Sunday 9 August 2015

The politics of The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is the title of a 2008 novel by Suzanne Collins, and also the name of the 2012 film adaptation starring Jennifer Lawrence. Both the novel and the film have been commercially successful, but both have also proved contentious.

Both are set in a country called Panem, which is the Latin word for bread.  It is often used in the phrase panem et circenses, which translates into English as bread and circuses.  The phrase reflects a belief in ancient times that the common people would be easy to control provided that they had bread to eat and circuses for entertainment.

Panem is a dictatorial republic ruled from the affluent futuristic city of Capitol, whose citizens commonly dress in flamboyant outfits.  The remainder of the country is divided into twelve districts, where people live in enforced poverty.  There are gradations of prosperity, however, with some districts better off than others.

Although Panem might seem very different from the United Kingdom, we too have people living in opulence while other people queue for food banks.  Our governments are elected, but the British people make such poor voting choices that I sometimes think we might not be much worse off if we were unable to vote.

The hunger games are an annual event which combine entertainment with fear.  Each of the twelve districts provides two contestants, known as tributes, to take part in a fight to the death in a large outdoor arena.  The tributes are aged from twelve up to eighteen, and each district provides a male and female tribute.

Districts are expected to choose tributes by a process of random selection, although it is acceptable to choose a volunteer if there is one.  It is illegal for any youngsters to prepare for tribute status.  Nevertheless in the more prosperous districts some youngsters train in secret and in some cases volunteer for tribute status.

As a result, some districts submit tributes who are not only trained in the use of weapons, but who display clear homicidal tendencies.  These tributes are known as careers.  Once in the arena they happily murder other tributes.  In the film, both tributes from Districts 1 and 2 are careers, and in the novel so is the female tribute from District 4.  It appears normal for most of the tributes either to kill only in self defence or not to kill at all.

It appears that the citizens of Capitol enjoy the barbarity of the games in much the same way that many people in Spain enjoy bull fights.  It appears also that the inhabitants of the districts are expected to view the games as sign of their inferiority, but the fact that at least some districts provide tributes who are eager to take part suggests that at least some of them derive pleasure from the games.

Aside from the careers, just one girl in the film volunteers as a tribute, becoming the first ever volunteer tribute from District 12.  She is not however a willing volunteer, as she volunteers only after her younger sister is chosen by lottery.  Self-sacrifice has long been viewed as a noble characteristic.

The reader might think that Britain today does not have anything resembling either bull fights or the hunger games, but Britain happily sends troops into illegal foreign wars in which British service personnel are often killed - along with large numbers of foreign nationals, many of whom are not in any way combatant.  In no way are we morally superior to the fictitious organisers of the hunger games.

People who take part in wars are either volunteers or conscripts, but even conscripts are volunteers of a sort.  They have the option of refusing to be conscripted.  At times the alternative might be imprisonment or social exclusion, but surely these things are in most cases preferable to the brutality of war.

I have previously written about a British army veteran called Douglas Mitchell who according to his daughter was given to bad behaviour.  I am now aware of the case of another British forces veteran called William Woods whose daughter recalls him as cold and distant.  I repeat what I said in that earlier post: 

... the British POWs who allegedly suffered terrible abuse at the hands of their Japanese captors were all volunteers.


Men who served in the Second World War were in some cases veterans of the Great War.  Many would have been the sons or grandsons of people who fought in that war, and they would presumably have had some awareness of the grim reality of that war.  For those men then to take part voluntarily in another war is surely akin to volunteering to take part in the hunger games - except that I'm not sure if any British serviceman has ever volunteered for belligerent activity as a substitute for a 12yo girl.

The death of another 12yo girl in the hunger games triggers a spate of riots in her home district.  While I do not condone riots in this country, I cannot help but wonder why the British people do not protest at the deaths of children in foreign lands as a result of British military action.

Related previous posts include:
Cadets debate the war
Hunger in Greece, hunger in the UK

No comments:

Post a Comment