Separation Perfected

I first came across the term 'weltanschauung' whilst studying human activity systems. There is no satisfactory translation into english although 'world view' is commonly used. However it is much more than this as it relates to a concept that is difficult to describe in simple terms. In my studies it was applied to the underlying reason(s) why a particular human activity system behaved as it did rather than its overtly stated purpose. It was an attempt to draw together a series of interlinked philosophies that together explained the actual behaviour usually of a company or an organisation. For example most Chief Constables of Police would argue that their Force is their to protect the public. However if one examines their behaviour in depth their 'weltanschauung' could be argued to be that they sees themselves under siege from a hostile and wrong-minded public that can only be controlled by greater and greater restraint and violent methods and that only they know what is 'good' for society.

Debord seems to use the term spectacle to suggest that we live an illusion that is sustained by the output of the mass media and other communication systems that are controlled by 'others'. One is left wondering if the 'others' are also part of the illusion and that there is no 'reality' that is hidden from us and that all is illusion or spectacle. It is impossible to argue successfully against such a view of the world because the easy response is that the opponent to this view is already subject to the spectacle. Like all such arguments  you either accept or reject it as being correct. There are no arguments that can be offered that support or deny the statement.

I am not sure why we need to be told that the work was first published in French in trying to assess whether the passage of time has confirmed or contradicted Debord's view. Does it matter what language it was written in to reach such a decision? There is no way of answering the question in any meaningful way because again you can either accept or reject the basic premis. If you accept then the spectacle exists throughout time because we have no way of breaking from the illusory world we occupy. If you reject then the question has no meaning.

Presumably Debord would argue that our view of the world is controlled and that we can only see the world in the way that is allowed to us by whoever is doing the controlling. We cannot conceive of the idea that what we are seeing is in some way propaganda because there is no such thing in a controlled world. Reality is what we are told it is and nothing else exists.

I can't make sense of the final question. I think I understand the term 'reification' in that it is viewing something that is abstract as in some sense being 'real' i.e. it in some way exists in a 'concrete' form. I am not sure how 'extreme reification' differs. Are there various levels of reification? I find myself at a loss for words.