Violence In Fight Club Essay

1089 Words5 Pages
In Maalouf’s Samarkand, violence culminated public life, whereby the public condemned liberal thought. Violence served to prevent people from against the socially accepted way of life. The authority, including the public condemned Omar Al Khayyam, and subsequent labeled him an infidel because, in his Rubaiyat ridiculed Islamic faith. In Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk explores the theme of violence through chaotic events. One of these events is fighting. Men like Taylor, and The men who take part in fight club, they believed fighting brought them together as men. Although fighting is a violent activity, it brought men together. In both contexts, violence served as a means of achieving social order. The two books present violence in…show more content…
During the first fight club meeting, Tyler says, “The first rule about fight club is you don’t talk about fight club,” “The second rule about fight club,” Tyler yells, “Is you don’t talk about fight club” (34). The move by Tyler to propose some rules shows that the people who engaged in rule had to comply with the rules, which points to the need for creating social order. Anyone who went against the rules of Fight Club was liable to violence. Violence was a reflection of identity for the people living in Samarkand. To date, societies continue to uphold certain cultural elements, which define the identity of its people. One of the things that have contributed to the difference in culture is civilization, which set out at different times in the world. Samarkand, where most of the population is Muslims, is symbolic of the Muslim countries, where civilization set in a bit late, and still, these countries are yet to have an open mind about civilization. In most countries in the Muslim regions, culture is strongly ingrained to people’s identity. In these societies, violence is a practice that forms part of the cultural elements, defining the identity of
Open Document