I'm glad to see there was another post going back to Hobbes, because I've been meaning to do the same. This whole thought-process honestly just started out in one of our class discussions; a comment was made regarding Hobbes and how essentially he was telling us to grow up and to realize that we are not all the unique little snowflakes we want to think we are. Where does my brain go? Of course, it goes to Fight Club.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile." - Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 17.
This connection got me thinking in the middle of that discussion about potentially viewing Fight Club, and more specifically Project Mayhem, as a Hobbesian organization. *Note, I say 'organization' and not 'novel' or 'movie'. The novel and the movie ultimately are quite the opposite of Hobbes. Ironically [given the structure of the Fight Club itself and Project Mayhem], the novel runs very contrary to Hobbes in the sense that it actually displays an ultimate breach of the social contracts. However, that is not what I am here to discuss.
Instead, I wanted to point out a few of the different ways in which I began to view the actual structure of the Fight Club and Project Mayhem as Hobbesian - the organization seems to be in and of itself, its own microcosmic Commonwealth.
- All members work for and are loyal to their sovereign:
"Only in death are we no longer part of Project Mayhem."
- Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 28.
*Note: I will address the identity of that sovereign in a later point when I get to the point about the body of the Leviathan.
- Fight Club and Project Mayhem both exhibit a sense of radical equality within the organization, as each man is equal to another. They are all in the same, grimey, rock-bottom organization, and they are neither greater than nor less than their fellow members.
- The organization eliminates the idea of individuality (which also promotes the equality of all the members). By the time of Project Mayhem, the members have lost their individual looks (by styling them equally - clothing, hairstyle, etc), and they have even lost their names.
- Now comes the question of who would exactly be the Leviathan.
First I feel like I should outline the body of this Leviathan. It lies in the Commonwealth of Project Mayhem, in the sense that each individual under it works for the Leviathan, for the members of the Commonwealth. It is yet another miniature social contract. They work to build Fight Club, they work to build Project Mayhem. Each individual's work is a method of 'economy' that keeps the body of Project Mayhem functioning. But of whom are they the authors?
Who could be the Fight Club/Project Mayhem Commonwealth Sovereign?
My first thoughts went to Tyler Durden, of course; he was their leader, their instructor, he taught them their ways, gave them their assignments, made their rules and regulations, and ultimately protected them from the other Commonwealths [In this case, the other Commonwealths would be the world outside of Project Mayhem/Fight Club]. However, this doesn't seem right, because by the end of it, the Tyler we knew has disappeared and has been replaced by a 'new' Tyler. [Sadly, for those who have not read the book or seen the movie, this will probably not make any sense.] By the end of the entire ordeal, the Tyler we knew has lost control, has betrayed his subjects [has gotten Bob killed, is acting destructive towards them], and our narrator, whose assumed name is Jack, has taken over. Yes - Tyler and the Narrator are the same person. But personalities differ, and ergo, the sovereign power lies with only one side of them. Jack overthrows Tyler - in which I quickly realize that Tyler could never have been the sovereign to begin with, instead, the Sovereign becomes the narrator Jack. Tyler was only the sovereign in so far as Jack had allowed him to be the Sovereign. Once overthrown, Tyler is out of view as sovereign, and all that is left is Jack, the overthrow-er.
This is still subject to debate though, but to me Jack as the sovereign makes sense. Counter me on this if you'd like. :)
Now, again, I want to state, the novel in and of itself is in no way Hobbesian. In fact, part of me feels like, at the very least, specific parts of Fight Club would be Hobbes' worst nightmare. [In the sense that much of Project Mayhem revolves around completely defiling the social contract and reverting everyone back into a state of nature - "If you erase the debt record, everyone goes back to zero." - in which case, utter chaos would ensue.]
The book honestly does not emphasize our radical equality - that's not the ultimate point of reverting us back to zero. The ultimate point is to reinforce the idea that it's only once we've hit the bottom that we can realize our true potential. This... this is honestly very un-Hobbesian in the sense that Hobbes wants to show that we're already at the bottom and that is where we're going to live.
There are a lot more nuances to the novel that I could go into, but I'm hoping with this I've at least decently made my point. I find it interestingly ironic that such a novel - somewhat based in reinforcing our own individualism [that can't be found through "our jobs, how much money we have in the bank, the cars we drive, the contents of our wallets, or our fucking khakis"] - exhibits an organization that is so basely and structurally Hobbesian.
Comments? I'm quite interested for other opinions on this. Plus, I love finding people who have not only seen the movie, but also read the book. :) Huzzah, reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an interesting take on Fight Club. I would also like to add to this how the idea of Fight Club and Project Mayhem fitting into the rest of society can also be seen as Hobbesian. Tyler is showing the common man that he is in fact the sovereign, not the politicians or the wealthy. Since Project Mayhem succeeds, the people of Project Mayhem (effectively the hoi polloi) are the true sovereign. In a very Hobbesian way, the movie (and I'm assuming the book, although I haven't read it yet) making the argument that the true power rests in the people.
ReplyDeleteAs for the story as a whole, I've always associated it with Eastern thought in general. Since this is the search for values in 'western' thought, I don't know if we should talk about it here.
Food for thought: although "Fight Club" was misunderstood by critics as a nihilist movie, anyone who paid attention could recognize that it was rather about counteracting the deleterious effects of our society upon our selves. (For those of you who read the book, one of the credit card companies falls on a museum when it is destroyed--the idea being that the loss of our material culture will lead people to create anew rather than consciously or unconsciously comparing our individual inspirations with those of the past.)
ReplyDeleteDoes this sound like anybody else we've read?
-W.
This sounds very much like Rousseau. It is the established social influences which are holding back genius. By starting anew, people can discard these influences and follow their genius which will lead to a better society.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s hard to say that the sovereign Tyler was over thrown by "Jack". This is because the sovereign has to be overthrown by the common wealth of project mayhem. Can the sovereign really overthrow himself? Maybe you could consider "Jack" as part of the common-wealth initially. That gets confusing.
ReplyDeleteI also think it’s interesting that Hobbes believes in a common-wealth governed by a sovereign where in the movie, Tyler sets up fights club to consist of self-sufficient cells, independent of one another and capable of running without leadership.
Some Interesting Fight Club Movie Facts...
ReplyDeleteDuring rehearsals, Brad Pitt and Edward Norton found out that they both hated the new Volkswagen Beetle with a passion, and for the scene where Tyler and The Narrator are hitting cars with baseball bats, Pitt and Norton insisted that one of the cars be a Beetle. As Norton explains on the DVD commentary, he hates the car because the Beetle was one of the primary symbols of 60s youth culture and freedom. However, the youth of the 60s had become the corporate bosses of the 90s, and had repackaged the symbol of their own youth, selling it to the youth of another generation as if it didn't mean anything. Both Norton and Pitt felt that this kind of corporate selling out was exactly what the film was railing against, hence the inclusion of the car; "It's a perfect example of the Baby Boomer generation marketing its youth culture to us. As if our happiness is going to come by buying the symbol of their youth movement, even with the little flower holder in the plastic molding. It's appalling to me. I hate it." However, Pitt is quoted on the DVD commentary as saying he has since had a change of heart about the new Beetle.
Author Chuck Palahniuk first came up with the idea for the novel after being beaten up on a camping trip when he complained to some nearby campers about the noise of their radio. When he returned to work, he was fascinated to find that nobody would mention or acknowledge his injuries, instead saying such commonplace things as "How was your weekend?" Palahniuk concluded that the reason people reacted this way was because if they asked him what had happened, a degree of personal interaction would be necessary, and his workmates simply didn't care enough to connect with him on a personal level. It was his fascination with this societal 'blocking' which became the foundation for the novel.
When a Fight Club member sprays the priest with a hose, the camera briefly shakes. This happens because the cameraman couldn't keep himself from laughing.
Disclaimer: This comment is not meant in any way to detract from Joe's comment. Indeed, as you can see if you read Joe's comment, it is not part of the scholarly discussion here, but just an interesting aside. Therefore, I am adding to his interesting aside.
ReplyDeleteI've read a number of interviews and whatnot with/by Palahniuk. Regarding the inspiration for the novel (insofar as one can claim to pin down a particular inspiration for a work of art), he claims two others in addition to Joe's comment. The book started out as a short story which he composed while a member of a writing workshop. The short story was only a couple of pages long, and dealt primarily with the question of how men identify with their own masculinity in a post-nuclear-family, post-feminism and post-sexual-revolution world. In other words, Palahniuk wanted to examine the concept of a world wherein men--arguably for the first time in Western history--can no longer fall back upon the standard roles of masculinity and femininity as sources of pride, encouragement, or validation. In short, what happens when half the species has to invent a new sense of identity, and when the father rejects/is rejected by the son as representing the overthrown epistemological paradigm? This idea developed within the workshop, while the rest of the mad vignettes in "Fight Club" were actually perpetrated at some point by he and his buddies. (E.g., one of his friends actually had Ed Norton's job in the film, and complained about it to them over drinks...)
I mention this because the fighting aspect--which has both obsessed and confounded Palahniuk's fans and critics, which has been regarded, wrongly, as the focal point of the film--was an afterthought. As Joe mentioned, the DVD commentaries (there are two, if memory serves) are fascinating not least because the filmmakers, actors, and author all discuss this disconnect between their collective intent and the film's reception. They mention how they attempted to make the fighting scenes gruesome and realistic rather than clinical and anesthetized (think of any Willis/Schwarzenegger/Stallone action movie with an astronomical body-count) or glorified and unrealistic (think any Tarantino film); that only one person dies in this movie yet it was roundly condemned for its senseless depiction of violence (think "Passion of the Christ"). Yet all along the real thing Palahniuk wanted to address was the experience of being a man without a "father" (read: literally, metaphorically, ideologically, nationally, culturally, etc., etc., now that all of these models have been jettisoned from the contemporary consciousness of masculine pride--without any replacement to fill the void), of being so "spiritually benumbed" as to "need to feel pain in order to feel alive" (to borrow from Helena Bonham Carter's take on the novel).
Tyler (whose lines you may not have understood, because in this scene Ed Norton's character's hand is melting): "Our fathers were our models for God. And if our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? ...We are God's unwanted children, with no special place and no special attention, and so be it."
I'll stop there. If you haven't already guessed, I was a big fan of Palahniuk's first few novels, as well as the film. But we digress...
-W.
I'd like to comment on Joe's first comment - talking about the sovereign overthrowing himself and about Project Mayhem being made of individual cells capable of functioning without the sovereign.
ReplyDeleteI guess first I'll cover the kind of quick one. Project Mayhem did not create/combine the individuals as cells that were capable of functioning on their own - most of their behavior completely reinforced the opposite of that; that rather these individuals had become so dependent on the person they had authored as their sovereign [Tyler] that they couldn't function without him [IE, in the presence of Jack - like when Jack tries to run from the Project Mayhem people after 'Tyler' had told them how to act]. I know all this gets really confusing, as we're TECHNICALLY talking about the same PHYSICAL person. But I think to call Tyler and Jack the same mental person is a little bit of a stretch.
With regards to if the sovereign can overthrow himself. Again, that is considering the sovereign as a physical body, in which case, yeah, Jack becoming sovereign over Tyler wouldn't make a lot of sense, as they are physically the same person. But instead, view the sovereign as an authored representative [be it personality or individual or group], I feel it is entirely possible for Jack to overthrow Tyler as sovereign, as mentally, by the end, they are two different people. The Tyler side of our narrator is GONE by the end, and that Tyler had been what previously led Project Mayhem. The Jack side of our narrator is what we end up with as sovereign. And it seems to be irrelevant that Jack and Tyler inhabit the same physical body. [Although it does make things a little more confusing, I'll admit.]
That help? I'm also about to read your longer comment, along with Harwood's -> something about interviews with Pitt, Norton, Palahniuk, etc.