The Spectacle and Organization Studies

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to revisit Guy Debord’s critical theory of the spectacle as formulated 50 years ago in the ‘Society of the Spectacle’ in light of the contemporary production of spectacles. Debord’s arguments about appearance, visibility and celebrity are echoed in the way organizations increasingly focus on their brand, image, impression, and reputation. Yet, the role of spectacles in organizational life has remained under-researched in organization studies. As the boundaries between fact and fiction, reality and representation, substance and appearance become increasingly blurred, questions about the production and effects of spectacles seem more pertinent than ever. Are representations faithful mirrors of reality, or attempts to conceal reality? Do they replace reality, or bring new realities into being? By articulating three possible understandings of the spectacle, as fetishism, hyper-reality or performativity, this essay invites organization scholars to examine the organization of the real and the making of organizations through processes of spectacular representation including discursive practices, visual images and theatrical performances.

Fashion and Organization Studies: Exploring conceptual paradoxes and empirical opportunities

“…The most obvious example are fashion models, but this also includes, for instance, financial professionals (Bazin & Aubert-Tarby, 2013). In this, the industry's aestheticisation finds a central place in what Debord (1967) called the society of the spectacle, where people are not able to produce their own lives, but are reduced to spectators passively consuming merchandise articulated to craft their lifestyle (Flyverbom & Reinecke, 2017). (Gondola, 1999), displayed in flashy ways (e.g.…”

The (academic) society of the spectacle (of publication)

“…Despite their very open invitation via a 'open mic' format, I was struggling to imagine something that would not make Guy-Ernest ashamed, amused or annoyed -quite a challenge for those who know his work. Having read Juliane and Mikkel's very interesting essay The Spectacle and Organization Studies (Flyverbom & Reinecke, 2017), I was tempted to reverse the Debordian mirror on academics themselves, thus connecting the critic mentioned earlier to the conceptual framework of the Society of the Spectacle. The result was a short video détournement (an embezzlement of pictures and movies that situationists enjoyed -perhaps too much) of the Society of the Spectacle (Debord, 1967) itself: https://youtu.be/ydNWh99YZA8…”

“…In other words, slowly, the spectacle has started "organizing the real" (Flyverbom & Reinecke, 2017: 1628. How could scholars escape such a trap if, as per my video thesis, our field is now dangerously becoming a part of the society of the spectacle?…”

Rethinking the role of the academy: cognitive authority in the age of post-truth

“…The rise of technocratic management; corporate branding; spin doctors; political triangulation and digital manipulation of images and video are reflective of a general tendency to see truth as a function of creativity and influence rather than as a feature of objective reality. An exhaustive account of 'post-truth' would take us beyond the remit of the "According to critics, discourse theorists have gone too far in questioning reality since the advent of mass media society (e.g., Flyverbom and Reinecke, 2017). Thus, observers from within Discourse Studies, as well as from outside have denounced French discourse theories as 'postmodernist' (Habermas, 1993;Eagleton, 1996), even as a threat to Western democracy (Ferry and Renaut, 1988).…”