by Ella Johnson, class of 2025

My Mom has always told me that I think too much in black and white. I have tried to work on being less harsh, more compassionate and forgiving, but man — there is something so soothing about moral absolutes — hearing them feels like a balm to the soul. I have always felt more like a warrior than a diplomat. Part of me wants to be more like Ayn Rand who wrote: “Such are the reasons why – when one is asked: “Surely you don’t think in terms of black-and-white, do you?” – the proper answer (in essence, if not in form) should be: “You’re damn right I do!”

That same part of me wants to be just as upstanding as Martin Luther, Joan of Arc, and Anne Hutchison — individuals that have leaned into this sense of right and wrong and accomplished great things. The issue is, those who are more concerned with right and wrong seem less concerned with how their actions effect those around them. Upending tradition and screwing over religious leaders might actually cause a lot of problems for everyone. And Martin Luther, though one of my heroes, had mega anger issues, and was a straight up radical and antisemite.

And so I have very ungracefuly danced through life trying to live to what I know to be true while still being a decent person, when logically, those two things should never be in conflict. Governments, societies, churches, communities, businesses — these are examples of this balancing act on a larger scale. This clash of visions, identities, and personalities can be seen in a simple question of: should you be your naturally people-pleaser self and risk getting steam-rolled? Or should you be “rude” and set harsh boundaries? And the conflict can be as big as: should economies be set up leaning into our self-interested nature, or should economies rely on the better angels of our nature?

Overall, my biggest life question lately has been: should we live according to who we are now in this bleak, fallen, and divisive world, or should we live according to who we could be as remarkable beings with infinite potential for good?

Suzanne Collins has answers. Yes. The author of the Hunger Games. She, like countless other authors, has re-introduced an important debate back into the world. Especially in her most recent novel The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Collins explores this conflict between men’s natures. In the acknowledgements to this new book, she thanks her dad for teaching her about the enlightenment thinkers and the State of Nature debate. And in the introduction, she quotes five different philsophers. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, William Wordsworth, and Mary Shelley. Each of these quotes provide an illuminating outline for both sides of this State of Nature debate. The quote Collins selected from Thomas Hobbes was written in 1651:

“Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man.” 

This is Hobbes’ idea of the State of Nature. Our natural state is war, and it’s only a Leviathan — a large and powerful government monster — that will keep our solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short natures in check. Next Collins quotes John Locke: 

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…” 

Instead of believing that men are in a constant state of war, Locke asserts here that reason teaches us, and it is the laws of nature that should keep us in check. 

Collins then quotes Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” An absolutely fascinating statement from Rousseau. Here he claims that we are born good and free, and it is society that makes us bad.

So we have Hobbes on one side of the debate, believing that men are naturally awful, Locke somewhere in the middle, thinking that men can be reasonable, and Rousseau falling somewhere on the other side, believing in the goodness of man — each providing an astounding contribution to the concept of nature.

People entirely skip over these quotes and the concepts they introduce. I get it. It’s a lot easier to focus on how attractive Coriolanus Snow is than it is to focus on whether or not men are naturally prone to murder each other. And I will say, I am 110% team Peeta. But whether we like it or not, each of us believes things about nature, government, and life, and we cheat ourselves when we care more about artificial things than we do about who we are, and how we should approach life. Whether it’s skipping the preface of a book, rejecting questions and deeper philosophies, or like me, seeing things in simple black and white — the nature debate is easily forgotten in the craze of era tours and political campaigns.

There is a certain book that helped me realize that the State of Nature debate has everything to do with each of us and our lives. Thomas Sowell wrote in 1987 the book titled A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. He makes philosophies easier to understand by dividing people into the constrained vision, and the unconstrained vision. Those from the constrained vision generally believe that humans are not good. We need laws, agreements, religion, and other people to keep our natures in check. We should inherit common laws from our ancestors gratefully and to a certain extent, without question. On the other hand, those from the unconstrained vision think like Rousseau. They believe what Lucy Gray in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes believed — that “people aren’t so bad, really. It’s what the world does to them.” Humans have a huge potential to do and be good. If we didn’t have an addiction to tik tok, a capitalist society sucking away at our souls, stereotypes, expectations, or labels … we would be so much better off.

The title of the book A Conflict of Visions, implies these two visions — that humans are bad and need to be checked, and that humans are good and society makes them bad — these two visions cannot coexist, they are in constant conflict with each other. We have people who believe in the Hobbesian version of human nature on this side with Coriolanus Snow, and we have people on the other side who believe in Rousseau’s version of human nature with Lucy Gray. Who is the psychopath? Which side is wrong? Which vision is true and right — which one displays the actual version of reality? The answer is … yes. Somehow, by some warping of reality, these contradictory and crazy visions must coexist. The most insane line from Thomas Sowell’s book reads: “No theory is literally 100 percent constrained or 100 percent unconstrained. To be totally unconstrained in the most literal sense would be to have omniscience and omnipotence. A 100 percent constrained vision would mean that man’s every thought and action are predestined.”

Here’s where we get to the part where it’s about you. Hold on to your pants: we all believe in ideas that contradict each other. Because unless you believe that you are smart enough to get rid of every single vice in society, or that men are always destined to fail, give me any one of your beliefs and we will be able to find some contradiction in the form of another one of your beliefs — it will be this conflict of visions. Maybe you are a libertarian and you believe it’s natural for humans to abuse government power, and yet humans are peaceful and cooperative in society. Maybe you are anti-capitalist and believe that those we elect into office really do have our best interests in mind, and yet those evil businessmen we purchase goods from are always out to get us. Or vice versa — you may believe that men are evil and greedy in government positions, but benevolently self-interested in business positions.  Each of us has a little bit of Coriolanus Snow and a little bit of Lucy Gray in us — some of Hobbes, and some of Rousseau — it’s just the percentages that may vary.

This idea is revolutionary. Because when we succumb to the politics and slogans that constantly pit us against each other — conservatives vs liberals, Gale vs Peeta, black vs white, lovers vs law-abiders, God-fearing saints vs understanding rationalists — when we ignore this State of Nature debate and fight in this simplified political war, we are entirely ignoring the war that should be going on inside ourselves. We are all hypocrites. We accuse each other of believing the same things we believe, just because we believe them to a lesser degree.

And it’s not just about politics. It’s about life, family, conflict in the home and in relationships. Because those who understand the State of Nature debate begin to understand themselves. Instead of changing the world with black and white thinking like the great Martin Luther or the intelligent Ayn Rand, life is about changing myself. It’s about realizing this conflict of visions within yourself instead of projecting it on all the divisions in the world around you. Somehow it is possible to be both a diplomat and a warrior.

It’s kind of like playing on a teeter-totter. You’re safe on the ground on one side; maybe you’re focused on love and being kind to everyone. Then someone hurts you, someone breaks a law, someone is cruel. You’ll want to run all the way to the other side of the teeter-totter, to get back on safe ground. You’ve got to set boundaries, create laws, be rigid, firm, and untrusting. As we slowly come to understand our natures, we have to find ourselves more often in the middle of these two opposites. It takes a lot of inner, core strength to find that balance, and you may have to play around with your feet, fall down, make mistakes. It’s kind of like a game. Repetitive. Even a little tedious after more than twenty years.

But there are much worse games to play.