Fight Club is explained by Rene Girard's theory of Mimetic Desire quite well. It's a cleaner and better fit than all the connections being woven in the Space Monkey video. People desire what they see others desiring. The protagonist admits to desiring the objects of upper middle class consumerist lifestyle before his disillusionment. Mimesis operates on the peer level most strongly, which fits with the human tendency to adhere to class structures. This also relates to the mob mentality as long as the object of desire can be shared by many without rivalry. Mimetic contagion happens, and we as individuals do not actually recognize its operation in our common affairs. We want what we see other people want, and we are ironically convinced that what we want is our own self-motivated desire.
The protagonist at first seeks solace among society's victims. Girard states, "The unique character of modern times is revealed in the fact that, in the competition for public opinion, the position of the victim is now the most desirable. It is no longer the ancient posture of a suppliant struggling to arouse pity, but a claim for legal and even extra-legal rights." - p 108,
Job: The Victim of His People
There is some irony that in the movie support groups exist for countless maladies,
except insomnia! He is reduced to the passive role of the 'tourist' in all the groups he attends, but he can cope as long as he gets his dose of catharsis. He sees himself as a victim and desires the object of victimhood that the support groups model. Along comes Marla. She is also a 'tourist' and becomes a mimetic rival to the protagonist. She sees herself as a victim, too, but again there is no specific support group for her. Furthermore, she models an honesty that the protagonist cannot allow himself. She clearly doesn't care that she doesn't belong in the support groups. Her freedom from shame stirs up a righteous indignation in the protagonist that he can do nothing about because of his own hypocrisy. In this case of mimetic rivalry, they strike a deal.
The "space monkeys'" desire for freedom from the greater society causes them to "latch onto" the apparently self-actualized man who models such freedom, effectively exchanging one form of slavery for another. Yet without understanding the nature of mimesis, they "latch onto" the one they see as more powerful, placing him in a higher class. The nameless protagonist desires the admiration that Tyler generates in others which initiates a mimetic rivalry. Mimetic conflict occurs most easily among those of the same class, and the protagonist sees himself on the same level as Tyler with respect to the founding of Fight Club. The protagonist considers himself above the "space monkeys" because he perceives a special relationship with Tyler, and in his own way Tyler acknowledges this fact.
All the mumbo-jumbo about death in the video above is merely a distraction for what actually motivates the characters in Fight Club. Except for Robert Paulson. He becomes an model of desire upon his death, which is very useful to the cult mentality being cultivated by Tyler. Only through death do they get their names, their individuality back. The desire for freedom was subverted into loss of individuality. At the critical moment of doubt upon Robert's death, a new subversion is introduced: freedom through death.
Tyler wants to blow up the banks so that people can be "free". Where does Tyler's desire come from. Who is the model of his desire? It's clear from the movie that Tyler already does what he wants whether or not there are banks, police, corporations, governments. We're never given any specific details. The protagonist on the other hand wants to prevent Tyler's plan from coming to fruition. His desires have been modeled by the greater society that he was raised in, the very same society which made him into a consumer working for a corrupt car company. On the surface, he cares about the value of human life and private property, but the movie shows in a subversive way that the system he is part of allows violence and destruction to the extent that it doesn't interfere with corporate profits. It is a veneer of morality and ethics.
Girard's theory states that the conflicts or scandals induced by competing desires escalate into a war of all against all until things reach a state of crisis. At this point the scapegoat mechanism triggers a war of all against one. The destruction of the one (or group) consumes the energy built up in the community, creating a catharsis that restores peace for a period of time. The protagonist's 'war' with Tyler results in a catharsis, but the movie subverts the process. The scapegoat only appeared to exist in the protagonist's mind. He was his own object of desire and his own enemy as well.
Such is the nature of mimetic desire. It is a stupidly ingenious trap that can cause misfortune under the most diverse circumstances, so much so that it seems beyond human capacities. The semi-clever prefer not to acknowledge it, considering such simplicity an insult to their intelligence (that simplicity, however, is in the service of a certain complexity). They consider it to be nonexistent, illusory, and common knowledge since the foundation of the world. - Rene Girard
