Looking at your summary: With a few small edits Fight Club becomes essentially the origin story of Al Queda or a slew of domestic terrorist operations around the world.
“[They] end up starting a secret, all-male fighting club, drawing more and more similarly disaffected men from all sectors of society [around the world] into their circle…..— reviving their masculinity and giving them something to live for in the process. Of course, things spin out of control (think: [actual] terrorist operation).
For reference, “Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright.
Intriguing analysis. Al Queda managed to assemble its fanatics in a society which at least gave males a known and respected role. It is all the more dangerous in Western society where the likes of Maureen Dowd can unblushngly ask 'are men obsolete'.
I don't think it's just the physical violence, though that certainly plays a role. I think it's purpose. In general terms, I think men need purpose. Whether that be a "higher" calling, i.e., law enforcement, clergy, military, firefighter, etc. Or the more "basic" purpose of doing right by your family and/or friends (or your quasi paramilitary terrorist org). In my experience sports can mostly scratch the violence "itch". I personally taught my two boys (and try to live by myself) that violence is never an acceptable response to anything but violence. I believe men do, in fact, have a duty to be prepared to use violence when the situation demands it though. Violence in defense of those who are unable defend themselves is the duty of every man IMHO.
About that last footnote: there's an unfortunate tendency on the left, especially among women, to assume that any male acting in a physically aggressive manner is pursuing "violence" as its own, dark goal (not saying you're doing that, but plenty of people do). This is sometimes true, but not always--indeed, not even usually. Lots of men have fairly strong, and hard-wired, inclinations to engage in physical competition with one another, for a whole variety of reasons, and the result can certainly be described as "violence." But that impulse is ultimately a competitive one, rather than a desire to cause harm for its own sake. An unfortunate side-effect of the centering of female perspectives when discussing male violence is that women often seem freaked out and disapproving of ALL of it, in a way that creates unnecessary condemnation of, and unrealistic demands on, men (especially young men and boys, who really do need to just pound the crap out of one another sometimes.)
Yes, they do! I sure did. For a stretch of my teen years, I was a bullied kid, and what got me through it -- apart from a lot of adult support that I was lucky to have -- is that I could fight instead of just submitting. It's funny: once you let people know that you will take a punch in return for the privilege of throwing one, things get a lot more peaceable.
I'm not sure there's direct clash between your comment and Vlad's, but setting that aside:
I too found my life change quite a bit once I finally knocked a bully on his butt. I didn't even punch him. I grabbed his tree trunk of a leg, lifted it off the ground and ran away when he landed.
There’s just one small detail that’s so obvious it’s easy to overlook, but taking note of it results in a reading that is almost opposite of yours: Tyler Durden is a figment of the narrator; the community of men with purpose comes together around a hallucination, a projection of lost/disavowed masculinity; thus identification with a phantom rather intensifies the alienation and isolation of the narrator and those who gather around him. The terrorist violence at the end is nearly a red herring: there never was a community with shared purpose, not one that could last, anyway. intentional communities formed by isolated individuals reproduce the dysfunctional fantasies and maladaptive psychic strategies of the individuals. In this sense, fight club is actually more relevant to the moment, ahead of its time
I thought of that too but I don't think it really matters to her larger point, that the analog world that enabled the rest of the men to come together is gone
And people would get the vapors if anything like this started coming together today (see a few comments up about Al Quaeda)
"they’re oversupervised, cowed by social norms, and also, too often, inside."
I would like to have a real conversation about how elevated 'Happiness' is in our culture.... what you're scratching at is people's inherent need of fulfillment. Fight Club parody's giving men a purpose that they leverage to achieve fulfillment. It's achieved with a shallow puddle of community - but in the desert, that will do nicely.
If we started talking about character, we'd find a lot of our cures for unhappiness do the opposite of what men actually need. Conservatives get some of this correct with talk about 'hard work', but they screw up by thinking that the outcome of hard work is what matters. (Because they are greedy, imo.) The reality is that the means in life matter so much more than the ends.
I think you're spot on. I'm finding that the more I think about the problem of modern loneliness and our vacuous attempts to solve it, the further I lean toward an existentialist mindset.
If I could snap my fingers and create one structural change in America, it would be for hundreds of all male communes to open, where men choosing between living depressingly alone, with family or with roommates they hate could go and live with people who had some kind of shared idea.
The difference between a commune and roommates being (I hope this is obvious) people actually committing to a shared living lifestyle, rather than just doing it because they can't afford to live alone and rooming with whomever they happen to find.
The communes could have all sorts of characters (not everyone would need to fight, lol, but maybe some!) But having some shared aspiration would be really great.
This was common in the ancient world. Epicurean communities were hugely successful.
When the Christians came along, they took them all over and made them monasteries, stripping out much of the flexibility and joy.
Communes could take a lot of shapes and they could be wonderful for the mass of men left behind by the monolith of the nuclear family.
ONLY guys of my age will probably disagree with your take on Fight Club. We grew up either going to or barely missing a tour of Viet Nam and southeast Asia. We didn't need a fight club either to learn to be a man. We had many school supported sports and Boy Scouts, (more on that to follow) the only rules, pretty much until High School was to be in before the street lights lit. Fighting wasn't a part of growing up, camaraderie was. Occasionally there would be fights, but usually ended before any major damage to body or spirit. It's too bad that there were some Boy Scout leaders who victimized the boys, (I NEVER witnessed anything like that). The Scouts taught us, by their motto, to Be Prepared. That lesson had a profound effect on me in the following years and to this day. It's too bad what has become of that organization because of a few 'men' with problems.
The MOST important thing for boys today is a father who in present and involved in their children's lives. Back in the 'old days' parents would persevere "For The Kids", divorce wasn't an 'Option'. Today is seems to be the norm and I weep for the kids who are left behind by selfish adults. A Fight Club IMHO builds nothing but a loss of self respect and no path to a happy future.
"The suggestion that physical violence is a necessary component of masculine fulfillment deserves a post of its own..."
I would agree there is much to discuss here, but we have to define some terms before we can go further. "Violence" can be more than physical. Encyclopedia Britannica defines violence as "an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by violence may be physical, psychological, or both." Anyone who uses social media has experienced 'verbal violence' from trolls gleefully meting out verbal abuse and personal attacks. Violence is not gender specific. 'Mean girls' can weld psychological violence landing blows just as brutal as fists to the face.
David Chester PhD has studied violence and aggression for years at the Social Psychology and Neuroscience Lab and finds that violence is not just a brute force but nuanced and multifaceted. “Our lab has really shown that that’s true — negative emotions are there,” Chester said. “But positive emotions actually also play a pretty big role in aggressive behavior as well. So aggression can feel good. And that pleasure — and the associated, what we call hedonic reward — is a really potent motivating force.”
In other words, he said, aggressive behavior can be reinforced by positive feelings of power and dominance.
The other term needing clarification is "fulfillment". Generally, "fulfillment is a feeling of happiness and satisfaction. It's also the completion of something, like the fulfillment of a promise. In terms of emotions, fulfillment is a happy, contented feeling." Humans are "story-telling creatures" and we like our stories to give us a contented sense of justice and logic to life. Joseph Campbell describes how all stories are a variant of the "hero's journey" - assertively being cast out into the unknown, struggling (often violently), and an eventual return to 'normal' society. "Fulfillment" then is a dynamic cycle rather than a static state of being.
Which brings up another aspect of fulfillment which is "contentment." In Asian martial arts there is a 'neutral stance' - a quiet balance of Yin and Yang energies. From this point all action - assertive or accepting - is in response to and to balance with the forces of the immediate moment. Being constantly violent and aggressive requires a lot of energy and is physically and emotionally draining. We live today in an anxiety filled environment with scant training on finding rest and recuperation in our neutral zone. Addiction is a substitute for naturally managing anxiety and addiction to violence either active or passive is prevalent today. A quick overview of popular video game titles reveals how we use violence as entertainment and a drug.
A discussion of violence (both active and passive) needs to include the concept of compassion and contentment. In his book, 'Fire in the Belly', Sam Keen describes a balanced, fulfilled man. "I know of no single honorific that defines a man so much as the verb "to husband." A husbandman knows how to care for the place (and relationships) he has been entrusted. To 'husband' is to practice the art of stewardship, to oversee, to make judicious use of things, and to conserve for the future. Psychologically, the husbandman is a man who has made a decision to be in place, to make commitments, to forge bonds, to put down roots, to translate the feeling of empathy and compassion into an action of caring."
Violence coupled with the purpose of caring leads to feelings of contentment and fulfillment for both the individual and the community. OK, let the discussion begin...
Looking at your summary: With a few small edits Fight Club becomes essentially the origin story of Al Queda or a slew of domestic terrorist operations around the world.
“[They] end up starting a secret, all-male fighting club, drawing more and more similarly disaffected men from all sectors of society [around the world] into their circle…..— reviving their masculinity and giving them something to live for in the process. Of course, things spin out of control (think: [actual] terrorist operation).
For reference, “Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright.
very true!
Intriguing analysis. Al Queda managed to assemble its fanatics in a society which at least gave males a known and respected role. It is all the more dangerous in Western society where the likes of Maureen Dowd can unblushngly ask 'are men obsolete'.
Great piece! Fight Club remains a touchstone for a lot of men across generations.
I think one thing that's increasingly hard to find are novels that engage with unvarnished depictions of male psychology.
Wrote about this here: https://www.decentralizedfiction.com/p/wake-up-babe-new-fiction-category
cc: @Christine Emba
I don't think it's just the physical violence, though that certainly plays a role. I think it's purpose. In general terms, I think men need purpose. Whether that be a "higher" calling, i.e., law enforcement, clergy, military, firefighter, etc. Or the more "basic" purpose of doing right by your family and/or friends (or your quasi paramilitary terrorist org). In my experience sports can mostly scratch the violence "itch". I personally taught my two boys (and try to live by myself) that violence is never an acceptable response to anything but violence. I believe men do, in fact, have a duty to be prepared to use violence when the situation demands it though. Violence in defense of those who are unable defend themselves is the duty of every man IMHO.
Yeah it doesn't have to be violence. Some intense physicality isn't bad tho.
Obviously, if you're going to make a movie (or a novel) you want some dramatic cinematics.
But the fisticuffs aren't essential.
Tho I do wish I had gotten into a few more scrapes when I was young. Builds character.
About that last footnote: there's an unfortunate tendency on the left, especially among women, to assume that any male acting in a physically aggressive manner is pursuing "violence" as its own, dark goal (not saying you're doing that, but plenty of people do). This is sometimes true, but not always--indeed, not even usually. Lots of men have fairly strong, and hard-wired, inclinations to engage in physical competition with one another, for a whole variety of reasons, and the result can certainly be described as "violence." But that impulse is ultimately a competitive one, rather than a desire to cause harm for its own sake. An unfortunate side-effect of the centering of female perspectives when discussing male violence is that women often seem freaked out and disapproving of ALL of it, in a way that creates unnecessary condemnation of, and unrealistic demands on, men (especially young men and boys, who really do need to just pound the crap out of one another sometimes.)
Yes, they do! I sure did. For a stretch of my teen years, I was a bullied kid, and what got me through it -- apart from a lot of adult support that I was lucky to have -- is that I could fight instead of just submitting. It's funny: once you let people know that you will take a punch in return for the privilege of throwing one, things get a lot more peaceable.
I'm not sure there's direct clash between your comment and Vlad's, but setting that aside:
I too found my life change quite a bit once I finally knocked a bully on his butt. I didn't even punch him. I grabbed his tree trunk of a leg, lifted it off the ground and ran away when he landed.
It was enough.
There’s just one small detail that’s so obvious it’s easy to overlook, but taking note of it results in a reading that is almost opposite of yours: Tyler Durden is a figment of the narrator; the community of men with purpose comes together around a hallucination, a projection of lost/disavowed masculinity; thus identification with a phantom rather intensifies the alienation and isolation of the narrator and those who gather around him. The terrorist violence at the end is nearly a red herring: there never was a community with shared purpose, not one that could last, anyway. intentional communities formed by isolated individuals reproduce the dysfunctional fantasies and maladaptive psychic strategies of the individuals. In this sense, fight club is actually more relevant to the moment, ahead of its time
I thought of that too but I don't think it really matters to her larger point, that the analog world that enabled the rest of the men to come together is gone
And people would get the vapors if anything like this started coming together today (see a few comments up about Al Quaeda)
"they’re oversupervised, cowed by social norms, and also, too often, inside."
I would like to have a real conversation about how elevated 'Happiness' is in our culture.... what you're scratching at is people's inherent need of fulfillment. Fight Club parody's giving men a purpose that they leverage to achieve fulfillment. It's achieved with a shallow puddle of community - but in the desert, that will do nicely.
If we started talking about character, we'd find a lot of our cures for unhappiness do the opposite of what men actually need. Conservatives get some of this correct with talk about 'hard work', but they screw up by thinking that the outcome of hard work is what matters. (Because they are greedy, imo.) The reality is that the means in life matter so much more than the ends.
I think you're spot on. I'm finding that the more I think about the problem of modern loneliness and our vacuous attempts to solve it, the further I lean toward an existentialist mindset.
One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
I have been saying this for a long time:
If I could snap my fingers and create one structural change in America, it would be for hundreds of all male communes to open, where men choosing between living depressingly alone, with family or with roommates they hate could go and live with people who had some kind of shared idea.
The difference between a commune and roommates being (I hope this is obvious) people actually committing to a shared living lifestyle, rather than just doing it because they can't afford to live alone and rooming with whomever they happen to find.
The communes could have all sorts of characters (not everyone would need to fight, lol, but maybe some!) But having some shared aspiration would be really great.
This was common in the ancient world. Epicurean communities were hugely successful.
When the Christians came along, they took them all over and made them monasteries, stripping out much of the flexibility and joy.
Communes could take a lot of shapes and they could be wonderful for the mass of men left behind by the monolith of the nuclear family.
ONLY guys of my age will probably disagree with your take on Fight Club. We grew up either going to or barely missing a tour of Viet Nam and southeast Asia. We didn't need a fight club either to learn to be a man. We had many school supported sports and Boy Scouts, (more on that to follow) the only rules, pretty much until High School was to be in before the street lights lit. Fighting wasn't a part of growing up, camaraderie was. Occasionally there would be fights, but usually ended before any major damage to body or spirit. It's too bad that there were some Boy Scout leaders who victimized the boys, (I NEVER witnessed anything like that). The Scouts taught us, by their motto, to Be Prepared. That lesson had a profound effect on me in the following years and to this day. It's too bad what has become of that organization because of a few 'men' with problems.
The MOST important thing for boys today is a father who in present and involved in their children's lives. Back in the 'old days' parents would persevere "For The Kids", divorce wasn't an 'Option'. Today is seems to be the norm and I weep for the kids who are left behind by selfish adults. A Fight Club IMHO builds nothing but a loss of self respect and no path to a happy future.
"The suggestion that physical violence is a necessary component of masculine fulfillment deserves a post of its own..."
I would agree there is much to discuss here, but we have to define some terms before we can go further. "Violence" can be more than physical. Encyclopedia Britannica defines violence as "an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm. The damage inflicted by violence may be physical, psychological, or both." Anyone who uses social media has experienced 'verbal violence' from trolls gleefully meting out verbal abuse and personal attacks. Violence is not gender specific. 'Mean girls' can weld psychological violence landing blows just as brutal as fists to the face.
David Chester PhD has studied violence and aggression for years at the Social Psychology and Neuroscience Lab and finds that violence is not just a brute force but nuanced and multifaceted. “Our lab has really shown that that’s true — negative emotions are there,” Chester said. “But positive emotions actually also play a pretty big role in aggressive behavior as well. So aggression can feel good. And that pleasure — and the associated, what we call hedonic reward — is a really potent motivating force.”
In other words, he said, aggressive behavior can be reinforced by positive feelings of power and dominance.
“So aggression isn’t just about ‘I’m angry and I want to hit someone,’” Chester said. “It’s also about how it feels good sometimes to get revenge on someone who has wronged you or who you perceive as having wronged you.” There is a crude justice at the core of violence... perhaps 'noble' even. https://news.vcu.edu/article/What_is_the_psychology_behind_violence_and_aggression_A_new_VCU#:~:text=Conventionally%2C%20violence%20is%20understood%20to,other%20person%20might%20hurt%20them.
The other term needing clarification is "fulfillment". Generally, "fulfillment is a feeling of happiness and satisfaction. It's also the completion of something, like the fulfillment of a promise. In terms of emotions, fulfillment is a happy, contented feeling." Humans are "story-telling creatures" and we like our stories to give us a contented sense of justice and logic to life. Joseph Campbell describes how all stories are a variant of the "hero's journey" - assertively being cast out into the unknown, struggling (often violently), and an eventual return to 'normal' society. "Fulfillment" then is a dynamic cycle rather than a static state of being.
Which brings up another aspect of fulfillment which is "contentment." In Asian martial arts there is a 'neutral stance' - a quiet balance of Yin and Yang energies. From this point all action - assertive or accepting - is in response to and to balance with the forces of the immediate moment. Being constantly violent and aggressive requires a lot of energy and is physically and emotionally draining. We live today in an anxiety filled environment with scant training on finding rest and recuperation in our neutral zone. Addiction is a substitute for naturally managing anxiety and addiction to violence either active or passive is prevalent today. A quick overview of popular video game titles reveals how we use violence as entertainment and a drug.
A discussion of violence (both active and passive) needs to include the concept of compassion and contentment. In his book, 'Fire in the Belly', Sam Keen describes a balanced, fulfilled man. "I know of no single honorific that defines a man so much as the verb "to husband." A husbandman knows how to care for the place (and relationships) he has been entrusted. To 'husband' is to practice the art of stewardship, to oversee, to make judicious use of things, and to conserve for the future. Psychologically, the husbandman is a man who has made a decision to be in place, to make commitments, to forge bonds, to put down roots, to translate the feeling of empathy and compassion into an action of caring."
Violence coupled with the purpose of caring leads to feelings of contentment and fulfillment for both the individual and the community. OK, let the discussion begin...