Disorganized Capitalism

For the last day of class I planned on talking about one of my favorite literature to film adaptations, Chuck Palahniuk and David Fincher’s “Fight Club”. I feel very passionate about this film because of its deep meaning and translation to cultural studies, especially in regards to social order, politics and identity. Since I was not able to show the most “anti-capitalist” five minutes of film, I will expand it into a longer recognition and analysis of the film/literature in light of our texts. Not only do I feel this film is abundant with iconic scenes and monologues, I also feel this outside literary source best sums up most of the themes we dealt with over the course of the semester in a fascinating cinematic point of view. From Barker’s chapters on “A New World Disorder?” “Cultural Space and Urban Place”, to Jacques Derrida, and even the most recent passage from Bordo’s “Material Girl”, “Fight Club” is a postmodern comment on the industrialized world, which is controversial, yet an insightful viewing and reading experience. The story is an anti-capitalist, anti-consumer, anti-material perspective on a different way to live your life in the modern world, which creates an image of a reindustrialized western world, and if deconstructed through using our text, is referred to by theorists as “disorganized capitalism”.
Fight Club’s story is told from the voice of two characters, originating from the same body. We will call Edward Norton’s character, “Jack”, our first protagonist, who is a hardworking, 9 to 5, blue-collar worker in the auto insurance industry. It is ironic in fact, that Jack works in the industry of auto recalls, representing the opposite effect of the Ford and post-Fordist workplace. Jack is in charge of hiding the mistakes of mass production and the flaws of mass consumerism. We are introduced to Jack’s narration immediately with frustration and complacency for the modern world. In an iconic montage of imagery, we see Jack sitting on his toilet, ordering countless items from an IKEA catalog. Barker’s chapter on “Space and Place” describes places, apartments and homes as social constructs that “target emotional identification and/or investment”. The montage is actually contradicting, yet beneficial from the get go as Norton’s character confesses his obsession with consumption with every paycheck made. The camera spans the entire apartment, putting a price tag on every item as if it were a picture from the spring catalog. Norton’s character describes his apartment as an extension of his own identity, slowly building to become closer to the social norm. The norm, in this case is his reference to the IKEA catalog. As Barker states, “space is implicated in questions of power and symbolism”, and I believe this scene is key in identifying the frustration of the main protagonist. Furthermore, Baudrillard states “commodities confer prestige and signify social value, status and power in the context of cultural meanings that derive from the ‘wider’ social order.” His voice implies that material consumption and obsession with improvement is not a hobby, but a curse. He has no food in his refrigerator, but owns hundreds of kitchenware. His wardrobe resembles that of a popular public figure, but he only needs his suit and tie for work. His voice at this time in the film seems depressed, and it’s almost ironic that his condo, full of stuff, is used to compensate for his apathy. I believe this scene is key in introducing the main character’s confusion because he is questioning his own addiction. He manifests himself within his apartment and his things, until he self implodes and destroys his entire complex with the help of his alter ego, Tyler Durden.
Tyler Durden is first introduced to the story of “Fight Club” as Jack’s mentor and a prophet. In the first scene at Lou’s Tavern after the explosion of Jack’s hotel, Brad Pitt’s character questions the ideals, structure and obsession of the post-modern, consumerism, Capitalistic world. He preaches the idea that reliance on “…owning things will end up owning you”. I feel this scene is iconic because it introduces one of the subversive themes of the film, as well as exploring the depths of Tyler/Jack’s psychological malfunction. At this point in the film, it is implied that Jack and Tyler are in fact different people and different personalities, but as fans of the book and film watch the scene a second time around, it becomes more of a deconstruction of the confused identity. In fact, later in the film, it is confessed that Tyler Durden is a figment of Jack's "identity paradigm" as Bordo states. Tyler Durden is Jack’s confident self, who represents what Jack wishes to be from his confident, optimistic outlook to his chiseled, attractive appearance. This is a unique spin on what Bordo refers to as “cultural plastic,” except the plastic is actually a figment of desire and perceptual malfunction. It’s contradicting and ironic that Durden preaches the idea that the plastic self is meaningless and socially constructed, but at the same time is a social construct himself. He states that our generation is lost as "men raised by woman," as if the post-industialized male is today's society is constructed only of images and social constructs defined by women. Once again, this resembles our text and is particularly important for author, Chuck Palahniuk, because he proposes the question of what defines masculinity in correlation/causation with today's society.
The film incorporates many techniques to accentuate the differences between Jack and Tyler such as body language, confidence, objectivity, camera angles and dialogue. In the diner scene, Jack is edgy, nervous, worried, and stressed about losing his “junk”, whereas Tyler is relaxed, optimistic, sensible and confident in the future. The two are complete opposites in concrete identity, but in actuality and psycholically are the same person. I believe this may be a metaphor even for the sane and normal individual within the modern city and the polarizing effect it has. Palahniuk has always been known for his powerful and controversial opinions on western society, and I feel this scene is the no exception. In Barker’s chapter on “A New World Disorder,” theorist make the conclusion that western society, dependant more on consumption and “quantity over quality” have seen a rise in multiple forms of “obsession, mania, depression, self-esteem” and many other forms of apathy, indifference, and meaninglessness. They also state that a rise in consumption and material goods has created a border and/or gap between mankind and nature. I feel this theory is very evident in Lou’s Tavern as Brad Pitt’s prophetic and preachy conversation to Jack implies. Tyler Durden states that Jack’s “stuff” were just modern solutions for insecurities and points out that the “hunters and gatherers” as with our ancestors, would be turning in their graves because of how our primitive instincts have been deprived since the rise of technology and abundance of goods since the Great Depression. After the scene in the tavern concludes, Jack and Tyler come up with the idea of fighting in the parking lot. This introduces the central theme and title of the film, and I feel this is the best example of rebellion versus the normal industrial man. By stripping away a reliance on material possessions, fear of the workplace, taxes, social relations and a self-image, mankind is left with only basic instincts of survival and violence. They create an underground fight club to become closer to nature, and at same time awaken themselves from the slumber that the “system” has created for them. A Derridian analyst could state that the members of this club, who lead much different lives in the day, are signified by the workplace that the system has chosen for them. Norton’s narration doesn’t dismiss the importance of the American job, but also implies that sub servant, hiarchy, cubicle foundations are images that we project, that dehumanize us and the same time is inevitable. By stripping away the tools that signify us, man is left with more options to lead free lives. The jobs we work define and signify us as Americans, but what we do outside what is required is what makes us human, and that is choice. Salvation through self-destruction and existentialism are themes I think David Fincher was trying to convey throughout this film. Tyler Durden is Jack's psychotheraputic analysis of himself and the world around us. By using this analysis and knowing of Jack's extension through Tyler Durden and violence, the key scene where Jack fights himself in his own bosses office implies through metaphor that Jack is being beat down by the highest of corporate monsters, both pysically and psychologically. Although it starts off subversively that the workaholics of the American machine depend of violence to open up their reality, it soon becomes blatant that the typical American-corporate consumers are too desensitized to the comfortable lifestyle, which is why the fascination with violence turns into terrorism to project the same experiences onto the mass public.
I consider this film one of the most important American films because it poses a ton of questions about the foundations of Western culture, order and economy, and is in essence an anti-American film. The underground fight club under Lou’s Tavern soon turns into a cult. Dozens upon dozens of American consumers show up to hear Tyler Durden’s speeches, and get thrills from the bloody matches of violence as form of euphoria from their “normal work” lives. The speeches of dissatisfaction soon turn into manifestos of terrorism, and then the club turns into an organization of chaos, bent on destroying conglomerates, banks and corporations with nitro glycerin made from soap and fermentation. The narration of Durden seems like a direct comment from Palahniuk, and slowly escalates over the progress of the film and novel. Barker’s chapter on “Cultural Politics and Policy” describes the terms of “Deconstruction, De-mythologization, and De-mystification,” all terms I could use to describe Palahniuk’s message, as they are analytical approaches for social perspective, understanding, movements and change. By questioning government, economical practices, masculinity, social order, and participating in movements of anti-institutional, anti-authoritarian practices, Durden becomes an agent of social change against the foundations of America. The climax reveals that Tyler Durden is in fact Jack’s multiple personality and has been using Jack’s insomnia as means to progress his terrorist plots across the major metropolis cities in America. The end becomes a struggle between Jack’s two consciences until ultimately he kills off Tyler and regains new enlightenment on how to live his life. The banks and corporations still explode in a dramatic finish, but once again, I feel this is a personal choice on Fincher and Palahniuk to create world disorder in light of our protagonist’s revelation.
Overall, I think “Fight Club” is a highly stylized film that incorporates brilliant storytelling techniques resembling that of Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall” and at the same time, uses a powerful underlying message to convey a controversial topic in Western society. With numerous flashbacks, first-person narration, clever editing montages and camera skills to accentuate the boundary between Durden and Jack, the film attempts to create an illusion beyond that of any ordinary multiple-personality film. The film challenges viewers to engage into the story by brainwashing us for two hours. Viewers have an active relationship with the story because it is we, as Americans that play the part of antagonist. We are the system that defines Norton’s character, and we must abandon our reliance on capitalism to continue the plot. I feel this is an intriguing experience because at the end of the two-hour film or 300-page book, we question the logic and foundation of our own government and economy. It’s as if we are the Korean clerks from the scene where Durden holds him hostage. Durden attempts to teach us a lesson on how to live our lives, but he doesn’t force us with a gun; he merely poses the task of making us ask questions. These questions are essential in understanding the theories of culture and our current civilization. I believe in order to understand popular culture, you must be able to ask questions, and constantly, because culture is always changing, and in effect, the theories of what define culture are also changing. Why do we base our existence, our identity, our confidence and happiness on the items we possess and the jobs that signify us? Why do we allow the things we own in the modern, post-industrial metropolises of today own our identity and us? Does it really take a schizophrenic, multiple-identity, sociopath, insomniac, torn between two ideals in order to ask these questions, or is it possible to live our lives without asking these questions? “Fight Club” is a diverse film, abundant with questions and theories on culture, economy and social order. By deconstructing the foundations of a commodity-reliant, postmodern world from the perspective of a working class, insane individual, we are given the experience of questioning what makes us human, individuals, and especially, American.

Works Cited
Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: Owl Books, 1997

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications, 2000

Derrida, Jacques. "Differance."

Fight Club. DVD. Dir. David Fincher, 20th Century Fox, 1999

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture."

Baudrillard, Jean. "The System of Objects."