Detournement

At first glance, I took “Methods of Detournement” to be very similar to cultural remixing.  The beginning of the essay reminded me of my previous weeks blog on open source and the issues of copy right.  Thinking back, I discussed a lot about the fact that practically every thought we have and everything we do and create is in some way, taken from a previous source.  Since the beginning of time people have built off other ideas and creations to make new things; it is not too often that someone comes up with a purely original idea.  “Only extremist innovation is historically justified,” (Debord, paragraph 2).  

Going another step further we break down the word “Detournement” and understand that loosely translated, it means aimlessly wondering and drifting, or detour.  According to Debord, we must take the previous works we already have, and go beyond them.  This act of gaining a new outcome must be attained in a new, roundabout way.  It does not matter if two old ideas are used in the process, the point is that the outcome is something newer and greater.  “The mutual interference of two worlds of feeling, or the bringing together of two independent expressions, supersedes the original elements and produces a synthetic organization of greater efficacy,” (paragraph 5).  

The final step to Detournement is that it can be seen and used as counter propaganda.  Debord argues that consumers have become too obedient.  With all of the propaganda and advertisements flying around, consumers absorb “requests” too easily, without giving the demands and requests of propaganda and advertising any thought at all.  Society has become robots, simply looking at ad’s, immediately accepting the idea, and then consuming the product.  It is time that consumers challenge these ideas, taking control and reanalyzing them, instead of robotically accepting the images.  Not only can we take these ideas and make new ideas out of them, but we can use the ideas and images against themselves to stand up against the original idea.  Counter-propaganda demands consumers to alter the meaning of old fragments in any appropriate way.  In turn, this becomes a form of hactivism.  The Yes Men are a perfect example of using counter-propaganda and hactivism; by using other companies thoughts and over-looked methods, the Yes Men use those ideas against the company to develop a new message.  “Such parodical methods have often been used to obtain comical effects.  But such humor is the result of contradictions within a condition whose existence is taken for granted,” (paragraph 7).  

Over all, I believe these ideas go back to my original argument.  None of this (counter-propaganda, hactivism, open source, remixing, etc.) would be possible without previous ideas building upon each other.  As Debord makes a reference to, “ ‘Plagiarism is necessary, progress implies it,’ ” (paragraph 8).