Skip to content

Fight Club: the glorification of violence

In speaking about his role in Fight Club, Edward Norton defended the violence in the film; “Art has always reflected society . . . art doesn’t invent violence” (Moses, 2004, par 4).  A causal relationship between art and societal violence is debatable, but it is clear that there is at least a correlational relationship between seeing violence and being violent.  However, the causal or correlational relationship between art and violence is not the only point of societal concern regarding the influence art such as film holds for a society.  Through film, ideas and themes are embedded into public consciousness.  Films like Fight Club have the power to desensitize the public to troubling concepts of acceptable behavior and reproduce the power relations that exist in society while denying that the “other” is being marginalized as a result.  Because of that, it is critical that film is used as pedagogical tool to recognize and identify societal power relationships in order to challenge them.

Mass media like film has the power to influence society even if they do not immediately result in a mimicry of the extreme action portrayed; “Terrible things, by continuing to be shown, begin to appear matter-of-fact, a natural rather than man-made catastrophe.” (Giroux, 2001, p. 73).  bell hooks (2006) elaborates on the “production of moral indifference” (Giroux, 2001), explaining how repeated exposure to something like violence against women may not make a man believe that it is acceptable to rape a woman, but may make the woman believe that violent or derogatory behavior is acceptable.  When people are constantly exposed to violent or disturbing images and behaviors, one may become desensitized to them.  As a result of desensitization, society may even begin to view them as acceptable.  Violent, discriminatory, and marginalizing behavior portrayed in film is worth questioning in order to prevent that attitude from becoming acceptable in society.

In addition to desensitization to troubling behavior and messages and film, all films must be questioned because they are still controlled by one dominating segment of the population: the white man.  Regardless of the content of the film, it still must be made by one of the dominant white, man filmmakers for it to be produced, critically acclaimed, and accepted by the public (bell hooks, 2006) as the recent Oscar nominations evidenced, despite deserving films created by women and persons of color. As an example, bell hooks (2006) cites the example of Braveheart, a film that brought attention to national liberation struggles.  It took a white filmmaker, a movie, and a white man struggle for national liberation struggles to be accepted as valid and worth public concern.  It took white masculine privilege to do what news stories about genocide in Rwanda and Iraq did not, despite the immediacy of the genocide taking place there (bell hooks, 2006).  White men control what films are made and considered by the public to be valuable.  As such, they hold the power to legitimize civil rights struggles and challenge the inequalities created by capitalism, but rarely choose to do so.

Even films that claim to be liberating or anti-capitalist still reinforce what bell hooks calls the “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” (bell hooks, 2006).  One example of this is seen in the film Fight Club: “a subgenre of cult film that combines a fascination with the spectacle of violence, enlivened through tired narratives about the crisis of masculinity, along with a superficial gesture toward social critique designed to offer the tease of important social issues” (Giroux, 2001, p. 5). The narrator in the novel Fight Club further re-asserts man dominance; “The goal was to teach each man in the project that he had the power to control history.  We, each of us, can take control of the world” (Palahniuk, 1996, p. 122).  This concept, a white man who needs to reminded of his own power, is an absurd joke.  Both the novel and the movie market the message that the white, middle-class man is oppressed and must be liberated, but white, middle-class men already hold the power.  Fight Club is not revolutionary or even anti-consumerist.  In reinforcing the need for violence from the white man, it is an example of how film serves to reinforce and even rebuild the existing dominance of the white man. It also led to a Trump presidency.

By reinforcing white man privilege, Fight Club is also an example of how society avoids discourse about the dominance of the white masculinity and men through violence.  In an interview about the movie Fight Club, the author of the novel Palahniuk called criticism of the violence of the movie as just an excuse to trash the movie and directed the conversation away from violence by stating that “the system is more frightened of our anti-consumerist message than they are of our violence” (“Palahniuk, 1999, par 8). Instead of questioning violence and truly challenging consumerism, Fight Club reinforces traditional gendered roles.  It steers the conversation away from the shocking violence in the film, which further legitimizes it as a representation of maleness.  David Fincher said that violence was a metaphor of feeling and that “Brad Pitt’s character represents every idea about what masculinity is” (par 5).  Fight Club asserts the dominance of whiteness and masculine values and justifies violence through the guise of anti-consumerism.  As a “teaching machine”, Fight Club reproduces public pedagogies instead of challenging them (Giroux, 2001).  Fight Club is an example of how film acts to reinforce and even exacerbate inequalities that exist it society.  It must be critically examined and questioned.

If white men control the messages portrayed in film and supposedly liberating films promote the interests of capitalism and white men, how is society supposed to respond?  Foucault advocated that the role of scholar was to become a critic.  We must teach our students to become critics as well.  Our role as educators is to ensure that our students develop the critical thinking skills and have the opportunity to critically evaluate film.  This means “developing forms of public pedagogy that critically engage how language, images, sounds, codes, and representations work to structure basic assumptions about freedom, citizenship, public memory, and history” (Giroux, 2001, p. 78).  It is imperative that the messages made overtly by a film, actors and filmmakers are identified and challenged so that they are not ignored and reproduced.

As a powerful and influential form of media, film is also successful to illustrate the concepts of marginalization that are replicated in society.  bell hooks (2006) explained that she uses film to help her students to grasp theoretical paradigms through the power of pop culture, which she calls becoming an “enlightened witness.”  The insidious nature of film to embed its message(s) into public consciousness is valuable in the classroom as a medium that helps students understand complicated concepts of power, discrimination, and institutionalism.  If transformation occurs through literacy and critical thinking, we must provide opportunities for both in our classroom:  “Acknowledging the educational role of such films requires that educators and others find ways to make the political more pedagogical” (Giroux, 2001, p. 79). We must challenge the messages conveyed by and through films and use them as an effective medium to make abstract concepts concrete.

References
Giroux, H.A. (2001). Private satisfactions and public disorders: Fight club, patriarchy, and the politics of masculine violence. In Public spaces, private lives: Beyond the culture of cynicism (pp. 55-80). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
hooks, b.  (2006, Dec 10). cultural criticism and transformation.  Parts 1-4 retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0whHz7PLGY
Moses, M. (2004).  Fighting words: An interview with Fight Club director David Fincher.  DrDrew.com. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20071211235459/http://www.drdrew.com/article.asp?id=198
Palahiuk, C. (1996). Fight Club.  New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Palahniuk: Marketing ‘Fight Club’ is ‘the ultimate absurd joke.’ (1999, October 29). CNN.com. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9910/29/fight.club.author/

9 thoughts on “Fight Club: the glorification of violence Leave a comment

  1. Laura this is a really good post. I think my husband and I, along with another friend, are the only people I know who can not stand to watch Game of Thrones because of the violence (especially sexual violence) against women. It bothers me how many people are okay with this, even friends of mine who are outspoken about violence against women! They consider the Game of Thrones women to be ’empowered’. Why? Because they’re engaging in violence against their enemies?

    Patrick Stewart (the actor who played Captain Picard) is outspoken about violence in film. He was highly critical of the Kill Bill films, saying it normalised men being violent towards women and that women being violent towards other women was not “empowered women”.

    Like

    • I think you bring up such an important point. If empowerment just entails one group acting like the group in power, I think that just serves to replicate that paradigm of power. I understand the idea of appreciating art, but I think we have to also identify when something is perpetuating a very dangerous norm – which I think violence of all sorts is.

      Like

  2. I could barely stomach, “Fight Club”. I believe we have been on a downward slide when it comes to violence in films, and on television. Films like, “Pulp Fiction” that went so far as to even make violence darkly humourous have aided in the acceptance of extreme violence as normal. I, for one, have had enough.

    Like

    • I agree. Without talking about it and identifying it for what it is, I think we start to make it normal, and over time, it can become more accepted.

      Like

  3. I think “white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” says everything. I cringe every time people suggest things to me here in St Lucia that are so strongly rooted in colonialism. My hair does not have to be straight and sleek to be professional.

    I remember growing up and hearing in church that you need to be a virgin when you get married because otherwise a good man would not want spoiled goods. I remember being very young when I realized that I did not want such a man. Sometimes people are so unaware about how their views have been shaped by oppression.

    Now getting off my tangent, I have never seen fight club. The general idea of fight club does not appeal to me. I remember dead baby jokes being all the rage during boot camp. I refused to laugh and refused to tell dead baby jokes. I remember saying “Sir a dead baby is not funny its actually sad and its mean to make fun of dead babies.”

    It’s also reflective of how I feel about 50 shades of grey. I refuse to read it. There is also all this violence in cartoons now. And even emotional abuse.

    Sorry for rambling….I just wish we could come to a place where people didn’t feel the need to have so much power. I think you are quite right that the key to to teach children to think critically about everything they see and hear. I see so many schools here teaching knowledge and not skills. I think children have immense capacity for independent thought and if we teach them critical thinking early maybe we can reverse the current rise of ignorance, mediocrity and letting media tell you what to think.

    Like

    • Not rambling at all. I think you make many valid points, and can see this issue from a perspective that is different from mine (and equally important, if not more important). I think the first step is identifying it, and then we can challenge it, both by talking about it through discourse, and then by working against it in our own lives.

      Like

  4. I don’t like the glorification of violence, but I did like this post. (And, reading another genre of your writing!) I have actually never seen Fight Club. Well, maybe some of it, but I have a short attention span when it comes to movies, and I can’t remember any of the film. But, I understand the point from other movies.

    I must admit there are some classic movies that will continue to be worth watching for other reasons. Therefore, to address your question, I think one of the best ways to challenge the inequalities we see in films is through discourse. It would be great to see reflection questions on this topic brought up in a high school classroom, so at least students realize the impact these images have on them. (Although, in which class and with what extra time is beyond me). Additionally, I think it’s important to focus efforts on things that can change, such as working on shifting the film industry away from these practices that are still prevalent today. (I have no idea how to do that second part.)

    Like

    • Yes, I think you are right. In fact, I think it’s okay to watch them as long as we talk about it! It’s when we don’t that there is a problem (in my book)!

      Like

  5. Love this post!

    I am someone who does love all sorts of media – including violent movies and video games – but I think it is critical to understand the powerful potential impact of those media on our perceptions of reality. I am enjoying watching my older son, who is a very skilled writer and aspiring film-maker, take apart so many of these films even as he enjoys them. He is much more articulate on these layered concept than me 🙂

    One thing that really gets me is how desensitized we are to violence – you can have incredible levels of horrific violence even in PG or PG-13 movies … yet a single glimpse of a nipple causes an R rating, or a massive scandal on TV views … ugh.

    It really astounds me as an affluent white male just how much privilege there is … and how many people in my peer group will deny it exists! This whole ‘#GamerGate’ thing has been sickening on that front, and on the game forums I visit some of the things otherwise intelligent people say are just appalling.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: