1

Snowpiercer: A Conflict Theory Analysis

Jasmyn M. Stevens

Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia Southern University

CRJU 7631

Dr. Grubb

November 9, 2021
 2

Snowpiercer: A Conflict Theory Analysis

The sci-fi/dystopia film category is no stranger to conflict theory. If you stop to consider

your favorite movies from these genres, the defining feature is most likely a struggle between the

powerful elite and the common man. This classic storyline is especially prominent in Joon-ho’s

(2012) Snowpiercer.

Set in 2031, a train named Snowpiercer circles the globe after a botched attempt to

reverse global warming. The train carries the last remnant of humanity, who are further divided

by class. The wealthy reside at the front of the train while the poorest of the poor are relegated to

the back. The movie makes it clear that they are expected to stay in their place, even freezing off

a man’s arm to prove a point.

The movie begins with Curtis, the main character, plotting a rebellion with the rest of

those in the tail of the train. Surprisingly successful, they manage to break through the guards

and free a security specialist, Namgoong, and his daughter Yona. They aid Curtis in his rebellion

and help him get to the front of the train where the engine, and its creator Wilford, await.

Schaefer (2021) states that “Conflict theory…emerged to focus on how the behavior of

law and criminal behavior develops from conflicts between competing interests, including

cultural and group conflicts.” This fairly basic premise has branched off into a plethora of

theories, each with the goal of explaining the role of conflict in crime causation. Forerunners like

Marx & Engels (1992) and Simmel focused on the causes and consequences of conflict, while

theorists like Dahrendorf (1958) and Turner (2010) opt for more abstract observations of earlier

theories (in order to reveal a general theory of conflict). Nevertheless, the views of various

theorists are present in Snowpiercer.

 3

There are several elements throughout the film that I would like to point out. The first is

the visual differences that become noticeably clearer as the characters progress to the front of the

train. The second is how the inhabitants of the front of the train perceive and treat those deemed

beneath them. The third is how those who lived in the back of the train responded to this

treatment. Taken together, I believe that these three elements provide a snapshot of conflict

theory.

The first element, visual differences, allows the audience to see the conditions that lead

people engage in deviant and criminal behavior. Though the film shows an exaggerated version

of these conditions, I believe that it was helpful in order to get the point. It details, verbally and

nonverbally, the differing realities of two groups of people. The people in the tail of the train

were left to starve, given insects to eat – the upper class have sushi and steak. The children in the

tail share a torn ball to play with, while those in the upper class enjoy brightly colored

classrooms with a plethora of stimuli. Even the camera filters seem to brighten as Curtis and his

rebellion make their way through the train, signaling the growing disparity between the front and

the back. It exemplifies the uneven distribution of resources, power, and social status.

The front’s perception and treatment of the back’s inhabitants, as well as their hold on

power, also aligns with conflict theory. Bonger (1969) states that while humans are naturally

social creatures, systems like capitalism can distort that instinctive nature. The environment of

the train was a glaring division between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” fostering competition

not just in economic life, but in every facet. Unfortunately for those in the back of the train,

everything was naturally in favor of those in power. Furthermore, the people in the front of the

train had no desire to change anything; they instead reinforced the distinctions, going so far as to

make an example out of a man by freezing his arm off and warning him to stay in his place.
 4

Because those in the back were viewed as the “foot,” the front treated them as such. The

“culling” of the residents of the back of the train proved that they were viewed almost as

livestock, to be used by the front as they pleased. They sought pleasure by any means necessary

(Lilly et al., 2018), even at the expense of the children on board. This film demonstrates the main

concept that Marx & Engels (1992) stressed long ago – inequality increases the conflict and

tension between differing groups, and that conflict will lead to a revolution.

Interestingly enough, Snowpiercer also validates Weber’s (1978) claim that revolution is

not a forgone conclusion. In contrast to Marx, Weber argued that it was a combination of

historical conditions and charismatic leadership that enabled a successful revolution; and as it is

mentioned in the film, Curtis’s rebellion is the only one that has ever been successful. Within the

movie, Wilford realizes that the engine is getting old, and resources are slim. He orchestrates a

culling of the residents in the back of the train by allowing a rebellion to spark, all the while

knowing it was to be stamped out once the correct number of people died. However, Wilford did

not account for the charisma and influence that Curtis held over his people. It was this

combination: historical opportunity plus charismatic influence, that caused the overthrow of

power we see in the movie.

The final thing to note is the back’s response to the harsh treatment that they faced.

Quinney (1974) wrote that it is those in power that set the definitions of what is and isn’t legal,

which constrains the actions of the powerless. Actions that were right in and of themselves (i.e.,

asking for food, fair treatment, etc.) were brutally dealt with if seen as a threat. The assignment

of labels (Turk, 1969), criminal vs. noncriminal, was the result of group conflict that eventually

bubbled over. This constant culminated in Curtis’s rebellion. The economic inequality and

differing interests of the two classes leads to the back being treated no better than “appendages to
 5

machines” (Turner, 2013). This progression of events displays Marxist thought most clearly. In

truth, I think that this film, in the most conspicuous way possible, demonstrates the Karl Marx’s

vision of the oppressed overthrowing their oppressors. In our textbook (Lilly et al.), it was stated

plainly as the following sequence of events:

“[C]onflict of interests between different groups will be increased by inequality in the

distribution of scarce resources… [then] those receiving less of the needed resources would

question the legitimacy of the arrangement as they became aware of the nature of the “raw deal”

they were getting… [finally] these groups then would be more likely to organize and to bring the

conflict out into the open, after which there would be polarization and violence leading to the

redistribution of the scarce resources in such a way that they would be shared by everyone.” (p.

307)

From its inception to its present status in contemporary criminology, conflict theory has

allowed researchers to deepen their understanding of why crime and conflict occur. While

Snowpiercer is fiction, it is important to remember that it portrays events and themes that are

rooted in reality. Struggles between classes and cultures have persisted, and will continue to

persist, for the foreseeable future. As I see it, the role of conflict theory, is to explain these

observed phenomena and attempt to mitigate the consequences whenever possible. This will

encourage thought and advancement for years to come.

 6

References

Bonger, W. (1969). Criminality and economic conditions. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press. (Original work published 1916).

Dahrendorf, R. (1958). Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(2),

pp. 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002200275800200204

Joon-ho, B. (Director). (2013). Snowpiercer [Film]. The Weinstein Company.

Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (2018). Criminological Theory: Context and

Consequences (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1992). The Communist Manifesto. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

(Original work published 1848).

Quinney, R. (1974). Critique of the legal order: Crime control in capitalist society. Boston, MA:

Little, Brown.

Schaefer, B.P. (2021). Fighting the (Invisible) Hand: Conflict Theory and Marvel's The

Defenders. In J. Grubb & C. Posick (Eds.), Crime TV: Streaming Criminology in Popular

Culture (pp. 207-224). New York University Press.

Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally

Turner, J. (2010). Theoretical Principles of Sociology, pp. 153-285 (Vol. #1). New York:

Springer.

Turner, J. H. (2013). Theoretical Sociology: A Concise Introduction to Twelve Sociological

Theories. SAGE Publications.

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society (pp. 302–310, 927–935). Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.