May the Capitol Be Ever in Your Favor

Ethical and Political Philosophy in The Hunger Games

By: Patrick T. Adams

I was 16 years old the first time I picked up a dystopian thriller: George Orwell’s haunting vision of a zero-privacy future, 1984. It was unlike anything I had read previously because its content struck me as something that was possible and to some degree already realized, especially since the Patriot Act had recently been signed into law. At the time, my hormonal teenage mind was easily overcome with paranoia that the government was keeping tabs on me, as if my school cafeteria fart jokes and awkward flirtation with girls were enough to pique the interest of U.S. government bigwigs.

Still, teenage melodrama aside, there is some credibility to the genre of dystopian fiction. It brings the abstract concepts of a decaying culture and/or the political state (really, the relationship between the two is reciprocal) to the perceptual level, showing the depravity possible to human beings in the absence of rational values. The genre’s latest popular incarnation is Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games, and it is a great example of many philosophical subjects ranging from ethics to politics.

Set in a future North America is the powerful nation of Panem, where its regime, the Capitol, exercises hegemonic dominance over its surrounding districts, 12 in all. As a way of reminding its citizens who is in control, the Capitol annually subjects Panem’s youth to a lottery in which 24 individuals between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen at random, one male and one female from each district, to compete in the Hunger Games, a brutal gladiator style death match. The Games are broadcasted nationwide, like a violent version of Survivor or American Idol, and watching is mandatory for Panem’s citizens.

When Katniss Everdeen’s younger sister is selected as one of the “tributes” from District 12 to participate in the Games, Katniss volunteers to take her place knowing that her sister is far too weak to survive. As Katniss and the other tributes enter the Hunger Games arena, moral questions begin to surface, especially between Katniss and her fellow District 12 tribute, Peeta, whose romantic affections for Katniss add a further layer of moral complexity.

Since the rules of the game dictate that there be only one winner – or more aptly put, one survivor – the tributes face a contrived (this is important) moral dichotomy between pragmatism (dispense with ethics in favor of what “works”) and death. Some of the stronger district tributes, called the “Careers”, have no problem with taking the pragmatic route, ruthlessly slaughtering the other tributes, and even seem to sadistically relish in doing so. As for the other tributes, some choose to be evasive and non-confrontational, hiding in the woods hoping to simply outlast the others, while Katniss tries to remain resourceful and tactical in her survival.

However, there is a much deeper and more pivotal ethical issue involved with the Games, and that is the principle of the initiation of force (i.e. attempting to gain a value by using physical force or fraudulent means rather than productive or honest means). While the specifics are unclear, the reader can infer that the districts’ widespread economic indigence and social depravity is caused by the Capitol’s brand of rule. What is clear is that the economy is centrally planned, where each of the 12 districts is designated for a particular economic activity. For example, District 12 is coal mining and District 11 is agriculture. Since the means of production seem to be owned by the Capitol, this would suggest some variation of socialism, although it doesn’t appear there is a complete abolition of private ownership.

Such is the case with the Capitol’s totalitarian rule of the Districts: mass starvation and subsistence living. In an abstract sense, the Capitol severs the tie between mind and action, and Collins smoothly ties this to perceptual concretes. Since the Capitol views its citizenry as chattel, it’s not hard to see the culture’s fascination with murderotica, forcibly throwing teenagers into a bloodbath for the vicarious entertainment of Panem. This is what is meant by a contrived ethical scenario. The tributes are coerced into abandoning any rational convictions they might hold about respecting other human life.

As far as human will is concerned, it is divided into two conceptual categories, the latter causally dependent upon the former: thought and physical action. To establish a disconnect between the two categories, by reversing the cause-effect relationship, is anti-reality, but this is precisely what the Capitol’s initiation of force represents. Since reality is absolute, individuals must actively observe the facts of reality and then integrate them into knowledge in order to act according to their needs. When force is initiated against an individual, the mind can no longer carry out this function of translating thought into action as needed. The aggressors also have to abandon the principle that the mind must sustain itself epistemically, thereby burning the bridge between their own minds and reality. When concretized in real life applications, the consequences are disastrous, as depicted in Panem where individuals are in a perpetual do-or-die mode of existence, especially within the Games.

This leads to another theme of the novel: Do the tributes have an alternative to the barbarism of the Games? Collins answers yes, and rightly so. Katniss defies the Capitol in small ways, which appear to be the developmental stages of a rebelliousness to mature later in the sequels. In the Capitol Training Center before the Games begin, Katniss fires an arrow amidst the Gamemakers, a powerful committee of game officials, just to grab their attention. And in the novel’s most poignant scene, Katniss uniquely honors a fallen fellow tribute – just 12 years old – that helped her to survive.

Since I have not yet read the sequels, Catching Fire and Mockingjay, I don’t know exactly how rebellion against the Capitol plays out, but with the regime’s advanced technology described in the series’ first installment, it’s probably a very onerous task. If there’s a mark against the novel, though, it’s the unlikely technology, from agile hovercrafts to genetically engineered wasps. It’s not that these sorts of things are impossible to human ingenuity, but that they would materialize in Panem where the districts aren’t even free to grow their own food. An application as narrow and complex as genetic engineering takes years of condensing a broad range of scientific concepts. The human mind functions through principles, needing to think long-range, translating thought into action as needed, but this process is substituted and bridled with the immediate dictates of the Capitol.

When I’m reading a novel, I like to become so engaged in the story that I forget I’m reading, but the unconvincing technology served as an occasional reminder that I was just reading a book. Many dystopian novels tend toward this same technological exaggeration, the most notable of which are George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Some exceptions that fully show how irrationality disintegrates society include Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, also demonstrating the happiness possible to individuals, and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a literary case study in mob rule.

Making the intellectual concession of “practicality” to totalitarianism only strengthens the false dichotomy between what is moral and what is practical. While the Capitol regime is patently evil, they still seem to make incredible innovations. Metaphysically, this creates a false dilemma between unprosperous, highbrow idealism and amoral, but wealthy pragmatism. Faced with the guns of the Capitol, I’m sure the Districts are left to ask, “But what are we to do?”

Fortunately, Katniss is the answer to this question. Her character coupled with Collins’ suspenseful plot pacing lends The Hunger Games its distinctive ferocity, an embattled retaliation against statism and a declaration of free will. With the context of rising government intervention in the real world, it’s not hard to see why these themes resonate with such a large audience. On that note, may your will be ever in your favor.