In Society of the Spectacle, Debord argued that the spectacle of the Cold War period manifested in two ways–the concentrated spectacle and the diffuse spectacle. The concentrated spectacle was the spectacle of totalitarian power, grand military pageantry, and cult-like fidelity to a demagogic “dear leader.” The diffuse spectacle was the softer and polytheistic world of consumer capitalism with its advertising, marketing and galaxy of corporate brands using enticement and seduction to pacify the population rather than fear and intimidation. By 1988, Debord argued in subsequent writing that these two spectacles had merged together to form the integrated spectacle where both forms of spectacle intertwined in a way that made the power of the prevailing assemblage of power even more firmly entrenched in the psyche of the global population and spoke to the ever increasing encroachment of the spectacle on the human imagination. States like the United States, rather than being beacons of freedom and opportunity were instead experiments in novel forms of totalitarian control that effectively disguised themselves as liberal utopias where inhabitants performed the rituals of consumer contentment while silently suppressing an interior world of despair and misery that the prevailing society managed through alternating applications of pleasure and fear. Previous posts have attempted to detail the various ways the integrated spectacle continues to apply itself in the contemporary context.

In recent months, however, there have been stark reminders that within the integrated spectacle a strong presence of the concentrated spectacle still exists, and in certain circumstances, this form of spectacle will still manifest in its most raw form. Beyond this, the deployment of US military units (mostly National Guard but some active-duty Marine units) in Los Angeles and Washington DC as well as the threats (and possible imminent deployment) of additional units to other US cities has given one the chance to see what a uniquely US concentrated spectacle might look like. Debord describes the concentrated spectacle a “dictatorship of the bureaucratic economy (that) cannot leave the exploited masses any significant margin of choice because it has had to make all the choices itself, and any choice made independently of it, whether regarding food or music or anything else, amounts to a declaration of war against it.” (64). In such a restrictive environment, “this dictatorship must be enforced by permanent violence… (which) implies a police state.” (64)

This description may seem inappropriate for a state with a bustling consumer economy and a police apparatus that was seen as more restrained then what one might find in places like Russia or China, but Debord was keen to point out in Society of the Spectacle that while “the concentrated spectacle is primarily concerned with bureaucratic capitalism…it may also be imported as a technique for reinforcing state power in more backward mixed economies or even adapted by advanced capitalism during moments of crisis.” (64) There is certainly evidence of these outward signs of Debord’s description of the concentrated elements in the midst of the current crisis in US politics. One can see evidence of this is in the US Army’s 250th anniversary military parade (that was to also serve as an unofficial public celebration of Trump’s 79th birthday), the displaying of large banner’s of Trump’s face on administrative buildings around Washington DC, and the increasingly choreographed press conferences and gaggles that allow Trump to put forth the image of strength and competence. But there is also a sense that Trump’s second term is also an opportunity for the US state to experiment with new ways of manifesting the attributes of the concentrated spectacle that are unlike what was seen in the Eastern Bloc during the Cold War. As the social and political conditions change, the various ways the spectacle mainfests itself–in all its forms–will also change.

To understand this, we can go back to Trump’s attempt at a grand military parade for his birthday in June. While Trump himself may have been going for the kind of display that one sees in states with a history of operating under militarized pageantry–Russia, China and North Korea (one might also throw in France with its large-scale Bastille Day military parades), the execution of the US version of this staple of the concentrated spectacle fell short of expectations. The parade itself was poorly attended (some of this had to do with rainy weather) and for most of the country, the spectacle of anti-Trump protests (organized around the theme of “No Kings”) eclipsed whatever coverage existed of the military displays in Washington DC. Trump himself seems to have been grossly disappointed with how the parade turned out and is even seen scowling as the ceremonies unfold before him. For all the firepower gathered in the various weapon systems on display in that rainy afternoon in June, it would seem it is just not in the DNA of the US political and military apparatus to execute the kind of concentrated spectacle that other authoritarian states have had decades to practice and perfect (one might add here that this limitation does not extend to displays of airpower, which have become obligatory elements of most NFL football gamers or other major outdoor sporting events in the US).

Yet does this failure to pull a grand military parade truly indicate the concentrated spectacle is too diluted in the larger spectacular assemblage of power to observe in raw form? Or are we looking for it in the wrong places. Indeed, might it be the case that the concentrated spectacle is present in an even more potent form than what one might find in authoritarian countries? To answer this, let us go re-examine some of the details of the deployments of National Guard, active duty military and militarized federal law enforcement in the US cities where these forces are currently deployed. In Washington DC, National Guard troops, equipped in some cases with front-line military gear like Oshkosh M-ATV utility vehicles that have been parked outside Union Station and occasionally moving about town (resulting in at least one collision with a civilian vehicle) have been ubiquitous around the city, but most especially visible at almost all the major tourist sites inside the District of Columbia as well as some of the more plush and chic neighborhoods. Indeed, reports of the details of the guard’s orders seem to suggest their job is not to even engage in direct kinetic action against criminal gangs or to patrol drug-infested neighborhoods. Some of the most iconic video images of the work of the guard has been of its members wearing high-visibility jackets over their camouflage uniforms picking up trash. Their presence is less about using the coercive capability the National Guard exists to provide and more to give the appearance of a city occupied by military troops. In this way, the concentrated spectacle re-emerges in a way that fits more with the tastes and sensibilities of the US consumer.

None of this is to suggest that Trump’s efforts at using coercive force to realize his agenda is somehow not actually happening. The deployment of National Guard and federal law enforcement into Los Angeles, Washington DC (and maybe other cities as well) very much has real word consequences for those that are caught in these exercises of power. Debord’s notion of the spectacle was less about arguing for a “hyperreal” world where reality and fantasy become conflated and confused and more about how these exercises of political and socio-economic power were made palatable to a consumer public that had lost its ability to see itself as an active agent in the creation of the world in which it lived. The positioning of military units around tourist sites should not distract one from recognizing that simultaneously in other parts of the city, militarized law enforcement are in the early stages of a mass deportation program that will likely impact the lives of millions of people living in the United States before it is all over. The point being made here is that unlike authoritarian regimes of the past, where secret police were genuinely secret and there was no effort to publicize or propagandize their actions, the concentrated spectacle of the United States has evolved its concentrated spectacle in a way that it operates outside of the parade ground or the arena. With the advent of a more sustained media stream made possible by digital platforms, the parade, in essence, has already begun, is everywhere, and never ends. The concentrated spectacle need not relegate itself to only showing troops marching around a large exhibition ground; now, with many of the soldiers and police themselves carrying digital cameras recording their movements, they can provide a daily measure of the state exercising its power in a coercive manner. And unlike in the old forms of the concentrated spectacle where the “dear leader” was posted on every room of the house or office, each individual carries a digital device that gives the user not only a picture of the dear leader, but edited video clips of his events and statements issued throughout the day. Indeed, Donald Trump has his very own social media platform where the value of the platform relies entirely on the fact that it is the only place where one must go to get the thoughts, words and ideas of the man who ostensibly holds the whole world together.

The event that perhaps brings these various aspects of the new concentrated spectacle together was the deployment of National Guard and federal law enforcement to MacArthur Park in Los Angeles in an movement dubbed “Operation Excalibur.” On July 7th, an assembled force of California National Guard and assorted federal law enforcement agencies initiated a very public and aggressive show of force in the park. The show of force included the use of military vehicles including Humvee military utility vehicles, Bearcat tactical utility vehicles, fully kitted Border Patrol and ICE agents, and line of horse-mounted federal agents in a wide formation moving through the park. The deployment of such a large echelon of state power was ostensibly to engage in mass detainments of suspected illegal migrants, but the mustering and movement of the force from its point of origin downtown to the park gave time for local residents to warn of the impending action. By the time the force had arrived, unloaded the horses and got into line, the park was mostly empty with the exception of a few startled children and their guardians. In the end, no individuals were detained or arrested for immigration violations. Indeed, as details of the operation became know in the subsequent days, the operation was from the beginning designed to be more of a “show of force” than a substantive law enforcement action.

In Operation Excalibur, one observers a clue as to what the concentrated spectacle looks like in the US. In lieu of the standard military parade and tightly choreographed pageantry of traditional authoritarian states, the displays of raw state power are more “interactive” and spontaneous. Rather than overawe subjects with the polished discipline of a marching regiment that intimidates the observer through the coercive power that it has the potential to unleash, the military pageantry of the US concentrated spectacle operates on smaller scale and intimidates through surprise and limited displays of the coercive force it is capable of unleashing. The spectacles of North Korea requires large stadia and broad boulevards lined with thousands of onlookers to properly produce while the US spectacle will come to your neighborhood with blaring sirens and the pops and bangs of less-lethal munition deployment filmed a hundred different ways from bystanders with cell phones (and often with the cameras the agents and soldiers themselves are wearing). This filming is very important as the various digital clips of the action are disseminated on social media, thus creating the mass audience that may not be present during the actual deployment of spectacular force, but will nevertheless witness the action in the subsequent days. Indeed, though there is no mass audience present at the location of the action, the audience that witnesses it via social media clip will likely be larger than if the action were part of a mass military spectacle of the Eastern Bloc variety.

In Thesis 17 of The Society of the Spectacle, Debord famously argues that the nature of material reality in the age of consumer capitalism is the elevation of being and having into appearing. The priority of images and performances over the natural unfolding of human events applies just as much to the realm of the coercive as it does to the realm of the persuasive or seductive. For the current administration and their policies of mass deportation, the appearance of what appears to be an aggressive program of immigrant detention, holding and deportation is as important (perhaps even more important) than the effectiveness of the policies themselves). Again, this is not to suggest that widespread deportation activities and the cruelty and misery that attend them are not happening–only that the measure of the success of these programs is as much dependent on there being a very visible demonstration that actions associated with mass deportation (and the accompanying suppression of efforts to resist these programs) than on the actual number of individuals deported. It is enough to deport those with undetermined immigration status, this must also take place in as highly visible and spectacularized way as possible. To perform the former without the later would be seen as a failure of the policy. This is likely why there is not much in the way secrecy in the way the deployment of National Guard and federal law enforcement has proceeded and gives extra profundity to the contradiction that a program of mass deportation is intentionally being carried out in as public a way as possible but with agents who insist on covering their faces. Rather than speaking to secrecy, the covering of the agents faces speaks to how ever other aspect of the agents’ activities is expected to be done out in the open with countless cell phone cameras recording every move.

Thus, the concentrated spectacle reveals itself in a unique form that reflects the bizarre social, economic and political conditions of the United States in the first quarter of the twenty-first century. This updated concentrated spectacle still exists intertwined with its diffuse counterpart to form what Debord dubbed the integrated spectacle, though others have rightfully pointed that in fact, the spectacle of the new century is far more contested and less coherent than Debord perhaps expected it to be when he wrote about an integrated spectacle in 1988. However one sees its manifestation today, the undeniable fact is that the spectacle of the twenty-first century cannot be fully controlled and is the province of no single formation of power. While it is certainly true that the rise of an alt-right fascist adjacent assemblage of power into the ruling institutions of the United States and other western democracies was due in part to their better understanding of how to influence and manipulate the spectacle, this advantage is not exclusively theirs, and to assume the right’s mastery of the various platforms of digital media is permanent is to commit the same error the centrist liberals of the twentieth century committed when they thought media and entertainment would forever be in service of spreading consumer capitalism and democracy around the world.