 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume 4
Fall 2005
Fight Club and the Deleuzian Century - Page 1
By Frankie Dintino
The opening credits in the film Fight Club provide an accurate portrayal of the various forces in conflict in the film. The film begins on the molecular level, traversing the networked structure of the brain, synapses firing and inhibiting. The camera then zooms out a bit, and cuts across the skin: porous and alive, a veritable multiplicity. Finally, it slides up the barrel of a gun: cold steel, smooth and molar, a representative of death. These oppositions- molecular and molar, unity and multiplicity, life and death - are at the core of the film Fight Club . In his works, the philosopher Gilles Deleuze offers a unique perspective on these concepts, and thus provides a compelling angle from which one can analyze the film.
"Perhaps, one day, this century will be known as Deleuzian" (Foucault 165). Philosopher and social-theorist Michel Foucault's words sparked a flurry of controversy when first published in 1970. Deleuze, for his part, maintained modesty when confronted about Foucault's praise, stating that "his little remark's a joke meant to make people who like us laugh, and make everyone else livid" ( Negotiations 4). However, like many jokes, Foucault's comment contains more than an ounce of truth to it. As I will show, America 's transition into a post-industrial economy renders Deleuze's theory increasingly relevant. One might propose that Foucault's statement was correct in spirit; he merely got the century wrong. This, like Foucault's original remark, is meant half-jokingly, but there is a case to be made. In this paper, I will focus on the film Fight Club , which is arguably the quintessential Deleuzian film. I will isolate the various resonances between Deleuze's theory and the film, and extract from this their significance and implications. Additionally, I will draw upon parallels between Fight Club and contemporary society in general to demonstrate the reasons that the latter merits the appellation "the Deleuzian century."
In a very brief and enigmatic essay entitled "Postscript on Societies of Control," Gilles Deleuze discusses what he sees as a fundamental transition among the institutions of power. He locates in the work of Michel Foucault an analysis of what he terms "societies of discipline." According to Foucault, in the Middle Ages there existed "societies of sovereignty," which were rooted in the monarch and had cruelty as their model of punishment. Replacing these were the societies of discipline, which dealt primarily with environments of enclosure, such as is seen in the prison, hospital, factory, school, or family (Deleuze, Negotiations 177). However, Deleuze writes, "we're in the midst of a general breakdown of all sites of confinement," and the "societies of discipline" are in the process of being phased out (178). In their place are what Deleuze terms the "societies of control." This transition corresponds with the transformation from modern industrial society to a "post-modern information society" (Busk 104), and is seen in the replacement of spaces of enclosure by control mechanisms. Deleuze details the differences between these two institutions:
The various placements or sites of confinement through which individuals pass are independent variables: we're supposed to start all over again each time, and although all these sites have a common language, it's analogical. The various forms of control, on the other hand, are inseparable variations, forming a system of varying geometry whose language is digital (though not necessarily binary). Confinements are molds, different moldings, while controls are a modulation . ( Negotiations 178-79)