Miller on Stuff & Debord on Spectacles

What are the key theories of Miller in Stuff

Miller’s key theory is that objects shape us as much as we shape then, and they are active rather than passive entities. Unlike the Marxist theory, which alienates us from objects, Miller believes that they shape our intentions, emotions and self-perception.

Relevance today-are we the same people without technology?

What is Miller’s belief on humans being corrupted by materialism?

Miller believes that we aren’t corrupted by materialism, he sees it as human having deep complex relationships with material things, and rather than trying to escape it we need to embrace it.

Overall Understanding of Debord’s theory of the spectacle

Debord’s theory is that the spectacle is a system where images, media and representations replace the real reality. Society is dominated by appearances and expectations rather than reality. This is the result of the commodity system, where everything is packaged and sold as a product, losing identity.

Fake unity, real separation. It is as through the spectacle, there is this idea of fake connection where advertising and branding sell these fake desires and expectations that people buy, of who they wish to become or who they want to be perceived as.

How does Debord’s theory of the spectacle relate to 1984

The spectacle is a system where images, content and expectation replace real human identity and expectations. It is as if though society is being controlled and manipulated by branding and advertising, which relates back to Sudjic’s theory. Mass production and luxury objects sell things to people, fake expectations of who they can be, manipulating them to purchase and purchase and purchase.

Miller vs Debord

Debord argues that in our society objects don’t shape us, but they rather control us. They control what we buy, how we dress, and branding and advertising make people chase status and identity through consumption.

Miller challenges this, arguing that objects are not just symbols but active forces in our lives. Clothing, for instance, does more than signal wealth—it shapes how we move, feel, and interact with the world. A person’s favorite jacket might provide comfort, nostalgia, or even a sense of self, not just a public image

Does Globalization Make Everything the Same?

Debord would say yes, mass production and global brands like Coca Cola and apple strip away the cultural context and the identity of objects, turning the world into one giant spectacle, where every culture is forced to consume the same messages.

Miller disagrees, arguing that while global products exist, they are reinterpreted differently in each culture. Coca-Cola may be universal, but in some places, it is seen as a luxury product, in others a symbol of hospitality, and in others a symbol of Americanization. The local culture gives global products new meaning, rather than erasing its own identity.