Mok 1

Weslee Mok
Professor Ortega
Sociology 001
16 November 2016
Hotel Rwanda Conflict Theory Analysis
The film I have chosen is an absolute classic about a Rwandan man named Paul
Rusesabagina who is the hotelier of the finest hotel in Rwanda, Htel des Mille Collines, and
how this hotel and him serve as single beacon of hope for when a massive ethnic war and
genocide occurs. This film stood out to me when I first watched it back in high school, and that
the impact of race and class difference was painfully evident. Ethnic tensions are high between
the Hutu and Tutsi people of Rwanda, and the only way to quell any violence was to bribe the
Hutu extremists, Paul being one of the main ones to do so to Hutu leader Georges Rutaganda.
The relationship he has with these Hutu extremists will be a key point later on in the film. While
he manages the hotel, he is also the head of his own beloved family, which keeps him busy with
constantly working to make sure both his guests and family are happy and safe. In fact, his own
marriage is proof of his desire to keep as much peace as possible; Paul is Hutu while his wife,
Tatiana, is Tutsi, but these two strive to support and love each throughout the film. Despite them
being different ethnicities they ensure to see each other as equals, which is the exact opposite of
what happens with the Hutus and Tutsis in the rest of the film.

When the president, who was a Hutu, is assassinated, the Hutu extremists react violently,
targeting any Tutsi, be it child or elder, and kill them in cold blood. This is the starting point of
Hotel Rwandas conflict, where the last thread of peace between the two different ethnicities has
been severed. In the film, it never does depict who killed the president, which leaves it up to the

Mok 2
Hutus who are already quite hateful of the Tutsis to judge them. Yet another show of conflict
theory is depicted when all the hotel guests (which were all primarily European or American)
and even the United Nations flee from the area, leaving the Rwandans to slowly die off in
genocide. These European and American citizens have the power and class to leave Rwanda
whenever they wish, because of their status. They easily take advantage of this, leaving the third
world countries such as Rwanda to fall apart once it gets too dangerous for them. The United
Nations was forbidden to interfere with these third world country conflicts, but even seeing the
death of so many innocent Tutsis did nothing to change their minds. Despite their impending
doom, Paul uses the hotel as a place of safety and refuge for those running from the bloody
thirsty Hutus. Eventually Paul finally pleads with the Rwandan general Augustin Bizimungu to
allow his family and the refugees to escape, but when all else fails he blackmails him with threats
of being a war criminal, because he has influence with connections in the Hutu clan as well as
the United Nations, and in the end is allowed to leave and go behind the safety behind Tutsi rebel
lines.

The social paradigm that ties closely with this film is the Conflict paradigm, as explained by Karl
Marx and other sociologists and theorists, which consists of individuals or society fighting
through with war or protests and finding their true belonging through inequality of status. Marx
clearly would have seen this as his definition of conflict theory, where class struggles and
inequality inevitably shape society and push one or a group to rise up against the odds and try to
change the ways of said society. While Comte served as the pillar for Marxs development of an
imbalanced society, Durkheim had emphasized that society was interdependent and all worked
together to influence one another, the film was shown to have majority power in the Hutus while

Mok 3
the Tutsis served as a catalyst to their political elite. There is clearly no balance in this society,
where there are those who fit in a higher status of worth who have all the advantages, while those
who fit in the lower status of worth possess all the disadvantages and struggle to get by. As I
mentioned before, the American troops from the UN as well as the guests who stayed at Htel
des Mille Collines are the prime example of those with social advantage. Because of their status
as a first country with proper resources and wealth, they are able to come and go from Rwanda
as they please once they feel threatened by the bloodthirsty Hutus. And now on the opposite side,
those that do not have the power to stand up against the Hutus let alone leave their borders are
the Rwandan people, those that are in third world countries have their own culture and
government, some that are unjust and cruel. The Hutus are proof of ethnicity hierarchy in their
numbers and positions in government. The president himself was Hutu while many soldiers,
generals, and leaders are all Hutu as well. The ones that fear the Hutu are the Tutsis, who are
depicted as a smaller group with less power and influence in the government.

Naturally, this film was based off of real events in a Rwandan genocide in 1994, which was a
massive killing of Tutsis by the political elite Hutus. The civil war between Hutus and Tutsis is
nearly identical to Gumplowicz theory of conflict. Gumplowicz developed his idea of conflict
from Marx, cultural and ethnic conflicts would lead to the eventual development of a dominant
group that holds power over other groups. The inequality, or in this case, is a blind, hate-driven
genocide by the Hutus on the Tutsis that have the disadvantage, both socially and economically.
Despite these odds, Paul, an individual stands through all the suffering of the people and himself
to find courage and risk his life for the sake of so many more. Even Paul himself can be seen as a
champion of the conflict theory by using his ethnicity and status as his tool to protect himself and

Mok 4
the people he cares about. Paul is Hutu, and also the manager of the most successful hotel in
Rwanda. He has connections with the Hutu extremists as established in the beginning of the film,
as well as influence with the UN with his friendship with the general Colonel Oliver. Even with
the difference in classes between the Hutu and Tutsis, Paul was the one able to save the
remaining Tutsis because of his influence and power as a Hutu. Without his title, he would have
been killed in an instant, but as Marx had explained, the ones with the better social status always
hold an advantage, even to their own group.

In this film there are cases of ethnic tension, class differences, and solidarity through these
conflicts that illustrate the paradigm well. The instability of the government that is reigned by the
Hutus who hold the majority elite power over the Tutsis weighs in heavily with the tension they
have between one another. Paul serves as the wedge in between this tension, while he holds the
title and class of an elite Hutu, he uses his social and economic advantage for the Tutsi, who are
the lower class and minority. Because Paul is the only Hutu that supports the Tutsi while also
holding influence with the Hutu extremists, he is the only one able to handle the situation and
thus is placed the as beacon of hope in this film. Marxs conflict theory describes a gap and
imbalance with power as one holds the advantage, which Paul has. Gumplowicz evolved said
version of Marxs conflict has war be the catalyst for the stronger power to eventually rule over
the weak, which was depicted clearly in this film between the two ethnicities. Despite the
powerless of the people, many were able to survive through the willpower of the only advantage
they had, which was Paul. Rwanda, in this film, was shaped into Marxs description of the
perfect imbalanced, unjust and filled with conflict society.

Mok 5