Talk:Situationist International/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Situationist International. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"suppression" or "supersession"?

Hi, everyone. Perhaps if I knew more about this topic I could make an informed guess. But in this sentence (from the first section), "The 'realization and suppression of Art' is simply the most developed of the many supersessions which the SI sought over the years," is "suppression" right or should it say "supersession"? Thanks. O process 03:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's right. Supercession is another term for the Hegelian Aufheben, which is a transcendence which both suppresses a form and realises it.

"For dadaism sought to abolish art without realizing it, and surrealism sought to realize art without abolishing it. The critical position since worked out by the situationists demonstrates that the abolition and the realization of art are inseparable aspects of a single transcendence of art." - Debord, Thesis 191, Society of the Spectacle.

IRC

I have a question. Randall Collin's book Interaction Ritual Chains recommends the analysis of situations as the first step in understanding conflict sociology. It is this a Durkheimian sociological approach... Can anyone tell me if Situationism has anything to do with this kind of Durkheimian social science? Thanks.

Bad writing

I came to this article to find out what Situationism is, and I walk out of it knowing nothing new. Honestly, there's a serious need for some sort of explaination as to what Situationism is, which I can't seem to find in this article (only a vague notion of leftism gets through), preferably in either the intro or near it. History is nice and all, but first and foremost the subject matter's most basic concepts need to be fleshed out. -- LGagnon 02:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Situationists, not about "situationism," which does not exist (at least if you believe the Situationists). The Situationists were an identifiable group of people with a certain set of ideas about social change in modern spectacular society. I think the article could use a lot of work too, but it's not the place to come to define something like "situationism." I think the section on "key ideas" is pretty decent, though, in summarizing their (often complicated) ideas.--csloat 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If a group of people called Situationists have an identifiable set of ideas, then those ideas would be called Situationism. That's just basic English grammar. Brock 15:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trotskist

" The group also later drew ideas from the trotskyist group Socialisme ou Barbarie which criticized the Soviet Union as a form of state capitalism and as a bureaucratic regime, to which the Workers Councils on the model of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising were preferred." If this is true, then there are some serious problems with other articles on Wikipedia, but I believe this is quite false. Socialisme ou Barbarie is a left communist group close to council communists like Pannekoek, who criticise all bolsheviks, including trotsky, as authoritarians and as undemocratic, since the 20is (and if Rosa Luxemburg is counted, since during the revolution itself). And Lenin, having views close to Trotsky's riticises this 'left communism'as being an 'infantile disorder'. Neither of the bolsheviks seems to have thought workers councils were the preffered organisation of the society (despite their power to the soviets); they centralised state power in the hands of a party. And its quite unlikely that the hungarian revolution would be a particular source of ideas for workers councils, inspiering as something more contemporary thought it might be, since those have been favored by council communists for quite a while, and were there at the beggining of the russian revolution, and with even a longer history. I will remove this paragraph explaining what Socialisme ou Barbarie is.. --195.29.118.32 19:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a simple matter of either/or here. Socialisme ou Barbarie were Trotskyists, but they were not orthodox Trotskyists. See the section on them in section 4 (Heresies, Cornelius Castoridadis) of Alex Callinicos' book "Trostskyism," online here: http://www.marxists.de/trotism/callinicos/index.htm

The same goes for the influence of Hungary 1956 on the group. The Hungarian Uprising was a particular source of inspiration for them, discussed in Socialisme ou Barbarie's journals, and informing the development of their theory, athough it did not provide a direct theoretical program, nor was it their only source of intellectual inspiration.

This article is long and inpenetrable

you leave your readers too long out in the rain.

I want to understand.

Won't you let me?

Under "Key Ideas" look at the parts about "Spectacle," "Situation," and "Detournement." It's a good place to start. Probably that section could be reorganized.--csloat 08:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As compared to the actual importance of the movement described, this article is about 9-10 times too long.Giordaano 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Recuperation examples

I have removed these as they violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Freshacconci 14:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

From the article:

Situationist urban theory, defined initially by the members of the Internationale Lettriste as 'Unitary Urbanism', was extensively developed through the behavioural and performance structures of the workshop for non linear architecture during the 1990's. Using Glasgow and London as experimental testing grounds, the protagonists of the workshop redefined the psychogeographical terrain of the urban cityscape in relation to its emotive resistivity.

(emphasis mine)

Just what the hell is this actually meant to mean? (That's a rhetorical question by the way) This is Wikipedia, not a Situ pamphlet. Could someone who does understand this please reword it in a way that's more comprehensible to the average reader? There's a few other similar issues with the article but this one stood out. --Black Butterfly 13:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been nearly a month without comment or updating, I have removed the final sentence. --Black Butterfly 11:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

verifiability

When speaking of Debord, the article states "Some describe him as having provided the theoretical clarity within the group; others say that he exercised dictatorial control over its development and membership; yet others believe that he was a powerful writer but a second-rate thinker." Who are these "some" and "others;" can they be cited?

Addition of the Feederz to Situationist International/Influences

The proposed text was removed by User:RepublicanJacobite first claiming self promotion and later, when informed I was not connected to the band, stating he didn't care whether I had a connection to the band in question (which doesn't even exist anymore)... ???? The removed text was:

"Later, the U.S. group the Feederz were more directly and consciously influenced by the Situationists, even to the point of covering their first album with sandpaper and the spreading of Situationist materials and ideas."

The Feederz are among the best known of the punk bands who directly admitted to a heavy influence by the Situationist International and propogated Situationist critique in their works. Some citations backing this argument:

and finally... The Wikipedia article Feederz Lozen8 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made some editorial changes to the "influences" section, including some changes of wording, and placing the Feederz in chronological order with the other groups mentioned. The influences section still needs a lot of work. I hope this compromise will work. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Lozen8: I appreciate your most recent edits. There are a great many other improvements that are needed in this article, and I hope that we can continue to cooperate and compromise in order to accomplish said improvements. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite: I agree wholeheartedly. The Situationist critique deserves to represented here in the most accurate terms possible and I deeply appreciate your willingness to consider new options once presented in full (my failing). Lozen8 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes I would like to make.

The next group of changes I would like to make to the article, and which I am presenting here in order to get some ideas and opinions from other editors, are as follows:

1. Change the Criticism subsection into a section of its own, i.e., section 3;
2. Combine the Influence and Contemporary subsections together and move this new section down, making it section 4;
3. Combine the Activities or publications that share Situationist ideas, currently a subsection of the See Also list, with the Bibliography, as a new subsection, probably with a slightly different (and shorter) name.

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on these changes? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Those changes seem to make sense, with the possible exception of the last. Considering the fact that even the situationists themselves were often critical of some of the types of groups represented in the Activities or publications that share Situationist ideas section, it might lose some accuracy in the process.Lozen8 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You could be right. I've actually not gone through all the items in that subsection, and some of them may need to go altogether. The word "share" can be problematic: which ideas do they share? did they have a common source? etc. The SI was very precise in its critique of modernity and the modern world, how many other groups were so exacting in their analysis and their demands? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You hit upon the crux of the matter. The SI created a critique of the modern world that was a detailed, rigorous analysis and revealed the inner workings that surpasses by far any others, at least that I've seen. Many of us have been influenced by them, but I think most have failed to advance the situationist critique much, if any, or have managed to supersede it. For example, it's fascinating how accurate Debord's Comments on the Society of Spectacle is almost twenty years later. So it is difficult to say many of these people, myself included, really share wnat the SI would have considered even a minimum of their demands of revolutionary critique or praxis. Lozen8 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

For now, why don't we leave the Activities or publications that share Situationist ideas subsection as it is, and make the other changes I outlined? Eventually, something has to be done with that subsection, problematic as it is. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We will have to improve the Bibliography section as well, as I just noticed that Society of the Spectacle isn't even listed. Maybe when I get back. Lozen8 00:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I will get started on some of what I have outlined above later this week. I will leave the bibliography and the other section(s) we've discussed alone for now. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've taken some very tenuous links off for the reasons you have outlined above, but they were reverted. Please explain their relevence here before putting them back. Ta. Paki.tv (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, honestly, you never offered a reasoning in your edit summary, you simply said "irrelevant crap," which is not very elucidating. I feel all of those links, though not necessarily directly connected with the SI, are similar in approach and practice to what the Situationists were attempting. Some of them, such as The Workshop for Non-Linear Architecture and Semiotext(e), would arguably not exist at all were it not for the SI's influence. Autonomism and the Diggers are tangential, but also related for the reasons given above. I think all of the links fall under the guideline "may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They are highly confused and confusing and don't really help with the article. WNLA is linked in psychogeography which is well and good, semiotext is reallly nothing to do with the SI, but i'm not bothered with an edit war on this - there are alot more pressing matters at hand. btw, please get my name right or do not use it. Paki.tv (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I am generally opposed to large See also sections, I think these links are quite relevant and useful, and if they cannot be worked into the body of the text, the article is better for having them in See also than not having them altogether. the skomorokh 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be able to understand why u believe they are useful if u offer an explanation but as it is all i can see is some links that have nothing to do with the SI or with situationism Paki.tv (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I offered some reasons above, to which you did not bother to respond. You said you did not want to bother with edit warring over this, then you went ahead and deleted the material anyway. Two editors have now stated their opposition. Please make a case for their deletion or move on. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already responded to the very tenuous 'reasons' u put 4ward above but i will repeat them 4 u. wnla are mentioned and more relavent to psychogeography. the others, semiotext, diggers, autonomism have no direct relationship to the SI whatsoever. they are not referenced additions and totally irelevent and confusing - as i have already stated. Paki.tv (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I've taken those links out for theswe reasons again. Anarchism and the arts in particular is totally unsuitable here and very confusing for someone who is not familiar with the SI. may i suggest for both of the above editors - and it really doesn't matter how many editors have a particular opinion unless it is verified by references - for a specific critique of anarchism from a situationist perspective try this http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/4.htm sure there are many people/ organisations/ events which have been influenced by the SI - J18 and RTS spring to mind and maybe u can weed them into the influences section as u have suggested... but 'see also' should be relevent. Paki.tv (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Paki.tv. don't re-add these links. though you could add others that deal with si directly.--Buridan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Situationist International. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.