Yes, we can say that détournement and Laruelle’s non-philosophy share a similar strategic logic, though they operate in different domains (détournement in cultural/political critique, non-philosophy in epistemology and metaphysics). Both involve repurposing existing structures in order to subvert and transform them, rather than rejecting them outright.
1. détournement: The Subversion of Spectacle
détournement, developed by Guy Debord and the Situationist International (SI), is the practice of taking pre-existing cultural forms (texts, images, media, discourses) and reconfiguring them to expose their ideological function.
Rather than inventing something new, détournement hijacks dominant narratives and turns them against themselves.
Key Aspects of détournement:
Reuses existing elements - images, films, advertisements, slogans.
Subverts dominant ideology by distorting familiar signs.
Neutralizes capitalist recuperation by making it impossible for the spectacle to assimilate the détourned content.
Example:
A Coca-Cola ad détourned to say “Consume, Obey, Die” critiques consumerism by repurposing corporate imagery.
The Situationist film The Society of the Spectacle (Debord, 1973) détournes existing movie footage and political speeches to reveal their hidden ideological structures.
In essence, détournement does not negate the existing spectacle - it hijacks and reconfigures it to reveal its contradictions.
2. Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy: The Subversion of Philosophical Decision
Laruelle’s non-philosophy does something structurally similar to détournement, but with philosophy instead of media and culture.
Rather than rejecting philosophy outright, Laruelle takes philosophy’s own materials (concepts, traditions, methods) and “clones” them into a non-hierarchical, non-decisional thought.
Key Aspects of Non-Philosophy:
Uses existing philosophical terms (Being, the One, the Real) but suspends their traditional meanings.
Disrupts the “decision” that structures philosophy, showing that philosophy always splits the Real into dualisms (Being vs. Thought, Subject vs. Object).
Neutralizes philosophy’s authority by treating it as raw material for non-philosophical thought.
Example:
Instead of arguing against philosophy in a traditional way, Laruelle “clones” philosophical discourse, using its own language while demonstrating how it operates on an artificial structure of Decision.
His concept of “radical immanence” détournes traditional metaphysics, preventing philosophy from capturing the Real within conceptual oppositions.
In essence, non-philosophy does not negate philosophy - it hijacks and reconfigures it to reveal its limitations.
3. Structural Similarities: détournement vs. Non-Philosophy
détournement (SI, Debord) |
Non-Philosophy (Laruelle) |
|
Repurposes cultural and media signs |
Repurposes philosophical discourse |
|
Disrupts the spectacle |
Disrupts the philosophical Decision |
|
Reveals ideology in media |
Reveals the structural limits of philosophy |
|
Uses the enemy’s weapons against itself |
Uses philosophy’s own concepts against itself |
|
Seeks a non-recuperable political critique |
Seeks a non-decisional mode of thought |
4. The Key Difference: Praxis vs. Metaphysics
détournement is fundamentally a political and cultural strategy aimed at disrupting capitalist spectacle and ideological control.
Non-philosophy is a meta-theoretical intervention, aimed at breaking philosophy’s self-imposed limits and opening new possibilities for thinking.
However, both share the same tactical reversal:
They do not negate their target, but instead use its own materials to subvert it from within.
5. Could Laruelle’s Non-Philosophy Itself Be a Form of détournement?
Yes, we could argue that non-philosophy is a détournement of philosophy itself. Just as Debord hijacks media to expose its ideology, Laruelle hijacks philosophy to expose its Decision-making process.
détournement reveals that ideology structures media.
Non-philosophy reveals that Decision structures philosophy.
Both refuse to play by the traditional rules of the system they critique.
If Debord sought a radical derive to escape capitalist control, Laruelle seeks a theoretical derive to escape philosophical authority.
Conclusion: Non-Philosophy as Theoretical détournement
Both détournement and non-philosophy subvert systems from within.
Both refuse to engage in direct opposition; instead, they hijack and repurpose.
Both seek a kind of “unilateral” intervention that prevents the system from reabsorbing their critique.
So while détournement operates in the streets and media, and non-philosophy operates in the realm of thought, both are acts of sabotage against dominant structures - turning the system against itself.
