The spectacle?

Human beings easily slip into complacency. They need to be entertained and cajoled. The spectacle must hold their interest; it must enchant, it must inspire, and it is be an escape from the supposedly cruel necessities of everyday life. The spectacle has force when its spectators immerse themselves completely – so much so that it no longer is illusionary, for them. When the spectator seeks meaning from the spectacle, he sinks, with relative ease, into the enchanting wonders of the show. But is necessity even relevant? Necessity is governed by rules, by credos and customs, legislation concocted by those with a genuine calling for such matters. His carefree life, free of politics, fuels his own hubris. He deems himself more moral than those who have to deal with politics. He lives to serve righteousness. He serves self-interest, hence fulfilling his responsibility to his group – his nation-state. He follows laws and legitimates the sovereign who rules for him. But with the triumph of the spectacle, a politics of recurring images and symbols triumphs over a politics of ideas. Thought is not a necessity for the former; whilst the latter cannot be without human thought and engagement.