Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
First off, I'm not out to claim the series for conservatives. I'm just musing here.
Knowing the story only by the films, I had mixed reactions to the news years ago that some folks at the Vatican warned against Harry Potter as potentially corrupting. From a Catholic perspective, which includes belief that supernatural beings (good and evil) not only exist but are active in the world, there is indeed a danger that kids can become fascinated with magic to the point of exploring the occult. In fact, I've seen it happen.
On the other hand, the Harry Potter series is full of sound moral advice. Dumbledore, in particular, can be counted on for didactic soundbites like, "everyone must choose between what is right and what is easy."
Lately, I've been struck by Rowling's more specific references to the real world.
In the latest film (**SPOILER**), the Death Eater who takes over the Ministry of Magic (the government) describes the Ministry to reporters as a "temple of tolerance."
The archvillain Lord Voldemort is constantly referred to as "He Who Must Not Be Named." There is a real-life villain, now dead, who cannot be named.
The Order of the Phoenix involves widespread disbelief that the Death Eaters could ever return to power ("Fudge isn't his right mind. It's been twisted and warped by fear."). I'm reminded of Claire's recent post about the Austrian parliament.
What do you think? Am I alone in thinking that Rowling occasionally winks at conservatives in her story?
Incidentally, this reminds me of the many conversations I've had about Tolkien's Catholicism and whether or not it is essential to The Lord of the Rings. In this book, Joseph Pearce quotes Tolkien in saying that his epic fantasy is "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Yet many fans apparently cannot enjoy the story if they acknowledge that.
Even if Harry Potter is, overall, a conservative fiction, how easily can the underlying worldview be ignored?
As someone who believes our political problems are reflective of deeper cultural problems, I would like to think that one of the world's most popular works of fiction today is helping to restore old values and awaken people to danger.
- Comment (46)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Its not conservative by a far shot, but Rowling is a christian. Her writings lean towards the PC view, she wrestles with the fact that being PC does not win actual battles but she's ultimately torn between wanting to tell an adult story and the fact that she initially wrote them for children.
The genesis of the stories goes back to Rowling working for amnesty international. The hero is a young refugee in an alien world whose home environment is destroyed by a warlord who killed his mother and father. The hero is revealed to be a prince-in-hiding, enters a late-edwardian, pre-enlightenment world, has many adventures while waiting for a final confrontation with the enemy.
Dumbledore does give good advice. Ultimately, most of the teachers side with Gryffindor, the rebellious youngsters get points for breaking all the rules. Having been a prefect in a school in India myself, I find it interesting that Harry "assumes" a leadership position by virtue of his birth(near death) but never seeks a leadership role in the school's hierarchy itself.
Voldemort returns in book 4 yet assumes power in Book 7.
Edited on Dec 4, 2010 at 11:47pmMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Voldemort's "return" to power is designed to draw out Harry's (and the other rebel scum) sense of victimhood by battling the blind bourgeoisie bureaucracy of the magical world, rather than an actual war of rebellion being fought against Voldemort's forces across books 5-7.
I'm belaboring the point, but Harry Potter leans more towards Avatar than it does towards the Dark Knight or Narnia. Rowling was able to construct a story where PC ultimately saves the day (Dobby is saved in book 2, proves valuable in book 7) simultaneously striking all the universal emotional points vis-a-vis a magical struggle against tyranny and bigotry that would appeal to a wide audience of readers.
It's designed to reassure the PC ideology & engender a sense of harmless rebellion by lashing out at perceived bigotry, the kind where you and your friends feel good by breaking windows and then dash back into the pub for a night of binge-drinking.
Jul '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
What I get from the movies is a supernatural environment in an atheist, or perhaps a deist, context. There are greater powers but not much sign or discussion of higher powers. Of course, if Rowling had made any step in such a direction, organized religion would have howled ten times louder. As it is, they present us with a world that my great grandmother would instantly recognize as Satanist. From her devout Presbyterian background, magic is by definition black and just one more trick from old Nick to draw your soul away from God.
I filter for the contextual pressures on Rowling and the fantasy tag and can very easily conjecture on what those higher powers might be like.
The values? There is recognizable good and evil. A central problem for the series is the tolerance of evil at Hogwarts, training the next generation of good and evil in a kind of mirror of presumptively neutral government institutions being co-opted by one side or the other.
Is Harry Potter about the struggle for the soul of the BBC, except with the Hollywood twist of good winning in the movie?
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
The only catholic theme I gleaned from the Lord of the Rings was Tolkien's belief in an ultimate victory over evil, that the defeat of Sauron was at once a vindication of the race of men and simultaneously the peak of their achievement. The elves still left middle earth, arwen died a long mortal death and frodo was not healed. That even though the battle was won by the ordinary folk, their world would not return to its former beauty. Once evil enters the world, it inevitably causes damage. Only a higher power would ultimately set things right (the breaking of the world, Faramir's dream of the great wave)
Which is a far different message from Harry's "personal" victory over Voldemort and the empty platitudes about evil being defeated by the power of love. Ordinary people do not save the day. Rather, some innate "special" quality differentiates Harry from Neville (also linked to the prophecy yet remains a shmuck) that allows him to win the day.
Edited on Dec 5, 2010 at 12:06amMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Big thanks to Aaron because I'm still typing when I should be sleeping. Got mah blood going.
I'm being unkind, but the "special" nature of the book really sticks in my craw. Harry is special, but he's more special than special. Very stealth calvinist by way of socialist britain. Incidentally, Rowling is from the Church of Scotland. Moral relativism meets predestination. Batman chooses not to kill. Harry breaks rules, indulges in the dark arts, attempts murder, yet who he is prevents him from being the very thing he's fighting against.
Of course, ruling the roost is Dumbledore who is revealed to be gay after the fact, a visible symbol of the final frontier in the fight against muggle bigotry.
Edited on Dec 5, 2010 at 12:32amMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
The religious aspect is mainly traditional rather than religious per se. They celebrate Christmas, they have St Mungo's Hospital, and the afterlife, while existing, is ill-defined. This was done deliberately, as she didn't really want to write a religious book. Which is fine with me.
There's very little politics in it, unless you count her opposition to Nazis and eugenics as political. Not exactly a divisive issue.
One clue as to her own politics was Hermione's crusade to free the house elves. Who manifestly didn't want her help; it made them very unhappy, but she cluelessly persisted in Doing Good. Rather progressive, that. Rowling winked at it to show how silly it was.
Regarding wizard economics, it's pretty sink-or-swim laissez-faire. People are expected to pay up in gold, and use their talents to provide things people in order to get that gold. Or just steal it, if you're Mundungus Fletcher.
The bureaucracy is not portrayed sympathetically, and eventually becomes the Enemy.
This is all a stretch. There are intentionally no politics in it to distract from a ripping yarn.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
As Kennedy says, I think a pleasant aspect of the Potter books is that they succeed in being fairly apolitical.
Remember that both the left and right fear that the other side is the totalitarian party (the leftists would be wrong, of course, but they can't help not knowing that, else they wouldn't be leftists). And centrists generally fear that both extremes are totalitarian (the national socialism of Naziism, for example, is lost on them). So wherever you come from politically, you can identify with the Potter books.
The series is anti-totalitarian. That is the biggest political statement it makes.
OK, I am going to embarrassingly reveal my nerd quotient here, but Frodo was healed. At the very end, when the west-sailing ship finally reached the Far Country.
Now I must go and sulk to get over this revelation of my geekiness.
Edited on Dec 6, 2010 at 1:54pmMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Great insights, Anang. Thanks.
Again, I've only seen the movies, but I have had trouble figuring out Slytherin. A quick Wiki search says it's the house of "cunning and ambition", but they're all portrayed as selfish cheats and bullies. Talking to snakes is considered bad, but Salazar Slytherin talked to snakes. It's as if a house of evil is permitted.
Yes, this is a major reason I thought the series seems slightly conservative, because the Left loves big government. They only object to particular uses of big government... uses that conflict with their own goals of compulsion.
I guess I was engaging in wishful thinking.
Incidentally, I always thought that if I ever write a fantasy book, I'm going to break the genre's taboo against including God.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Aaron Miller:
Again, I've only seen the movies, but I have had trouble figuring out Slytherin. A quick Wiki search says it's the house of "cunning and ambition", but they're all portrayed as selfish cheats and bullies. Talking to snakes is considered bad, but Salazar Slytherin talked to snakes. It's as if a house of evil is permitted.
Yet the cunning and unsuspected self-sacrifice (unsuspected because practically no-one can imagine it from a Slytherin) of one Slytherin is vital to the success of bringing down the evil.
I think it's a healthy lesson, actually. Though the temptations of cunning and ambition are great, neither is bad of itself, and for good to face evil without these qualities is for good to "de-fang" itself.
Slytherin poses a similar moral dilemma to espionage. It's dangerous stuff, but can we expect to protect good people without it?
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: ...So wherever you come from politically, you can identify with the Potter books.
The series is anti-totalitarian. That is the biggest political statement it makes.
OK, I am going to embarrassingly reveal my nerd quotient here, but Frodo was healed. At the very end, when the west-sailing ship finally reached the Far Country.
Now I must go and sulk to get over this revelation of my geekiness. · Dec 5 at 8:01am
Since I read and loved all these books, too, then I guess I'm, also, a nerd. There's safety in numbers.
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Slytherin wasn't evil, at least not in the first 3 books. Slytherin was the old-money against the young bloods. Draco Malfoy is a bigger pain to Harry than Voldemort for the first 3 books. Rowling is ultimately unable to reconcile the evil she saw in the real world working for Amnesty: real rape, real torture, real death vs. the hyuk-hyuk fraternazis of Slytherin or the Death Eaters. Hacking someone with a machete is a lot different than electrocuting someone by waving your magic wand.
Ghosts, live paintings & immortality potions abound and yet Voldemort's efforts to defeat death are bad because he's Voldemort, he's a slytherin and he's evil. Harry can use forbidden curses and talk to snakes because he was "sorted" into Gryffindor thus destined for good.
Rowling has commented that Snape was "wrongly sorted" and his ultimate act of sacrifice shows that he belongs in Gryffindor and vindicates him being a complete a-hole for 7 books. The epilogue has Harry naming his child after Snape calling him "the bravest man I knew"
Edited on Dec 5, 2010 at 6:38pmMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Anang: Slytherin wasn't evil, at least not in the first 3 books. Slytherin was the old-money against the young bloods. Draco Malfoy is a bigger pain to Harry than Voldemort for the first 3 books. Rowling is ultimately unable to reconcile the evil she saw in the real world working for Amnesty: real rape, real torture, real death vs. the hyuk-hyuk fraternazis of Slytherin or the Death Eaters. Hacking someone with a machete is a lot different than electrocuting someone by waving your magic wand.
Ghosts, live paintings & immortality potions abound and yet Voldemort's efforts to defeat death are bad because he's Voldemort, he's a slytherin and he's evil. Harry can use forbidden curses and talk to snakes because he was "sorted" into Gryffindor thus destined for good.
Rowling has commented that Snape was "wrongly sorted" and his ultimate act of sacrifice shows that he belongs in Gryffindor and vindicates him being a complete a-hole for 7 books. The epilogue has Harry naming his child after Snape calling him "the bravest man I knew" · Dec 5 at 6:29pm
Edited on Dec 05 at 06:38 pm
Excellent. I agree completely.
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Slytherin House was never evil per se, and saying so will get your sorry butts sectumsempraed. Look at the two Heads of House during the series: Severus Snape and Horace Slughorn. Snape sneaky and power-hungry, doing the right thing though understandably bitter about it for years. Slughorn greedy and looking out for number one, but with genuine affection for his students and the school. Neither had any use for Voldemort, and both fought him. Let's not forget Phineas Nigellus, who was helpful and loyal to the school, though cranky and bigoted.
The younger generation had a problem. Voldemort turned his attention to them, which is a bad place to be. Some followed out of the promise of power, but many (represented by Draco Malfoy) out of fear of what he'd do to them or their families if they were disloyal. One wonders what would've happened if Voldemort had been obsessed with the dominance of Hufflepuff House.
As to cheating and bullying, Gryffindors never showed much respect for the rules, James Potter and Sirius Black were the worst bullies ever. Snape wasn't wrongly sorted. He's ours, dammit.
Oh, and uh, something about politics.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Kennedy Smith: Slytherin House was never evil per se... Look at the two Heads of House during the series: Severus Snape and Horace Slughorn. Snape sneaky and power-hungry, doing the right thing though understandably bitter about it for years. Slughorn greedy and looking out for number one, but with genuine affection for his students and the school. Neither had any use for Voldemort, and both fought him. Let's not forget Phineas Nigellus, who was helpful and loyal to the school, though cranky and bigoted.
The younger generation had a problem. Voldemort turned his attention to them, which is a bad place to be. Some followed out of the promise of power, but many (represented by Draco Malfoy) out of fear of what he'd do to them or their families if they were disloyal. One wonders what would've happened if Voldemort had been obsessed with the dominance of Hufflepuff...
As to cheating and bullying, Gryffindors never showed much respect for the rules, James Potter and Sirius Black were the worst bullies ever.
Exactly. Wish I'd said that.
As I said, Slytherin traits aren't inherently bad. And if good faces evil without 'em, we're toast.
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
I think what you're getting at is "killer instinct" as a Slytherin trait, Midge. The ability to act decisively without flinching. This is also something of a Gryffindor trait, which explains why those two were such bitter rivals, while the other two sort of looked on. And shows why we should be careful handing Andrea a bayonet.
Of course, the House boundaries are fluid to serve the story (Lockhart was in Ravenclaw but Hermione wasn't?). Snape could have qualified easily for any House, being ruthless, meticulous, vastly knowledgeable and insanely brave, but he just seems more Slytherin, and had to be set up as a villain. Whereas Slughorn's a ditherer and a bit of a coward, with no killer instinct whatever. He's more of the subtle, cunning sort, using avuncular schmoozing, making selected potentially useful people feel special, and getting what he wants from them.
Politically, I'd say the books are conservative in the sense that they're not liberal. That counts these days. Small victories.
Jul '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
So Patton was Slytherin but Eisenhower was Gryffindor? Was Bradley Hufflepuff? And where was Montgomery?
Edited on Dec 6, 2010 at 9:07amMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Even accepting that Slytherin isn't meant to be inherently evil (only easier to corrupt), and judging only from the films, it seems that Rowling created Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw only because she wanted to avoid a simple dichotomy of Good vs Evil. Though characters from those Houses occasionally appear in the story, they don't seem to play much of a role in the great struggle.
Is this a difference between the films and the books? What do y'all make of those two Houses?
May '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
You're confusing the Horace Slughorn from the movies with the fat, bloated pig that Rowling makes him out to be in the books.
Again, Gryffindors are the "right" house. It doesn't matter if James and Sirius bullied, they're still saints in Rowling's eyes. Percy Weasley is treated like slime for 6 books because he had ambition. Tonks and Lupin leave their only child to be orphaned because they have Gryffindor courage and show up to die in the battle. Lily Potter, who gave up her life fighting shows up when Harry decides to commit suicide saying: "You've been so brave."
Every member of House Slytherin turns out to fight for Voldemort. I don't know how clearly Rowling could have put it for you. She's doesn't leave things up to fan's imaginations, hence the growing size of her books.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Yes, an ability to make cold-blooded calculations where others would be overcome with moral turmoil. Being the sort of person who can do this is not necessarily pleasant, but when no-one does it, more innocent people (or creatures) suffer.
But I think there's another philosophical point, too. Slytherin is also the house of self-interest. Self-interest is so deeply ingrained in human nature that, if virtue and self-interest are made wholly incompatible, there is no hope for virtue.
So if Hogwarts is seen as a "force for good", it is not surprising that it incorporates a "house of self-interest". Rather, it is an accurate reflection of human nature.
Edited on Dec 6, 2010 at 9:51amMay '10
Re: Is the Harry Potter series conservative?
Dumbledore and the dead heap praise on Harry for walking to his death. Unlike Neville who has actual scars on his face for standing up to bullies. When Harry looks in the mirror of Erised, he sees himself with the Philosopher's stone. Why? According to dumbledore, he got the stone because he wasn't seeking it. Dumbledore's ambition to have the Deathly Hallows cost him his life. In his speech in the train station, Harry never wanted them, so he deserved them. Death spares the brother with the invisibility cloak, because that's Rowling's true vision of courage, being invisible and not showing any ambition or motivation. Harry is the "Master of Death" because he never tried to be a survivor, as opposed to EVERY other character.When Gryffindors die its noble, when Slytherins die its because they're beyond salvation.
Compare that with Galadriel's words in the "Mirror of Galadriel" chapter.
for ere the fall of Nargothrond or Gondolin I passed over the mountains, and together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat."