Masculinity and Accountability in David Fincher's Fight Club 1999

Conflict Theory in Film

Introduction

Conflict theory is a sociological perspective that emphasizes the role of power and inequality in shaping social relations and structures. As Ritzer (2011) points out, conflict theory was an attempt to bridge the gap between Marxism and sociological theory—and it served as a response to the structural functionalism (p. 215). While there are similarities between conflict theory and structural functionalism, the former is a kind of inversion of the latter, or as Ritzer (2011) puts it, “a kind of structural functionalism turned on its head” (p. 265). According to conflict theory, society is divided into different groups with competing interests, and conflicts arise from the unequal distribution of resources and power (Tajfel & Turner, 2006). Those with power and influence seek to marginalize and oppress those without power; the goal of those with power is to maintain power; the goal of those without power is to push back and take power. To put it simply, society, interpreted through this lens, is seen as a game of tug of war, with a dominant power and an underdog at odds. (In this sense, conflict theory could be described as a precursor to game theory). Ultimately, however, conflict theory posits that conflicts are not resolved through compromise or negotiation, but through struggle and often through violence. Real world examples could range from the American Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and so on. This paper will use conflict theory to examine the film Fight Club and show how the theory applies.

The Film

In the movie Fight Club, there are many examples of conflict theory in action. The main character, played by Edward Norton, is a nameless young man who is disillusioned with his life and his job. He suffers considerably as he is unable to sleep, feels emotionally disconnected from the world, lives an unfulfilling life working a corporate job that devalues human life and cynically puts profits before people. He unconsciously or instinctively feels that he is trapped in a society that values material possessions and conformity over individuality and freedom (and although he cannot express this feeling in words at the outset of the film, it does become more apparent to him as time goes on). Through his involvement with his foil/alter-ego Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt), the nameless hero (nicknamed “Jack” in the credits) becomes part of a group of men (the titular fight club) who end up violently rejecting the norms and values of the elitist, corporatist consumer culture and seek to establish a new society based on their own values. In one sense, they believe they are reclaiming their masculinity in a society that promotes emasculation. In another sense, they are lashing out against their perceived oppressors. And in still yet another sense they are face a conflict within themselves that is also bigger than themselves: as Durden remarks at one point, “Our great war’s a spiritual war” (Fincher, 1999).

Essentially, however, at the heart of the conflict in Fight Club is the tension between the haves and have-nots. The fight club grows across the nation, with underground clubs being spawned at bars and other places in city after city as the hero of the film literally takes flight after flight to promote his vision for the future of working class men everywhere. The members of this growing club are mostly working-class men who feel oppressed by the wealthy elite. They see the consumer culture as a tool used by the rich to control the masses and maintain their power. By rejecting consumerism and embracing violence, they hope to create a new society in which everyone is equal and free. Durden preaches anti-consumerist messages to the members of the club: “You are not your khaki pants. You are not special. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world” (Fincher, 1999). At another point in the film, the nameless narrator blackmails his corporate boss into allowing him to “work” remotely in perpetuity by keeping silent about all the nasty secrets he has learned over the course of his tenure at the office: “I am Jack’s smirking revenge,” he says to viewer (Fincher, 1999). The suggestion is that the nameless hero is standing up to those in power by threatening to expose them to the public. However, Jack has other plans: he does not intend simply to expose them but rather to bring them to their knees in direct conflict by blowing up their very temples—the corporate towers and high rises that dot the skyline. Indeed, the film ends with multiple towers being demolished by explosives that the fight club has placed in the garages of the skyscrapers. It is unclear, though, whether this is a pyrrhic victory or the beginning of actual change. The film ultimately embodies a kind of punk rock spirit, where anarchy and mayhem is preferred to oppression, emasculation, and control. The one redeeming moment at the end is when the nameless narrator “Jack” comes to himself, accepts accountability as a the ring leader of the fight club, and assumes control of his own life in a moment of self-realization. He now has to come to grips with the army he has cultivated while acting under the guise of his alter-ego—but he is stepping up to the plate to do so as the film concludes.

Problems

As the movie progresses, it becomes apparent that the conflict between the members of the fight club and the wealthy elite is not so simple. Tyler Durden, for example, who initially acts as the leader of the club, is not interested in creating a society based on equality and freedom. He acts more at times like a nihilist who seeks to destroy the existing social order and replace it with chaos, and at other times like a nurturing mother who wants only the best for her children. For instance, at one point he holds a gun to a gas station attendant’s head demanding that the attendant return to college and get the degree he gave up pursuing. He helps “Jack” to realize that his life is empty and meaningless so long as it is based on a materialistic view of life. He does manipulate other members of the fight club to carry out a destructive agenda, which includes bombing buildings and causing widespread destruction, but the agenda is oriented towards taking power back from the elites who rule the world. What appears to be nihilism and anarchy on his part is really more of a planned demolition to make way for a rebirth of nature of sorts.

Thus, through the lens of conflict theory, Fight Club can be seen as a critique of consumer culture and the unequal distribution of power and resources in society. The members of the fight club are rebelling against a system that oppresses them and denies them the opportunity to live fulfilling lives. However, the movie also shows that the struggle for power and self-determination can become violent and destructive, and that it is not always clear who the true enemies are. For example, “Jack” must face off against Durden in the final climax of the film in order to overcome his own insecurities and take control of his own life.

Application

The key concepts of conflict theory include power, social inequality, and class struggle.

Power refers to the ability of one group to impose its will on another group, either through coercion or through the use of economic, political, or cultural influence. In Fight Club, the protagonist (known as "the Narrator" or “Jack”) is a white-collar worker who is dissatisfied with his life and his lack of control over his own destiny. He meets Tyler Durden, who becomes his lifestyle mentor of sorts and leads him down a path of self-reflection (or destruction, depending on how one views the fallout) and liberating violence. Tyler himself represents a freedom fighter and a figure of power who exerts control over the Narrator and over the other members of Fight Club but who also attacks the power structure of modern consumer culture.

Social inequality in conflict theory refers to the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities among different groups in society. In Fight Club, the Narrator is part of the middle class, but he feels alienated and disconnected from society. He is frustrated by his lack of control over his own life and his inability to achieve success and status. At one point he laments to Durden that he never knew his dad and that he “can’t get married” because he’s “a thirty-year-old boy” (Fincher, 1999). Durden responds cynically, “We’re a generation of men raised by women. A don’t think another woman in our lives is what we need” (Fincher, 1999). At this point, Durden’s focus is singly on growing fight club and he wants to neutralize any natural longing that Jack might have for a wife and family of his own. Durden sees only the fight ahead and wants Jack to focus on that. Jack, naturally, has a desire for love and stability. Ultimately, he will get it to some degree, as the film closes with Jack holding hands with his love interest Marla. Tyler represents a figure of rebellion against the established social order, and his creation of Fight Club is a manifestation of the frustration and anger that many working-class and middle-class men feel in a society that seems to offer little hope or opportunity for upward mobility. But in the end, Jack has to take back control from Tyler: he accepts that he is responsible for the violent assault against the establishment, but he also realizes that he needs the stability that a normal family life type of existence can offer.