2011 lindgren-fightclub-libre

Scope: An Online Journal of
Film and Television Studies
Issue 19
February 2011
1
A Copy, of a Copy, of a Copy? Exploring
Masculinity Under Transformation in Fight
Club
Simon Lindgren, Umeå University, Sweden
Introduction
Ten years have passed since 1999, the year that cinemas were
hit by a number of influential, now modern cult classics on the
state of reality and its representation: The Matrix, Being John
Malkovich, Magnolia and eXistenZ. Perhaps most famously, if we
are dealing with novel ways of articulating the realities of gender
subjectivities, 1999 brought us David Fincher's adaptation of
Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel Fight Club. This movie in many
ways marks the culmination of the tendency during the 1990s
towards depicting masculinity on film in new ways (cf. Jeffords,
1994: 197). During the last decade, these changes have
awakened a widespread academic interest, and Fight Club is
clearly one of the films that are most often addressed by
researchers and cultural critics wanting to probe the relationship
between sexuality, politics and popular culture. The aim of this
article is to use the existing body of work on Fight Club to
develop a critique of academic approaches to screen textuality
that attempt to fix readings in the terrain of gender studies.
The protagonist of Fight Club – "Jack" – is not only a young cynic
insomniac, gone numb from the extreme acceleration of
capitalism, careerism and consumerism characteristic of the late
20th century. He is also a white, heterosexual male. Beneath his
apathy and frustration lies a subdued and introverted, but
eventually violent and uncontrollable, rage. In the shooting script
of Fight Club (Uhls, 1998: 39-40), the following dialogue takes
place between Jack and his uninhibited alter ego Tyler Durden,
right after they have had their first cathartic one-on-one
showdown:

Lindgren
2 Issue 19, February 2011
Tyler What were you fighting?
Jack My job. My boss, who fiddles with my DOS
execute commands. Marla, at my support groups.
Everything that's broken and doesn't work in my
life. What were you fighting?
Tyler My father.
[A pause as Jack studies Tyler's face.]
Jack We should do this again sometime.
The story of Fight Club obviously has something to do with
masculinity, male ideals, power or the lack thereof. And this is
indeed something that many scholarly readings of the film have
noted. Much like the raging disempowered husband and father
running amok in Joel Schumacher's Falling Down (1993), similar
to the character of Lester Burnham in Sam Mendes' American
Beauty (1999), and in analogy with the exercises of genital
exhibition, self-torture and disgust within the Jackass genre of
reality television (Lindgren & Lélièvre, 2010), Fight Club's "Jack"
seems to express a form of male obsessive compulsiveness. This
is a condition described by Anthony Giddens (1992) as a
consequence of men suffering a loss of sexual control in late
modern societies. Many readings of Fight Club have,
consequently, emphasized that it should be read as an expression
of a threatened traditional form of masculinity desperately trying
to regain its control by resorting to extreme violence. But, in
fact, just as many have seen it as a criticism or subversion of
stereotypical masculinity.
The socio-historical context in which traditional male identity and
patriarchal power seemed to be fully legitimate and functional is
often said to be on a steady decline (Edley and Wetherell, 1997;
Faludi, 1999; Robinson, 2000; Butler, 1990: 7), and it could be
assumed that the structural transformations leading up to this
alleged state of affairs are also expressed within popular culture.
Research on masculinity has been an expanding field during the
last ten to fifteen years, especially within cultural studies
(Mangan, 2003; Berger, Wallis and Watson, 1995; Seidler, 2006;
Whitehead and Barrett, 2001), and one of the most influential
perspectives within this kind of research is social constructionism
(Edley, 2001). This approach contends – and it is also central to
the argument in this article – that masculinity is a discursive

Exploring Masculinity Under Transformation in Fight Club
Issue 19, February 2011 3
product rather than a natural fact. Masculinity is collectively
produced within society in a multitude of ways, one being through
influential cultural acts of meaning making.
Masculinity and male subject positions are in fact dealt with, in
more or less overt ways, quite often in mainstream cinema where
different suggestions as to what a man may or may not be are
performatively constituted. The theme seems to be most
common within the comedic genre of fish-out-of-water stories
about fatherhood, such as Three Men and a Baby (1987),
Kindergarten Cop (1989), Mrs. Doubtfire (1993), Junior (1994),
Big Daddy (1999), About a Boy (2002), Daddy Day Care (2003)
or The Pacifier (2005). The more confrontational Fight Club, on
the other hand, belongs to an emerging form of postmodern, and
overtly political and moral, comments on post-backlash masculine
identity. Such comments have been expressed in a diversity of
films – spanning from the queer to the ultraviolent – such as the
previously mentioned Falling Down and American Beauty as well
as Ma Vie en Rose (1997), Boys Don't Cry (1999), American
Psycho (2000) and Brokeback Mountain (2005).
Polarization, Postmodernism and Polysemy
In spite of the rather common-sense argument within cultural
and media studies that cultural texts always have more than one
possible meaning, most interpretations of Fight Club and
masculinity still tend to argue that the movie promotes one
singular cultural form of masculinity at the expense of others.
Even though some of the researchers and critics who have
written about Fight Club recognize that different readings indeed
are possible, most of them still end up seemingly chasing that
one definite reading. One example of this is the way in which
Henry Giroux, on the one hand, states that:
Needless to say, Fight Club as well as any other cultural text
can be read differently by different audiences, and this
suggests the necessity to take up such texts in the
specificity of the contexts in which they are received.
(Giroux, 2001: 27)
On the other hand, he still resorts to the somewhat categorical
contention that:

Lindgren
Fight Club has nothing to say about the structural violence
of unemployment, job insecurity, cuts in public spending,
and the destruction of institutions capable of defending
social provisions and the public good. On the contrary, Fight
Club defines the violence of capitalism almost exclusively in
terms of an attack on traditional (if not to say regressive)
notions of masculinity, and in doing so reinscribes white,
heterosexuality within a dominant logic of stylized brutality
and male bonding that appears predicated on the need to
denigrate and wage war against all that is feminine.
(Giroux, 2001: 6)
While Krister Friday (2003: 3) goes as far as calling this a "hostile
reading," Suzanne Clark (2001: 419) points out that the violence
shown in Fight Club may be able to do other things than simply
reaffirm primitive forms of masculinity. Writing in direct response
to Giroux, she contends that where he appears to see nothing but
the violent and aggressive reproduction of male power, one might
also see the possibility that Fight Club symbolically disrupts the
discourse about violence and gendered identities in a way that
leaves space for public discussion. tendency to read Fight Club
in categorical terms – of which Giroux's critique is by no means
the only example – is also recognized by Lynn Ta (2006: 265)
who writes that the critical reception of Fight Club (the movie)
has "exploded into an array of polarized discourse."
On another level, this polarization can be understood in terms of
the different types of masculinity discussed by R.W. Connell.
Connell's idea is that perceptions of gender are dependent on the
cultural, social, and historical context. In different societies, at
various points in time, diverse notions of what normal masculinity
is come into being. Connell is careful to underline the relational
character of masculinity. Masculinity, as a category, is only
possible and conceivable in relation to other categories such as
femininity. From this perspective, sex or gender are not
objective and essential categories, but rather "a way in which
social practice is ordered" (Connell, 1995: 71). When
summarizing the relations and practices that constitute the core
patterns of normative masculinity within the western gender
order of the present day, Connell writes of a set of different forms
of masculinity, the two most prominent ones in her argument
being "hegemonic" and "subordinated" masculinity respectively.

She advocates a taxonomical approach that is surely useful when
it comes to mapping different forms of masculinity by using ideal
types. As this is exactly what Connell sets out to do, I want to
emphasize that the following argument is not to be understood as
a criticism of her conceptual categories. Rather, I want to use
her terminology to show how the bulk of earlier critiques of Fight
Club, no matter their other perspectives, have it in common that
they work rather hard to establish that this text represents one
particular form of masculinity.
Hegemonic masculinity, according to Connell, stands for the type
of masculinity that, at the present time and place, is regarded as
the norm. It is defined as "the configuration of gender practice
which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of
the legitimacy of patriarchy" (Ibid.: 77). Many examinations of
Fight Club are reading it in terms of this particular form of
masculinity. This interpretation is best performed by the above
mentioned Giroux (2001; 2002; Giroux and Szeman, 2001a)
whose main point is that while Fight Club seems to criticize the
obsession of late capitalism with profits, consumption,
commercialism and the market, it does not actually work to
attack the relations of power that lie beneath these phenomena.
Rather, Giroux argues that it is concerned with "rebelling against
a consumerist culture that dissolves the bonds of male sociality"
(2001: 6). He continues:
In this instance, the crisis of capitalism is reduced to the
crisis of masculinity, and the nature of the crisis lies less in
the economic, political, and social conditions of capitalism
itself than in the rise of a culture of consumption in which
men are allegedly domesticated, rendered passive, soft and
emasculated. (Giroux, 2001: 6)
Giroux argues that Fight Club is part of a new sub-genre of films
that combine spectacular violence with "tired narratives" of
masculinity in crisis "along with a superficial gesture toward social
critique designed to offer the tease of a serious independent/art
film." According to this critique, it is just an illusion that Fight
Club addresses pressing social issues. Instead, it is said to
reproduce the very problems it initially seems to address.
Essentially Fight Club, then, offers nothing but a "regressive,
vicious politics" reconfirming "capitalism's worst excesses and re-

Lindgren
legitimat[ing] its ruling narratives" (Giroux and Szeman, 2001b:
33).
Giroux's reading, published in several forms, has been somewhat
trendsetting as a number of other academics have come to
similar conclusions. James Craine and Stuart Aitken (2004: 289)
claim that the whole text of Fight Club "fosters a return of the
sense of individual power lost to men through their
marginalization in society." Kevin Boon (2003: 267) argues in a
similar way when writing that Fight Club "exposes contradictions
within culture that obscure and confound masculinity, prompting,
among men, a nostalgia for displaced traditions."
Next to this type of reading of Fight Club, one just as often finds
interpretations that – if we are to use Connell's terminology –
connect it to the very opposite form of masculinity; that is, the
subordinated one. With this concept Connell refers to different
ways of being and acting that may indeed be expressed by large
groups of men, but that are systematically excluded in dominant
political and cultural contexts and thus, to varying degrees,
oppressed. As Connell explains:
Oppression positions homosexual masculinities at the
bottom of a gender hierarchy among men. Gayness, in
patriarchal ideology, is the repository of whatever is
symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity, the items
ranging from fastidious taste in home decoration to
receptive anal pleasure. ... Gay masculinity is the most
conspicuous, but it is not the only subordinated masculinity.
Some heterosexual men and boys too are expelled from the
circle of legitimacy. (Connell, 1995: 78-79)
Among writers reading Fight Club in terms of subordinated
masculinity we find Adrienne Redd (2004: 2), who states that the
movie "is really about what it is to be a man who serves others
(as women have traditionally) and how such men construct
identity and meaning in their lives." While Redd makes her
analysis in terms of class rather than of gender or sexuality – she
concludes that it is not about homoeroticism but rather about
self-love – other writers have still argued along those lines quite
convincingly. Robert A. Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus write
that

in Fight Club neither the film's protagonist, Jack, nor any of
its other male characters are openly or obviously queer, nor
is queer sexuality overtly depicted. Even so, the film is rife
with an exuberant, though subtextual, homoeroticism that
has been observed by both popular critics […] and academic
scholars […] The inclusion of subtextual homoeroticism, the
presence of which constitutes an egregious violation of the
heteronormative order, is central to the film's ritual of
rebellion. This subtext can be found in Fight Club's visual
treatment of the fighting scenes, in dialogue and situations
with homoerotic overtones, and in the relationship between
Jack and Tyler. For example during fight scenes the […] men
are often caught posing in ways reminiscent of the men who
populate the drawings of such homoerotic artists as Tom of
Finland, as well as more explicit forms of gay pornography.
(Brookley and Westerfelhaus, 2004: 314)
In spite of this, Brookey and Westerfelhaus eventually conclude
that Fight Club is mainly to be seen as a heteronormative ritual.
They contend that this firstly has to do with the fact that the DVD
bonus materials accompanying the movie (Brookey and
Westerfelhaus, 2002: 38-40) force interpretations in this
direction, and secondly with the fact that the narrative of Fight
Club ends with the death of homosexuality: even though Fight
Club "flirts with the homosocial, it concludes with compulsory
heterosexuality" (Ashcraft and Flores, 2000: 21). The main
point, on which Brookey and Westerfelhaus insist, is however that
"an oppositional reading that derives pleasure from the
homoerotic elements present in Fight Club is certainly possible"
(Brookey and Westerfelhaus, 2004: 319). This reading is also
emphasized in some reviews of the film (O'Hehir, 1999; Taubin,
1999) and further by Karen Ashcraft and Lisa Flores (2000: 23),
who see Fight Club as constituting "a window of opportunity
through which to re-vision dominant masculinity" and as opening
up a "space for criticizing hegemonic masculinity." Ta also writes
of the homoerotic theme as being highly notable throughout the
movie:
In the very first scene, Tyler stands over Jack, holding a gun
that is placed firmly in Jack's mouth. The gun, as an
instrument of pain and violence, comes to signify the
surrogate phallus, thereby immediately framing the film in a

Lindgren
homosexually suggestive position. In the […] diner scene
[…], Jack and Tyler exit the bar and hang out in the parking
lot. Tyler insists that what Jack really wants is to stay with
Tyler since his condominium blew up. When Jack politely
refuses, Tyler says, 'Cut the foreplay and just ask man.'
After Jack gives in, Tyler asks Jack to hit him and the two
have their first fight in the parking lot. After the fight, Jack
and Tyler sit on the curb; Tyler is smoking and Jack,
drinking his beer, says, 'We should do this again sometime.'
This sequence of scenes plays out like a romantic date
between the two: the evening begins with drinks at the bar,
culminates in a fight that functions as the first
sex/consummation scene, and is followed by the postcoital
smoke/drink. (Ta, 2006: 272)
According to Ta, "Jack's melancholic loss of masculinity manifests
itself in erotic self-flagellation with Tyler" (Ibid.: 237). Another
critic who advocates a similar interpretation is Adrian Gargett,
who writes that:
The male body is feminised through masochism. Shot in
crepuscular supersensory half-light, that gilds male bodies
as they assault each other, the Fight Club sequences are
seductively such a perfect balance of aesthetics and
adrenaline that they seem a solution to the mind/body
division. […] Tyler in Fight Club is positioned as an object of
desire and identification. For Jack, alienated by
contemporary consumer culture, Tyler represents an ideal of
untrammelled power. He wants to become Tyler and is
seduced by his aura. There is an ostentatious homoerotic
dynamic to this relationship, which the film propels.
(Gargett, 2001: 2-3)
As the above examples show, academic and critic discourse on
Fight Club does indeed have a tendency towards polarization.
While a rather substantial amount of writing, particularly about
the movie, reads it as a reaffirmation of hegemonic masculinity,
there are just as many who decode it in terms of subordinated
masculinity. My point in the following is that these
uncompromising and one-sided readings make a rather major
mistake. It is – as argued earlier – highly questionable whether it
is possible to make a clear-cut and unambiguous reading of Fight

Club, or any other movie for that matter. However, the large
body of scholarship on this film makes it an ideal case study for
understanding how readings of gender subjectivities on screen
are formed.
One could understand the tendency among researchers and
critics to claim that the movie is either about being "macho" or
about being "gay" as having something to do with the ordering
structure that Judith Butler (1990) calls "the heterosexual
matrix," or "heterosexual hegemony" (Butler, 1993). According
to her, the ever present presupposition that there are just the
two mutually exclusive categories of man and woman – of
masculine and feminine – leads to a counterproductive
understanding of sexual identities. Such a dichotomous
perspective fails to account for the "multiple and coexisting
identifications" that may produce "innovative dissonances" that
"contest the fixity of masculine and feminine placements" (Butler,
1990: 85-86). My suggestion is that the performance of
masculinity in Fight Club need not necessarily be read in terms of
the uncompromising heterosexual matrix, but that it could just as
well be seen as expressing gender discontinuities.
Even though some have argued otherwise (cf. Rombes, 2000), it
seems quite obvious that one reasonable way of looking at Fight
Club is through the lens of postmodernism, and this perspective
certainly provides some useful tools for understanding
discontinuities and disruptions of the expected. Postmodern
popular culture, of which Fight Club can be taken as an example,
is composed of texts that –John Fiske (1987: 254) says – refuse
"categories and the judgments they contain." It "crosses genre
boundaries as easily as those of gender or class." Fredric
Jameson (1991) emphasizes that postmodernism is a culture of
pastiche and aestheticization; of quotations, intertextuality and
random stylistic allusion. If we, like film critic Gary Crowdus,
take Fight Club to be darkly satiric in its depiction of brutal
violence and consumer enslavement, we can no doubt agree that
it seems to fit this definition. Crowdus writes:
What truly distinguishes Fight Club […] is its pungent satire,
whose numerous targets include the soul-deadening
consequences of excessive materialism, cynical corporate
policies based on an indifference to human life, festering

Lindgren
workplace discontent, repressed male rage and gender-role
anxiety, class resentment, New Age psychobabble, the
emotional legacy for a generation of young men of
physically or emotionally absent fathers, and a critique of
the personality types who are attracted to political cults.
(Crowdus, 2000: 47)
Furthermore, it can be analyzed both in terms of Jean
Baudrillard's (1981) ideas about postmodern culture as composed
of an endless chain of simulacra – of substitutes for a nonexistent
reality. Much of Fight Club takes place in a dream-like artificial
state of consciousness.
Jack yawns, rubs his eyes. They stay wide open. He punches
another number into the phone. He sees a LEVITATING,
STEAMING Starbucks paper coffee cup move from side to
side in front of his face.
INT. COPY ROOM – DAY
Jack stands over a copy machine. The Starbucks cup sits on
the lid, moving back and forth as the machine makes copies.
JACK (V.O.)
With insomnia, nothing is real. Everything is far away.
Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy. (Uhls, 1998: 12)
While Frankie Dintino (2005) explores the idea of simulacra in
relation to Fight Club further, others – such as Kate Greenwood
(2003) – have understood the film as a visual enactment of
Baudrillard's related notion of hyperreality, that is, the kind of
postmodern reality that blurs with fantasy. But even if one
should not agree with this argument that Fight Club is
postmodernist – or even with the whole theory of postmodernity
as such – it could still be argued that this movie is a bearer of
many different potential meanings. In this respect, Dick Hebdige
observes that:
Any attempt at extracting a final set of meanings from the
seemingly endless, often apparently random, play of
signifiers […] seems doomed to failure. And yet, over the
years, a branch of semiotics has emerged which deals

exactly with this problem. Here the simple notion of reading
as the revelation of a fixed number of concealed meanings is
discarded in favour of the idea of polysemy whereby each
text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of
meanings. (Hebdige, 1979: 17)
It is however important to note that this "infinite range of
meanings" is only realized potentially. As Stuart Hall (1973),
argues, media texts do have a degree of determinacy on
audience readings – but there is still substantial space for
differences. Hall argues – along with others building on his
tradition (Fiske, 1986; Perks, 2010) − that texts, rather than
being completely plural, have a large number of possible
readings, and that these are not equally available to the reader.
The polysemy of texts is thus structured, which means that power
relations that exist in society as a whole are mirrored by the text
as well as through the ways in which it is read. This idea that any
text is always open to multiple readings, even though these
readings may follow certain patterns throughout audiences as
wholes, lies at the very basis of the project of cultural studies as
such, and it was formulated already by Roland Barthes (1964:
38-39). According to him, any visual cultural message implies a
floating chain of meanings, even though society always tries to
develop discursive techniques to fix this, thereby avoiding the
problem of uncertain signs.
Postmodern pop-cultural texts such as Fight Club are rather
extreme when it comes to this; at least they often seem to be
more polysemous than many other texts. They excel in
paraphrase, caricature, cartoon aesthetics, irony and cynicism.
They blur lines between styles and intentions in ways that work
to defy unequivocal analysis and criticism. Therefore, we must
not be lured into trying to fix or resolve the ambiguity of texts
such as Fight Club when we analyze them. This is because
diagnosing it as promoting eitherhegemonic or subordinated
masculinity means suppressing the possibility that it, for
example, might promote none, or both of them, at the same
time. Reading Fight Club, and its message on masculinity in
some sort of crisis, in this more open way is thus – against the
background of the above argument – not necessarily an
expression of indecisiveness on behalf of the analyst, viewer or
reader. Furthermore, it does not mean that Fight Club means

Lindgren
nothing and everything all at the same time. Rather, a
comprehensive analysis sensitive to the complexity of
postmodern visual language can acknowledge of the fact that our
society, our culture, the times – the very conditions under which
we live – are themselves multifaceted.
With Connell's perspective, it is only natural that the specific
content of different forms of masculinity shift along with time,
space and socio-cultural context. It is interesting, from such a
perspective, to analyze how the imagery of Fight Club seems to
be related to changes or shifts in the domain of masculinity. Is it
constituted by and constitutive of a society where traditional and
hegemonic masculinity is reaffirmed, subverted or subjected to
some other transformation? In the next section, I analyze a
number of key segments and themes of the movie in order to
illustrate a number of contradictions, juxtapositions and ironies in
its representation of masculinity, that all point to the fact that
Fight Club must be understood in terms of a series dislocations
and discontinuities – a process of transformation – within the field
of masculinity, rather than of clear-cut power or subversion.
Reading Fight Club as Socio/Psychological Transformation
Matt Jordan writes that Fight Club gives its audience "a sense
that either masculinity or culture will have to go" (2002: 368),
but goes on to say that the "answer may be that both have to
change." In accordance with that insight, one might argue that
Fight Club is not about either an aggressive reaffirmation of
hegemonic masculinity, or a ritual rebellion against it. Maybe it is
rather about realizing, and trying to overcome, the problem with
current gender stereotypes. Terry Lee (2002) and Andrew
Delfino (2007) both rely heavily on an approach sketched out by
David Rosen (1993) in a study of how the heroes of classic works
of fiction try to resolve tensions between dominant masculine
ideals and actual male life experiences.
Rosen's conclusion is that the dominant images of what it means
to be a man are continually shifting throughout history. And this
takes place through a dialectical process wherein seemingly fixed
masculine ideals are passed on to every new generation of men.
But these ideals are always resisted in various ways, and that
leads to the dominant and opposing images being brought

together into a new form of – also seemingly fixed – set of
masculine ideals (Rosen, 1993: xiii). Butler (1990: 7) also states
that "the premature insistence on a stable [gendered] subject […]
inevitably generates multiple refusals to accept the category."
Taking that idea as a point of departure, it could be hypothesized
that the hegemonic and subordinated forms of masculinity are in
fact being amalgamated inFight Club. If so, the one-sided
readings are missing the more subtle forms of interplay between
the respective sides, and the Butlerian continuum of gender
subjectivities is then mistaken for a dichotomy.
Even though the narrative of Fight Club is not entirely linear, one
could say that the first twenty-one minutes of the movie are
mainly dedicated to introducing the protagonist, Jack, and at the
same time to formulate a problem that has to do with late 20th-
century western masculinity. This is the problem of feminization
and disempowerment of men – the consequence of men being
reduced to passive consumers and of men serving others. In the
beginning of the movie, Jack walks around like a zombie due to
persistent insomnia, the cause of – or solution to – which is
unknown. He is presented as a corporate slave– a cynic,
alienated and over-worked service class male who dislikes his
boss and ironizes over business lingo.
Jack is just a cog in the large scale machinery of the capitalist
corporate world: "When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be
the corporations that name everything: The IBM Stellar Sphere.
The Microsoft Galaxy. Planet Starbucks." At one point, he states
that: "This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time." He
continues:
I was a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula
[…] Take the number of vehicles in the field, A. Multiply it by
the probable rate of failure, B. Then multiply the result by
the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C
equals X […] Every time the plane banked too sharply on
takeoff or landing, I prayed for a crash or a midair collision.
Anything.
Jack is, however, not only oppressed and subordinated within the
confines of production, but also in his leisure time, as a
consumer: "Like so many others I had become a slave to the

Lindgren
IKEA nesting instinct. […] I'd flip through catalogues and
wonder: 'What kind of dining set defines me as a person?'" This
is, of course, a textbook example of what Connell means by
"fastidious taste in home decoration," and we are soon made
aware that Jack's problems are indeed related to his manhood
and masculinity. "We used to read pornography. Now it was the
Horchow collection." When Jack, almost randomly, finds
consolation and relief by visiting a support group for sufferers of
testicular cancer – pretending to be a victim – things fall into
place. By watching Jack connecting to other men, who have
suffered a more obvious loss of masculinity in the hormonal and
biological sense, we realize that his "illness" is of a similar kind.
We realize the double-entendre of the dialogue between Jack and
Bob (another visitor to the same support group) earlier on in the
film:
Bob We're still men.
Jack Yes, we're men. Men is what we are.
As Tyler Durden enters the story, this whole underlying
problematic is played out once again, but now in a more
aggressive and explicit fashion. It becomes all the more apparent
that Jack suffers from some sort of gender role frustration. His
actual illness seems not to be insomnia but rather his conflicted
gender identity. Instead of conforming with the hegemonic
image of men as active, aggressive, heroic and powerful he works
a meaningless job and obsesses over the domestic sphere.
Tyler initially appears as the perfect ally for Jack if he is going to
overcome his situation. This is because Tyler is the exact
opposite of Jack: "a tough fighter who thrives on being bad, not
good; on living in a dirty pit, not an IKEA palace – on having
women, not sofas" (Lee, 2002: 420). Later, of course, it turns
out that Tyler is nothing but Jack's surrealistic doppelganger – a
manifestation of an aspect of Jack's own personality. The theme
of gender becomes even more obvious as the female character of
Marla Singer initially fills the sole function of annoying Jack. She
does this early on by interfering with his support-group tourism,
and later in the story by causing trouble in the love triangle that
is forming among herself, Jack and Tyler: "Marla. The little
scratch on the roof of your mouth that would heal if only you
could stop tonguing it. But you can't."

Anyone reading the introductory scenes of Fight Club in this
manner will have this interpretation confirmed as the narrative
moves on and the problem, as well as its proposed solution, is
articulated in a more and more overt way, particularly by Tyler in
numerous lines of dialogue:
You know man, it could be worse. A woman could cut off
your penis while you're sleeping and toss it out the window
of a moving car.
Why do guys like you and I know what a "duvet" is? Is this
essential to our survival in the hunter-gatherer sense of the
word? No.
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering
if another woman is really the answer we need.
Tyler's mischievous behaviour in general, and his introduction of
the fight-club concept and its subsequent development into the
cult-like terrorist group Project Mayhem – aimed at destroying all
of modern society – in particular, is introduced as the solution to
this state of affairs. In light of this, it could be argued that the
interpretation of Fight Club which is in defence of the primacy of
hegemonic masculinity is its "preferred reading." It is a reading
that is in line with the idea that "gender requires a performance
that is repeated" (Butler, 1990: 178; emphasis in original). It
understands the actions shown in Fight Club as working on the
symbolical level to achieve the materialization of hegemonic
masculinity by way of "a forcible reiteration of [its] norms"
(Butler, 1993: 2).
The preferred reading is one of the three interpretative decoding
positions suggested by Hall (1973: 136-138). In this case, it
would entail reading Fight Club in its most "transparent,"
"obvious" or "natural" sense. Consequently, the interpretations
that emphasize subordinated masculinity – which bring the
homoerotic subtext to the forefront – can be taken to represent
what Hall labels an "oppositional reading." They represent a
counter-hegemonic decoding strategy that rejects the dominant
code. They may well understand the preferred reading but still
choose to refuse it, instead bringing to bear an alternative frame
of reference. But, as hinted at in the beginning of this section,

Lindgren
one might also bring a "negotiated reading" into play – one that
acknowledges both of the above readings but which avoids opting
for one of them. Such a reading is achieved if one looks at Fight
Club as a socio-psychological process of disruption and change
within the sphere of masculinity that is symbolically acted out in
Jack's mind.
Norbert Elias (1939) introduced the idea that the long-term
structural development of societies (sociogenesis) is mutually
interlinked with changes in people's social behaviour and
therefore in the psyche of the individual (psychogenesis). Fight
Club can be understood in these terms: the whole story about
Tyler Durden, the fight clubs and Project Mayhem can be seen as
a representation of a psychogenetic process of change inherent in
Jack's mind, which at the same time reflects a sociogenetic
process taking place within western capitalism at the turn of the
last century. We see in Jack – "IKEA boy" – a man who, due to
reasons beyond his own control, fails to live up to contemporary
ideals regarding what a man should be. His aggression and
sexuality are suppressed, his private life revolves around the
aestheticization of his home, and he works to simply "apply the
formula." He feels inferior and frustrated because of his inability
to answer to the cultural demands of hegemonic masculinity. If
we interpret the violence in Fight Club as "virtual" (Lee, 2002:
419) in the sense that it is psychological rather than physical, it
can be read in terms of a symbolic struggle between different
ways of being a man.
The key to this reading is the plot twist towards the end
recognized by Crowdus (2000: 46), who calls it "a startling self-
discovery." What happens is that Jack discovers how fight club is
starting to evolve into "a larger, much more destructive force"
(Lee, 2002: 420). He then begins to question Tyler's intentions,
and he gradually starts revolting against him. This leads to Jack's
discovery that Tyler is actually an aspect of his own self. He
realizes the insanity of Project Mayhem and eventually tries to
stop it. On the one hand he fails, as the bombs do go off and the
skyscrapers crumble, but on the other he succeeds as he
mysteriously survives shooting himself thereby killing Tyler. The
closing scene where Jack and Marla take each other's hands –
and Jack says: "You met me at a very strange time in my life"–
depicts the couple in romantic fashion seemingly entering a new

relationship. At this point, the closing theme − the Pixies' "Where
is my Mind?" − of the movie fades in.
According to the negotiated reading influenced by Rosen, Delfino
and Lee, what has happened here is a destruction, at the
symbolic level, of oppressive hegemonic masculinity taking place
within the confused psyche of Jack. In spite of all of the
aggression, violence, sexism and machismo in Fight Club, Jack
does actually become conscious of the absurdity of everything
that is happening – that is, the absurdity of the ideal of
hegemonic masculinity. While the final scene could indeed be
interpreted in terms of a safe return to heteronormativity
achieved through Project Mayhem, it seems more sensible to read
it as symbolic of a reorientation following from the demolition of a
destructive gender order gone awry.
So maybe Fight Club, in the end, could also be read as being
about the transgression of gender stereotypes, about Jack's
efforts in trying to find a balance between his own emotional life
and the ideals of hegemonic masculinity. The support groups he
goes to as a tourist while being an emotionally constipated man
helps him express himself. When Marla appears, however, she
interrupts this ability: "Marla. The big tourist. Her lie reflected
my lie. And suddenly, I felt nothing." The fist-fighting becomes
the relief from this therapeutic void. Through the brutality, Jack
gets a temporal release, trying to solve his gender issues by way
of hyper-masculine violent competition with other men.
Marla, who initially annoys Jack, finally becomes the key to his
move beyond hyper-masculinity (Delfino, 2007: 70). While
Tyler's relationship with Marla is purely sexual – "Except for their
humping, Tyler and Marla were never in the same room"– Jack
can gradually distance himself from Project Mayhem by opening
himself emotionally to Marla. Re-read against the background of
this argument, it is rather striking how Fight Club suddenly
appears as "obviously" being a romantic story about love between
two people, and its potential to overcome gender oppression.

Lindgren
Suddenly I realise that all of this: the gun, the bombs, the
revolution [...] has got something to do with a girl named
Marla Singer.
Jack I'm trying to tell you that I'm sorry. Because
what I've come to realize is that I really like you,
Marla.
Marla You do?
Jack I really do. I care about you and I don't want
anything bad to happen to you because of me.
If read from the perspective of Butler's ideas of gender as
performance, in light of Elias' concepts of psychogenesis and
sociogenetic, and against the background of Rosen's thoughts on
the changing fictions of masculinity throughout history, Fight Club
can be interpreted in terms of therapeutic self-negotiation.
What is played out at the psychogenetic level is a process of
transformation taking place within Jack's own mind. He starts
out feeling inadequate, and then embarks on an exploration of his
own subjectivity and – what finally turns into – the extreme
forms of hegemonic masculinity. This leads to him realizing its
absurdity and opting to strive for a more balanced form of
masculinity.
If we move on to the sociogenetic level of this process, Fight Club
could be interpreted as reflective of an ongoing transformation of
masculinity within western capitalist societies. The starting point
of the narrative is a situation in which there is a tension between
aspects of current actual masculinity (as represented by Jack)
and the contemporary hegemonic ideal of masculinity (as
represented by Tyler). In the end, we are introduced to the
possibility that through the dialectical relationship between these
two, a blended and more balanced gender model might be
achieved.
References
Ashcraft, Karen L. & Flores, Lisa A. (2000) Slaves With White
Collars: Persistent Performances of Masculinity in Crisis, Text and
Performance Quarterly, 23(1), 1–29.

Barthes, Roland (1964) Rhetoric of the Image, in Image, Music,
Text, trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 32–
51.
Baudrillard, Jean (1981) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Berger, Maurice, Brian Wallis and Simon Watson (1995)
Constructing Masculinity. New York: Routledge.
Boon, Kevin A. (2003) Men and Nostalgia for Violence: Culture
and Culpability in Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, Journal of Men's
Studies, 11(3), 267–276.
Brookey, Robert A. & Westerfelhaus, Robert (2004) At the
Unlikely Confluence of Conservative Religion and Popular Culture:
Fight Club as Heteronormative Ritual, Text and Performance
Quarterly, 24(3), 302–326.
Brookey, Robert A. & Westerfelhaus, Robert (2002) Hiding
Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital
Closet, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(1), 21–43.
Butler, Judith (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits
of "Sex." New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the
Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Clark, Suzanne (2001) Fight Club: Historicizing the Rhetoric of
Masculinity, Violence, and Sentimentality, Journal of Advanced
Composition, 21(2), 411–420.
Connell, Robert [Raewyn] (1995) Masculinities. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Craine, James and Stuart Aitken (2004) Street Fighting: Placing
the Crisis of Masculinity in David Fincher's Fight Club, GeoJournal,
(59), 289–296.
Crowdus, Gary (2000) Getting Exercised Over Fight Club,
Cineaste, 25(4), 46–48.

Lindgren
Delfino, Andrew S (2007) Becoming the New Man in Post-
Postmodernist Fiction (Master's Thesis). Atlanta: Georgia State
University.
Dintino, Frankie (2005) Fight Club and the Deleuzian Century,
Dialogues@RU. Available at:
http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/vol_04/pdf_files/f_dintino.pdf
[accessed 8 December 2010].
Edley, Nigel (2001) Analysing Masculinity: Interpretative
Repertoires, Ideological Dilemmas and Subject Positions, in
Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J. Yates (eds.),
Discourse as Data. London: Sage.
Edley, Nigel and Margaret Wetherell (1997) Jockeying for
Position: The Construction of Masculine Identities, Discourse &
Society, 8(2).
Elias, Norbert (1939) The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and
Psychogenetic Investigations, Revised Ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Faludi, Susan (1999) Stiffed: The Betrayal of the Modern Man.
London: Chatto & Windus.
Fiske, John (1986) Television: Polysemy and Popularity, Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 3(4), 391-408.
Fiske, John (1987) Television Culture. London: Routledge.
Friday, Krister (2003) A Generation of Men Without History: Fight
Club, Masculinity, and the Historical Symptom, Postmodern
Culture, 13(3).
Gargett, Adrian (2001) Doppelganger: Exploded States of
Consciousness in Fight Club, disinformation. Available at:
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1497/pg1/index.ht
ml [accessed 8 December 2010]
Giddens, Anthony (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy:
Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge:
Polity Press.

Giroux, Henry A. (2002) Brutalized Bodies and Emasculated
Politics: Fight Club, Consumerism, and Masculine Violence, in
Breaking In to the Movies: Film and the Culture of Politics.
Malden: Blackwell, pp. 258-288.
Giroux, Henry A. (2001) Private Satisfactions and Public
Disorders: Fight Club, Patriarchy, and the Politics of Masculine
Violence, JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 21(1), 1–31.
Giroux, Henry A. and Imre Szeman (2001a) IKEA Boy and the
Politics of Male Bonding: Fight Club, Consumerism and Violence,
New Art Examiner (December 2000/January 2001), 32–37, 60-
61.
Giroux, Henry A. and Imre Szeman (2001b) IKEA Boy Fights
Back: Fight Club, Consumerism, and the Political Limits of
Nineties Cinema, in Jon Lewis (ed.), The End of Cinema as We
Know It: American Film in the Nineties. London: Pluto.
Greenwood, Kate ((2003) "You are Not a Beautiful and Unique
Snowflake": Fighting and Ideology in Fight Club, M/C Journal,
6(1).
Hall, Stuart( 1973) Encoding/Decoding, in Stuart Hall, Dorothy
Hobson, Andrew Lowe and Paul Willis (eds.), Culture, Media,
Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79. London:
Hutchinson.
Hebdige, Dick (1979) Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London:
Routledge.
Jameson, Fredric (1991) Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of
Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Jeffords, Susan (1994) Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the
Reagan Era. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Jordan, Matt (2002) Marxism, Not Manhood: Accommodation and
Impasse in Seamus Heaney's Beowulf and Chuck Palahniuk's
Fight Club, Men and Masculinities, 4(4), 368–379.

Lindgren
Lee, Terry (2002) Virtual Violence in Fight Club: This is What
Transformation of Masculine Ego Feels Like, Journal of American
and Comparative Culture, 25(3/4), 418–423.
Lindgren, Simon and Maxime Lélièvre (2009) In the Laboratory of
Masculinity: Renegotiating Gender Subjectivities in MTV's
Jackass, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 26(5), 393–
410.
Mangan, Michael (2003) Staging Masculinities: History, Gender,
Performance. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
O'Hehir, Andrew (1999) Fight Club, Salon, 15 October 1999.
Available at:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/review/1999/10/15
/fight_club [accessed 8 December 2010].
Perks, Lisa G. (2010) Polysemic Scaffolding: Explicating
Discursive Clashes in Chappelle's Show, Communication, Culture
& Critique, 3(2), 270-289.
Redd, Adrienne (2004) Masculine Identity in the Service Class: An
Analysis of Fight Club, Criticism.com. Available at:
http://www.criticism.com/md/fightclub.html [accessed on 8
December 2010].
Robinson, Sally (2000) Marked Men: White Masculinity in Crisis.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Rombes, Nick (2000) Restoration, American Style, ctheory.net.
Available at: http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=223
[accessed 8 December 2010].
Rosen, David (1993) The Changing Fictions of Masculinity.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Seidler, Victor J. (2006) Transforming Masculinities: Men,
Cultures, Bodies, Power, Sex and Love. London: Routledge.
Ta, Lynn M. (2006) Hurt So Good: Fight Club, Masculine Violence,
and the Crisis of Capitalism, Journal of American Culture, 29(3),
265–277.

Taubin, Amy (1999) 21st Century Boys, The Village Voice, 12
October. Available at: http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-10-
12/news/21st-century-boys/1 [accessed 8 December 2010].
Uhls, Jim (1998) Fight Club: The Shooting Script,
SciFiScripts.com. Available at:
http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/fight_club_shoot.txt
[accessed 31 March 2009].
Whitehead, Stephen and Frank J. Barrett (2001) The
Masculinities Reader. Malden: Polity Press.

Lindgren

2011 lindgren-fightclub-libre

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to 2011 lindgren-fightclub-libre

More from nten

Recently uploaded

2011 lindgren-fightclub-libre