One topic that has recently taken
over discussions within lecture and discussion is the state of nature. But what exactly is a state of nature? Why are we talking about it? To put it simply, “the state of nature is the
state that preceded governments.” Two
theorists that have come into play while discussing the state of nature are
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both
political philosophers propose different views on the state of nature and what
it means to them. Even though we have
seen two different accounts on the state of nature, I feel that Hobbes’s
application applies to more of the violence that is pertinent in society today.
Hobbes claimed
that all humans, by nature, are equal in faculties of body and mind. With this equality, Hobbes felt that everyone
was innately willing to fight one another.
Hobbes stated that, “during
the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in
that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against
every man.”
Enough
about this old view! But wait. Why is it important to bring back an analysis
of the state of nature from a theorist long ago? Why are we still talking about
this?
When really
depicting the claim of Hobbes, it is important to see how the state of nature
he described so long ago is depicted in life now. Hobbes’s analysis of the state of nature has
contemporary applications. This concept
of the state of nature is seen in real life, in movies, and in many other
aspects of today’s world.
For example, one novel and movie
that we come across today is “The Hunger Games.” How does this relate to a state of nature? This particular novel and movie agrees with
Hobbes. In The Hunger Games, the Capitol forces each of the twelve districts
to send a teenage boy and girl to compete in the Hunger Games. The “Tributes” must fight one another until
one survivor remains. In the
state of nature for these games, nothing matters except your own survival. The Hunger Games is a reminder of what life
could be like without a strong authority to promote peace. The Tributes want to kill anyone that tries
to kill them. The game does not leave
room for the players to have morals, empathy, or hesitation. Everyone is willing to fight one another to
preserve their own life.
Within the first few seconds of the
game, the tributes are released and the killing begins. This shows that already, the players are in a
Hobbesian state of nature. They are
already willing to fight one another without a common power telling them not
to.
One thing to note is that the main
character, Katniss, is also seen as being in opposition to Hobbes’s state of
nature. She is only fighting because of
the fear of death, not because she wants to kill people. She wants to keep her covenant of not wanting
to kill, but she must kill to survive.
But again, why would Hobbes’s
application of the state of nature be used today? When thinking about this question, we must
really think about Hobbes's analysis of the state of nature. He discusses living in a world of war. He talks about a world without a common power
in which every man is against every man.
I feel as if movies would want to bring this application back because it
is difficult for us to imagine a world of war and a world that has no peace. By recreating a Hobbesian state of nature,
the movie the Hunger Games is supposed to remind us of what life would be like
without a common power or strong authority.
Out on the battlefield, the Tributes must fight for resources and use
whatever they can to kill the other tributes.
The Capitol has created a battlefield to simulate what life would be
like when they were not there to rule.
 |
| This is an image of Tributes on the battlefield, killing each other over resources and just to survive. |
Overall, although Hobbes’s theory
was introduced long ago, it is still present in our lives today. It can be used to make us think about what
life would be like without that common power.
Imagine living in a world of war…?
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I like the connection you made between Hobbes' state of nature and The Hunger Games. I agree that the games are a great example of Hobbes' state of nature. For the tributes, life is "nasty, brutish, and short." They all hope for the same thing (survival), and are willing to do anything (killing) to achieve it. This is where I disagree with your claim about the main character, Katniss. You say that she is "in opposition to Hobbe's state of nature" and that she is "fighting because of the fear of death." Doesn't this prove that she is in the state of nature as well? Hobbes claimed that we are naturally fearful of violent death. Just like the other tributes, Katniss is committing to the state of war in order to avoid death at a young age.
David,
DeleteThank you for commenting on my post! I am glad you liked my connection between Hobbes' state of nature and The Hunger Games. To comment on your disagreement with my claim about Katniss, I would like to apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean to say that she was in opposition to Hobbes's state of nature, I meant to express that with Hobbes's idea of the state of nature, Katniss should have lost. According to Hobbes, in conditions of war, every man is against every man. If Hobbes is correct, anyone in a killing contest that essentially does not want to kill should not be crowned the winner. From even the beginning of the movie, multiple characters express how it is impossible to survive without killing anyone that gets in your way. You have to have no morals, empathy, or hesitation. Katniss makes it through the game by only killing just a few of the other Tributes. She does not follow almost every rule the movie creates.
I agree with your link between Hobbes state of Nature and the Hunger Games. Hobbes says people want to naturally avoid death. He believes we are naturally fearful. I think that The Hunger Games is a perfect description of Hobbes State of Nature.
ReplyDeleteHowever I disagree with you when you say that, “Katniss, is also seen as being in opposition to Hobbes’s state of nature. She is only fighting because of the fear of death, not because she wants to kill people. She wants to keep her covenant of not wanting to kill, but she must kill to survive.” I don’t think Hobbes state of nature says that we WANT to kill people. He says we want to naturally avoid death. In order to do this we will kill people, we will go beyond our beliefs to stay alive. I think that people want to be on top, and although killing people is extreme, it will be done if needed to. Although you may not want to kill people when you’re in not in the situation, I feel that she DOES in fact want to kill people to stay alive.
Katniss naturally will do what she needs to do in order to win the hunger games. I think she is a perfect depiction of Hobbes State of Nature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I disagree with all of you. It is obvious the tribute in The Hunger Games is a state of war, but it isn't a state of nature. I would make the case that, instead of Hobbes, the society in The Hunger Games makes a more closer relation with Locke. The Tribute itself is obviously similar to Hobbes's state of nature, but it isn't a state of nature at all.
ReplyDeleteThe tribute is put into place by the government of the movie/book. Because of this, it is artificial and can't be called a state of nature. There are rules, there are a set list of things they are supposed to do to win: be the last man standing. Because of these things, it isn't natural at all.
If you recall the scene where the government plays the movie in the reaping, it tells of a time of war and despair before the government was created. It tells how the tribute is a sacrifice and reminder of the treasonous acts before the state was created. With this, it can easily be argued that The Hunger Games represents a Locke point of view.
Locke argues that reason teaches us to avoid conflict, and that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property", and the act of such is punishable. What I am saying is that the war talked about in the movie was a rebellion, but the government won. The government declared the rebellion as a treasonous attempt to infringe on the freedom (liberty) of the people. In response, they enacted the Hunger Games to serve as punishment for those 13 districts. This is much closer to the definition of Locke's state of nature.
I like the idea of your post and how you mention the hunger games. But I feel like it wasn't focused enough. You start off by saying how Hobbes relates more to the violence in our society today but then proceed to discuss the Hunger Games. Although I can see the connection to the Hunger Games either you should focus on only violence in today's society OR only violence in the media OR specifically the Hunger Games all by itself. In the beginning you could relate violence to our society as an introduction to the post rather than repeating what we already know from lecture. I have to agree with the above comment that the whole hunger games it its entirety is not like Hobbes state of nature because it is more a state of war and the government is involved. They are actually the masterminds of the Hunger Games making the hunger games not a natural human state. But if we are simply talking about the games themselves, not all of the extra stuff before and after, then that is a closer analogy but still not quite there.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea of movie makers giving us visual into a world of war as their reason for using state of war in movies but then the title and focus of this blog should be more on war rather than nature. That would give the post more organization and structure because you could break down the state of war by itself rather than trying to explain both at the same time.
I thought you had great writing style and tone throughout the piece though and relating the old philosophers to present day situations is a good idea in helping people understand. Just keep focus in mind next time! :)
Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post. I don't entirely agree with your example of how The Hunger Games depicts the Hobbesian state of nature. In Hobbes state of nature, people are self interested not because they are put in a situation where they are forced to be, but because it is their natural state to be that way. In the Hunger Games, the portrayal of self interest is caused by the environment they are in, not because of natural instinct. The tributes are forced to participate in the war zone they are placed in. We can not state that their actions are composed of self interest motives because the situation they are put in only allows protection for oneself.
"Imagine living in a world of war" .. interesting thought. Don't you think we still live in world of war? There are different types of wars. Currently there are nations at war, so we are living a world of war. Wars don't have to be physical. There is also the war within. It can be an internal struggle that people are trying to battle everyday. I don't think we will ever escape war, we will always be living in a state of war.