Discussion Questions for Children of Men or The Possibility of Hope

The Movie
As a replacement to the November phone conference, I’d like to hear your response to the movie Children of Men. This is a science fiction movie, but there are a couple of scenes in particular where we see policy analysis in action. I hope this will be an entertaining and low stress way to continue your critical thinking about policy analysis.

If you have the time (and interest), you can watch the full movie, and then post your response here. (Your responses can be publicly viewed. If you are sensitive about using your name, you can just use initials or post your comments and e-mail me a copy so I know who wrote it.)

The movie is rated R for violence, language and drug use. It is also almost 2 hours long. If the film itself doesn’t interest you, you can fully participate in the discussion by just watching one of the movies bonus features. The DVD (or youtube) includes a film called The Possibility of Hope which is about 25 minutes and is a discussion about the themes in the movie. The politics of both are very one sided, but the concepts I think are really intriguing.

The Questions
Tension over identity is a persistent theme in this movie. This is demonstrated in a number of ways, but with a common result. Borders are created, and out of fear those who belong humiliate those who do not.

1. For centuries geography has been a dominant factor in determining identity. This is true both nationally and institutionally. Recent technology allows us to connect our selves with others independent of our geography. Thinking about your campus(es) what is the role geography plays in forming identity? Are there policy decisions that create winners and losers based on geography?

2. When Theo meets his cousin the art collector, he asks him how he can go about collecting art while the world is falling apart around him. His cousin responds “I just don’t think about it.” Are there policy issues regarding access, accountability, or affordability that are of major concern locally, nationally, or globally that colleges are ‘just not thinking about?’ Why (or why not) should your campus think about these things? What are these issues, and how do you as a policy maker lead your campus to engage with these issues?

3. Even when groups form for noble purposes, it is human nature for groups to exclude others in order to seek benefits for their members. Jesus frequently describes the Kingdom of God as a kingdom that seeks to bless those ‘outside’ the system. (“Love your enemies”) Is it possible for Christian institutions (like colleges and universities) to adopt policies that benefit both those who are members and those who are not? How?

4. Thinking about the meeting in the farm house about what to do with Kee, there are at least three different ways that she is viewed by the policy makers.

Kee as utility: Kee must be used as leverage to gain rights for immigrants. Using Kee is a means of continuing the differentiation between groups, but now on different terms. Currently the State has security that the immigrants desire, but with Kee the immigrant groups possess security that the State desires. Kee’s preferences are not important because using her represents the greatest good for the greatest number (of immigrants at least).
Kee as symbol: Kee’s pregnancy represents hope that transcends borders. She represents a universal hope. Immigrants see an opportunity to remove fear by sharing her for the good of all.
Kee as individual: Kee is just a woman about to have a baby who is going to need a safe place to deliver and care for her child.

When making policies for our campuses, it is easy to make similar abstractions of students (or faculty). On your campus is it possible (or even worth while) to balance the needs of the individuals with the needs of the institutions with the needs of the world?

5. The state is personified in the movie by the news reports, the art collector, and the immigration officer. The news reports describe the state as the benevolent protector of the people. A few immigrants need to be rounded up, but it is for the good of everyone. The art collector represents the state as an unthinking bureaucratic machine. The state does what it does because it does what it does. The immigration officer represents the state as a collection of mercenaries who are willing to commit atrocities as long as there is the potential for personal gain. These stereotypes are common to all institutions. What kinds of policies can mitigate the influences of these types of actors within our policy arenas?

I just noticed how long these questions are, but that is because I love this movie and policy analysis so I get a little carried away. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


(P.S. If you like this movie…there are three movies released the same year that kind of make an informal trilogy along similar themes Pan’s Labyrinth, Babel, and Children of Men.)