Politics as Spectacle From Alcibiades to Volodymyr Zelensky

Ever since Ancient Greece, spectacle has played a central, yet highly problematic part in Western societies. Although most of us would agree that social life is all but unimaginable without some form of spectacle, and that some societies have given particular importance to spectacle, we tend to equate spectacle with entertainment, or at the very least consider that it implies a fictional dimension, that it is based on illusion and make-believe—in other words, that it is ultimately futile, if not downright nefarious, especially when certain domains of social life— politics, justice, religion—seem unduly "theatricalized."

     However, if we care to explore the nature of spectacle, setting aside the possible—but not inevitable—abuses that it may engender, we realize that it must be regarded as a normal, and even essential form of communication and social life. This requires an effort to redefine spectacle as a "neutral" practice (i.e., without a priori positive or negative value, and without inherent fictionality), but also to take as object of study not 'spectacle' as an abstract construct, but the "spectacle event," an entity with a specific duration and location in space that involves specific groups of people carrying out specific types of actions (performing and spectating). Therefore, we can claim that (for instance) a political rally, a court trial, a religious service are all, fundamentally, spectacle events; they are defined as such by time/space coordinates and by the simultaneous presence of two parties—performers and spectators—who take on asymmetrical but complementary and equally important roles.

     An event-based approach leads to innovative analyses of the functions of spectacle in social communication, and helps debunk a number of commonplaces, not just in the field of performing arts, but in political science and sociology as well.

This seminar in six sessions will be divided in four parts:

Part I. Session 1 will provide an introduction to the critical approach to the concept of 'spectacle' in reference to other germane operational concepts ('performance', 'spectation', 'attention', 'event', 'politics/policy') and to commonly held (mis)conceptions in various theories or models (by Debord, Baudrillard, Schechner, Vargas Llosa). We will frame spectacle as a type of event in the realm of communication.

Part II. Session 2 is devoted to a historical perspective on the "spectacle controversy" from Ancient Greece to the 20th century, with an aim to show that through the centuries and across cultures, the same elements keep recurring: defiance towards representation (mimesis), an assumption that spectators are passive, belief that all spectacle relies on illusion and deception—but also a conviction that spectacle is a powerful political instrument.

Part III. Sessions 3-4-5 will be devoted to readings and analyzing post-WWII foundational documents on the relationships between politics, society and spectacle such as Orwell's 1984 (1948), Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), Debord's The Society of the Spectacle (1967), Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1993), and Kellner's Media Spectacle (2003). A series of films that deal with this issue will also be examined, from Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) to Nolfi's The Adjustment Bureau (2011).

Part IV. In Session 6, I will present case studies of spectacle events in the political domain broadly conceived, that former students have completed in the context of the course. A particular focus will be the often neglected but essential difference between "spectacle" and 'media."

EVALUATION

— Written case study (20-25K characters w/spaces) on a specific political spectacle event: 65%

— Written exam [1h—on line (Moodle)]: 35%