Tom Bunyard | University of Liverpool (original) (raw)

Books by Tom Bunyard

Haymarket, 2019

"In Debord, Time and Spectacle Tom Bunyard provides a detailed philosophical study of the theoret... more "In Debord, Time and Spectacle Tom 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."

'Critical Theory Today: On the Limits and Relevance of an Intellectual Tradition', 2022

This is the introduction to the book 'Critical Theory Today: On the Limits and Relevance of an In... more This is the introduction to the book 'Critical Theory Today: On the Limits and Relevance of an Intellectual Tradition' (Palgrave, 2022)

Papers by Tom Bunyard

The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, Dec 24, 2010

This entry addresses the concept of 'spectacle'. It focusses on Guy Debord's seminal The Society ... more This entry addresses the concept of 'spectacle'. It focusses on Guy Debord's seminal The Society of the Spectacle (1967), and it outlines the ways in which that book's claims have been used and appropriated. The entry begins with an overview of Debord's ideas, and with a brief account of their connection to the work of the Situationist International. It then traces the concept of spectacle's reception within the fields of visual culture, media theory, critical theory and intellectual history, and closes with some suggestions for future research.

Guy Debord’s most famous book, 1967’s The Society of the Spectacle, contains an entire chapter on... more Guy Debord’s most famous book, 1967’s The Society of the Spectacle, contains an entire chapter on urban and geographical space. The presence of such a chapter within the book might seem a little odd to some, given the longstanding tradition of treating The Society of the Spectacle as a work of media theory; by the same token, it might seem similarly strange that the text includes two entire chapters on time. Yet Debord’s book is not just an account of capitalist visual culture, as is often assumed, but rather a critique of a deeply flawed mode of social life. My primary concern in this essay lies with the book’s chapter on the organisation of space. It is titled ‘The Management [l’aménagement] of Territory’, and it describes the ways in which ‘the spectacle’ shapes and organises the environments that fall under its control. My aim is to use a reading of this chapter as a means towards drawing a conception of place from Debord’s work that would accord with his views about collective social life.

The concept of 'spectacle' The Society of the Spectacle was written, as Guy Debord once put it, '... more The concept of 'spectacle' The Society of the Spectacle was written, as Guy Debord once put it, 'with the deliberate intention of doing harm to spectacular society'. 1 It is somewhat ironic, then, that it has become such an established reference point within the culture that it sought to attack. More than fifty years after its first publication in 1967, Debord's book has become an established intellectual landmark, and it is now often mentioned in newspaper articles, lecture halls and cultural commentary. A good deal of this commentary, however, tends to involve a rather narrow understanding of the book's central concept of 'spectacle'. It is often assumed that Debord's book is centrally concerned with modern capitalist visual culture. His notion of 'spectacle' is taken to denote the great mass of shopfronts, screens and entertainments that characterise contemporary social experience; and when read in this way, his book can be employed as a useful reference point in commentary on such issues. Yet whilst such phenomena are certainly part of the problematic addressed by Debord's book (thesis #6 refers to 'news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment' as 'particular manifestations' of spectacular society), they are clearly not all that Debord is talking about. Right at the very start of The Society of the Spectacle, in thesis #5, Debord states that 'The spectacle cannot be understood as a mere visual excess produced by massmedia technologies'. The spectacle is clearly not just composed of 'news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment'. This point is reinforced by thesis #24, which describes 'the "mass media"' as only the spectacle's 'most glaringly superficial manifestation'. So why does this book rely on visual terminology if it is not just talking about images? The concept of spectacle evokes a relation between image and observer; a relation in which the former is dynamic, and perhaps mesmerising and captivating in some way, whereas the latter is comparatively passive. That relation plays out in the visual phenomena with which the concept has become popularly associated; but in that respect, such phenomena constitute a 'superficial', albeit no less paradigmatic, manifestation of a much deeper and more fundamental problem, which the relation between image and observer also serves to grasp: namely, the merely 'contemplative' relation of human agents to a form of social life that escapes their direct control. The basic premise that underpins The Society of the Spectacle is that modern society has become divorced from its ability to shape and determine its own historical existence (i.e. its ability to effect and direct change upon both itself and the world more broadly), due to its general subordination to the dictates of its own quasiautonomous economy. Capitalist society, for Debord, is ruled by its own economy, and the latter's development has mean that the conduct of social life has become ensnared within patterns of activity and interaction, and within articulations of subjectivity, aspiration and desire, that are shaped to suit capital's requirements. Social life is led in accordance with these patterns and templates, or 'images', to use Debord's terms, and because they are actualised in lived activity, life itself becomes a mere 'representation' of the self-determinacy and fulfilment that they fallaciously promote. In consequence, we have become 'spectators', for Debord, not just of a world full of TV screens and visual imagery, but of a mode of social life produced by our own alienated activity. This renders us 'spectators' of our own lives (see, for example, theses #30-1): alienated observers of a collective performance in which we act, but which we do not fully control. 2 This predicament, for Debord, can only be resolved through the supersession of the social structures that compose this flawed way of life; and that, in his view, required revolution. This point deserves to be underscored, given the scorn that Debord heaped on readers and reviewers who failed to acknowledge it. 3 Because the concept of spectacle encapsulates the predicament outlined above-and because this predicament can only be resolved, for Debord, through social revolution-the concept of spectacle functions as a means of defining the nature and stakes of the modern revolutionary project. The concept of spectacle is thus not just a tool for sociological analysis. Instead, it was intended to articulate a revolutionary perspective on modern society; a perspective, through which modern life was seen in the light of its own stifled potential for revolutionary change. 'Spectacle' thus denotes and identifies a condition of separation that needed to be superseded. The book presents this via a focus on temporality (this is why the book contains two chapters on time, and why references to time, history and temporal experience can be found throughout its theses; see, in particular, thesis #158). For Debord, spectacular society is a mode of social life that has become marked by a kind of temporal poverty, due to its denigration of its inhabitants' ability to direct their own lived time, and divorced from its ability to direct its own future. Hence, once again, the sense in which this book identifies the stakes of the modern revolution: it purports to give theoretical voice to an immanent demand, on the part of those whose social activity generates this flawed form of social life, to take collective possession of its hugely augmented capacities to shape lived experience, and to thereby direct their own future collectively and consciously. This is presented as a kind of revised, augmented, and peculiarly existential version of communism: not just as a drive towards collective command over the means of production, as in classical communism, but rather as a push towards control over the means of shaping life itself. See, for example, thesis #143 ('By demanding to live the historical time it produces, the proletariat discovers the simple, unforgettable core of its revolutionary project'); thesis #163 (which speaks of the 'temporal realisation of authentic communism'); and thesis #200 (which alludes to The Communist Manifesto: 'history itself haunts modern society like a spectre'). If the concept of spectacle is understood in a reductively literal and media-focussed sense, as is often the case, the concept's connection to revolutionary politics can become somewhat opaque (after all, a critique of a mode of social life replete with visual imagery does not necessarily imply that mode of life's total transformation). The book simply becomes a sociological analysis like any other (Debord, incidentally, predicted something very similar: thesis #203 observes that 'The critical concept of "the spectacle" can', if divorced from revolutionary praxis, 'undoubtedly be turned into one more hollow formula of sociologico-political rhetoric used to explain and denounce everything in the abstract, thus serving to reinforce the spectacular system'). It is hard to avoid the view that this has been the book's fate, and that its contemporary framing as a work of media theory comes at the cost of the relative occlusion of its uncompromising political commitments. This was not always the case. The Society of the Spectacle was once viewed with genuine alarm, and the ideas advanced by the Situationist International (S.I.)-the radical 3 See, for example, his 1979 preface to the fourth Italian edition of The Society of the Spectacle, which includes the following remarks: 'Of all those who have quoted from this book in order to acknowledge some importance in it, I have not seen one up till now who took the risk to say, even briefly, what it was about: in fact, it was their concern simply to give the impression that they were not unaware of it. ...Most often the commentators pretended not to understand to what usage a book can be destined if it will never be able to be classified into any of the categories of the intellectual productions that the dominant society wants to take into consideration, and if it was not written from the point of view of any of the specialized trades that it encourages. Thus, the intentions of the author seemed obscure' (Debord 2006, p.1462-3).

Selva: A Journal of the History of Art, 2022

Spectacle and Strategy: On the Development of Debord's Theoretical Work from 'The Society of the ... more Spectacle and Strategy: On the Development of Debord's Theoretical Work from 'The Society of the Spectacle' to 'Comments on the Society of the Spectacle' Introduction Debord's two books on 'spectacle' Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle was first published in 1967. It is, by far, his most famous and celebrated work, but it was followed in 1988 by another book that tends to receive comparatively little attention. This is his Comments on the Society of the Spectacle: a book in which he outlined the changes that 'spectacular society' had undergone since The Society of the Spectacle's publication, and since the events of May 1968. The nature of these changes, and the way in which it presents them to the reader, makes Comments rather different from its predecessor. The Society of the Spectacle's compact and unforgiving theses present the social revolution that Debord and the Situationist International (S.I.) advocated as a real and immanent possibility, and despite the austerity of its text, the book is touched with a hint of almost messianic euphoria. Comments, in contrast, is written in a more accessible prose style, and although Debord's condemnatory tone is still very much present, the euphoria has gone. The book reflects on the retreat and suppression of the radical potential that May 1968 was held to have evidenced, and in doing so, it sets out an account of a social order that had succeeded in 'eliminating' almost 'every organized revolutionary tendency'. 1 Comments describes a society marked by confusion, manipulation, unverifiable claims, surveillance, and demagoguery, and which had engendered a set of impending crises that it could not hope to control. It closes by predicting that this condition would prompt 'changes in the art of government', 2 on the grounds that those tasked with maintaining this state of affairs would soon gain a clearer understanding of the advantages that it affords for managing a pliable populace. This vision of society was described as pessimistic, defeatist, and paranoid when Comments first appeared. 3 When read again today, however, its account of generalized disorder, discord, environmental damage and technologically facilitated manipulation can seem remarkably prescient. It is, I would suggest, a text that deserves to be revisited and reconsidered.

Revue Française d'Histoire des Idées Politiques, 2021

Ethics and Social Welfare, 2021

This essay proposes that the interpretations of Hegelian philosophy advanced by Gillian Rose and ... more This essay proposes that the interpretations of Hegelian philosophy advanced by Gillian Rose and Robert Pippin may be relevant to the theorisation of genocide. This argument is presented via a discussion of Claudia Card's contention that genocide can be understood as a form of 'social death'. According to Card, genocide damages or eradicates what she calls 'social vitality': inter-generational social relations that animate, articulate and characterise social groups, and which give meaning and context to individual lives. The essay points out limitations in Card's claims and proposes that Pippin and Rose could help to respond to those problems. It argues that Pippin's reading can develop Card's ideas regarding the collective 'life' of groups, and that Rose's interpretation can remedy difficulties posed by Card's conception of evil. The essay suggests that, when taken together, this combination of ideas may point towards a means of thinking about Hegel that serves to foreground the pertinence of past disasters to any critical assessment of the present.

Ethics and Social Welfare, 2021

Araucaria, 2019

This essay argues that modern demagogy can be understood as a symptom of a kind of social patholo... more 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.

Araucaria, 2019

This essay combines Wendy Brown’s account of neoliberal subjectivity with Robert Pippin’s interpr... more This essay combines Wendy Brown’s account of neoliberal subjectivity with Robert Pippin’s interpretation of Hegel. Through doing so, it argues that modern demagogy can be understood as a symptom of a kind of social pathology. The essay begins by focussing on Brown’s contention that neoliberal society has bred forms of individual subjectivity that are inherently attuned to right-wing rhetoric. Whilst drawing on Pippin’s reading of Hegel, the essay casts these modes of individual subjectivity as aspects of a flawed mode of collective subjectivity, and. 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.

Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy #20, 2014

Guy Debord’s famous concept of ‘spectacle’ is perhaps one of the most widely misunderstood and mi... more 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, 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.

The Situationist International: A Critical Handbook , 2020

This paper sets out a short overview of the notion of praxis that informs the theoretical work of... more This paper sets out a short overview of the notion of praxis that informs the theoretical work of Guy Debord and the Situationist International (S.I.). It discusses the ways in which Marx's seminal remarks concerning the 'realisation' of philosophy informed the S.I.'s views about art. It then outlines the ways in which this theme informs the group's critique of 'spectacle'.

The Sage Handbook of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, 2018

The aim of this chapter is to address some of the connections, differences and tensions that can ... more The aim of this chapter is to address some of the connections, differences and tensions that can be discerned between critical theory and cultural studies. In order to render this more manageable, the bounds of these two fields have been narrowed considerably: when referring to critical theory, I shall be primarily concerned with the latter’s first generation, and thus with writers such as Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer and Marcuse; when looking at cultural studies, I shall concentrate on the history and characteristics of its seminal British iterations. The chapter discusses the virtues and limitations of the differing conceptions of modern culture associated with these two bodies of thought.

Published in Historical Materialism vol.19, issue 1

This essay reads Guy Debord’s theoretical work through its primary philosophical and theoretical ... more 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.

Historical Materialism, 2011

This essay reads Guy Debord's theoretical work through its primary philosophical and theoretical ... more 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.

Haymarket, 2019

'Critical Theory Today: On the Limits and Relevance of an Intellectual Tradition', 2022

The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, Dec 24, 2010

Selva: A Journal of the History of Art, 2022

Revue Française d'Histoire des Idées Politiques, 2021

Ethics and Social Welfare, 2021

Araucaria, 2019

Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy #20, 2014

The Situationist International: A Critical Handbook , 2020

The Sage Handbook of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, 2018

Published in Historical Materialism vol.19, issue 1

Historical Materialism, 2011

PhD Thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2011

This PhD thesis formed the initial basis for my book Debord, Time and Spectacle: Hegelian Marxism... more This PhD thesis formed the initial basis for my book Debord, Time and Spectacle: Hegelian Marxism and Situationist Theory (the paperback version was published by Haymarket in 2018 https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1203-debord-time-and-spectacle ). The book is quite different from the thesis: it is much longer, it uses very little of the original thesis material, and it develops and expands on many of the thesis' claims. It also looks at Debord's source materials in greater detail. The basic argument and structure are, however, similar. The original abstract for the thesis reads as follows:

This thesis addresses Guy Debord's theory of spectacle through its primary philosophical and theoretical influences. Through doing so it highlights the importance of his largely overlooked concerns with time and history, and interprets the theory on that basis. The theory of spectacle is shown to be not simply a critique of the mass media, as is often assumed, but rather an account of a relationship with history; or more specifically, an alienated relation to the construction of history. This approach thus offers a means of addressing Debord’s Hegelian Marxism. The thesis connects the latter to Debord’s interests in strategy, chance and play by way of its existential elements, and uses these themes to investigate his own and the Situationist International’s (S.I.) concerns with praxis, political action and organisation.
Addressing Debord and the S.I.’s work in this way also highlights the shortcomings of the theory of spectacle. The theory is based upon the separation of an acting subject from his or her own actions, and in viewing capitalist society under this rubric it tends towards replacing Marx's presentation of capital as an antagonistic social relation with an abstract opposition between an alienated consciousness and a homogenised world. Yet whilst the theory itself may be problematic, the conceptions of time, history and subjectivity that inform it may be of greater interest. Drawing attention to Debord's claims that theories should be understood as strategic interventions, and also to the S.I.'s calls for their own supersession, the thesis uses its observations on the nature of Debord's Hegelian Marxism to cast the theory of spectacle as a particular moment within a broader notion of historical agency. It thus contends that Debord's work can be seen to imply a model of collective political will, and offers initial suggestions as to how that interpretation might be developed.

This thesis addresses Guy Debord's theory of spectacle through its primary philosophical and theo... more This thesis addresses Guy Debord's theory of spectacle through its primary philosophical and theoretical influences. Through doing so it highlights the importance of his largely overlooked concerns with time and history, and interprets the theory on that basis. The theory of spectacle is shown to be not simply a critique of the mass media, as is often assumed, but rather an account of a relationship with history; or more specifically, an alienated relation to the construction of history. This approach thus offers a means of addressing Debord's Hegelian Marxism. The thesis connects the latter to Debord's interests in strategy, chance and play by way of its existential elements, and uses these themes to investigate his own and the Situationist International's (S.I.) concerns with praxis, political action and organisation. Addressing Debord and the S.I.'s work in this way also highlights the shortcomings of the theory of spectacle. The theory is based upon the separation of an acting subject from his or her own actions, and in viewing capitalist society under this rubric it tends towards replacing Marx's presentation of capital as an antagonistic social relation with an abstract opposition between an alienated consciousness and a homogenised world. Yet whilst the theory itself may be problematic, the conceptions of time, history and subjectivity that inform it may be of greater interest. Drawing attention to Debord's claims that theories should be understood as strategic interventions, and also to the S.I.'s calls for their own supersession, the thesis uses its observations on the nature of Debord's Hegelian Marxism to cast the theory of spectacle as a particular moment within a broader notion of historical agency. It thus contends that Debord's work can be seen to imply a model of collective political will, and offers initial suggestions as to how that interpretation might be developed.

The Encyclopedia of Literary and Cultural Theory, 2010

Introduction to Criticism (Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming), and An Introduction to Film Analysis (f... more Introduction to Criticism (Wiley-Blackwell, forthcoming), and An Introduction to Film Analysis (forthcoming).

Historical Materialism, 2011

Book-review of Ernesto Screpanti's Libertarian Communism: Marx, Engels and the Political Economy ... more 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.

Historical Materialism, 2011

Book-review of Ernesto Screpanti’s Libertarian Communism: Marx, Engels and the Political Economy ... more 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.

Published in Radical Philosophy #174

Published in Historical Materialism vol.22, issue 3-4, pp.505-19

Amy Wendling contends in this book that Marx’s concern with alienation is not restricted to his e... more 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’s Capital. 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.

The Marx and Philosophy Society Review of Books

Published in Historical Materialism vol.19, issue 3, pp.205-12

ook-review of Ernesto Screpanti’s Libertarian Communism: Marx, Engels and the Political Economy o... more ook-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.

Guy Debord’s most famous book, 1967’s The Society of the Spectacle, contains an entire chapter on... more Guy Debord’s most famous book, 1967’s The Society of the Spectacle, contains an entire chapter on urban and geographical space. It is titled ‘The Management [l’aménagement] of Territory’, and it describes the ways in which ‘the spectacle’ shapes and organises the environments that fall under its control. My aim is to use a reading of this chapter as a means towards drawing a conception of place from Debord’s work that would accord with his views about collective social life. Admittedly, this will require a good deal of reconstruction. Debord seldom defined his terms – The Society of the Spectacle is more a series of pronouncements than a single argument, and its terse theses frequently employ concepts and references that are not fully explained to the reader – and in consequence, my claims concerning the ‘life’ that had become enmeshed within the spectacle are based largely on inference from textual evidence. Likewise, although one can certainly identify elements of a conception of place in Debord’s work, the latter is not a clearly defined or indeed prominent term in his writings. I hope, however, that a discussion of his ideas about collective life and spectacle will allow further inferences to be made as to the nature of a conception of place that might accord with his mature theoretical work.

Preface to an Indian edition of Guy Debord's 'The Society of the Spectacle'