The hunger games. Setting people off against each other so that they fight each other rather than the system. Cleaver, manipulative, brutal, dystopian. Possibly more of a reflection of the times than we care to admit. Katniss Everdeen or Jennifer Lawrence gives The illusion that its about female power, the reality that its a tiny turn of the dial on a pretty standard format.

This is the third podcast episode on the zeitgeist as the 24 women on the expedition begin their exploring. Sarah and Paula draw the parallels between the hunger games and the systems that we are either operating within or just observing, but either way that we are part of. Then they give their advice on how to survive  or change them.

Julia Middleton 0:43

Welcome, welcome, welcome to this 17th episode of the podcast. Julie Middleton here, expedition leader. If you're thinking my voice sounds a little different, it's because I am now fortunately recovering from COVID. This is the last in the series of three episodes that have been called the zeitgeist episodes, they mark the start of the expedition, the 24 women are out there, they're in the early stage of their exploring. And while they do this, we thought we'd take a bit of time out and look at the zeitgeist. What's in the air? What's in the air outside the bubble, the air that's inside our bubble? What's what's in the air outside our bubble. This particular episode is called like The Hunger Games. Looking at how the system that women are operating in all around the world, bears more resemblance that we would probably care to admit to the Hunger Games. Let me remind you what the Hunger Games were. They started of course as a series of books, but then became a series of films. Dystopian novels and dystopian films with the heroine, Katniss Everdeen, do you remember her played by Jennifer Lawrence, they all took place in his fictional place called Panem, where every year children was selected to do battle, to do battle in a compulsory sort of deathmatch, called The Hunger Games. It was a very compelling and truly horrible series of films and programmes. And it's very interesting talking to Paola and Sarah, about why they saw this parallel between the Hunger Games and the reality of the world that we live in. So just before we jump into it, I thought, just go back to it. Yes, I am much better. I have had COVID. It wasn't the nicest of COVID. It was pretty grim. But somehow it sort of feels sort of slightly appropriate. In this last of the Zeitgeist episodes, it sort of feels right and fitting that I have COVID. Three reasons, one, because COVID surely is in our zeitgeist. And I've always felt, you know, as we've been through this extraordinary period, and people keep on talking about things have to change, that things won't change, because we'll all just revert back to the old ways quite quickly. They'll only change if we, as leaders demand and force and behave that they have changed. The second reason is that, I think that in a funny way, it reflects some of the thinking that's beginning to emerge from the 24 expedition members, around leadership not just being an intellectual exercise, but an intensely physical exercise, one, not just of the head, but of the body, to try and express this in words, rather better of one of the members of the expedition. She writes, for years, I've struggled with the unwritten and conditioned response, the one where we turned to the intellect to solve and resolve problems, and conditioning that each and every time asks that I overcome what I feel in the body, to respond to the pressure, to be objective, to value rationality, but above all else. Meanwhile, I inhabit the body of a woman, a body that is continually expressing intelligence in ways that appear to be far beyond my control. A body that responds to its natural environment and generates its own rhythm, its own clarity on when to rise up and when to sink down. To listen to its wisdom. I do not need language. I don't need to think I have to allow myself to be and to be present. And I think the third reason why somehow having COVID in this zeitgeist period of the podcast, is it's given me a bit of a moment also to, to slightly sit back and, to think, a little bit of the bigger picture. And, and also, to think about my own leadership of the expedition.

Julia Middleton 5:29

Does it take COVID, for me to sit back and think a little? Isn't that a sad reflection upon me, but as I have, it's allowed me to listen and to wonder just a little bit more, to remind myself that if you're leading a group of extraordinary women, you have to lead incredibly lightly. But in that lightness also, endlessly, quietly, tempts people back when they start to stray of the course. So that we really do produce an approach to leadership that resonates with women. And it's allowed me to remember as ever, I think that the legitimacy of a leader comes so much from the fact that the leader is looking not just at the medium term, even the long term that , they're looking one step ahead. And people trust you, because they think you're covering that base. And then also, to me, the crucial role of a leader is to connect things up, and to listen so fiercely, that you spot the connections and make those connections happen. You couple people up and you connect the thinking. So in some ways, it's been right that I've had COVID. But let's go back to the Hunger Games. And let's go back to talking to Sarah and to Paola, who are both in very different parts of the world doing very different things. But seeing quite a common thing in the zeitgeist.

Julia Middleton 7:07

Sarah and Paola, this is the third of the Zeitgeist episodes like the Zeitgeist, the feeling in the air, the spirit of the age, the winds blowing, bring the case, certainly when we were talking Sarah, more of the sense of the steam in the air, or even the sort of toxic steam in the air. And when we started talking about it, Sarah, you started using the expression in The Hunger Games. Tell us why the world feels like it's reflecting what you saw in the Hunger Games. And actually tell us a little bit about the conversation you then had with Paola, who, of course, is the other side of the world, works in a completely different sector. But the two of you seem to see so much. But actually, you were almost like unpacking a Russian doll. There was sort of each of you could see a different aspect of this. And it was intriguing watching you having that conversation. And the sense of I wonder what's at the centre of this Russian doll was fascinating. So over to you both, do the Russian doll.

Sarah 8:08

Thank you, Julia and I, and again, I think the steam is probably if I was on video is still being visible. I mean, I think this this analogy came up from a few conversations with me with friends in the field, but also became just more deeply embedded for me or real for me, because my 10 year old son is obsessed with reading The Hunger Games books. So I go to bed at night hearing the tales of the fighting and who's at war with who would get the who's going to be the winner. And I think it just became this deep parallel or for myself, I've been unpacking just how, what am I participating in? What is the bigger game and particularly in global development, it's very on parallel with the Hunger Games, right? There's a certain amount of resources, you have to compete to win, which ultimately means there's a loser. And it the incentives within the system talking about the Russian doll, is that you know, you don't collaborate, you don't you want to have the best idea. You want to have the answers before you even start as you have the best chance of actually winning and competing. And I think that is the part that I just found super fascinating, Paola, and talking to you in the film industry, how much this was also present. And just how much for myself deeply reflecting on this kind of hunger game system that we're participating in, what is our role? Whether or not we actively think we're participating we are and what does it mean and so I would love to hear it since we last talked Paola, how you're thinking about it or how it's been rattling around in your brain?

Paola 9:39

Well, I think we were discussing the Hunger Games in in feminist terms a bit how a film like Hunger Games is sold as a as a feminist film when actually when you unpick its elements, you realise it's actually not that the dial of a feminist view is really small, and what has been turned around to, let's say, differentiate the Hunger Games from Superman.

Even in these sold as or positioned as feminist roles, you said something that really denying me is this idea to that even those feminist roles are still taking on masculine identities. So even when you have this feminist role, they're still out there fighting and what we value in terms of leadership and winning is still very masculine. And I've really been thinking about that a lot in terms of an EL. So your analogy to have just, we're not spinning the dial, we're not even stepping out of the paradigm, we're not standing out of the Russian doll, we're just taking a small piece of that bigger system or puzzle behind it and turning it up a little bit. But where have you seen, have you seen examples where the dial has been fully turned? Or where have you found inspiration and people stepping outside of that, or pushing those bounds in ways that acknowledge that they're playing? They're playing the game, but they're also not willing to play by the rules?

Maybe in Mars?

I'll go with you.

I've in heard in Mars, people played out of the, I think that actually we cannot because the two or three people who have the total monopoly on going to Mars are three white guys.

Who are making rockets.

We're already having another, another planet very soon to be spoiled, apparently. So no, I think it's very, very difficult to it's like, it's like when we talk about race. And when we, when we talk about gender, when we talk about race, the whole water that surrounds us is actually the system, nobody is out of the system, we're not, it's impossible to get out of that system, you can create, I mean, radical ideas are not welcomed. Really, they're not, it's just very, very difficult to get something part of the system, meaning is studio, where there is a chain of command that is mainly male, and especially at the top end, where people need to justify what they're going to do. And a lot of times they need comparables. So they can actually say, if this doesn't work, this is my rationale as to why I put money in. And these days is more about what has been done before. How can you replicate that? And how can you justify your answer for your reasoning. There is a big crises of original ideas. That's why you see remakes and temples, 1,2,3,4,5 iterations of the same universe of the same thing, because that actually is very easy for those in power and chain of commands, mainly male, mainly white, justifying what they're putting their money and betting on.

What is risky, right, is defined by those in power. Those are the ones that have won the Hunger Games, they're defining the risk, they're defining the playing field. And how do you get actually in there to disrupt because I've seen over and over again, particularly women, and then if you get women of colour that come with a really brilliant idea, the bar for them is so much higher to prove, that it's innovative, that it's sustainable, but when someone comes with an idea that fits within the paradigm, which fits within the status quo, there's what a brilliant idea, the risk isn't even a part of the equation. So not only are we playing in this game, the rules are different based on who you are in order to go up the hierarchy, right? And so how do you you know, as you say, like, we've got to go to Mars, we've got three big competitors to get there, right? But how do you have you seen examples to in this array? I guess? How do you think about it? How do you not participate in it, or reinforce this game in a way like you say, that actually challenges it and turns the dial besides just one, one mark on the wheel?

Unfortunately, this is the conundrum. If you are against a certain system, you cannot just say okay, but now the system wants me so I'm just gonna say fine. And that is the biggest trap. Because for example, in the film world, you get that is actually of course an interpretation from capitalism, you get the idea that success is more money, that success is more celebrity, that success has to do with you know, whether you can buy a 20 something million dollar house, I mean, those kinds of things, which are, which are such crazy ideas of success in a way that we've just normalize because there are magazines sustaining it and websites sustaining it and whatever. So this is a whole enormous machinery. Like it's like the ocean, we are surrounded by this waters we will have to reject so many things in order to and be very, very comfortable with being an outsider, extremely comfortable with being an accepted and liked by that central central focal point of power.

I find that hard, that's where I struggle the most it's like it's like a rubber band wanting to go back to homeostasis, I get out there to the edges where it's about to break. And then I just want to go back to my default factory setting of okay, I can accept this, because it's so hard. And it's particularly the way we've been socialised. To not be liked. And the things that when we take on masculine traits were called horrible names or bitches, we're bossy, you know, ambition is a good thing for males. And it's a terrible thing for us females. And so I struggle with this particularly because I'm, I am inherently competitive. So I like a good game. I like the idea of winning, but not with the value base that we built the system.

That's the system of The Hunger Games, is that, right?

Yes. Absolutely. It's very it's very bluntly in your face in this game, like, it's like Hunger Games, one on one.

So what are the assumptions behind the Hunger Games? They are the that is a good idea to set people off against each other, because then they don't fight the system.

Yeah, it keeps people in their place, because they're too busy fighting each other.

The assumption is that the audience to the film loves watching a winner.

I think it's more of the underdog. Yeah, is the rise of the underdog. I think that with the Hunger Games, you have to start at the at the beginning, the father dies, for this girl to be able to take that space. If the father didn't die, Katniss will not be allowed to go out there and perform all this say male assigned roles, such as fighting, killing, whatever violence, all of that, she kind of does it because a male disappears. And that gives her the justification to be able to step in. Yeah, her mother is a pitiful character. So she has to prove a time and time again, all this male behaviour, in order to gain respect, because she is respected and accepted as somebody talented. The moment that she is almost like somebody walking into a room, and almost behaving like very masculine. And, and in order to get the respect, she does that. But the viewpoint, even though Katniss is a woman, it's an absolute frame, and viewpoint from a male universe, you know, all her advisors, all her trainers, outside from the one who cares about fashion are male. And of course, there is the woman that appears with Julianne Moore later on. And she's a bit like that woman that actually made it having the male traits, a bit like Margaret Thatcher, when people talk about her. And it's like, oh, but there was Margaret Thatcher. And it's like, yeah, well, and then there was this other CEO, but they kind of have to mould themselves to become this iron lady. And Julianne Moore is that kind of character who is like the trader, she appears like something, but then she is another thing. And as we all know, when the woman becomes the trader, and I'm quoting most people, is worse than men. It's actually the same but seen in a woman, as you were saying, Sarah, about being ambitious, and all that is actually punishable twice.

It's showing women here's the roadmap to succeed, adapt, take on these traits. This is what will be rewarded. And if you don't, there are sanctions. There are real consequences to that many instance, for stepping outside of those bounds there. They're very harsh in their swift, depending on how much you push those bounds of what is accepted. I don't think, you know, and I think to your point, Paola too, it's reinforcing an existing paradigm with a very, very small turn to the knob.

And the man saying, and a man saying it's alright, trust me.

Trust me. I got it. Yeah, I'll save you. In the end. I'll be the person that you can lean on.

How many films you can recall of that, that scene? Male characters, I can think immediately of Indiana Jones, male characters that are totally ridiculous. You don't really, I mean, it's just terrible, terrible combat characters, as well as super stereotypical. Who out of the blue, tell the woman in the film, trust me and they both jump and you're like, why would she trust this guy, right? It's like the opposite. You cannot trust that guy. How is it possible, but actually, I think was it that, I don't know, maybe it was Roberto Bracco or whoever, it was who said that art is not something that reflects reality but a hammer to shape it. I actually think that the Hunger Games like many other films that exist out there, what they're telling the audience which is definitely a mostly female audience who the scene was for, is that you know patriarchy is worth sustaining.

Yes, you can benefit from it if you play by it

You can benefit from it if you know how to play the game. And you can do this and that is not a radical idea of how you can create another system, the ultimate power in Panem. It's male, the ultimate power in the advisory team is male. So this is not a whole radical idea of the huge universe created by women, for women, and including men eventually as well. It's just it's the other way around, just like this is my world. I invite you, you have to be frightened of this future, you if you work hard, you will get it. I when I do workshops for women filmmakers, I always ask one question I ask at the very beginning, and I said, how many of you would believe if you work harder, you will make it and they all raise? Not all but the majority raises their hand. And then I say but don't you believe that you're working hard enough? You are definitely working really hard, you are bending over backwards. You're doing that, and mothering and this and that. And so many other things, even women who don't have children are doing so many other things with their thinking partners. I mean, there's so much on those shoulders. So I said no, it's not about working harder. There is a system that is bias. And those people who made it, they may have adapted themselves to this game. And that's fine. But that doesn't change the game. Yes, I love winning awards, let's say, of course, I love them. They give me validation in the eyes of the system. And of course, they allow me to garner maybe a tiny bit more power or a tiny bit more time to do something that I'd like to do a bit differently. But at the end of the day, I think that is a trap. Because it's like being against the monarchy and being really happy to get a knighthood.

It's a great analogy. But you bring up a really good point, one of the people in my life that I love most dearly, always says to me, too. It's, it's yes, it's power. But is it it's how you use your power wisely. It's not the absence of power. Feminist Leadership isn't the absence of power. It's how you use that power. And what I hear from you too is, if there's an opportunity, potentially, I love this analogy of accepting a knighthood, when you're against the monarchy. But this idea, then to what do you do with that power? How do you wield it? How do you how do you still continue based on whatever those values are in particularly as a leader, and you accepting that Oscar on the stage? How do you use that time? How do you use it to actually shift the system, right to something that is more.

Except that in my experience, you accept that knighthood or you accept that Oscar with every intention if it in empowering you to be a rebel, but by accepting it, you're already a weekend rebel. And actually, you probably accepted it, probably more, because you were flattered them that you wanted to be a rebel and the rebel disappears pretty fast.

Yeah, absolutely. I think once you are in the system, and you accept something from the system, it's a big trap. Because we always accepted wanting to oh, now that I have more power, I will be able to change the system better. But actually, we're not going to change the system until we really don't care.

Or until it's not validating whatever insecurity or thing that we are looking for self validation, right? That's the sense of, I find that fascinating too, as you said, because like it is an internal battle, because it does feel good to see be seen to be validated to feel good, particularly women. We are from the time we're born, right coded. We're grateful for the opportunity, the validation, we're told good job, good, you know, pat on the head, keep going you can do it. So there's this internal very deep rooted sense and net and desire to be validated. At the same time, Julia, that just this idea to of what are you giving up to by accepting anything within the system whether that validation, the knighthood, the Oscar, right, and because then you feel indebted in some ways to and then you're just such a culture and a part of that,.

What advice would you give to women leaders, when they begin to realise that they're caught up in this system, and even if they haven't been actively participating in it, even by observing, they have been caught up in the system.

Okay, by the nature, the system will betray you. The nature of the system implicates a betrayal of who you are as a woman, because it wasn't created for you, you are not the template of the system. So if you're staying in the system, you will be betrayed sooner or later. So the sooner you realise that and decide what you want to do with that, I think is better. That's the first thing I would say. You have to create an alternative system, a peripheral system, a outcast system, a woman's system, whatever it is, but while you're still in the system, benefiting from it comfy, cosy, unless you move, you don't hear the the chains, kind of system, you will be betrayed at some point because it's in the nature. And and don't be impressed. I mean, there is there is no, it's not vertical. It's not, there is no next thing, and next thing and next thing, especially for women, it's there, will never be that kind, is not is not a destination, the system craves fuel, and fuel needs people trying to continue this kind of hamster ladder thing that takes so many shapes and life just balls. And then we're told that we also have an internal clock. And then we are the only ones carrying time and thinking about, you know, finite lives, etc. So the system will betray you at some point.

Sara, does this come full circle back to The Hunger Games?

I think it does. I mean, I think I mean, I think there's a lot of parallels to the advice that Paulo just gave to the Hunger Games, which is the system exists. And the first part of it is acknowledging that you are part of a system, identifying what role you are playing, and does it align with your values? And this whole back idea to how do you use your power wisely? And how do you find those that also see the system for what it is? And then you know, finding the ways in which you use your power collectively, to your community to dismantle it. And I think there's just a bigger question around, how do we dismantle it and replace it with something that's truly equitable, that's designed to be equitable. And that I mean, I think this is what about I feel like is buy like mantra in life is like, I don't want to retrofit anything anymore, because it's not me, it's also you start to feel insane. Especially when you are on the margins, and you're set, you see it, and other people don't see it. I mean, I'm with Paolo, go to Mars with you, Paola. But if we're going to stay here, we have to as leaders, we need to embody and lead in new ways. And we need to help others see the system for what it is, and use our power wisely and also find collective ways to create that new reality that new way of being and I think it is, it's a responsibility, because right now, what we've done is those of us, that it is like full time professional mother, we have not taken anything off the plate, the plate is overflowing. And that is a fundamental shift in how we organise and how we view and what we value. Because if at the end of the day, we still value, The Hunger Games, winners, losers power in the few very masculine traits of fighting, and those are solutions, that we're putting forth, our planet will be destroyed, and so will we. And so this moment requires this kind of idea of collective courage and collectivism. And that's what really inspires me in all of this is being able to see the system for what it is. And then finding what Kabbalah said, that community, that group of people that are comfortable and will be on the margins together.

Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Paolo. I will be on the margins with you. Whether there is on earth or on Mars, what have I learned from talking to you? Firstly, I have learned something, I've just had a huge sense of relief that if Sarah admits to not having seen the system in all its glory from the start, that somehow makes it better, than I haven't either. I think I think I felt it, but I'm not sure that I've actually seen it that clearly. But I think the second thing of listening to you both has helped me somehow somehow, people talk about systems change and it's such a cerebral expression is just, it's a word. And to me, words make much more sense when they have a story around them. And now, systems change has the word Hunger Games around it, and has the power of a story and the power of visuals. And I think understanding the systems change issues is much, much easier for me. And it has to be said, if anybody says, trust me, I'm not sure that I've ever really trusted anybody quite like that. But that's etched on my head. Trust me. I think it's been really useful, reminding yourself just how difficult it is to be a rebel, either from the inside or from outside. I remember in podcast, episode five, where Alyssa Jung was was making actually the opposite case that that you want to produce change from within. Especially if you are Alyssa who, who is much more comfortable producing change from within. But you need to be inside so that you can see what's going on, don't you, but outside so that you can see that there's another way. So balancing those two and remaining a rebel is very tricky. And I think that this episode of The Zeitgeist has also totally reminded me just what a tiny piece of the jigsaw, the expedition is, tiny but crucial, that the system change is so huge and so cavernous and so vast, but I don't believe it will, that it has a hope of change. Unless that tiny piece of the jigsaw, which is an expression of the approach to leadership, that resonates for women. Is is crystallised, is clarified, is shared, is delighted in, which is why I'm so committed to the expedition. So the three zeitgeist episodes are over. Next week, we're back to normal service, back to leadership insights, maybe rather more familiar territory for me. Especially this last zeitgeist episode has really pushed me out of my bubble. It did from the start, because I had to go and watch the Hunger Games. But it has been very interesting. But back next week, to the leadership insights and do not,do not, do not miss next week's podcast, you will regret it. Put every bell and alarm and reminder going, because we will talk to Annie, who is an extraordinary and glorious musician and also extraordinary and glorious Buddhist nun. And she talks about leadership, but particularly how leaders must smile. Talk next week.