The First Divergent Book is Either Anti-Democracy or Just Written Poorly (Spoiler: It's the Second)

CW: vague mentions of child abuse

Important disclaimer: I am not saying Veronica Roth is against the idea of a representative democracy, nor am I trying to imply that. I am doing an analysis of the text, not a deep dive into Roth’s personal beliefs. Additionally, this will have spoilers for the first Divergent book. If you haven’t read the books yet, I wouldn’t. But if you’ve even a little familiar with them, read on, friend.

I know what you’re probably thinking. “Kendall, isn’t it rather bold to claim that one of the most popular book series from the 2010s is anti-democracy?” And yes, my dear reader, it is rather bold, and that is why it’s a catchy title. But I would like you to remember what we’re looking at here. The Divergent series by Veronica Roth was indeed a massive pop culture moment, but compared to the other books from that era, this one didn’t manage to survive as well. The movies were incomplete, and nowadays the books are heavily criticized for their lackluster storytelling that seemed to be made for the big screen. When I set out to reread these books, I wanted to understand why I cared so little about them when other series -- The Hunger Games and Percy Jackson, for example -- that I read around the same time are still so treasured. While I don’t think the book is anti-democracy, I do think it’s a reflection of the poor writing that I can back up the claim at all. Divergent is riddled with inconsistencies and unsaid truths that it’s hard to follow what the whole war is about.

In case you need a refresher on the plot, Veronica Roth’s Divergent follows Tris Prior, a 16-year-old girl living in an unnamed dystopian Chicago. In this society, everyone is divided into five factions -- Dauntless the brave, Abnegation the selfless, Amity the kind, Candor the honest, and Erudite the knowledgeable -- and they chose these factions around their 16th birthday. When she does the test to see what faction she belongs to, Tris discovers that she is Divergent, which means she doesn’t fit cleanly into just one faction, and she is more resistant to the various serums that are used. At the Choosing Ceremony, Tris decides to leave her home faction (Abnegation) and join Dauntless. As she’s there, she realizes that Dauntless is a lot more risky than she was expecting. Throughout the first book in this trilogy, Tris must navigate the trials to become Dauntless without revealing her Divergent identity, at the risk of death.

Now, I want to be fair. I don’t think the book was intentionally anti-democracy, and I do not remember enough of the last two books to know if the world building gets any clearer. I think that we’re supposed to understand that this society is generally lacking in resources. Casual communication between the factions is limited, so they all think they’re the only ones who are struggling. Erudite exploits this to place the blame on Abnegation, who makes us the current government, by lying about faction leaders to make them seem untrustworthy. Erudite frames their revolution as a “return to democracy,” but (with some hindsight) we know that they actually intend to use mind control to gain political power, and therefore hoard the limited resources for their faction.

The actual canon is a little harder to understand, so I do not know if Roth was intending that to be my understanding, or if that’s just me trying to make sense of it on my own. In reality, even the evidence of Erudite being corrupt is flakey. Actual political unrest is pretty irrelevant until the second half of the book; when it is mentioned earlier, it comes across similar to the way our politicians acted pre-Trump. Not great, obviously, but you don’t get the feeling that an insurrection is about to happen. The main thing we’re told is that Erudite is slandering Abnegation leaders in order to turn people against them (I question why this was necessary when the end goal was mind control, but that’s besides the point). The first indication of this we see in the plot is from a conversation the Prior family has at dinner the night before the Choosing Ceremony. Tris’ father, Andrew, reveals that Jeanine published a report on Marcus Eaton -- a faction leader and a coworker of Andrew’s -- that said “Marcus’s violence and cruelty towards his son is the reason his son chose Dauntless instead of Abnegation” (34). The rest of the Prior family agrees this is a horrible accusation to make to try and justify Marcus’s son’s “betrayal.” However, we find out later that Marcus’s son is Four, and that he was terribly abused, and that he did leave Abnegation for Dauntless because of his father. In fact, Marcus is one of Four’s only four fears. So this scene is meant to make me distrust Erudite, but in hindsight we know they’re actually outing a child abuser. Maybe Roth was just not counting on rereads. Either way, this really reframes all the other reports we hear come from Erudite.

Additionally, the canon acknowledgement of available resources doesn’t make sense. Jeanine is insisting that she wants to lead the country because she is “tired of being dominated by a bunch of self-righteous idiots who reject wealth and advancement,” which implies that Abnegation is holding society back from prosperity (429). When we are in Abnegation at the beginning, Tris explains that they eat mostly canned or frozen food, “because farms these days are far away,” and they eat foods with lots of GMOs because there is no other option (31). This seems to support the idea that, intentionally or not, there are not plentiful resources available to people. Later, in our first real confrontation between an Erudite member and an Abnegation member, we learn that Erudite at least hasn’t had fresh food for a month, and they believe it’s because Abnegation is hoarding all the goods for themselves. However, when they have their first meal in Dauntless, they’re eating hamburgers. Tris doesn’t know what it is, as she ate chicken and vegetables exclusively in Abnegation, but every other faction represented seemed to know. Here she also says that Abnegation views meals like that as self-indulgent, which is why they eat plain food. We also learn that Amity has farms, and that’s what they spend their time doing. So there is a lot of disparity around what is actually going on. Perhaps that’s intentional, but Tris never really questions it other than to say Abnegation isn’t hoarding food. But this does beg the question of whether or not Abnegation is holding back the rest of this society from true prosperity. Maybe not in a nefarious way, but maybe they are forcing people to conform to their own perception of selflessness.

Erudite’s actual intention with the resources she hopes to gather is also not as clear as I would like it to be. I get that Jeanine is greedy -- she outright says that the factionless and Abnegation are a waste of resources, so it’s not as if she’s acting morally -- but it’s not actually clear what the endgame is for herself or her faction. When Jeanine says she wants a world of “wealth, comfort, and prosperity,” Tris argues back that “all that wealth doesn’t come from nowhere” (429). Tris’ response here reminds me of when people on the left politically will say something like “we need to make college free for everyone” or “we need to have universal healthcare,” and a conservative will just question where we could possibly get the money for that. Just like in our world, there’s no indication that these resources don’t exist. It sounds like Tris just has a problem with progress.

The real nail in the coffin here is the way the government itself functions. The actual process is unclear, admittedly. I was under the impression that Abnegation was in charge because no one else wanted to do it, which implies that anyone else could “run” or otherwise participate if they actually wanted to. However, it sounds like Abnegation is just arbitrarily in charge. And when Tris reads one of Erudite’s reports on the subject, she has this to say:

“The second article discusses the failings of choosing government officials based on their faction, asking why only people who define themselves as selfless should be in government. It promotes a return to the democratically elected political systems of the past. It makes a lot of sense, which makes me suspect it is a call for revolution wrapped in the clothing of rationality.” (262).

I said earlier that I think we were supposed to believe Erudite is lying about the return to democracy when really they want to forcibly take power -- trying to steal an election, if you will. But we don’t actually learn about the intention to mind control until the end of the book. So when Tris implies that Erudite’s calls to return to democracy are “a call for revolution wrapped in the clothing of rationality,” it just sounds like she doesn’t like the idea of a democracy because we don’t know what Erudite is actually trying to do. Which would mean Tris is the one actually trying to “steal the election,” or however you want to frame it. To be clear, I’m not saying we have a perfectly functioning government, nor am I implying that we live in a democracy (we don’t, we live in a republic). However, you have to admit that it’s weird to imply accurate civilian representation in the government is a bad thing, no matter what your frame of reference is.

There is no comprehensible acknowledgement of what Jeanine and Erudite’s plans are, so I fail to see how they are completely evil. Obviously the mind control and the murder is bad, but is that really the only bad part? Because there are no other signs of corruption. Even if we set aside all of the contradictions and uncertainty about politics, I have questions about who is framed to be “bad.” It’s a little odd to me that the people who are against lying and ignorance are being grouped together as the bad guys. Especially when you consider the political climate we live in currently. And Roth didn’t even vote until 2016 when she turned 18 in 2006. At best, Tris comes across as a representative of ignorant conservative ideology. At worst, this book is against the idea of representative government that abides by the desires of the public.

I think a lot of this is related to why Divergent hype melted away, while other dystopian books like The Hunger Games are still beloved by so many to this day. Divergent lacked real substance. Whether you think the books are intentionally anti-democracy (unlikely) or just bad writing (undeniable), there’s nothing to really sink your teeth into. There’s no deeper message about society or reflection on the current problems in the world (which a good dystopian book should have), made clear by Roth herself -- she started writing this as a Utopia. I could hobble together some analysis about how the treatment of Abnegation reflects the way we view selflessness in a capitalistic society, but we would both know I’d be lying to you. Is the series about how our government is flawed? Is it about how we shouldn’t trust the government when it comes to science? I don’t know. Maybe the next two books will clear it up, but the first book should be able to stand on its own. It’s weak writing, so while it may be fun to experience at the time, there’s no longevity.