Dealing with Violence: Fight Club's Assumptions

my good library buddy here at the seminary sent me this review of Fight Club. The author concludes that "The result of Tyler’s and the narrator’s use of violence is, unsurprisingly, violence without end." i wish the author would have written a longer article as to how he sees that this would be the result of Fight Club. I mean, i think i can see it, but i need it explained lest my own assumptions get in the way.

and i think that's where i'll start, my own thoughts on what Mimetic Theory and Fight Club assume about the nature of humanity and what not.

Mimetic theory's main assumption is that human beings are not inherently violent, that somewhere along the way violence was introduced and then others learned from there on and the cycle is continually renewed. When we turn to human history, with a citation found from this article by Alfie Kohn stating that some of the points made by critics of biological determinism are:

• Even if a given behavior is universal, we cannot automatically conclude that it is part of our biological nature. All known cultures may produce pottery, but that does not mean that there is a gene for pottery-making.
• Agression is no where near universal. Many hunter-gatherer societies in particular are entirely peaceful. And the cultures that are "closer to nature" would be expected to be the most warlike if the proclivity for war were really part of that nature. Just the reverse seems to be true.
• While it is indisputable that wars have been fought, the fact that they seem to dominate our history may say more about how history is presented than about what actually happened.
• Many people have claimed that human nature is aggressive after having lumped together a wide range of emotions and behavior under the label of aggression. While cannibalism, for example, is sometimes perceived as aggression, it might represent a religious ritual rather than an expression of hostility.

 But then there's another side of science that takes the opposite track. I think this is the side that Fight Club assumes, that humans are inherently violent and aggressive. This is the belief, popularized by Sigmund Freud and animal researcher Konrad Lorenz, that we have within us, naturally and spontaneously, a reservoir of aggressive energy. This force, which builds by itself, must be periodically drained off - by participating in competitive sports, for instance - or we'll explode in some awful violent action.  in some ways, Mimetic Theory assumes this as well with the scapegoat mechanism.

 

Richard Dawkins (yes, THAT Dawkins) argued in the Selfish Gene that "The general principle that behavior evolves to serve selfish ends has been widely accepted; and the idea that humans might have been favored by natural selection to hate and to kill their enemies has become entirely, if tragically, reasonable."

 

How about we mix the two? Let's mix that the idea that aggression is a natural tendency that must be drained periodically (Fight Club) and violence being a learned behavior (Mimetic Theory), then we see a larger, fuller picture emerge. Innate tendencies such as competition and pride mixed with the way in which a society functions can bring about the need for violent action due to the circumstances of a situation. After all, we are creatures of circumstance. We adapt and react to the world around us, and because of this there are times when we must engage in violent activity. However, we can use culture as a means to create a situation where competitive means for survival are unneeded, but until there is a united effort to reform the way we interact with the world, violence is just an unfortunate consequence. so therefore a united effort is needed to reform the way we interact! That is what Fight Club does. 

 

 Going back to Tyler's vision that Fight Club is after: 

"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."

This sounds rather peaceful, tribal. A return to simplicity.  Fight Club, as i interpret it, attacks the dehumanization that is taking place in soceity. In 8 simple rules, it provides structure, friendship, vulnerabilty, and an empowering outlet in a life that otherwise depowers and dehumanizes. when you punch another person, you see the immediate result and reaction of the other person, not so when you gossip about them or post blog entries about them ;-). in some ways, it is a more honest and open form of violence, one i feel more comfortable with as it doesn't beautify it or refine it. it's real, it hurts, and there is consquences like loosing teeth and explaining away blackeyes.

i think in the Fight Club model, empathy is the result. shared experiences of the fighters bind them together in a true community. like the priest hugging his opponent after a fight. or how every member mourns their martyr "Robert Paulson."

of course, to say that Fight Club is the answer and a means to end the cycle of violence or perpetuate it infinately is pure spectulation. the movie doesn't give us what happens after the buildings blow up. it does give us plenty of evidence to speculate ON, but never enough to go one way or another.

i stand on the side that Fight Club presents a "system shock" model that is counter-cultural and that leads to true community and a new means of ordering society. much like the system shock model we find in the gospels that lead to a new community that the rammifications are still being played out 2,000 years past.

it's hard to figure out, can Fight Club's violent means reach a nonviolent end? My deontologist leanings (right ends by way of right means) cringes at the thought... but my Christian leanings say otherwise (paradox of the Cross and blood of Christ). not to say that these are separate from each other, but it's the best way i can catagorize and try to explain how my thinking is torn.

how do you see it? can peace be reached through violence? or is it like Gandhi stated "There is no way to peace, peace is the way"? is humanity inherently violence and will we ever get over it? by what means can we escape violence?

Five Thoughts

#1. a leaf is not green, it only choose to display that color from the variety of possibilities from the spectrum.

#2. the problem with humans is that we're charged with naming and defining things then we forget this and go to war with other humans (who are charged with naming things as well) over these names and definitions in God's name. God gave us the charge, God never said if God agreed with the names or not.

#3. we are like a river. we flow. we have boundaries and banks, and largely we go the path of least resistence. we can dry up and we can also rage and flood. rivers are intertwined with other rivers, they meet and form new rivers. all rivers eventually reach the ocean. however, what do we call a river that's stopped? it's damned.

#4. Find the two points furthest away from one another, then live in between them. Find the middle path.

#5. Why would one become ordained? can't anyone celebrate the sacraments and preach? you know, priesthood of all believers? well, it's like getting your oil changed. anyone can do it, but only a certified mechanic is trained to look for trouble spots and take precautions where a novice wouldn't think to look.

Crisis (Elevator Version)

i used to think people were inherently capable of more good than they are. some recent experiences brought this to mind. i no longer believe in altruism. i think at some level, it all comes from a sense of self... some selfish notion is at play.

this isn't inherently evil nor is it inherently good. however, it usually leads to bad and if unchecked, even the seemingly good acts are bad.

does this come from original sin? no. it's how we're built. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. so if God created and claimed creation was good, then there was an opposite reaction which was evil. or think of it this way, a big light casts a big shadow. same with humans, we are beings of light and shadow, it's just easier to cultivate the shadow side.

i think a big mistake would be to deny the inherent evil that exists in humans but it's also another mistake to say the inherent good is not there either. people put bullets into other humans and they also jump in front of bullets for one another too. to say that this is because someone ate a fruit or talked to a snake is craziness. it's a mistake to think about why there is evil in the world or that there ever was a perfect earth. there is and has always been suffering. it's how you respond to it that counts.