Palahniuk's portrayal of domestic terrorism in America fascinated me because there have recently been a spike in displays of domestic terrorism here. I took an Intercultural communication class this quarter, and we focused a lot on replacing everything we thought we believed with the individual experiences of my classmates. What struck me with this novel was the idea of how we, as Americans, tend to define terrorism; whether the term as a whole references solely the extremists in the Middle East; or if it can be considered any act of violence that stems from a specific social, political or religious belief, even if committed by a white male. I personally believe in the latter and essayist Ruth Quiney notes that since 9/11/2001, “attention has been drawn to a new type of terrorist, who translates his personal dissatisfaction and powerlessness into political violence.” To properly define terrorism, we must be able to identify the individual examples of it. Beginning with Fight Club, which advanced to Project Mayhem, Palahniuk lays out many examples of Domestic terrorism that I believe encourage the reader to rethink their preconceived notions of terrorism.The opening scene that Palahniuk lays out for us is Tyler and the narrator with a gun in his mouth, reflecting on how he produced explosives which he has disciples planting all over the Parker-Morris Building. Towards the end of the story, we learn how the narrator ended up there with the building loaded with explosives as ordered by Tyler Durden and infiltrated by Project Mayhem. In class we discussed Tyler McVeigh and after seeing the movie, I saw the explicit reference to Oklahoma City, in its depiction of explosives planted in a van in an underground parkade. (McCullough) Fight Club’s narrator is a white male who fantasizes about death and daydreams of the many ways in which he can blow up his office and murder his boss, which he ends up doing anyway. This reminds me of the manifestation of mass shootings that have been occurring in our schools, concerts, Pulse nightclub, and even the Boston marathon. When investigating into what leads up to one of these horrific events, police often find a well thought out plan behind everyone of the shootings. Videos, even some made public, show the murderer either talking about or expressing his hatred of the world from his perspective. I say “his” because all of the mass murderers we have seen in the media recently have been white males. To inquire further, Tyler, the white male alter ego, creates a violent and cult-like, anarchist organization called Project Mayhem. The project recruits male members through Fight Club and randomly from the street, has a strict set of rules emphasizing the need to obey Tyler, and has the goal of taking down civilization. Project Mayhem stems from a hatred of the upper-class, consumerism and capitalism as a whole. The narrator claim to be “guerilla terrorists of the service industry” (81) and when he orders Project Mayhem members to recruit new members by instigate a fight with complete strangers, “he creates a way for [fellow] "guerilla terrorists of the service industry" (81) to liberate other men, to provoke their aggression…” (Mosser) To me, the overall structure of Project Mayhem aligns closely with the well-known terrorist organization ISIS because they have the goal of taking down everyone who does not choose to live or think the way they do. They often recruit their members by kidnapping and terrorizing them into fighting for the organization; even if against their will, they are brainwashed. I have heard of girls being provoked by fantasy into leaving their families only to be tortured once they arrived and unable to leave. It is easy to romanticize revolutions like these but once you are in, you are in for good. Palahniuk’s example of this is when the narrator tell us that, “only in death are we no longer part of Project Mayhem.”(201) He acknowledges this as Patrick Madden’s wife realizes her husband is dead after a fight. The narrator explains that the fights go on because he has a death wish, and twistedly believes that with death comes identity. However, what I found interesting about this is that instead of a war on capitalism such as portrayed in Fight Club, ISIS is fighting for a complete rule and strict enforcement of Islamic Law. It is interesting to me that while society usually correlates radical Muslims with terrorism, Fight Club depicts its narrator, and head of the terror organization Project Mayhem, “as “radicalised” by socioeconomic and cultural, rather than religious, influences.”(Quiney) The creation of Fight Club stemmed from dissatisfaction with gender identity; the fighters are there in order to “feel” or “perform” like men. Palahniuk shares a new perspective of terrorism as, “a cultural and gendered phenomenon rather than (simply) as a manifestation of racial or religious difference.” (Quiney) The acts of domestic terrorism that we see often here in the United States are those commonly rooted in hated of race, gender rights, and LGBTQ identity. From the white supremacy protests in Charlottesville to the 2015 Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs, to the shooting in the Miami gay nightclub, Pulse; there are so many examples like these of domestic terrorism committed by white males, crimes that are commonly not publicized as terrorism. Quiney notes the deeply embedded, “Western identifications of the terrorist with the foreigner,” but that is a complete misconception of the definition of terrorism. That is why this was so interesting to me, Fight Club challenges the stereotype of terrorism. It is a story with a powerful, eye-opening point that terrorism is rooted in more than a single religion or country.
Difficulty Paper
The first time I read Albert Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus, I interpreted it as Camus’s claiming life has no meaning, and no matter what way you try to spin it, it still has no significance. I struggled to understand how Sisyphus could be content at the top of the hill as he is watching all of his hard work go to waste and how exactly that qualified him to be a hero. I just could not seem to grasp how Sisyphus is a hero if he never actually overcomes anything; he is, after all, defeated by the Gods. I failed to make the connection between accepting all of these negative understandings into your life and yet considering yourself happy. Does one really live their whole life building a legacy, just for that legacy to mean nothing after he or she passes? Well, I now understand that Camus was not exactly what Camus meant. After conducting my research, looking into Absurdism and the philosophy behind Camus's ideas, I now understand the reason he claims Sisyphus to be a hero, and why one becomes fulfilled and content when they accept life’s meaninglessness.We must not question our fate and believe that working harder or being a better person will result in a better afterlife, because in reality, everyone's fate is simply death. Bad people get away with doing bad things and good people get punished for bad things they didn't do. The point is, in order for us to be content in life, we must admit to ourselves that we aren't working towards a better anything. Sisyphus pushes the boulder up the hill knowing that it will just roll right back down. This means, that after we accept our inevitable, pathetic fate, we no longer have to question if our actions are leading up to something bigger or whether or not they will change our fate. Once we are able to accept our minute existence in the universe, we can focus in on what in meaningful to us instead of following a “right” way to live such as one that religion would provide. Albert Camus claims that there is no bigger tragedy than believing that life can have meaning. Torture is constantly searching for meaning, contentment is accepting that there is not one. Sisyphus is a hero because he is ok with being tortured and has stopped looking forward to anything other than pushing the rock up the hill again. He is able to calm his mind with the anxiety of wondering why. This closely ties into Absurdism, where the belief is that the meaning of life should not make sense to us, so we should just stop asking why and accept that we will never get a logical answer because the world is far too unpredictable and irrational for it to ever make sense. Just like Sisyphus, “the absurd man will demand to live solely with what he knows, “without appeal” to anything beyond experience.” (Carlson) He is an Absurd hero because he has achieved the opposite of Enlightenment. When Camus says that after Sisyphus has pushed the boulder to the top, during the return down the hill, “towards the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate,” I believe he is implying that Sisyphus is stronger because he is continuing down the hill knowing that he is just going to do it all over again. He is showing the Gods that he has accepted their punishment and is going to succeed at it anyway. Camus explains, “the lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same times crowns his victory.” Instead of being intimidated by his punishment and cowering from the Gods, he is facing them and using his acceptance of the torture to fuel his experience show them that they are not controlling his fate anymore. He is perfectly aware that the rock will roll down the hill again, and he knows he will successfully push it back up; he is literally stronger than his fate. Camus would describe, “human existence as essentially absurd” because a man in need of a feeling of belonging is halted by the, ““Absurd Walls” of time, death, the meaningless routine of most lives,” wondering why bad things happen to good people, or wonder why you are here on this earth. (Carlson) Those kinds of questions remove their ability to feel as though they belong anywhere. Independently accepting that there is no permanent place for anyone; realizing that there is not a preset, God chosen guaranteed life path for any living being on this planet, allows us to choose our place and decide what gives our lives meaning while not being naive to reality that these decisions do not mean anything. So, during Sisyphus’s confident decent down the hill, towards his torture, he contemplates the choices he made that became his fate and in that moment is when he experiences happiness; knowing that his fate was/is his. When a person is walking down the hill of their lifetime, they too reflect back on their life; what mattered and what did not, things they should or should not have done. Only during that time I believe that you realize that you are the reason you are where you are. The people with you in your final moments, they mattered enough to you to keep them throughout your life, and the people that are not there, well, there is probably a reason you could think of for why they are not. I now understand that Camus believes that instead of worrying about the universe’s opinion of you, whether that be from a God, aliens, any sort of higher power, accept that there is not one, live your life without the threat eternal judgement and only then can you be happy.