Chapter 3: The State in International Relations- Nationalism and State Power in Dystopian Futures

International Relations Theories & The Hunger Games

What happens when the world falls apart? International relations (IR) theories offer us powerful lenses to understand the dynamics of power, identity, and resistance in even the most chaotic and oppressive settings. A dystopian society like the one depicted in The Hunger Games is the ultimate stress test for these theories, forcing us to consider how they respond to extreme conditions like authoritarian rule, widespread inequality, and rebellion. Each theory—realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism—offers unique insights into the Capitol’s grip on Panem and the districts’ struggle for freedom. By applying these frameworks, we can better understand the assumptions, values, and goals that underpin different ways of interpreting state behavior, sovereignty, and societal change. Remember, just because we have multiple IR theories does not mean one is “right” or “wrong.” Instead, each chooses to focus in on certain aspects of IR while downplaying others. Which one do you think is the most accurate in exmaining The Hunger Games? Let’s explore how these theories handle the complexities of a dystopian world, offering lessons that extend far beyond the arena.

Realism in the Arena: Power, Survival, and the Capitol’s Iron Grip

Realism, with its focus on power, security, and self-interest, would view a dystopian, failing state as an inevitable outcome of unchecked power struggles. Realists believe that in the absence of effective, balanced power, authoritarian regimes arise to impose order and secure their own interests. A realist would likely see the Capitol in The Hunger Games as a classic example of a power-maximizing state, controlling the districts through intimidation and military force to ensure its own survival. In a failing nation-state, realism would stress that stability can only be restored by a strong authority capable of enforcing order, even if that means sacrificing freedoms. For realists, power must be concentrated to avoid further chaos, emphasizing survival over ideals. In extreme dystopias, realism’s focus on order and security above all else might justify authoritarian rule as a necessary evil, especially when resources and stability are scarce.

Liberalism and the Districts: Alliances, Cooperation, and the Road to Rebellion

Liberalism, by contrast, would react to a dystopian state by advocating for cooperation, institutions, and human rights as keys to reform. In a failing or authoritarian state, liberalism would push for collaborative efforts among oppressed communities to build alliances and create a basis for self-governance. In The Hunger Games, liberal principles are reflected in the emerging alliances between the districts, where cooperation and shared goals create the foundation for rebellion against the Capitol’s tyranny. Liberals would argue that the Capitol’s authoritarianism is unsustainable in the long run, as states built on repression lack the legitimacy and citizen support needed for lasting stability. Instead, liberalism would support collective action, humanitarian aid, and international organizations stepping in to mediate or provide support for democratic reforms. In a dystopian context, liberalism’s response emphasizes that shared norms and alliances are the best way to counter tyranny and build a more humane political order.

Constructing the Mockingjay: Symbols, Narratives, and the Power of Perception

Constructivism takes a different approach by focusing on the importance of social identities, norms, and perceptions in shaping political behavior. Constructivists would argue that the Capitol’s power in The Hunger Games is not only rooted in military force but also in the cultural symbols and narratives it has imposed on the districts, such as the Hunger Games themselves. By making the Games a tradition, the Capitol reinforces its authority and instills fear, maintaining control through the districts’ belief in the Capitol’s power. Constructivists would focus on how these cultural narratives can be deconstructed to weaken the Capitol’s hold over society. Katniss’s symbolic defiance, for example, challenges the Capitol’s narrative and reshapes public perceptions, showing that power also relies on shared beliefs and norms. In a failing or dystopian state, constructivism would advocate for changing how people view authority, creating new shared identities and ideologies to inspire collective resistance and societal change.

Marxism: Class Struggle and the Districts’ Exploitation

Marxism would view a dystopian, authoritarian government as a natural consequence of class struggle and economic inequality. In a world where resources are monopolized by a powerful elite while the rest suffer, Marxists argue that oppression and exploitation are inevitable outcomes. The Capitol’s control over Panem’s resources and its exploitation of each district’s labor for its own wealth and luxury is a clear parallel to Marxist critiques of capitalism and class division. Marxists would argue that Panem’s instability stems from economic exploitation, as the districts’ poverty and suffering directly fuel resentment and resistance. For Marxists, change would come through a class-based uprising, where the exploited overthrow the ruling elite to create a more equitable system. In a dystopian setting, Marxism emphasizes that economic justice and the redistribution of resources are essential to dismantling oppressive regimes and building a society that serves all, not just the wealthy few.

Feminism: Katniss, Gender, and Challenging Patriarchal Power

Feminism would approach a dystopian government by analyzing how power dynamics are shaped by gender as well as by economic or political factors. Feminists would likely examine the roles women play in both the Capitol and the districts, exploring how gender oppression intersects with other forms of control. In The Hunger Games, Katniss’s role as both a symbol of resistance and a complex individual challenges traditional gender expectations, showing that leadership and rebellion are not solely male domains. Feminism would argue that the Capitol’s regime reinforces gender norms as part of its broader system of control, limiting individuals based on both class and gender. Feminists might advocate for empowering women and marginalized genders in the resistance, as their involvement would challenge the Capitol’s hierarchical, patriarchal structures. In a failing or dystopian state, feminism stresses that genuine freedom requires dismantling all forms of oppression—economic, racial, and gendered—and that inclusive leadership is essential to creating a just society.

By examining how each theory responds to dystopian scenarios, we gain insight into the unique values and assumptions each framework holds. Realism emphasizes power and order, even if it means harsh control; liberalism believes in cooperation and institutional reform; constructivism sees power as rooted in cultural beliefs and shared narratives; Marxism highlights economic inequality and the need for class-based revolution; and feminism argues that all forms of oppression, including gender, must be addressed for true freedom. Through this exercise, students should understand how each theory interprets power, stability, and resistance in different ways, offering varied paths to justice and peace in even the most challenging political landscapes.