A Few Extra Remarks
8 . l e n b r a c k e n
an event that would disrupt the flow of non-history (the reproduction of daily life in a modern capitalist economy). The logic that Debord proposes in his essay on new action forms, is the logic based on the necessity of total change, rather than half-measures, which is to say the creation of a total history. This total logic and conception of the totality of history exemplify the degree to which Debord's logic was wedded to his historicity, only released from it's concrete forms and presented in the paragraph in question in a generalized, theoretical way. The dialectics of the logical and the historical were what Debord was about, not the "activation of archetypes," which is blatantly structuralist. Debord was a particularly harsh critic of structuralism: "the apology for the spectacle institutes itself as the thought of non-thought, as the official amnesia of historical practice."
THIS AMNESIA IS CARRIED OVER into Jung's personal complicity with the Nazi regime when he presided over the Nazified German section of the International Society for Psychotherapy and co-edited a journal, the Zentralblatt fur Psychotherapie with Goering's cousin. Even books sponsored by the Jung Foundation, such as the Lingering Shadows anthology (Boston: Shambala, 1991) make all this very clear - from the introduction: "It was in this publication [the journal mentioned above], in late 1933, that a manifesto appeared by Matthais Goering - with the consent of Jung who had thought that it was to be published only in a special German edition - which called for a rallying by professional colleagues to the racial colors of Nazi Germany. To compound matters, appearing in this same issue of the journal was Jung's essay 'On the State of Psychotherapy Today,' in which he starkly reiterated the differences between German and Jewish psychologies that he had posited some years earlier. In addition, his article compared Jews unfavorably to 'nomads' and women, and criticized Freud and Adler for stressing pathology while failing to appreciate the creative aspects of psychological life."
TO TAKE, AS MARCUS DOES, the analysis of Nazism from someone so involved with it, and impute his analysis of the Nazi technique of the activation of archetypes on Debord, without acknowledging Debord's theoretical opposition to Jung's methodology, is extremely misleading (to put is nicely). To support misidentifications like this, as Bill Brown does, is to stomp on Debord's back with jackboots.
IN DEBORD'S MAJOR WORK, The Society of the Spectacle, rather than referring to the "coherence of the world" as he did once in an early, minor essay, he uses the expression "unified irreversible time" to describe the same thing.