Media Spectacle

Rating:
Summary: Little new here
Review: "Media Spectacle" presents Douglas Kellner's critique of contemporary high-tech, media-driven society which, he proposes, is dominated by the phenomenon of spectacle. The whole notion of "spectacle" as the dominant mode of capitalist/consumerist society is by no means original to Kellner. His analysis seems inspired in part by the philosophy of Guy Debord (Society of the Spectacle, 1967), and by the American historian/philosopher Daniel Boorstin, whose provocative 1961 book "The Image" is an earlier and more accessible exposition of the same ideas. Boorstin referred to "pseudo-events" and famously defined the celebrity as one who is "known for his well-knownness."

What is refreshing about Boorstin is his apolitical, objective, yet passionate analysis, which Debord vehemently rejects as apologetic and naive. Kellner, like Debord and his Frankfurt School predecessors, reads contemporary culture as the subjugation of the masses by a "culture industry"--an all-powerful imperious collusion of dominant media and the shadowy controllers of the means of production. He seems bent on placing blame for what he perceives as the excesses of consumerism. Boorstin, on the other hand, believes it far more productive to look within ourselves, rather than to blame a nefarious conspiracy: "Daring not to admit we may be our own deceivers, we anxiously seek someone to accuse of deceiving us."

Kellner does not disguise his political beliefs, referring repeatedly in this work to George H.W. Bush as "Bush Daddy," to that president's agenda as "hardright and utterly corrupt," to the "Bush-Cheney gang," and proclaiming that the younger Bush "stole the presidency" (the topic of another recent Kellner book)..

There is certainly nothing "wrong" with interpreting culture through a particular political perspective. Indeed Debord, Adorno and the others did the same, although with greater originality. I agree entirely with Kellner's assessments and characterizations of Bush père et fils, but wish he would focus more in this work on promoting an understanding of culture and communication than on advancing his own political agenda. After all, he describes his goal as to "teach students and citizens how to read their culture," and that is a disingenuous characterization of his apparent intent. He seems rather more devoted to teaching WHAT to read in culture than HOW to make one's own informed analysis.

Kellner has written or edited two dozen books and published more than two hundred articles on critical theory, culture, and society. Perhaps it would be difficult for one so prolific to avoid becoming self-referential, but the bibliography in "Media Spectacle" lists 18 of Kellner's own works and the text and notes refer to those works at least 98 times. By this time, he seems to be repeating himself.

Indeed, the redundancies within this work itself are aggravating. Discussing a character in "The X-Files," Kellner reports that, "Mulder typically takes charge, provides the explanations, and is more often than not proven correct." And only two paragraphs later writes that "Mulder is the senior partner, who usually gives orders and who often-but not always-has the more correct analysis." He reiterates several times and in great detail how Michael Jordan's image reflects US cultural values and mythology. He tells us repeatedly, with slight variations in vocabulary, that O.J. Simpson, " was a well known sports star and media figure." This is a book in desperate need of a good editor.

Finally, Kellner certainly makes the valid point that the public needs to be aware that corporations and individuals should be judged critically--and that they often manipulate public opinion and perceptions. His examples, though, are all so well known as to be trite. McDonald's serves fatty foods? Michael Jordan avoids politics? O.J. Simpson's trial was a circus? The X-Files is popular because people don't trust the government? George W. Bush stole the election? Kellner should either provide some new insight into these "spectacles" or tackle something a little more difficult--a set of phenomena about which we don't already have grave suspicions--and shed some light in those places where the motives behind spectacles still lurk in the darkness.

In the end, the reader is left with important questions unanswered: What are the elements of spectacle? What has created a culture of spectacle? How and why does spectacle communicate to us? What messages do spectacles present? If the answers are here, they are buried under mounds of verbiage. And they were far more cogently addressed by Daniel Boorstin more than 40 years ago.