1

Running Head: The Movie Fight Club: A Master-Slave Dialectic

 

The Movie Fight Club: A Master-Slave Dialectic

Hegel’s master/slave dialectic has influenced and opened the doors for later philosophers like Michel Foucault and Fredrich Nietzsche to illuminate and give insight to the cultural norms and values of history. In this essay, I will write about the basis of the master/slave dialectic while first giving the background story which leads up to it. Then, I will connect this story for philosophical insight into the 1999 film Fight Club to put into perspective how the power relations are formed between the master and slave and how fear and no fear, respectively, allow for the agency of allegiance or breed a new type of dominant agency between individuals or collective consciousness. Finally, I will conclude with an answer to the limitation of Hegel’s insights from the fact that the movement as to how one may proceed from fear to no fear (such that one moves from slave to master consciousness and vice versa) is not shown. Without such explicit technical insight, I believe that Hegel’s dialectic may only provide with historical insights and thus cannot be insightful to future presuppositions.

From what has so far been said, consciousness now seems to be stuck in despair and pessimism about the knowledge about sense-certainty and perception. Therefore, it looks elsewhere to satisfy its desire; it turns away from external objects and into itself as a self-consciousness being. Consciousness now seeks to destroy external objects as a way to recognize itself as a conscious being as an agent. As Hegel remarks, “it destroys the independent object and thereby gives itself the certainty of itself as the true certainty, a certainty which has become explicit for self-consciousness itself in an objective manner” (PS, 174) But this endeavor also becomes self-defeating given that self-consciousness will continually need more objects to destroy and without continually doing so, it will not have a constantly definite and permanent satisfaction. So what could consciousness find to provide it with a constant definite and permanent satisfaction? From this point, we may now observe how consciousness attempts to find that lucid and constant certainty for itself in an objective manner in the master-slave dialectic. Afterward, we will move on to its application to a contemporary example to illustrate how insightful Hegel’s dialectic can be to even our everyday thinking.

When one self-consciousness meets another, it comes out of itself by the fact that it is being perceived the other self-consciousness; another self-consciousness is essentially objectifying it. Each consciousness is “indeed certain of its own self, but not of the other, and therefore, its own self-certainty still has no truth.” (PS, 186). For example, self-consciousness A perceives self-consciousness B and vice-versa. When this happens, it becomes apparent to A that his objective self-certainty is not as he knows it to be, since B is (initially) perceiving A in his own subjective manner such that A’s self-certainty becomes “A’s self-certainty” for B. This applies to self-consciousness B simultaneously. As a result, A’s a perception that “‘A’s self-certainty’ for B” does not equal nor correspond with “A’s self-certainty (for A)” and vice-versa.

By not willing and being afraid to stake his own life, the slave submits to recognize the other as a master to keep his own life. Due to this fact, he essentially continues his being in absolute fear and conquest of the master-consciousness. The slave becomes the object of the master’s desire for recognition of himself, as his mirror. Also, the master sees its own agency in the slave; i.e., self-consciousness A (the master) now perceives himself as he truly is objectively for-himself in self-consciousness B (the submitted slave). Such that the master now owns the slave’s agency, the slave may now be viewed as the one who works and does the bidding of the master while the master sits back and does nothing as he is content with the recognition he desires. However, since the slave is not an equal of the master, the master cannot become fully recognized because his identity should depend on a genuine mutual recognition for it to be pure. The slave, as an alienated other and as a lesser and differing type than the master, cannot offer a genuine mirror for the master’s recognition. The master self-consciousness thus diminishes the slave and becomes unfulfilled with the recognition not being indeed what it is; the master would instead want a mutual recognition because that would be more harmonious and coherent than from an alienated and inauthentic master/slave relationship. In what follows, we will discover how the slave’s position may become more fruitful towards the discovery of objective self-recognition.

The movie unfolds as an unnamed protagonist (named Jack in the credits) looks for a way to change his boring life of insomnia; Jack meets Tyler Durden, and they create together an underground club which seeks to complete missions according to Tyler’s desires. More attention will be made to the relationships in the movie that exhibit the master/slave dialectic for a more enriching experience of entertainment. These relationships are those between Tyler and the Jack, and their sub relationship of Jack and the subordinates of Fight Club. The reason why it’s a sub-relationship is that at the end of the movie, Tyler was Jack’s schizophrenic-alter-ego. In the relationship between Jack and his schizophrenic-alter-ego, Tyler only exists as Jack gives him recognition. Tyler, by receiving recognition from Jack can hold the master position of their relationship. We can see Jack’s alter-ego as the one who is in control and Jack as the one who submits and obeys to “Tyler.” In the movie, their first confrontation where they fight each other “for fun” may symbolize their “fight to the death” where that relationship of Tyler as master and Jack as a slave is materialized. Through this relationship, the alter-ego Tyler controls Jack’s agency and uses his labor to start the Fight Club franchise through the country. Tyler (through and towards the actual agency of Jack) holds control of his recognition of master by proving that he is the only one who is willing the most to risk his life. Examples may be seen in the movie from the self-mutilation of his hand and the joy of being beaten up by the bar-owner to keep the unground venue. By doing so, he gains the respect of those who can’t match his fearlessness, and from this respect, they become his subordinates of Fight Club through that recognition.

Besides an adoration of the bravery and fearlessness of the leader, the subordinates find meaning in the work that they do. It gives them a sense of agency like no other; they work as they are told with a dissolved sense of desire which allows for a pure recognition of self through their labor, even if that recognition is banal. Now, Jack as the direct “slave” of Tyler eventually begins to recognize his labors as he “turns in” on himself. Towards the end of the film, he begins to realize that it has been he who has been working under “Tyler” in creating all the franchises and missions in the world around him. He also realizes that Tyler has been his schizophrenic-alter ego but cannot get rid of him no matter how hard he tries. Jack knows and is confident that he wants to live with his self-certainty and not the one that is defiled by Tyler. It leads to Jack willing to risk his life for the death of Tyler Durden, and the only way would be his attempt at suicide, and this is what he does to regain control of his self-certainty. His self-respect is thus won from staking his whole life; the ability to risk one’s life is a legit tender for respect and recognition in not only the master/slave dialectic but also Fight Club.

In conclusion, the end of the film is left ambiguous. Who knows if Tyler will return to? Control Jack? Who is Jack after his dominant alter-ego has deceased? It may thus be fair to suppose that Jack only gets stronger through work and fearlessness; this is the technicality of winning the “fight-to-the-death.” Jack defeated Tyler in the final fight because he worked the hardest and thus his self-certainty held such integrity that it could risk its life to destroy another if it ever came down to it. Also, I would say that, in the movie “Fight Club,” we can see us feeling tired of reality and always living under pressure of desire. As we live our lives, we learn that we need more rationality than emotion to adapt to society. In the movie, Tyler always lives under pressure of desire. He cannot say what he wants to say, but he cannot say what he wants. I wonder if we are the same as Tyler who is living in the world now.

 

 

References

Durham, Meenakshi Gigi, and Douglas M. Kellner, eds. Media and cultural studies: Keyworks. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Fincher, D., Milchan, A., Uhls, J., Linson, A., Chaffin, C., Bell, R. G., Pitt, B., … Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Inc.,. (2002). Fight club.

Giroux, Henry A. “Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders:” Fight Club”, Patriarchy, and the Politics of Masculine Violence.” jac (2001): 1-31.