An Analysis of The Hunger Games through International Relations Theories

The Hunger Games, a young novel by Suzanne Collins, is undoubtedly an internationally

active subject. It is a fictional nation that substitutes the United States with twelve districts,
controlled all by a Capitol, and a more useful and micro-systemical arena, which is a new
novel that represents the international systems in real terms, both in its own country and in
the United States. The two children of each district are forced to fight in the arena until one is
present. This microlevel permits the student to assume the individual conduct in the arena.
The subject of international relations scholars' cooperation inside the arena is also
controversial based on the divergent beliefs of the various paradigms. These conflicts, links,
the predisposition to violence, the struggle for survival inside this narrative are all human
behaviour, and may be utilised as analogies to the three principal paradigms realism,
liberalism, and building.

There are different paradigms between the behaviour, within the arena of each participant.
From a realistic point of view, the individual should cherish power beyond everything else,
for peace is in power. One of the realistic assumptions, such as that of John Mearsheimer, that
«great powers are intrinsically capable of attacking the military which provides them the
means to injure each other and possibly to destroy each other». (The 61st of Mearsheimer) In
this situation, the individual is within the arena the powers, or States. At the start of the death
match, the individuals only begin to locate a weapon and improve their powers, while
avoiding other adversaries who also arm themselves. These adversaries are neither evenly
matched nor gendered; there are a mix of all sorts of people, large and powerful lads and sly
young women. In this case the participants should use measured aggression while they are
fighting with equally strong opponents, although realists would propose to use "bigger
powers" especially those of those individuals that are physically strong and now have
weapons. When participants realise that an opponent is as powerful, they generally avoid
direct contacts and guard the strength and resources that they now have, and estimate the cost
and advantage of the offence.

As the individual's behaviour is influenced by the fear of those who have the same or more
power, the fear creates suspicion because of the need to expand its power. The major
objective of the entire event is to be the last, and just as states and people in the actual world
in the fictitious arena would be "any state that is committed to its existence would be at least
suspect of and unable to trust other states." (Arnucin's 62nd). This is particularly true after the
"Career Tributes," Katniss and the other autonomous individuals, begin to establish alliances
within the field, "the strong body together to pursue the weak then begins to tighten up each
other when the stress is too much." [Hills 159]. This continuous fight for power among the
players is directly related to John Herz's explanation of the anarchical characteristic of
international relations, in particular of power dynamisms.

The arena itself depicts just certain stages of human nature that the realistic paradigm
dictates. The premise that the system is anarchic, is valid and no rules are allowed inside the
arena. The Capitol, however, functions as a hegemonic force alone and has the ultimate
control inside the arena, in which the balance of energy and even the atmosphere may be
changed and manipulated. Everybody in the arena wants to develop its power to live, to
follow their own interests and store as many resources as possible, as a realistic assumption.
Within the arena, power is intimately associated with accessible physical weaponry, medical
supplies, shelter and food, providing a highly chaotic world of safety. Finally, the arena is not
typically suitable for cooperation, "while it is sometimes difficult to develop cooperation and
is always difficult to sustain." (Mearsheimer 73) and alliances start to form, but decrease at
the end of a death game when individuals start putting their self-interest before the group. At
the micro level, this constrained collaboration depicts realistic international relations and how
each State should take account of the danger and return of cooperating with another State that
they could not trust.

The main assumptions of liberalism should entail that the participants in the arena should
cooperate and that individuals are multipolar, rather than bipolar, or unipolar, so that today
the allies can be enemies tomorrow. Liberal scientists would likewise evaluate that the
relationships formed in the arena are merely designed to ensure players' survival. Because a
trade or economic system is not necessary in the game, the analysis will focus exclusively on
the power problem that is produced and the establishment of trust for safety purposes
between participants.

Constructivists would anticipate individuals to be distinct in their social relationship to other

participants. The participant agency is also expected to be directly linked to the influence
socially made by the arena. Participants act differently, for example, due of the friendship that
they have with each other while they fight to survive and Katniss' loathing of such career-
related tributes, Katniss treats Rue very differently than she would Glimmer. The shift in
social ties can also influence the interaction between the participants, as is the relationship
between Katniss and Peeta. Ever since the death match, Peeta has allegedly allies with career
tributes for survival, which is angry with Katniss, but when Peeta defies her opinion, the
relationship turns to friendship rather than hostility.

The old rules that only one individual can live and cooperative partnerships should be
prohibited from the outset are already severely inhibited in the arena collaboration. Alliances,
such as the "carriage tributes" that trained their life to play the games and to survive at the
start of the death battle. Katniss notes, that they start to establish an alliance even before the
games and characterise them as "the ones that ate together," in particular the tributes from
Districts1, 2 and 4, early on. [Hills 159]. For those from the other poorer districts as 11 or 12
without the physical strengths and the wealthy benefactors, the unfair benefit of the strongest
people becoming allies makes it exceedingly unfair to those who can air goods like food,
medicinal products and clothing. This unfair advantage leads to a power problem in this field
as the hegemonic allies begin with more openness and latent power, because by connection
with sponsors they may manipulate more factors in the game. The allies swiftly use their hard
might to amass control through violence, murder and terror to survive.

The sports in the arena should be solitary and battling and should survive only as Thomas
Hobbes wrote "Everyman vs everybody" in the condition of nature (Tickner 117). In the fight
against all, the players are less depending on their alliance and relationship and are now
independent such that the strongest or at times the happiest individual can survive rather than
those who have the greatest assistance from others. Ruling against collaboration also forces
individuals to use autonomous assistance, which "trends to recompense competitiveness and
penalise kindness." [Conversation 102]. The arena is intended to hurl everybody against each
other rather than form friends or allies, but the players have chosen to amend the rules for two
survivors in the last minute, there could traditionally only be one and the game as such.
Participants are often stabbed in the back, much like true states which rely too much on
bigger powers, when the bigger State finds they are no longer being used by smaller. In all
things, it should not be possible to cooperate on the scene, yet for the hegemonic alliance, this
still happens, albeit without success.
There is no real commerce or economic system, and there is no real ability to collaborate
without harming your Ally, so that you may finally become the surviving state. It is also a
matter of fact that the international system is different from the circumstances and conditions
within the arenea. These contrasts, regardless of paradigms, separate the fictitious arena and
the true reality of the world system.

There is no major comparison with the international system, because collaboration in this
area has been discouraged. That's clear in the actual world, "state like Brazil and Botswana
can acknowledge the sovereignty of each other, but they need incentive to work together."
This is substantially like those in the arena (Wendt 105). The participants do not have the full
confidence to one other, the only fact that they are stronger together and that they have a
larger chance of survival, is that they can be betrayed by purported allies. The main difficulty
with this loose alliance is that as opposed to the real world where several 'winners' or
powerful states might be found, the arena can only allow one survivor normally or two at the
end of the novel.

One of the key differences between the field and the international systems is that the arena
does not have a real economic system. Survival and tactics are the emphasis instead of
economic collaboration or gain. In the actual world States need to be concerned also about
the prosperity of their society, which often demands trade in resources or goods they need
with other states. Materials and supplies are not traded within the arena, gained by stealing or
collection, and so no social tie is established between participants.