One can’t have deconstruction without situationism

I had this debate with a friend on objectivity in science. She had read about it and didn’t believe in it. I argued with Husserl’s geometry but she didn’t care for it, arguing for a weakness in my opinion, stressing that maths is something else. I didn’t know what to say and couldn’t think of it before afterwards, when she was gone, that we were talking about two different things; theory of science versus phenomenology.

Anyway, I have come to this: one can’t have deconstruction without situationism. This is Debord:

The two sides of the end of culture–in all the aspects of knowledge as well as in all the aspects of perceptible representations exist in a unified manner in what used to be art in the most general sense. In the case of knowledge, the accumulation of branches of fragmentary knowledge, which become unusable because the approval of existing conditions must finally renounce knowledge of itself, confronts the theory of praxis which alone holds the truth of them all since it alone holds the secret of their use. In the case of representations, the critical self-destruction of society’s former common language confronts its artificial recomposition in the commodity spectacle, the illusory representation of the non-lived.

And maybe not without the fun of american contra-spectacular movements.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s