파이트 클럽의 철학: 소비주의, 합리화, 그리고 남성성

### 파이트 클럽의 철학: 소비자 자본주의와 독성 남성성에 대한 비판
* 🏋 파이트 클럽은 모든 것이 대량 생산되고 예측 가능하며 궁극적으로 비인간적인 세상을 묘사하며 **소비 자본주의의 고단함**을 비판합니다.
* 🛋 모든 것이 상품화되면서 삶이 지루해지고 오락조차 일의 연장선에 불과한 **'혼밥' 라이프스타일**로 이어집니다.
* 아도르노와 호르크하이머에 따르면, 자본주의 아래 합리화된 세상에서 사는 것은 **개인을 소외된 드론으로 만드는 비인간화 효과**를 가져올 수 있습니다.
* 💪 타일러 더든의 파이트 클럽은 **소비 문화에 반항함으로써 소비 문화로부터의 탈출**을 제시하지만, **소비주의가 남성성에 대한 공격**이라는 프레임을 제시하기도 합니다.
* 🎭 파이트 클럽은 회원들이 폭력을 통해 자신을 표현할 수 있지만, 궁극적으로는 **타일러를 권위주의적인 리더**로 내세워 반항을 목표로 하는 시스템의 모방이 됩니다.
* 💣 타일러의 운동인 **프로젝트 메이헴은 엄격한 규칙과 체계적인 효율성**을 통해 운영되는 파시스트 컬트로 변모합니다.
* 🔫 화자는 자신과 타일러 더든이 같은 사람이라는 사실을 알게 되고, **타일러는 화자가 열망하는 남성적인 이상**을 대변합니다.
* 🔄 아도르노와 호르크하이머는 **파시즘과 자본주의 모두 인간을 이용하고 통제해야 하는 소외된 대상으로 본다**고 주장합니다.

파이트 클럽은 소비 자본주의의 비인간적인 영향과 폭력과 남성성을 통해 이에 저항하는 투쟁을 탐구합니다.

Hey, Wisecrack. Jared here. Today, we’re breaking down everyone’s
favorite insomniac, his soap-salesman BFF, and their super, super secret underground
club for dudes who like to beat each other senseless. That’s right, we’re talking bout the thing
you’re not supposed to talk about. For most, Fight Club is about chiseled men
who like to knock each other’s teeth out and destroy private property to escape the
monotony of consumer culture. But there’s something about Fight Club we
often overlook. Is Tyler Durden really the suave savior we
thought he was? Welcome to this Wisecrack Edition on The Philosophy
of Fight Club. And as always, spoilers ahead. Fight Club begins with our nameless protagonist
slash narrator as he tries to beat insomnia and complete his life one Ikea shelf at a
time. Uh, yeah. I'd like to order the Erika Pekkari dust ruffles.

His doctor suggests he see real pain at a testicular cancer support group, and our Narrator finally finds the key to sleep: crying his eyes out. But, another faker, Marla Singer, ruins it, flaunting her lack of balls to our, now again, sleepless narrator. Testicular cancer should be no contest, I think. Right?“ Well, technically I have more of a right to be there than you. You still have your balls. All that gets put on hold when our narrator’s apartment blows up, destroying his perfectly manicured lifestyle, and forcing him to live with one Tyler Durden. He and Tyler share some drinks, go on wild and zany adventures, and convince lots of people to beat the sh*t out of each other. Also, domestic terrorism. But we’ll get to that. The most overt theme in Fight Club is the drudgery of consumer capitalism. Our narrator lives a ‘tiny life’ of tedium, working a job he hates.

Throughout the film, he looks half-asleep, staring absent-mindedly into space, unable to feel anything. At one point, the narrator tells us, When you have insomnia, you're never really asleep, and you're never really awake,” as he watches an infomercial, suggesting that he’s not only half-conscious because of insomnia, but also consumerism. But more importantly, Fight Club shows a world of what sociologists call ‘rationalization.’ Rationalization, in this sense, isn’t quite “using rationality” in the way you might think, but “using a certain kind of rationality to organize society.” Essentially, rationalization favors efficiency over tradition, custom, or individual desires. So, instead of getting your pies made with love made from the nice baker down the street, you get them from a factory, where they’re made on a cold, dead assembly line. Modern social life is pretty much dominated by rationalization; it’s organized to accommodate

large numbers of people in the most efficient
way possible. Everything in the narrator’s life is designed
for a specific purpose, mass-produced, and unrelentingly predictable — down to his
boss’ tie. It must've been Tuesday. He was wearing his cornflower-blue tie. He even calls his own home a “condo on the
15th floor of a filing cabinet for widows and young professionals,” describing his
existence as nothing more than an efficient way to store and organize things. Fight Club shows us that efficiency has its
downsides, especially in a world where “efficient” means “efficiently consuming to the point
where, as Tyler Durden says, “The things you own end up owning you.” The narrator describes everything as being
a “copy of a copy of a copy. Consumer products and consumers are indistinguishable
from each other. To drive the point home, director David Fincher
even put a Starbucks cup in almost every scene.

of the film. For philosophers Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer,
this trend of indistinguishable commodities is a direct result of rationalization. According to them, everything we’re sold
comes from a standardized ‘menu’ of constructs, all designed to be as cost-effective as possible,
while promoting fake differences. Consider the duvet, which may or may not be
different than a comforter. I don’t know — I tried to read about it, gave up. Do you know what a duvet is? “A comforter... It's a blanket. Just a blanket. Now, 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. What are we, then? ...Consumers? “Right!” Some good marketing might make the things
we buy seem different from each other, but in reality, they’re all pretty much the same
- copies of copies of copies.

This commodification of all things makes life pretty dull, and also kind of fascist. For Adorno and Horkheimer, and for the characters in Fight Club, living in a rationalized world can have a dehumanizing effect, turning everyone into lonely, alienated drones at the behest of consumer capitalism—living life just following orders, if you will. Flown around the country on business trips, the narrator describes the isolation that comes with a ‘single-serving’ lifestyle. Everything is small and disposable, even the people he meets. The people I meet on each flight—they're single-serving friends. Between take-off and landing, we have our time together, and that's all we get. After getting in a car accident, he muses about the dehumanizing effect of his own work, “I’d never had been in a car accident. This must have been what all those people felt like before I filed them as statistics in my reports.

So, how do we cope with a single-serving lifestyle? One might be tempted to say, “get a hobby, bro.” But for Adorno and Horkheimer, ‘amusement’ under modern-day capitalism has just become a ‘prolongation of work’. Hobbies and entertainment serve to rejuvenate us, so we can go back to work the next day - but those same things that keep us sane in our off-hours are still determined by the system. This makes amusement ‘the after-images of the work process itself’. In other words, if we aren’t working, we’re buying mass-produced stuff to help us feel better about the fact that we have to go to work again the next day. I would flip through catalogues and wonder, what kind of dining set defines me as a person.” Or we get the fat sucked out of us, which was caused by our own decadent lifestyle. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.

The narrator's way of coping is still just an extension of living as a consumer in a rationalized world. I had it all. I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting very respectable. I was close to being complete… Adorno went as far as directly comparing this kind of mass consumption to fascism. For him, the mechanism of rationalization that causes people to blindly throw their money at big companies like Starbucks is the same mechanism that causes people to throw themselves at fascist ideology. Much like citizens of a fascist state mobilize under a totalitarian dictator, modern society has mobilized under capitalism. It isn’t until his apartment mysteriously blows up that the narrator finds a new way to resist rationalization. After losing all of his precious Ikea furniture, he trades in alienating capitalism for a place in Tyler Durden’s crumbling mansion on Paper Street. Paper Street is the exact opposite of his former apartment.

While the other one was small, efficient and well-decorated, Paper Street is needlessly large, disorganized, and dirty. If his apartment was rational, Paper Street is irrational. In his new home, he joins Tyler Durden in his fight against consumer culture. Tyler, the charming, charismatic leader of Fight Club, champions a resistance against oppressive consumerism, offering the narrator an escape and a way to reclaim his identity. But what does escaping rationalization have to do with punching people in the face? Tyler’s resistance takes things a bit further than your run-of-the-mill critique of capitalism. He frames consumerism as an assault on masculinity. The men in Fight Club basically fear that society is turning them into women. They feel degraded by their jobs. The Narrator, in this sense, is the perfect image of an emasculated consumer. He’s weak and goes to support groups where he hugs people and cries - You know, girl.

stuff. At the testicular cancer support group, some
of them have literally become emasculated. One of the participants laments he’s been
cuckolded, as his wife has had the child they could never have had with a new man. She had her first child last week, a girl,
with her, uh… with her new husband. The film really drives this symbolism home
with the character of Bob. Once a bodybuilder, Bob literally loses his
balls to testicular cancer and grows ‘bitch tits,’ as a result of hormone therapy. We're still men. Yes, we're men. Men is what we are. His loss of masculinity results in estrangement
from his family, and he feels completely dehumanized. And now I'm bankrupt. I'm divorced. My two grown kids ... won't even return my
phone calls. The narrator and Tyler also discuss their
absentee fathers, wondering what the role of being raised by women has played in their
lives. We're a generation of men raised by

women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the
answer we need.” And Tyler tells the narrator, 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. Seriously. This whole movie is about losing your balls
and/or dick. Given the emasculation of modern consumer
society, Fight Club is appealing because it allows members to express themselves by acting
in a way they can’t in everyday life - being really, really violent, which is something
they associate with being men with a capital “M.” Masculinity through aggression provides
a way for the men to cope with their girly day jobs and domestic consumer behavior. But while Tyler Durden laments the fake kind
of masculinity sold to us by Hollywood, he sells them another kind of manliness. The second half of Fight Club is all about
how Tyler Durden has taken all the things

Project Mayhem is supposed to rebel against, repackaged it, and sold it to his Project Mayhem stooges. The members of fight club just become copies of copies of each other. They shave their heads, call each other “maggots,” they even lose their names. In project mayhem we have no names. Rebelling against a system that’s made them faceless drones, they become… well, faceless drones. And remember all that stuff about losing your balls? Well, testicles under the reign of Tyler aren’t faring much better either. The movie gives us an early glimpse of what’s to come as Tyler Durden just repeatedly punches this guy in the dick. Project Mayhem later threatens to cut everyone else’s balls off. You're going to publicly state that there is no underground group, or these guys are gonna take your balls.” Even its own founder: You said that if anyone ever interferes with Project Mayhem, even

you, we gotta get his balls. For Bob and the narrator, Fight Club has simply
replaced the support groups in their lives, and they chat about their “Fight Club days”
like one might talk about their weekly support group schedules. I go Tuesdays and Thursdays. I go Saturday. Tyler acts like a strong father figure for
the narrator and the rest of Project Mayhem. I will carry you, kicking and screaming,
and in the end, you will thank me. But, like the narrator’s shitty father — “He
left when I was, like, six years old. Married this other woman, had some other kids. And he, like, did this every six years. He goes to a new city and starts a new family—“
F*cker's setting up franchises.” — Tyler abandons him. The most devoted members of Fight Club and
are put through intense hazing to become members of Project Mayhem. Before they can join, prospective members
have to stand outside the Paper Street mansion

for 3 days without food or shelter, and are
verbally and physically abused. Those who tough it out are allowed inside
the house and become part of a well-oiled machine that blows up computer stores, terrorizes
politicians, and sends corporate sculptures rolling into coffee shops. As Tyler’s movement gains momentum, it transforms
from an after-school activity into a fascist cult that might just be as bad as the capitalism
they rebelled against in the first place. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as
everything else.” “Tyler built himself an army.” “We are the all singing, all dancing crap
of the world. We are all part of the same compost heap. Project Mayhem operates through strict rules
and systematic efficiency. They even rely on capital to run properly,
and fund their activities by making and selling soap out of human fat stolen from a liposuction
clinic. The difference is that now instead of reporting
to the demands of their corporate bosses,

members report to their patriarchal, authoritarian
leader: Tyler Durden. Sooner or later we all became what Tyler
wanted us to be. Chapters begin springing up all over the United
States. The narrator even calls them franchises. Tyler had been busy, setting up franchises
all over the country. The entire time, Project Mayhem has been plotting
toward a master plan: blowing up the offices of credit card companies. The narrator discovers this plan, — “Oh
my god.” — and also discovers that he and Tyler Durden are the same person. Is that a pretty accurate description of
our relationship, Tyler? We have just lost cabin pressure. Tyler Durden was the manly, virile complement
to the narrator’s emasculated helplessness. And, if we recall, when the narrator says
early on that “and suddenly I realize that all of this, the guns, the bombs, the revolution,
has got something to something to do with

a girl named Marla Singer, he probably means,
his spiral into psychosis began when he needed to create an alter ego to be with her. You were looking for a way to change your
life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you could be, that's
me. I look like you wanna look. I f*ck like you wanna f*ck. I am smart, capable, and most importantly,
I am free in all the ways you are not.” He is able to get rid of Durden by shooting
himself in the face, but the damage is already done - the buildings collapse, supposedly
to reset society’s debt, although I’m not sure how that actually works. Just like Tyler and the narrator are two sides
of the same person, for Adorno and Horkheimer, fascism and capitalism are two sides of the
same coin. They argued that both fascism and capitalism
see human beings as numbers instead of individuals.

alienated objects to be used and controlled. So, what do you guys think? What’s worse? Succumbing to the allure of Ikea catalogues
and coffee chains, or following orders of a fascist soap-salesman offering promises
of humanity? Let us know what you think in the comments. Or don't.

The Philosophy of Fight Club – Wisecrack Edition

Wisecrack

파이트 클럽은 소비 문화에 대한 거부감과 합리화가 현대 생활에 미치는 영향을 탐구합니다.

주인공이 불면증에 시달리는 것은 소비주의와의 단절과 직업의 지루함과 관련이 있습니다.

이 영화는 효율성과 대량 생산이 전통과 개성을 대체하여 정서적 무감각으로 이어지는 세상을 묘사합니다.

파이트 클럽에서 내레이터의 삶은 대량 생산되고 예측 가능한 것으로 묘사되어 효율성의 단점을 강조합니다.

이 영화는 상품의 상품화를 강조하여 모든 것이 똑같아 보이고 궁극적으로 지루해 보입니다.

이렇게 합리화된 세상은 소비 자본주의 아래에서 사람들을 외롭고 소외된 존재로 만들어 비인간적인 결과를 초래하는 것으로 보여집니다.

파이트 클럽의 소비자 문화에 대한 비판

아도르노와 호르크하이머는 현대의 오락을 자본주의 시스템에 의해 통제되는 노동의 연속으로 봅니다.

화자의 대처 메커니즘은 아도르노가 파시즘의 한 형태라고 비판한 대중 소비를 중심으로 전개됩니다.

타일러 더든이 파이트 클럽에 합류하는 것은 합리화와 억압적인 소비주의에 저항하는 화자의 방식이 됩니다.

타일러의 저항은 자본주의뿐만 아니라 남성을 비하하는 사회에서 남성성을 되찾는 것이기도 합니다.

파이트 클럽의 남성화 상징주의

이 영화는 암으로 인한 남성성 상실, 실패한 연애 등 다양한 캐릭터의 경험을 통해 남성성의 쇠퇴를 묘사합니다.

파이트 클럽은 현대 소비주의에 대한 공격성과 반항을 통해 남성들이 자신을 표현할 수 있는 방법을 제시합니다.

타일러 더든의 캐릭터는 아이러니하게도 추종자들에게 가짜 남성성을 판매하여 서로를 모방하게 만들고 남성화의 악순환을 지속시킵니다.

파이트 클럽이 파시스트 컬트로 변신하다

파이트 클럽은 타일러의 지휘 아래 지원 단체에서 파시스트 컬트 단체로 변모하며 강렬한 포섭을 통해 회원을 모집합니다.

프로젝트 메이헴은 훔친 사람의 지방으로 만든 비누로 활동 자금을 조달하며 반항적인 운동에서 기름칠이 잘 된 기계로 진화합니다.

타일러는 전국적으로 프랜차이즈를 설립하고 신용카드 회사를 파괴하기 위한 마스터플랜을 세우고 그룹을 이끌고 있습니다.

화자는 결국 타일러 더든이라는 자신의 정체성을 깨닫게 됩니다.

"파이트 클럽"의 이중성 주제와 말라 싱어의 영향력

말라 싱어 캐릭터는 주인공이 정신병에 빠지고 분신이 만들어지는 촉매제 역할을 합니다.

이 이야기는 말라 및 타일러 더든과의 상호작용을 통해 주인공 성격의 이중성을 탐구합니다.

또한 파시즘, 자본주의, 사회 통제의 본질에 대한 철학적 질문을 제기합니다.