Harry Potter and the Libertarian Love
Amy Sturgis on Jul 27th 2007
I am by no means the only scholar who defends J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series - or, for that matter, teaches the texts at the university level. (I spell out my position on the series in the article “Harry Potter is a Hobbit: Rowling, Tolkien, and the Question of Readership” from CSL here.) My course “Harry Potter and his Predecessors” routinely overflows the enrollment limit and spawns a waiting list nearly as long as the class roster itself, and I understand that my experience is not unusual.
Considering that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows debuted a week ago tomorrow, I thought this would be an appropriate time to discuss the political implications of this thought-provoking series. The final book, I am pleased to say, ably underscores the series’ consistent messages about ideas of power and responsibility. Deathly Hallows makes it clear, once and for all, that those who desire and seek power are those who are most poorly suited to wield it wisely and justly, while those who do not want power when it is thrust upon them are most likely to be good and responsible stewards of it — and, like the classical Cincinnatus, are most likely to relinquish it willingly, rather than become tyrannical. Her Orwellian portrait of the fall of the Ministry of Magic to Voldemort’s control is chilling, as has been her portrait of the ways in which the self-interested within M.o.M. (”Mom,” like “Big Brother”) and the press enabled Voldemort’s second rise to power.
University of Tennessee Professor of Law Benjamin Barton has written about the “real Libertarian bent” of the series. I recommend his article “Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy” from the Michigan Law Review, in which he argues, “Rowling may do more for libertarianism than anyone since John Stuart Mill.”
The Harry Potter and the Law issue of Texas Wesleyan Law Review is now online, as well. A standout among its many excellent articles is “Making Legal Space for Moral Choice” by Andy Morriss of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The essays are also available in a more printer-friendly format here as Harry Potter and the Law.
Author John Granger, I should add, is currently hosting a discussion of the “Nazi history echoes” in Deathly Hallows on his blog.
Rowling, throughout the book series, does an exemplary job of considering the plight of the disenfranchised. Her consideration of the dispossession of the Centaurs, for example, who are facing encroachment by the wizarding community and losing land to the Ministry of Magic, and the plight of the Giants, who now, after being fought and hunted, face waning numbers and infighting thanks to forced close cohabitation with traditional enemies, swell with allusions to Indigenous histories. We should not be surprised to learn, as Hollie Anderson argues in the essay “Reading Harry Potter with Navajo Eyes” from Harry Potter’s World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives , that the outsider Harry resonates with Native readers.
Last but not least, I must give a nod to Rowling’s careful study of gender, by mentioning Kathryn N. McDaniel’s compelling essay “The Elfin Mystique: Fantasy and Feminism in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Series,” which debuts next week in my new edited collection Past Watchful Dragons: Fantasy and Faith in the World of C.S. Lewis . (You thought you were going to escape a commercial by yours truly, didn’t you?) In this piece, McDaniel answers the question asked by many readers, “Does the house-elves’ supposed happiness with their subordinated position create a fault-line in Rowling’s liberal fantasy: are they natural slaves who should not gain liberation?” If we use second-wave feminism to understand the house-elves’ attitude, McDaniel explains, Rowling’s message is revealed as consistent with the rest of the series.
There are good reasons to celebrate Rowling’s popularity, not the least of which is that, through her Harry Potter series, she is introducing the key subject of liberty to a vast global audience.
Filed in The Basement
those who do not want power when it is thrust upon them are most likely to be good and responsible stewards of it —
Like Fred Thompson, you mean?
Heheh. ;-)
It would be interesting to ask J. K. Rowling was it her intent to write those books with a libertarian bent. It seemed liked she was perfectly content to live on the public dole while she wrote the first book.
Tom - Ha! :)
VRB - I certainly wouldn’t say she was “perfectly content,” since she worked extremely hard to become self-sufficient, and then, once successful, funded multiple charities to help others avoid similar problems.
I have a hard time determining whether Rowling is libertarian or is simply anti-authoritarian. Few progressives have any trouble laughing at the stupidity of the authority structures, while supporting policies that strengthen those structure. I doubt that Harry Potter presents a serious challenge to the worldview of many of its liberal or progressive fans.
Daniel - One of the things that most interests me about her consistent message in the books is that even when power structures try to do good, the unintended consequences of taking choices away from individuals are bad. This is one of the ways in which, I think, she challenges liberal or progressive readers. She is scathing in her indictment of paternalism in all its institutionalized forms, which conflicts with the progressivist tendency to think the state, for example, would be fine if only it would help people and save them from themselves. Rowling shows repeated how the M.o.M., for instance, is “helping people” to death (figuratively and, in some cases, literally).
Dr. Sturgis
Why would that be a challenge to liberal or progressive readers? Does reading mean that every one is looking for some affirmation of their political beliefs.
I remember reading Robert Heinlein as an older teenager, then only a few years later as a young adult reading Ayn Rand’s novels. I never associated the two as having any thing in common. Even though when I heard of libertarians I recognized it as part of Rand’s philosophy. Her books were definitely meant to deliver her philosophy. It hit you on your head. Heinlein’s world was adventure, I wanted to go along for the ride in the future, not analyzed it. Now, I barely remember any of those stories.
AS - I agree with your assessment of the results of paternalism on the part of MoM. From the libertarian perspective, it seems obvious.
However, a major strain of progressive thought scoffs at the stupidity of the powers, decrys the corruption of government, chaffs at the restrictions which bother the progressives, yet supports the next round of paternalism (in the expectation that they will get it right this time). Knowing of Rowling only through the novels, it would not suprise me to learn that she is a progressive. (For a rather extreme example, consider the outrage at the thought that the government may learn what we check out at the library as expressed by people who support a broad variety of paternalistic intrusions).
VRB - If liberals and progressivists agreed that government paternalism, among other things, has negative consequences (intentional, unintentional, or both), I would think that they would limit the size and scope of the state, rather than regulating who smokes where and what trans-fats we may consume, for example.
I can’t explain why you didn’t see the connection between Heilein and Rand, especially since Heinlein mentions Rand by name in his fiction. To go back to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, since I previously used it as an example, I can’t help but read it as a novel about ideas, since it is infused with allusions to the American, French, and Russian revolutions, permeated with thoughts on the experiment of independence and constitution-making, and bursting with examples of spontaneous orders, from Loonie “natural law” to line marriages. TANSTAAFL is itself a statement of political theory.
On another note, I do not think we must find affirmation of our political theory in fiction. For example, I disagree significantly with the perspectives of two authors I study and enjoy the most, J.R.R. Tolkien and H.P. Lovecraft, though I think the questions they raise (which, in many senses, are extremely similar, as I have argued my own scholarship) are quite compelling and worthy of attention.
VRB and Daniel: I have no personal compulsion to make Rowling a poster child for classical liberalism (and, in fact, the article of mine to which I linked above does not make that argument). She need not be a libertarian herself to write fiction that is useful in thinking about and helpful to the ideas of classical liberalism. Considering that she’s broken publishing records worldwide, I do think it is quite possible that in the Harry Potter series, her nuanced understanding of the private and public, of law and morality, of choice and responsibility, as Barton argues, “may do more for libertarianism than anyone since John Stuart Mill.”
AS - Harry Potter may be an excellent vehicle for advancing libertarian notions. Certainly you (and Barton) are correct that the themes of misguided paternalism and individual responsibility are central to the stories. That fact cannot be harmful to the libertarian cause.
I think most Americans subscribe to these principles in the abstract. Unfortunately, we are often willing to set aside abstract principle and make exceptions for individual issues.
It is also worth noting that the Potter books stress reliance on each other, through associations voluntarily entered into. If Americans can re-learn that lesson, libertarianism will benefit.
Daniel said:
through associations voluntarily entered into. If Americans can re-learn that lesson, libertarianism will benefit.
That’s an excellent point!
Dr. Sturgis,
I read Heinlein before I read Rand and at the time those allusions would have meant nothing to me. Some things I just would have taken for granted and not thought of it as political. That is much of the problem, about how one would see libertarian inferences from fiction. You sort of assume that everyone must be educated as you. If the Harry Potter series is read around the world, could you say, with the readers differing religious, ethnic or educational experience, that they would all understand “the key subject of liberty.”
VRB - ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ is pretty heavy-handed with its libertarian message. Someone who is unaware may not recognize libertarianism, but they certainly get a taste of notions of oppression and limited government as opposites.
Similarly, it think it would be difficult to really appreciate the Harry Potter series without some sympathy for some key aspects of liberty. It is possible to enjoy the fiction and understand the concepts with some sympathy, but reject any practical political implications. I greatly enjoy some fiction with pretty clear political implications that I reject. Harry Potter does not have an obvious practical real-world political agenda. One can read and enjoy the series without considering real-world politics. But some of the key concepts do have real-world implications.
Daniel,
During the height of the cold war, pretty much everyone had a “notion of oppression.” I speaking of my impressions almost fifty years ago. Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of unlimited government, perhaps not in libertarian terms, but none the less.
VRB - If liberals and progressivists agreed that government paternalism, among other things, has negative consequences (intentional, unintentional, or both), I would think that they would limit the size and scope of the state, rather than regulating who smokes where and what trans-fats we may consume, for example.
This is a point where we libertarians often misunderstand liberals and progressives. Regulating smoking and trans fats are not about “paternalism”. They are an attempt to balance one sort of power (economic power) with another (government power). While we may agree that this is misguided, it’s important not to misunderstand the progressive argument here.
Consider cigarette smoking. The progressive sees companies producing and selling products that hurt people. Cigarettes have consistently been marketed as healthy, sexy, youthful — at times, even as medically beneficial. People are not forced to smoke, but they are defrauded into believing that smoking is good or at least harmless. That fraud is perpetrated not merely as a fraudulent offer (as when a used-car dealer sells a “lemon”) but rather it is deliberately insinuated into culture — not only with straightforward advertising but with product placement, the ubiquity of cigarettes in movies, and so on.
Because nicotine is an addictive drug, the usual libertarian line that people can freely choose what products to consume in the market is somewhat undermined. Addiction saps the will to resist; that’s what addiction is. Yes, people can overcome it with assiduous effort, but choosing to quit smoking is not like choosing a Ford (or a Schwinn) over a Toyota.
So, what we have is an economic power constructed only partly through informed free-market choice. It is also partly constructed by fraud, and partly by biochemical power (nicotine addiction). To the progressive’s view, these sort of nexuses (nexi?) of market and non-market forces are not unusual corruptions of the market (as a libertarian might say); rather, they are typical of the way that corporations and economic power operate.
Yes, this is a somewhat paranoid view of corporations; but to the progressive, the libertarian view of government is similarly paranoid.
The progressive looks around and tries to find some power capable of opposing this unjust economic power. And government looks like just the thing: It is supposed to be democratic, and so responsive to the people’s needs. It is supposed to be transparent and free of corruption; and it is supposed to be full of people who are interested in the common good rather than in their own personal profit. Sounds great.
The only problem is that government fails to meet these expectations. A progressive who realizes this becomes a (left-)anarchist, hostile to both economic and governmental power.
[...] I ran a quick Google search today to find Dr. Benjamin Barton’s quote on Harry Potter and Libertarianism (something I’m writing about in Part Three of the book), and I was pleasantly surprised to find that SoG regular Amy Sturgis wrote about this just after the release of Deathly Hallows (I must have come across a link for this previously, but in post-DH insanity, I probably forgot to check it out). [...]
[...] (1) Though explicitly Christian in composition, the Harry Potter books are also decidedly anti-authoritarian, especially with respect to government, schools, and media. This would be threatening to those for whom religious, political, or academic position and authority are matters of self-identity. The ivory tower aesthetes, the anti-semite Semites, and scriptural fundamentalists can all get into the same bed on this one. They all have problems with libertarians and Ms. Rowling has been linked with that bunch of anarchists. [...]