I Am Jack's Essay... I Will Civilize You

Johan Huizinga offers a historical approach to the concept of play in his book Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. In his chapter regarding his theory of Play and Contest as Civilizing Functions, he suggests ways in which culture develops from forms of play: “Culture arises in the form of play, that it is played from the very beginning” (Huizinga, 46). Through this, he tells us that play is older than culture. He says that culture is not sufficient enough to tell us how play came about, by saying animals have not waited around for humans to teach them how to play. Play is something that is learned and that brings about a culture within a certain group. This notion of play brings groups together in civilizing ways in which they carry themselves through everyday life. In the foreword, Huizinga states, “It was not my objective to define the place of play among all the other manifestations of culture but rather to ascertain how far culture itself bears the character of play”. There are many forms of play to engage in and many ways to analyze the context of that play, as demonstrated in the differences between Huizinga’s theories and Chuck Palahniuk’s view of play in this novel Fight Club.

Palahniuk’s novel displays his particular forms of play more as originating for more internal reasons rather than external ones, which I found intriguing. We see a chronic insomniac man fighting to find his inner passion through life as well as to seek a new society that does not place the same structural restrictions. Fight Club has the participants initially engaging in a form of play aimed at the deconstruction of the self and civilization for the sake of progress of the individual, questioning traditional assumptions about certainty, identity and truth seeking, to expose contradictions in society. Palahniuk builds the story to demonstrate that the deconstruction of the self must take place before changes in civilization can occur; the same way in Huizinga puts the formation of play prior to the creation of civilization.

In relation to Fight Club and Huizinga’s theories, we begin to find tension through the different ways in which they utilize play. Huizinga’s idea of play analyzes a more external view of how society uses things such as sports and socialization as play, considers only the outward appearance of the product of the game, not necessarily the impact on individual players. Huizinga shows ‘play’ as games that many like to participate in. He states that, “ ‘play together’ has an essentially antithetical character. As a rule it is played between two parties or teams” (Huizinga, 47). This is the type of play we see through sports, business and many other types of competitive socialization. “The picture changes as soon as play demands application, knowledge, skill, courage and strength. The more ‘difficult’ the game the greater the tension in the beholders” (Huizinga, 48.). These are ways in which Huizinga tells us the way in which play and contests serve our society as civilizing functions.

But is this the only way in which play can provide civilizing functions to society? Huizinga’s model of play parallels the changes that occur in Fight Club as the skill levels and people change. The “game” of “Fight Club” becomes the “club” of Project Mayhem. This then becomes the political action of a small society. In Fight Club, I noticed it’s not the outward appearance of the product of the game but the internal changes occurring to individual members of the group, and the direct result of those changes on the group as a whole. Huizinga and Fight Club portray play differently, noticeably in the transition from “play” to “club” in Fight Club. Huizinga sees the act of play itself as producing cultural changes while Fight Club has the significant societal impacts occurring only when the “play” turns to “club”. Fight Club demonstrates the struggles between one another within the club and society. Internal conflict is shown through the group’s unhappiness within themselves as individuals and where they are in society. Fight Club shows the basic competition and tension is actually between the two perspectives of ‘internal change’ and ‘outward appearance’.
“Nothing was solved when the fight was over, but nothing mattered. The first night we fought was a Sunday night, and Tyler hadn’t shaved all weekend so my knuckles burned raw from his weekend beard. Lying on our backs in the parking lot, staring up at the one star that came through the streetlights, I asked Tyler what he’d been fighting. Tyler said, his father.”(Fight Club 53.)

This “Who were you fighting?” quote shows us how tension through play in Fight Club is different than that of Huizinga’s tension. This has the fight representing internal individual struggle manifested with outward interaction.
Competition seems to come out when a person or group is faced with tension. The way competitive play is exhibited in Fight Club and through Huizinga differs greatly. In Fight Club, the creation of group culture is manifested through individual members personal growth. The primary importance of the individual and his place in the developing of society is apparent through this quote.

“You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club. When it’s you and one other guy under that one light in the middle of all those watching. Fight club isn’t about winning or losing fights. Fight club isn’t about words. You see a guy come to fight club for the first time, and his ass is a loaf of white bread. You see this same guy here six months later, and he looks carved out of wood. This guy trusts himself to handle anything. There’s grunting and noise at fight club like at the gym, but fight club isn’t about looking good. There’s hysterical shouting in tongues like at church, and when you wake up Sunday afternoon you feel saved” (Fight Club, 51).

This shows me that Fight Club teaches everyone to be competitive internally in order to find themselves and their place in the external world. In Homo Ludens, Huizinga expresses that “Competition is not only ‘for’ something but also ‘in’ and ‘with’ something. People compete to be the first ‘in’…” (Huizinga, 51-52). The ideas he brings up are externally evident that competing is not for just ones inner fulfillment but for winning a certain prize or applause in the end. Either way you see it, these are both ways of creating civilized functions through community and forms of winning. The products of either perspective are evident through behavioral norms, cultural structures, political structure, and systems of reward.

In order to be able to compete, all types of play must have rules and this is clear through both writings. Both these authors realize the importance of rules through play and contest in order to create civilizing environments. A writing that has analyzed Huizinga in these terms has shown how his view on rules originates from the civilizing influence of play in warfare and how it gave rise to chivalry. Through chivalry there was a form of international law that served as a regulating tool to the character of play community, and if the law were violated there would be no more play spirit or real civilization at all (Anchor, 81). So we see how rules let play carry out which then creates our culture in some way. Throughout Fight Club, the whole point is that there really are no rules. The point being that in order to attain a state of personal well-being and enlightenment which allows for participation in enacting social change, you need competition and in order to attain competitiveness and drive you need rules to follow. We see the entire group go through their moments of praxis. In Fight Club the rules to follow in order to find inner accomplishment were:

“1. You don’t talk about fight club.
2. You don’t talk about fight club.
3. When someone says stop, or goes limp, even if he’s just faking it, the fight is over.
4. Only two guys to a fight.
5. Only one fight at a time.
6. They fight without shirts or shoes.
7. The fights go on as long as they have to.
8. If this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight”
(Fight Club 48-50)

These two different forms of viewing competition still show a parallel in that they are each generate rules to reach different levels of achievement or “civilization”, whether external or internal.

So where does competition itself fit in here? In the article “Sports Chatter” by Umberto Eco, he emphasizes that competition through spectator sport is unhealthy and that it is a voyeuristic act: “The illness that undermines this exercised health (like someone who watches not two human beings but two bees making love, while waiting to witness the death of the drone)…” (Sports Chatter, 161). Fight Club doesn’t see voyeurism as a side effect of competition. “After you’ve been to fight club, watching football on television is watching pornography when you could be having great sex” (Fight Club, 50). Fight Club stresses engagement in all those things that are influencing your life.

After tension, the establishment of rules and competition comes the winning aspect of play. Fight Club and Huizinga’s views on winning do not agree. Huizinga sets up winning as the act that leads to constructing society and creating civilized communities.
“Closely connected with play is the idea of winning. Winning, however, presupposes a partner or opponent; solitary play knows no winning, and the attainment of the desired objective here cannot be called by that name… Winning means showing oneself superior in the outcome of a game” (Huizinga, 50).

Fight Club is focusing on the deconstruction of the community and its replacement with a new structure of their own design. The group itself feels that this would be the external validation of their internal victories, and all this began with play.
“Everything’s going according to plan.”
Whispers:
“We’re going to break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world.”
Whispers:
“We look forward to getting you back” (Fight Club, 208).















Works Cited
Anchor, Robert. “History and Play: Johan Huizinga and His Critics”. History and Theory, Vol. 17, No. 1. (Feb., 1978), pp.63-93. http://links.jstor.org

Eco, Umberto. “Sports Chatter.” Travels in Hypereality. Trans. William Weaver. New York: Harcourt, 1986: 159-65.

Huizinga, Johan. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Beacon Press, 1950: 1-27, 46-75, 89-104, 119-135, 195-213.

Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. 1996.

"deconstruction." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .

"external." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .

"knowledge." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .
"praxis." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 07 Apr. 2008. .