The cycle of books by George Martin “A Song of Ice and Fire” and the television series “Game of Thrones” by David Benioff and Daniel Weiss may be of interest to theoretical sociology by the very scale and even the global nature of the project of a fictitious world, which is very realistic and detailed not only in terms of the motives of the heroes’ actions but also with regard to social structure, rules of social action, religious, cultural and everyday practices, right down to clothing, food and drink. The clan, feudal and other social structures, carefully thought out by Martin, are easily recognized as the West’s historical past. Thus, the reader and the viewer have suggested a quasi-sociological view of Vestoros as a structurally familiar space of the European late Middle Ages or early modernity, which is partly imprinted in the Western cultural tradition (Marthews, 2018). The personal experience of modern Americans and Europeans resonates with the perspective often used by the author, in which institutions of socialization like family appear not only not so much as a source of necessary economic resources, cultural meanings, and general motivation for action but also as repressive structures carrying out social coercion. This paper analyzes the institutional order depicted in these works of fiction from the standpoint of the classic theory of modernity and social order theory, Thomas Hobbes. It argues that although the works demonstrate the typical structures of modern society (despite historical anachronisms), the events of the cycle are instead an example of a process opposite to that described by Hobbes: here, the readers or the viewers see not a way out of the natural state through the establishment of the state, but, on the contrary, the disintegration of the state as the dominant instance of legitimate violence, when everyone gets back their natural right to self-preservation, entering into direct competition with the similar right of other rational egoists in the conditions of an unlimited “war of all against all.”
A traditional event background for the fantasy genre is a crisis of the pre-established order, which is restored at the end of the narrative by the heroes’ efforts (“eucatastrophe,” in Tolkien’s terminology). Typically, these crises are associated with the disruption of the usual course of things within the power structure or the general balance of power. However, in the case of Martin’s universe, the phenomenology of disintegration is not limited to power-institutional moments and is not explained by only an unintentional violation of the pre-established harmony (Virino & Rodriguez, 2019). So, in the series, a systemic crisis literally covers the entire space of the narrated world so that by the beginning of the 8th season, all the usual forms of social interactions (including family, friendship, and even the rules of warfare) are destabilized, and all previously existing discursive orders (including belief in the Seven and the knowledge of the Order of Maesters).
As in the world of modernity, in Game of Thrones, there are no substantively understood ethical poles of “good” and “evil” that set unambiguous parameters for the moral navigation of static heroes who, like the characters of ancient tragedies, would rather represent certain values than real human characters. However, the readers and viewers of the saga are not sure not only that the heroes will successfully cope with all the trials and challenges but also that they will even live to the end of the cycle.
Martin’s world is typically modern because his construction is based on the same principles of realism, perspectivism, and emancipation that are characteristic of the languages of self-description and self-legitimization of the modernity project (Latour, 2012). Its inhabitants are also constantly under compulsion to self-determination; they have to go beyond the usual social roles of the traditional type. Thus, the seven Kingdoms’ quasi-feudal structures presuppose rigidly prescribed roles and chances for those at the bottom or the edge of society: as usual, among the “, discriminated” are women and even more so girls, cripples, bastards, and other social outsiders. Their actions forced by nature and subversive in the result explode the established framework and break the usual scenarios, which, as an aggregated unintended effect, leads to a change in the very structure of subjectivity, or agency, in the space of social interactions within the narrated world (Larrington, 2017).
As examples of this kind of self-emancipation, many characters of George Martin can be named here: the eunuch Belwas, the parvenu Petyr Baelish, nicknamed Littlefinger, the daughter of the repressed right hand Arya and Sansa Stark, the physically unformatted heir of the great house Samwell Tarly, and finally, the main characters are the bastard Jon Snow, political emigrant Daenerys Targaryen and even Cersei Lannister herself, who violated all conceivable human laws and God’s commandments, and as a result usurped the Iron Throne. The emergence of new social and political action subjects fundamentally changes the previous structure of the agency, which seemed so rigid: former representatives of hegemonic power, who inherited their social status in accordance with the principle of primogeniture in Westeros, are being displaced from the dominant positions. Due to such dynamics, absolutely modern in nature, certain characters’ social positions are not just changing (Larrington, 2017). Suffice it to recall here a fragment from the 10th episode of the 3rd season (Benioff & Weiss, 2013) when the freed slaves of Yunkai recognize Daenerys Stormborn as their “mother.”
In this regard, it is worth considering the classic example of modernity’s problematization and the social theory of order by Thomas Hobbes. American philosopher Greg Littmann even suggested doing this curious thought experiment: imagine Hobbes as a master in King’s Landing: What advice would he give to the king and lords at the time of the political crisis in Westeros? How would he take the overthrow of the Targaryen dynasty (read: Stuarts)? Which side would he take in the War of the Five Kings? (as cited by Irwin, 2012). Although, strictly speaking, the cycle’s events represent a process opposite to that described by Hobbes himself in “Leviathan” (Newey, 2008). Here the viewers see not a way out of the natural state through the establishment of the state, but, on the contrary, the disintegration of the state as the dominant instance of legitimate violence, when everyone gets back their natural right to self-preservation, entering into direct competition with the similar right of other rational egoists in an unrestricted “war of all against all” (Ferreday, 2015). However, even in this inverted form, Martin’s picture of political action liberation from any value-normative restrictions can be considered typically modern (Virino & Rodriguez, 2019). The closest to Hobbes’ position in the novel and the film is the master of whisperers, the eunuch Varys, for whom the stability of order is an intrinsic value, despite the costs of a concrete historical Leviathan (Benioff & Weiss, 2011).
Hobbes’s people and the individuals of society descended from them are by nature enemies; they exclude and deny each other. Such a Hobbesian man in the series “Game of Thrones” – not in the sense of one who adheres to a British philosopher’s position, but as the embodiment of the social type described by him in “Leviathan” appears to be Petyr Baelish, nicknamed Littlefinger. It is he who, pursuing his own interests, is ready to bring down the existing order and provoke a full-fledged civil war, despite the catastrophic consequences of the “war of all against all” (Ferreday, 2015). At the same time, Littlefinger has his own, absolutely anti-Hobbesian in spirit, the concept of controlled chaos (“Chaos is a ladder…”). By destabilizing the existing framework of the political domination of the great houses through intrigue, the rational egoist Littlefinger hopes to significantly improve his own chances of rising already in the new institutional conditions. We know that his hopes were thwarted again by a rather unexpected and even somewhat ridiculous death in Winterfell at the end of Season 7 and not very consistent with his image in previous episodes.
The philosophical and epistemological world of the supposedly medieval Westeros is a highly modernized and sociologized project that does not fit into the narrow genre framework of fantasy. In the series, the primary forms and values characteristic of the moral canons of all historically known solidarity communities become problematic: even friendship and loyalty find themselves in a gray zone of categorical uncertainty. This is notable for the series from the perspective of the problematization of order following the Hobbesian model of social order. In the works, the viewer observes both the manifestations of Hobbesian man and society and the opposite process of the thought experiment conducted by Hobbes – the community’s disintegration into militant atomized cells.
References
Benioff, D., & Weiss, D. B. (2013). Mhysa. The Game of Thrones, episode, HBO.
Benioff, D., & Weiss, D. B. (2011). Baelor. The Game of Thrones, episode, HBO.
Ferreday, D. (2015). Game of Thrones, rape culture and feminist fandom. Australian Feminist Studies, 30(83), 21-36.
Larrington, C. (2017). Winter is coming: The medieval world of Game of Thrones. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Latour, B. (2012). We have never been modern. Harvard university press.
Matthews, J. C. (2018). A past that never was: historical poaching in Game of Thrones fans’ Tumblr practices. Popular Communication, 16(3), 225-242.
Newey, G. (2008). Routledge philosophy guidebook to Hobbes and Leviathan. Routledge.
Virino, C. C., & Rodriguez Ortega, V. (2019). Daenerys Targaryen will save Spain: Game of Thrones, politics, and the public sphere. Television & New Media, 20(5), 423-442.