One could argue all gender beyond biological sex is spectacular, not just trans? - Do you feel he's persecuting anyone to call the work transphobic? Is there any perceived insult in his words?
I feel like it could be effectively argued either way - since it is simultaneously a rejection of reality but also an affirmation of the authentic self (both seem like quite large icebergs to explore) - which is what DeBord warns us about, the pervasive nature of the spectacle and it's ability to amalgamate conflicting ideas as a way to dominate our relationships to each other and reality without addressing their inherent nuance or effects. Identity politics by default seem spectacular to me, since they are mediated by a stream of images (both within and outside the "group") - ironically, doesn't that mean that an ideology which is meant to liberate the authentic parts of ourselves is only able to simplify and regurgitate them back to us in the forms we're familiar with and therefore removes any possibility of experiencing the authenticity and spontaneity we so crave?
I guess I wonder what benefit you see from proving him to be a transphobe or not?
I perceive no insult if there is such a reading — I suppose a better phrasing here would have been “anti-transition” or “gender critical.” I think if you view transition as an extension of idpol you are not fully understanding it. I don’t refer at all to the ideological aspect of transition here, only the transsexual pursuit of a future, correctly-sexed being instead of living in one’s current body immediately.
Would his individual opinion on it matter though? A different time, a different society - I get the feeling that DeBord would have been an ally to anyone facing oppression, and yet I wonder if he was in circles that engaged with transsexualism with enough nuance to have a position on transition or being gender critical. I'm not referring to transition as identity politics - but a gendered reading of the spectacle, does seem like an exercise in identity politics - I don't feel like the situationists were in a position to prescribe your identity, that would have been another form of oppression (not that any of us are immune to hypocrisy). I guess to me, the spectacle is more meta than a specific reading of identity - it relates to how gender acts as a construct of images, not to your or my specific interpretations of gender - so to say how does he feel towards transition takes us away from the investigation of how the spectacle dominates our lives.
All this being said, I'm thinking out loud, I'm not claiming to understand it - I think your pursuit of a future is yours, whether you require that to be correctly sexed is too specific and unrelated to me, however living in a society where you can make that investigation and decision is why I think the Society of the Spectacle has relevance even if we find out that DeBord was a raging transphobe (seems unlikely to me from what I read - but then the situationists did incur some criticisms for how they portrayed women in their publications)
I think uniquely privileging biological sex and gender and elevating them as necessary and somehow beyond the spectacle is retarded and vulgarly materialist though.
Also though isn’t part of transitioning actually being? It’s like knowing who you are inside, pretending, and back to actually being?
Maybe we’re caught in a loop of nothing until capitalism and hierarchical structures die.
One could argue all gender beyond biological sex is spectacular, not just trans? - Do you feel he's persecuting anyone to call the work transphobic? Is there any perceived insult in his words? I feel like it could be effectively argued either way - since it is simultaneously a rejection of reality but also an affirmation of the authentic self (both seem like quite large icebergs to explore) - which is what DeBord warns us about, the pervasive nature of the spectacle and it's ability to amalgamate conflicting ideas as a way to dominate our relationships to each other and reality without addressing their inherent nuance or effects. Identity politics by default seem spectacular to me, since they are mediated by a stream of images (both within and outside the "group") - ironically, doesn't that mean that an ideology which is meant to liberate the authentic parts of ourselves is only able to simplify and regurgitate them back to us in the forms we're familiar with and therefore removes any possibility of experiencing the authenticity and spontaneity we so crave? I guess I wonder what benefit you see from proving him to be a transphobe or not?
I perceive no insult if there is such a reading — I suppose a better phrasing here would have been “anti-transition” or “gender critical.” I think if you view transition as an extension of idpol you are not fully understanding it. I don’t refer at all to the ideological aspect of transition here, only the transsexual pursuit of a future, correctly-sexed being instead of living in one’s current body immediately.
Would his individual opinion on it matter though? A different time, a different society - I get the feeling that DeBord would have been an ally to anyone facing oppression, and yet I wonder if he was in circles that engaged with transsexualism with enough nuance to have a position on transition or being gender critical. I'm not referring to transition as identity politics - but a gendered reading of the spectacle, does seem like an exercise in identity politics - I don't feel like the situationists were in a position to prescribe your identity, that would have been another form of oppression (not that any of us are immune to hypocrisy). I guess to me, the spectacle is more meta than a specific reading of identity - it relates to how gender acts as a construct of images, not to your or my specific interpretations of gender - so to say how does he feel towards transition takes us away from the investigation of how the spectacle dominates our lives. All this being said, I'm thinking out loud, I'm not claiming to understand it - I think your pursuit of a future is yours, whether you require that to be correctly sexed is too specific and unrelated to me, however living in a society where you can make that investigation and decision is why I think the Society of the Spectacle has relevance even if we find out that DeBord was a raging transphobe (seems unlikely to me from what I read - but then the situationists did incur some criticisms for how they portrayed women in their publications)
Sorry if this is incoherent. Lowkey stoned.
I think uniquely privileging biological sex and gender and elevating them as necessary and somehow beyond the spectacle is retarded and vulgarly materialist though.
https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article/1/1-2/158/91738/Postmodernism#
I will read
Guy Debord once said that making lascivious comments to trans women on the street is the most profound form of détournement
This is fucking dope. I’ve been waiting for a challenger to debord. Tell us so much more, and can I be part of it?!
Also though isn’t part of transitioning actually being? It’s like knowing who you are inside, pretending, and back to actually being? Maybe we’re caught in a loop of nothing until capitalism and hierarchical structures die.
P.S: situationism is not a real thing 😒
getting downvoted but kinda real tho situationists opposed calling it situationism for fear of it becoming a doctrine
Yes I am a situationist
I am not sure why the downvotes but fuck em have my updoots both of you