Lindsay Gosis: In both Debord and Foucault, the issue arises or lust exists, of the problematic relentless from the individual reality/ideality and the spectacle/government of individualizarism (Foucault 420). Described in terms of subject/object., the individual reality cannot act as the subject of the discussion, because the spectacle, as its own force creating itself (drive?), affects the individual reality. But considering the individual reality as the object of this conclusions also proves problematic, because when considered in terms of the spectacle, the individual reality acquires a social character which, if considered in Foucault’s terms as an individuality “shaped in a hero form and submitted to a set of very specific patterns” (422) can scarcely be considered “invidividuality” at all. So a discussion of the “spectacle” seems to necessarily omit the idea of the individual reality except to address its impossible existence within the spectacle.
Kiarina Kordela: Precisely, and, a pfortiori, the argument about the spectacle entails that “the real individuality cannot be discussed at all but only representations of individuality (in the spectacle) can become an object of discussion. Hence, the absence of any discussion of individuality is not an omission of necessity consequence of the fact that individuality, in this line of thought, pertains to the status of the real.