On Tyrants & Tributes : Real World Lessons From The Hunger Games discussion
FROM THE PROFESSOR: The Hunger Games and the Early U.S. Context
date
newest »
newest »
What Collins is suggesting in the way President Coin and District 13 are portrayed compared to President Snow and the Capital, I think is supposed to show you that they are basically two sides of the same coin, even though Coin and Snow aren't exactly the same they still have some the same qualities.I think it was important to see Katniss and Peeta living their private lives, that we don't see them trying to help shape the new system. Because even though you'd guess that they wouldn't make a 'power grabbing' choice, its still important to see that.
The Beltway-- I'm from rural Virginia. The beltway is a place I don't go often.It sort of draws a circle around the city saying "Things are different here" and it (figuratively) separates DC from the rest of the country. Politicians come from wealthy upbringings. They're lawyers and big businessman. They are not common people, and this was not the way the country was intended to be run. It should be run by those who can relate to the needs and lifestyles of the masses. When politicians are so far removed from their constituents, they are bound to make careless decisions that impede on the lives of the citizenry.The System- Just as Snow lives his "beltway" life, separated from the realities of life in the districts, Coin and District 13 do as well. This is why Coin is so willing to use violence against other districts in Mockingjay when we see Katniss really struggling with that. She doesn't want to use such violence against "the Nut" in District two because "(she's) a girl from District 12,"(p.284). "District 12 and District 2 have no fight except the one the Capitol gave us," (217). She equates blowing up the nut to a coal mining accident. She wants to keep the train tunnels open and evacuate citizens of 2 who were trapped inside. For me, this is one of the most compelling chapters because it packs in everything; Katniss as an unwilling hero, Katniss as having compassion where others have hate (i.e. Gale)and the corruption of Coin and 13.
The Beltway - The division is more dramatic in the book, and perhaps needs to be in order to be effective. The division between ruler and ruled in America today is large on the National Level. The fact that a Health Care Law that is intended to help the people cannot be understood by even the typical College Graduate is a prime example of this. If the lawgiver must explain his law to me, is this truly rule of law? Also, the culture of lobbyists and favors in D.C. definitely seems to me to resemble the life of the Capitol in Panem. The System - While a benevolent dictator can rule a glorious free society, in the long run the system needs to be changed as inevitably "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is where the American Founding Fathers showed their genius and self-control. The difficulty for us today is over the years we have looked more and more toward the central authority for solutions instead of looking to ourselves. Once government has power there are very few as restrained as Cincinnatus and Washington as to give it back. Would Congressional term limits help this issue?
Congressional term limits would be great. A perfect place to start.
We look to the people who have the most power instead of trusting ourselves. I think we have to start trusting ourselves instead of always turning to the government.
I love the analogy between the Capitol and Washington D.C - because it is very true. The suburbs surrounding DC are among the wealthiest in the country (according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 8 of the 13 counties with the highest median income surround it). It is a city that idolizes itself - much like the The Capitol - with buildings and monuments dedicated to its very purpose (governance). An ordinary citizen taking a stroll through DC is constantly reminded how powerless they really are. In The Hunger Games, The Capitol has managed to mimic, but to an extreme (with oblivious citizens).Mockingjay was my least favorite in the series - due to the fate of Prim - so I subconsciously blocked out a majority of the novel. However, from what I remember - District 13 is very reminiscent of present-day America. It's a government that is heavily reliant on secrecy and war. Coin initiated the attack on the helpers to retain the fear and induce anger within the members of District 13 (i.e Gabe's reaction and his desire to fight against The Capitol). Our government has managed to infiltrate the media to induce divisiveness among Americans creating the current political environment.
Throughout the novels, Katniss and Peeta were fighting for the survival of themselves and their loved ones - not for affluence or political power. The ending of the novels with Katniss and Peeta living privately and happily ever after is critical to the message Collins' is trying to portray. If Katniss or Peeta ended up as political figures, it would be contradictory to her theme of limited central government.
After reading this article I think people give up their life's and turn to those who have power over them to make their choices for them. Its okay when you turned to the right person but when you give the will to the wrong type of leader you might find yourself trapped. So it is better to go with you heart and thoughts then someone else's, being a independent person is a great way of learning to be great.
The Capitol = The Beltway Whether she intended it to speak to this division I think is moot unless she tells us, however I think it certainly CAN think it, and I think authors of fiction really lose control over their work in that sense once it's published because it can be taken in any way that makes sense to the reader.
So yes, I think it can speak to that division and actually does a great job representing it. It's sort of allegorical (right literary device?) though because while wealth and power gaps are real in the political world in comparison to regular peoeple, the way it's represented in the books/movies as opposed to real life is different. For example, the books are blatant about the obsene wealth and opulence experienced by the people of the Capitol, while in reality, those facts are hidden as much as possible from the public to avoid problems. Also, the people of the Capitol are portrayed as getting their fix from the Hunger Games much in the same way the Romans got it from the Gladiator games and how regular people today get their schadenfreude from reality TV shows. The big difference here though, is with the exception of one or two districts, it is only the people of the Capitol who get satisfaction from the Hunger Games, the people of the Districts do not. It could almost be read as a "first world problems" situation. People in the Capitol (pretty much all of America, or even the West) are worried about their favorite tribute, what to wear, what's on pony-tail guy's show etc. Whereas the people of the districts (regular Americans to some extent, but to even more extents in other countries) are trying to figure out how to stay alive, be free, and find food.
hey this system of government is just absolute monarchy. snow is very overrated and is very much like a emperor palpitine from star wars. And Katniss is luke skywalker with the rebels.
I think that it is important for Katniss and Peeta to not go back and live a quite life like Cincinnatus and George Washington both did. It is just not a good idea. It leaves room for people to take over and remake the government how it was prior to their reign. They should at least give the new form of government time before they trust another person to take over.
Cincinnatus Goes Home I think it's satisfying to see them living those kinds of lives, at least is for me. People who aspire to have a different kind of life might find it lack-luster after going through everything they went through.
That being said, I think it is important. It's not a obvious indicator that someone who spends a lot of time in politics hungers after that lifestyle, I'm sure the founding fathers, some of whome spent years off and on, found it exhausting, but felt dutybound to give of their times. They were real public servants, servants to the public.
On the other hand, it can retroactively confirm trust placed in the Cincinnatuses of the world when we see them live modest private lives after their public actions.
Then problem I have with the whole "serve in office for a bit then go back home" system is that it doesn't work. I like to think that people are as nice, or even nicer, than I am, but the truth is that a lot of people I associate myself with do not appreciate the people they come into contact with or give as much money as I do to charity (or do labor themselves to help others out). I think the founding fathers were too idealistic in thinking "people are like us and will only want to serve for the betterment of their people!" How Peeta and Katniss live their lives at the end remind me of Ayn Rand's quote: "I am interested in politics so that one day I will not have to be interested in politics."
I think they only get involved because it is their calling at the time.
If you have ever run in elections, whether it be for a legitimate political office or student government, you have to admit that it is addicting, whether you actually run or work on someone's campaign staff. That is one reason why I think people become career politicians.
We can state the other obvious reasons: (1) they want to believe that they are doing good, whether or not they are and (2) they have become corrupt and love the power.
An unfortunate hypocritical thought I have noticed is that people say "politicians need to be real people, not lawyers or businessmen!" but also say "that politician does not even know what he/she is talking about - he/she knows nothing about economics!" So we have one side saying that politicians need to be "more like us" and the other "this person needs to be qualified for office!" Which do we actually want?
An interesting thing about President Snow is what is revealed when Finnick is filmed talking about the secrets of the Capitol - including how Snow rose to power. Does that mean if it were someone else in his position that the country would be better off? I think so, but not by much (I mean there are still the starving districts and the Hunger Games...). President Coin is also concerned about power, like how she feels threatened by Katniss. In Mockingjay, the characters talk about how the government will be replaced by a republic, but Haymitch has his doubts about its effectiveness. It seems Collins warns us about both the corruptive power that can overtake leaders and the danger of giving a lot of power to the government and those higher-up positions.
Danielgraf wrote: "After reading this article I think people give up their life's and turn to those who have power over them to make their choices for them. Its okay when you turned to the right person but when you g..."I agree plenty of people are turning to others (i.e. government) to make their decisions for them. I don't see it as an issue of right people versus wrong people though. Dependence is dependence regardless of whether a person's intents are good or bad. I'd prefer to look at the larger question of whether it's better to be autonomous or dependent.
Ashleigh wrote: "The Beltway-- I'm from rural Virginia. The beltway is a place I don't go often.It sort of draws a circle around the city saying "Things are different here" and it (figuratively) separates DC from t..."I agree with this comparison. Very good example.
I found all of these points to be very interesting. I have some input on all three. 1. The division between the career politicians in Washington and the common people is immense. The fact that some politicians reside in D.C. for most of the year while claiming to represent the people from their state or district is extraordinary. This fact, coupled with Congress’s continual habit of legislating one set of rules for themselves and another set for everyone else, has dire implications for our republic. That being said, I do not think that Collins’s depiction of the Capitol vs. the Districts can be directly related to our situation in the U.S. today. However, I do think that the dangers presented in our system today can lead to a concentration of power in the hands of a “political class.” The implications of this failing in our system may not be quite as horrific as Collins’s portrayal, but the picture that she paints can serve as an example of what could happen. Those who represent us in the U.S. (or in any liberal democracy or republic) need to be held accountable to those who they represent. When they become alienated from their constituents they are then no longer held accountable by the people. This leads us down a dangerous road, toward a society where one is not represented but ruled.
2. [contains spoilers]. Throughout the Hunger Games series, Katniss struggles with conception of power. While it is clear that Katniss is a pragmatic character (see the discussion in book 1 between her and Gail, in which she scoffs at his idealist notions of changing the way their world is conceived) who only wishes to support her family, she becomes more and more skeptical of those in power as time goes on. Who wouldn’t if they were in her situation? So once Katniss meets the Rebels she finds that she does not care for them much (due to their extremely regimented lifestyles) and that she does not trust them. We see throughout the last book that Katniss struggles with promoting the rebel cause because of her lack of belief in the movement itself. Ultimately, Katniss seems to revert back to her apathy by the end, living life in solitude while trying to forget the terrible experiences she went through. I believe that Collins is trying to portray – through Katniss’s skepticism of those in power – that power corrupts people (to use Lord Acton’s words). Power is force, and force cannot be entrusted to anyone. Furthermore, a system that seeks to give extraordinary individual (such as a Washington) large amounts of power will fail as soon as an average individual takes control. This systemic problem is illustrated throughout the series, as Katniss does not support anyone taking over after Snow, even those she likes and trusts.
3. [contains spoilers] I think that unlike Washington and Cincinnatus, Katniss and Peeta withdrew from the world because they had both been broken by those in power. Peeta had been changed, and Katniss had plunged back into her abyss of apathy. That being said, I loved the way the story ended, but I think the message in the ending is much more complicated that comparing Katniss to Washington or Cincinnatus. While this is most definitely part of the message, I think that the further message is that change is hard fought. Katniss and Peeta both gave their lives to try to change the world that they lived in. Their sacrifice brought about some change, but we never see the full extent of that change. I like to think that the Rebels made a better society, even if it was only slightly better. Collins was perhaps attempting to say that change is not easy, and that change cannot solve all the problems all at once, rather change would occur through a piecemeal process. Furthermore, this process would not solve all problems so long as imperfect human beings were in charge.
For the first question I agree completely. As many Americans will tell you politicians are not like normal people and can't relate as we think some are or made out to be, as they are all in it for business or a higher power. Some may tell you a homeless person on the street could be a better leader than the leaders if today.
In many ways the American Revolution is the exception. Mocking Jay may be closer to recent revolts in Syria and Egypt where those looking to overthrow the government may be worse than the current dictator.
Having a revolution end with a constitutional republic that lasts for around 200 years is beating the odds. Something like the French Revolution where you replace King Louis XVI; who had ended surfdom, tolerated non-Catholic religions, and backed US rebel forces; with Emperor Napoleon is more the norm.
Collins' presentation of leaders who are out of touch with "real life" is reflected in some shades in reality. Politicians are often criticized for lacking real world experience- for not having other jobs or being born into privilege... therefore they are not equipped for dealing with the issues and making the decisions that they do. Collins' portrayal of Panem is obviously more extreme. The people of the districts have no say in who their leaders are. Whilst, in the democracies of most countries, career politicians don't appear out of the earth, they are voted in. If people want politicians who are more representative of themselves, who have a better idea of the ''real world'', then they should consider this when voting.
I think that Katniss' decision to kill President Coin is primarily motivated by the realization that Coin planned for the bombing that resulted in the death of her sister rather than by the calculation that Coin's government would not be a great improvement on the last. Although, because Coin was willing to cross that ethical line, it does seem that her government wouldn't be a great improvement on the last. I think Katniss would have pretty much killed anyone, if they had killed her sister, though.
Having said that, since Coin went to such lengths to come to power, it does seem that Collins is saying that power attracts the kind of people who will abuse it. Who will go too far in order to hang on to it, simply for their own sake and not for the sake of service to the people they rule. This is mirrored in the real world, people claiming that the power-hungry tend to be attracted to a career in politics when they are perhaps the ones least suited to office.
Cincinnatus' model isn't perfectly analogous to Katniss' situation, she never was a politician and her role in the war was not as a military leader (for the most part) but as a figurehead. (A brilliant figurehead precisely because she often refused to act out the roles that other people thrust upon her) However, Katniss, like Cincinnatus and George Washington, does make an active decision to refuse power because she undoubtedly could have had a great influence on the new form of government, given her part is the uprising. Her decision to return to a relatively simple life in District 12 shows her libertarian values clearly. All she wants is to be free to hunt, to trade as well as live without persecution. Katniss is largely uninterested in government, unless it is standing between her and her goals. Since Collins' shows her(to an extent) as a role-model, she does argue for decreased power of the government. Having said that, given the extreme, authoritarian nature of both The Capitol and District 13, it is hard to say the extent to which this is true. Furthermore, as William points out, it could be that Katniss is disillusioned with the people in power. That the struggle took all of her energy (rather than she ought not to have taken a role in government because it tends to be inherently bad to do so for too long).
I think that Katniss' decision to kill President Coin is primarily motivated by the realization that Coin planned for the bombing that resulted in the death of her sister rather than by the calculation that Coin's government would not be a great improvement on the last. Although, because Coin was willing to cross that ethical line, it does seem that her government wouldn't be a great improvement on the last. I think Katniss would have pretty much killed anyone, if they had killed her sister, though.
Having said that, since Coin went to such lengths to come to power, it does seem that Collins is saying that power attracts the kind of people who will abuse it. Who will go too far in order to hang on to it, simply for their own sake and not for the sake of service to the people they rule. This is mirrored in the real world, people claiming that the power-hungry tend to be attracted to a career in politics when they are perhaps the ones least suited to office.
Cincinnatus' model isn't perfectly analogous to Katniss' situation, she never was a politician and her role in the war was not as a military leader (for the most part) but as a figurehead. (A brilliant figurehead precisely because she often refused to act out the roles that other people thrust upon her) However, Katniss, like Cincinnatus and George Washington, does make an active decision to refuse power because she undoubtedly could have had a great influence on the new form of government, given her part is the uprising. Her decision to return to a relatively simple life in District 12 shows her libertarian values clearly. All she wants is to be free to hunt, to trade as well as live without persecution. Katniss is largely uninterested in government, unless it is standing between her and her goals. Since Collins' shows her(to an extent) as a role-model, she does argue for decreased power of the government. Having said that, given the extreme, authoritarian nature of both The Capitol and District 13, it is hard to say the extent to which this is true. Furthermore, as William points out, it could be that Katniss is disillusioned with the people in power. That the struggle took all of her energy (rather than she ought not to have taken a role in government because it tends to be inherently bad to do so for too long).
Jacob wrote: "We look to the people who have the most power instead of trusting ourselves. I think we have to start trusting ourselves instead of always turning to the government."I agree. That makes sense.
Brandon wrote: "Jacob wrote: "We look to the people who have the most power instead of trusting ourselves. I think we have to start trusting ourselves instead of always turning to the government."I agree. That m..."
Thank you for pulling that out. I missed it.
My view of libertarianism is that we are optimists. We are the people who say individuals, the marketplace, or society can problems rather than saying that not trusting the citizens and looking to elite bureaucrats and politicians to mandate a solution to us.
Most people who look to government don't think that they need to be told what to do but they have been trained to see a lesser disadvantaged class who needs government to protect them.
This is why liberals see laws as more relative; they are not made for them - they are made for others.
It's important for good leaders to start out as regular citizens and return to that. It's relevant in many arenas: in education we like to have a principal that has taught and isn't far removed from the classroom in order to relate better to the teachers' needs and struggles, employees benefit from a boss who has (and may still) work among them, side-by-side. This doesn't happen in politics here nor in Hunger Games, which causes the powerful to be abhorred that much more. Their only motive was to keep their power.
Having more time to thing and reflect on this, The Hunger Games resembles post civil war reconstructionist south than anything I can think of. Here were states (districts) who had been defeated in a civil war (rebellion) and the army stayed, the political leaders were all puppets, and local industry and citizens were suppressed. US history focuses on the immigrants moving westward but there were also those fleeing the south. Many of our romanticized western outlaws, had southern roots.
While the conditions were no where near as bad as those presented by Susan Collins it's the closest situation I can think of to Panem.
Greg wrote: "Having more time to thing and reflect on this, The Hunger Games resembles post civil war reconstructionist south than anything I can think of. Here were states (districts) who had been defeated in..."Great point, Greg! This interpretation also puts The Hunger Games in dialogue with another dystopian "text" that is based on the post-Civil War Southern experience, made up of the combined works of the television series Firefly and its sequel film Serenity . There are some very interesting parallels in how these dystopias address the cause of liberty.
Well I'm really wishing I read the book right about now.There is absolutely a disconnect between Washington DC and the rest of the country. The amount of bad career politicians in the government right now is astounding. However I don't believe the problem necessarily lies with being a career politicians. Just like a firearm, a position in politics is just a tool. The same individual can work to make the government more powerful, or less intrusive on individual lives. One can use the office for good for their entire life, or one can use the office for bad for one day. Term limits to me are ineffective at keeping the potential evil of government at bay. It could absolutely help to have fresh ideas in the government ever few years, but there is no reason why they can't be open to new ideas and policies every day of the week.
I very much enjoyed George Washington's approach to term limits. I believe it was absolutely necessary to show the nation for centuries to come how a leader should act. Cincinnatus did an amazing thing by not expanding his personal power after the war, but that does not mean that everyone in that position should do the same thing. Leaders absolutely exist that could serve for decades without infringing on an individuals liberties. I don't think Katniss believed this. That is why she didn't simply replace Snow. The system as a whole is broken, and a new president would not change the situation in the districts. Change was needed in the highest echelons of society.
The Capitol = The Beltway
[No spoilers!]
One of the repeated discussions among the U.S. founders was how to create a system in which citizen-statesmen would live their private lives and then, when called upon, serve in positions of national or state leadership, and then go home again. This would "keep things real," allowing leaders to know what life was like among the people they represented, because they lived the same lives as those people. Needless to say, this is not how leadership is perceived today. Career politicians are ubiquitous, and much is said of the "Beltway Culture" that exists within Washington, D.C., separate and removed from "real life" in the rest of the United States. Do you think the division Collins portrays between the Capitol and the Districts speaks to the (perceived? real?) division between those who rule and those who are ruled today?
It's the System, Not the Leader
[Warning: This Paragraph Contains Spoilers for Mockingjay!]
One of the challenges for the founders as the U.S. Constitution was being drafted and debated was to decide how much power to put in the executive. Was the split with Great Britain because of the monarchy itself or because of King George and his leadership specifically? (Some wanted to make George Washington an American king, after all.) I think it's worth thinking about that Collins addresses the system-vs-leader issue directly by showing readers the potential of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario (if I may quote The Who). She provides a very compelling villain in the form of President Snow, but the problem with Panem isn't simply that Snow is a bad guy. Thus the solution isn't simply to put a "good person" in a similar position of concentrated power. We see in Panem that concentrated power attracts those who are least fit to use it. As Katniss ultimately decides, replacing President Snow with President Coin is not going to lead to more liberty for the citizens of Panem. What do you think about how Coin and District 13 are portrayed (compared to Snow and the Capitol)? What is Collins suggesting about the nature of power?
Cincinnatus Goes Home
[Warning: This Paragraph Contains Spoilers for Mockingjay!]
One of the classical models of civic virtue most lauded by the U.S. founders was the Roman statesman Cincinnatus (519 BC–430 BC). When his people needed him (when rival tribes invaded their land), he rose to the ranks of Roman dictator. After he had successfully defended his people and their property, however, he willingly gave up his power and popularity for a quiet life on his farm. As the successful liberating general of the Revolution, George Washington could have set himself up as a dictator, but - consciously following the Cincinnatus model - he ultimately set the precedent of leaving executive office after two terms and returning to life as a private citizen. Is it important, do you think, that we see Katniss and Peeta in their modest circumstances at the end of Mockingjay, living private lives, rather than ruling over a new, improved Panem?
What are your thoughts?