Wealth And Power: The Hunger Games
Wealth and Power in The Hunger Games
Professor Kenneth Wong G15
Dorothy SIOK Li Phing LIU Zhe LIN Feng Ian Nicolette CHEN Lixin TAN Yan Zhen
1
1
Introduction
2
The Ethics of Power
2.1
How Power is Obtained and Maintained
The Hunger Games is a dystopian fiction in which totalitarianism prevails. Set in the post-‐apocalyptic nation of Panem, the imaginary society is constructed upon an inordinate
power imbalance between the rich and the poor, and in this context, wealth is synonymous with absolute power and control. In the movie, specifically, the poor from the Twelve Districts are subjected to the totalitarian power of the Capitol, and the annual Hunger Games is a salient symbol of the Capitol’s oppression of the poor. While this extreme form of power, in the movie, begets serious ethical transgression and therefore invites the audience to disagree with the Capitol’s conduct, what truly perturb the audience are the uncanny parallels between the movie and reality. Through deliberate distortions and exaggerations, the movie effectively functions as a satire, inviting the audience to question the ethics behind the power of wealth, entertainment, and government control in society today.
Power, by definition, is the ability to influence the behavior of others. This capacity to influence, on its own, is neither ethical nor unethical – it must be taken into context to examine the ethics behind it. In this paper, the ethics of power is explored in the contexts of (1) how power is obtained and maintained, and (2) how power is exercised. In reference to the movie, power exists on three levels: President Coriolanus Snow’s autocratic power over the Capitol and all of Panem, and the Capitol’s control over the Twelve Districts. Therefore, in our discussion, the ethics of power will be analyzed on these three levels of control in the context of how it is obtained, maintained, and exercised. References to real life ethical dilemmas will be made occasionally in fulfilling the satirical intent behind the movie.
In The Hunger Games, while wealth is a great source of power for the Capitol, it is not a standalone instrument with which subjugation is engineered. It also takes deliberation and careful orchestration (or rather, manipulation) to subdue the multitude. In Panem, President Snow is the puppet master over the whole nation, the mastermind behind Capitol’s absolute power over the rest. As revealed in the movie, his methods of control are often unscrupulous, therefore demanding serious ethical criticisms. What lies beneath on a deeper level, however, is the revelation of paralleled methods of control, albeit less extreme, in reality by the authorities in our society. This would be a subject in our discussion as well.
2.1.1 Power Through Superficial Means of Appeasement
As purposefully intended by Suzanne Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, the nation of Panem is built upon the metaphor of panem et circenses (bread and
2
circuses)1, which alludes to a superficial means of public appeasement through division, distraction, and the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. This frivolity that characterized the Roman Republic in 140 B.C. is accurately mirrored in The Hunger Games, through exaggerated images and hyperbolized visuals. Citizens of the Capitol are portrayed in ridiculously elaborated outfits bordering on the bizarre, and they seem to be in constant indulgence in masquerades and entertainment. It is through this method that President Snow gains absolute political power: by keeping his citizens in the Capitol distracted with personal pleasures and entertainment such that they no longer value civic virtues, they would bow to his authority with unquestioned obedience.
This familiar reality is not unfounded in society today. It is not coincidence that Panem seems to be America seen through a distorting mirror. Dubbed as the “Addicts of Consumerism” by The New York Times2, America has long bathed in the riches of food and entertainment. While it is presumptuous to question the intention of the government in driving the consumerism culture – it can well be built on pure economic purpose –, it is not unfair to evaluate the effects of such gluttonous consumption. Political apathy abounds among the young generation of the nation, and this phenomenon is believed to be largely stemming from their preoccupation with the glamourized media culture and glorified violent entertainment. Therefore, through the Capitol, Collins warns the adolescents of their susceptibility to panem et circenses.
So, is panem et circenses ethical? From a utilitarian point of view, where overall happiness is paramount, the answer is not so clear. It can be argued that panem et circenses in fact creates pleasure, since the superficial appeasement of the populace involves the satisfaction of immediate, carnal needs. The only “pain” that arises in this case is the loss of civic virtues in the society, which is unimportant to a politically apathetic society. Following this argument, it would therefore be ethical for a higher authority to superficially appease the populace since the pleasures created outweighs the pains injected. However, it is also arguable that this form of pleasure derived from food and entertainment is a lower pleasure in Mill’s terms, and thus should not replace political prudence, which is a higher pleasure. But this is contingent on the society’s capacity to the appreciation and enjoyment of such higher pleasures, which, in the case of a politically apathetic society, is non-‐existent. This would consequently bring us to the conclusion that panem et circenses is ethical. Yet, something seems to be amiss in the utilitarian argument, because the conclusion is drawn largely upon
1 Panem et Circensus, literally "bread and circuses", was the formula for the well-‐ being of the population, and thus a political strategy. This formula offered a variety of pleasures such as: the distribution of food, public baths, gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races, sports competition, and theater representation. It was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Emperors to keep the population peaceful, and at the same time giving them the opportunity to voice themselves in these places of performance. 2 Bark. (2008). Americans as Addicts of Consumerism. From World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/arts/television/12foot.html?_r=0
3
the superficial nature of the society. In the case of a prudent society that appreciates civic virtues, a contrasting conclusion will be drawn. Evidently, utilitarianism is insufficient in measuring the ethicality of the issue. To supplement the discussion, Aristotle’s perspective of happiness can be included. To Aristotle, a happy man is one who is virtuous throughout a complete lifetime, and the happiest life is that of the life of the intellect based on intellectual virtues.3 In the case of a society that is politically apathetic, the populace lacks intellectual virtues such as wisdom and prudence, and in the absence of these virtues, Aristotle would not perceive the society to be truly happy. In other words, superficial pleasures that are divorced from virtues are not, in Aristotle’s terms, true happiness. Therefore, since the superficial pleasures derived from food and entertainment are trivial and the pains from the deprivation of political prudence (which, to Aristotle, is happiness that is virtuous) is immense, panem et circenses would be unethical.
Complementarily, a Kantian would agree with the conclusion. This is because panem et circenses is a blatant violation of Kant’s principle of humanity. By superficially appeasing the populace in order to conjure blind obedience from them, the higher authority is disregarding the intrinsic value and autonomy in the populace, treating them merely as a means to absolute control. Similarly, by Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, the same conclusion can be drawn. Panem et circenses is a manipulation of the populace, where their rights and autonomy to reason and question are undermined. It is a psychological silencing of the populace, arguably an indirect denial of their freedom of speech. As a result, panem et circenses is unethical.
2.1.2 Power Through Propaganda
“War, terrible war. Widows, orphans, a motherless child. This was the uprising that rocked our land. Thirteen districts rebelled against the country that fed them, loved them, protected them. Brother turned on brother until nothing remained. And then came the peace, hard fought, sorely won. A people rose up from the ashes and a new era was born. But freedom has a cost. When the traitors were defeated, we swore as a nation we would never know this treason again. And so it was decreed, that each year, the various districts of Panem would offer up in tribute, one young man and woman, to fight to the death in a pageant of honor, courage and sacrifice. The lone victor, bathed in riches, would serve as a reminder of our generosity and our forgiveness. This is how we remember our past. This is how we safeguard our future.” – President Snow (voice over)
Propaganda aims at influencing the general attitude of a community toward a specific position by presenting only one side of an argument. Often, propaganda encloses political agendas, as exemplified in the video shown at the Reaping in the movie. Emotional language and imagery are used to distort the reality of the situation in Panem, biasedly painting the Capitol to be people of “generosity” and
3 Chan, and Shenoy. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility: Asian and Western Perspectives. McGraw-‐Hill. p. 51.
4
“forgivingness” whereas the Districts to be “traitors”. Evidently, the propaganda video exhibits the one-‐sided argument that supposedly “legitimizes” the Capitol’s absolute control over the Districts. And this imposed legitimacy is fundamentally unethical on two levels: (1) the propaganda frames its argument only from the perspective of the Capitol and omits all facts that are in favor of the Districts, rendering it lying by omission, and (2) the strategic overload of emotional imagery in the message is an intentional suppression of rationality in responses, thereby misleading the populace to either endorse or submit to an otherwise unaccepted cause.
As mentioned, the propaganda crafted by President Snow portrays the Capitol as “the country that fed…loved…protected…” the Districts. This portrayal of the Capitol not only omits its unfair treatment toward and oppression of the Districts, but also grossly exaggerates its little provision for them. Unlike the generous authority it paints itself to be, the Capitol is in fact self-‐serving and callous, as it accumulates wealth only for itself. Basic necessities are provided only for the purpose of labor, so that the Capitol can effortlessly sit on the benefits reaped by the Districts. The truth seems to be that the Districts are the ones providing for the Capitol through their hard labor, instead of the contrasting story spelt out in the propaganda. This distortion of truth and omission of facts is unethical, because it does not meet the requirements of Kant’s categorical imperatives and Rawls’ principles of justice. With respect to Kantian ethics, the maxim “distortion of truth and omission of facts can be used to persuade masses” cannot be applied to the whole universe or else the world will function only on lies. Moreover, such a persuasion is manipulative and self-‐serving in nature, as it undermines the autonomy in the populace, treating them merely as a means to a cause that benefits only the propaganda creator. This, on its own, is already a violation of both Kant’s principle of humanity and Rawls’ original position, which rules that self-‐serving decisions are not to be made.
Another element to propaganda is the strategic overuse of emotional drivers for the purpose of persuasion. In The Hunger Games, imageries of war, widows and orphans are used to incite fear in the Districts, in a way that resistance against the Capitol is closely associated with death and the loss of loved ones. On another level, the portrayal of the Districts as “traitors” fuels irrational abhorrence in the Capitol citizens toward the Districts, thereby making the oppression of the Districts seem justifiable in the eyes of the Capitol. In our world, such emotional manipulation also exists. Manipulative and jingoistic propagandas, such as that of the Nazi regime in justifying the Holocaust, are a trademark of history. A more recent example of manipulative propaganda points us to the Kony 2012 movement4, a campaign against the Ugandan cult and militia leader, Joseph Kony. Similar to The Hunger Games, the propaganda video of Kony 2012 employs imagery of babies and little children to cut through the rational filter in the audience, so as to trigger emotional responses that would help further the cause
4 Kony 2012 is a short film created by Invisible Children, made for the purpose of promoting the charity 's "Stop Kony" movement to make Ugandan cult and militia leader, indicted war criminal and International Criminal Court fugitive Joseph Kony globally known in order to have him arrested by December 2012.
5
of the movement. As a result, the video went viral and became a huge success on social medias, but it was later found to be deceptive. The video was accused of falsely depicting Uganda as being war torn, when, in fact, Kony and the LRA no longer operate there. 5 All these facts were covered up and veiled in emotional grandiloquence, so that the audience will be easily carried away by the imagery of suffering children. The question is, is this ethical?
In the cases of The Hunger Games and the Nazi propaganda for the Holocaust, the answer is obvious. The suppression of rational evaluation and the provocation of emotional responses are to persuade people toward malicious causes. In these cases, the consequences are largely undesirable, as pains dominate. A large number of the poor and the discriminated are oppressed and treated less than humans for the pleasures of a small group of elites. This would render the Capitol and the Nazi propagandas unethical by the basis of consequentialism. However, in the case of Kony 2012, there might be mixed conclusions. If the movement indeed wipes out the LRA led by Joseph Kony and oppressed children are freed as a result, the use of propaganda can be considered ethical. This is, however, based on the assumption that the pleasures resulting from this movement – removal of Kony and the LRA, and the restoration of social order in Uganda – outweighs the pains experienced – emotional manipulation (or even, deception) of the audience of the propaganda. The argument is that the emotional manipulation, albeit unethical by Kant’s standards as it undermines the autonomy in the audience, is justifiable because it effectively (more effective than rational messages) and promptly (quicker than rational messages) garners the support of the public for a good cause. Therefore, by utilitarianism, Kony 2012 would be deemed ethical if the end result leads to an overall better society in Uganda.
Utilitarianism, as opposed to deontology, is favored in the case of Kony 2012 because consequences of the ethical act are more important than the intention of the ethical actor. To a society that suffers from perpetual poverty and injustice, it is more crucial to and beneficial for them to restore social order and alleviate their situation than to be occupied with moral deliberations. To them, intention is secondary, possibly even unimportant. If an emotionally manipulative propaganda can rally masses in pushing for external help to Uganda in the fastest and most effective way, it can be justified.
2.1.3 Power Through Control of Basic Necessities
In The Hunger Games, through the control of basic necessities, the Capitol effectively controls the life and death of the Districts. By limiting the availability of food in the Districts, the Capitol is able to keep them under control, as they will be preoccupied with struggles for survival. The effectiveness of this is seen in the way the Districts respond to tesserae. It is both ironic and irrational that the inhabitants of the Districts are willing to pledge higher chances of entering the Hunger Games, which increases their chances of death, in exchange for more
5 Curtis. (2012). Has Kony 2012 changed anything? From World Wide Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-‐check-‐with-‐polly-‐ curtis/2012/apr/16/has-‐kony-‐2012-‐changed-‐anything 6
food, which is supposed to help them survive. In essence, for the Districts, survival comes at the cost of a higher probability of death. Yet, instead of challenging the rules, they comply obediently, allowing the Capitol to keep them under control.
This method of control is blatantly unethical. This is because the control and limiting of basic necessities fundamentally violates Rawls’ two principles of justice. The limiting of basic necessities for the purpose of absolute control deprives the Districts of even the most basic liberties. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are most fundamental to human beings, and must be met before other higher order needs can be enjoyed. Therefore, when the Districts are deprived of their physiological needs – for example, food and water –, they are unable to enjoy any other form of liberty. Moreover, such a distribution of resources in Panem is to the greatest benefit of the most advantaged, thereby violating Rawls’ difference principle. If the Capitol were to be under the veil of ignorance, such a way of controlling and limiting the basic necessities would never have taken place. This would easily bring us to the conclusion that this method of control is unethical.
2.1.4 Power Through Military Control
Military control is an important source of power in The Hunger Games, and it is executed through heavy surveillance, policing, barbed wires and fences (in keeping the Districts divided), and strict enforcement of laws and rules. Similar to the situation in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-‐Four, inhabitants of the Districts are being watched and monitored almost twenty-‐four-‐seven through cameras. Order and suppression in the Districts are maintained through coercion and brutality by Peacekeepers, a military police force controlled by the Capitol. As a result, the Districts are stripped of every right to basic liberties, including privacy, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, etc.
It is clear, therefore, that military control has been taken to the extreme in The Hunger Games. Such extremity, sadly, also exists in reality. In North Korea, due to the nature of its single-‐party government, totalitarianism prevails. Human rights are deprived and violated, and citizens are kept under control largely via military means. In these two cases, the use of military control is largely unethical. The omnipresent government surveillance denies the populace of its most basic right to privacy, thereby violating Rawls’ principle of equal liberty. This denial of basic human rights also undermines the intrinsic value in the populace, treating them merely as a means to the maintenance of the government’s totalitarian power. Thus, Kant’s principle of humanity is also violated. Using utilitarianism, the same conclusion can be drawn. The aggregate pleasures derived from absolute power are insignificant to the immense pains experienced by the populace in the absence of basic human rights, and this net result of pain would render such an extreme form of military control unethical.
7
2.1.5 Power Through Forced Division The purpose of the annual Hunger Games, apart from reminding the Districts of their alleged “treason”, also lies in creating and maintaining a forced division among the 12 Districts. Unity in the Districts, as realized by President Snow, is extremely dangerous to the Capitol, as it would bring about effective resistance and rebellion. By allowing only one victor every year, the Hunger Games therefore serves as a device in creating competition and rivalry among the Districts, and this disunity would prevent them from rebelling against the Capitol.
So, is such a forced division ethical? Under utilitarianism, the argument can head in two directions. The Capitol would argue that by creating this forced division among the Districts, war is prevented and peace is maintained. Compared to the situation of an ongoing rebellion in the nation, it is to the greater benefits of both the Capitol and the Districts to be not engaged in such a war against one another. Therefore, following this argument, the pleasures of enjoying a peaceful environment by all greatly offsets the pains of discord among the Districts. This would render the forced division ethical. However, it is to be noted that the above argument is flawed because of its shortsighted nature. Instead of looking only within the short term, we should examine the consequences of rebellion in the long term. In the case that the Districts unites and successfully overthrows the Capitol, the potential in the pleasures of enjoying greater equality in the nation is immense. Therefore, the forced division among the Districts would result not only in the pains of the felt discords, but also in the pains of the deprivation of potential pleasures (i.e. greater social equality in Panem). These, in aggregation, greatly surpass the short-‐term pleasures of “peace” in the nation. As a result, by utilitarianism, such a forced division can be concluded as unethical.
2.1.6 Power Through the Illusion of Hope
“Hope – it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective; a lot of hope is dangerous. Spark is fine, as long as it’s contained.” – President Snow
In one of the scenes in the movie, President Snow is seen to ask Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker, why the Capitol allows one winner from every season of the Hunger Games instead of rounding up all 24 contestants and execute them all at once. He then goes on to explain that it is the simultaneous unification of hope and intimidation that most effectively tames the Districts. It is this “little hope” that gives the Districts reason to believe in a better future, thereby keeping them from overthrowing the Capitol. As long as their situation is not completely hopeless, the Districts are more likely to submit to the Capitol than to resist at huge costs. Yet, this hope is illusionary and deliberately created by the Capitol to tame, control, and “contain” the Districts. It is merely a form of emotional manipulation.
This method of control has been an effective tool of governance throughout history. A pervasive modern example would be the public hearings on policy decisions where people are encouraged to hope that their testimony might actually influence public policy. In reality, decisions are often made and finalized
8
beforehand, and public hearings are held only as formalities with little room allowed for public’s influence. This is especially characteristic of single-‐party government systems like that of China.6 It is with this illusion of hope that authorities use to appease the populace.
From an ethical perspective, such a form of emotional manipulation to garner power is indeed questionable. A Kantian would condemn such an act on both principles. Under the principle of universality, the maxim “one can emotionally manipulate a populace to keep them under control” cannot be willed universally because this would undermine freedom and autonomy. Moreover, under the principle of humanity, such emotional manipulation is a demonstration of treating the populace merely as a means to appeasement and keeping them under control. It is unethical because the intrinsic value of humanity is ignored.
2.2
How Power is Exercised
While the Hunger Games is primarily used as a source for intimidation, it is also a major source of entertainment for the Capitol. The brutal games are packaged and marketed as the reality TV show of the year, complete with celebrity hosts and contestants, sponsors, high-‐tech setups, interviews and make-‐belief dramas. It seems almost identical to the reality TV shows we watch for entertainment in our world, except that the contestants in the Hunger Games are deemed as Tributes whose lives are sacrificed for the amusement of the elites. Clearly, power is at play here, and in an utter sadistic way. The poor are dehumanized and objectified, and the rich are desensitized through entertainment. It is hard not to question the ethicality of this usage of power.
2.2.1 Using the Poor as a Means to Entertainment
It is evident, from the start of the movie, how different the lives of the Capitol and that of the Districts are. The distinction between both classes culminates in the games: the Districts are objectified as Tributes to be used in the games whereas the Capitol is legally exempted from the participation in the games. The very title of “Tributes” attests to the Capitol’s treatment and perception of the contestants – that indeed they are worth nothing more than tributes for the rich. This relegation to a “below-‐human” status of the Districts becomes increasingly prevalent and disturbing as the movie proceeds.
Before the commencement of the game, the Tributes are put through physical makeovers to be paraded before the Capitol. The ostensible celebrity treatment of the Tributes – the privilege to be assigned personal managers, trainers and stylists, the luxurious enjoyment of top-‐class facilities, and the spontaneous cheers and support from the Capitol citizens – may seem ironic to the audience at first, but becomes pronounced later on. As much as one would like to believe, this elevated treatment of the Tributes is neither an acknowledgement of nor a
6 Liao. (2011). Concerns arise about credibility of public hearings in China. From World Wide Web: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7628498.html
9
respect for their humanity, but merely a commercialized way of increasing the entertainment value of the show for the rich. The grooming of the Tributes is merely for the aesthetic quality of the show, and likewise, the training of them is merely for the thrill and action of the show. There is no genuine development of talents and capacities for the good of the Tributes. In addition to the mentioned, the element of sponsorship in the games is yet another dimension to the entertainment value of it. By having control over the survival of the Tributes in the games, the sponsors feel involved and empowered, and this entertains them. This parallel can be drawn to the element of public voting in today’s reality TV shows such as American Idol, where contestants on the singing competition, too, are groomed and packaged as celebrities whose fates are ultimately decided by the public’s votes. While it is intuitive that the case of American Idol is certainly not as extreme as that of the Hunger Games, the lines of distinction between the two are nonetheless blurred. It is sometimes unclear as to whether producers (and even audience) of such shows are acting within ethical boundaries in their treatments of the contestants, and the movie serves as a reminder to us in this sense. By Kant’s standards, as long as the intrinsic values in the contestants are disregarded and they are being treated merely as a means to entertainment, it would be deemed as an unethical treatment. Fortunately, in the case of American Idol, it is likely that the contestants are not being treated merely as means to entertainment, because they are given genuine opportunities to develop their talents for the betterment of themselves. This is absent in the Hunger Games.
On top of the competition, the Tributes are required to participate in the live interview session with Caesar Flickerman as a prelude to the game. In this segment of the show, it seems as if the Tributes are finally given a voice before the Capitol. However, this “voice” is in fact nothing more than a façade. From their image to the content of the interview, every bit of it is carefully crafted and scripted by the elitist power behind the Tributes for entertainment value. It becomes clear, then, that the personal identities of the Tributes are under deconstruction by external power, as they are forced to present themselves in artificially created public personas just for the entertainment of the masses. Katniss is packaged as “the girl on fire” before the audience, and Peeta, along with Katniss, is marketed as the “star-‐crossed lovers”. There is no truth to any of these identities, and real identities are suppressed and made private. It becomes especially jarring and heartbreaking when Peeta confesses in private that he wishes not to be changed and “[turned] into something [he’s] not”. This is in absolute contrast to the humorous and charming persona that he presents himself to be on the show.
This idea of public personas is not unfamiliar to us in reality. In fact, the concept of celebrity is intertwined with public image. Celebrities often have to put up an image that is favorable to the public, and this public image is sometimes in conflict with who they really are. We are then led to question if this suppression of the true self is crossing ethical boundaries, and the answer lies in the existence (or nonexistence) of autonomy in the image bearer. An obvious example of ethical violation would be the case of Britney Spears, who took the courage and risk to respond in rebellion against her image managers. She publicly shaved her head, and expressed that it is a “loathing against the public persona that had
10
defined her until then”.7 It is evident that in Spears’ case, there is some serious psychological affliction, and she clearly has no autonomy over her public image. This closely resembles the case of the Tributes in The Hunger Games, where they are forced to put up false appearances in betrayal to their real self, and allow the behind-‐the-‐scenes forces to define them. By Kant’s standard, this is a violation of the principle of humanity, since autonomy is denied and the value of humanity is undermined. It is saddening that increasingly, in today’s showbiz, celebrities are promoted and favored according to their public image instead of a heavier focus on their talents. It gives management agencies excuses to overstep the line of privacy – both informational and decisional – and justifies that it is for the benefit of the employment. This is arguably unethical, because developing and promoting the celebrity’s talents, instead of forcing an artificial identity on him/her, can still make profits for the company and satisfy the goal of the employment. Such an intrusion of both informational and decisional privacies is unnecessary, and arguably irrelevant to the employment of the celebrity. The same can be said of the Hunger Games, where entertainment value is created at the expense of the privacy and humanity of the Tributes.
As the movie proceeds, the dehumanization of the Tributes reaches its climax in the game itself, when the suffering and death of the Tributes become the ultimate source of sadistic thrill and action for the Capitol. In the game arena, the Tributes are at complete mercy of the game masters. Sophisticated technology is employed to enhance the unexpectedness and entertainment value of the game, where the environment of the arena can be manipulated in such a way that forest fires, artificial beasts, etc., can be “inserted” into the game at the fingertips of the game masters. Evidently, the Tributes are degraded to a status akin to that of circus animals, where they are being made to perform to the amusement of the audience at the threat of a whip. Entertainment is achieved at the expense of the Tributes, as they are made to suffer as a result. In reality, we see the same thing repeated, albeit more subtle. For instance, Wipeout, an American reality game show, features contestants going through a gigantic obstacle course in competition for the shortest time of completion. The entertainment value of the show lies in crude humor, as the contestants are repeatedly ridiculed in their clumsiness for the amusement of the audience. The same parallel can be drawn with Fear Factor, where the audience is entertained by the daredevil stunts performed by the contestants. In these instances, it is easy for the audience to overlook the suffering – be it physical, emotional or psychological – of the contestants and fall into the trap of objectification. The humanity value in the contestants can be neglected, and the ethicality of it is thereby challenged.
It is unanimous that entertainment built upon the suffering of other human beings is unethical by Kant’s principles. When the contestants are objectified and treated merely as subjects for entertainment, Kant’s principle of humanity is violated. Moreover, the maxim “anyone is allowed to suffer merely as an expense for mass entertainment” cannot be universalized, because no one would want to
7 Rothstein. (2009). Why Britney Spears shaved her head. From World Wide Web: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/2462467/The-‐reason-‐why-‐Britney-‐
Spears-‐shaved-‐her-‐head.html
11
be objectified in this manner. A Rawlsian would agree with this conclusion based on the difference principle, as the least advantaged (i.e. the contestants) are not granted the greatest benefit. The most ideal distribution would be one that allows no one to be used as an expense for mass entertainment.
Under Mills’ greatest happiness principle, however, a different conclusion might ensue. At least on the surface level, it seems that the aggregate happiness of the entertained masses greatly outweighs the pains suffered by the contestants, merely because of the quantity factor in play. The number of people that benefit from the entertainment is an immense multiple of the number of people that suffer. However, it would be shallow to conclude this act to be ethical merely on this basis. Using Bentham’s factors of determining the value of happiness, we can make a deeper analysis. The pleasures that surface from the entertainment are extremely short-‐lived and trivial compared to the pains suffered. The pleasures derived from entertainment are superficial and fleeting, but in contrast, the pains that are suffered by the contestants can have lasting physical, emotional and psychological impact on them. In The Hunger Games, where death is concerned, the pains are extreme. Even after the games, the survivors are likely to suffer from post-‐traumatic stress disorders that might haunt them for the rest of their lives. In this sense, the happiness value is insignificant compared to the intensity and duration of pains suffered. On this basis, it can be argued that it is unethical to derive entertainment from the suffering of other human beings.
2.2.2 Using Entertainment to Desensitize the Capitol and the Districts
Apart from pure entertainment value, the Hunger Games also serves as a tool for desensitization of the Capitol and the Districts on two different levels. Effected by the brutal nature of the games, the Capitol, as audience, are increasingly desensitized in their attitude toward the poor (pun fully intended) Districts. The annual repetition of the brutality in the games is a frequent reminder of the imposed worthlessness of the Districts, and further widens the distinction in classes between the Capitol and the Districts. As a result, the Capitol citizens are led to perceive the Districts as objects at their casual disposal. This desensitization of the Capitol is clearly unethical by Kant’s terms, as it involves the dehumanization of the Districts. Similarly, in real life, we are often easily desensitized by the proliferation of poverty. As famously quoted from Joseph Stalin: “the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” Unbeknownst to us, our exposure to poverty by the media is increasingly desensitizing us against the poor. It may escalate to the point, where, the poor are even perceived to be of less value than the rich. And Collins is warning us against this through The Hunger Games.
On another level, the Hunger Games is also used to desensitize the Districts against themselves. The disregard for their humanity in the games is the ruler’s way of communicating his perception of their worthlessness to them. And as a result, perhaps subconsciously, the Districts see themselves as people of less value than the rich of the Capitol. They even come to the point of dehumanizing one another, as demonstrated by their act of mutual murder in the games. By succumbing to the rules of the game, they disregard the intrinsic value in one
12
another and treat each other merely as means to their own survivals. Yet, on the other hand, even if one chooses to be killed by another to allow the other to live, (s)he is equally unethical, because it is arguably an act of suicide. By giving up the chance to live, (s)he is disregarding his/her own intrinsic value, and is treating him/herself merely as a means to the other person’s survival. Therefore, it is evident that the Tributes are stuck in an ethical dilemma, since both options – to kill or to be killed – are immoral. As long as they succumb to the rules of the game, they will be deemed unethical by Kant’s standards. However, one would argue that it is justifiable for the Tributes to do so in this case because they are forced to, and therefore the only unethical actor would be the Capitol that puts them in such a circumstance. But are they really left with no other choice?
It is hinted in the movie that there is in fact a third alternative, as exemplified by the mutual respect between Katniss and Rue. Instead of taking the opportunity to kill Katniss while she is unconscious, Rue chooses not to succumb to the rules of the game and does the exact opposite: save Katniss’ life and protect her from being killed by the other Tributes. In return, Katniss, too, respects the intrinsic value in Rue, and chooses to preserve her life. In this case, it becomes mutually beneficial for the two, and both are acting ethically. What is unmentioned in the movie, though, is the sustainability of it. Rue is killed before the two of them are placed in a situation where only one is allowed to survive, so we are left clueless as to whether the two will still act ethically under such pressure. However, that being said, we are still given a glimpse into the possibility of breaking free from the ethical dilemma of choosing to kill or to be killed. Subsequently in the movie, Katniss continues to resist against the system by recognizing the humanity in Rue even after her death. Her act of covering Rue’s body in flowers is a gesture of honoring Rue’s humanity, and this immediately leads District 11 (Rue’s District) into active resistance. Although we are not told whether District 11’s resistance has made any difference to the system, we still see the possibility of the Districts being able to break free from the Capitol’s control. This alone is enough to prove that there is a third alternative – that is, to resist – to the options of killing or being killed, and the ethical dilemma can thereby be avoided. The choice, therefore, is between resistance against and submission to the rules of the game, and the obvious ethical choice would be to resist against the oppressive system. By doing so, the Tributes will be able to preserve one another’s lives. In addition, the maxim “one is allowed to resist against an oppressive system” can be universalized, as it will lead to a more desirable societal distribution with greater liberties, and the least advantaged (i.e. the oppressed) will be better benefited. This, however, is not discounting the difficulty in resistance. Indeed, courage is required, and in fact, applauded for. According to the Aristotelian virtue ethics, courage is a virtue, as it lies in the middle between cowardice and rashness. By resisting against an oppressive system, one is displaying courage in fighting for justice at an uncertain cost. This is certainly more virtuous than submitting to the oppressive system, which is arguably an act of cowardice. Therefore, all in all, with respect to The Hunger Games, it is both ethical and virtuous for the Districts to resist against the Capitol.
13
2.2.3 Using Autocratic Power to Execute Crane
As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, it is not only the Districts that are under power; the Capitol, too, is under the autocratic power of President Snow. At the end of the movie, President Snow is shown to be exercising his autocratic power over Crane by punishing him with a death sentence (he is made to eat the Nightlock berries which are poisonous). The cause of this punishment is Crane’s failure to perform his role as an agent of President Snow. As depicted in an earlier scene in the movie, President Snow commands Crane to “contain the hope” that is allowed in the games. As the Head Gamemaker, Crane is to maintain his power over the Tributes by enforcing the rules of the games on them, and the moment he allows defiance against the rules, he fails his role. By giving in to Peeta and Katniss’ threat of suicide and fulfilling their hope of allowing two survivors in the 74th Hunger Games, Crane thereby fails his job as the Head Gamemaker. And President Snow, as the principal of Crane, can rightfully punish him. The ethical issue here, however, is whether this death sentence is justifiable, or is it too severe a punishment?
According to the Aristotelean conception of justice, retributive justice seeks to restore the moral equilibrium. Yet, the moral equilibrium never existed in the games, as it is unethical to force the Tributes to kill each other for the purpose of entertainment to begin with. Even as an agent of President Snow, Crane is in fact not morally obliged to carry out his duty, because his duty involves unethical acts. Therefore, any punishment is in fact unjustifiable in this case, let alone a death sentence. In addition, even if Crane can be morally held responsible for his mistake, a death sentence is still uncalled for. Aristotle’s concept of justice is built upon the idea of complete virtue, which should lead to someone else’s good, not merely oneself. Since President Snow’s prescribed punishment is self-‐serving in nature – it is to maintain his autocratic power over all of Panem – and does not lead to any else’s good, it is therefore unfair and unethical. A more justifiable way of punishment would be to fire Crane from his position, assuming that he can be held responsible for his mistake in the first place.
3
Conclusion
Adapted from Nozick’s principles of just original acquisition and transfer, the ethicality of power can be examined according to how it is obtained, maintained, and exercised. In The Hunger Games, it has been found that power, in a variety of instances, is obtained, maintained, and exercised unjustly, thereby rendering it unethical. In mirrored real life situations, however, conclusions differed.
14
4
References
Bark. (2008). Americans as Addicts of Consumerism. The New York Times. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/arts/television/12foot.html?_r=0
Chan, and Shenoy. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility: Asian and Western Perspectives. McGraw-‐Hill.
Collins, and Ross. (2012). The Hunger Games. Lionsgate.
Curtis. (2012). Has Kony 2012 changed anything? The Guardian. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-‐check-‐with-‐polly-‐ curtis/2012/apr/16/has-‐kony-‐2012-‐changed-‐anything Invisible Children, Inc. (2012). Kony 2012. Available from World Wide Web: http://invisiblechildren.com/movedc
Liao. (2011). Concerns arise about credibility of public hearings in China. People’s Daily Online. Available from World Wide Web: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7628498.html
Rothstein. (2009). Why Britney Spears shaved her head. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/2462467/The-‐reason-‐ why-‐Britney-‐Spears-‐shaved-‐her-‐head.html Sellers. (2008). A Dark Horse Breaks Out: The buzz is on for Suzanne Collins’s YA series debut. Publishers Weekly. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20080609/9915-‐a-‐dark-‐horse-‐ breaks-‐out.html Wikipedia. (2012). The Hunger Games. Available from World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games
15
Professor Kenneth Wong G15
Dorothy SIOK Li Phing LIU Zhe LIN Feng Ian Nicolette CHEN Lixin TAN Yan Zhen
1
1
Introduction
2
The Ethics of Power
2.1
How Power is Obtained and Maintained
The Hunger Games is a dystopian fiction in which totalitarianism prevails. Set in the post-‐apocalyptic nation of Panem, the imaginary society is constructed upon an inordinate
power imbalance between the rich and the poor, and in this context, wealth is synonymous with absolute power and control. In the movie, specifically, the poor from the Twelve Districts are subjected to the totalitarian power of the Capitol, and the annual Hunger Games is a salient symbol of the Capitol’s oppression of the poor. While this extreme form of power, in the movie, begets serious ethical transgression and therefore invites the audience to disagree with the Capitol’s conduct, what truly perturb the audience are the uncanny parallels between the movie and reality. Through deliberate distortions and exaggerations, the movie effectively functions as a satire, inviting the audience to question the ethics behind the power of wealth, entertainment, and government control in society today.
Power, by definition, is the ability to influence the behavior of others. This capacity to influence, on its own, is neither ethical nor unethical – it must be taken into context to examine the ethics behind it. In this paper, the ethics of power is explored in the contexts of (1) how power is obtained and maintained, and (2) how power is exercised. In reference to the movie, power exists on three levels: President Coriolanus Snow’s autocratic power over the Capitol and all of Panem, and the Capitol’s control over the Twelve Districts. Therefore, in our discussion, the ethics of power will be analyzed on these three levels of control in the context of how it is obtained, maintained, and exercised. References to real life ethical dilemmas will be made occasionally in fulfilling the satirical intent behind the movie.
In The Hunger Games, while wealth is a great source of power for the Capitol, it is not a standalone instrument with which subjugation is engineered. It also takes deliberation and careful orchestration (or rather, manipulation) to subdue the multitude. In Panem, President Snow is the puppet master over the whole nation, the mastermind behind Capitol’s absolute power over the rest. As revealed in the movie, his methods of control are often unscrupulous, therefore demanding serious ethical criticisms. What lies beneath on a deeper level, however, is the revelation of paralleled methods of control, albeit less extreme, in reality by the authorities in our society. This would be a subject in our discussion as well.
2.1.1 Power Through Superficial Means of Appeasement
As purposefully intended by Suzanne Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, the nation of Panem is built upon the metaphor of panem et circenses (bread and
2
circuses)1, which alludes to a superficial means of public appeasement through division, distraction, and the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. This frivolity that characterized the Roman Republic in 140 B.C. is accurately mirrored in The Hunger Games, through exaggerated images and hyperbolized visuals. Citizens of the Capitol are portrayed in ridiculously elaborated outfits bordering on the bizarre, and they seem to be in constant indulgence in masquerades and entertainment. It is through this method that President Snow gains absolute political power: by keeping his citizens in the Capitol distracted with personal pleasures and entertainment such that they no longer value civic virtues, they would bow to his authority with unquestioned obedience.
This familiar reality is not unfounded in society today. It is not coincidence that Panem seems to be America seen through a distorting mirror. Dubbed as the “Addicts of Consumerism” by The New York Times2, America has long bathed in the riches of food and entertainment. While it is presumptuous to question the intention of the government in driving the consumerism culture – it can well be built on pure economic purpose –, it is not unfair to evaluate the effects of such gluttonous consumption. Political apathy abounds among the young generation of the nation, and this phenomenon is believed to be largely stemming from their preoccupation with the glamourized media culture and glorified violent entertainment. Therefore, through the Capitol, Collins warns the adolescents of their susceptibility to panem et circenses.
So, is panem et circenses ethical? From a utilitarian point of view, where overall happiness is paramount, the answer is not so clear. It can be argued that panem et circenses in fact creates pleasure, since the superficial appeasement of the populace involves the satisfaction of immediate, carnal needs. The only “pain” that arises in this case is the loss of civic virtues in the society, which is unimportant to a politically apathetic society. Following this argument, it would therefore be ethical for a higher authority to superficially appease the populace since the pleasures created outweighs the pains injected. However, it is also arguable that this form of pleasure derived from food and entertainment is a lower pleasure in Mill’s terms, and thus should not replace political prudence, which is a higher pleasure. But this is contingent on the society’s capacity to the appreciation and enjoyment of such higher pleasures, which, in the case of a politically apathetic society, is non-‐existent. This would consequently bring us to the conclusion that panem et circenses is ethical. Yet, something seems to be amiss in the utilitarian argument, because the conclusion is drawn largely upon
1 Panem et Circensus, literally "bread and circuses", was the formula for the well-‐ being of the population, and thus a political strategy. This formula offered a variety of pleasures such as: the distribution of food, public baths, gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races, sports competition, and theater representation. It was an efficient instrument in the hands of the Emperors to keep the population peaceful, and at the same time giving them the opportunity to voice themselves in these places of performance. 2 Bark. (2008). Americans as Addicts of Consumerism. From World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/arts/television/12foot.html?_r=0
3
the superficial nature of the society. In the case of a prudent society that appreciates civic virtues, a contrasting conclusion will be drawn. Evidently, utilitarianism is insufficient in measuring the ethicality of the issue. To supplement the discussion, Aristotle’s perspective of happiness can be included. To Aristotle, a happy man is one who is virtuous throughout a complete lifetime, and the happiest life is that of the life of the intellect based on intellectual virtues.3 In the case of a society that is politically apathetic, the populace lacks intellectual virtues such as wisdom and prudence, and in the absence of these virtues, Aristotle would not perceive the society to be truly happy. In other words, superficial pleasures that are divorced from virtues are not, in Aristotle’s terms, true happiness. Therefore, since the superficial pleasures derived from food and entertainment are trivial and the pains from the deprivation of political prudence (which, to Aristotle, is happiness that is virtuous) is immense, panem et circenses would be unethical.
Complementarily, a Kantian would agree with the conclusion. This is because panem et circenses is a blatant violation of Kant’s principle of humanity. By superficially appeasing the populace in order to conjure blind obedience from them, the higher authority is disregarding the intrinsic value and autonomy in the populace, treating them merely as a means to absolute control. Similarly, by Rawls’ principle of equal liberty, the same conclusion can be drawn. Panem et circenses is a manipulation of the populace, where their rights and autonomy to reason and question are undermined. It is a psychological silencing of the populace, arguably an indirect denial of their freedom of speech. As a result, panem et circenses is unethical.
2.1.2 Power Through Propaganda
“War, terrible war. Widows, orphans, a motherless child. This was the uprising that rocked our land. Thirteen districts rebelled against the country that fed them, loved them, protected them. Brother turned on brother until nothing remained. And then came the peace, hard fought, sorely won. A people rose up from the ashes and a new era was born. But freedom has a cost. When the traitors were defeated, we swore as a nation we would never know this treason again. And so it was decreed, that each year, the various districts of Panem would offer up in tribute, one young man and woman, to fight to the death in a pageant of honor, courage and sacrifice. The lone victor, bathed in riches, would serve as a reminder of our generosity and our forgiveness. This is how we remember our past. This is how we safeguard our future.” – President Snow (voice over)
Propaganda aims at influencing the general attitude of a community toward a specific position by presenting only one side of an argument. Often, propaganda encloses political agendas, as exemplified in the video shown at the Reaping in the movie. Emotional language and imagery are used to distort the reality of the situation in Panem, biasedly painting the Capitol to be people of “generosity” and
3 Chan, and Shenoy. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility: Asian and Western Perspectives. McGraw-‐Hill. p. 51.
4
“forgivingness” whereas the Districts to be “traitors”. Evidently, the propaganda video exhibits the one-‐sided argument that supposedly “legitimizes” the Capitol’s absolute control over the Districts. And this imposed legitimacy is fundamentally unethical on two levels: (1) the propaganda frames its argument only from the perspective of the Capitol and omits all facts that are in favor of the Districts, rendering it lying by omission, and (2) the strategic overload of emotional imagery in the message is an intentional suppression of rationality in responses, thereby misleading the populace to either endorse or submit to an otherwise unaccepted cause.
As mentioned, the propaganda crafted by President Snow portrays the Capitol as “the country that fed…loved…protected…” the Districts. This portrayal of the Capitol not only omits its unfair treatment toward and oppression of the Districts, but also grossly exaggerates its little provision for them. Unlike the generous authority it paints itself to be, the Capitol is in fact self-‐serving and callous, as it accumulates wealth only for itself. Basic necessities are provided only for the purpose of labor, so that the Capitol can effortlessly sit on the benefits reaped by the Districts. The truth seems to be that the Districts are the ones providing for the Capitol through their hard labor, instead of the contrasting story spelt out in the propaganda. This distortion of truth and omission of facts is unethical, because it does not meet the requirements of Kant’s categorical imperatives and Rawls’ principles of justice. With respect to Kantian ethics, the maxim “distortion of truth and omission of facts can be used to persuade masses” cannot be applied to the whole universe or else the world will function only on lies. Moreover, such a persuasion is manipulative and self-‐serving in nature, as it undermines the autonomy in the populace, treating them merely as a means to a cause that benefits only the propaganda creator. This, on its own, is already a violation of both Kant’s principle of humanity and Rawls’ original position, which rules that self-‐serving decisions are not to be made.
Another element to propaganda is the strategic overuse of emotional drivers for the purpose of persuasion. In The Hunger Games, imageries of war, widows and orphans are used to incite fear in the Districts, in a way that resistance against the Capitol is closely associated with death and the loss of loved ones. On another level, the portrayal of the Districts as “traitors” fuels irrational abhorrence in the Capitol citizens toward the Districts, thereby making the oppression of the Districts seem justifiable in the eyes of the Capitol. In our world, such emotional manipulation also exists. Manipulative and jingoistic propagandas, such as that of the Nazi regime in justifying the Holocaust, are a trademark of history. A more recent example of manipulative propaganda points us to the Kony 2012 movement4, a campaign against the Ugandan cult and militia leader, Joseph Kony. Similar to The Hunger Games, the propaganda video of Kony 2012 employs imagery of babies and little children to cut through the rational filter in the audience, so as to trigger emotional responses that would help further the cause
4 Kony 2012 is a short film created by Invisible Children, made for the purpose of promoting the charity 's "Stop Kony" movement to make Ugandan cult and militia leader, indicted war criminal and International Criminal Court fugitive Joseph Kony globally known in order to have him arrested by December 2012.
5
of the movement. As a result, the video went viral and became a huge success on social medias, but it was later found to be deceptive. The video was accused of falsely depicting Uganda as being war torn, when, in fact, Kony and the LRA no longer operate there. 5 All these facts were covered up and veiled in emotional grandiloquence, so that the audience will be easily carried away by the imagery of suffering children. The question is, is this ethical?
In the cases of The Hunger Games and the Nazi propaganda for the Holocaust, the answer is obvious. The suppression of rational evaluation and the provocation of emotional responses are to persuade people toward malicious causes. In these cases, the consequences are largely undesirable, as pains dominate. A large number of the poor and the discriminated are oppressed and treated less than humans for the pleasures of a small group of elites. This would render the Capitol and the Nazi propagandas unethical by the basis of consequentialism. However, in the case of Kony 2012, there might be mixed conclusions. If the movement indeed wipes out the LRA led by Joseph Kony and oppressed children are freed as a result, the use of propaganda can be considered ethical. This is, however, based on the assumption that the pleasures resulting from this movement – removal of Kony and the LRA, and the restoration of social order in Uganda – outweighs the pains experienced – emotional manipulation (or even, deception) of the audience of the propaganda. The argument is that the emotional manipulation, albeit unethical by Kant’s standards as it undermines the autonomy in the audience, is justifiable because it effectively (more effective than rational messages) and promptly (quicker than rational messages) garners the support of the public for a good cause. Therefore, by utilitarianism, Kony 2012 would be deemed ethical if the end result leads to an overall better society in Uganda.
Utilitarianism, as opposed to deontology, is favored in the case of Kony 2012 because consequences of the ethical act are more important than the intention of the ethical actor. To a society that suffers from perpetual poverty and injustice, it is more crucial to and beneficial for them to restore social order and alleviate their situation than to be occupied with moral deliberations. To them, intention is secondary, possibly even unimportant. If an emotionally manipulative propaganda can rally masses in pushing for external help to Uganda in the fastest and most effective way, it can be justified.
2.1.3 Power Through Control of Basic Necessities
In The Hunger Games, through the control of basic necessities, the Capitol effectively controls the life and death of the Districts. By limiting the availability of food in the Districts, the Capitol is able to keep them under control, as they will be preoccupied with struggles for survival. The effectiveness of this is seen in the way the Districts respond to tesserae. It is both ironic and irrational that the inhabitants of the Districts are willing to pledge higher chances of entering the Hunger Games, which increases their chances of death, in exchange for more
5 Curtis. (2012). Has Kony 2012 changed anything? From World Wide Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-‐check-‐with-‐polly-‐ curtis/2012/apr/16/has-‐kony-‐2012-‐changed-‐anything 6
food, which is supposed to help them survive. In essence, for the Districts, survival comes at the cost of a higher probability of death. Yet, instead of challenging the rules, they comply obediently, allowing the Capitol to keep them under control.
This method of control is blatantly unethical. This is because the control and limiting of basic necessities fundamentally violates Rawls’ two principles of justice. The limiting of basic necessities for the purpose of absolute control deprives the Districts of even the most basic liberties. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, physiological needs are most fundamental to human beings, and must be met before other higher order needs can be enjoyed. Therefore, when the Districts are deprived of their physiological needs – for example, food and water –, they are unable to enjoy any other form of liberty. Moreover, such a distribution of resources in Panem is to the greatest benefit of the most advantaged, thereby violating Rawls’ difference principle. If the Capitol were to be under the veil of ignorance, such a way of controlling and limiting the basic necessities would never have taken place. This would easily bring us to the conclusion that this method of control is unethical.
2.1.4 Power Through Military Control
Military control is an important source of power in The Hunger Games, and it is executed through heavy surveillance, policing, barbed wires and fences (in keeping the Districts divided), and strict enforcement of laws and rules. Similar to the situation in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-‐Four, inhabitants of the Districts are being watched and monitored almost twenty-‐four-‐seven through cameras. Order and suppression in the Districts are maintained through coercion and brutality by Peacekeepers, a military police force controlled by the Capitol. As a result, the Districts are stripped of every right to basic liberties, including privacy, freedom of speech, freedom from arbitrary arrest, etc.
It is clear, therefore, that military control has been taken to the extreme in The Hunger Games. Such extremity, sadly, also exists in reality. In North Korea, due to the nature of its single-‐party government, totalitarianism prevails. Human rights are deprived and violated, and citizens are kept under control largely via military means. In these two cases, the use of military control is largely unethical. The omnipresent government surveillance denies the populace of its most basic right to privacy, thereby violating Rawls’ principle of equal liberty. This denial of basic human rights also undermines the intrinsic value in the populace, treating them merely as a means to the maintenance of the government’s totalitarian power. Thus, Kant’s principle of humanity is also violated. Using utilitarianism, the same conclusion can be drawn. The aggregate pleasures derived from absolute power are insignificant to the immense pains experienced by the populace in the absence of basic human rights, and this net result of pain would render such an extreme form of military control unethical.
7
2.1.5 Power Through Forced Division The purpose of the annual Hunger Games, apart from reminding the Districts of their alleged “treason”, also lies in creating and maintaining a forced division among the 12 Districts. Unity in the Districts, as realized by President Snow, is extremely dangerous to the Capitol, as it would bring about effective resistance and rebellion. By allowing only one victor every year, the Hunger Games therefore serves as a device in creating competition and rivalry among the Districts, and this disunity would prevent them from rebelling against the Capitol.
So, is such a forced division ethical? Under utilitarianism, the argument can head in two directions. The Capitol would argue that by creating this forced division among the Districts, war is prevented and peace is maintained. Compared to the situation of an ongoing rebellion in the nation, it is to the greater benefits of both the Capitol and the Districts to be not engaged in such a war against one another. Therefore, following this argument, the pleasures of enjoying a peaceful environment by all greatly offsets the pains of discord among the Districts. This would render the forced division ethical. However, it is to be noted that the above argument is flawed because of its shortsighted nature. Instead of looking only within the short term, we should examine the consequences of rebellion in the long term. In the case that the Districts unites and successfully overthrows the Capitol, the potential in the pleasures of enjoying greater equality in the nation is immense. Therefore, the forced division among the Districts would result not only in the pains of the felt discords, but also in the pains of the deprivation of potential pleasures (i.e. greater social equality in Panem). These, in aggregation, greatly surpass the short-‐term pleasures of “peace” in the nation. As a result, by utilitarianism, such a forced division can be concluded as unethical.
2.1.6 Power Through the Illusion of Hope
“Hope – it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective; a lot of hope is dangerous. Spark is fine, as long as it’s contained.” – President Snow
In one of the scenes in the movie, President Snow is seen to ask Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker, why the Capitol allows one winner from every season of the Hunger Games instead of rounding up all 24 contestants and execute them all at once. He then goes on to explain that it is the simultaneous unification of hope and intimidation that most effectively tames the Districts. It is this “little hope” that gives the Districts reason to believe in a better future, thereby keeping them from overthrowing the Capitol. As long as their situation is not completely hopeless, the Districts are more likely to submit to the Capitol than to resist at huge costs. Yet, this hope is illusionary and deliberately created by the Capitol to tame, control, and “contain” the Districts. It is merely a form of emotional manipulation.
This method of control has been an effective tool of governance throughout history. A pervasive modern example would be the public hearings on policy decisions where people are encouraged to hope that their testimony might actually influence public policy. In reality, decisions are often made and finalized
8
beforehand, and public hearings are held only as formalities with little room allowed for public’s influence. This is especially characteristic of single-‐party government systems like that of China.6 It is with this illusion of hope that authorities use to appease the populace.
From an ethical perspective, such a form of emotional manipulation to garner power is indeed questionable. A Kantian would condemn such an act on both principles. Under the principle of universality, the maxim “one can emotionally manipulate a populace to keep them under control” cannot be willed universally because this would undermine freedom and autonomy. Moreover, under the principle of humanity, such emotional manipulation is a demonstration of treating the populace merely as a means to appeasement and keeping them under control. It is unethical because the intrinsic value of humanity is ignored.
2.2
How Power is Exercised
While the Hunger Games is primarily used as a source for intimidation, it is also a major source of entertainment for the Capitol. The brutal games are packaged and marketed as the reality TV show of the year, complete with celebrity hosts and contestants, sponsors, high-‐tech setups, interviews and make-‐belief dramas. It seems almost identical to the reality TV shows we watch for entertainment in our world, except that the contestants in the Hunger Games are deemed as Tributes whose lives are sacrificed for the amusement of the elites. Clearly, power is at play here, and in an utter sadistic way. The poor are dehumanized and objectified, and the rich are desensitized through entertainment. It is hard not to question the ethicality of this usage of power.
2.2.1 Using the Poor as a Means to Entertainment
It is evident, from the start of the movie, how different the lives of the Capitol and that of the Districts are. The distinction between both classes culminates in the games: the Districts are objectified as Tributes to be used in the games whereas the Capitol is legally exempted from the participation in the games. The very title of “Tributes” attests to the Capitol’s treatment and perception of the contestants – that indeed they are worth nothing more than tributes for the rich. This relegation to a “below-‐human” status of the Districts becomes increasingly prevalent and disturbing as the movie proceeds.
Before the commencement of the game, the Tributes are put through physical makeovers to be paraded before the Capitol. The ostensible celebrity treatment of the Tributes – the privilege to be assigned personal managers, trainers and stylists, the luxurious enjoyment of top-‐class facilities, and the spontaneous cheers and support from the Capitol citizens – may seem ironic to the audience at first, but becomes pronounced later on. As much as one would like to believe, this elevated treatment of the Tributes is neither an acknowledgement of nor a
6 Liao. (2011). Concerns arise about credibility of public hearings in China. From World Wide Web: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7628498.html
9
respect for their humanity, but merely a commercialized way of increasing the entertainment value of the show for the rich. The grooming of the Tributes is merely for the aesthetic quality of the show, and likewise, the training of them is merely for the thrill and action of the show. There is no genuine development of talents and capacities for the good of the Tributes. In addition to the mentioned, the element of sponsorship in the games is yet another dimension to the entertainment value of it. By having control over the survival of the Tributes in the games, the sponsors feel involved and empowered, and this entertains them. This parallel can be drawn to the element of public voting in today’s reality TV shows such as American Idol, where contestants on the singing competition, too, are groomed and packaged as celebrities whose fates are ultimately decided by the public’s votes. While it is intuitive that the case of American Idol is certainly not as extreme as that of the Hunger Games, the lines of distinction between the two are nonetheless blurred. It is sometimes unclear as to whether producers (and even audience) of such shows are acting within ethical boundaries in their treatments of the contestants, and the movie serves as a reminder to us in this sense. By Kant’s standards, as long as the intrinsic values in the contestants are disregarded and they are being treated merely as a means to entertainment, it would be deemed as an unethical treatment. Fortunately, in the case of American Idol, it is likely that the contestants are not being treated merely as means to entertainment, because they are given genuine opportunities to develop their talents for the betterment of themselves. This is absent in the Hunger Games.
On top of the competition, the Tributes are required to participate in the live interview session with Caesar Flickerman as a prelude to the game. In this segment of the show, it seems as if the Tributes are finally given a voice before the Capitol. However, this “voice” is in fact nothing more than a façade. From their image to the content of the interview, every bit of it is carefully crafted and scripted by the elitist power behind the Tributes for entertainment value. It becomes clear, then, that the personal identities of the Tributes are under deconstruction by external power, as they are forced to present themselves in artificially created public personas just for the entertainment of the masses. Katniss is packaged as “the girl on fire” before the audience, and Peeta, along with Katniss, is marketed as the “star-‐crossed lovers”. There is no truth to any of these identities, and real identities are suppressed and made private. It becomes especially jarring and heartbreaking when Peeta confesses in private that he wishes not to be changed and “[turned] into something [he’s] not”. This is in absolute contrast to the humorous and charming persona that he presents himself to be on the show.
This idea of public personas is not unfamiliar to us in reality. In fact, the concept of celebrity is intertwined with public image. Celebrities often have to put up an image that is favorable to the public, and this public image is sometimes in conflict with who they really are. We are then led to question if this suppression of the true self is crossing ethical boundaries, and the answer lies in the existence (or nonexistence) of autonomy in the image bearer. An obvious example of ethical violation would be the case of Britney Spears, who took the courage and risk to respond in rebellion against her image managers. She publicly shaved her head, and expressed that it is a “loathing against the public persona that had
10
defined her until then”.7 It is evident that in Spears’ case, there is some serious psychological affliction, and she clearly has no autonomy over her public image. This closely resembles the case of the Tributes in The Hunger Games, where they are forced to put up false appearances in betrayal to their real self, and allow the behind-‐the-‐scenes forces to define them. By Kant’s standard, this is a violation of the principle of humanity, since autonomy is denied and the value of humanity is undermined. It is saddening that increasingly, in today’s showbiz, celebrities are promoted and favored according to their public image instead of a heavier focus on their talents. It gives management agencies excuses to overstep the line of privacy – both informational and decisional – and justifies that it is for the benefit of the employment. This is arguably unethical, because developing and promoting the celebrity’s talents, instead of forcing an artificial identity on him/her, can still make profits for the company and satisfy the goal of the employment. Such an intrusion of both informational and decisional privacies is unnecessary, and arguably irrelevant to the employment of the celebrity. The same can be said of the Hunger Games, where entertainment value is created at the expense of the privacy and humanity of the Tributes.
As the movie proceeds, the dehumanization of the Tributes reaches its climax in the game itself, when the suffering and death of the Tributes become the ultimate source of sadistic thrill and action for the Capitol. In the game arena, the Tributes are at complete mercy of the game masters. Sophisticated technology is employed to enhance the unexpectedness and entertainment value of the game, where the environment of the arena can be manipulated in such a way that forest fires, artificial beasts, etc., can be “inserted” into the game at the fingertips of the game masters. Evidently, the Tributes are degraded to a status akin to that of circus animals, where they are being made to perform to the amusement of the audience at the threat of a whip. Entertainment is achieved at the expense of the Tributes, as they are made to suffer as a result. In reality, we see the same thing repeated, albeit more subtle. For instance, Wipeout, an American reality game show, features contestants going through a gigantic obstacle course in competition for the shortest time of completion. The entertainment value of the show lies in crude humor, as the contestants are repeatedly ridiculed in their clumsiness for the amusement of the audience. The same parallel can be drawn with Fear Factor, where the audience is entertained by the daredevil stunts performed by the contestants. In these instances, it is easy for the audience to overlook the suffering – be it physical, emotional or psychological – of the contestants and fall into the trap of objectification. The humanity value in the contestants can be neglected, and the ethicality of it is thereby challenged.
It is unanimous that entertainment built upon the suffering of other human beings is unethical by Kant’s principles. When the contestants are objectified and treated merely as subjects for entertainment, Kant’s principle of humanity is violated. Moreover, the maxim “anyone is allowed to suffer merely as an expense for mass entertainment” cannot be universalized, because no one would want to
7 Rothstein. (2009). Why Britney Spears shaved her head. From World Wide Web: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/2462467/The-‐reason-‐why-‐Britney-‐
Spears-‐shaved-‐her-‐head.html
11
be objectified in this manner. A Rawlsian would agree with this conclusion based on the difference principle, as the least advantaged (i.e. the contestants) are not granted the greatest benefit. The most ideal distribution would be one that allows no one to be used as an expense for mass entertainment.
Under Mills’ greatest happiness principle, however, a different conclusion might ensue. At least on the surface level, it seems that the aggregate happiness of the entertained masses greatly outweighs the pains suffered by the contestants, merely because of the quantity factor in play. The number of people that benefit from the entertainment is an immense multiple of the number of people that suffer. However, it would be shallow to conclude this act to be ethical merely on this basis. Using Bentham’s factors of determining the value of happiness, we can make a deeper analysis. The pleasures that surface from the entertainment are extremely short-‐lived and trivial compared to the pains suffered. The pleasures derived from entertainment are superficial and fleeting, but in contrast, the pains that are suffered by the contestants can have lasting physical, emotional and psychological impact on them. In The Hunger Games, where death is concerned, the pains are extreme. Even after the games, the survivors are likely to suffer from post-‐traumatic stress disorders that might haunt them for the rest of their lives. In this sense, the happiness value is insignificant compared to the intensity and duration of pains suffered. On this basis, it can be argued that it is unethical to derive entertainment from the suffering of other human beings.
2.2.2 Using Entertainment to Desensitize the Capitol and the Districts
Apart from pure entertainment value, the Hunger Games also serves as a tool for desensitization of the Capitol and the Districts on two different levels. Effected by the brutal nature of the games, the Capitol, as audience, are increasingly desensitized in their attitude toward the poor (pun fully intended) Districts. The annual repetition of the brutality in the games is a frequent reminder of the imposed worthlessness of the Districts, and further widens the distinction in classes between the Capitol and the Districts. As a result, the Capitol citizens are led to perceive the Districts as objects at their casual disposal. This desensitization of the Capitol is clearly unethical by Kant’s terms, as it involves the dehumanization of the Districts. Similarly, in real life, we are often easily desensitized by the proliferation of poverty. As famously quoted from Joseph Stalin: “the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” Unbeknownst to us, our exposure to poverty by the media is increasingly desensitizing us against the poor. It may escalate to the point, where, the poor are even perceived to be of less value than the rich. And Collins is warning us against this through The Hunger Games.
On another level, the Hunger Games is also used to desensitize the Districts against themselves. The disregard for their humanity in the games is the ruler’s way of communicating his perception of their worthlessness to them. And as a result, perhaps subconsciously, the Districts see themselves as people of less value than the rich of the Capitol. They even come to the point of dehumanizing one another, as demonstrated by their act of mutual murder in the games. By succumbing to the rules of the game, they disregard the intrinsic value in one
12
another and treat each other merely as means to their own survivals. Yet, on the other hand, even if one chooses to be killed by another to allow the other to live, (s)he is equally unethical, because it is arguably an act of suicide. By giving up the chance to live, (s)he is disregarding his/her own intrinsic value, and is treating him/herself merely as a means to the other person’s survival. Therefore, it is evident that the Tributes are stuck in an ethical dilemma, since both options – to kill or to be killed – are immoral. As long as they succumb to the rules of the game, they will be deemed unethical by Kant’s standards. However, one would argue that it is justifiable for the Tributes to do so in this case because they are forced to, and therefore the only unethical actor would be the Capitol that puts them in such a circumstance. But are they really left with no other choice?
It is hinted in the movie that there is in fact a third alternative, as exemplified by the mutual respect between Katniss and Rue. Instead of taking the opportunity to kill Katniss while she is unconscious, Rue chooses not to succumb to the rules of the game and does the exact opposite: save Katniss’ life and protect her from being killed by the other Tributes. In return, Katniss, too, respects the intrinsic value in Rue, and chooses to preserve her life. In this case, it becomes mutually beneficial for the two, and both are acting ethically. What is unmentioned in the movie, though, is the sustainability of it. Rue is killed before the two of them are placed in a situation where only one is allowed to survive, so we are left clueless as to whether the two will still act ethically under such pressure. However, that being said, we are still given a glimpse into the possibility of breaking free from the ethical dilemma of choosing to kill or to be killed. Subsequently in the movie, Katniss continues to resist against the system by recognizing the humanity in Rue even after her death. Her act of covering Rue’s body in flowers is a gesture of honoring Rue’s humanity, and this immediately leads District 11 (Rue’s District) into active resistance. Although we are not told whether District 11’s resistance has made any difference to the system, we still see the possibility of the Districts being able to break free from the Capitol’s control. This alone is enough to prove that there is a third alternative – that is, to resist – to the options of killing or being killed, and the ethical dilemma can thereby be avoided. The choice, therefore, is between resistance against and submission to the rules of the game, and the obvious ethical choice would be to resist against the oppressive system. By doing so, the Tributes will be able to preserve one another’s lives. In addition, the maxim “one is allowed to resist against an oppressive system” can be universalized, as it will lead to a more desirable societal distribution with greater liberties, and the least advantaged (i.e. the oppressed) will be better benefited. This, however, is not discounting the difficulty in resistance. Indeed, courage is required, and in fact, applauded for. According to the Aristotelian virtue ethics, courage is a virtue, as it lies in the middle between cowardice and rashness. By resisting against an oppressive system, one is displaying courage in fighting for justice at an uncertain cost. This is certainly more virtuous than submitting to the oppressive system, which is arguably an act of cowardice. Therefore, all in all, with respect to The Hunger Games, it is both ethical and virtuous for the Districts to resist against the Capitol.
13
2.2.3 Using Autocratic Power to Execute Crane
As mentioned in the introduction of this paper, it is not only the Districts that are under power; the Capitol, too, is under the autocratic power of President Snow. At the end of the movie, President Snow is shown to be exercising his autocratic power over Crane by punishing him with a death sentence (he is made to eat the Nightlock berries which are poisonous). The cause of this punishment is Crane’s failure to perform his role as an agent of President Snow. As depicted in an earlier scene in the movie, President Snow commands Crane to “contain the hope” that is allowed in the games. As the Head Gamemaker, Crane is to maintain his power over the Tributes by enforcing the rules of the games on them, and the moment he allows defiance against the rules, he fails his role. By giving in to Peeta and Katniss’ threat of suicide and fulfilling their hope of allowing two survivors in the 74th Hunger Games, Crane thereby fails his job as the Head Gamemaker. And President Snow, as the principal of Crane, can rightfully punish him. The ethical issue here, however, is whether this death sentence is justifiable, or is it too severe a punishment?
According to the Aristotelean conception of justice, retributive justice seeks to restore the moral equilibrium. Yet, the moral equilibrium never existed in the games, as it is unethical to force the Tributes to kill each other for the purpose of entertainment to begin with. Even as an agent of President Snow, Crane is in fact not morally obliged to carry out his duty, because his duty involves unethical acts. Therefore, any punishment is in fact unjustifiable in this case, let alone a death sentence. In addition, even if Crane can be morally held responsible for his mistake, a death sentence is still uncalled for. Aristotle’s concept of justice is built upon the idea of complete virtue, which should lead to someone else’s good, not merely oneself. Since President Snow’s prescribed punishment is self-‐serving in nature – it is to maintain his autocratic power over all of Panem – and does not lead to any else’s good, it is therefore unfair and unethical. A more justifiable way of punishment would be to fire Crane from his position, assuming that he can be held responsible for his mistake in the first place.
3
Conclusion
Adapted from Nozick’s principles of just original acquisition and transfer, the ethicality of power can be examined according to how it is obtained, maintained, and exercised. In The Hunger Games, it has been found that power, in a variety of instances, is obtained, maintained, and exercised unjustly, thereby rendering it unethical. In mirrored real life situations, however, conclusions differed.
14
4
References
Bark. (2008). Americans as Addicts of Consumerism. The New York Times. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/arts/television/12foot.html?_r=0
Chan, and Shenoy. (2010). Ethics and Social Responsibility: Asian and Western Perspectives. McGraw-‐Hill.
Collins, and Ross. (2012). The Hunger Games. Lionsgate.
Curtis. (2012). Has Kony 2012 changed anything? The Guardian. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-‐check-‐with-‐polly-‐ curtis/2012/apr/16/has-‐kony-‐2012-‐changed-‐anything Invisible Children, Inc. (2012). Kony 2012. Available from World Wide Web: http://invisiblechildren.com/movedc
Liao. (2011). Concerns arise about credibility of public hearings in China. People’s Daily Online. Available from World Wide Web: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90780/7628498.html
Rothstein. (2009). Why Britney Spears shaved her head. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/2462467/The-‐reason-‐ why-‐Britney-‐Spears-‐shaved-‐her-‐head.html Sellers. (2008). A Dark Horse Breaks Out: The buzz is on for Suzanne Collins’s YA series debut. Publishers Weekly. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/20080609/9915-‐a-‐dark-‐horse-‐ breaks-‐out.html Wikipedia. (2012). The Hunger Games. Available from World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games
15