The 100 season 2 on Conflict Resolution and Revenge
The moral case for finding a better way to resolve conflict and not seek revenge.
What is the best way to enforce the rules?
How much punishment is worthy of someone who breaks the rules? Is there a point at which you can go too far in enforcing them? How do you decide what rules are worthwhile to enforce? And what happens when you encounter other people who have different rules?
In the previous examination of this, we looked at why there are rules in the first place. The reasons why rules have to exist rather than a free for all where everyone gets to do whatever they want. You can't simply allow for anarchy or nothing will ever be accomplished. So we understand why rules are what they are and we examined in some way how to enforce those rules. However, that's not where the story of rules ends. Because we looked at the development of different rules and different systems for under which they function.
The thing we didn't examine though is what happens when different sets of rules conflict. Our other examples assumed mutual cooperation and mutual goals being achieved. Primarily either finding a way to continue to exist or the basics of survival. Effectively just not dying is what they have in common, even if they were willing to kill others as a way to do it. But once the basics of survival or continuation of existence are no longer the main focus of people, we end up with a much different problem.
At it's core, this is what The 100's second season is about. What happens when you go beyond the simple desire to survive? When you can function without a need to entirely live within the binary choice of live or die. The show's second season finds itself there when we pick up from where the first season left off. The Ark in space is all but gone. Brought back to Earth when the obvious choice became either try to get back or resign themselves to die in space. It's with this simple declaration spoken to Jaha by his son as he hallucinates him that sums it up pretty brilliantly.
“Your life can be more than just impossible decisions and a tragic end. You can choose to live.”
People develop different types of rules and different ways of making life worth living. As you do that, you might find yourself in a situation where you're looking for more than just survival. More than just continued existence. When you do, you'll find people who don't necessarily want to live in a particular way and they will group themselves in different ways and live in different circumstances. Some will be willing to kill for it and others will not.
We see this in the different factions that have been established by the end of season 1. The 100 themselves who began the whole story, the Grounders they came into conflict with by invading their territory, even if they didn't think they were, and finally The Arkers or Sky People who came down and managed to survive. Not to mention the “Mountain Men” who are introduced in the final moments of season 1.
But there's only so much that people can do. Only so many resources that people have available. So much space to live on. If a group takes a particular piece of land and does its best to maintain that area, others might take notice. This attention allows people to consider whether or not someone else is doing better than another. To understand that the way they're doing things might be better and they might want to acquire either resources or a technology or a way of achieving certain goals, so that they can bring it to those within their own group.
This conflict comes into focus between the Grounders and the Arkers. They each share a part of the land they wish to live on. It allows them to see each other and their methods, including what might or might not work. Octavia in particular brings this into focus with her relationship to Lincoln and how he teaches her the ways of the Grounders. Later when she develops a partnership with Indra who broadens out her perspective and makes her a better warrior. She is the perfect blend of both worlds. Yet some of the Grounders view this mixing of cultures as evidence of impurity. Particularly when she manages to attain a highly respected position among their people. It creates a bridge between both groups but also a point of great contention.
And this is where a fundamental conflict arises. These people might not want to give up what they have to others. Or what one group is looking to acquire can only work within the system it's currently operating under. Thus bringing it to others might lead to frustration or anger either among those who are looking to get it or among the people who currently have it. When other people have it, giving it to others may end up making those who originally created it less special, or at least feel less special because it's no longer unique to them.
You might find yourself on the other end of a gun or weapon of some kind if you're unwilling to give it up. Mutual cooperation is not an effective way of doing things under such circumstances. At least not in the traditional sense anyway. It can create a do or die scenario for some. But this doesn't mean that all hope is lost. That you can't achieve some kind of peace in order to avoid all out conflict and destruction of one group in order to achieve another.
Through the Mountain Men or residents of Mount Weather, depending on what you see them as, we can understand this at it's most basic level. They are desperate to continue living for as long as possible. President Wallace has been doing this a long time and understands the moral and ethical compromises they have taken to keep what he views as his people alive. That they've sacrificed their fundamental humanity of treating people the same in order to stay alive. He sees how this has corrupted them into a do or die way of thinking. As a people, they've been forced to watch as the Grounders live out in the open and as such have become disconnected from their common humanity.
A sharing agreement is something that can be negotiated if both parties are willing to allow for it. Temporary ownership of whatever is at issue can create the necessary circumstances to transfer something in a peaceful way, so long as people are willing to hand it over voluntarily. Under such an agreement, mutual coexistence rather than cooperation can function. Two or more parties can define their own existence and flourishing without needing a single set of rules to live under.
All this assumes however that the thing which is causing conflict is capable of being shared. Obviously there are some things which can't be shared. Food can be shared but there's a finite amount of it. At some point, food will run out, until more can be acquired anyway. If one group can't get enough food and the other has too much, or just enough to feed their own group, sharing it means that your own group must sacrifice either themselves or another group in order to continue. Either that or take from one to ensure the continuation of the other.
With the agreement between the Grounders and the Arkers, you can see how this works. In order to protect themselves and free those who are under the Mount Weather residents control, they forge an alliance of mutual cooperation. Something which they can build upon through a common goal, helping themselves in a mutually beneficial way. But this isn't to say that all their past problems are gone. They still don't like each other. Still resent the lives lost from season 1's conflict. Both sides murdered each other to try and keep themselves alive. Now they have to work together to save each other. Which is part of the reason they disagree on how to achieve it.
Inevitably, this is something which creates conflict. Not to mention it's very hard to see how this gets worked out without causing resentment and retribution among the various groups involved. When one group takes from another, there's a tendency to want to take it back either immediately or a later date. Even though it might seem like getting it back quickly seems like a good way to go about it, you could be better off waiting until another time. After all, you don't know what will happen later. There may come a time when the roles are reversed and the people you're taking from won't have enough and you might have more.
Such a scenario could be of benefit to you and your people. Either so you can use it against them as a way of offering help in exchange for things at a later date. Or as a way to gain advantage and take something they might not want to give as a way of getting what you want. But this doesn't resolve the conflict in question. It just perpetuates the conflict even further, and allows for retaliation and the possibility of people getting hurt or killed in the process. And again you create nothing but conflict from that. You create the desire for revenge.
Which is why the Grounders have a system in place for getting revenge in a simple and ritualistic way gives people what they need. A process of catharsis where people can feel like they got what they wanted. It works because they've all agreed to abide by these simple rules and consider the matter closed. So long as this continues to be the case, the only problem arises if someone refuses to abide by it, like the Mountain Men or the Arkers.
“Blood must have blood.”
Perpetuating this however will only lead to bad outcomes. A never ending trail of blood for people to follow which will either make them a victim or someone who might one day become a victim. There is no good outcome for such a situation to live under. While it may function as a short term system, without a broader approach, eradication is all that will result. In order to implement a broader approach, there must be someone that can mediate between the groups. Someone who doesn't have any reason to personally gain from going one way or the other on it. Or at least they have more to gain by resolving the conflict then continuing it.
What you need is a leader. The type of leader who has the power and the respect to be able to hand down punishment and end the conflict before it goes any further. One who doesn't seek revenge themselves but does what's best for the continuation of peace through mutual co-existence. Of course, this only works if all the groups involved are willing to submit to the leader in charge. It also becomes a problem when you have a group coming in from outside who doesn't know or doesn't care what the rules are.
The conflict between Lexa, Indra, Clarke, her mother Abby, Jaha and Kane exemplify how this plays out. Each of them have their own needs for their respective people and even within the Arkers between Abby, Jaha and Kane. All of them have some claim to leadership and inspire respect among the people they lead. They each have a direction they want people to move towards. Believing that it will lead to peace and prosperity, either by forging alliances with each other, or with Jaha by leaving and finding a new place where they won't have to make such compromises.
As soon as that happens, you have the potential for everything to fall apart. Because once you have someone who is willing to upend the system, other may choose to follow. When you're in that situation, it becomes about who has more power. Who can impose their will on who. Which is a whole new set of problems.
But we'll get to that when we examine season 3.
Check out the show on Netflix.