Johan Huizinga’s discussion on modern science brings up the main question: is science play? Although he concludes that modern science is not play, but early science is, he creates tension between the two, which leads me to question his credibility. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, definition 5b of the word “science” refers to the “branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws…” for example, chemistry. Fight Club involves the science of chemistry and its use for violence. Huizinga’s passage poses many questions. Is playing around with chemistry truly play?
Saponification, the process of making soap is the basis of Fight Club. It brings in a major aspect of chemistry leading to the lye kiss and ultimately the explosives. Huizinga would say that this process is play, because it is bounded by the strict rules of its own methodology (203). In addition, “the rules of a game cannot be altered without spoiling the game itself (203). If the procedure to make soap is not followed precisely, (for example, if the fat has too much salt, the soap will not get solid (Palahniuk70)) then the process would be incomplete. If a step was omitted, then there would be no actual soap. I used to have a soap making kit, with a pre-made soap base made up of glycerin and lye. If I heated the soap too long, the soap would turn solid with a layer of fat on top; it was crucial that I followed the instructions, or I could not successfully make the soap. Huizinga is wrong when he says that science is not pleasurable or mirthful; I enjoyed making soap and I even felt “lost” in the science because it was fun to add color and fragrance to the melted glycerin and watch it turn solid. Even the narrator is relaxed when he makes soap. Because saponification requires creativity, it is considered play. The space monkeys are very creative in choosing specific plants to use as natural dyes and scents (132). Huizinga recognizes that science is constantly undergoing modification, proof of how science goes beyond limitations and rules. Even if the procedure must be followed, there are so many different types of soap such as antibacterial or facial, that going beyond limitations is crucial.
Saponification is an example of applied science, which is what modern science is. Pure science is playing around with ideas and creating theories, and requires intense creativity, but applied science must not be forgotten. The basic rules, such as that lye is basically sodium hydroxide and therefore is a very strong base, are the foundation of creating something much more complex. You must “play” around with new ideas based off of pure science.
The lye kiss is an essential aspect to the science in fight club; it represents human sacrifice. If in this case science is human sacrifice, then is human sacrifice considered play? Literally, its performance is its own end. The narrator recognizes that without human sacrifice and ultimately lye, “‘we would have nothing’” (Palahniuk 78). The plotline would then be missing a play element. In this situation, human sacrifice is considered play. The narrator uses it to help overcome all pain and to hit rock bottom (Palahniuk 76). Playing around with lye has no reality outside itself; the narrator tries not to think about the reality of the pain. However, he uses vinegar to mitigate the pain suggesting that the play of science has limitations. The use of lye is considered play, even if the narrator tortures himself. Once that pain is gone and the lye stops burning, play is over; the lye is no longer there and has no more effects. This brings up a problem, because using vinegar to neutralize the burning is still playing around with chemistry.
Making explosives and setting them off to create chaos in the world is the narrator’s ultimate goal. He enjoys making explosives and thinks “You aren’t alive anywhere like you’re alive at fight club (Palahniuk 51). He feels ‘saved” and that none of his problems matter anymore. He also plays with chemistry as leisure, so it is considered play. Chemistry is like cooking in that one can combine different ingredients to make different explosives. However, like saponification, there must be rules and certain limitations. For example, nitroglycerin does not react with paraffin, a substance that does not react easily.
Play lies outside of morals (Huizinga 213). To what extent is using science for violence considered play? The violence in Fight Club shows several play forms, as shown in the previous paragraphs. Play does not necessarily refer to good deeds. Making explosives and blowing up buildings is play, because the narrator enjoys what he is doing; it depends on the person’s perspective on whether or not they are using violence for doing something fun. Using science for violence is like a playing a game with an evil twist to the end. Huizinga did not fail to leave out that science can be used for violence and seemed horrified that all branches of science are play (203).
An interesting observation is that (diethyl) ether is used to anesthetize the victims of fight club. Instead of watching the victims writhe in pain, the space monkeys cut off the testicles for the sake of cutting off the testicles. This shows play because they do it for fun, not because they enjoy torturing people. However, when the narrator is anesthetized, the space monkeys do not cut off his testicles; the narrator is scared but intact (Palahniuk 192). I believe the goal is to threaten the victim and use the effects of the ether to bring the victim out of reality. According to Huizinga, a game or play has no contact with any reality outside itself (203), and really, unconsciousness is actually a type of consciousness.
I have disagreed with Huizinga when he says that playing with science is not pleasurable, mirthful, or relaxing by showing examples from Fight Club. However, chemistry is not only combining ingredients to make a reaction, whether it is an explosive or making soap. As a student in organic chemistry, we are required to perform various experiments to learn more concepts in chemistry. Chemistry lab can be boring, because we are often “forced” to perform these experiments so we can pass the class. How, in this case, is playing with chemistry considered play? Technically it is not if we are not doing something out of our own leisure. In effect of following a strict procedure (for example, add exactly 10 mL of hydrochloric acid or the reaction will not follow through), experiments lack creativity and seem monotonous. Yes, it is an activity occurring within certain limits of space, time and meaning (Huizinga 203) because we are stuck in a laboratory, but it is not a relaxation from the strains of ordinary life. What I learn in lab is all concepts which is basically pure, or early science. I want to perform my own experiences and discover new concepts, which is what pure science is all about. Hypothetically speaking, could I successfully make an explosive by combining nitroglycerin and powered limestone (chalk)? This is an example of modern pure science. My experiences with chemistry have biased me so that I am almost forced to disagree with Huizinga when he says that early science is considered play.
On the other hand, I enjoyed playing with chemistry in sophomore year of high school where we made ice cream in a plastic bag. I applied the fact that adding salt to ice will lower the freezing point and therefore help make the cream turn to a solid form. This is considered modern or applied science, because I created something using knowledge based off of pure science.
Overall, I strongly believe modern science is play. Applying the basics of chemistry to everyday life and making something, whether it is soap or a bomb, shows many play forms and enjoyment. However, I have only mentioned certain aspect of chemistry; chemistry is applicable to almost everything in life. What about the chemistry between two people? Courtship can build up and a bond can be created. Chemistry is a natural process where it usually happens on its own and there is really no contact with reality; it is a world of its own. However, can this chemical attraction be created, and if so, would this be play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Over all, I think that this is a great paper. However, I have a few suggestions and comments on it. First off, I would suggest that when you claim that applied, modern science is a game, and use Huizinga to support your arguments as too how it fits into the category of a game, it might be beneficial to your essay to use another activity that others can relate to as a game. By doing this, it might make the argument easier for others to see you point, relate to it, and agree.
In the paragraph on removing testicles, I found it interesting that ether was actually an anesthetic. I didn’t realize that that was its purpose. However, I believe that the men went beyond cutting them off just “for the sake of cutting them off.” I think that you should have gone on to point out that they cut them off to remove their ‘manliness’. The fact that they had a purpose in doing this might have added support to the fact that it is, in a way, also a game. They had reason to do it, and an ending point. Once they removed their testicles, and left the scene, the ‘game’ was over.
I like the fact that you point out, “according to Huizinga, a game or play has no contact with any reality outside itself (203), and really, unconsciousness is actually a type of consciousness.” Specifying unconsciousness as a state of consciousness serves several purposes. Unconsciousness is not a part of normal reality, and noting what Huizinga says about play being outside of reality, this supports your argument well. Also, from what I’ve learned, a state is not permanent – it ends just as games do. A game is a state.
You said that you are “almost forced to disagree with Huizinga when he says that early science is considered play,” I wasn’t sure what you meant. Are you saying that you don’t consider early science play, and that only modern science is play? Throughout your essay it seemed as though you were trying to prove that modern science is play, and then you put in that you almost don’t believe that early science is considered play. Do you mean that you think that both early and modern sciences aren’t given credit as play?
In the end you say, “Courtship can build up and a bond can be created. Chemistry is a natural process where it usually happens on its own and there is really no contact with reality; it is a world of its own. However, can this chemical attraction be created, and if so, would this be play?” Does this type of chemistry really have no contact with reality? Or, did you mean that there is no external contact moving this type of chemistry along?
I have no idea where my last comment went!
First of all, thank you for the constructive criticism and comments. Originally, I included a discussion about soccer as another game, but I thought that it was irrelevant to my discussion on science and chemistry. Perhaps I should have given some more examples or activities that are relevant to science.
I agree with your comment about removing testicles. I should have thought about the fact that the action would defnitely remove the men of their manliness!
When I said that I am almost forced to disagree with Huizinga, it is because of my experiences particularly with organic chemistry. Hence, I am biased. In terms of chemistry lab, which I believe is "early science" because we are learning concepts that were discovered long ago, it is not play. I do not argue that early science was once play. I think that I should have made my position on this topic clearer. I can see that there is definitely confusion and ambiguity. I apologize, and I hope I can improve my writing by making my essays more organized.
I do not think that there really is an external contact moving the chemistry along between two individuals. What about the saying that opposites attract? I do not think it it because of external forces. "Love" is complicated, but I feel that it has its own world, if that makes any sense.
Post a Comment