Moblogisme, or: The Situationist city restored.

September 23, 2004 6:20 AM

The Situationists famously had their own ideas about cities, and about how to city them; in particular, they held forth the derive, or aimless drift, as the ideal way to encounter and make sense of urban place. It's easy to caricature the derive as an essentially passive mode of experience, but it was intended to be anything but: a playful, lively, engaged, and above all social act.

Now that cities are where most of us live, for better or worse, and we have the ability to document our travels through these conurbations and share them over the Web, might it be safe to say that Situationist psychogeography has gone mainstream? That the moblogged drift, in fact, takes things to an entirely new level, by making the city and its flows not merely more legible to ourselves, but visible to a potentially global audience?
posted by adamgreenfield (39 comments total)

On a related note (I think), .walk, 'algorithmic psychogeography'.
posted by misteraitch at 6:36 AM on September 23, 2004

Now that cities are where most of us live

BWAHAHAHAHA!
posted by quonsar at 6:46 AM on September 23, 2004

This was a fascinating read, thanks adam!
posted by kamylyon at 6:50 AM on September 23, 2004

One of psychogeography's principle means was the dérive. Long a favorite practice of the dadaists, who organized a variety of expeditions, and the surrealists, for whom the geographical form of automatism was an instructive pleasure, the dérive, or drift, was defined by the situationists as the 'technique of locomotion without a goal', in which 'one or more persons during a certain period drop their usual motives for movement and action, their relations, their work and leisure activities, and let themselves be drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there'.

Ah! The dérive warms the cockels of my heart! I always seem to have either locomotion without a goal, or a goal without locomotion! Great post, adam.

And I'm surprised to see quonsar laughing so hard; these guys sound like just the sort of fish that would end up in his pants: "The SI form part of a utopian anti-art tradition that goes back to Futurism, Dada and Surrealism... The SI has a reputation for scandal and subversion. Its political theories made popular by punk rock were a blend of Marxism and anarchism. In spite of this the SI condemned both communism and anarchism for their failings." But then again, "the situationists' criticisms of surrealism concluded that 'the unconscious imagination is poor, that automatic writing is monotonous, that the whole genre of ostentatious surrealist "weirdness" has ceased to be very surprising'.".
posted by taz at 7:47 AM on September 23, 2004

I'm sure this is all very important and wonderfull, but both of these articles make my head hurt.

Best I can figure is these people claim that roaming around and hanging out are good. I can't really argue with that.
posted by jonmc at 7:53 AM on September 23, 2004

[this is good]
posted by cowboy_sally at 8:13 AM on September 23, 2004

Might I direct attention to Glowlab, an active situtionist/psychogeographic group in New York City?
posted by Dukebloo at 8:25 AM on September 23, 2004

...might it be safe to say that Situationist psychogeography has gone mainstream?

Yes, and the eventual consequence is psychogeography as spectacle.
posted by eatitlive at 8:39 AM on September 23, 2004

I have been looking at everything through a political lens lately (gee, I wonder why), and now this has me thinking in terms of the whole "red state/blue state/purple nation" conundrum. Are "blue people" more situationist? hm.

Situationism is a much bigger concept, I know, but I can't help it. I need to get out more. Anyway, thanks Adam. Excellent food for thought.
posted by whatnot at 9:02 AM on September 23, 2004

I almost thought I saw him, standing, whistling on a bridge.
I asked him the time, but when he turned around,
I saw it wasn't him at all.
posted by Smart Dalek at 9:16 AM on September 23, 2004

I've always loved exploring cities that way. But now that I'm a father, I haven't the time to drift. I guess I'll just to have to view it via your links. Ah, the spectacle.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 9:28 AM on September 23, 2004

This is fantastic, and I am so looking forward to reading the articles. Thank you.

But how did you manage to write your FPP without mentioning the flaneur?
posted by jokeefe at 9:53 AM on September 23, 2004

More flanerie and related stuff: the flaneur; related to psychogeography, The Murmur Project; Walter Benjamin's Arcades Project and Contemporary Cultural Debate in the West; and The Arcades Project.
posted by jokeefe at 10:29 AM on September 23, 2004

Situationist graffiti
posted by Tlogmer at 10:52 AM on September 23, 2004

L‘ennui est contre-révolutionnaire.
posted by jpoulos at 12:39 PM on September 23, 2004

Well. Isn't Mefi a collective map of our derive through Web?
posted by rhizome23 at 12:42 PM on September 23, 2004

I'm an idiot that doesn't read full posts in there entirety and then says redundant bullshit.
posted by rhizome23 at 12:51 PM on September 23, 2004

yay!
posted by goneill at 1:31 PM on September 23, 2004

great post. ah, king mob... "The plan that did get put into action was based on Black Mask’s ‘mill-in at Macy’s.’ King Mob turned up at the Selfrige’s store in London with one of them dressed as Santa Claus and proceeded to give away all the store’s toys to children. The police were called and the children made to give the toys back. "

i gotta put society of the spectacle on my reading list.
posted by jcruelty at 2:34 PM on September 23, 2004

I still don't get it.
posted by jonmc at 3:54 PM on September 23, 2004

I still don't get it.

Try wearing a beret and looking sardonic while strolling around the nearest main street, preferably in a big city. There you go.
posted by jokeefe at 5:28 PM on September 23, 2004

great post.

Society of the Spectacle is a great read, and seemingly always applicable, so far. I try to derive on each trip i take, but it's much harder to do it at home.
posted by amberglow at 5:35 PM on September 23, 2004

Try wearing a beret and looking sardonic while strolling around the nearest main street, preferably in a big city. There you go.

I live in a huge city. When I see people like that I have an urge to beat them up.

Guess I'm not a situationist.
posted by jonmc at 6:08 PM on September 23, 2004

You are, jon. You totally derive even if you've never heard the word. You could be said to be very situationist in your experimentation and willingness to delve into encounters/new places/things/etc. In a dérive one or more persons during a certain period drop their relations, their work and leisure activities, and all their other usual motives for movement and action, and let themselves be drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there. Chance is a less important factor in this activity than one might think: from a dérive point of view cities have psychogeographical contours, with constant currents, fixed points and vortexes that strongly discourage entry into or exit from certain zones.--from here
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM on September 23, 2004

When I see people like that I have an urge to beat them up.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on September 23, 2004

Well, perhaps, I am. But isn't there a way to explain all that without the pretentious bibble-babble in the artricles? I had heard the term before in Greil Marcus' Lipstick Traces and I couldn't really make sense of it there either.

Clarity should count for something.
posted by jonmc at 6:31 AM on September 24, 2004

It doesn't matter that there's pretentious bibble-babble--they just use different terms to describe/interpret stuff we do anyway. Situationist stuff is actually really much more applicable and day-to-day than most other theory.
posted by amberglow at 6:36 AM on September 24, 2004

pretentious bibble-babble

jonmc, would you please quit shitting on this thread? Take your crusade to MeTa if you'd like. It's obnoxious here.

Incidentally, a friend of mine pointed me to a two-year-old post on the same topic. Does anybody remember laughter?
posted by cowboy_sally at 6:40 AM on September 24, 2004

It doesn't matter that there's pretentious bibble-babble--

Well, I beg to differ on that. Why make a theory needlessly complicated and difficult to understand? Academic jargon, like all jargon, can be fun, but it also delights in obfuscation.
posted by jonmc at 6:40 AM on September 24, 2004

Just because you find it difficult to understand doesn't mean that everyone else does. You wouldn't expect microbiologists to always speak in layman's terms when talking to each other.

Now, please, let's not derail this thread any more. I was enjoying it.
posted by jpoulos at 6:51 AM on September 24, 2004

jpoulos, I'm honestly not trying to derail. From what I've managed to glean so far, the theory actually sounds like it might be interesting. Point me to "Situationism For Dummies" or something.

You wouldn't expect microbiologists to always speak in layman's terms when talking to each other.

That's actually an interesting analogy. Microbiology is a highly technical scientific field dependent on complex physical laws, so I expect it to be complicted reading. Philosophy is supposed to be the study of life in general, more or less, which shouldn't be quite as difficult, at least at entry level. I'm not saying things should be "dumbed down" but I don't think learning about this stuff should be needlessly difficult either.
posted by jonmc at 7:01 AM on September 24, 2004

Point me to "Situationism For Dummies" or something.


I'm not saying things should be "dumbed down"

Whatever, dude.
posted by jpoulos at 7:07 AM on September 24, 2004

jon. please. stop.
posted by adampsyche at 7:08 AM on September 24, 2004

jpoulos, adam, cowboy_sally:

Too bad you can't write "tone" into a post. I think clarity in philosophical writing is an important thing, and I posted about it. I expected more understanding from you three, but I guess I was wrong. I'll just go play with my big rubber ball now, and you all can carry on.
posted by jonmc at 7:15 AM on September 24, 2004

Jon, with all due respect, please don't misunderstand. It's written in English, you can look up words with Google, and you can ask questions if you don't get it. Snarking and insulting the subject isn't a good way to ask for clarity.
posted by adampsyche at 7:24 AM on September 24, 2004

I think clarity in philosophical writing is an important thing, and I posted about it.

Where did you state that? In your comment when you said the topic made your head hurt, or in the comment when you said you wanted to beat up people in berets?
posted by cowboy_sally at 7:26 AM on September 24, 2004

Where did you state that?

In my response to amberglow. And when I said "it makes my head hurt" I figured that was a way of saying the same thing with some self-effacing humor. The "beating up people in berets" was an obvious joke in response to jokeefe's obvious joke.

Now I'm going to go have a cigarette before my head explodes.
posted by jonmc at 7:30 AM on September 24, 2004

The language is more specialized because it's more specific. "Wandering around" might cover it if you're sort of thinking situationistically to begin with, but then again, it might not. "Vortices and attractors" is a good (and cool) way of putting it -- public spaces modulate the interactions that happen within them. *Takes long drag off cigarette*
posted by Tlogmer at 12:20 PM on September 25, 2004

*buys jonmc a beret* ; >
posted by amberglow at 12:55 PM on September 25, 2004