Formula 1: A Lens for Conceptualizing The Modern State and The State of Nature
Are F1 drivers fair at their core or brutish when given the chance?
Motivation is an extremely tricky feeling to find at university. With the mountain of readings and the dry lectures we have to attend, the workload really makes you question why you are even here.
I am a university student studying political science but I have a hard time staying engaged with the content. To combat my boredom, I wanted to try something new.
I figured the best way for me to digest the course material was by finding some kind of way to relate the lectures to my one fixation: Formula 1.
This is going to be my first attempt at taking concepts I learned in my classes and applying them to F1.
The Modern State & Formula 1
In my comparative politics class this week, we discussed the origins of the modern state.
a state is an entity that uses coercion to rule a given territory.
In F1, the most obvious state-like entity is the FIA. They set out the rules and regulations found in the sporting code and enforce them upon applicable actors within the sport.
On a micro level, the team principles are also “states” because the drivers are the “territories” that they govern. Let’s use the Ferrari drivers as an example to understand how the FIA and the teams function as states:
Carlos Sainz and Charles Leclerc can technically do whatever they want. They can disobey team orders, they can crash each other out, and they can even make ill-mannered statements when speaking to the media. But we know, of course, that they don’t do any of these things (at least not often or intentionally).
That’s because the FIA and Fred Vasseur use “coercion” to keep them in line. Things like collecting a penalty, incurring a fine, or even losing their seat or super license are just some of the consequences they would face if they chose to deviate from the rules. So they have more than enough reason to act right.
Sometimes, however, all the threats in the world can’t keep a territory intact. Such states are known as “failed states.”
Failed states are states that are unable to control the inhabitants of their territory.
F1 has seen its fair share of “failed states” where drivers have gone rogue and have failed to comply with the rules set out by the FIA or their team. A famous example is Red Bull’s “Multi-21” incident when Sebastian Vettel disobeyed team orders and overtook Mark Webber to win the 2013 Malaysian Grand Prix.
A more recent instance was last year in São Paulo, when Max Verstappen shockingly refused to give the position back to Sergio Perez despite team orders and despite already being named the WDC several races prior.
The notion of the “failed state” also reminds me of the “Brocedes” era: the friendship turned rivalry between Mercedes’ Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg. A notable incident in their rivalry occurred during the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix where the pair collided in the first lap and DNFed after just three corners.
It is moments like this where the team boss has failed to control their drivers and where the inner workings and legitimacy of the team are questioned.
But why have “states” in F1 at all? Can we expect each driver to race fairly without the threat of force or will they rebel against the unwritten rules?
These may seem like dumb questions to ask, but to imagine F1 in its most natural form, is a fascinating question about the very humanity of our beloved drivers. Are they fair at their core, or disordered when given the chance?
According to English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes and his theory about the state of nature, the latter is true.
Hobbes & 2016 Mercedes
The state of nature is a thought experiment that envisions a society without a “sovereign” or government.
Hobbes held that the state of nature for mankind is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” for it is “every man against every man.” To prevent people from stealing and killing one another, Hobbes believed that a sovereign power to enforce laws was a necessity.
Without authority, can we expect a war-like environment on track when the lights go out? It certainly is plausible given the events that occurred with Mercedes in 2016.
Ahead of the 2016 season, Toto Wolff decided to clamp down on team orders to let Hamilton and Rosberg race without interference. So besides the FIA, they were technically free to race without authority.
But as many of us know, disaster struck on several occasions: there was the first-lap collision in Spain as previously mentioned, but there was also the last-lap incident in Austria.
Rosberg was leading the Grand Prix on the final lap but he clashed with his teammate on the approach to Turn 2. Rosberg suffered damage and dropped to P4 whilst the unscathed Hamilton got away with the win.
Therefore, you could argue that a state is needed to control the drivers’ violent egos and to maximize points for the team. So, Hobbes’ theory could very much apply to F1.
But this is just one account of the state of nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a different take and actually critiqued the Hobbesian view.
Rousseau & 2013 Red Bull
The French philosopher believed that the negative views about man in the state of nature — like man as self-serving and immoral — are merely projections of the civil man. In other words, civilization is the problem, not the solution.
As a result, he believed that laws and civilization created inequality, making the state of nature the ideal form of humanity.
If Rousseau views laws as a system that justifies inequality, the same could be said about team orders. Team orders are quasi-laws are good for the team as a whole, but are never really fair for the drivers involved.
Likewise, civilization is good for order, but it’s a system that privileges some and disadvantages others — hence Rousseau’s ideology.
If we go back to 2013 Malaysia, the issue was about more than just Vettel’s disobedience to the team and his teammate, it was about Webber constantly getting the short end of the stick.
The team tried to give him the win but his teammate, as we know it, had his own plans. We know that Vettel had to make an apology for putting himself above the team, but beyond that, there was virtually no punishment from the team’s end.
So how was the lack of reprimand fair to Webber who was “robbed” of a win? If the roles were reversed would the team be as forgiving?
The reality is that the team favoured Vettel for reasons that are in some ways understandable. But how far should favouritism and privilege get you before the system becomes unfair to others?
Multi-21 was obviously unjust for Webber but you could flip the narrative and say that the order was also a disservice to Vettel because he was “faster.” Why should he be forced to stay put behind his teammate if he has the pace to win? And as Vettel, himself put it,
“I don’t apologize for winning, I think that’s why people employed me in the first place and why I’m here.”
So what do you think?
Do you agree with the Hobbesian view that states should exist to enforce team orders on drivers or do you side with Rousseau and believe that team orders should be scraped for the sake of equality?
Do you favour fixed-based racing to maximize points or do you prefer merit-based racing at the expense of valuable points?
