#freefromtv

Last weekend I went to go see Mockingjay Part 1. It was a decent, if over-extended rendition of the last book in The Hunger Games trilogy. And above all else, it continued to show itself as a powerful story to show the dangers of corrupt power structures. Stories are powerful. They really are. Even fictional ones. Sometimes, especially fictional ones. They make you feel, think, and project yourself into them in ways you never would have thought about before. Indeed, many studies done prove people who engage in reading and writing stories not only have increased vocabularies, but also increased social skills: particularly empathy. Infact, Hunger Games is a book continually banned and even recently banned from Thai cinemas after inspiring student unrest. (http://theantimedia.org/mockingjay-banned-in-thai-theaters-after-inspiring-real-life-dissent/) There is no denying the injustice Katniss faces in the story. There is no denying the stories of senseless death, and stories of oppression. People from all along the political spectrum watch the movie and feel something they don’t like, something they can agree with.

So is it any wonder that the two warring parties in the United States have tried to claim the story for their own – to be used as a warning and sign of things to come if their political opinions are not heeded properly? As the old saying goes: people see what they want to see. Conservative blogger for Forbes John Tammy wrote a piece “The Hunger Games Illustrates the Horrors of Big Government” where he argues the main reason there is so much desolation is because the economy is not allowed to be free – if only the people of the districts were allowed to produce and trade on their own terms, not the governments, then the situation would sort itself out. “Closer to the book’s end, Katniss thinks about her “fury against the cruelty, the injustice they [the rulers] inflict upon us”, and wonders if there’s some “way to take revenge on the Capitol.” While considering this, she remembers Peeta’s words “I keep wishing I could think of a way to…to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” Absolutely. Excessive government IS ownership, of the fruits of our labor, and our personal freedoms. Katniss and Peeta are ultimately fighting to get their lives back from the greedy hands of the politicians in the Capitol.” Where John Tammy sees the government as the main perpetrator to this injustice, others see a wealthy elite exploiting a large population for the excessive benefit of a few – the government is merely a tool for this to occur.  An article by Christine Schofelt and David Walsh argue the reason the film is so resounding with our current population is because it aligns with many liberal issues of today. “They do evoke strong social sentiments in their opening scenes in particular: the fact that this is Appalachia, the coal mining motif, the semi-starvation of the population, the previously crushed revolt, the existence of the pampered, wealthy Capitol, etc. Some of this is moving, and rooted in contemporary leftist realities.”

Even the director of the film, Gary Ross, appropriates leftist Occupy Wallstreet language when he states “I like how he [President Snow] talks about sort of the haves and have-nots, the 99 percent and the 1 percent, about the raw minerals and the resources that they get from the districts that they are needing to control, and that neo-colonial relationship is sort of articulated.”

We can’t seem to decide whether the mega blockbuster Hunger Games is a rhetorical nod to the Right or Left; whether it represents a condemnation of the rich oppressing the poor, pushing a socialist utopia as the only answer to the world’s problems, or a pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, individualistic call for a love of freedom from out-of-control government. This is why The Hunger Games is politically ambiguous, and that’s what makes it a safe book and film, but also what makes it a powerful tool for exploring our current political landscape.

So what kind of government is Panem? One thing is for certain, it is totalitarian.  A totalitarian government is one in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. Whether or not it fits into our current Left/Right spectrum is up for debate, mostly because the popular spectrum contemporary politics uses is not particularly useful – there are many noted issues with it academics with far more political experience than me have explained. There are several elements even today that do not fit along the line from left to right, libertarianism and environmentalism being among them. This perhaps explains why several alternative “compasses” have been developed to try and understand where people fit in terms of their views, and for purposes of this examination I’ll be using a modified Nolan chart, which looks at views on a spectrum from social and economic freedom as opposed to “conservative vs liberal.” However, I’ll be looking at the “why’s” and “how’s” as opposed to the “what’s”, as this will hold the most value in exposing what values truly exist in Panem. Economic Freedom The economy of Panem is controlled by the government for the government. All creation and harvesting of resources, especially the natural resources in the lower districts 9-12, are monitored and regulated with force. Throughout the first book, Katniss describes a thriving black-market in district 12 that has formed as a way to share resources among each other. This is not unlike the thriving black-market in North Korea, which has been explained by academics as a way to fight back against a powerful government and reclaim some economic power for themselves. Historically and still today, governmental regulation of the economy is tied to left-of-center politics. However, this is not always true, as complete control of the economy was employed in fascist Germany as well. A better way to look into this is to look at why and how. Generally, in totalitarian regimes there is “an enemy.” A manufactured threat that works as a way to justify injustice and drum up fear as a way to control large swaths of people all at once. This is tied heavily to ideology: For Third Reich Germany, the enemy was Jewish people and anybody who wasn’t Aryan, the ideology of white supremacy and control. For Stalinist Russia, it was anybody who disagreed with his interpretation of Marxism (Germany and the rest of West-Europe,) the ideology was a modified Stalinist communism. For Panem, President Snow views his own people as the enemy – calling forward a modified ideology of peace. Almost every time there is an act of rebellion, he condemns people for not wanting to keep peace, and talks about how peace is the ultimate goal no matter the expense. In the end, the people of corrupt centralized power almost always become the enemy, that much can be seen in all instances of totalitarianism in history. This is perhaps one of Collin’s most underdeveloped plot points, but it can be seen in the way President Snow absolutely abhors and despises the lower districts and how he uses Peeta as “peace propaganda” in Mockingjay. So why does President Snow control the economy this way? Because he believes this sort of stratification and regulation is necessary in keeping peace between the districts. How does he do it? With a very heavily militarized police/soldier force ironically called “peace-keepers.” -  more on this later. So is ‘peace-keeping’ an ideology that can fall into a Left/Right paradigm? Hardly. It is much more likely President Snow uses peace as a façade for the real reason he keeps the economy controlled – so that the wealthy can remain wealthy and have their extravagant parties full of so much food they end up throwing most of it away (or up – Collin’s describes Capitol individuals who take pills to throw up just so they can keep eating in perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the books) while the lower Districts are described as places “you can starve to death.” And it turns out that the exploitation of many for the benefit for the few is a highly ideological point we can stick somewhere on the spectrum, indeed this issue is one that caused the drift that birthed modern democracy and drives the force between some of the most ideological points today. But let’s continue for now. Personal Freedoms Individual freedoms are highly restricted. For a conservative talking point, owning personal weapons is banned and punishable by death. (1 point for the conservatives.) This is illustrated in the first book when Katniss becomes fearful they will find her bow and arrow. However, keeping books or writing books (and other forms of intellectual information) is met with the same extreme punishment. (1 point for the liberals. – Just kidding, I’m not point taking, because if anything this essay should prove it’s not that clear-cut.) This plays into the larger overall theme of controlling information for purposes of spreading ideology and propaganda – another aspect of totalitarian governments that is not unique to one side or another. In Mockingjay, the Capitol displays that is has no value for any sort of human rights or civil liberties, even resulting to torture to get what it wants. Why? To keep the population largely uninformed, malnourished, and too disadvantaged to challenge the current power structure. How? Through use of force via Peacekeepers who regulate all resources for the Capitol. Again, not unique to either side. Let’s look at some other aspects that tie into the Nolan chart. Outside of the class divide, Collins doesn’t seem to touch any other defining political topics of today. Gay marriage/LGTBQI representation – LGBTQI representation in this book series is basically non-existent. There is one instance where Finnick kisses Peeta, and Katniss describes it as “bizarre.” There are also points in the last book where it is noted that Finnick was an escort for both wealthy male and female Capital members as a victor, an acknowledgement to the gay relationships idolized by older men with younger men in ancient Rome and Greece, the societies which inspired a lot of The Hunger Games. Sexism – Collins has basically envisioned a gender-neutral society. While it’s true President Snow is in power, President Coin, who is a female, is the leader of the highly organized rebellion. While you can hardly call the actual hunger games progressive, the fact the games included women is a more representative version of the traditional Gladiator games that inspired them. (On several occasions, Collins admits that the hunger games were inspired by ancient Roman gladiator fights.) The traditional Gladiator games of ancient Rome pitted young men who were condemned criminals, slaves, or poor to fight other young men/other lethal forces for the entertainment of the masses. On extremely rare occasions wealthier men or women would volunteer, but it was rare. Racism – There seems to be no category of race that is created and defined in the books. In fact, this also seems to be an imagined post-racial society, where Katniss describes only physical characteristics and not categories. However, one cannot ignore the fact that when Rue described District 11, she describes a level of violence for dissenters we do not see in District 12. She even alludes to public whippings, a tragic occurrence that has racial undertones as apart of our real history. It is also the district where the public rebellions start, which could allude to an issue of racism in Panem. It should also be noted that Katniss in the books is described as “olive-skinned, with long straight thick black hair” which may be a way of showing that the lower districts are disproportionately people of color, but it is not a strong enough motif or theme to say for sure. Religion – There is no reference to any sort of discernible religion in the books, and no evidence that any kind of spirituality plays part in day to day life in both the Capital and the districts.

Military – Back to the peacekeepers. A heavily militarized law enforcement is disproportionately tolerated and endorsed in right-of-center politics. This is also true of a heavily funded military. They are tolerated as a traditional appeal to conservatism in the name of protection. Liberal ideology mostly condemns large militaries, even leftist totalitarian regimes established secret police forces (NKVD) or mobs to try and keep to ideology. (Of course, these secret forces served the same purpose, and in some cases were even more dangerous.) But it wasn’t out in the open with such outright displays of military force like it was in fascist right-of-center governments, and what it seems to be in Panem.

Education – Education is compulsory, boring, and more focused on creating good productive citizens than it is rational, bright thinkers. A theme that no country of any type is exempt from, to my utmost sadness. Katniss describes “"Somehow it all comes back to coal at school. Besides basic reading and maths, most of our instruction is coal-related. Except for the weekly lecture on the history of Panem. It's mostly a lot of blather about what we owe the Capitol. I know there must be more than they're telling us, an actual account of what happened during the rebellion. But I don't spend much time thinking about it. Whatever the truth is, I don't see how it will help me get food on the table."

Class – I would argue the largest theme in the books is that of class struggle. Even before the issue of big government, as the reason big government exists is so that it can keep it’s access to resources. Right off the bat, the fact District 12 is situated in Appalachia and is the mining district is so rooted in actual American history it is hard to read. It is a nod to the miners who lived in utmost poverty while the coal barons lined their pockets in the 1880s, and eventually led to some of the largest union building and organized labor protesting in the country. Elements of class are prevalent throughout the entire book, and one thing that is iterated again and again is the luxury and over-abundance of resources that has consolidated at the center in the capital. Collins herself said in an interview with the New York Times “young people needed to consider “global warming, about our mistreatment of the environment, but also questions like: How do you feel about the fact that some people take their next meal for granted when so many other people are starving in the world?” (I did not see any environmental allusions in the books, so I have no idea where that came from.)

It is no secret organized labor and the emphasis on poverty is certainly a left-of-center political issue, and one of the reasons they find The Hunger Games as a validation of their political opinions as well. In the end, claiming the story and skipping over important themes and aspects of it in the name of a political point is not the correct way to go about it. Especially given the fact there is no clear cut line. Instead, focusing on large over-arching themes such as: consolidation of power, consolidation of resources, poverty/inequity, the purpose of military, restriction of information, and suffering as entertainment. Take these themes and apply them critically to things you see every day. But do not pick and choose, all of these themes are inter-connected. This is the best thing you can do from a story that is politically ambiguous, but that ambiguity can be a powerful tool in helping you assess your own thoughts and maybe even reassessing thoughts you currently held.