The Situationist International and Literature

TheSituationistInternationalandLiterature: Introduction

AlastairHemmens (CardiffUniversity)

GabrielZacarias

Thethemeofthisissue,the“SituationistInternationalandLiterature”,maywell raisesomeeyebrowsamongthosereaderswhoarealreadywellacquainted withtheSituationists.TheSituationistInternational(SI),afterall,rejectedcultural production,atleastunderpresentconditions,asaspectaculardead-endand consignedallsuchworkstothedustbinofhistory.Onemightthereforereasonably askwhatpointthereisineventhinkingoftheSIinrelationshiptoliterature.On theotherhand,thoselessfamiliarwiththehistoryoftheSituationistsbutwell versedinliterarytheorymightcometothesubjectwithasetofexpectationsthat must,forthesesamereasons,bequicklyfrustrated.TheSituationistrelationship with“literature”is,bydesign,difficult,negative,andevenhostile,whilealsobeing rich,complex,and,arguably,expressingadeeploveofwhatmakesliterature,in sofarasittoucheslife,soimportant.Itis,onthesurfaceatleast,somethingofa paradoxthatperhapsonlyGuyDebordhimself,thekeyfigureoftheSI,everfully managedtoresolve.Itshouldbenoted,however,thathedidsoinafashionthat bynomeansprecludedthecreationoftexts.Indeed,assomeofthearticlesin thisissueof NewReadings demonstrate,readingandwritingwerecentraltowhat madetheSItick.Thattheseostensibly“literary”activitiessoughttobreakwith thelimitsof“literature”ispreciselywhatmakesthestudyofthisrelationshipso interesting.Atthesametime,asotherarticlesinthisissueshowus,itisclear thattheSituationistshavehadanimportant,iflargelyunrecognized,impacton literature,particularlyFrenchliterature,sinceMay’68—afactthatismirroredin thenowmorewidelyacknowledgedinfluencethegrouphadonpunkrockinthe late 1970sandearly 1980s(see,e.g.,HusseyandSelf;Marcus).Whatconcernsus hereishowtheproducersofculturalproducts,whowereotherwiseenamoured withoratleastechoedSituationistthemesandrhetoric,couldrespondtoorbe understoodinrelationtoagroupthathadalreadydeclaredthedeathofart.The SituationistInternational,itcannotbedenied,posesaproblemforliteratureas bothapracticeandanobjectofstudy.

TheSituationistrelationshiptoliteratureshouldbeconsideredfirstandforemostasaconsequenceofabroadercommitmenttothe dépassement,orsuper-

NewReadings 19 (2023):i–viii.

e-ISSN: 2634-6850 –Articledoi:10 18573/newreadings.136

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution 4 0 InternationalLicence.

URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4 0/

Thecopyrightofthisarticleisownedbytheauthors.

A.Hemmens&G.Zacarias, TheSituationistInternational session,ofartthroughradicalsocialchange.Thegroupwasinitiallycomposedof painters,architects,moviemakers,andcollagistswho,instarkoppositiontopreviousavant-gardes,didnotcallforaformalrenewalofthearts,butinsteadwanted toputthemtoanewuse:the“constructionofsituations”,thatis,momentsof livedexperienceconsciouslyorganizedaroundsomequalitativegoal.The“constructedsituation”,inthissense,stoodasaconceptualandpracticalstandpoint fromwhichtocriticize,whatDebordwouldlatercometodefineasthe“societyof thespectacle”,inwhichtheimmensecreativepowersofhumanbeingshavebeen subordinatedtoapassive,qualitativelyempty,lifeorganizedaroundthepurely quantitativeremitofcommodityproduction.“Art”,assuch,wasnotcapableof understandingoraddressingthespectaclebecauseitremained,bydefinition,a qualitativelyrichbutrestricted,marginal,specializedsocialpracticeandonethat, eventhen,bothrelieduponandwasincreasinglyinthralltocommodification. TheSituationistsfeltthatthedestructionandrenewalofarthadalreadyplayed outenoughtimesfortheavant-gardetomoveontosomethingfarmoreradical: arevolutionarymovementthat,throughasocialuprisingagainstcommodityproduction,wouldtransformlifeitselfintoapermanent,consciouslyorganized,and collectiveworkofart.TheSituationiststhereforerejectedartinthenameofsaving itfromartistswhowantedtokeepitboxedawayasjustoneaspectoflifeandto commodifyitbymakingaliving.AsRaoulVaneigemstatedatthe 5thconference oftheSIinGothenburgin 1961,“Iln’yapas[...]d’oeuvred’artsituationniste”1 and,asAtilaKotanyifollows,anyartworkthatlaysclaimtosuchastatuswould be,bydefinition,“anti-situationniste”[“anti-Situationist”](Internationale 266–67). Thisisalso,atleastinpart,whytheSituationistsrejectedtheterm“Situationism” andwhyitisinaccuratetouseitwhenspeakingoftheSI(academicdiscourse included):thereisnoformalsetofproceduresnorconcomitantworkstowhichit canbemeaningfullyapplied.Asaresult,justasthereisnoSituationistworkof art,thereisnoSituationistliterature,atleastnotinaformalsense.

TheSituationists,nevertheless,didproducetextsandmanyofthemhave exceptionalformalqualities.Whatarewethereforetomakeofthesematerials inthefaceofsuchanapparentlycategoricalrejection?Isitsimplyhypocrisy oranonsense?Certainly,manycriticsandcasualobservershavethoughtso.It shouldbenoted,however,thatthecategoricalrejectionofart,and,byextension, literature,thatwasexpressedattheGothenburgconferencewasquicklyfollowed withaprecisionfromoneofitsmainproponents,AttilaKotanyi:“Jeneveux pasdirequequelqu’undoitcesserdepeindre,écrire,etc.Jeneveuxpasdire quecelan’apasdevaleur.Jeneveuxpasdirequenouspourrionscontinuer d’existersansfairecela”(Internationale 267).2 ThepointthatKotanyiistryingto makeisthat,whilewritingandthecreationofimagesmayserveausefulpurpose, neitherformalinnovationnortheproductionoftextsandimagesarethegoal

1 Transl.:“Thereisnosuchthingas[...]aSituationistworkofart.”

2 Transl.:“Iamnotsayingthatanyoneshouldstoppainting,writing,etc.Iamnotsayingthatthese thingshavenovalue.Iamnotsayingthatwecouldevencontinuetoexistwithoutthem.”

A.Hemmens&G.Zacarias, TheSituationistInternational

oftheSituationistavant-garde.Rather,itsraisond’êtreisthecommunicationof “certainesvérités”[“certaintruths”]thathave“lespouvoirsbrisantsdel’explosif, dumomentquedesgenssontprêtsàlutterpourelles”(Internationale 267).3

Evidently,thepropagationofthese“truths”—thatis,thecritiqueofthespectacle andthepossibilitiesforthesupersessionofartbeyondit—willinvolvethewriting oftextsandtheproductionofimages,itwilleveninvolveformalinnovationand certainformalchoicestobesuccessful,butsuchformalinnovationandproduction isnot the goal,norevenaprimaryconcern.Thetextsproducedarenot“literature”, eveniftheyhaveformal“literary”qualities,becausetheformalinnovation,where itexists,isnotthepointandtheydonotexistforaestheticconsumption.In thisrespect,theysetthemselvesapartfromthepost-warFrenchliteraryscene. Theydidnot,likethewritersofthe nouveauroman,forexample,experiment withimpersonalwriting;nordidtheyplayliterarygames,likethemembersofthe Oulipogroup,whodevelopedobsessiverulesforproducingtexts.TheSIwasnot, inthissense,a“literary”avant-garde,anymorethantheywerean“artistic”one, astheydidnotseekanykindofformalrenewalofwritingmethods.

This“anti-literature”stanceoftheSIwasnotincompatiblewithbothadeep connectiontopastliteraryworksandtoformalaestheticconsiderations.Literature isindisputablyaconstantpresenceinSituationistmaterialsandatouchstonefor individualSituationists.RaoulVaneigem,forexample,authorofthatothergreat tomeofSituationistcritique, Traitédesavoir-vivreàl’usagedesjeunesgénérations [TheRevolutionofEverydayLife](1967),seemstohaveflirtedinhisyouthwith becomingapoetandaLautréamontscholar.HealsotaughtliteratureinaBelgian highschoolforseveralyearsevenwhilealsobeingamemberoftheSI.Hiswriting, likethatofDebord,isawashwithpastliteraryreferencesofeverykind.Although lessavant-gardeataformallevelthantheworkofDebord,hisrhetoricalstyle drawsonarichliterarycultureandwaspraisedevenamongmainstreamcritics inthe 1960s.Ofcourse,Debord,asGabrielZacariasdemonstratesinhisarticle includedinthisissueof NewReadings,establishedanequallyprofoundrelationshipwithpastliteraryworksandadoptedinnovativeformalmethods.Inrecent years,hehasevenbeenrecognizedforhismasteryofclassicalFrenchwritten style.Nevertheless,tofocusonthesefactsinisolationwouldbetomissthepoint oftheSIandthematerialsitproduced.Literatureistherebutpredominantly asareferencepointforideasandprojects,evokedthroughquotationsandmotifs,illuminatingthepathofSituationistexperimentalpracticesandrevolutionary thought.Literature,thatistosay,isprimarilyasourceofinspiration;astarting pointfromwhichtomovebeyondliteratureitself.Wemightthereforesaythatthe Situationistsrelatedtoliteratureinafashionthatisprimarily indirect. Itshouldbenotedthat,althoughelementsofthesubjecthavebeenaddressed insuchseminalworksasVincentKaufmann’s GuyDebord:Larévolutionauservice delapoésie (2001,translatedintoEnglishin 2010 as GuyDebord:Revolutioninthe ServiceofPoetry),therelationshipbetweentheSituationistsandliteraturemaynot

3 Transl.:“anexplosivepowerfromthemomentthatpeoplearereadytostruggleforthem”. NewReadings

A.Hemmens&G.Zacarias, TheSituationistInternational

seemallthatobvioustoawiderpublicofscholarsandreaders.Thisisbecause therelevanceofliteraturetothedevelopmentofSituationistideasandpractices wasnotalwaysclearlyunderstood.TheSIwasfoundedin 1957,butitwasonlyin theperiodleadinguptoandafter 1968 thatthegroupacquiredwiderecognition (inlargepartduetotheinfluenceofitsideasonthestudentmovementandthe MayuprisingsinParis).4 TotheMay’68 generation,theSituationistInternational wasarevolutionarygroupthatwasindebtedfirstandforemosttoMarxandHegel. Itsconnectiontoarthistoryandthehistoricalavant-gardespassedfrequentlyunnoticed.Itisquitepossible,forexample,thatayoungleftistreaderofDebord’s La Sociétéduspectacle [TheSocietyoftheSpectacle](1967)inthelate 1960sandearly 1970smay,whentryingtounderstandthe“subtilitésmétaphysiques”[“metaphysicalsubtleties”]of“notrevielleennemie[...],lamarchandise”[“ouroldenemy[...], thecommodity”](Debord 776),havebeensomewhatconfusedwhenconfronted withaquotationfromLautréamont,followedwiththeclaimthat détournement is “lestyledenégation”[“thestyleofnegation”](Debord 853).Whatpossibleconnectioncouldsuchanassertionhavewiththecritiqueofmodernsocietyinits “spectacularform”?Debord’sreferencetoLautréamontin TheSocietyoftheSpectacle is,however,farfrommerelyanecdotal.Itevokedasubversiverelationshipwith languagewithoutwhichanyrevolutionwouldremainincomplete.The“séparation achevée”[“perfectedseperation”](Debord 766)whichhedescribedinhisbookwas notonlythatofthe“meansofproduction”,alreadyextensivelydescribedbytraditionalMarxism,butthatoflivedexperience(levécu)andrepresentation,which becamethetouchstoneofasocietybasedonspectacularmediation.Thefight againstspectaclewouldofcoursemeanaconcrete,materialstruggle,butitwould alsorequireasymbolicstruggle,astruggleoverlanguage,inordertofreewords fromcaptivity.What,otherthanliterature,couldprovideatemplate,aperfect example,forthefreeuseoflanguage?Lautréamont,amarginaland,formuchof literaryhistory,obscureauthor,gavethemodelforasubversivetextualpractice, plagiarisingandinvertingmeanings.Debordhadreferredtohimfrequentlyfrom hisyouthand,asnotedabove,Vaneigemhad,sinceatleasthismaster’sthesis, developedaninterestinhislifeandwork.

TheSituationistinterestinLautréamontdidnotcomeoutofnowhere.It wasSurrealism—morespecifically,itsfounder,AndréBreton—thatfirstrecovered Lautréamontfromoblivion.Itcouldevenbesaid,asAndréGidehimselfoncedid, thattheSurrealists“invented”Lautréamont.Suchanassertionwouldhavetobe temperedsomewhatnowadays,butitwasverylikelyaccurateforthereceptionof Lautréamontinpost-warFrance,thatis,atthetimetheSituationistsdiscovered himthroughtheirownearlyengagementwithSurrealistliteratureintheiryouth. ThisiswhyitisimpossiblenottotheaddresshowtheSIrelatedtothelegacy ofSurrealismwhenthinkingaboutthegroup’srelationshipwithliterature.Itis wellknownatthispointthattheSituationistshadacomplexrelationshipwith

4 ForageneraloverviewofthehistoricalreceptionoftheSituationistInternational,seeourIntroductionto TheSituationistInternational:ACriticalHandbook

Surrealism.Ontheonehand,theSituationiststookupmanySurrealistthemes andaspirations,suchasaconcernwiththe“everyday”andthedesireto,insome sense,“realize”artinlife.Ontheotherhand,theSIwasovertlycriticalofmany aspectsofthelegacyofSurrealism—notleast,theemphasisthatitplacedon irrationality,itscontinuedbeliefinartisticpractice,andthewaycapitalistculture hadfinallyembracedit—and,morethanonce,antagonizedtheexistingSurrealist groupsinpost-warParis.Itwouldbehardthereforetosummarizetherelationship betweenthetwogroups,but,ifweweretoattempttodoso,itmightbebestto saythatSurrealismalwaysremainedakindofethical-poeticalsourceofinspiration fortheSituationists.Itprovidedamodelofliteratureandliterarypracticeasa pointofdepartureforaliberatedexistence.

Literature,inthehandsoftheSurrealists,descendedintothestreets.Ittriggeredencountersandmeaningfulexperiences.TheSituationistpracticeofthe dérive,ordrift,isprobablythemostobviousevidenceofthewayinwhichSurrealismsurvivedwithinthegroup.Thistechniqueofurbanwandering,systematized intoarepeatablemodeofcriticalurbanresearchandamodelofliberatedexperience,wasakeyconcernforDebordandothersfromtheearliestdays,fromthe LetteristInternationaltotheSituationistInternationalproper.The dérive,asArielle Marshall,arguesinherarticle,“WalkingforRevolution:FromSurrealismtothe SituationistInternational”,includedinthisissueof NewReadings,tookitsinspirationfromSurrealisturbanwandering,asexploredinworkssuchasLouisAragon’s LePaysandeParis (1926)andBreton’s Nadja (1928).5 Nevertheless,incontrastto Surrealism,theSituationistsemphaticallyrejectedautomatismandanyposition thatheldtheunconscioustobepreeminent.Afactthatplacedthembluntlyinto oppositionwithatouchstoneofSurrealism.Thesemarkeddifferencesshouldnot bedismissedasasimple“distinctionstrategy”intheBourdieusiansense.Rather, theyrelatetohowtheSituationistsunderstoodpost-warFrenchsocietyand,more broadly,theirbeliefthatcapitalismhadalreadyeffectivelycolonizedtheunconsciousmindthroughincorporatingakindofautomatismintoitsprocedures.If theSituationistsweretoovercometheirrationalityofthesocietyofthespectacle, theirrationalityofSurrealism,literaryorotherwise,couldhavenoplace.

Webeginthisspecialissueof NewReadings thenwithtwotextsthatdirectly addresstherelationshipbetweentheSituationistsandSurrealisminsofaras theyconcernthequestionofliteralasasourceofthematicandformalinspiration.GabrielZacarias,in“TheBuddingForest:GuyDebord’sReadingNotes onLiterature”,examinestherelationshipthatDebordhadwithliteraturethrough ananalysisofhisrecentlypublishedcollectionofreadingnotesunderthetitle “Poésie,etc.”.ZacariasdemonstrateshowDebordengagesinaprocessofselfnarrationthroughtheappropriationand détournement ofquotationsdrawnfrom avastbodyofpastliteraryworksthatDebordreadandrereadoverthecourse

5 Ofcourse,itisalsoworthpointingoutthatSurrealismhaditsown“anti-art”pretensionsand that,intheprefacetothereedition,Bretondescribed Nadja asaworkof“anti-literature”,usingadecidedly“unliterary”,matter-of-factandquasi-medical,psychoanalytical,toneandreplacingphysical descriptionasmuchaspossiblewithphotographs.

NewReadings 19 (2023):i–viii. v

ofhiswholelife.Debord,weareshown,approachedliteraturethroughaprocess thatseemstoamounttoakindofconscioussystematizationoftheprocedures Lautréamontadoptedintheconstructionofhiswork Poésies (1870):plagiarizing andmanipulatingpastliteraryworksfornew,sometimesanti-literary,ends.Here détournement servesasaformalmethodfortheexpressionofarecognitionand critiqueofthelanguageofthepast,aswellasameansfordevelopinganew languagethatcancounteractthewayinwhich,accordingtoDebord,theSpectacle emptieslanguageofmeaning.Thetext,originallypublishedasapostfacetothe publicationofacollectionofDebord’sreadingnotesbytheBibliothèqenationale deFrance,isreproducedhereintranslationforthefirsttime.

ArielleMarshall,in“WalkingforRevolution:FromSurrealismtotheSituationist International”,providesafocusedcomparativeanalysisofhowthetwogroups approachedthecityofParisthatunderscoresthedebttheSituationistpractice of dérive owestoSurrealist déambulation.Marshalltracesthedevelopmentof Surrealistengagementwithurbanlifeandspacethroughorganizedwalks,events, andeverydaypractices.Althoughtheseactivitiesresultedinground-breaking literaryworks,itisalsoclearthatthestrictbarrierbetweenliteratureontheone handandlifeontheotherarebrokendownthankstothewayBretonandmany othersactuallylivedthecity.ItisconsequentlynosurprisethattheSituationists’ engagementwiththecityshouldhavesoclearlybeeninitiatedthroughareading ofSurrealistliterature.Inthissense,MarshalliskeentodistinguishSurrealistand Situationistcitywanderingfromastraightforwardidentificationwiththeliterary andbourgeois flâneur,evenif,viaBaudelaire,itservesasanimportanthistorical forerunnertolateravant-gardepractices.Yet,thedifferencesbetweenSurrealism andtheSituationistsremainstark.ForSurrealism,thecitywasasiteof“mysteries anderoticencounters”,whereas,fortheSituationists,althoughthedérivecarried withitan“experimental”modeofliving,itwasalsoclearlythebearerofacritical negativeaspectthatseemslargelyabsentintheearliermovement.

Thefinalthreearticlesinthisspecialissueof NewReadings exploretherelationshipofthewiderworldofliteraryproductiontotheSituationists.Anthony Hayes,in“ScienceFictionandtheSituationistInternational”,explorestherelationshipbetweentheSituationistsandoneofthekeyliterarygenresofthepost-war cultureindustry.Oneofthethingsthatcharacterizedalltwelveissuesofthe group’smainorgan, Internationalesituationniste,wasthe détournement ofcomic stripsandpulpfictioncovers.These détournement servedasameansofparodyingandotherwiseengagingcriticallywiththematerialsofculturalcommodity production.AsHayesdemonstrates,theSituationistswereinterestedinsci-fiasa genrethatexpressedthecapitalistimaginaryofthefutureandalsoasagenrethat anticipatedthespaceraceofthecoldwar.Sci-fiwasimportantthereforebothas aculturalreferencepointandasametaphor.TheSIevendescribeditsutopian projectfora“unitaryurbanism”,inoppositiontothebroken,alienating,urbanism ofcapitalism,asthe“sci-fiofurbanism”.Hayesisequallyconcernedwithhow manysci-fiauthorsoftheperiodseemedtoexploresimilarthemesandtopicsto thosefoundinSituationisttexts.Whileitisnotclearhowmanyofthesewriters NewReadings

A.Hemmens&G.Zacarias, TheSituationistInternational

haddirectfamiliaritywiththeSI,thereareclearechoesandeventheoccasional hintinthisdirection.Perhapsmoreimportantly,however,Hayesproposesthat Debord’stheoryof“culturaldecomposition”canbeusedtohelpelucidateformal developmentsthattookplacewithinthesci-filiterarygenrebetweenthe 1950s and 1970s.

SolphieDolto’sessay,“‘Ilfaudraitcesserd’écriredesromans’:TheParadoxical InfluenceoftheSituationistInternationalonJean-PatrickManchette”,alsoaddressesthequestionofgenrefiction.Manchettewasaprominentandcelebrated romannoir authorofthesamegenerationastheSituationists.Doltodemonstrates howManchette,whileneverengagingdirectlywithitsmembers,wasdeeplyinfluencedbySituationistideas.ManchetteexplicitlyreferstotheSituationistsand soughttoincorporateSituationistconcernsinhisapproachtothethemesofthe post-’68 epoch(terrorism,dissatisfactionamongmiddlemanagers,falseopposition,andescape).Atthesametime,asMarshalldeftlyshowsus,Manchette experiencedadeepambiguity,evenguilt,inresponsetohisfailuretoliveup tothehighdemandsofSituationistradicalcritique.Asa“professionalwriter”, Manchette,thankstohisengagementwithSituationistmaterials,understoodthat hewasengaging,howeverregretfully,inthe“recuperation”ofSituationistideas andalsocontributingtothefurthercommodificationofculture.Itwasacontradictionthatheknewhecouldonlyresolveifhewereto“stopwritingnovels”. Manchetteexiststhereforeasoneexampleofaself-consciousliteraryartistwho continuestomakeartwhenheknowsor,attheveryleast,agreeswiththeSIthat artisdead.

AngelosTriantafyllouprovidesuswithoneotherexampleintheformofthe Frenchpoet,AlainJouffroy,anothercontemporaryofthe’68 generation,inhis article,“DebordetJouffroy,alliéseninstancedepoésie”.Triantafyllouoffersa comprehensiveanalysisofthewayinwhichJouffroyengagedwiththelifeand workofGuyDebordandtheSituationiststhroughouthisliterarycareer.Hispoetry,liketheworksoftheSI,addressesthenatureofeverydaylifeandexpresses critiquesofcapitalistexistence.Jouffroyalsoseemstohavedevelopedsomething ofastrangeaffinity(obsession?)withGuyDebordafterhisdeathin 1994.Althoughheapparentlynevermettheman,Jouffroydevelopsa“virtualdialogue”, astheauthorphrasesit,withGuyDebordandtheSI.Jouffroy,throughhispoetry, imaginesakindofspiritualandintellectualaffinitywithDebordwhoheconsiders afellowpoetthoughhemadenopoemsofhisown.Alongwiththetwoprevious contributionsinthisspecialissueof NewReadings,thearticleprovidesusinsight intohowliteratureaftertheSIrespondedto,echoed,orwasotherwisemarkedby Situationistideas,suchasthesupersessionofart,thecritiqueofspectacle,and therevolutionofeverydaylife.Theresultisacriticalcontributiontoastoryabout whichthereisstillnodoubtmuchtoberevealed.

Debord,Guy. Œuvres.Gallimard, 2006.

Hemmens,Alastair,andGabrielZacarias,editors. TheSituationistInternational:A CriticalHandbook.PlutoPress, 2020,doi:10.2307/j.ctvzsmdw0.

Hussey,Andrew,andWillSelf. GuyDebord:Lasociétéduspectacleetsonhéritage punk.Globe, 2014.

Internationalesituationniste.EditedbyPatrickMosconi,expandeded.,Fayard, 1997

Kaufmann,Vincent. GuyDebord:RevolutionintheServiceofPoetry.Translatedby RobertBononno,UofMinnesotaP, 2010

Marcus,Greil. LipstickTraces:ASecretHistoryoftheTwentiethCentury.Faberand Faber, 2011