Chapter 8: Rich Above, Poor Below? Development and Inequality In International Relations
Earth’s a Mess, but Elysium’s Got Infinity Pools
International Relations Theories & Elysium
How do we make sense of inequality, conflict, and power in the world? Political science offers us a range of theoretical lenses to understand the forces shaping global politics, from the motivations of nations to the dynamics of wealth and power. The film Elysium provides a rich case study for applying these theories, depicting a future where Earth’s downtrodden masses struggle to survive while the wealthy elite thrive on a luxurious space station. The film’s stark portrayal of inequality and systemic exclusion makes it an ideal way to explore some of the most influential theories in international relations: realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism. Each theory offers a unique perspective, helping us uncover different facets of the world Elysium envisions. By examining the events of the film through these frameworks, we can better understand how power operates and how it might be challenged or sustained in global politics.
IR Theory Spotlight: Marxism- The Struggle Between Classes
Marxists would see Elysium as a classic tale of class struggle, where the wealthy bourgeoisie exploit the working-class proletariat. Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism provides a useful starting point for understanding the world depicted in Elysium. In works such as The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1867), Marx argued that capitalism generates inequality by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a small elite while relying on the labor of the working class. The contrast between Earth and Elysium illustrates this dynamic in dramatic fashion. While the wealthy residents of Elysium enjoy advanced technology, clean environments, and access to life-saving medical care, the people on Earth struggle with poverty, pollution, violence, and exploitation. From a Marxist perspective, this inequality is not an accident but a product of an economic system that distributes resources unevenly and allows those with wealth to maintain their privileged position.
Yet Marx was not the only scholar concerned with the persistence of inequality. In his Prison Notebooks (1929-1935), Antonio Gramsci argued that elites maintain power not only through force but also through hegemony, the ability to shape ideas about what is normal, natural, and acceptable. This perspective helps explain why the social order in Elysium endures despite its obvious inequalities. Many people on Earth appear to accept their position in society, while the residents of Elysium view their privileged lifestyle as justified and legitimate. The film suggests that unequal systems survive not simply because they are enforced by security forces and physical barriers, but because dominant ideas convince people that such arrangements are inevitable. Gramsci’s work reminds us that power operates through culture and beliefs as much as through economics and coercion.
Gramsci’s focus on ideology can be extended to the global level through the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. In The Modern World-System (1974), Wallerstein argues that capitalism creates a global hierarchy in which wealthy “core” regions benefit from the labor and resources of poorer “peripheral” regions. Elysium presents a remarkably clear example of this relationship. The space station functions as the core, concentrating wealth, technology, and political power, while Earth serves as the periphery, providing labor and resources while bearing the costs of environmental degradation and poverty. The prosperity of Elysium depends on the continued exploitation of those living below it. Through Wallerstein’s lens, the film demonstrates how global economic systems can produce and sustain unequal relationships between rich and poor populations, even when those groups are separated by vast physical distances.
Realism: The Pursuit of Power and Survival
Realists would view the world of Elysium as a story about power, competition, and the survival of the fittest. In realism, the international system is defined by anarchy—no central authority governs the interactions between states or actors, forcing them to prioritize their own security and interests. In the film, the space station Elysium operates as a self-contained “state,” securing its survival by maintaining strict borders and protecting its resources. Earth’s population, desperate and impoverished, poses a constant threat to Elysium’s security. The elites respond with militarized drones and anti-immigration policies, illustrating the realist principle of self-help: actors must rely on their own strength to survive. Realists might argue that this behavior is inevitable, as limited resources create a zero-sum game where one actor’s gain is another’s loss. Historically, we see similar dynamics in border security policies, such as the U.S.–Mexico border wall or Australia’s strict immigration controls, both designed to protect affluent nations from perceived threats. By focusing on power and security, realism provides a stark but pragmatic explanation for Elysium’s policies of exclusion and resource hoarding. However, this narrow focus on survival leads to a bleak view of global politics, setting the stage for theories like liberalism that emphasize cooperation over conflict.
Liberalism: The Hope for Cooperation
Liberalism offers a more optimistic lens, emphasizing the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit, even in a divided world. A liberal analysis of Elysium would highlight how the elites’ refusal to share resources ultimately harms everyone, creating instability and conflict. For liberals, institutions and norms are key to fostering cooperation. If Earth and Elysium established agreements or governing bodies to distribute resources more equitably, both societies could prosper. In the real world, organizations like the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) exemplify liberal ideals, working to address global challenges through collective action. The WHO’s efforts to distribute COVID-19 vaccines to poorer nations, for instance, demonstrate the liberal belief in interconnectedness: neglecting the needs of the global poor can lead to greater crises that affect everyone. In Elysium, however, the absence of cooperation leads to systemic inequality, reinforcing liberalism’s warning about the dangers of isolationism and unilateralism. The film challenges viewers to imagine what the world might look like if elites recognized the long-term benefits of collaboration and solidarity, offering a stark contrast to the constructivist emphasis on ideas and identity as driving forces in politics.
Constructivism: The Power of Ideas and Identity
Constructivists would approach Elysium by focusing on the social and cultural constructs that shape behavior and power dynamics. Unlike realists and liberals, constructivists argue that the international system is not driven solely by material forces but by the ideas, norms, and identities actors create. In the film, the stark divide between Earth and Elysium is not just a physical boundary—it is also a construct rooted in ideology. The elites on Elysium view themselves as inherently superior, creating a narrative that justifies their exclusionary practices. Similarly, Earth’s population is dehumanized, seen as a chaotic “other” unworthy of sharing in Elysium’s abundance. This mirrors real-world examples like colonialism, where European powers justified exploitation by constructing racial hierarchies that devalued colonized peoples. Constructivists would argue that changing these dynamics requires shifting the narratives and identities that sustain inequality. In the film, Max’s struggle challenges the elites’ worldview, symbolizing how transformative change often begins by questioning dominant ideas.
Feminism: Inequality Through a Gendered Lens
Feminist theories would offer a sharp critique of Elysium’s portrayal of leadership, noting that even though the President is a man (Faran Tahir) and the Defense Secretary is a woman (Jessica Delacourt, played by Jodie Foster), the film still upholds deeply patriarchal power structures. From a feminist perspective, representation alone isn’t enough—what matters is how power is used and what norms are being reinforced. Scholars like Cynthia Enloe and Laura Sjoberg argue that women in elite political or military positions often must adopt traditionally “masculine” behaviors—assertiveness, aggression, emotional distance—to be seen as competent and legitimate. Delacourt is a textbook case of this dynamic: she is ruthless, militarized, and unapologetically authoritarian, reinforcing systems of control rather than challenging them. In this light, her gender doesn’t make her role feminist; rather, it shows how women can be absorbed into patriarchal institutions and expected to perform power the same way men traditionally have. Feminism would thus critique Elysium not for the lack of female presence alone, but for presenting a world where power remains masculinized—even when it wears heels.
Each of these theories—realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism, and feminism—offers a unique lens for interpreting the world of Elysium and, by extension, the real-world dynamics it reflects. By examining the film through these frameworks, we not only gain insight into the forces shaping global inequality but also begin to see the possibilities for resistance and change. As these theories remind us, the systems that sustain inequality are not immutable; they are constructed by human actions and choices, and they can be reimagined for a more just and equitable world.
Feedback/Errata