Conversation opened. 1 read message. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers in:sent 120 of 1,130 de Jong—critique of detournement kac attac Wed, Sep 13, 2023, 6:53 PM to Stefan CRITIQUE OF THE POLITICAL PRACTICE OF DETOURNEMENT Jacqueline de Jong 1 After the exclusion of the German art group SPUR from the Internationale Situationniste, Jorgen Nash and I decided that the way this exclusion had taken place called for protest on our part. The reaction to this protest (this protest was made in Paris on 13th February 1962 and published in Sweden some time later and was sent to the people concerned) in the No.7 issue of the Internationale Situationniste postulates some deeper going problems. Thus I will try to make clear what actually happened on the 10th February 1962. 2 The SPUR Group (Gruppe SPUR) had indeed got themselves involved in activities which were unacceptable to us (the I.S.) and they had made their position even worse by publishing a seventh issue of their journal without informing Attila Kotanyi and myself; a decision made by the I.S. congress in Göteborg (end of August 1961) had chosen us to collaborate in the ed- iting of the future SPUR journal issues, to establish in this way a closer I.S.-SPUR connection. The SPUR issue No.7 had been made in Italy. In this issue, the Gruppe SPUR turned over to an economic and practical col- laboration with people who are officially declared anti-Situationist. This tact did not prevent SPUR from realising this issue in a way that on the last page of the SPUR book, in which all the issues of the journal is printed with the SPUR manifesto, the names of these very (anti-I.S.) people ap- pear as collaborators in the journal. We asked SPUR to explain No.7 and the last page of the book. Nevertheless they did not seem to get to the point of giving an acceptable explanation, which put them in an extremely bad 78 COSMONAUTS OF THE FUTURE Texts from the Situationist Movement in Scandinavia and Elsewhere position. Four members of the Conseil Central of the I.S: G.E. Debord, Attila Kotanyi, Uwe Lausen, Raoul Vaneigem, had declared at the begin- ning of this meeting that as far as they were concerned the case was closed and SPUR was excluded from the Internationale Situationniste because; Spur had written a letter to Debord in which they had refused to show the requested texts (to be given to another I.S. member). The explanation given for the refusal given by SPUR at the CC was that the texts were at the translator and would have been sent later on. Since none of the other members of the I.S. present at the meeting of the CC February 1962, had seen this letter of SPUR until that very moment we were asked by this group of four (Lausen, Debord, Vaneigem, Kotanyi) to make up our minds about the exclusion of SPUR, and informed about the fact that whatever our decision would be this group of four would in no case change their minds. 3 It is evident that with this ultimatum the possibility of any open discussion was cut short completely and that SPUR's eventual explanations would have in any case no value whatsoever to the decision of this group of four. Jorgen Nash refused to decide within a such a short time as the situation was too important and therefore the action completely without value. Nevertheless we did instigate a discussion by trying to get the explanations but were cut off by the demand for a immediate decision. Debord speaking on behalf of the group of four accepted this and added that, only those who agreed with him could come back to the meeting later on in the evening. He further said that it would be evidence of our solidarity in the matter of SPUR's lawsuit. Only later in the evening when we got the tract Nicht Hinauslehnen' which had obviously been printed before the CC meeting their game became clear to us. To us the taking of an only political ac- tion and position in this case seemed absolutely absurd. It is a pity for this group of four to have published in I.S. 7 at the moment that SPUR was [next page] Jacqueline de Jong Critique of the Political Practice of Détournement 79 A .. receiving summons to appear in court. ........ ET LE RESTE DU PROCESS est a POINT MORT. After having spoken and eaten with the SPUR group in the evening we met the group of four again with the intention of discussing. But what we got the moment we were seated around the meeting table was NICHIT HINAUSLEHNEN' with Debord's remark 'of course if you had not ac- cepted the exclusion of SPUR this printed matter would have in any case been thrown on the table!' By coming we had accepted an exclusion of SPUR but on another basis and not just in the moment of their lawsuit. The discussion on that matter was closed AND THE . 5 BIG FIGHT HAD STARTED. After this evening I went home with the most disgusting taste in my mouth. I decided to wait until the end of next day's meeting, where, of course apart from the SPUR people we would all meet again to talk about everything but Spur's complete misunderstanding and contradictions within the movement itself seem to exist and therefore the necessity of an intern dictionary had been decided. The next day a de- cision was taken to promote clearer understanding inside the movement and of a [indecipherable - ed.] theoretical work such as a dictionary of situationist terms and concepts etc as there exists several misunderstand- ings and different interpretations and explanations which make a practical collaboration inside the I.S. quite difficult. No word about SPUR anymore. The meeting was soon finished. We left and Nash and I decided to meet again in the evening. After a long discussion we (Nash and I) decided to make our own protest in the form in which is done (here present) - a method having been presided by Guy Debord's fractionnary print: Nicht hinauslehnen'. Nash left for Sweden. I stayed in Paris. Nothing was seen or heard from the group of four until issue No. 7 of the I.S. journal came out with its significant content. In the above-quoted text of IS. 7 it is written that on the 15th March Nash and Elde pronounced themselves suddenly against the Internationale Situationniste. The expression of suddenness of a date (15th March) is rather strange when the published protest is not 80 COSMONAUTS OF THE FUTURE Texts from the Situationist Movement in Scandinavia and Elsewhere at all against the Internationale Situationniste but against the action of four members of the I,S. who seem to think that their fraction includes a totality of the I.S. with all its implied limitations. I am only to take this insult which they make by writing that we pronounced ourselves against the IS. as seeming to be one of those misunderstandings or even contra- dictions as during the last CC it was a clear fact that the terms and theories of the I.S, were not understood by everyone in an absolutely similar way and that even complete misunderstanding and contradictions within the movement itself seemed to exist and therefore the necessity for an internal dictionary had been decided on. 6 Misunderstandings and contradictions are not only of great value but in fact the basis of all art and creation, if not the source of all activity in general. The entire institution of society is built upon these facts. And it is only in political activity that they are considered to be: A) the basis of all politics B) the means to be used in politics C) the danger to be avoided and denied. IN FACT REAL politics consists of all three points simultaneously and interplays with the last two points (B+C) as best seems fit. And that is exactly where we are today in the I.S. In our protest we do not attack the movement and its theory and action. We do indeed not even attack one single point of the I.S. All we protest against is the organisation which four members of the I.S. have tried to establish into what we have always and will always consider as Situationist, the movement of the I.S. 7 And where in the Situationist movement does a practical and theoretical limitation up to that point exist? Why is a protest against a non-accepted political action of four members an accusation against the entire I.S. movement? What the hell is left of the I.S. as a movement if the establish- ment of an organisation comes to that point where open protest against this establishment seems to be considered as against the movement? I don't believe that these purely political activities which have been made will ever be able to détourn what is and will always be the I.S., even with Jacqueline de Jong Critique of the Political Practice of Détournement 81 the détournement of its own texts it will always have its misunderstand- ings and contradictions and it will always need them apart from the four politicians), not for the organisation but for its development. All right; but what if their decision is fixed, these four members have by an exclusion of other members shown that their action was completely political and absolutist (absolutist, absolutist, absolutist). Does any theory, idea or ac- tion of the movement depend on them, these four members of the same movement? 8 And neither do I believe that I could attack the theories or actions which I have always considered as Situationist and of which movement I have chosen to be a member. Only the false use of this movement should be attacked. If the four are right, that our protest is an attack against the Situationist movement and against them and their personal activities then it will mean that ONLY they and what is theirs is Situationist. In that case I must admit that my opinion on the Internationale Situationniste is, was, and will always be wrong. I refuse to undertake a suicide in this way, as others would have to do the same along with me. As the mention- ing of the third signature, which happens to be miné, seems to have been neglected because of the fact that there is perhaps a misunderstanding (already shown during the CC) about my position I will try to explain. You say in your text, Guy Debord, that the entire I.S. (consisting as it seems of you and the other three signatories of the Nicht Hinauslehnen' and the Danish voice J.V. Martin) is false, that I, as the only Dutch member of the IS. was chosen as the representative (of Holland) of the CC. But when we made the list of the members of the CC for our protest we had to control by asking the excluded SPUR, as you neglected in Goteborg to make a protocol written and signed by all of us with every decision. Nash, Kunzelmann, Zimmer, Prem, Sturm + Strid being in Paris for the CC declared that in fact I had been chosen as Dutch member of the CC at the congress in Goteborg, where they were present. And Elde signing the protest statement later on in Sweden, agreed with this. In the issue No. 7 (1.5.) my name as member of the CC does not appear. Bad memory and the COSMONAUTS OF THE FUTURE Texts from the Situationist Movement in Scandinavia and Elsewhere 82 neglect by all present members of the I.S. of a signed protocol means that there are now two different opinions of the then not yet excluded members of the IS. present at the congress in Goteborg. Nowhere in our protest is it written that the Scandinavian Section will be transformed into a Bauhaus. Thank you for informing us about this, Guy Debord. I actually thought this had been talked over to a decisive point before the Conseil Central. Where in our text is it written that you tried to intimidate us (the minority) with an atmosphere of civil war, which has ruled since two days (helas) in Paris? Paris happened to be in an extremely bad situation (10-12 Feb 1962) and to foreigners coming from perhaps too calm countries even if they are Situationists this makes an impression which is undeniable. To mention that in an introduction in the protest does not mean to be intimi- dated, as you see. 9 I regret to have to admit that here it becomes clear why our collaboration in MUTANT seemed difficult, Guy Debord; when you open up the New York Herald Tribune of the 30th December 1961 you will not find the pub- lication of the open letter to President Kennedy and Governor Rockefeller, written by the members of the academic staff of University Colleges and Research Institutes in the New York City and the Cambridge-Boston area after which we made MUTANT as you indicate in I.S. no. 7 but in the New York Times (international edition of 30 Dec. 1961). For an ultimatum is made by a fraction towards another part of this same movement (see last page). What is wrong is the fear of facing the reaction after the offence made by an ultimatum, that then appears and exists between the 'ultima- tors' towards the others. On the base of this fear, a cold war and a thermo- nuclear agitation are made by what are the 'ultimators' or provocateurs. As long as neither the 'provocateurs' or 'ultimators' get a protest from the others, this game goes on. When there are several provocateurs they all try to be the strongest, and then it becomes an economic, social, ete. ques- tion. There have to be found new ways out to détourn the problems (from A-Bomb to shelter, etc.). And this goes on until the disaster OR until a protest of the non-provoking but provoked lot. As long as Europe prefers Jacqueline de Jong Critique of the Political Practice of Détournement 83 to be provoked in this way in the hope to one day become strong enough to be provocator itself, it's quiet. But if Europe will start protesting against ridiculous provocation - and it might be that not all of Europe will do so, but only a part, because of a certain tradition in which one part has always shown a desire for clarification of necessary facts AND another part has al- ways had an extreme capacity and desire to détourn facts. WHAT THEN? 10 What has happened here has an extreme importance because this sort of game is very close to another game which has to be considered as quite dangerous for Europe. Why do we protest and why do we want to clarify a situation which appears to us as wrong and damned unclear? Why do you protest against our desire to clarify things? You détourn our protest very smartly into a false one. Well done! But had you printed our protest in the IS. issue 7 your détournement would have been completely unnecessary (and obviously ridiculous) as far as facts go. I'm absolutely not interested in facts, but when I see that there is a point where they are necessary, I use them. And you prefer to détourn them rather than use them. This is of course a fantastically good tactic up to a certain point. And that is where we are now. When détournements come to this point inside an organisation or movement, they are not called détournement anymore, but SABOTAGE. It is not possible to be together in a movement if the distrust or disinterest is so great that a discussion on a subject does not even seem to be needed. The Anti-Nash fight which you have started, has not so very much to do with what has to be considered as the Internationale Situationniste move- ment. The fight which has started with your fractionist exclusion of SPUR and our protest against what we considered as being an un-Situationist action has only started. It will go on. This means that all the I.S. evidently knows the existence of a Dutch member of the CC is false. Only all the members of the I.S. still left seem to know that. 11 I'm proud that you call us gangsters, nevertheless you are wrong. We are worse; we are Situationists. The continual process of inclusions and 84 COSMONAUTS OF THE FUTURE Texts from the Situationist Movement in Scandinavia and Elsewhere exclusion of the I.S. have after the last events come to the point where the IS. has to be considered either as an avant-garde school which has al- ready produced a series of first-class artists thrown out after having passed through their education OR as an anti-organisation based upon a new ide- ology which is Situationist and which has not yet found in details its clear formulations in the fields of science, technique and art. The Situationistic notion cannot be on art, it is an ideological and elaborative development. Everybody who develops theoretically or practically this new unity is automatically a member of the Situationist International and, from this perspective, The Situationist Times is made. The IS. is a movement de- clared publicly as an anti-organisation. The reason why Debord wanted the exclusion of the Gruppe SPUR was a pure question of discipline in an organisation which has absolutely no rules. [The text was originally presented as a handwritten graphic text in The Situationist Times where the sentences flow into and out of spirals, are written as clumps and show no clear continuation from one page to the next. Its very graphic, labyrinthine form makes the text take on the ap- pearance of an improvisatory outburst and we have tried to maintain an element of this by only slightly editing the language or the sentence structure.] "Critic on the Political Practice of Détournement", The Situationist Times, no. 1, 1962. Transcribed by Howard Slater.