An Aesthetic of the "Grand Style": Guy Debord

Author(s): Mario Perniola and Olga Vasile

Source: SubStance, Vol. 28, No. 3, Issue 90: Special Issue: Guy Debord (1999), pp. 89-101
Published by: University of Wisconsin Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685435
Accessed: 16-11-2015 12:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Aestheticofthe"GrandStyle":
GuyDebord

Mario Perniola

A DistancingfromtheWorld

It is difficulttodayto determinewhatmightcorrespondto thatmodel

ofaestheticexcellencethatNietzschedefinedwiththeexpression"thegrand
style." Certainly,in the various arts,works keep being produced that
correspondtothefeatures ofcontainedpower,classicalrigorand unbounded
certainty; unfortunately theycometo theattention ofexpertsand thepublic
with greaterdifficulty and moreslowlythanin the past,bothbecause of
literary, artisticand culturaloverproduction,and widespread cynicism,
superficiality, and insensibility."Thegrandstyle,"in fact,impliesimmediate
a
concern,respect,memory-in word,veneration. Theseaspectsdo notblend
well withthegeneraltoneofcontemporary dailyexperience,but precisely
because oftheirraritytheymayrender"thegrandstyle"theobjectofmore
diligentresearchand morezeal thanever.
It is muchmoredifficult, however,notjustto find,but even to imagine
"the grandstyle"as the qualityof an action,a behavioror even an entire
existence:in otherwords,as Nietzschesays,to consideritno longersimply
art,but"reality, truth,life."Besides,Nietzschehimselftaughtdiffidenceabout
actions and behaviors that attributeto themselvesall sorts of positive
qualities,and he showed how,in mostcases, theyare secretlyanimatedby
oppositedrives.In thisspecificinstance,thephilistinism oftherichand idle
mob thatglorifiesWagner'sopera exemplifiesexactlytheoppositeof "the
grandstyle";indeed culturalsnobbism-as theword itselfsuggests:"sine
nobilitate"-constitutesa manifestationof vulgarityand coarseness, of
boastingostentationthatis at the antipodesof "grand style's"simplicity
and purity. As fora whole life,globallyconsidered,itseemsthatonlya few
shortexistencesmayaspireto all that,almostas iflongevityrequireda long
exerciseofpracticalshrewdness,ifnot complicitywithinfiniteshames.To
recognizethisis alreadya greatachievement!
For thisreason,itis forme a sourceofgreathappinessto have metthe
man who in the second half of the twentiethcentury has been the

Substance#90, 1999 89

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
90 MarioPerniola

personification of"thegrandstyle,"GuyDebord,"doctorofnothing,"as he
defineshimself(Panegyric 13),but masteroftheambitious,friendofrebels
and thepoor,secretlyadmiredby the mighty, stirring greatemotions,but
cold and detachedfromhimselfand fromtheworld.This is in factthefirst
conditionof style:detachment,distance,suspension fromdisorganized
affections, fromimmediateemotions, fromunrestrained passions;hencethere
is a relationshipbetween styleand classicismthatNietzsche repeatedly
underlined.Style,however,shouldnotbe considereda synonymforfrigidity,
insensibility, or worse,pedanticand stereotypedacademicism.In orderto
masterpassions,theyhave to be there!Besides,styleand passion have in
commontheirimperiousand constraining character;bothrequireobedience
and discipline.
In Debord's case, detachmentmanifestsitselffirstof all as completely
extraneousto theworldsofacademia,publishing,journalism,politicsand
media.Debordnourishesa deep disgustforthewholeculturalestablishment.
He hates worldlinessand snobbishfrivolity thatflirtswithrevolutionary
extremism - theso-called"radicalchic."
Finally,his disdainis notsoftened
by inherited wealth:he affirms thathe was "bornvirtually ruined"(Panegyric
12). In an in
age whichambitiouspeople arereadytodo everything to obtain
political power and money,Debord's strategyexploits one factor:the
admirationhe inspiresin thosewho see thatpoliticalpower and moneyare
secondaryto excellenceand itsrecognition. This strategyaims at a kindof
superiority similartothatofsomeoftheancientphilosophers, likeDiogenes,
for whom coherence between principles and behavior was essential.
However,thissuperiority is notso muchembeddedinan ethicalbackground
as an estheticone: thetraditionto whichDebord belongs is one of poetic
and artisticrevolt.That tradition,which encounteredan extraordinary
developmentin thetwentieth centuryavant-garde, datesbacktotheMiddle
Ages: the French
greatfifteenth-century poetFrancoisVillonwas themodel
foran encounterbetweencultureand alternative (inhiscase,even criminal)
conduct,handed down throughthecenturies.Debord explicitly recognizes
thatheritage,buttakesitfurther witha qualitativeleap,sincehe refusesthe
exerciseofpoetryand art,maintaining thattheymustbe overcome-thatis
to say, in Hegelian terms,theyhave to be suppressed and realized in
revolutionary ? 191and ff.)According
theoryand practice(Society, toDebord,
the overcomingof artmustnotbe postponedto a distantfuture,as some
utopian thinkerspropose,but is an urgentneed of the timein whichwe
live: itis notso mucha questionofforeshadowing a societyto comethanof
the
obeying verypowerful command coming from thehistoricaland social

Substance#90, 1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AnAesthetic
ofthe"GrandStyle" 91

hicetnunc.In thisway,Debord also dissociateshimselffromthoseliterary,

poetic and artisticmilieuswhich,despitebeing foreignto everyformof
institutionalization,perseverein practicingactivitiesthatcan at anytimebe
recuperatedby the cultural establishment.It is notby chancethatI gotin
touchwithDebord aftera conflict thatin 1966opposed me to theSurrealist
movement.
One has to add to all thishis distancefromall political-revolutionary
organizationsand trendsprevailingin his age: Debord felthe was carrying
on theheritageofthe"councilcommunism" ofthe1920s,developedinFrance
by theoreticaljournals such as Socialismeou Barbarie.Thischoiceled himtoa
totalrefusalof any Leninist,Trotskyist, Maoist or Third-World position:in
hisview,theso-calledsocialistregimesareformsofstatecapitalism, governed
by a partybureaucracythatassumes therightto speak in thename of the
proletariatwhomit actuallyowns (Society, ? 102).Atthesametime,Debord
also distanceshimselffromanarchism, whichabandonsthehumanbeingto
individualwhim;he does notdoubtthatthehighestlevel ofrevolutionary
theoryhas been reachedby Marx,and notby Bakunin.Ifby "political"one
means thedistinction between"friends"and "enemies,"togetherwiththe
effortto increasethe numberof the former, thereis in Debord a radical
"unpoliticization" leadingtoisolation.Thatis,moreover, one ofthereasons
why we broke offour in
relationship spring 1969.
Approvaland effectiveness obtainedthroughsympathy, agreement and
a good predisposition towardsotherswas certainly notincludedinDebord's
style.In this,he followed Nietzsche's opinion, according to which the
greatnessof the soul is not compatiblewith amiable virtues:"The grand
styleexcludes the pleasant" (Nachgelassene, 1972, 18, 1). In an era when
amiabilityand ease are the most appreciatedqualities,Debord faceshis
contemporaries ina bitterand roughmanner, almostas iftodayonlya similar
attitudecould arouse interestand excitepassion. He writes:"[...] I never
wentlookingforanyone,anywhere.My entouragehas been composedonly
ofthosewho came on theirown accord,and knewhow to makethemselves
accepted"(Panegyric, 17). In fact,thisdid notprevent,at leastin thesecond
halfof the 1960s,a sociabilitythatrecognizeditselfin a theoretical project
and in a life-styleformedaround Debord. Its axis was constitutedby the
"SituationistInternational,"a movementthat Debord founded in 1957
togetherwithothermembersoftheartavant-garde,and whichproduced,
overtwelveyears,twelvenumbersofa journal,L'Internationale Situationniste,
thatwas brilliantincontentand elegantly produced.TheSI- as itwas called,
with a fortunateacronym-was a closed group that made a clear-cut

Substance#90, 1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 MarioPerniola

distinctionbetweenmembersand sympathizers: it was ruledby a sortof

collectiveresponsibility,
according to which individual statements
theoretical
and behaviorsautomaticallyinvolvedeveryoneelse. This feature,similar
to one oftheaspectsofreligioussects,has in thecase oftheSI an aesthetic
meaning,referring totheimportance oftheconstrainingand bindingelement
ofstyle;as Nietzschewrites,itimpliestheerasureofindividualspecificity,
a deep sense ofdisciplineand a repugnancefora disorganizedand chaotic
nature(Gay Science ? 290). However,theserequirements, whichperfectly
correspondedto Debord's way ofbeing,did notmatchthetemperofother
membersoftheSI, who wereeithermuchmoreexpansiveand extroverted,
or deprivedofgeniusand creativespirit.Butabove all, theydid notmatch
thedominantfeaturesoftheprotestmovement,on one side ofwhichraged
subjectivevitalismand themostimpulsivespontaneityand, on the other,
gloomyand anti-aesthetic Stalinistpoliticalsubjugation.All thisexplains
a
whyonly very few people actuallyreceivedtheSI's message:at theend of
'68 only threepeople receivedthejournal in Rome,and only 20 in Italy!
Somethingof the high aestheticqualities of the whole enterprisewas
transmitted to commonreaderswho had theimpressionofbelongingto a
world revolutionaryelite;indeed, theyformedan internationalnetwork
withinwhich it was possible to move not so much with a conspiratorial
attitudeas withan aristocratic one.
In a formofhistoricalblindness,however,theaestheticfeatureofthe
Situationist endeavorwas notrecognizedby eitherthosewho formulated it
fromwithinor by externalobservers.In a letterdated December26, 1966,
GuyDebord,in answertosomeofmyquestions,summarizedtheSI projects
in fourpoints:

1. Theovercoming ofarttowardsa freeconstruction

oflife.Thisis meantto
be theendofmodemart,inwhichDadaismwantedtosuppressartwithout
realizingit,and Surrealismwantedto realizeartwithoutsuppressing it.
(Thesetwoneedsareinseparable, I amhereresumingterms thattheyoung
Marxused forthephilosophy ofhistime).

2. Thecriticismofthespectacle,
thatis tosay,ofmodemsocietyas concrete
lie, realizationof an overturnedworld, ideological consumerism,
concentrated and expandingalienation(finally:
criticism
ofthemodern
stageoftheworldlykingdomofthecommodity).
3. Marx'srevolutionarytheory- to be corrected and completedin the
directionof its own radicalism(firstof all, againstall theheritageof
"Marxism") [...].

Substance
#90,1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Aestheticof the"GrandStyle" 93

4. themodeloftherevolutionary powerofWorkers' Councils, as targetand

modelthatshouldalreadydominate therevolutionary
organization aiming
at this[...].The firsttwopointsare,in someways,ourmaintheoretical
contribution. Thethirdcomesfrom revolutionary
theory ofthebeginning
ofthehistorical periodto whichwe belong.The fourth comesfromthe
revolutionary practiceofproletarians
ofthiscentury.It is a questionof
unifying them.

Whatstrikesmeinthisletteris thefactthatthetwomostspecificfeatures
and thattheidea ofunitingtendenciesand perspectives
oftheSI areaesthetic,
inscribedin differenttraditionsis even more aesthetic.This corresponds
exactlyto a Nietzscheandefinitionof"thegrandstyle":"fewprinciplesand
thesehold verytightlytogether; no esprit,no rhetoric"(Nachgelassene,
1974,
3, 23).
The Situationists'effort
to maintaina certaindistancefromtheworld
clashed inevitablywith modernsociety'stendencyto "recuperate"their
revolt-thatis to say,to neutralizeit by assigningit a role and a function
withinsocietyitself.Debord says in one ofhis films,

It is knownthatthissocietysignsa sortofpactwithitsmostavowed
enemies,whenitallotsthema placein itsspectacle.YetI am, indeed,at
thistime,theonlypersontohavehadsomerenown,clandestine andbad,
and whomtheyhave not managedto get to appear on thisstage of
renunciation[...].I wouldfinditjustas shabbytobecomean authority in
thecontestation ofa societyas tobe one in thissocietyitself. (Ingirum,
65-6)

It is not by chance thatone of the mostdebated problemswithinthe

Situationistmilieu concernedpreciselyits relationshipwith the cultural
spectacle.In his letterofNovember18,1967,notifying me ofthepublication
ofhis book TheSocietyoftheSpectacle, Debord writes:

Wecertainly allagree:"cinema"isinitself
a passivespectacular
relationship
[...].Theproblemis moregeneral:we believethateventhebook(a journal
etc.)is also participatingin thisseparatemodeofunilateral spectacular
expression[...]. However,we believethatit is necessaryto dominate
criticallythesemoments (theory, agitationetc.)on different
expression,
levels.Itis evidentforall ofus thatwe cannotreduceourselvestoa sort
ofpureimmediacy.

On thislastpointDebordwas too optimistic: spontaneity,vitalism,the

myth ofaction were destinedtobe in in
raging,especially Italy, thefollowing
yearsforat least a decade.
These orientations,which refuseall mediation,nourish an infinite
diffidencetoward form,and aspire to an ideal of absolute transparencvy
#90,1999
Substance

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 MarioPerniola

representedthemostseriousproblemofmyyouth.Theywerealso present
withintheSI, especiallyin thecircleofitssympathizers, but certainlythey
cannotbe attributedto Debord,forwhom everymanifestedalternativeto
writing"depends itselfon a more or less complex consciousness and
theoreticalformulation"(Letterof March2, 1968).This seems to contrast
not onlywiththepassions arousedby Debord,but also withthestrongly
emotionaldimensionofhiswritingsand films,whichseemoftensuspended
betweennostalgiaand impassivity, betweenpain and hardness.
The factremainsthatnextto theApolloneanDebord,whose essential
featureis his distancefromtheworld,thereis a DionysianDebord,about
whom he made no mystery, and on whomhe lingersin his memoirswhen
he celebratesvariousalcoholicdrinks.The followingseemsrevealingabout
the qualityof such an experience:"First,like everyone,I appreciatedthe
effect ofslightdrunkenness, then,verysoon,I grewtolikewhatliesbeyond
violentdrunkennesswhen one has passed thatstage: a magnificent and
terriblepeace, the truetasteof thepassage of time"(Panegyric35). Or of
time'ssuspension?
Whatdo theseempirical,vitaland even physiologicalaspectshave to
do with style?Doesn't styleconsistin leaving aside the subjective,the
accidental,whatitis toopersonaland tooalive?Is nottheNietzscheannotion
of "the grand style"close to "classic" style?Certainlythose featuresof
hardening, reinforcement
simplification, and turning
nastythatforNietzsche
constitutetheessentialfeaturesofclassicalstyleare presentin Debord. But
"thegrandstyle"is certainly somethingdifferent fromclassicism,and from
an aestheticideal ofharmonyand composure.As Heideggerobserves,"the
grandstyle"containsan elementof excess,whichtheGreeksof thetragic
age calleddein6n, dein6taton-the Therefore
frightful. theNietzscheannotion
of"grandstyle"cannotbe fullyunderstoodifitis separatedfromNietzsche's
reflection on the importanceof the physiologicalcomponentin art as an
indispensablepremiseof style.In otherwords,styleis separatefrom"the
paralysisof formin what is dogmaticand formalistic, as [itis] fromsheer
rapturous tumult " (Nietzsche 128). WithNietzsche,an extremeaesthetic
has been born.It goes beyondKantand Hegel's moderateaesthetic,and in
it feelingsare followed to an extremephysiological state of the body.
However,thisdoes notmeansuccumbingtonaturalismortomereempirical
factuality.In fact,"thegrandstyle,"accordingto Heidegger,is preciselya
creativecounter-movement in respectto thephysiological.It presupposes
its existence,but goes beyondit: "onlywhat assimilatesits sharpestanti-
thesis,and notmerelywhatholds thatantithesisdown and suppresses,is

Substance#90, 1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofthe"GrandStyle"
AnAesthetic 95

trulygreat;such transformationdoes notcause theantithesisto disappear,

however,but to come to itsessentialunfolding"(Nietzsche
135).

An Aestheticof Struggle

One does nottreatDebordfairly byconsidering hima puretheoretician:

itis easy to put himintoperspectiveby examininghis writingsexclusively
fromthe pointof view of theirspeculativeoriginality. Indeed, morethan
theory, whatcountsfor him in
is struggle; hisview,"theoriesaremade only
to die in the war of time:theyare strongeror weaker unitsthatmustbe
engagedat therightmomentin thecombat[...];theorieshave tobe replaced
because theirdecisivevictoriesevenmorethantheirpartialdefeatsproduce
theirwear-and-tear"(Ingirum,25-6).It is possibletobetterunderstandhis
way of being by includinghim in a long traditionthatdates back to the
ancientphilosopherHeraclitus,who believes thatbeautyis not harmony,
but conflict.This strategicand energeticconceptionof beauty,in which
aestheticsis not linkedto the experienceof conciliation(as in Pythagoras
and inneoplatonism), buttothatofwar,resortstothemetaphorsoflightning
and fire.Beautyis consideredas a weapon-in fact,as thestrongest weapon.
Hence theaestheticdimensioncontainsnothingdecorative,or accessoryor
overstructural. It is tightlylinkedto theeffectual, to reality,
to a spherethat
we usuallyregardas pertinent topolitics.TheHeracliteanconception, which
operatedundergroundin theRomanworld throughStoicism,meetswith
theestheticideal supportedby rhetoric and oratory,accordingto whichthe
practicalefficacy of the artof speech has an essentialvalue. The sphereof
beautyis therefore a battleground in whichone wins or loses: itis theplace
of decisionand result.Accordingto Debord,

Individualswhodo notactwishtobelievethatyoucanpick,freely, the

excellence
ofthosewhowillfigurein a combat,alongwiththeplaceand
timewhenyoucan strikean unstoppable and definitive
hit.Butno:with
whatisathand,andaccording
tothefeweffectively
assailable
positions,
you makea grabforone or theotheras soonas a favorable
momentis
apparent;otherwise
you disappearwithouthavingachieved anything.
(Ingirum61)

This strategic conception of beauty was fully developed in the

seventeenthcentury. The definition
ofbeautyas sharpness,thecomparison
between the man of lettersand the warrior,the mixtureof aestheticand
politicalmodelsmaketheBaroquea constantpointofreference forDebord:
in particularthefigureof BaltasarGraciandeservesattentionand respect.

#90,1999
Substance

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
96 Mario Perniola

In his TheCourtier'sManualOracle,he was able to depictbetterthananyone

else all the aspects of "the grand style"by rescuingit fromany formof
abstractclassicismand immersingitin historicaleventsand contingencies.
However,evenmorethanGraciTn, itis theenemyofRichelieuand Mazarin-
CardinalRetz-who occupiesDebord'simagination. In hisletterofDecember
24, 1968, Debord wrote to me:

I lovethequotationofRetz'sMimoiresnotonlybecauseittouchesupon
thethemesofthe"imagination in power"and of "takeyourdesiresfor
butalso becausethereis a certainamusingrelationship
reality," between
theFrondeof1648andMay[1968]:theonlytwogreatmovements inParis
whichexplodedas immediate answertosomearrests: andbothwithsome
barricades.

The subversivetraditionin whichDebord places himselfis therefore

moreone of ancient-baroquetyrannicide thanthemodernone of political
and social revolution:1968 seems to him similarto theFronde,not to the
FrenchRevolution,muchlesstheRussianRevolution.BycomparingDebord
to theCardinalwho animatedtheFronde,thereis in hima practiceoftruth
thatbelongsto Retzthewriter, but definitely
notto Retztheman ofaction.
It is easy,of course,to preserveone's integrity in solitude,or in a very
restricted group offriends;itis a different
totally matter tohave to deal with
all sortsofmen and to fightin a civilwar in whicheverybodyknows that
lifeitselfis at stake!The "grandstyle"ofRetz'sMimoiresconsistsabove all
in the distancehe keeps fromhimself,in the unrestrainedsinceritywith
whichhe exposes themosthiddenmotivationsofhis actions,even when it
damages his reputation, but certainlyit does not consistin theeventsthat
he tells!It is a postfestum"grandstyle,"so to speak,notin theflagrancy of
action;in plottingintrigues, betrayals and Retz
conspiracies, is no different
fromhisenemies,and ifhisschemeshavenotsucceeded,failurewas certainly
unintentionaland unwelcome! Debord's case is very different; in it the
aestheticofstruggle,at leaststarting fromtheend ofthe1960s,is shaped as
an aestheticofdefeat,almostas ifanysuccesswould containan elementof
unavoidablevulgarity. Waris forhimnotonlytherealmofdanger,but also
ofdelusion(Panegyric, VI). I have alwayshad a vague sense ofthe"obscure
melancholy"thataccompaniedhis life,as he acknowledgedin In girium,
and I saw thetragicand inevitableconsequencesofattributing to failurean
aura of dismal splendor.
WhatDebord has in commonwithRetzthewriteris thequestioningof
whatcouldhavebeenand has notbeen.In hislMimoires, Retz oftenmentions
eventsthatwere on thepointofhappeningand did nothappen fortotally
#90,1999
Substance

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofthe"GrandStyle"
AnAesthetic 97

accidental reasons. In his view, heroic judgment consists precisely in

distinguishing theextraordinary fromtheimpossible,in orderto aim at the
firstand to avoid thesecond.In Debordas well thereis a similarattitude:in
hisletterofJune10,1968he writestome:"Wehavealmostmade a revolution.
[...] The strikenow has been defeated(mainlyby the C.G.T.),but French
societyas a whole is in a crisisfora long period."Now,I wonderwhether
the"societyofthespectacle"itself,erasingthedistinction betweentrueand
false,betweenimaginationand reality, has not also changedthenotionof
victoryand defeat,freeingthemfromreference to theaccomplishedevent
and inauguratinga "societyof simulacra."This is, however,a theoretical
step thatDebord nevertook;he remainedfundamentally linked,likeRetz,
to a realisticvision of conflict.Maybe politicalthinkersof the sixteenth
century(such as Machiavelli,Guicciardiniand Loyola) had alreadymoved
beyondthisvision.
Debord's questioningthereasonsforevents,however,neverbecomes
regret,muchless repentance.He writes,

I have neverquite understoodthereproachesI have oftenincurred,

whereby I lostthisfinetroopin a senselessassault,orwithsomesortof
Neroniancomplacency. [...] I certainly
[...] assumeresponsibility
forall
thathappened"(Ingirum, 60).

The stoic attitudeof acceptanceof presentand past prevails:this is

definitelya veryimportantaspect of the "grandstyle."Lifeis a labyrinth
fromwhichthereis no way out:fromthis,in fact,derivesthetitleofhis film
In girumimusnocteetconsumimur igni.Thissentence,whichmeans,literally,
"Weturnaroundatnightand we aredevouredbyfire,"presentsthecurious
featurethatone can readitfromthelastlettertothefirst withouttheslightest
change-an extraordinary palindrome.Hence it expressesverywell the
experience,typicalof the ancientStoics,of synkatathesis, the assentof the
wise to heimarmene, Providence,which theyunderstoodas the inviolable
seriesofcauses,"therationallaw on thebasis ofwhichthingsthathappened
have happened,thosethathappen happen and thosethatwill happen will
happen"(Pohlenz).Connectedtothisexperience is thestoicidea oftheeternal
return,thatis to say,oftherepetition ofrecurrent cosmicperiods, in which
thesame eventsthathave alreadyoccurredhappenagain.As is well-known,
Nietzscheadopts thestoicconceptionoftheeternalreturnand interprets it
notas a metahistorical law butas "a willofeternalreturn,"as amorfati:only
inthisway can thepaststopbeingthecause offrustration and powerlessness.
The futurewill notbe able to giveus anything betterthanwhatthepast has

Substance
#90, 1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 MarioPerniola

alreadygivenus. The pathofutopiais blockedforNietzsche,as well as for

Debord; itis extraneousto "thegrandstyle."Debord says: "As formyself,I
have neverregretted anything I have done,and I admitthatI am completely
unable to imagine what else I could have done, by being what I am."
(Panegyric47).

The Direct Hold on History

In Debord's way of being thereis a last aspect thatis probablymore

importantthanall thepreviousones: therelationshipwithhistory. Indeed,
his distance fromthe world and the aestheticof conflictundoubtedly
constitute style,buttheydo notmakeitreallygreat.Theycan in factlead to
an asceticmodel in whichfanaticalfeaturesare present:the figureof the
warriormonkmanifestsa strongaestheticdimension,forhis courageand
his(atfirstsight)contradictory features, toattribute
butitis difficult grandeur
tohim.Somethingelse is required;inDebord,thisextraelementcomesfrom
his relationshipwith the historicalprocess,of which he claims to be not
onlytheinterpreter, but also an essentialpart.The SI believes in being the
criticalconsciousnessof the returnof social revolution.Startingfromthe
early 1960s,thisexpressesitselfin unconsciousand nascentformsin all
industrialsocietiesas therevoltofyouth,racialuprisings,and strugglesin
the ThirdWorld.The social revolutionis not conceivedas an ideal to be
realized, but, in Marx and Engels's words, as "the real movementthat
abolishesthe existingstateof affairs."During theperiod I was in contact
withDebord,theboundlessambitiontoconstitute themostadvancedpoint
of human progress(alreadypresentin Hegel and Marx) foundsome true
support.For instance,the SI played a decisive role in the firstEuropean
studentrevolt,in Strasbourgin Autunm 1966. While I was there,I had
experienced the enthusiasmof feelingoneself in the avant-gardeof a
worldwidemovement.
But the highestpointof theSituationistexperienceis representedby
May 1968 in France.In factthis movement,exploitingthe occasion of a
student revolt,went a long way beyond the universityenvironment,
expandingtotheindustrialproletariat and tothewhole ofFrenchsociety.In
his letterofMay 10,1968(2:00p.m.),in whichDeborddescribesin detailthe
relationshipbetweentheSI and thestudentmovement,and the eventsof
May 3, May 6, and of that same morning,advising me to take some
precautionswithrespectto thepolice,he affirms that"a decisivestep has
been made in therevoltand in theconsciousness."And he adds,

Substance#90, 1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Aestheticofthe"GrandStyle" 99

Themoment oftheSI's overcoming hasnotyetcome:andthisis whyone

needstoovercometheprevious stageofouraction(ifwe wereunabletodo
so, we would be "objectively"
dissolvedbecausethespreadingof the
strugglerequiresthata groupsuchas theSI attaina correct
and slightly
moreextendedpractice).

In his letterof June 10, 1968, he writes :

Wehad theopportunity tobe at theheartoftheentireeventduringthe

mostinteresting
period.Wecontinue atthemoment, butthefuture is very
Wecountontheshockthatinmanycountries
uncertain. opensthewayto
a international
returnofthenewrevolutionary Herealreadytheory
critique.
had takento theroad.Everyold organizationhas bitterly
fought against
the movement[...]The core people--includinga certainnumberof
workers-havebeenmostofthetimeremarkable. Ourgroupwas formed
+ 2 Enrages+ approximately
by4 Situationists 25 partisanswhojoinedin
thebattle(halfof themweretotallyunknownbefore)[...] Afterhaving
had the"OccupationCommittee oftheSorbonne"duringthefirstdays
(one of themwas decisive), we have formedthe "Council forthe
Maintenance ofoccupation"whichhashadmanycontacts in Parisandin
theprovinces.

The Council,formedby Situationists, Enragesand sympathizersfora

totalofapproximately 40 people,had functionedas an uninterruptedGeneral
Assembly,deliberatingday and night.Ithad threeseparatecommissionsin
charge of compiling and printingdocuments,relationswith occupied
factories,and thesuppliesnecessaryfortheactivity. Itpublishedthe "Report
on the Occupationof the Sorbonne"(May 19), whichexposed the events
thathad caused thefailureofthatexperience;thedeclaration"ForthePower
of Workers' Councils" (May 22), which evaluated the possibility of
reactivatingcertainsectorsof the economyunder workers'control;the
"Appeal toAll Workers"(May 30),whichmaintainedthatthemovementin
itsrefluxprocess"was missingonlytheconsciousnessofwhatithad already
done, in orderto reallypossess thisrevolution."WiththeStaterestoration
in June,the Council dissolved, because it refusedto have a permanent
existence.
While takingrefugein Brusselsforfearof persecution(whereI meet
theminJuly1968),theSituationists wrotethevolumeEnrages andSituationists
in theOccupationMovement(signed Rene Vienet) and the article "The
Beginningof an Era" (issue 12 of L'Internationale in which
Situationniste),
theyperfectedtheirjudgementon May '68. In theiropinion,themovement
of May '68 was essentiallyproletarianand not a studentone; it expressed
itselfon theoccasionofa studentrevolt,butitsdevelopment wentfarbeyond

#90, 1999
Substance

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 Mario Perniola

the academic context:"The May movementwas not some politicaltheory

lookingforworkersto carryit out; it was theactingproletariatseekingits
theoretical
consciousness"(Knabb,229).

The factthata small groupofmarginalintellectuals, poor and jobless,

guided by a man who held the entireworld "in had been at
grandispitto,"
the heartof one the greatestspontaneousstrikesin history,gave Debord
extraordinary and investedhim withan almostpropheticrole.
credibility
Even in themomentsofmaximumenthusiasmduringMay,Debord keptan
extraordinarylucidityofhistoricaljudgment.

On May 15 he saw threepossibledevelopmentsin a decreasingorder

ofprobability: thespontaneousextinction ofthemovement,repression,
and
social revolution.On May 22 he deemed thatthemostprobablesolutionto
thecrisiswas thedemobilizationofworkers,negotiatedbetweenGaullism
and theC.G.T.on thebasis ofeconomicadvantages.In theconversations we
had in July1968in Brussels,I was impressedby thefactthathe considered
a RussianinvasionthemostprobablesolutiontotheCzechoslovakiancrisis,
somethingthat actually happened the followingmonth,causing huge
astonishment and scandal,above all in themilieuoftheLeft.

I interpreted
his silenceon thehistoricaleventsofthe1970sand 1980s
as a negativejudgment withrespectto an age he would indeed defineas
"repugnant"(Panegyric, IV). But his "grand style"manifesteditselfonce
again witha masterly move: likeTheSocietyoftheSpectacle,
publisheda year
before'68, his Commentaries totheSocietyoftheSpectacle,
whichmarkedhis
returntogreatpoliticaltheory, anticipatedbysometimethefalloftheBerlin
Walland theend oftheSovietUnion.Thisis how he renewed,fortheyears
following1989,his roleas "occultmaster"ofsubversion.

Two more briefconsiderationsin the last pages of Panegyricseem

propheticto me. The firstconcernsthegeneralhatredin whichwe are all
immersed,because of the authoritarianredefinitionof pleasures, both
concerning theirpriority,
and theirsubstance.Thesecondis evenmoresubtle.
ThereforeI have to quote itin full:

It shouldbe knownthatservitude henceforthtrulywantstobe lovedfor

itself,and no longerbecauseit wouldbringsomeextrinsic advantage.
Previously,itcouldpass forprotection;
butitno longerprotects
anything.

Substance
#90,1999

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AnAesthetic
ofthe"GrandStyle" 101

Servitude itself
doesnottrytojustify nowbyclaimingtohaveconserved,
anywhereat all, a charmthatwould be anything
otherthanthesole
pleasureofknowingit.(Panegyric
77-8)

Thisseemstometheepigraph
underwhichthepresent
age stands.

ofRomeII
University
translated
byOlga Vasile

WORKSCITED

Debord,Guy.Comments ontheSociety oftheSpectacle(1988).London:Verso,1990.

-. Ingirumimusnocteetconsumimur igni.LondonPelagianPress,1991a.
. Panegyric.(1989)London:Verso,1991b.
-. TheSocietyoftheSpectacle
(1967).New York:ZoneBooks,1994.
Heidegger,Martin.Nietzsche.(1961).San Francisco: Harper& Row,1979.
Jappe,Anselm.Debord.Pescara:Tracce,1992(Englishtranslation by Donald Nicholson-
Smith,Berkeley:UC Press,1999).
Nietzsche,FriederichTheGayScience. (1882).New York:Random,1974.
-. Beyond GoodandEvil(1886).New York:VintageBooks,1989.
-. NachgelasseneFragmente1884-85. Berlin:De Gruyter, 1974.
-. NachgelasseneFragmente1888-89. Berlin:De Gruyter, 1972.
Perniola,Mario.I Situazionisti.
In "Agaragar" n. 4. Rome:Arcana,1972.Reprinted Rome:
1998.
Castelvecchi,
Pohlenz,Max. Die Stoa.Geschichte einergeistigeBewegung. Gottingen:Vandenhoek&
Ruprecht,1959.
Retz,Cardinalde. Memoires (1717).Paris:Gallimard, 1983.
Knabb,Ken,ed. and trans.Situationist InternationalAnthology. BureauofPublic
Berkeley:
Secrets,1981.
Isabella.Grande
Vincentini, Stile,in L'ariasifatesa.Perunafilosofia
delsentire Ed.
presente.
MarioPerniola.Genoa:Costa& Nolan,1994.

#90,1999
Substance

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:56:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions