![Sample our Arts journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110799/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Arts.jpg"})
Abstract
We argue that, in campaigning against homosexuality, political and religious conservatives benefit from the familiarizing heteronormative discourse of the very culture against which they have declared war. To illustrate, we offer an analysis of David Fincher's Fight Club in which we show how the film's narrative is structured around a quasireligious ritual that reaffirms heterosexuality at the expense of homosexuality. This ritual, informed by Freud's Oedipal myth, takes the form of a tripartite rite of passage that provides the film's core audience temporary liminal license to explore the homoerotic attraction that lies just beneath the film's celebration of homosocial bonding.
Notes
Robert Westerfelhaus is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston (South Carolina). Robert Alan Brookey is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University. The authors thank the editors of this special edition as well as the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions for revising this article, an earlier draft of which was presented at the National Communication Association's (NCA's) 2004 annual convention in Chicago. Correspondence to: Robert Westerfelhaus, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424‐0001. Tel: 843 953 6533; Email: [email protected].
We use the term “queer” in preference to other terms because we see the term as inclusive of BDSM practitioners, bisexuals, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, the transgendered, and others whose sexuality lies, as Erni puts it, “outside of foundationalist gender and sexual norms” (161). We use the terms homosexuality and gay when referring specifically to same‐sex sexuality.
For queer perspectives on these contested Biblical passages, see Boswell; Helminiak; Horner.
There are, of course, differences among and within the various Protestant sects. In 2003, for example, the Episcopal Church, the U. S. branch of the worldwide Anglican communion, named its first openly gay bishop—the Rev. Gene Robinson who now heads the diocese of New Hampshire—in a move that has generated a great deal of controversy and threatens to split that church (“Episcopalians Approve”).
Current Catholic moral theology condemns homosexual practices (sexual acts) but does not condemn homosexuality (sexual orientation), a condition the Church views as being involuntary (see Westerfelhaus for a more detailed discussion of contemporary Catholic theology regarding homosexuality).
The literature regarding which is extensive. Classic examples of such include studies of homosexuality among the ancient Greeks (Dover), the Azande of Sudan (Evans‐Pritchard), the Hijra of India (Nanda), Native American Berdache (Greenberg), and the Sambia of New Guinea (Herdt “Ritualized Homosexual Behavior,” “Semen Transactions”). These studies, and many others like them, indicate that homosexuality has been, and is, accepted in various historicocultural contexts in places as geographically and culturally diverse as Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America.
Though Reeder notes in passing that psychopath films can function as rites of passage, he does not explain how they do so. The focus of his analysis is purely psychoanalytic.
As defined by Herman, “Heteronormativity encompasses, at a basic level, the view that heterosexuality is natural and normal for individuals and society.” Herman goes on to note that “heteronormativity does not just construct a norm, it also provides the perspective through which we know and understand gender and sexuality in popular culture” (144).
Our use of the term homosocial is informed by Sedgwick, who defines the homosocial as “social bonds between people of the same sex” (1). She argues for a continuum of such bonds that includes behaviors ranging from gay sex to virulently homophobic and aggressively heterosexual practices.
Identifying and exploring subtextual homoeroticism—which is designed to be read easily by gays and those who are gay friendly, but is for the most part invisible to unsympathetic and unknowledgeable heterosexist audiences—has long been a focus of queer criticism (Bronski; Brookey and Westerfelhaus “Hiding,” “Pistols” Clark; Clover; Doty; Russo; Sender; White).
Gluckman offers as examples of such rituals agricultural rites in which Zulu women were permitted to assume a temporary dominance—which, as Morris notes, “contrasted markedly with the norms of these patriarchal people” (249), and the Incwala ceremony of the Swazi, during which songs are sung that openly mock the king.
Approximately 85–90% of Amish teens who participate in Rumspringa go on to commit themselves formally to the Amish church and culture (“Amish Teens”).
In symbolic rituals made possible by the modern media, the act of viewing is itself ritualistic, during which the viewer is separated from the everyday world and enters into a liminal state. When viewing is completed, the viewer once again reintegrates into the mundane world.
In the theatrical release of Fight Club, the film's protagonist is referred to as “the narrator.” In the DVD version, however, he calls himself Jack.
When referring to the film, we italicize Fight Club. We do not do so when referring to the club itself.
Gendered separation is common in adolescent rites of passage.
As opposed to violence—real or theatrical—that is socially sanctioned, or at least tolerated, such as is found, for example, in boxing, football, hockey, wrestling, and other such sports, in military operations, and so forth.
A conventional Freudian analysis of the film might view Jack's prolonged dream as an exploration of his unconscious.
This subtextual treatment is not surprising; as Bronski explains, while “blatant homosexuality does not have mass appeal … the exotic implications of hidden homosexuality have huge sales potential” (186; see also Brookey and Westerfelhaus “Hiding” Clover; Fejes; and Rich regarding the commercial implications of subtextual homoeroticism).
As explained by Morris, the logic of imitative (also called homeopathic) magic is “based on the law of similarity,” while the logic of contagious magic is “based on the law of contact or contagion” (104; see Frazer for his classic discussion of these two categories of magical reasoning). In the case of the orb, its shape resembles that of the testicles, which are regarded within the context of the Oedipal experience as the biological and symbolic site of paternal power. In addition, the expense and placement of the orb render it an expression of conspicuous display, and thus it is indexically connected with the power (financial and otherwise) of the paternal.
The ritual use of physical pain and psychological distress as transformative tools is common in rites of passage. In Fight Club these two tools are employed normatively as well as transformatively.
As we were revising this article, proponents of a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage failed to gain enough votes in the Senate to proceed. As reported by Helen Dewar and Alan Cooperman in the online version of The Washington Post:
-
The Senate voted today to block a White House backed constitutional amendment to bar same‐sex marriages, dooming its prospects for approval by Congress this year but ensuring it an emotionally‐charged [sic] role during campaigns this fall. The move to cut off debate on the bill got the support of only 48 senators—12 short of the 60 needed and 19 short of the two‐thirds majority that it would take to amend the Constitution. Fifty senators voted against the proposal.