When the word rebel is presented a variety of thoughts and images may be elicited, black leather, wallet chains, a fondness for petty crime, and the ever present I do not give a damn attitude. Rebels are the bikers, rebels are the Fonzie wannabes, rebels are the malcontent middle class children with Che Guevara T-shirts and daddy issues, rebels think the south will rise again.
With so many conflicting cultural images tied to the word rebel how are we to distinguish what a true rebel is, or is it that all of these people have a legitimate claim to the title. What characteristics are central to the theme of the rebel, and which are but merely petty baubles to be attached and removed by the ever shifting paradigm of popular culture.
Rebels?
One definition regarding the act of rebellion is “To resist or defy an authority or a generally accepted convention,”(The Free Dictionary) yet this does not seem to always be the primary concern of the rebel. Yes some of these sub groupings may feel oppressed or wronged in some way, but what authority are they resisting?
Some bikers may very well be bad ass Hell's Angels, but how many? Most bikers are simple hobbyists. Lawyers drive bikes, bankers drive bikes, doctors drive bikes, all the while clad in black leather and metal studs. Allow me a philosophical question; Can one still fight The Man while receiving a six figure paycheck?
What oppression are southern rebels seeking shelter from? The northern victory in an ages old war. A war whose veterans lie dead and forgotten, and all that remains is enmity from deeds long since past. The world has changed and progress made, move on.
What of the middle class kids who wear Che Guevara apparel. Most do not hold to the political standards of communism; yet the figure of Che somehow represents liberation and equality to them. Of course the reality of the situation is that many of Che's actions were
deplorable and ultimately his victory would have created a classless society, and a government with supreme power over its people. True equality?, at what price?, and maintained by whom? How easy would it be for such a government to abuse its people? Alas that is a topic worthy of another essay.
Had to use it.
What rebels have in common are not motorcycles, or Che shirts, leather jackets, or rebel flags. It is the longing for freedom, a release from their mundane lives, and the ability to make ones own decisions without deferring to an authority. All of the accessories associated with the rebel persona belonging to an individual have a secondary role which determines the brand of rebel that an individual associates with.
The irony of the rebel is that buying goods associated with a particular lifestyle, socializing with certain people, and using particular mannerisms, works only to cement ones place in society, and as such the ideal of absolute freedom that constitutes the core of the rebel identity can never be truly achieved, or rather cannot be held constant for an extended period of time in the presence of higher consciousness. To derive comfort and satisfaction from a fleeting illusion, how very human.
I would then propose that inclusive of all definable rebel sub groupings there is a sort of sliding scale to represent the extent of the extremeness, or the mildness with which the willingness of an individual, to contemplate, or venture to enact a strategy for attaining their ideal vision of freedom not compatible with the standards of the society they inhabit can be measured.
Simple concept, no?
The scale by no means includes the variables leading to the decisions it represents as it is linear. Nor does the scale assume any action as right or wrong, its meaning is dependent on the cultural norms of the society in which it is used. I may or may not reference it again, but it sure did use a lot of page space.
So then with reference to my awesome tool of rebel measurement, who is an extreme rebel? What person real or fiction could possibly represent a complete willingness to sacrifice anything and anyone for the their ideal of ultimate freedom? Is it Ferris Bueller, could it be Jim Stark, how about the Fonz?
Fuck no, it can only be Tyler Durden.
Tyler Durden / Brad Pitt
Narrator / Edward Norton
To summarize the plot of the movie Fight Club I will use a plot synapses posted to YouTube by the user angelhall100.
It's not pretty but it does the job.
In the movie Fight Club Tyler Durden(Brad Pitt) is the alter ego of the Unnamed Narrator(Edward Norton) unconsciously created for the purpose of an escape from a mundane life in which he has found no profound meaning, as the narrator was unwilling to make the changes to obtain a separation from the daily grind. At one point in the movie Tyler remarks to the Narrator ”All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not”(Fight Club). One might say that the character of Tyler is the representational id of the Narrator's persona serving as the model for the more bestial characteristics of human nature, namely aggression and lust.
As a character Tyler Durden finds few things more objectionable than pointless consumerism, and indentured servitude to the wealthy, Tyler disdains the thought of a life without excitement, and is furious with the media for the unachievable expectations that are placed on the youths of the world. This is demonstrated by
Just Beautiful.
To that end Tyler starts Fight Club. Teens and Young adults flock to Fight Club, flock to Tyler for the escapism he can provide them with. In fight club one does not worry about their job, they do not worry about their car, their furniture, or their taxes only the hard fist pulverizing a freshly bloodied face, and the feeling of cold hard concrete slamming against a body unwilling to get up. The fighting was not meaningless brutal superiority contests, Fight Club was not about winning, but rather it served as a means to search out others and confirm ones own existence via ending the constant feeling of numbness that is perpetuated by an uneventful life.
He Is defiantly not numb.
Eventually fight club grew; Tyler's plan to reduce the world to ruins so that all of humanity would revert into small tribesof hunter gatherers had come into fruition. Project mayhem had begun. Tyler established fight clubs in many cities with the goal of destroying key locations where debt records were stored, this was most likely the first step among many.
Tyler's treatment of the members of fight club declined until it took on an almost fascist structure, this is a direct contradiction to any notion of freedom, however Tyler simply saw this as furthering his plans to attain his ultimate goal. The irony is clear in that for the purpose of destroying a system he had seen as corrupt; Tyler had created something far worse.
The Narrator slowly realizes that he has disassociate identity disorder, and moves to stop Tyler's plans. After some lengthy figuring stuff out scenes, and a small fight with himself;The Narrator decides the best way to stop Tyler’s plan is to erase Tyler, by shooting himself.No silly he did not die it is a movie and shooting yourself through the side of the mouth cures identity disorders as well as serves to instantly make you more mature. The Narrator has come of age and all he had to do was shoot himself.
No matter how much one wants some idyllic true freedom the struggle to obtain it is going to end in a large amount of pain and suffering. It does not even have to be ones own suffering it could very well be something one inflicts on others. Yet the sheer irony is the moment one stops struggling for freedom is the moment that those who have made a better effort in their struggle can enslave others. One might call that the providence of nature, or cynicism.
O well, life sucks then you die.
No comments:
Post a Comment