Published in 1967, The Society of the spectacle of Guy Debord can give us many clues about what is happening in the world of education today. For example, when Debord writes that “what is represented as real life is simply revealed as the most truly spectacular life ,” what we can deduce is that today’s “good” or “acceptable” education is the most spectacular, not the most pedagogical.
The educational systemIt has forgotten that it must serve for young people to learn about languages, literature and science, so that they can control their lives and build them with a sufficient degree of autonomy.
You have chosen the orthodox path of controlling how you feel, what you buy, what you think and feel, and how you feed the big tech companies with their main raw material, which is their own data.
Debord taught us to understand how, by selling his body and its “consumable time”, the society of the spectacle had been constituted: therefore, it can teach us to understand the digital revolution as the absolute conversion of all time , including school time, into pure merchandise.
Our public system is undergoing transformation: from being a space for social promotion and acquisition of knowledge, it is gradually turning, and thanks to external pressure, into a factory of marketable data, images and programming. Debord wrote, in 1967.
“Integration into the system must recompose the very individuals whom it isolates as individuals, it must keep them isolated and together : factories as well as cultural centers, vacation spots as well as” department stores. ” are organized spatially for the purposes of this pseudo-collectivity that also accompanies the isolated individual in his family cell; the widespread use of recipients of the spectacular message makes their isolation habituated by dominant images, images that only acquire their full power thanks to that isolation. “
It is not very difficult for us to understand educational centers as a new field abandoned to global consumption. That student held in a public fold, but atomized through his telephone, is today the most common image, against which we are very far from knowing or being able to react.
The multiplication of screens, operated through false didactic arguments, is nothing more than the implementation of business market studies. The companies keep the money from public education, and what comes out of the whiteboards, classroom computers and gamifications is pure spectacularity: canonical, vigilant, seductive,
The educational center that works today, according to official and orthodox parameters, is the educational center that has built a good website, and that provides images of enthusiasm, hygiene and creativity.
It does not matter that, in reality, that center carries very serious problems of coexistence or that practically no one learns anything from it: the centers are only valued for the complacency they are capable of producing.
The educational centers are irradiation centers for public entertainment. We are not educating, we are dehumanizing, bureaucratizing and objectifying our youth, when selling it. If the centers provide images of diversity, happiness and canonical beauty, they receive blessings and grants from the state.
The spoiler who dares to point out reality is a heretic. For this reason, among others, we find ourselves before a pseudo-educational dictatorship. We must not fall into the abuse of speaking of current totalitarianism, but it is possible to speak of dictatorship when any alternative, when the most basic democratic instinct should make us understand that the only liberating path in a democracy is the creation and extension of powerful knowledge, rather than the creation and expansion of totally false self-indulgent images.
It is possible to speak of dictatorship when any type of didactic diversification, enlightened or democratizing objection is silenced; the draconian transformation cannot stop: it is the new Angel of Walter Benjamin’s Story.
No politician dares to be unpopular and start thinking about how he dignifies and informs his citizens. It is much more comfortable and faster to continue with the standardizing tsunami, to continue using the bureaucratic roller to get medals and make up the statistics.
In the absence of a modern and dynamic social network, an artificial and virtual paradise of complete pedagogical happiness is created, forgetting people in their absolute bad weather and intellectual need. A necessity decreed by ourselves, an adult class that has completely lost respect for the values of a minimally liberal system.
How have we been able to allow this commercial extremism to settle in our public sector? It is hard to believe that our defection has reached such an advanced state of inertia and servility.
The latest educational laws approved by our Courts are nothing more than that: implementations of social control through new technologies, if not the staging of a political conflict that does not exist, because no party proposes anything other than technological transhumanism and the generalization of spectacular imagery.
It doesn’t matter how much suffering these liquidation policies produce. The new pedagogy is a fake new. The question is to be happy by abandoning ourselves to the new emotive religions. The so-called “experts” or gurus are nothing more than those responsible for public relations of companies that wish to shape the leisure of our youth at their complete convenience.
Our political class, instead of safeguarding the freedom of our future citizens by providing a cultural and informed, humanistic and critical alternative, delivers our minors to the great feast of sociological experimentation, in the name of a Progress that, as in the 40s, it takes on the aspect of an overwhelming Nature.
Debord wrote in 1967: “The precondition for elevating workers to the status of producers and consumers” free “of time-commodity was the violent expropriation of their time .” Our education system is forcibly turning our youth into cyberproletariat, in a subaltern class of sellers of themselves through virtual social networks, from whose mind control it will be almost impossible to escape.
Debord faced the phenomena of television and banal vacations, the exchange of quality time for industrial substitutes for consumption. Our enemy is even more difficult to locate: we carry it in our pocket, it has a spectacular capturing power much more sophisticated than idiotic television programming or the mass production of imposed landscapes.
The enemy does not even have much to do with the device that conveys all this growth of the spectacular dimension of subaltern human life: the most worrying thing is the docility with which we adults have submitted to the new gods,
The bureaucratic classes robbed workers of their vital time in the 1960s; We have done something much more serious forty years later: rob our minors of their childhood, channel their youth, their dreams and aspirations, impose on them tastes, clothing and intellectual capacities, thinking that they will accept our tutelage willingly, without asking us questions.
But they did not count on the fact that teachers still exist, and free and autonomous expressions. They haven’t replaced us yet. What is needed is that the only possible democratic alternative be organized: the one that has powerful knowledge as its axis, and as a devise the difficult path of autonomy of criteria, truthful information and enlightened thinking.