{"id":194,"date":"2018-11-22T15:59:24","date_gmt":"2018-11-22T07:59:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/?page_id=194"},"modified":"2019-05-08T09:14:57","modified_gmt":"2019-05-08T01:14:57","slug":"the-power-of-people-morality-in-the-100","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/the-power-of-people-morality-in-the-100\/","title":{"rendered":"The 100<\/em> (2014): Power of Morality in the Face of Crisis\\Choo Jun Heng, Alvin"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The 100<\/em> (<\/span>2014-) is a dystopian TV series set in a world 97 years after a global nuclear war devastated Earth. The story follows the Sky People, a group of survivors on board a gigantic\u00a0space station orbiting Earth, as they venture down onto Earth to determine whether the planet\u00a0has become habitable again. Led by the protagonist Clarke Griffens, the group comes to realise\u00a0that they are not alone and there are survivors from the nuclear Armageddon almost a century\u00a0ago. After one century of living in isolation, the tribes have developed very differently, each\u00a0with their own cultures and rules. With the introduction of the Sky People into the equation,\u00a0the balance is shaken up, leading to tensions and conflicts between the different groups.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Clarke, an 18-year-old girl who comes from a society with strict laws and regulations, is now\u00a0thrown into an environment where she was never prepared for, an environment where\u00a0everything she knew is invalidated. The ordered yet peaceful way of life is gone, and respective\u00a0tribes do as they please with no consideration for the interests of the others.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Clarke confronting the leader of another tribe<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

On the surface, viewers of\u00a0<\/span>The 100 <\/span><\/em>may view this narrative arc as similar to many other\u00a0dystopian films, where the protagonist is morally righteous, constantly putting himself in\u00a0extreme danger as they go around eliminating \u2018evil\u2019 and saving the world from certain\u00a0destruction. However, in this case, there is one key difference. Throughout most of the series,\u00a0there is no obvious \u2018evil\u2019. There are no external threats such as zombies, aliens or rogue\u00a0artificial intelligence whose one and only goal is to eliminate all mankind and seek world\u00a0domination. In\u00a0<\/span>The 100<\/span><\/em>, almost all the conflicts are between humans, who make complex\u00a0decisions based on a plethora of conscious and unconscious factors. As a result, the decisions\u00a0made by Clarke are scrutinised more closely as viewers understand the rationale behind the\u00a0actions of every character in the TV series and will not just solely think from the perspective\u00a0of Clarke.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The TV series, in contrast to other apocalyptic film or TV series, dwells with complex moral\u00a0pictures \u2013 that we cannot find morally absolute. Moral absolutism is what apocalyptic texts do best\u00a0as they provide a sense of conclusion when the protagonist, the hero in the show, triumphs over\u00a0villains and emerge victorious. By not dabbling with the moral extreme, the moral picture is\u00a0revealed to be more complex and not simply black and white. In this article, I am going to\u00a0argue that Clarke cannot be seen as a moral protagonist or antagonist because morality is\u00a0complex when seen through the Machiavellian principle. <\/span><\/p>\n

Morality is \u201ca set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character\u201d\u00a0(Cambridge Dictionary, 2018). While \u201cthere may be universal moral principles\u201d, the influence\u00a0of culture seems to play a more significant role on \u201cvarious aspects of morality\u201d (Krettenauer & Jia, 2017). Cultural psychologists have suggested that \u201cpeople both within and across\u00a0cultures have different self-concepts, cognitive processes, emotional expectations, and value\u00a0orientations\u201d (Krettenauer & Jia, 2017). Hence, what seemed to be morally right to Clarke\u00a0and her people may be morally wrong to the other tribes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Machiavellian principle refers to the \u201cemployment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in\u00a0general conduct\u201d (Oxford English Dictionary, 2018) and is a term derived from Niccol\u00f2\u00a0Machiavelli, a statesman and a political thinker from the era of the Italian Renaissance.\u00a0In his book\u00a0<\/span>The Prince<\/span><\/em>, Machiavelli asserted that a leader should be \u201cguided exclusively by\u00a0considerations of expediency, which uses all means, fair or foul, for achieving its ends\u201d of\u00a0stability and governance for his subjects (Leo & Cropsey, 1987). The leader does not necessarily have to\u00a0be liked by his people, and while moral considerations should be considered when making\u00a0decisions, they are to be seen as less important than the effective truth.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Clarke attempts to negotiate for peace with another tribe<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Clarke starts off with the belief of wanting to live in peace and harmony. She negotiates\u00a0fervently and attempts to find compromise solutions that will best serve the interests of\u00a0everyone. However, she soon realises that it is not possible to reconcile the differences because\u00a0of the vastly different beliefs as well as mutually exclusive interests. In the end, she has to\u00a0resort to unscrupulous methods and morally questionable decisions in order to protect the\u00a0interests of certain groups of people. The line between doing what is morally right and being\u00a0expedient is blurred as society no longer follows a universal set of similar rules. The best\u00a0outcome may not be achieved by making morally right decisions but by employing\u00a0underhanded methods in the face of challenges. In the TV series, Clarke\u2019s character\u00a0<\/span>development through the different seasons portrays a slow deterioration of conventional moral\u00a0values, eventually making her indistinguishable from the enemies she seeks to destroy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Morality as the Main Consideration<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The tension between Clarke and one of the tribes, Mountain Men, is a recurring theme throughout the\u00a0entirety of season 2. Both parties interpreted the intention of the other party from their own\u00a0perspective and felt that their respective actions are immoral. However, the manner in which\u00a0both parties act is based on a similar need for survival and liberation even though their actions\u00a0directly oppose each other. This implies a relative notion of right and wrong as interpretation is based on the respective view of each party.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Clarke leading her alliance into the battle with the Mountain Men<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

At the start of season 2, the Mountain Men discover that the blood of Sky People can\u00a0metabolise radiation much more quickly as compared to their own blood. This allows the Sky\u00a0People to roam freely without worry of the high dosage of radiation in the atmosphere.\u00a0Knowing that the blood of the Sky People is the solution to their problem, they seize this\u00a0opportunity and capture members of the Sky People to draw their bone marrow. Clarke, in a\u00a0bid to save her people, declares war on the Mountain Men, leading to a series of increasingly\u00a0violent skirmishes. In the finale of season 2, Clarke and her team manage to infiltrate into the\u00a0Mount Weather Complex and are trapped in the control room of the complex. With her mother\u00a0being held\u00a0hostage by the Mountain Men, Clarke made the decision to irradiate the entire\u00a0complex, killing all the residents of Mount Weather, including hundreds of innocent residents,\u00a0countless children and elderlies who have no idea of the experiment which is kept highly\u00a0confidential. Clarke\u2019s decision helps save many of her people, who would have otherwise been\u00a0brutally killed by having their bone marrow drilled out. From the perspective of Clarke, she\u00a0sees her decision as the only way to protect her own people and that those sacrifices are\u00a0necessary.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Clarke contemplates before making the decision to irradiate the whole complex<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

From the perspective of the Mountain Men\u2019s government, it is merely trying to protect its\u00a0citizens and improve their quality of living, the primary responsibility of the government. As\u00a0descendants of the US government, the rightful owner of the land, the citizens are now trapped\u00a0in an underground bunker and have been unable to venture out for the last 97 years. A rare\u00a0opportunity comes in the form of Sky People, whose bone marrow will allow their own people\u00a0to metabolise radiation much more quickly. The government simply seizes this valuable\u00a0opportunity to liberate and free themselves from the underground complex where they have\u00a0been trapped.<\/span><\/p>\n

We can understand their behaviours using the Machiavellian principles. In <\/span>The Prince<\/span><\/em>,\u00a0Machiavelli mentioned that \u201cFor a man who wants to practice goodness in all situations is\u00a0inevitably destroyed, among so many men who are not good\u201d (Machiavelli, 1532). He believed\u00a0that philosophy must be judged by its practical considerations and is not an effective political\u00a0strategy. Machiavelli does not value virtue for its inherent goodness but as a characteristic that\u00a0one can receive respect for. He believed that certain \u2018evils\u2019 are necessary and that a leader \u201cwho\u00a0wishes to retain his power must learn not to be good, and to use, or not to use, that ability\u00a0according to necessity\u201d (Machiavelli, 1532). Machiavelli is not concerned with the process and\u00a0will resort to any possible means to achieve the end goal of protecting the state. Deplorable\u00a0acts, if necessary to safeguard the interest of the state, are justified. This explains the actions\u00a0of both Clarke and the Mountain Men, who resort to unscrupulous tactics to save their own\u00a0people. In Clarke’s case, she targets civilians indiscriminately, sabotages essential civilian\u00a0services and even conducts radiological warfare to save her own people. The Mountain Men,\u00a0on the other hand, conduct human experimentation and forcefully remove their bone marrows\u00a0through inhumane methods. Hence, there is a false portrayal of good and evil as both parties\u00a0are simply protecting their own interests with no considerations for others.<\/span><\/p>\n

Morality as the Last Consideration<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Clarke’s progression through the seasons is one where she starts off using unethical techniques\u00a0defensively as a form of protecting her own interests, to one where unethical methods are used\u00a0aggressively by her as a convenient solution to achieve her goal more easily. The use of\u00a0unethical methods is also a way for Clarke to enforce her authority and helps create an image as\u00a0someone who will do whatever it takes to protect the interests of her people, even if that means\u00a0sacrificing some of her people. This will help earn the respect of her followers who will be\u00a0loyal to her and scare off detractors as they know that she will sacrifice them with no hesitation.\u00a0This highlights the complex intricacy between morality and practicality and the challenges\u00a0Clarke faces when trying to find a balance between these two aspects.<\/span><\/p>\n

In season 4, Clarke learns that a second nuclear apocalypse is occurring due to the failure of\u00a0nuclear power plants around the world which will result in deadly waves of nuclear radiation\u00a0spreading that will make Earth uninhabitable to everyone except for Nightbloods, Grounders\u00a0with a hereditary condition that allows radiation to be metabolised at a much higher rate, even higher than the Sky People.\u00a0Knowing that the only way to save her people is to create a serum using the blood of the\u00a0<\/span>Nightbloods, Clarke starts drawing blood from a Nightblood and forcefully restrains her after\u00a0she protested. In order to further test the effectiveness of her serum, she goes on to capture a\u00a0Grounder and conducts inhumane experimentation on him, resulting in his death. Following\u00a0his death and the lack of available people to experiment on, Clarke even considered to\u00a0experiment on her friend and went as far as capturing her friend and setting up the equipment\u00a0for the test.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Clarke restrains her own friends to use them as test subjects<\/figcaption><\/figure>\nIs there no line you won’t cross in order to survive? <\/em>– A fellow ally to Clarke<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n

In the end, her actions match those done by the Mountain Men in season 2. Just as the Mountain\u00a0Men wanted to save their people and allowed them to roam the world freely, Clarke wanted to\u00a0protect her people from the impending radiation waves and allow them to continue with their\u00a0daily activities. The Mountain Men forcefully captured outsiders and willingly sacrificed them\u00a0for their pursuits, just as how Clarke was willing to go the extent of sacrificing her own close\u00a0friend. When confronted by those around them, both justified their actions with the need to\u00a0save their own people. With the full circle completed, it seems now that Clarke has become the\u00a0very \u201cevil\u201d she fights so hard to destroy in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n

This behaviour can be similarly explained by Machiavelli\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>The Prince <\/span><\/em>which asserts the idea\u00a0that \u201cit is much safer to be feared than loved\u201d (Machiavelli, 1532) as humans are untrustworthy\u00a0and will betray at the first instance of genuine danger. This is shown through numerous\u00a0examples in the series where alliance members betray each other for the slightest benefits or\u00a0over the smallest paranoia. By instilling fear, there is a \u201cdread of retribution which can always\u00a0be counted on\u201d (Machiavelli, 1532). This helps to maintain an image of Clarke being a serious\u00a0leader who will do everything it takes to protect the group\u2019s interest and will spare no effort to\u00a0sacrifice anyone who impedes her progress. Furthermore, Machiavelli also argued that a leader\u00a0\u201cneed not worry about incurring opprobrium because of those vices\u201d (Machiavelli, 1532) and\u00a0should always act for the best practical interest since people will eventually reap the benefits\u00a0of the leader\u2019s practical decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Mountain Men restraining Sky People vs Clarke ordering the restraint of Nightblood – Is Clarke any different from the Mountain Men she fought so hard to destroy in the first place?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Clarke: “I tried. I tried to be the good guy.<\/em>” <\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span><\/h1>\n

At the start, she still has her set of pre-apocalyptic belief of rights and wrongs which are\u00a0determined by the peaceful society around her. After facing multiple challenges and gaining\u00a0familiarity in this new environment, she has come to realise that there is no perfect solution\u00a0and that the best result requires certain compromises. In the post-apocalyptic world, these\u00a0compromises are likely to be someone else’s life.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nClarke’s Mother: “Maybe there are no good guys.<\/em>“<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n

The use of the terms good and evil is relative and depends on the perspective of the character\u00a0it is viewed from. This is determined by their own interests and view of the world. Each of the\u00a0antagonists definitely did not see himself as morally evil, even if they understood that their\u00a0actions are wrong. In reality, every one of them sees themselves as saviours to their people, as\u00a0someone who has weighed all possible options and as someone who has made the best\u00a0decisions for their people given the circumstances. Or Clarke\u2019s mother was right when she\u00a0pointed out to her, \u201cMaybe there are no good guys\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

References
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Jia, F., & Krettenauer, T. (2017, March). Recognizing moral Identity as a cultural construct.\u00a0Frontiers in Psychology,\u00a0<\/i>8<\/i>, article 412.<\/p>\n

Leo, S., & Cropsey, J. (1987).\u00a0History of Political Philosophy\u00a0<\/i>(3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Machiavelli, N. (1532 [2008]).\u00a0The Prince <\/i>(J. B. Atkinson, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.<\/p>\n

Machiavellian (n.d.). English Oxford Living Dictionaries.\u00a0<\/em>Retrieved 2018, from https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/machiavellian<\/a><\/p>\n

Morality (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary.\u00a0<\/em>Retrieved 2018, from https:\/\/dictionary.cambridge.org\/dictionary\/english\/morality<\/a><\/p>\n

Rothenberg, J., Morgenstein, L., Miller, M., Girolamo, G., Nalluri, B., Craft, E., & Fain, S. (Producers). (2014-).\u00a0The 100\u00a0<\/i>[Television series]. Vancouver: The CW.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction The 100 (2014-) is a dystopian TV series set in a world 97 years after a global nuclear war devastated Earth. The story follows the Sky People, a group of survivors on board a gigantic\u00a0space station orbiting Earth, as they venture down onto Earth to determine whether the planet\u00a0has become habitable again. Led by … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “The 100<\/em> (2014): Power of Morality in the Face of Crisis\\Choo Jun Heng, Alvin”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":201,"parent":0,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-194","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/194\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":309,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/194\/revisions\/309"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/digitalpatmos.com\/vol3issue3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}