In Fight Club, Ed Norton despondently muses on his life "ending one minute at a time," his days spent as a commonly successful man with an empty soul. Much like the "radical" men profiled in the film, I've recently begun questioning how tangible accomplishment, buttressed by a social system that rewards the productive but mundane, leaves us unsatisfied. (A new blog deals with this issue in more depth.)
Fight Club showed an aggressive and violent rejection of our worker bee culture. The men literally fought against common success as the defining concept of our lives, instead pursuing a basic primitive rush and harboring a desire to extirpate the culture that has restrained them. The film has a cult following and real-life mimics who take the message to heart. Along with that year's other anti-corporate film, Office Space, it seems that Hollywood has at least a small understanding of the worker bees' restlessness.
Both these films argue that accomplishment, social capitol, and societal prestige fail in satiating the spirit, unable to enliven our passions and our primal instincts. Yet this message isn't confined solely to counterculture films like the two cited. This past weekend I watched one of America's most beloved movies, hated only by jaded Hollywood media types, Forrest Gump. Sure, it's as saccharine as it comes, but the main message parallels the themes of the above films, albeit with an exceedingly different tone.
While the intellectually posturing types dismiss it as mawkish and simple, Gump is a multi-layered film with insightful commentary on both personal and political phenomena. I will focus on the one particular issue above, but maybe in future posts I will argue that Gump is a decidedly conservative film that uses the titular character and his love interest, Jenny, as reflections of the consequences of post-60's social change.
You guys know the story, but just for a quick recap, the movie follows a simple Alabama who floats obliviously through an amazing life. He finds himself affecting or affected by every major social event of the 1960's (primarily) and 70's. He motivates pop culture, finds athletic success, earns military honors, becomes famous not once but twice, and, to top it off, makes millions of dollars. Yet through it all, Forrest remains blissfully unaware of everything going on around him. He doesn't understand the anti-war movement, he doesn't understand Jenny's sexual abuse, he doesn't understand why he's such a big deal as a football player, a Forbes millionaire, or a folk legend running around the country. He doesn't get excited seeing Elvis mimicking his childhood dance moves or originating the Smiley Face yellow T-shirts. He doesn't understand Jenny's adulthood drifting or her HIV. All the while he remains contently ignorant of the social tempest surrounding him and the societal acclaim he himself earns.
And despite his stupidity and his abject oblivion, we love Forrest. But the admiration isn't pity, it's genuine affection. In my opinion, we don't love the character because he's a great Ping-pong player or a heroic veteran, we love him because he (unknowingly) rejects the rat race that unfortunately defines our own lives. Throughout the movie Forrest earns our society's highest honors, yet it doesn't define him. In fact, Forrest doesn't even register the social acclaim commensurate with his achievements. Amidst all the money and fame, it's the people in his life that matter most.
It's his personal relationships and experiences that define him, that give him satisfaction, that invigorate his spirit. All the while, he remains devoted to his dear mother, his two best friends, and, most of all, his first and only love, Jenny. He doesn't start a shrimping business to make money or buy a fancy car and a big house; he does it to honor his best friend's memory and spend time with someone whom he cares for. And while he gallivants across the globe, he never forgets about his mother and Jenny. And at the end, when Jenny falls ill after chasing the liberal ideals that are supposed to make us happy, Forrest meets his son and reacts with far more emotion that seeing himself on the news or hob-knobbing with President Kennedy.
There are major differences between the films, with Fight Club advancing a far more nihilistic conception of man's utopia, one brought forth by violent action. However, both Gump and Fight Club support the notion that common success might not matter. Perhaps the modern trajectory towards success, defined by an elite college degree, a high paying job, and social prestige, is ultimately stifling and empty. Maybe we shouldn't derive value or define ourselves in conjunction with societal metrics that reflect nothing of creative and personal spirit.
26 comments:
Excellent post.
Of course, there's no difference between fight club and enron, just queers and crooks.
Ultimately, the reason why people tend to be dissatisfied with work defining their life is that most people recognize that their work is meaningless. This seems to be especially true for people working in, say, middle management. The strange thing is how they try to erase the feeling of meaninglessness from their lives by turning to material possessions (I'll be happy if I have a boat or nice house or etc.) The solution, as you noted, is to allow relationships with people to define your life instead of things.
Maybe we shouldn't derive value or define ourselves in conjunction with societal metrics that reflect nothing of creative and personal spirit.
Ironic. Perhaps this should be rephrased to say: "Maybe we shouldn't derive value or define ourselves in conjunction ==> a belief in dubious "biodiversity" theories...
One,
Another great post but I do want to push against two ideas you seemingly conflate that I think are important to distinguish. At the beginning of your post you say "I've recently begun questioning how tangible accomplishment, buttressed by a social system that rewards the productive but mundane, leaves us unsatisfied." Later on you say "[p]erhaps the modern trajectory towards success, defined by an elite college degree, a high paying job, and social prestige, is ultimately stifling and empty."
I think the later statement says something substantively very different than the former statement: namely, social success can be stifling and empty. But your first statement, which uses the words "tangible accomplishment" I think is off because a tangible accomplishment is something I think every man should be proud of. As Simon Grey says, only those "Office Space"-type workers stuck in middle-management who don't have a sense of tangible accomplishment seem to be lost and without a sense of purpose (and so turn to material success as their metric to measure their worth).
I believe you are right on to urge us to turn to relationships for meaning -- I would simply add that you shouldn't forget the most important relationship there is: the one between you and God.
Thanks for the link!
I think the emptiness, restlessness, and malaise is mostly a product of our time. Western civilization is decaying, and even if most people can't put it into words, they know it.
Young men today are faced with two choices. You can try and do the right thing, find a real job producing something for society, and start a family. Or you can be a parasite, get a sweet job as a bloodsucker (in law, government, NGO, or whatever) learn game and be single into your 40s.
Obviously taking the first route is going to chip away at a man's soul. You're just trying be a good guy and follow the rules, and what do you get? A crappy job, high taxes, and an entitled wife with a mid-double-digit notch count. At some point you're going to snap, a la Office Space/Fight Club.
But being a parasite has its costs too. Maybe I sound like an asshole, bitching about how bored I am of my good job and easy sluts, but it's the truth. I'm going nuts. But hey, maybe I'll find my calling in the Alt-Right blogosphere? I guess we'll see.
I agree with Jeff (at least up until the God part - sorry buddy). The problem isn't the emptiness of tangible accomplishment, or even intangible accomplishment. The problem is the lack of either.
In a stable, functioning society with no parasitical overclass and traditional family values, I suspect we'd all be pretty happy working meaningful jobs and providing for our loyal families.
I would simply add that you shouldn't forget the most important relationship there is: the one between you and God.
Indeed. I think until the mid-20th century almost everyone in this country viewed religion as an essential source of perspective on work, prestige, and material success. E.g., "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Being a good Christian was supposed to be more important than being wealthy, powerful, or famous. This is still the case for a lot of Americans.
As a former atheist, I think atheism tends toward a fight-club life. Atheists vehemently deny this, as I did when I was one. But if you're a thinker, you will keep picking at the "what's it all about" question until you become an ethical subjectivist, a suicide, or a drunk.
Extolling the virtues of friendship and family is a time-honored among the wise men of civilizations in decline. To both the Stoics and Epicureans of Ancient Rome good friendships were one of the foundations of a happy life.
But it seems to always be the case, that true friendship's most eloquent advocates only appear when it's too late. To me it seems much harder today to form good friendships and family connections can often feel distant and strained. Relationships often feel superficial now. Remember the bit in Fight Club about single-serving friends?
Also, it seems that having the opportunity to find quality friends of good character without engaging in the rat race is really hard. Most of the people who drop out do so because they're lazy good-for-nothings. Or they're lumpenproles with all the negative personality traits that come with that. Social mobility makes so that poor people of good character usually don't stay poor.
The problem is, running in the rat race also seems to suck out people's souls. Catch-22.
Forrest Gump is really an embarrassment of riches. The fact that Forrest is completely oblivious to his material success, it is his material success that provides him with the relationships around him.
Jenny was very sexually generous to Forrest, considering everything.
She offered herself to him in college, when he was alas too immature for relations, and then as a "goodbye" gesture that resulted in his fathering a son.
...
The movie had a major Hollywood anti-family memes that had since died off: the sexually abusive father (Jenny's dad).
This is a great post. As you have noted, we have seen several manosphere bloggers arrive at this juncture recently. Although your account superbly elucidates the emotions felt by one who feels that all is not quite right with society, I think you miss the underlying cause for your, my, and others discontent. I strongly suggest "Industrial Society and its Future" by Theodore Kaczynski. Try to keep an open mind, as there is remarkable profundity lurking beneath the surface.
But your first statement, which uses the words "tangible accomplishment" I think is off because a tangible accomplishment is something I think every man should be proud of.
Of course I agree that we should all endeavor to produce something of tangible value. And we should surely revel in our accomplishments when we've worked hard and reached a goal. In fact, I'd say a life is empty if one doesn't have goals and struggles and, in the end, reaches success.
But that's markedly different than defining oneself by one's tangible accomplishment. In my last post on this subject, I mentioned the extremely high rate of suicide at Harvard (and across the Ivy League as well). These students have made the mistake that they don't merely pursue success as an end in the context of a larger fulfilled emotional life. Instead, they look at themselves as entirely defined by their scholastic achievement. And when they fail or aren't able to live up to their own and others' expectations, it destroys them.
it is his material success that provides him with the relationships around him.
You haven't watched the movie. None of the most important people in his life, Jenny, Bubba, Dan, and his mother, care about his fame or money. And Forrest himself doesn't care for all those that pay attention to him due to his fame and money.
I strongly suggest "Industrial Society and its Future" by Theodore Kaczynski. Try to keep an open mind, as there is remarkable profundity lurking beneath the surface.
I've read bits and pieces of the Unabomber's magnus opus and I was certainly impressed. You are correct in noting the profundity of his work, but I think he veers a little too far into noble savage territory.
One of the best posts that you have written. I've never looked at Forrest Gump that way and it makes a lot of sense, a lot more sense than the insidious vegetarian connection to leftism :). Reading too much Half Sigma makes you think that the world is about wealth and prestige--which makes him seem rather soulless. Good to know that OneSTDV has some human character.
Good post. The best book on this topic I have read is "Shop Class as Soulcraft." The idea is that "a job" isn't "meaningful work" even if you make a lot of money. (Though money isn't the problem -- the nature of the work is.) The title is a bit New Agey sounding, but the book really isn't at all.
Spending all day crafting a spreadsheet is not the same as spending all day hand carving a beautiful wheel. Selling something someone else made is not as satisfying as selling something you made.
Compare and contrast what Classic Hollywood films from the Golden Era had to say about family, friendship, meaning, humanity, and how to live a life that was full and meaningful and relatively happy:
Wizard of Oz: retain homespun American values, courage and belief in the face of danger.
Gone with the Wind: status-climbing and refusal to work hard leave nothing but ashes.
Casablanca: Do the right thing, for your country, and against evil, no matter what.
Its a Wonderful Life: Even ordinary men make a difference, family and friends are where its at.
All of those attitudes just disappear in the 1960's, as the nuclear family erodes into as the commenter above notes, a wife with an entitlement attitude and a mid double digits notch count (little love/attachment). The last not the first choice.
Ferdinand had a good post on the same topic a while back:http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/12/10/corporate-hooky-hunters-attack-the-symptom-not-the-cause/
Men need a quest. We need to conquer, explore, create, destroy, and be challenged. Working in the cubicle all day and then driving the SUV home to the vinyl clad chipboard box does not cut it--even if you make six figures. Women value status and security more than the quest and we live in a feminized world. No wonder some young men prefer a fantasy world of video games where the quest is always the next level.
Great post and a different tone from you, OneSTDV. I think you cut straight to the meaning of what it's all about. Hopefully, you'll explore topics with this approach in the future.
"I've read bits and pieces of the Unabomber's magnus opus and I was certainly impressed"
If I remember right, the MSM trashed it, calling it practically gibberish. I'll have to read it.
"Spending all day crafting a spreadsheet is not the same as spending all day hand carving a beautiful wheel. Selling something someone else made is not as satisfying as selling something you made."
Wilhelm von Humboldt said that if a worker produces a beautiful object on command, you may " admire what the worker does, but you will despise what he is" because he is behaving like a machine.
de Tocqueville said you can have a system where " the art advances,but the artisan recedes."
Maybe we have that kind of society now. Is sitting in a cube satisfying to most? We do have some good products,though.
I'm affected by the same malaise as the characters in Fight Club. In my early twenties, it drove me to radical left-wing politics, although I eventually grew disenchanted with the way the movement/scene operated and stopped believing in the principles in general. After leaving that scene, I made another attempt to become a careerist, thinking that I didn't give the path a chance, but it remains unsatisfying. I managed to find a route that allows me to do well financially without becoming too psychologically invested, while satiating my more primal impulses through Muay Thai kickboxing and cycling (riding a bicycle is not inherently left-wing, btw). I think that's probably the optimal path for a person like myself -- find a craft that allows you to do well and yet doesn't consume your soul, and take up a "warrior" hobby.
"Hopefully, you'll explore topics with this approach in the future."
Maybe in the future you could share some more pearls of wisdom about international maritime law. After all, you are such an expert.
Ahem
Let me register a note of dissent on Forrest Gump.
I saw this movie in the theater and loved it. I saw it again on network TV and liked it. The third time I watched it I disliked it, and I figured out why.
Forrest Gump represents the ideal man for deluded feminists:
For starters there's his own, absent father--no evil patriarch around to give him the wrong ideas. Just dear, sweet, saintly momma filling his heart with useless aphorisms.
Next, he's competent enough to acquire and hold millions of dollars, but stupid enough that he has no real opinions and won't threaten you intellectually.
Also, despite his barely-85 IQ, he's neat, clean, courageous, and has impeccable impulse control.
He will also follow you through life like a faithful puppy, selflessly bailing you out from the consequences of your flings with bad-boy alpha's. Not that it's your fault: you were sexually abused by your father.
Sorry for the buzzkill.
For starters there's his own, absent father-[...] Just dear, sweet, saintly momma
Forrest Gump was an imperfect movie, in the sense that everything in our pop culture WILL include a few liberal sucker-punches. But absent a few annoying nuggets of our corrupt zeitgeist, it was a good film.
That's a good point about the single-mom angle -- it's one of those things that annoyed me about the movie, but I forgot about it.
Like I commented yesterday, the movie also had the once-ubiquitous but now thankfully absent 'sexually abusive dad' thing (Jenny's dad).
The other liberal sucker punch was the white housekeeper in the newly-rich Bubba matirarchy.
He will also follow you through life like a faithful puppy, selflessly bailing you out from the consequences of your flings with bad-boy alpha's.
As I noted earlier, Jenny's sexual generosity to Gump was above and beyond what women would realistically have done for theri white-knight beta friend. She offered herself to him in college, and even though she turned him down for marriage, she did sleep with hm that night and give him a child.
Do I see Zen retreats, "Vision Quests", and wilderness trekking in young Grasshopper's future?
Those don't really seem to be your style, but many people get drawn to such activities in response to the feelings you expressed.
Even goofy, New Age liberals are often responding to a deep sense of futility and alienation inherent in our emerging techno-topia. Unfortunately, what they turn to is generally just as narcissistic and shallow as that which they think they're fleeing from. There may or may not be wisdom to be found in ancient spiritual traditions, but a three day "yoga workshop" at a resort on the beach in Maui won't answer the question either way, regardless of how spiritual one looks in his or her designer pajamas or how many dolphins he or she swims with.
Anyway, an interesting divergence from your typical concerns. It sometimes seems HBD types were secretly implanted with chips in their heads at birth and thenceforth think that an expanding economy and endless scientific and technological advancement are the be-all and end-all of existence.
"The other liberal sucker punch was the white housekeeper in the newly-rich Bubba matirarchy"
Come on now, that was hilarious.
Post a Comment