Catie Disabato - The Ghost Network

Debord spent an inordinate amount of time policing the minutia of language about the Situationists. From the first issue of the Internationale Situationniste : “There is no such thing as situationism.” In a letter to Simondo, Debord delivered a threat about the misuse of language: “In my Report , I only used the word ‘situationism,’ once — in quotes — to denounce it in advance as one of the stupidities that our adversaries will naturally use in opposition to us. To my knowledge, this term has never been used elsewhere (neither in writing, nor verbally), by any of us. You are the first to pose its existence in your last letter. Happily, it was to oppose it!” fI shudder to think of Debord’s response if Simondo hadn’t been so explicit in his opposition.

The SI had filled their ranks with artists, then when those artists focused on art, they were accused of undermining the basis of unitary urbanism. Constant criticized Debord for not guiding the artists with a firmer hand, and the two men began to squabble. Debord expelled several artist members of the SI, including Debord’s close friend Giuseppe “Pinot” Gallizo, who had the audacity to achieve art-world success while referring to himself as a Situationist. As soon as the gallery owners started calling Pinot’s work “Situationist art,” an oxymoron according to Debord, Pinot was out.

The expulsions didn’t satisfy Constant. When Debord began to voice doubts that New Babylon could ever be made and decided to shift the New Babylon project to more metaphorical grounds, Constant quit the SI. Debord and Constant broke up badly, over letters. Their correspondence became passive-aggressive, then aggressive, then it stopped all together. Debord went on with the Situationist International; Constant continued to work on his plans for New Babylon long after they lost their vitality. Without the SI’s appetite for utopia to give New Babylon life, the city started feeling more like Atlantis than NYC.

In the late 1960s, Constant wearily allowed the New Babylon project to wind down. In an interview with architectural journalist Rem Koolhaas for Dutch weekly Haagse Post , Constant said, with just a hint of despair: “I am very much aware of the fact that New Babylon cannot be realized now.” gAfter Constant left, Debord shepherded the SI away from play and toward politics. By 1964, Debord was “embarrassed by ‘the fantasies left over from the old artist milieu.’ ” h

The SI fell apart in the dawn of the ’70s. In the early days of the SI, Debord had written to Pinot, “Not being declared, the [Situationist International] cannot be officially dissolved.” iIt could, though, stop functioning — and it did. Debord stopped writing. Various Neo-Situationist sects persisted until the early 1980s, but Debord stayed silent. He aged bitterly; he considered his life’s work a failure. In 1984, Debord was a suspect in the murder of his friend, publisher and patron Gérard Lebovici. The Police Nationale never brought Debord up on charges, but the ensuing scandal pushed Debord even further away from public life. He and Bernstein divorced and he married someone who had never been a Situationist, a poet named Alice Becker-Ho. When old friends would visit, they were met only by Becker-Ho; Debord refused to leave his room to meet with them. j

In 1987, Paris’s museum of contemporary art, the Centre George Pompidou, in conjunction with the London-based Institute of Contemporary Arts, organized an exhibition about “situationism.” They invited Debord to speak at the French opening in 1988, but he refused, utterly insulted. He wrote the curators of the exhibit a letter brimming with vitriol, concluding, “If you think you like the situationists, you are fucking wrong. There is nothing more antisituationist than putting false situationist ‘art’ in a museum. You are cunts, and I hope your buildings fall apart.” kFollowing the exhibitions, interest in the Situationists increased exponentially, and has never really waned.

On December 1, 1994, Debord shot himself through the heart. Disturbingly, his death was followed by the “copycat” suicides of two of his friends, his publisher Gérard Voitey on December 3 and the writer Roger Stéphane on December 4.

For a few years, “situationism” was quiet. Then, in the late 1990s, a secretive political activist group emerged out of Chicago, calling themselves the “New Situationists.” They spouted a bastardized and modernized version of Debord and the Situationists’ basic critique of the Spectacle and consumerist culture. They functioned in absolute secrecy and pursued invisibility until, like the original Situationists, the New Situationists were brought down by their own politics. In late 2001, in response to the “fascist government response to the 9/11 attacks,” “blatant presidential war-mongering,” and “disgusting attempts of corporations to capitalize on a national tragedy,” the New Situationists planned a series of bombings at various Chicago L stations. The bombings were planned for the middle of the night, when the stations were closed; the New Situationists meant to take no lives, but destroy transportation only. Eleven members of the New Situationists set off bombs in various L stations throughout the city; Berliner’s girlfriend Marie-Hélène Kraus was one of the bombers. In her station, a drunk and passed out security guard slept through the fire alarm Kraus set off to make sure the subway stations were completely empty, and he died.

Remarkably, despite the legal proceedings and media frenzy that followed the bombings, only three of the members of the New Situationists were ever publically identified: Kraus, Berliner, and a man named David Wilson. None of them could be persuaded, legally or otherwise, to divulge the names of the other members. Berliner, Wilson, and Kraus were all arrested; the Chicago DA’s office handled the criminal prosecution, while the FBI came in to look for the other members of the New Situationists.

Wilson served eighteen months in jail for refusing to answer questions at a Grand Jury trial at which he had been subpoenaed to testify. Because he was still seventeen years old at the time of sentencing, Berliner served five months in a juvenile detention facility for the same reason. Kraus was charged with manslaughter and the destruction of public property. Charges of conspiracy to commit a terrorist activity originally brought against Kraus were dropped due to the court’s inability to produce any conspirators. Berliner and Wilson both had alibis proving they weren’t involved in the bombings, which held up in court.

The media story on the New Situationists focused on the group’s “cult of silence” l; many people were upset that the FBI found no way to force Kraus and her two fellow terrorists to name their co-conspirators. Berliner, Kraus, and Wilson pled ignorance; they insisted that the New Situationists always maintained absolutely secrecy, hiding their real names and identities even from each other, except David Wilson, who, as the New Situationist “Public Relations Liaison,” made his name known, but was kept out of any “real” New Situationist business, whatever that was. He also claimed not to know the names of any other New Situationists, though they all knew his.

During Kraus’s trial, the District Attorney of Chicago asked her questions about the identity of the other New Situationists. In response, Kraus paraphrased Debord: “New Situationism cannot exist because there is no dogmatic doctrine that is called ‘Situationism.’ There is only the possibility of the creation of Situationists that follow a certain pattern.” When she said the word “Situationism,” Kraus used air quotes.

Following a well-argued motion from the highly regarded attorney hired by Kraus’s father, Kraus’s trial remained closed to the public. The judge on the case gave Wilson, Berliner, and Kraus’s family permission to attend. Wilson showed up about half the time, whenever something interesting was bound to happen. Berliner came every day and watched every second of the proceedings.