The Novel 'Fight Club': the Problem of Toxic Masculinity
The way a society defines gender expectations isn’t decided overnight through some divine text, nope. Rather, it is endorsed through generations, and may find its malicious grips in some of the most ordinary facets of daily life. Skewing the way we think, and feel, and treat one another; all the while being completely ignorant to it. In understanding “toxic masculinity” is to first understand what ‘masculinity’ really is. Masculinity by definition is a social construct. A construct associated with men due to the popularized belief in male superiority, resulting in western civilization, especially being driven by patriarchal structures. Traits like aggressiveness, assertiveness, power, control, or independence are all associated with masculinity. In order to fully understand the social construct of masculinity, and similarly, “toxic masculinity”, is to also plunge into the realms of gender as a social construct, modern issues regarding gender representation, and literary elements in a book titled Fight Club, by Chuck Palahniuk, supporting awareness of toxic masculinity.
It’s vital to understand that masculinity and ‘maleness’ are not the same. Men and women can embody both, masculinity and femininity. Dr. Raewyn Connell states, “Masculinities are not equivalent to men; they concern the position of the men in gender order.” Gender as Connell refers to it, is a “structure of social practice,” much like the social constructs of masculinity and the femininity. Often times, the social aspect of ‘gender’ is mistakenly modeled after bodily organs and/or biological functions in reference to sexual reproduction. This is actually an issue of sex, and has very little to do with social context of gender. An intuitive example of gender is as follows: Suppose there are two glasses at a bar, one is a tall mug, wide, thick, with a sturdy handle. The other glass is a slim, thin, flute glass with a delicate and thin neck. The human body represents two types of glasses, and the liquids poured into the glasses represents western social practices of gender. The bulky mug, typically served with beer, can also be filled with order liquids, likewise, the glass flute, typically served with wine, can also be filled with other liquids. However, cultural norms desire each glass better “suited” to hold a specific type of liquid. Humans are the same in this aspect, culturally suited and categorized in specific genders.
These types of generalizations, although may be useful, come with their unique consequences as well. Toxic masculinity translated as the social gatekeeping practice of forcing many to conform under an unrealistic expectation of “manliness.” “The giants, they’ll send something back to the kitchen for no reason at all. They just want to see you run around for their money”. These objectives are usually accomplished by discouraging femininity in men through the use of shaming, coercing ideas of inferiority, and displaying undesirability in social contexts; ultimately leading to harm amongst physical or psychological growth and well-being. Examples of toxicity emerge in wester society through discouraging “crying,” simply because it’s a “feminine” trait; regardless of the fact that sorrow as a mention bears no gender tense. Such enables the suppression of emotions and plants the firm belief in that showing emotion is weak. Arising trauma, social-maladjustment, and introspective failure continue to deteriorate a person’s self-confidence and will.
Fight club beautifully illustrates Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity. Unlike the normative definition of masculinity, where masculinity is someone what men strive to inhibit; hegemonic masculinity is a concept of hierarchy. Furthermore, while masculinities are solely based upon the culture that define it, Francesco Maria Morettini sums it best in saying, “The concept of hegemonic masculinity allows us to understand how the presence of plural masculinities generates hierarchical domination not only between men and women, but also between men themselves”. A tit’s core, hegemonic masculinity takes into consideration the many outlying factors that intersect gender; such as class and race. Hegemonic masculinity also recognizes that there are many forms of masculinities and it is through these masculinities that there is a hierarchical order of which masculinities are more socially accepted or dominant. Ultimately alienating or subordinating everyone else that does not exhibit similar hegemonically masculine traits. Hegemonic masculinity is toxic, not only because it fails to include the black and white of femininity, but also because it is fundamentally used to divide men from men.
The nameless narrator in Fight Club, who we’ll refer to as “Joe”, ponders through out the novel, give us insight into his life, and how the presence of toxic masculinity has destroyed much of his life as well as his peers. Subordination, a category that the Narrator himself falls under, is also a subcategory within the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is primarily derived from the heterosexual identity, as Morettini states” …constructed in relation to women and to subordinated masculinities, and closely connected to the institution of marriage.” Fight Club prefaces with the Narrator trying to falsely reconcile with his feelings, and trying to release bottled emotions in a room full of castrated men. “Its easy to cry when you realize that everyone you love will reject you or die. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone will drop to zero. Bob loves me because he thinks my testicles were removed too.” He doesn’t acknowledge the feelings of contempt against his dead-end job, or the constant thoughts of death. The Narrator obviously suffers from depression, but instead chooses to focus on the emasculation of men around him. From Big Bob’s bitch tits, from the testicular cancer group, to the desexualization of Chloe as a woman from the brain parasite group. The Narrator denounces the feminine in form and in function, however this of course isn’t done intentionally as The Narrator is simply a product of his society.
The Narrator can be represented as the personification of modern society’s ignorance to, and the vicious cycle of, toxic masculinity. The has since been institutionalized. Western society heavily supports heteronormativity in almost every sphere of learning. Gender construction exist, but enforcing gender roles begins at birth; with girls in pink and boys in blue, boys playing with toy guns and girls playing with dolls. “Marla gets up from the kitchen table, and she’s wearing a sleeve-less blue-colored dress… Marla pinches the edge of her skirt and turns it up for me to see little dots of stitching on the inside. She’s not wearing any underwear. And she winks”. To the Narrator, women cannot be seen as having sexual desires. Once a woman is seen as having sexual desires, suddenly she is not a woman anymore, nor even a man, but just disgusting. The fact that we’re ok with boys making gun noises before learning to speak, all the while cementing idolization in militaristic powers, and worshiping the hegemonic masculinity concept. Point being, society raises young boys believing that girls have ‘cooties’, but then also encourages boys to have as many female sexual partners as they can, because their masculinity may one day be measured by that number. Pop culture shows us that the jock will get the ‘prettiest’ girl, and the ‘nerd’ will aspire to be a friend. The ‘strong’ man is brooding, mysterious and suppresses emotion (naturally empathy as well), while the ‘weaker’ man is often emotionally intelligent, caring, receptive, and aware. Like many men, the Narrator doesn’t realize that he, himself, is struggling due to being a product of toxic masculinity.
Tyler Durden, on the other hand, can be seen as the ideal alpha male. Tyler turns the hegemonic masculinity theory on its head and makes it a point to cease the cycle of perpetual toxicity, but also utilizes that very cycle to fulfill his own agenda. Whereas to the Narrator, is the personification and product of the society he resides in, Tyler is the personification of Project Mayhem. Tyler is in control of his own life. The Narrator is not. Tyler is also given a sexual identity through sexual encounters with Marla, while the Narrator is essentially celibate throughout the book. Tyler is society’s ability to be systematically aware of masculine and feminine. Society tends to idealize fictional men, usually on-screen prime examples of masculinity, like the warrior character or the ‘sexy’ James Bond, but it fails to realize that these characters are only fictional. Coincidentally enough, Tyler Durden himself is a fictional character projected by the Narrator’s own depiction of the perfect man. Tyler is emotionally in-touch, and emotionally aware of himself. He is also ware of the hegemonic masculinity that the Narrator fails to see from his blue-collar cell. In this sense awareness of the problem is the first step in finding solutions to the problem at hand.
Upon the Narrator’s enlightenment through Tyler Durden, his awakening resulted in the brutal savagery and outright violence in secretive fights at bars. These fights were in response to men feeling emasculated by society. What society characterizes as ‘manly’ behavior, and what society had these men doing were drastically different. Resulting in internal conflict, pent up frustration, and confusion that needed some medium for release, thus was born Fight Club. “The gym you go to are crowded with guys trying to look like men, as if being a man means looking at the way a sculpture or an art director says. Like Tyler says, even a souffle looks plumped”. After all, according to societal gender roles, men were aggressive, irritable, assertive, and violent. The Fight Club symbolizes a constant struggle for men to hash out ‘manly’ things. In many ways the novel illustrates a part of life for men. Even the respectable Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules to Life, acknowledges men experiencing lower levels of agreeableness; “Men are less agreeable (more competitive, harsher, tough-minded, skeptical, unsympathetic, critically minded, independent, stubborn).” So, it’s clear that these archetypes for men exist even in high levels of practice and thought. Consider Scandinavia in all its egalitarian glory, and witness contentment levels arising from Scandinavian populations. That is not to say traditional gender roles destroy countries, rather that egalitarian social policies promote diversity under the pretense of cohesiveness.
To reiterate, the way societies define gender expectations, toxic or otherwise, isn’t based on abrupt or conscious decisions. Instead they are built up over time, and without proper supervision may begin running rampant. In order to parse out characteristics of and solutions to, toxic masculinity, we must first analyze traditional gender roles as established by society, and be willing to undergo deep psychoanalytical work on society as a whole, as well as potential individuals harmed by societal intolerance against gender norms, as represented in Fight Club. Men and women don’t simply fall into convenient categories under descriptive adjectives, they reside on a complex spectrum and exist in a complex system. Tolerance and open-mindedness are the least of society’s commitment and responsibilities with regard to gender roles. Perhaps in the hunter-gatherer sense of the homo-sapiens, gender roles held more weight and viability, but we are no longer those hunter-gatherers, and to continue practicing outdated social policies for many affected by such toxicity, is causing more harm than good.
Works Cited
- Palahniuk, Paul. Fight Club: A Novel. W.W. Norton, 2005.
- Peterson, Jordan B. “Article Title.” Journal Title (Year): Pages From - To. Print.
