Horror movies are often associated with creepy creatures, haunted houses, masked killers and jump scares, but beneath the fear and suspense, many horror films reflect the political and social issues of their time. Filmmakers have used horror to explore subjects such as racism, economic inequality, gender roles, government distrust and class conflict. From the social anxieties reflected in 1970s horror to the racial commentary of Get Out (2017), the genre demonstrates how real-world political tensions can become sources of fictional terror. Horror is more than blood and gore; it can challenge audiences to examine the problems and power structures that shape society.

The 1970s marked an important period in American horror, as filmmakers increasingly portrayed ordinary people confronting violent, unpredictable worlds. Economic uncertainty, changing social values, and declining trust in traditional institutions provided a context for stories in which familiar sources of safety could no longer be trusted. Instead of relying exclusively on supernatural monsters, filmmakers began presenting human beings, families and communities as sources of terror. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) offers an example of how horror can reflect economic and class tensions. The film follows a group of young people who encounter a violent family in rural Texas. These antagonists include characters whose lives are connected to the decline of traditional slaughterhouse work as automation becomes more common. Their circumstances can be interpreted as reflecting anxieties about economic displacement, industrial change, and the loss of social stability. Rather than presenting the countryside as a peaceful escape from modern life, the film turns it into a place where violence and desperation threaten outsiders. These films helped establish a recurring horror trope: collapse of the systems people depend on for security. When family structures, economic stability, or trusted institutions fail, characters are left vulnerable to dangers they cannot easily control. The political significance of this trope lies in its suggestion that terror does not always come from an unfamiliar monster; sometimes, it emerges from the breakdown of the social structures that are supposed to protect us. 

During the 1980s, slasher films became a defining part of popular American horror. Movies such as Friday the 13th (1980) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) popularized stories in which groups of young people faced unpredictable threats. These films frequently used familiar settings, including summer camps, suburban neighborhoods, and schools to turn ordinary environments into places of danger. The slasher genre also developed a recognizable pattern in which characters’ choices, relationships, and behavior could appear connected to their survival. Some films seemed to punish characters who broke social rules, reflecting contemporary debates about teenage independence, sexuality, and changing cultural values. This pattern can be connected to broader conservative concerns about morality and social order during the decade. Under President Ronald Reagan, American political discourse placed renewed emphasis on traditional family values and personal responsibility. Slasher films did not necessarily promote these political positions, but their recurring conflicts sometimes reflected the cultural tensions surrounding them. The masked killer became especially significant within this context. When the killer hides their identity, they often represent an unpredictable threat that cannot be understood through ordinary social categories. The familiar community becomes unsafe, and characters struggle to identify where danger is coming from. 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent War on Terror significantly changed American political culture. Public discussion increasingly focused on national security, terrorism, surveillance, and the balance between personal freedom and government authority. These concerns also provide a useful context for understanding horror films that depict institutions as threatening or unreliable. One example is The Mist (2007), directed by Frank Darabont. The film follows a group of people trapped inside a supermarket while dangerous creatures surround them. As fear spreads, the survivors begin to turn against one another. The creatures outside are frightening, but the growing divisions inside the supermarket become equally dangerous. The film can be interpreted as a commentary on how fear changes normal, rational behavior. When people believe their lives are in danger, they may turn toward extreme leaders, accept claims without evidence, or blame other groups for their problems. In The Mist, the inability to understand the threat outside creates an environment in which manipulation and conflict flourish. This is a recurring horror trope: the danger is not limited to an external enemy. Fear itself can weaken a community, making people more willing to surrender their judgment to someone who promises certainty or protection. Its portrayal of panic, authority, and social division illustrates how horror can explore questions that become especially relevant during periods of political uncertainty. When someone feels powerless against a large entity, it’s easier to attack their neighbors than accept their powerlessness.

The 2010s saw a rise in horror films that directly addressed contemporary political and social issues. Rather than simply using social conflict as background, filmmakers increasingly placed inequality, racism, and institutional power at the center of their stories. Jordan Peele’s debut film Get Out (2017) is one of the clearest examples. The film follows Chris, a Black man who visits the family of his white girlfriend and gradually discovers that their apparent friendliness conceals horrifying intentions. At first, the family seems welcoming and progressive, if prone to seemingly accidental microaggressions. As the story develops, their behavior reveals a desire to control and exploit Black bodies. The film challenges the idea that racism only exists through open hostility or obvious prejudice. The family members often present themselves as accepting and enlightened, yet their actions reveal a deeper form of racial domination. This makes the horror especially unsettling since the threat comes from people who claim to respect the protagonist rather than from people who openly identify themselves as his enemies. The film transforms social experiences that are sometimes dismissed or overlooked into an unmistakable source of terror. One of the film’s most memorable concepts is the Sunken Place, a state in which Chris loses control while remaining conscious of what is happening to him. Politically, it can be interpreted as a symbol of powerlessness: a person can understand the forces controlling their life while still struggling to resist them. The concept makes an abstract issue, the denial of individual autonomy, into something audiences can experience through the language of horror.

Peele continued exploring social inequality in Us (2019). The film follows a family confronted by mysterious doubles of themselves. These doubles can be interpreted as representing the people society leaves behind while others enjoy comfort and security. The film’s underground population raises questions about class divisions, exclusion, and the hidden costs of prosperity. Although the meaning of Us remains open to interpretation, ts use of doubles and underground spaces can be interpreted as an allegory for inequality and injustice in American society. Together, Get Out and Us demonstrate how horror can transform political structures into physical threats. Racism becomes a form of bodily control, and class inequality becomes a conflict between people whose lives are connected but whose experiences are radically different.

In the 2020s, horror continued to explore political questions surrounding race, inequality, institutional power, and the historical consequences of discrimination. These themes have become particularly visible in films that revisit familiar horror stories from new perspectives. Candyman (2021), for example, revisits the mythology of the original 1992 film through a contemporary story about art, racial history, and violence in Chicago. The film connects its supernatural elements to the continuing legacy of racial injustice and challenges the idea that a community can simply move beyond its traumatic past without confronting it. This approach reflects a broader horror trope: the return of something that society has tried to bury. A ghost, monster, or curse can represent unresolved historical violence. The supernatural threat becomes a reminder that past injustices continue to shape the present, even when people would rather forget them.

Another example is the continuing Purge franchise, which began with The Purge in 2013 and developed further throughout the 2010s and into the 2020s. The series imagines a fictional United States in which most crimes are temporarily permitted during an annual period of violence. The government presents the event as a way to strengthen society, but the films repeatedly raise questions about who benefits from the system and who is left vulnerable. The premise turns political inequality into a literal survival scenario; wealthier characters can purchase security, while poorer and marginalized people are left exposed. Political authority is not simply absent; it actively creates the conditions that allow some people to indulge their darkest urges. The franchise demonstrates how horror can question the assumption that laws and government institutions always protect the public equally. By imagining an extreme political system, the films encourage audiences to consider how access to safety, resources, and protection can be distributed unequally in the real world.

Over the past fifty years, horror has developed into a genre capable of exploring some of society’s most difficult political questions. The economic anxiety reflected in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, the racial and urban tensions explored in Candyman, the social panic of The Mist, and the critiques of racism and inequality in Get Out, Us, and The Purge demonstrate how horror tropes change alongside cultural concerns. The monster, the haunted house, the masked killer, and the invasion of a seemingly safe home are not simply tools for frightening audiences. Depending on the film, they can represent economic insecurity, racial oppression, institutional failure, or the fear of losing control over one’s own life. These meanings are not always intentional or universally agreed upon, and horror films can reflect the prejudices of their time as well as challenge them. Politics influences horror because the genre gives filmmakers a way to turn invisible social problems into visible threats. Inequality becomes a monster, prejudice becomes a trap, and distrust becomes a physical, tangible threat. By exaggerating the dangers that exist within society, horror encourages audiences to question what they consider normal, whom they trust, and which problems they have learned to ignore. The genre’s greatest source of fear is not the supernatural world itself, but the possibility that the real world already contains the conditions that make its nightmares believable.

The year 1936 has gone down in European history as the year of the Berlin Olympics under Nazi Germany. Three years before the outbreak of the Second World War, these Olympic Games were seen by Hitler as a propaganda tool to send a strong message to the world: Aryans are superior athletes. This belief was rooted in the eugenics theory that racial superiority could be explained by genetics. Of course, eugenics is at the heart of Nazi ideology and these Olympic Games of the past were the ideal opportunity to prove the hegemony of Aryan athletes; and thus defend the relevance of this ideology. However, African American athletes enjoyed enormous success in 1936, in particular Jesse Owens, famous for being the first African-American athlete to win four gold medals at the same Olympic Games. His success also left its mark on history, as Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge Owens’ victories or shake his hand. Indeed, this famous episode, experienced as a humiliation by Hitler, underlines a major theme in sports and politics: the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian regimes.

 But why is this so important today? Sports have been, and still are, an important form of soft power used by authoritarian and democratic rulers all over the world. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the limits and dangers of the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian states and propose a broader description of sports as an effective geopolitical weapon for democratic states.

What does “Authoritarianism” really mean ?

Authoritarianism is a vague concept to a lot of folks. Its true meaning is poorly understood, yet roughly 40% of the world’s countries are ruled by an authoritarian leader. Simply put, authoritarianism is a political system whose main objective is to maintain the power of the ruler, come what may. regimes ignore the rule of law and democratic principles and their mandate does not depend on the consent of the people. To stay in power, authoritarian leaders use a range of strategies, from violent coercion to propaganda. Sports are a soft power tool used by authoritarian rulers to convey an ideology. But is this method effective? ? 

Firstly, sports bring people together and help build a nation. Secondly, it promotes the state’s official ideology and reinforces authoritarian narratives of national greatness. These characteristics are particularly true of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or present-day North Korea, whose ultimate goal is to create a utopia. In this sense, sports can be a vehicle for the state sponsored ideology. Nevertheless, sport is not always used as a means of conveying an ideology, and many authoritarian states see it simply as an effective weapon, an extension of the state’s political and economic power.

Sport and Authoritarianism: Dangers and Limits? 

These days, sports are primarily a revenue platform for authoritarian states. Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are increasingly financially involved in all kinds of sports, particularly soccer and Formula 1. In 2024, sports are attracting considerable attention and have become a global phenomenon that appeals to more and more people. The amount of money invested in and the revenues generated by the sports market are increasing rapidly, with an expected growth in revenues of over 60% by 2028. However, as sports revenues rise, so does the economic cost of hosting sporting events. 

A common trend has been observed over the past decade: unstable democracies and authoritarian states are increasingly hosting major sporting events. These states are often oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. As explained previously, these states use sports to convey broader political messages and achieve popular cohesion. Unfortunately, staging major events such as Formula 1 races, the World Cup or boxing matches, is financially draining and does not always benefit the economy as a whole. In fact, in many cases financing global sporting events ends up creating a greater financial burden for the population. For example, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar cost 220 billion American dollars, a huge sum that will take decades to repay, and has contributed to  the financial disparities within the country.

The protection of human rights is another major concern when it comes to authoritarian regimes hosting sporting events. In fact, most authoritarian countries lack the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to host sporting events, so they usually build these infrastructures from scratch, specifically for the events in question. Construction is often very intensive and these regimes do not hesitate to violate international laws. Most recently, Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, was targeted by numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch over the abuses committed against migrant workers and the hundreds of workers injured during the construction of half a dozen brand-new stadiums in the space of just a few years. The Qatari government has denied most of the allegations. Therefore, Qatar’s problematic situation has given rise to a real debate on the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes hosting such sporting events. 

But Why should Democratic States Care?

Colossal amounts of money are involved in hosting major sporting events, often creating significant conflicts of interest. Despite the mobilization of athletes and humanitarian organizations to denounce the abuses of host countries, democratic states have often turned a blind eye to the issue of sports in authoritarian countries. Recently, the situation has changed somewhat with the resumption of war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest ground war in Europe since  World War II. In this context, sports represents one of the many points of tension in the conflict. Sport became a veritable soft power weapon, helping to raise Russia’s profile. 

Since 2022, many Russian athletes have been denied the right to take part in sporting competitions, with the aim of penalizing Russian “soft power” and sending a strong message of support for Ukraine. One of the first victims was tennis player Danil Medvedev, who was unable to take part in a number of major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon 2023. Despite being ranked No. 2 in the world, Medvedev and his fellow Russians and Belarusians were banned from that year’s Wimbledon. Similarly, the Russian and Belarusian delegations were banned from taking part in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a heavy sanction seen as a humiliation by both countries. Nevertheless, sports seem to be increasingly used by many as a way to condemn injustice and punish acts of impunity. For instance, Seven-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly spoken out to call out Formula 1’s involvement with authoritarian and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which fail to respect human rights.

With all that said, the financial and ideological stakes of sports make it a powerful weapon for sanctioning authoritarian states and defending liberal democratic ideals, notably the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. The current state of Putin’s war in Ukraine transcends any concept of human justice and in this context, the instrumentalization of sports to attack Russia’s image and soft power seems more than appropriate. While the intersection between sports and geopolitics is not intuitive, it is essential to understanding complex power dynamics. As guardians of democratic values, it is imperative that democratic states reclaim sports as a platform to oppose oppression, foster international solidarity and lead a global commitment to justice and human dignity.