Capitalism, A love story, the Hunger games edition

Contrary to the youtube video that we watched in class suggested, I felt like the Hunger games was a very pro-capitalist, anti-big government book and film. In the book, the government has total control over society due to the fear they have instilled into the people. The threat and lack of any real knowledge about what really happened to district thirteen keeps the population in line. District thirteen rebelled against the government and wound up being destroyed *spoiler alert* or so we think in the first book, they are actually just living underground. The government even has the power to take one boy and one girl child from each of the twelve districts and have them killed, well all but one, for the entertainment of the masses in a roman gladiator-like way. The masses are starving and unmotivated to do anything that might help the government. Katniss and Gale don't listen to the rules set up by the government, they leave the district, hunt, and barter illegally. In fact, they even try to sabotage the government once or twice. These characteristics of the system of government in the Hunger Games point directly at the flaws of a socialist or communist government of any government that is to powerful for that matter. A capitalist society has a government that is small and has minimal control, it is only there for absolute necessities. In capitalist societies, the individuals works for their own benefit and therefore they tend to work harder and have less problem with the government. We also see Katniss unallied going into the Hunger Games, and therefore she is able to protect herself and forward her own interests, even when it involves working with others for short periods. All of the other challengers die, there alliances do not help. (with the exception of Peeta, however he is working against his "allies" from the very beginning) These books stress the importance of putting oneself first, in terms of government and survival. You cannot possibly help others if you have not helped yourself first!

MAKE-UP BLOG POST#4: Selling Culture

The image above is the epitome of how ads use sex for sell, but what else does it tell us? So there's a man in a suit, standing dominantly over a woman, whose breasts are overly exposed in a teeny weeny bikini, topped off with a skyline as the backdrop. Who comes up with this stuff? The typical ad defines the world of gender roles we live in, playing on roles we are familiar with, as it suggests the man wears the suit, as the bread-winner, and the woman serves as a sex symbol who is beneath man (literally and figuratively). These roles have been in our culture for years and years, but the  media has played on these roles and these roles continue to dominate advertisements. But the ad may be doing more than we realize. What happens when these images become who we are?

With these images plaguing our everyday lives, they're hard to ignore. Whether we realize it or not, these images are the reason we are who we are today. They are vital to the set up of gender expressions. Anything outside of what media portrays as "feminine" or "masculine" is considered abnormal, but why is that? Simply because these ads have become our culture. Our culture sits on racks in magazines, flashes on the television during commercials and rides past us on buses. Living in this culture, anything outside of the "social norm" is looked down upon, developing generalizations based on common stereotypes. Sexual orientation is a prime example. This is where "gay" comes from. Those women in society that are less feminine are often perceived as "gay", as males less masculine as "gay" as well. Unfortunately, living outside of the norms has brought issues to society.

What does this ad do exactly? It sets up more barriers. It builds more walls. Tightens more chains. Sex may sell, but it's selling certain conventional images as well, like the one above. With the images connected to our culture, it's defining sexuality and shunning the unlike. This leads to institutional oppression when things differ from the dominant culture. As ads continue to play on popular gender roles and stereotypes, the sex culture grows. In the media, when sex sells, so does culture. A domino effect. Unfortunately, it's a two-for-one deal that our society has accepted.

Crippling Dependence

"Inside the woods they roam freely, and there are added concerns like venomous snakes, rabid animals, and no real paths to follow. But there's also food if you know how to find it." -Chapter 1 'The Hunger Games'

In The Hunger Games, nature is where Katniss is free. It is also where she is best at surviving on her own. Even with all of the added dangers, Katniss is still a better at surviving in nature by hunting and gathering than by working in society. Nature makes her independent and free which create a romantic for any red blooded american because independence and freedom are two highly regarded american ideals. They draw us in and make us fall in love with not only Katniss but the natural environment she thrives in. This attraction to nature, freedom and independence is the base of the Hunger Game's argument that we are crippled by our dependence on the society we have built.

Katniss does more than just survive in nature, she thrives in it. Katniss becomes more than just a girl with a bow but also an embodiment of nature. Throughout the book we see this representation grow stronger and stronger starting with the fact that she is independent of society. The book never mention Katniss working a job or trying to gain any sort of currency and by not relying on money Katniss remains clean and unstained by society. We live in a class based culture, middle class, lower class, upper class, the classes are based on the accumulation of wealth which is measured with money and by refraining from becoming reliant on money and only trading goods Katniss can be seen as someone who is outside of society. 

Katniss's weapon also has this same effect. The bow and arrow are thought to have been invented sometime between 40,000 and 20,000 BC. They are often staples of Native American or tribal cultures in which people would work together without ever becoming fully dependent on each other for basic survival. This is something unique to Katniss because the other tributes mostly use swords or small blades which wouldn't have been possible until the bronze age in 5,000 BC a time by which all types of governments and class based societies had been established like the Roman Empire 

(http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17423-timeline-weapons-technology.html#.UqfUOWRDs98).

The first way in which Katniss's embodiment of nature is used (and the other tributes embodiment of society) is to show her natural strength vs the Career packs weakness when surrounded by nature. Similar to Rouesseau's belief that a man from nature can defeat a man from society because the man from society has become reliant upon his tools and can't fend for himself without them. Katniss's victory in the Hunger Games demonstrates that and shows the weakening effects of society.

The Hunger Games also demonstrates how society especially one base on classes can be unfair to those who do the most to support it. The districts are the main example of this. The injustices done to the district such as mass poverty and under compensation for their hard labor effectively represent the injustice of the class system in America, where those who are on top rely on the lower classes but do not fairly compensate them for their work. Vital jobs in America can often be the least rewarding such as farming. “the net earnings from farming activities on 90.5 percent of all farms in America (with sales less than $249,000) was on average $2,615.” Trying to sell crops without a major retailer can also leave farmers wallets empty because “In 2005 only 6.5 percent of all farmers markets (not individual farmers or vendors, but the entire market) have annual total sales greater than $25,000. 71.4 percent of farmers markets produce less than $5000 in annual sales.” (http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2012/07/27/who-are-you-calling-rich-a-small-farmer-shares-some-hard-data/)

(Spoilers)

Even though the districts are so vital to the capital, the capital still treats them unfairly. But what if the capital couldn't rely on the districts? They would fall apart without means to fend for themselves which is just another way in which the weakness of society is displayed in books 2 and 3 of the series as the capitol come crumbling down during the districts rebellion. Not unlike the capitol The United States of America is also heavily dependent on foreign resources. “In 2012, about 40% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries.1 This was the lowest level since 1991” and “In 2012, about 57% of the crude oil processed in U.S. refineries was imported” (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6). Making us almost as vulnerable and dependent as the capitol.

The idea of society crippling us is one of Rousseau's arguments which is why it is helpful that this book takes a Rousseauian point of view that man is good by countering Hobb's negative views about the basis of man.

Hobbs states that man is greedy, divided and competitive but Katniss's action as a natural human state that it is actually society which give men these conditions and if man becomes independent of society then we can also become free of these conditions. Katniss is positioned against the capital and the capital is greed. They horde all of their resources and don't even give the districts enough to survive. Katniss's victory over the other tributes who are reliant on society can be seen as the selflessness of nature winning over societies greed. Katniss also overcome the divided districts by aligning herself with Rue and forming an actual bond unlike the Career Pack whose alliance is only formed out of need. Katniss's final victory over Kato can be seen as her and Peeta's survival winning over Kato's competitive nature because while Peeta and Katniss didn't want to be in the Hunger Games, Kato volunteered "for the glory of his district" and even threatens to kill Peeta even though he knows he can't survive the rest of the games.

Katniss vs the capital is a representation of nature vs society. Katniss's victory both in the hunger games and on a moral level support the Rousseau argument that nature keeps men strong while becoming reliant on society can weaken us. Through this the hunger games makes an argument that we are becoming too dependent on our society and our government to take care of ourselves. Our dependence on society strips us of our freedom and independence and thereby weakens the ideals our country was founded on.

A drive for Anti-Capitalism

The entire trilogy is about a social revolution – a push against capitalism.

Many people have connected the Hunger Games to propaganda for anti-capitalism, and I can see how these connections are formed. The basic idea of Hunger Games portrays Capitalistic views. The Capitol is high in power, rank, stature, and economic wealth and because of this the Capitol holds all of the power. 

The Capitol in Hunger Games is what makes the grandest profit. They run all of the districts and make the citizens work hard for little pay, and the capitol keeps majority of the profit.  By using the other districts to support their luxurious lifestyles, the Capitol develops to be rich, strong, and superior. No one from the capital would be caught dead working the land, in any style.

Even the layout of the city is supposed to evoke emotion. The designers talk about how when creating the image for the capitol they looked at images of communist Russia and it’s concrete structure for inspiration. As a child, we were all taught in History Class the horrible things that had occurred in communist Russia. By modeling the Capitol after the images we’ve seen about communist Russia, the designers create a clear connection comparing the capitalistic Capitol to Communist Russia. This connection causes the audience to think negatively towards capitalism.

Designing the capitol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAQqQWNFN7A

The Capital

 The Capitol is a dictatorship. And the citizen chose to revolt again the capitol. Because the trilogy itself is about a revolt on the capitol, many people have thought the underlying message of the trilogy was a positive push against capitalism.

Now the entire book portrays the capitol in a negative light. They are controllers, they are evil, and they are even depicted as somewhat subhuman. And but that I mean with the way they dress, the grandness, bold colors, and pristine style, the Capitol’s people are made to look fake and force – in order for us to see them as different. This causes the audience to hate the capitol, and its dictatorship ways. Because of the way the capitol treats people, a form of hatred is generated in the audience.

Capitol Fashion

Because of the blatant hatred towards the Capitol and all of its people, the audience is excited to see the capitol overthrown. A passion for anti-capitalism builds in the audience. This trilogy is a cry against capitalism, with a love story subtly woven into order to slowly coerce the audience to take the writer’s position.

The Hunger Games itself is designed to scare people away from the idea of revolting, in addition to providing a show for the people of the capitol. By taking innocent children, and pinning them against each other, the capitol instills fear throughout the districts.

Changing the Odds

       The themes of The Hunger Games are universal ones. Suzanne Collins explores everything from oppression to suffering as a form of pleasure. With subtly, Collins’s visual rhetoric sends a forewarning to her readers about the possibilities of what our future holds. A common motif evolving within the novel was the image of appearance. Collin’s detailed imagery painted a picture of Katniss’s world, the world within the Capital, as well as the world of the Hunger Games. Each distinct world was particularly detailed to draw one common argument blatantly suggesting the presence of social class. Although the district is described with “black cinder streets”, for the working class and lacking everyday needs, in contract, the Capital is described as “glistening”, “bright”, full of people who looked as if they “have never missed a meal” The obvious contrast forces the readers to recognize the presence of social class, but even more, the inequality between the rich and the poor.
   
    Collins description of District 12 illustrates Katiniss’s state of poverty. From the beginning, District 12 is portrayed as a place of the working class, with the “men and women with hunched shoulders” and “swollen knuckles”. With houses described as “gray” and black dusty roads, Collins paints a clear image of the Seam of District 12 as the working class. Although a hard-working cohort, the remains impoverished, as Katniss suggests their luck to get two or three hours of electricity. Katniss’s social class is articulated as she tells of the district’s lack of food and starvation as doom for many in the district. Katniss has become accustomed to the lifestyle and is astonished by the contrast she is met with when she enters the Capital. Katniss sees the “glistening buildings”, “shiny cars”, as well as all of the “artificial” colors of the people and the Capitol. Collins depicts a clear contrast in order to draw the line between classes in The Hunger Games. The dark imagery of District 12 connotes the deprived and the unfortunate, while the bright imagery of the Capital connotes the wealthy and the privileged. Such images, such as of starvation, signify poverty, while images of cars are signifiers for wealth. Quite simply, the contrast of such signifiers in The Hunger Games creates a theme of social class and the disparity between classes.
                             VS.
                                           Collin’s contrast imagery forces the readers to recognize the existence of social class within the novel. 

    As readers, we are able to recognize the social classes because of what we have seen and learned. As our body’s act as a form of memory, what we’ve seen and experience become what we know and human culture. In the case of The Hunger Games, our experiences with social class that we live in makes the class system in the novel easily recognized. Such ways become set into our culture and become “universal and timeless” ways in our lives, as Hebdige explains. Class systems have been a part of mankind for all of history. The concept has been around in our societies, created dominant social group who first had complete authority, exemplifying a hegemonic situation, as Hedbige points out. The institution in complete authority in The Hunger Games is the Capitol. As history repeats itself and is constantly “retraced” in the “map of meaning”, as Stuart Hall suggests, social class becomes an everyday concept and the habitus of the human race. As an end result, recognizing social class based on the imagery as signification in The Hunger Games becomes effortless for us readers. 

    Ultimately, the visual rhetoric not only brings to surface the concept of social class for us readers, but it creates an argument about the dangerous possibilities that classification, in the wrong combination, may hold. Stuart Hall argues that classification is a part of our culture and it harmless until combined with power. Collin’s argument suggests a fear similar to that of Hall, who goes on to describe his fear of classification combined with power. This worry comes to life in extremes in The Hunger Games, seen, as the districts are impoverished, but the puppets and pawns of entertainment for the Capitol. Hall describes this as troublesome because it creates an opportunity for the lines of classification to cause reason for inequality. As seen in The Hunger Games, the line of classification between the Capitol and the districts causes a disparity in resources and even rights. The Capital is dominant over the district and because of the dominance, as Hall suggests, the Capitol is able to maintain order of the district. Collin displays Hall’s idea of the danger of power alongside classification through The Hunger Games, as tributes and districts are continuously oppressed and unequal. Although Hall suggests classification is normal and is a example of the “common sense code”, Collin’s novel forewarns that power combined with a class system is a recipe for danger, as Stuart Hall would also agree. Eventually, the visual rhetoric depicts social class at its worst in The Hunger Games cautioning about the threat of classification merged with authority, as the habitus of ‘classification’ is constantly ‘retraced’ in our culture and history. Collin’s argument attempts to inform us of how dangerous the threat can be and how it can lead to devastating results that will solidify inequality in social classes and forever oppress the oppressed.

 In all, it suggests that the odds will forever be in the favor of the dominant class.

Convince Me

Martha Anglehart, Cassandra Buehler and Alexandra Anderson

The slaughtering of innocent human beings, the fight for life, suffering as entertainment, inequality between rich and poor, and the importance of control encompasses the riveting themes of the popular book and movie series, The Hunger Games. Despite the themes being extremely mortal, readers are drawn to the enticing plot and character involvement. The games are very realistic, leading readers to be drawn to such a life-like story line. We learn early on just how difficult life is for many families in Panem and we learn that the Capital uses The Hunger Games to prey on the poorest of people and that the Capital controls every aspect of the citizens lives.

Control is the main overlaying theme of The Hunger Games. We see how the government, specifically President Snow, has taken control after the Dark Days and the citizens of Panem are at the mercy of him. The extent of his control is centered around the game that he created to keep the 12 Districts in line and to remind them what will happen when they try to defy him and the Capital. To instill fear into the citizens he not only forces two children from each district to fight in the games, he controls what their lives are like in their home districts.

(President Snow talking about why they have the Hunger Games)

He uses the tesserae as a means of control not only as the drawing for who will play in the games each year, but also as a way for the children of each district to help feed their families as they can enter even more times than necessary to receive more help, preying on the weakest and poorest of people. Adding to the already horrible fact that President Snow uses the children of each district as pawns in his reign of control, the fact that this is a story about  children who are forced by the government of Panam to play a ‘game’ that is made into a huge parade of entertainment for the people of Panem to watch. The Hunger Games are not just any game that we imagine children playing; these children have to do the one thing we as humans can’t imagine coming from children even if it wasn’t associated with them playing a game - they must murder each other to win - all in the name of ‘reminding everyone what happens when they challenge the Capital’.

(The first time we see these children slaughtering each other)

The complete control of the people by the government continues throughout the games. As the tributes compete for their lives in the games they not only have to fight against each other, but they have to fight against the Gamemaker’s creations, strategically placed to make the games harder for the tributes and of course for the Capital’s entertainment. The first time we see this is when Katniss has found her safe haven in a tree. The Gamemaker is not happy that she has found refuge close to the edge of the arena, so he instructs his workers to create a forest fire, forcing Katniss to leave the tree if she wishes to stay alive. As Katniss is running for her life, the engineers being throwing fireballs at Katniss, causing her to receive an injury on her leg. This is the first time we realize that the Gamemaker’s will stop at nothing to create a good show for the Capital and how little control within the games that the tributes have.

(Gamemakers altering the arena)

The next time we see the Gamemakers interfere with the games is with the creation of the mutts. Because the book is written in the first person, you are unable to see the Gamemakers deliberately create the beasts to stir up the games, but in the movie you see how the beasts are carefully engineered by people wearing white lab coats, who are praised for their work. The factors of the game are continually altered for nothing more than the pure enjoyment of the viewers. This once again, shows the audience that the games are out of the tribute’s control.

(Gamemaker creates the mutts)

The events following Cato’s death demonstrate the control possessed by President Snow and the Capital. After he dies, Katniss and Peeta believe they have won the games, but, the previous rule change is revoked by order from President Snow  and now either Katniss or Peeta must die. This is when we see how manipulative the Capital truly is and how they use the tributes as pawns in their game.  Katniss then takes matters into her own hands and manipulates the game. She knows that the Capital will not let both of them die, so she and Peeta start to eat the deadly nightlock berries. At that moment, Seneca Crane interrupts them and announces them as the winner of the 74th annual Hunger Games. Here we see Katniss try to take control away from the capital, which President Snow is extremely upset with. As a result, President Snow has Seneca executed as a way to demonstrate once again his complete power and control. When Katniss meets Haymitch before the ceremony Haymitch states,

“Listen up. You’re in trouble. Word is the Capitol’s furious about you showing them up in the arena. The one thing they can’t stand is being laughed at and they’re the joke of Panem (pg.356-357).”

We once again see how President Snow is infuriated with the loss of control he had with the results of the game and how he plans on getting that control back.

Each of these scenes showcases the lack of power the tributes and the people of Panem have. They are forced to do exactly what the government wishes, no questions asked. Even if they attempt to disregard the rules, or go against what the government wishes, the power of Panem will put them back in their place, by punishing, or creating different rules to demean any sort of freedom they may be attempting to obtain.

The books are written in first person narrative from Katniss Everdeen, which is why we read the story the way we do. As the games progress we become more and more emotionally connected with her and our connection makes it possible for us as readers to become part of what is going on. We start to hate the Capital. We see it as controlling, manipulative, suppressing, and even evil. We start to view the people who live there as greedy, selfish, and sick. But, how would we view the Capital and the Hunger Games if the story wasn’t written from Katniss’s point of view? What if it was written from Effie’s point of view, or President Snow’s? If that were the case we would most likely view the Hunger Games as a way for the government to maintain control, instead of the murder of innocent children, and we would think that the government maintaining control is a good thing. This is because we would see the glamorous side to Panem, not the impoverished, suppressed side we with Katniss as the narrator. The way we feel towards the games would change even if the story were written from a Career tribute’s perspective. We would find the games as a way to honor our district, instead of looking at them as horrific and terrifying, like we do from Katniss’s perspective. Having Katniss as the narrator also causes us to want to know what happens with Katniss, Peeta and Gale and through it all we lose sight of what we are actually reading about. We remove ourselves from our initial shock of this crazy reaping, what The Hunger Games actually are, and only want Katniss and Peeta to make it to the end, even though we know that means all of those other children will die. The first person narration by Katniss completely dictates  the way we view the Capital, the Hunger Games, and everything inbetween.

Even though we don’t want to, it is understandable how we can get lost in this story and set aside the fact that we are reading a mortally graphic story about adults who send children into an arena to kill each other because of how the story is written. In the first few hours of entering the arena, we find out that 11 tributes have lost their lives and instead of feeling sadness that 11 children are now dead, we are just glad that Katniss has made it into the woods safely. The attachment the readers feel to Katniss causes us to forget the immoral nature of The Hunger Games. We want Katniss to survive, but Katniss surviving means that everyone else must die. Because of this, we slowly become okay with the idea of the other tributes dying and even the idea of Katniss killing.

Hobbes would argue that The Hunger Games corrupts the fundamental principles of liberal thought. He believed that men should be naturally equalized, and that political power should be “representative” based on the consent of the people. This contradicts the formation of the Panem government, being that they do not create equalization throughout the people. District one is more well off than any other district. The amount of value they have versus the rest of the districts, especially Katniss and Peeta’s district is much greater. Hobbes also believes that the interpretation of the law should leave people to do whatever the law does not forbid. Again the government goes against this. They do not lawfully respect the guidelines set up. The government is not representative of the people, it is not doing what the people of Panem want. If it were Hobbes way, he would equalize the districts, and limit the amount of power the government had without being equally represented by the people. Hobbes would also argue that The Hunger Games are an example of how people act when in a State of Nature, or a State of War. Even though the tributes are being controlled by the government and the state of nature is actually the absence of government, the tributes represent Hobbes’ belief that people are inherently bad.

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. Rousseau asserted that the stage of human development associated with what he called "savages" was the best or optimal in human development, between the less-than-optimal extreme of brute animals on the one hand and the extreme of decadent civilization on the other. "...[N]othing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man." He would say this is why we like, support, and connect with Katniss. He would also argue that the government of Panem is nothing more than the true founder of the society. They took control and made the districts the way they are, leaving the people in the hands of their power. As he says the people are gentle,not willing to stand up for themselves, and therefore easily played with by the government, almost as if they are puppets.

Woodsworth would say  that The Hunger Games is written much like poetry, providing the readers with a sense of both pain and pleasure which keeps them coming back for more. We are drawn to the story of Katniss and Peeta, we gasp when they are in trouble, we smile when they are safe, we support Katniss and her rebellious behavior because we find pain in what the Capital is doing to these innocent people. He would also say that we are drawn to Katniss because of her natural piety because she is from the poorest district and is so far removed from what we know as the Capital that we want this young innocent girl to make it over any other tribute.

The Hunger Games reminds of the gruesome story of a government deciding the fate of its citizens and killing some but sparing others reminds us of the Holocaust and reading Maus: A Survior’s Tale. Maus was written as a comic book but it was not entertaining and did not become popular like The Hunger Games, but why? First, because it was a real historical event; but how is this story of Vladek’s experience fighting for his life any different than Katniss’ fight for her life? No one read Maus because they liked the story and found it entertaining; they read it because it was a story of a real survivor. The Hunger Games can be looked at much like the Holocaust, no it is not real, but the story of President Snow being the one in charge, his rules, his ideas, his laws - they mirror Hitler in a sense that they both had an agenda - they were both Gamemakers with innocent people's lives. We saw Vladek do many questionable things to survive, and as readers it was hard to accept sometimes. We knew those people suffered and many died because of Vladek’s actions, but we don’t question Katniss’ actions - is that because The Hunger Games is not real so we can differentiate between real and made up, and accept even the most horrible of stories just because something is not real and we know it?

As readers, why do we become okay with the idea of Katniss killing? Do we even start to want Katniss to kill? Are we obsessed with violence? Are we okay with the innocent and impoverished being used to fuel the  greedy needs of the guilty and  wealthy? For most, The Hunger Games is a book and movie series that is pure entertainment, but how? How do we as readers remove ourselves from what is actually going on? How do we overlook the fact that we are reading and imagining a game being played out; where the pawns are children and the entire population is watching for fun? What does our obsession with The Hunger Games say about us and our culture?

Our enjoyment of modern day reality television and turning people into commodities resembles the fact that everything about The Hunger Games is constantly in the media of Panam, from the reapings to the tributes training, to the actual events in the arena, because in both instances we are viewers of the Games like we view the Kardashians. Value is no longer dependent on their skill, or their strengths, but rather what they can provide for satisfaction for entertainment. The Kardashians may not have as many skills that a typical famous family or individual may have, yet their abnormal, extravagant lifestyle provides us with the entertainment we crave. This is similar to The Hunger Games with Katniss and Peeta’s spark of love, their incredible costumes, and their loving personalities, it draws the people of Panam to their peculiar lives.  Their value becomes determined by how much entertainment they provide, and as such they lose their identities as people. They are doing what is best for the sake of winning, demeaning who they truly are. The Hunger Games suggest that reality television is a form of objectification.

The way we react to The Hunger Games matters because it shows how as a cultural and society we can become easily mislead into being complacent as followers. Not just in our enjoyment of a story that that is morally inhumane in nature, but also how we can sit back and allow a group of people or one single person dictate our futures without a fight. We react this way because human nature is known to follow. It takes a truly unique and couraged individual to stand up for what is right, and fight against what the majority is doing. As seen in The Hunger Games and in Maus: A Survivor’s Tale, people will continue to follow even if it may be wrong. It is a slippery slope when listening to those who promote immoral behaviors. Both in Panam and in Europe throughout the Holocaust the population allows themselves to be led. Values go completely astray as when individuals take the lead and creates a path that innocent individuals follow, blinded by the happenings occurring.

"Happy Hunger Games"

Emily Capra and Stacey Braaten  

The idea of the Capitol is such a dominant thematic element throughout the entirety of The Hunger Games. The reader is constantly being shown how the Capitol and its officials juxtapose and contrast the heroine: Katniss. The Capitol is clearly an opposing force for Katniss at all times in her life. Since the novel’s message that the Capitol is evil and the officials are the “bad guys” is not presented subtlety, it is clear that this is an important message that the novel aims to convey. But why? What exactly is the book arguing by setting up the dynamics in this way?

By showing the oppressive and controlling rule of the Capitol partnered with the symbolism behind the fake and artificial appearance of both the city and its citizens, the reader is positioned to hate the Capitol. Throughout the novel, most of the information the reader is given regarding the Capitol returns to the idea of how the Capitol controls the citizens of Panem by threatening and enforcing the Hunger Games and how the citizens are limited by the Capitol’s oppressive rule. Referencing the bow her father made, Katniss states, “My father could have made good money selling them, but if the officials found out he would have been publicly executed for inciting a rebellion.” This statement thoroughly demonstrates the limiting effects the Capitol’s rule has over the citizens. By Katniss saying “could have,” it shows how it was a real opportunity, a “sure thing,” for her father to make money and not live in such an impoverished state. However, the Capitol is the limiting factor making his potential trade simply impossible. Not only would Katniss’ father be murdered for such an action, the killing would be public and for a crime he did not commit. The purpose of the bows is to provide better weaponry with which to hunt so that hungry families can be fed. However, Katniss’ father would be convicted of “inciting a rebellion.” This demonstrated the Capitol’s paranoia that citizens will attempt to revolt. To prevent this occurrence, the Capitol disarms the people of Panem. The fact that the Capitol fears citizens may want to overthrow the ruling class suggests that they are ruling in a manner worthy of being overthrown. The public manner of execution Katniss’ father would have faced for selling the bows is meant to send a message to other citizens regarding the consequences for rebelling against the Capitol. This quote forces the reader to hate the Capitol for making Katniss, her family, and the remainder of the people in the Districts live such a bleak and unsatisfying life. Though there was a possible business her father could have pursued that would help sustain the family, the Capitol extinguished this opportunity and any hope the family had. Once the tributes have actually entered the game, the Capitol’s control over the players’ lives intensifies. Katniss comments, “The Gamemakers don’t want me dead.” She then continues, noting, “Every so often, they do kill a tribute just to remind the players they can.” This demonstrates how, in the games, the tributes’ lives are literally at the Gamemakers’ disposal. They exact control over the players’ lives because it is the most drastic and dramatic way to send the message to the citizens of the districts watching the games that the Capitol controls everything. When the Capitol’s power is questioned by the action of Katniss and Peeta eating the poisonous berries at the end of the game, the Capitol becomes furious. Katniss says, “So now the Capitol will act as if they’ve been in control the whole time.” This demonstrates how the Capitol’s main concern is whether or not the citizens believe the Capitol has control over all aspects of life. They desperately feel the need to maintain their reputation as the most powerful group in all of Panem. This brutality of the Capitol and lack of freedom of the citizens of the districts positions the reader to loathe the Capitol and its controlling grip on the citizens.

The book also positions the reader to oppose the Capitol through the contrast between Katniss and the citizens of the Capitol. The first person narration is extremely important in this aspect of the book. Katniss is the character telling the story. The readers see the events, the people, the emotions, and the places of the story through Katniss’ eyes. This lens is meant to shape the reader’s opinions and align them with the opinions of Katniss. After Effie calls for Katniss to get out of bed, Katniss says, “I try and imagine, for a moment, what it must be like inside that woman’s head. What thoughts fill her waking hours? What dreams come to her at night? I have no idea.”

Katniss’ inability to understand Effie Trinket, a citizen of the Capitol, creates a sort of alienation between the world of Katniss and the world of those living in the Capitol. By creating such a deep division between the two worlds, the novel forces the reader to take a side. This is where the first person narration becomes so crucial. Since Katniss is telling the story from her own point of view, the reader naturally must align with her. In this way, the reader’s opposition toward the Capitol is reinforced. When Katniss and Peeta see the city for the first time with their own eyes, Katniss’ reaction establishes her outlook on the city and its citizens as a whole. She claims, “All the colors seems artificial, the pinks too deep, the greens to bright, the yellows painful to the eyes, like the flat round disks of hard candy we can never afford to buy at the tiny sweet shop in District 12.”

By comparing the images of the Capitol to items she can never obtain back home, it shows how the bright colors and the appearance of the citizens of the Capitol serve as a constant reminder of the state of poverty Katniss and her family live in. This creates a feeling of resentment in both Katniss and the reader that further distances the luxurious world of the Capitol from the world of starvation and poverty from where Katniss comes. Because of the first person narration, the book positions the reader to oppose the affluent, bright, artificial and colorful world of the Capitol and empathize with the poor, grey, bleak world of the impoverished districts.

However, surprisingly, Katniss does genuinely bond with someone in the Capitol: her stylist, Cinna. Shocked upon seeing him for the first time, Katniss says, “I’m taken aback by how normal he looks. Most of the stylists they interview on television are so dyed, stenciled and surgically altered they’re grotesque. But Cinna’s close-cropped hair appears to be its natural shade of brown.” Even in the movie, Katniss is taken aback by how Cinna greets her. 

Cinna apologizes for what has happened to Katniss and lets her know that he is there to help her in anyway possible. From what he says, one can tell that he is not fond of the games either. He wants to make an impression to the Captiol, sponsors, and the world. He wants everyone to remember Katniss and who she is and what she is truly fighting for.

This contrast Katniss illustrates between the common overly made-up and colorful citizens of the Capitol and the normalness and naturalness of Cinna shows how he does not serve as a fair representation of the people of the Capitol. Cinna is more like Katniss than he is like the Capitol citizens. This distinction of Cinna as an atypical Capitol citizen is further emphasized by the juxtaposition of Cinna to Effie. Debunking Katniss’ assumption that, since Cinna is a new stylist for the games, he got stuck with District Twelve, Cinna states, “‘I asked for District Twelve.’” This statement is directly contrasted to Effie’s farewell. Saying goodbye, Effie hopes, “‘I wouldn’t be at all surprised if I finally get promoted to a decent district next year!’” Since Effie represents the typical Capitol citizen, her offensive, insensitive, self-centered statement reflects how unkind and simply despicable the ruling class of Panem is. Cinna’s response, however, depicts how unlike the people of the Capitol he is. As time goes on, Katniss really develops a sincere relationship with Cinna. It is through this relationship that the book, once again, emphasizes how the typical population of the Capitol is heinous and horrible, while those like Cinna, who are nothing like the Capitol citizens, are truly kind and good-hearted people, making the reader oppose the Capitol.  

The reason readers respond so significantly to the “good vs. evil” dichotomy of the book, the semiotics of the narrative, is also important. The reader’s feelings of hate and animosity toward the Capitol are significantly due to the reader’s relationship with Katniss as well as the reader’s cultural background that tells them the Capitol’s actions are evil. The reader’s relationship with Katniss can be characterized by the reader-writer relationship. Since Katniss if the person telling the story, her voice is the voice the reader hears throughout the book, her personality is the one with which the reader becomes most familiar, Katniss can be considered the writer in many ways. The way the reader relates to the writer, in this case Katniss, largely impacts the reader’s response to the message of the novel. It is clear that the only perspective the reader is given is Katniss’. Since Katniss states she cannot fathom the inner workings of the minds of those in the Capitol, like Effie, the reader in turn has no insight into how the citizens of the Capitol think and feel. This is one of the dangers of first-person narration; the reader is only given a partial truth. The actual occurrences that take place over the course of the story are filtered through the lens of Katniss. Because of this, the information the reader is privy to is very limited. This creates boundaries so that the readers are not allowed to make their own opinions; they only have what Katniss tells them. Though this makes the positioning aspect of the novel easier in some ways since the reader is really only given one real position, readers are more likely to scrutinize and distrust the information they are being given since the reporting subject is not an objective character. However, the reader tends to trust Katniss as the reporting subject. This is partly because of the Hegelian concept of “great men.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel says, “They are great men, because they willed and accomplished something great.” With this categorization, Hegel claims, “Their fellows, therefore, follow these soul-leaders.” At the very beginning of the novel, it becomes clear that Katniss is a “great man.” She takes the reader through her morning routine of hunting and breaking numerous laws in order to feed her family. She wills the survival of her family, as she is really the sole provider, through her hard work. Since this demonstrates how Katniss is a “great man” according to Hegel, the reader trusts her and follows her. The reader receives and accepts Katniss and her thoughts and emotions. This establishes the relationship between the reader and writer as one filled with trust, empathy and hope for the success of Katniss, despite the partial truth of the story. Because the reader trusts Katniss’ point of view, the reader assumes the same feelings and emotions that Katniss has toward the Capitol.

Given that Katniss and the citizens of the Capitol come from two completely different worlds, the world of the Capitol can be characterized by the “Hobbesean” school of thought. Hobbesean ideas, much more focused on technological progress and future improvements, align with the Capitol. Arriving at the Capitol for the first time, Katniss notices the “shiny cars that roll down the wide paved streets.” This imagery of the Capitol is associated with the technologically advanced type of society that Hobbes advocates. One of the gifts Katniss receives during the games is a soothing ointment that she claims is “high-tech medicine brewed up in the Capitol’s labs.” Again, the Capitol is associated with technology and progress. Not only does the Capitol represent anti-romanticism, but the people do as well. The people are dressed in strange and obnoxious clothing, dye their hair all different colors of the rainbow, get plastic surgery to try to fit in with the rest of the Capitol people, and the buildings are beyond anything that one would find in any of the Districts. This takes both Katniss and Peeta in surprise when they enter the Capitol. It is nothing close to what they are used to or have ever seen. Katniss is even almost appalled by how much technology and how artificial everything truly is in the Capitol. It is seen how factitious everyone is within the Capitol, and this plays a role in their personalities. The emphasis on the Capitol’s association with technology demonstrates how the ruling city of is more closely aligned with the Hobbesean school of thought. This affiliation is important because it does not evoke the same response in readers that the more ‘romantic,’ Rousseauist way of thinking does. As William Wordsworth would say, the lifestyle of the Capitol does not cause the reader’s heart to leap up. By being so artificial, the Capitol is straying from the natural piety that Rousseau describes and moves toward a world of technology and where property and power rules over all, which forces the audience to resent the Capitol and its people. The anti-romanticism of the Capitol is juxtaposed to the behaviour of District Twelve at the reaping ceremony. Katniss says, “At first one, then another, then almost every member of the crowd touches the three middle fingers of their left hand to their lips and holds it out to me. It is an old and rarely used gesture of our district, occasionally seen at funerals. It means thanks, it means admiration, it means good-bye to someone you love.”

This passage demonstrates how, because of Katniss’ actions, the District unites and bands together as one. In this way, the actions of the District demonstrate the higher value placed on the community rather than on the individual. The idea of community being more important than the individual is a fundamental concept of romanticism. In this way, District Twelve’s romantic behaviour contrasts the lifestyle of the Capitol.  Because the Hobbesean way of the Capitol is significantly anti-romantic, the reader does not respond to the Capitol with an overwhelmingly positive outlook.

The reader’s feelings toward the Capitol are also due to, what the reader considers, the evil actions of the ruling city. The manner in which the Capitol rules is largely based on the ideology of hegemony. Dick Hebdige defines this ideological practice by saying, “The term hegemony refers to a situation in which a provisional alliance of certain social groups can exert ‘total social authority’ over other subordinate groups, not simply by coercion or by the direct imposition of ruling ideas, but by ‘winning and shaping consent so that the power of the dominant classes appears both legitimate and natural’ (Hall, 1977).” This concept is thoroughly demonstrated throughout the novel. At the reaping, the mayor says, “‘It is both a time for repentance and a time for thanks.’” By saying the citizens of the districts must repent, or feel remorse, for the attempted revolution, it shows how the Capitol aims to make the citizens feel that they are indebted to the ruling city. In this way, the oppressive rule of the Capitol seems justified and reasonable; the districts revolted, so now they must be punished. The oppression is, thus, understandable. The citizens of the districts obey and submit to the rule of the Capitol because of what Pierre Bourdieu describes as a kind of memory of the body. Bourdieu states, “People’s adherence to an institution is directly proportional to the severity and painfulness of the rites of initiation.” The institution in The Hunger Games is the hegemonic rule of the Capitol. The citizens follow this institution because they are constantly reminded of the power the Capitol has through the history of Panem when District Thirteen was annihilated as well as through the reaping system. The etiology, or cause, of the reader’s hate toward the Capitol can be traced to the reader’s cultural experience that ingrains the idea that oppressive rule is evil into their minds. For the past few generations, almost every war that has been fought can be thought to be about ridding a nation of oppression in one way or another. In this way, the reader’s perspective that oppression is evil can be linked to the constructionist theory. Society’s understanding of oppressive rule has been assembled through generations by recognizing the harmful effects of oppression. Because of this, many political messages has been based on ending this kind of government system. Since it has become ingrained in contemporary American society that oppression is equated with evilness, whenever an American reader encounters a situation where oppression is present, it has become routine to oppose the oppressors. The reader’s habitus reflects the rejection of this type of rule due to the fact that inscription devices, like political rhetoric, have constantly reinforced the idea that oppression is evil into the reader’s mind. Through the inequality of power distribution in Panem, officials at the Capitol tend to believe stereotypes about tributes from poorer districts. Effie states, “‘How you’ve both successfully struggled to overcome the barbarism of your district.’” Here Effie buys into the stereotype that citizens of District Twelve are horrifically uncivilized. American society has become very sensitive to stereotypes as time has gone on. Readers do not take well to essentialist ideas as it reduces the complexity of a person to a simple, one-dimensional character. Stuart Hall claims that these stereotypes arise when classification comes together with power. This is how the stereotype of District Twelve that Effie believed came to be: Katniss and Peeta are classified as citizens of District Twelve and since this is the least powerful district in Panem, they must be barbarians. Readers have come to reject notions of stereotypes as well as those who perpetuate the simplifications. Because Effie, representative of the Capitol, has proven herself to be ignorant enough to believe such cliches, the reader in turn opposes her as well as the Capitol.

It is clear that the book aims to position the reader against the ruling city of Panem, and the reader’s response allows them to comply, but so what? Why does this positioning matter? What is the book saying by evoking these responses in the reader? The book makes the reader hate a hegemonic governing system. It shows the reader the lives of those living under such oppressive rule and how they are starving to death, losing hope for any chance of survival. By illustrating so graphically the bleak and morbid elements of the oppressed’s lives and making the reader hope for the success of the poor and the demise of the rich, the book argues that inequality of power and oppressive rule is a form of government that needs to be abandoned. Youtube personality Laci Green made a video specifically regarding the story’s meaning. According to Green’s video on the message behind the plot of The Hunger Games, the system that is being described in the book is based on the corruption and capitalist economic structure of America. She says that the preservation of power in a corrupt society is due to making “people too scared to fight back.” The novel demonstrates this concept at the beginning of the first book when Katniss and Gale joke about the speech of the citizens of the Capitol. Katniss explains, “We have to joke about it because the alternative is to be scared out of your wits.” This illustrates Green’s point that the citizens of the districts live in a state of crippling fear, disabling their potential to revolt. Green also states that President Snow’s claim that “hope is the only thing more effective than fear” connects to the political rhetoric of the “American Dream.” This concept tells people that anyone has the potential to get rich. However, as Laci Green says, this is impossible under America’s capitalist society: there must be inequality of wealth to make the system work. Uncontrolled capitalism is described by the state of the economy when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The reaping system demonstrates this corruption as Katniss says, “The reaping system is unfair, with the poor getting the worst of it.” By Katniss noting that the system targets the poor, the reaping is closely aligned with uncontrolled capitalism. Young adolescents are also significantly targeted as they are the only citizens eligible for the reaping. Green says that, though America’s capitalist structure is not as blatant and obvious about targeting youth, it, too, has a similar effect on young Americans. She says, “Our economic regime allocates food and resources and shelter in a very disproportionate way.” Since the governing system of Panem in The Hunger Games is very similar to the current system of America as Laci Green describes it, the novel positions the reader against the corruption and capitalism of America. In this way, through the positioning of the reader against the Capitol, The Hunger Games offers a critique of America’s system and calls for its reform. Suzanne Collins’ story has entered pop culture through Hollywood, action figures and even makeup. With this story spanning into so many aspects of society, Collin’s plot line is responsible for effecting the views of people of all ages. Because of this, the book has a significant amount of agency that is shaping culture and American society.

The Hunger Games is impacting so many readers (and now viewers) because of its widespread popularity. Since the series has made its way into pop culture via brands like Covergirl, clearly the plot has agency. It has readers all over the nation hating the unfair system of the Capitol that is extremely similar to the current American system. The readers support and align with the heroine, Katniss, while they oppose Panem’s ruling city. Through this positioning, the novel makes a strong argument against such oppressive rule that, because of its popularity, readers everywhere are supporting. This novel has undoubtedly impacted society and culture forever.