Oppression In The Hunger Games

Expression against Oppression In the novel The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, the author exemplifies how in spite of the lack of equity, the consequences associated with self-expression prevents verbal defiance. The idea of equity and free speech is explored through the identity of the Avox, the distribution of food in Panem and Katniss’ behaviour. Firstly, the division in Panem prompts the lack of equity, allowing the Capitol to maintain control. When Katniss is served food which appears at the touch of a button, she says, “Days of hunting and gathering for this one meal and even then it would be a poor substitution for the Capitol version. What must it be like I wonder to live in a world where food appears at the press of a button” (Collins

The lack of equity and free speech is demonstrated through the rioters in Bakersfield, Ben Richard’s defiance and the fate of the past runners. Firstly, the inequity in the state triggers the uprising of resistance. While patrolling Bakersfield, Ben is ordered to shoot a crowd of protesters. After realising the motive of the protest, Ben replies, “The crowd is unarmed . . . All they want is food for God’s sake” (Glaser 1987). The situational irony in the reason of the protest reveals the inequity which leads the citizens to oppose the state. Although the diction suggests the harmlessness of the crowd, their verbal opposition sparks a chain reaction of defiance. Next, Ben’s verbal defiance leads to his condemnation. Despite the order to open fire on the protesters, Ben opposes the command saying, “The hell with you. I will not fire […] Abort mission. We return back to

The fear inflicted by the severe outcome of expression forces Katniss into conformity, causing the status quo to remain unchanged. In contrast, despite the consequences of defiance, Ben’s stubborn nature prompts his rash insistence on opposition. His persistence in rebellion leads to the overthrow of the totalitarian government. Hence, both texts reveal that to end the vicious cycle of inequity and oppressed speech, verbal defiance is necessary despite the associated self-damnation. In “Breaking the Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self-Monitoring in Predicting Speaking Up in the Workplace”, the authors, Premeaux and Bedeian write, “if [individuals] voice their views they [may] be punished for them …They, thus, may choose to remain silent even … about needed changes … [believing] that speaking up will not prove conductive to positive outcomes” (Premeaux and Bedeian 2003). The authors reveal how the fear of retaliation disables the integral outbreak of silence. Individuals implement the belief that nothing significant will sprout from the verbal protest, thus resulting in the unchanged status quo. The reformation incited by verbal opposition is reflective of the change brought by Iqbal Masih. In spite of the threats Iqbal received for protesting against child labour, Iqbal Masih continued to oppose the injustice, leading to the increased