first borrowed from Nietzsche and his concept of the mass secret." I can't find any information about this concept online. Is it more commonly known as something else? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
the book itself (La Société du spectacle) is not in the references by choice? PedroCarvalho (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"Throughout his life he fought to make his ideas truly revolutionary. His ideas appear to be gaining more and more relevance and interest. Web sites such as the Bureau of Public Secrets at http://www.bopsecrets.org/ which is maintained by Ken Knabb and Not Bored http://www.notbored.org/index1.html are increasingly visited. " This was pulled from the History and Influences section. These seem to be asserting facts without any supporting sources. It also smacks, a little, of a pro-situationist bias. Just a thought.Stryc9 19:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidallenhayes (talk • contribs)
Just over a year ago, Recuperation (situationism) was moved to Recuperation (sociology), which is, undoubtedly, an improvement, but still misses the mark somewhat. It does, though, point toward the problem of naming, renaming, and categorizing Situationist ideas. Lumping everything under "Situationism," though, makes the situation, if you will, worse. "Critical theory," I would argue, is the best of the choices proffered, especially considering its continued use by Lyotard, Baudrillard, etc. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, but isn't critical theory what Adorno, Habermas, Butler etc. do rather than what Vaneigem, Jorn, Debord etc. do? скоморохъ 02:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes... but, my take on the matter is that, though "critical theory" was a creation of the Frankfurt School, the term is now used to describe a wide array of Marxist and post-Marxist social, cultural, and literary criticism. Indeed, though many would disagree with me, I would argue that Debord & Co. are closer to Adorno & Horkheimer than to Baudrillard and the postmodernists. But, this may not be the place for that discussion. The point is, critical theory may be the best term, not ideal, but the best we can come up with. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I'd like to revive the discussion of renaming this article. Using "Situationism" is problematic and inaccurate. If anyone is opposed to using "(critical theory)" then perhaps "(sociology)" would suffice, although Guy Debord was really much more of a filmmaker and artist than he was a sociologist per se. —Rorysolomon (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Before we go any further: in layman's language, what is a spectacle as defined in this article?, for those who are not philosophers. The only place where I get spectacles is an optician. The quote "We live in a spectacular society ..." gives the impression that a spectacle is something seen which is not really there, e.g. images in newspapers / television / books / described in text or by voice / suchlike rather than going there and seeing it (using "spectacular" in a non-standard use) :: that differs from general usage, where something real is a spectacle if it is spectacular (in its usual colloquial usage). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
We are not here to educate you.--Sum (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
But the article should make it clear to the average intelligent reader who is not a trained philosopher, what a "spectacle" is as used in this article. To most people "spectacle" means "event memorable for the appearance it creates", or eyeglasses. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree somewhat with Sum. The theory is well explained in the article. And if that is confusing or incomplete, it should be cleaned up. But I believe that is beyond the scope of this current discussion. Rorysolomon (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But I think we are making this too hard. See the guidelines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disambiguation_page#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles . I again vote for "(critical theory)". The point of the parenthetical phrase is not to clarify anything about the topic, it is just to provide a generic term to disambiguate the topic from other uses. "Critical theory" is nice because it encompasses both cultural theory and sociology (which both apply here), and it is in use elsewhere. Rorysolomon (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.