Sociology, Deviance, and Fight Club

I don't think that all people have such a desire. If that were true there'd BE no social norms in the first place.

Your hypothesis sounds more psychological than sociological, Freudian id or something. Change your hypothesis to deal with Project Mayhem and group mentality, that'd be more sociological. My 2 cents.

and discuss the pleasures of conformity, with a 'group' of 'individuals'

i'm sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but in recent interviews, CP has talked a lot about kierkegaard's views on redemption, and with that in mind, tyler--and hence the narrrator--are not socially deviant at all, but are going through a certain 'despair' process in order to achieve salvation.

"I can’t help but wonder if it’s just the fact that it does take that leap of faith, that Kierkegaardian step away from standing for nothing, to actually standing for something. It’s really easy, you can spend your life criticizing and tearing down the culture, but at some point, you’ve got to pull your guts up and actually create something in the culture and stand for something."([url]http://turtleneck.net/summer01/leathersatchel/palahniuk.htm[/url])

try kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death or the Concept of Anxiety. if you want, you can email me and i will send you a paper i've written on this topic. i am currently teaching FC at UBC in Vancouver. the paper is fairly scholarly, and might not be that useful if you have your heart set on keeping it basic.

Great point: insomnomaniac and bronskrat.

Slagathor,
Wouldn't you say they're going thru the process of nihilism, coming upon the realization of devaluation? Granted they may take that step, but a big part of the movie is that movement towards nihil. Nietzsche believed society is headed towards this realization and afterwards something good can come about it. You could argue that Tyler was trying to push society in that direction of nihilism so we could move past it.
And wasn't Kierkegaard's step away a return to faith?

Hey all,
I think most of you are taking the wrong approach to this thread...regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is psychological or sociological, and for that matter...regardless of whether or not it is truly "tyler's mentality." The reasoning for this thread was really more to get an idea of whether or not you people think all, (or perhaps MOST) people have a desire for deviance.
Definitions for deviance vary! Some people call homosexuality deviance and some people call being a democrat deviance...but I was hoping for a few more sincere responses and not quite as many suggestions on how I should start over, or take psychology instead - these aren't options available to me.
Thanks again,
Aheffel

Too late now, man. They're on a roll. You'll never get your questions answered.
In my opinion, yes, everybody has some sort of feelings advocating social deviance, at least in some point of their lives. I mean, there's no way somebody can go through their entire life doing everything everybody tells them and not have at least some emotion that conflicts with their slavery. It seems to me to be a part of humanity. No progress would be made without deviating from the path of the known. Hopefully this is somewhat helpful.

Aheffel,
Yep, everyone has social deviance as part of their character. The reasons behind that are all theoretical and take up walls at a library (genetics, environment, will to power, evolution, etc.). I think most people would agree to that.
Life is boring, deviance is not.

right but to have deviance you have to have a norm to deviate from. and norms are created, obviously, before the deviance, because deviance is defined by what it deviates from. so if *everyone* had a desire for deviance, there would be no norms, and so no deviance. that's all i'm trying to say.

people have got to stop confusing the movie with the book. in the book, it's all about a kierkegaardian leap of faith; there is only one redemption in the novel, only one character that raises from 'despair' and that is the narrator, who finally gets a vision of the divine. no one else accomplishes anything, and anarchy itself fails.

i don't know if you're responding directly to me, slagathor, but what i said has nothing to do with the movie OR the book. it's just my general observation.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B][i]right but to have deviance you have to have a norm to deviate from. and norms are created, obviously, before the deviance, because deviance is defined by what it deviates from. so if *everyone* had a desire for deviance, there would be no norms, and so no deviance. that's all i'm trying to say. [/i][/B][/QUOTE]

:confused:.........uuuuuuuhhhhhh.........:confused:

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]right but to have deviance you have to have a norm to deviate from. and norms are created, obviously, before the deviance, because deviance is defined by what it deviates from. so if *everyone* had a desire for deviance, there would be no norms, and so no deviance. that's all i'm trying to say. [/B][/QUOTE]

This would be true if everyone wanted to deviate from the same thing. However, this can't be true as our society, as you stated, has norms. People can have a penchant for deviance from a great many things as there are so many things to deviate from.

This is more like the discussion I hoped for. Thanks for posting...keep it up...glad to see I struck a vein.

tyler's not on any quest for social deviance, since he's absolutely committed to building his own vision of conformity. there's no deviance internal to project mayhem. tyler doesn't stand for individuality to such an extent that he is even willing to write his own 'sacrifice' into the official rules, and keeps himself equal to all. you don't rebel against chess by removing the king and queen. you rebel against chess by knocking the board off the table and punching your opponent in the throat.

I don't see how this is about Kierkegaard's "leap of faith into the abyss for the unknown." As I understand it, the leap of faith is a belief without proof or reason. I don't see it (except the members of Project Mayhem's belief in Tyler and his theory of creating a new perfect world after collapsing this one (nihilism)).
I do agree that everyone needs to distinguish between the book and the movie, but add that C.P. has said that the movie ending is more of a realization of where he thought it should go versus the book ending that he finished hurriedly b/c he never thought they'd publish his book anyway (not exact words, of course).
Tyler's on a quest to create 'nothing'. He has never stated how the world should be, just simply how there is no value in the things the world values now or in anything at all (devaluation). Tyler never states what should be valued in replacement but rather that nothing be valued (nihilism). The Narrator's realization that "We just are, and what happens just happens" is just another way of saying "God is dead," dead in the sense that God does not actively participate in anyone's life (beginning realization of nihilism). It would take a 'leap of faith' to believe that He does take part, but I don't read that anyone does that in the book.

[QUOTE]This would be true if everyone wanted to deviate from the same thing. However, this can't be true as our society, as you stated, has norms. People can have a penchant for deviance from a great many things as there are so many things to deviate from.[/QUOTE]

thank you, Rents, for the first intelligent response to my comments.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Slagathor [/i]
[B]i'm sorry to rain on anyone's parade, but in recent interviews, CP has talked a lot about kierkegaard's views on redemption, and with that in mind, tyler--and hence the narrrator--are not socially deviant at all, but are going through a certain 'despair' process in order to achieve salvation.

"I can’t help but wonder if it’s just the fact that it does take that leap of faith, that Kierkegaardian step away from standing for nothing, to actually standing for something. It’s really easy, you can spend your life criticizing and tearing down the culture, but at some point, you’ve got to pull your guts up and actually create something in the culture and stand for something."([url]http://turtleneck.net/summer01/leathersatchel/palahniuk.htm[/url])

try kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death or the Concept of Anxiety. if you want, you can email me and i will send you a paper i've written on this topic. i am currently teaching FC at UBC in Vancouver. the paper is fairly scholarly, and might not be that useful if you have your heart set on keeping it basic. [/B]
[/QUOTE]

Wow, that was a great artical. Usaually when I read a Chuck interview it sounds like the interviewer has only seen the movie and that's the only reason he's interviewing Chuck, but thsi guy actully knew what he was talking about. Good for him. CHUCK!

[QUOTE]“My friends who are teachers say that their students see their parents as achieving everything that they were taught to achieve in terms of money, possessions, success, status – and their parents still aren’t happy. In fact, their parents are unhappier than their own parents, who had nothing. So these kids are suddenly going, ‘Oh my gosh! If we’re all supposed to be chasing achievement, status, money, and we’re seeing it not work for our parents, what the hell? What does success mean for us? If success isn’t money, what is success now?’[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

Sigh...he rocks.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]right but to have deviance you have to have a norm to deviate from. and norms are created, obviously, before the deviance, because deviance is defined by what it deviates from. so if *everyone* had a desire for deviance, there would be no norms, and so no deviance. that's all i'm trying to say. [/B][/QUOTE]

I think this is true to a certain extent, however people can deviate in different ways. While deviance may be evident by speeding on a highway, there will always be the 134 year-old lady driving five mph below the limit. She might not pay her taxes though, thus deviating in another manner. The lawmakers that establish this speed limit might follow it, but they could be boning their secretary behind their wife's back. It's very unlikely like that anyone will deviate in every way that they possibly can. I think everyone has some form of deviance or at least a desire to deviate from the norm though.

i think we're going around in circles with the original subject now. there appear to be two solid groups:

those that agree with me that a universal tendency toward social norms is necessarily more prevalent than that toward deviance

and those that agree with rents that a universal tendency toward deviance is possible since there are many choices of social norms from which to deviate.

in other words, which came first? the chicken or the egg?

The egg, it's a single celled organism.

XChuck, you may be a child prodigy of some sort but there is NO WAY i'm going to actually argue whether the chicken or the egg came first. wtf.

What? Are you saying I'm right or wrong?

i'm saying i'm not debating it. it's a ridiculous thing to debate. that's what people mean when they use the idiom "which came first, the chicken or the egg." that in itself is a rhetorical question. it means, "this is an insoluble difference of opinion, because both sides can be argued indefinitely."

Well, it depends on the point of view. To you, it means what you think it means, to me it's an actual question with an actual answer. I think what really means "this is an insoluble difference of opinion, because both sides can be argued indefinitely" is what Vonnecut said in Cat's Cradle: "See the cat?", "See the cradle?", and "No damn cat, no damn cradle." Which refers to the ancient game cat's cradle, which is a bunch of x's made out of string that DON'T make a cat's cradle (if there is such a thing), but instead make nothing. Nothing at all. But someone, with enough imaginaition, could see the cat's cradle in a bunch of x's made out of string. I don't know, it's up to you believe what you believe, just don't be so prissy about it.

whatever.

To quote Mr. Moore from Head of the Class, "[The chicken represents actuality; the egg represents potentiality. In reality, actuality trumps potentiality, therefor the chicken came first.]"

Or, to quote a t-shirt, it's the one smiling and smoking a cigarette.

Or to quote everyone else, "We don't give a fuck."

Flagellating the dead equine, but I'd say you can't have a deviation without a norm from which to deviate. Branches from the trunk, but it's not a tree if it doesn't branch.

[QUOTE]Or to quote everyone else, "We don't give a fuck."
[/QUOTE]

lol.

[QUOTE]Flagellating the dead equine, but I'd say you can't have a deviation without a norm from which to deviate. Branches from the trunk, but it's not a tree if it doesn't branch.
[/QUOTE]

well i would agree with you. but i still think this is essentially an insoluble, circular argument. which is why i brought up the accursed chicken and egg in the first place.

AGGHHHH! THE EGG SCIENTIFICLY CAME FIRST! IT HAD TO! THE EGG IS A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM, THEY WERE THE FIRS THINGS ON THE PLANET! And what type of egg are you talking about? No pne ever said a chicken egg, and if it isn't a chiken egg, then I'm undoubtably SCIENTIFICLY correct.

ok, XChuck, for the purpose of getting you to see the point, it's a chicken egg.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by XChuck [/i]
[B]AGGHHHH! THE EGG SCIENTIFICLY CAME FIRST! IT HAD TO! THE EGG IS A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM, THEY WERE THE FIRS THINGS ON THE PLANET! And what type of egg are you talking about? No pne ever said a chicken egg, and if it isn't a chiken egg, then I'm undoubtably SCIENTIFICLY correct. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think it would make much sense to ask, "What came first, the chicken or the dinosaur egg?"

I know, but an egg doesn't have to be so large. It could be as big as an ovaire (sp, and I might be confusing my vocab). And I'M SCIENTIFICLY RIGHT.... until someone proves me wrong, of course.

you are screwing up your vocab. you are thinking of an egg as in an ovum, as in a gamete, as in a single reproductive cell inside a living thing. we are thinking of an egg as in, the fully formed, multi-cellular structure whereby reptiles, fish, birds and insects reproduce outside of their bodies. as in, "to lay an."

an egg the way you're thinking of it is single celled but no egg is an actual organism, since:

or·gan·ism n. =
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

an egg the way you're thinking of it is just a type of cell.

RUBBISH! I was talking about the egg in a woman. And I was saying which came first, the chickn or the egg? And I was talking about from the begining of life on the planet Earth.

hey xchuck...here it comes again...

WHATEVER!!

Hey all...
It's me again, (the guy who started this thread).
Please, please, please....I can't use the chicken / egg arguement in my project. Let me re-ask the question:

Do you believe that everyone has a desire to deviate from social norms? Regardless of how or if they act on it...do you think they have one?

why not?

the real question is "dont you think that everyone has a desire to be a part of a social group"

re: !MaKo!

No dude, goths have a self-image problem. thats why they continue to 'uglify' themselves further. and thats not a defense- just an explanation.

[QUOTE]No dude, goths have a self-image problem. thats why they continue to 'uglify' themselves further. and thats not a defense- just an explanation.
[/QUOTE]

survey says: WRONG. i love you wes but you have ir all wrong. *I* was a goth in high school. it was because i saw all the little abercrombie girls and was like "fuck that". it *can* be a legitimate form of self-expression, at least fashion-wise.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by !MaKo! [/i]
[B]THere is nothing new under the sun. It's all been done. Either people stick to conformity and wear there name brand clothes and designer shoes to stick with the rich upperclass, or people strive to be differnt by wearing Chuck taylors and saying there "punk" when really they just joined a different group. Or they go for the goth thing. and say they are differnt. The only thing u can do to be original is do what u want to. Cuz if u do what u want you wont have to worry about anything else. [/B][/QUOTE]

I somewhat agree with some of this... However, I don't really see wearing name-brand clothes as conformity. Sure this group is larger than the other styles, but you may not be dressing this way to conform to anything. Hell, there are some days that I just feel like dressing nice, I'm not conforming to a damn thing, I'm just putting on some nice clothes. And I don't think there's any way to be original. No matter what you do, it has been done before. I agree that if you do what you want, you shouldn't have any worries, but that doesn't make you any more original than the other people wearing the exact same clothes to look cool.

from cooking with chuck:

[QUOTE]“Well, what really struck me about Mohammed Atta, the one being held up as the leader of the hijackings, is that he was going to be the first male of his generation who was not going to further his family’s fortunes. And I think people realize that about their own families. That they’re not going to be taking a step forward, they’re going to be taking a step back. That their children aren’t going to be raised with the same standard they were raised with. That they, as parents, are not going to be able to provide in the way they were provided for. And there will be an enormous sense of abandon, depression, and rage. It always leads to rage.”

While scooping the last of the lime sherbet into my mouth, I say that all sounds fine in theory. What I want to know from Chuck is, how do you incite people on a mass scale? I tell him that comfort is more popular than abandon. He takes another grilled cheese.

“You tie it to a sense of spirituality. You create a spirituality that can be participated in and can be used in one’s identity.” Chuck examines his grilled cheese. “Churches are, first and foremost, organizers for political agendas. The Civil Rights Movement started in churches. So many movements are born when people come to church to bitch, and then suddenly everyone realizes they’re bitching about the same thing.”
[/QUOTE]

i put this longass quote here because it proves one of my earlier points in two ways:

1) deviance is a reaction to social norms. therefore social norms must come first, both in chronology and in importance.
2) deviance can be organized to become a new social norm, so the tendency to bond socially, to be "normal" "accepted" "mainstream" is stronger than that of deviance even once deviance happens.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by !MaKo! [/i]
[B]THere is nothing new under the sun. It's all been done. Either people stick to conformity and wear there name brand clothes and designer shoes to stick with the rich upperclass, or people strive to be differnt by wearing Chuck taylors and saying there "punk" when really they just joined a different group. Or they go for the goth thing. and say they are differnt. The only thing u can do to be original is do what u want to. Cuz if u do what u want you wont have to worry about anything else. [/B][/QUOTE]

Since I started this thread as an experiment it might be against the rules for me to post and interfere...but that's just me being a deviant again I suppose.

If (theoretically speaking) the GAP / Abercrombie crowd is considered the "normal majority," anything varying from that can be considered deviation. There are hundreds of thousands of criminals in this country (behind bars or not), but despite this being a HUGE percentage...it's still deviant behavior.
Sure you're a goth, or a punk, and you wear Chuck Taylors and shop at Hot Topic like forty of your friends do...but that doesn't mean you aren't a deviant. You can deviate by crossing into the minority party just as easily as you can deviate by becoming an independent. (and maybe you'll be less lonely that way.)

unfortuantely being apart of the socially defiant groups (punkers, goths, freaks) is becoming a trend. seems you cant turn anywhere without seeing gropus of people rather than crowds

"sticking feathers up your but does not make you a chicken"
~Tyler Durden

saying you hate popular things does not make you socially deffiant.

wearing the popular clothes for the unpopular does not mke you socially deffiant.

occasionaly freaking out the "norms" does not make you socially deffiant

listenning to avril lavigne does not make you socially deffiant

thinking your socially deffiant doesnt make you socially deffiant

jumping in late...
socially deviant to what? that definition needs to happen first. Kitty said in reaction to social norms. That's probably the most correct answer. What are these social norms? If it's Abercrombie / Fitch, then that makes the Goths socially deviant. Laws help define (force) social norms, as do religion (propoganda) and the media (brainwashing), all put together in a bucket and its called 'culture.' Thus counter-culture. Define the American Culture first (good luck) and you'll easily find your counter-culture.

If you're using the definition that any group that contains greater than x members becomes a social group and therefore cannot be considered socially deviant, then serial killers are socially deviant (unless that number is 3, then there are none. Except for Pee-Wee Herman, there's no one like him). To categorize it this way is arbitrary and common to sociology/psychology research practices. There are no magic numbers. This is not my beautiful house. This is not my beautiful wife.

true...how are we defining "norms"?

and knoxville, love ya baby, but-- it's D-E-V-I-A-N-T, or D-E-V-I-A-T-E

yes, i am the spelling police.