Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy
Just in time for this weekend's opening of the new Harry Potter flick, Glenn Reynolds shares a tip about this interesting new paper, Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy. A snippet from the abstract:
This Essay examines what the Harry Potter series (and particularly the most recent book, The Half-Blood Prince) tells us about government and bureaucracy. There are two short answers. The first is that Rowling presents a government (The Ministry of Magic) that is 100% bureaucracy. There is no discernable executive or legislative branch, and no elections. There is a modified judicial function, but it appears to be completely dominated by the bureaucracy, and certainly does not serve as an independent check on governmental excess.
Second, government is controlled by and for the benefit of the self-interested bureaucrat. The most cold-blooded public choice theorist could not present a bleaker portrait of a government captured by special interests and motivated solely by a desire to increase bureaucratic power and influence.
More here.
Julian Sanchez imagined Eichmann at Hogwarts here and
Michael Valdez Moses discussed England's leading
import export in relation to Lord of the
Rings and Star Wars here.
|11.14.05 @ 7:30PM|#
The last line of the abstract
"but it seems likely that we will see a continuing uptick in
distrust of government and libertarianism as the Harry Potter
generation reaches adulthood."
This paper lends itself to an increase in distrust of
libertarianism? Government yes, but libertarianism?
|11.14.05 @ 7:33PM|#
Yeah, the generation that rolls like a dog over for random drug tests, locker searches, zero-tolerance, gun bans and metal detectors is suddenly going to become Hayek worshippers.
Another Tim Completely|11.14.05 @ 7:42PM|#
Lame. This is just some gussied up Harry Potter fandom. We're
talking about the same novelist who has a witch school celebrating
Christmas for no discernible reason, and a several millenia-old
sorcerer culture using the Gregorian calendar.
Umm, maybe the Harry Potter universe isn't very well thought out;
maybe it just consists of things JK Rowling thought sounded good
while she was making it up.
The essay ends with the author's hopeful statement that "it seems
likely that we will see a continuing uptick in distrust of
government and libertarianism as the Harry Potter generation
reaches adulthood." I really doubt anyone's going to be scoring
rhetorical points based on Harry Potter in the 2016 election.
|11.14.05 @ 8:04PM|#
The essay ends with the author's hopeful
statement
I don't get that from reading the abstract. Quite the contrary.
It's clear the author disapproves of Rowling; the key is the use of
the word "progressive." The author's (poorly worded) final line
suggests "distrust of government" (and not, say, "affirmation of
the individual") is a bad thing.
I know there are a lot of Harry haters on H&R, but I love the
books in general and for their anti-authoritarianism in particular.
I highly recommend Order of the Phoenix for that
reason.
Yeah, the generation that rolls like a dog over for random drug
tests, locker searches, zero-tolerance, gun bans and metal
detectors
And what do you suggest they do instead? Shoot up the school? Write
a strongly worded letter of protest? These days, those two actions
are one and the same. Any such nonconformist would find himself
doped and dropped in juvie before the ink was dry.
Warren|11.14.05 @ 8:11PM|#
Amanda,
What are you smoking. As I've divulged before, I've read the first
four Potter books. They are awful. And they are totally
pro-authoritarianism. Not only is it a world run by bureaucrats,
but the bureaucrats don't feel the slightest obligation to obey the
rules they impose on everyone else.
Another Tim Completely|11.14.05 @ 8:23PM|#
Amanda,
The end of the abstract is poorly worded. The paper itself
clears things up. In its last section, titled "Harry Potter and the
Future Libertarian Majority," he says:
"The Libertarian Party claims to be the fastest growing political party in the United States. After reading The Half-Blood Prince I am much more convinced."
...
"I must admit that when I sat down to reread the Harry Potter books in light of The Half-Blood Prince I did not expect to find the overwhelming skepticism of government that seeps through Rowling�s work. Of course, the ability to entertain first and foremost, while providing other levels of discourse is the hallmark of great and thoughtful literature, and The Half-Blood Prince is both."
Pretty clearly favorable to the pro-libertarian side.
You know, I can't comment too much on the books themselves, because
I haven't read them. But, as far as them being anti-authoritarian,
I gotta say, I can't think of any pro-authority popular
literature.
|11.14.05 @ 8:25PM|#
Not only is it a world run by bureaucrats, but the
bureaucrats don't feel the slightest obligation to obey the rules
they impose on everyone else.
And you see a pro-authority message in that?
You DO understand that the series derives much of its drama from
pitting Harry & Co. against said bureaucracy? You DO know that
Harry Potter books are not called "The Cornelius Fudge Books?" And
you DO understand we are supposed to sympathize with the titular
character?
Read the fifth book.
|11.14.05 @ 8:37PM|#
Pretty clearly favorable to the pro-libertarian
side.
OK, my bad.
But, as far as them being anti-authoritarian, I gotta say, I
can't think of any pro-authority popular literature.
Really? That feels like every newspaper, magazine, and cereal box I
pick up these days.
|11.14.05 @ 8:43PM|#
"Not only is it a world run by bureaucrats, but the bureaucrats
don't feel the slightest obligation to obey the rules they impose
on everyone else."
Warren, the bureaucracy is demonstrated to be, alternately, corrupt
and incompetant.
The depiction of the Muggle PM in "Half Blood Prince," on the
other, is really something.
|11.14.05 @ 8:44PM|#
I was going to simply point out the fact that Benjamin Barton
doesn't seem to have done more than skim the book series if he
seriously believes that the media, The Daily Prophet, is being
controlled by the Ministry of Magic.
The Daily Prophet, like the MSM, is just another self serving
institution that pursues its own agenda of maximizing readership.
In Goblet of Fire the primary target of ridicule was the Ministry
itself, based on its failures at the Quidditch World Cup. In Order
of the Phoenix, the target of ridicule was Harry Potter due to his
insistance that Voldemort had returned. Not much different than the
Editorial Page of the NYT, depending on which party is in
power.
|11.14.05 @ 8:53PM|#
Master Potter: why are you so down on government?
(For the uninitiated, this is the liberal version of "Why do you
hate America...")
jimmy|11.14.05 @ 9:35PM|#
yes, but harry also wants to be an auror when he grows up (some
sort of law enforcement figure), and he's a member of a secret
vigilante organization (the order of the phoenix) that if anything
wants even more govt oppression against unorthodoxy (voldemort and
his followers). but he and his friends are themselves constantly
violating both school rules and wizard law. he is not really
anti-govt, just against the particularly inept/corrupt current
magic govt.
just saying. the books do charmingly poke fun at bureaucracy, but
are they ultimately libertarian? one could make just as strong a
case that harry has neo-fascist tendencies.
|11.14.05 @ 10:00PM|#
A. Potter's desire to be an Auror has greatly soured and he
makes it clear that he won't betry his principles in order to gain
the job. B. You call people who murder and torture for fun and
profit "unorthodoxy"? C. The essay does a good job of showing that
Potter may have once been seeking good govt. but he now has lost
faith in any govt.
BTW, since I am the official Harry Potter expert of the Libertarian
Party, I should post my own essay on the topic:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040708080430/www.lp.org/lpnews/0309/harrypotter.html
|11.14.05 @ 10:47PM|#
Not only is it a world run by bureaucrats, but the
bureaucrats don't feel the slightest obligation to obey the rules
they impose on everyone else.
Wait... I thought Harry Potter was fantasy?!
|11.14.05 @ 10:51PM|#
As I was reading The Order Of The Phoenix to my kid, I
remember thinking that the character of Dolores Umbridge was the
kind of villain that Ayn Rand might have come up with.
And something tells me that Dumbledore may have tried some
"interstate commerce" at some point.
|11.14.05 @ 10:54PM|#
Oh, and the Black house was obviously meant to symbolize Waco
and the goblins are the jews and..
Ok, maybe one can read too much into this.
t. rev|11.14.05 @ 11:02PM|#
I can't think of any pro-authority popular
literature.
What about the Bible?
|11.14.05 @ 11:19PM|#
Sometimes, just sometimes, I feel like we try too hard to find semi-serious political and economic meaning in these sorts of places.
nikki|11.14.05 @ 11:52PM|#
the books mention a lot of beneficial things the ministry does as well, such as regulating cauldrins & etc. in the most recent book arthur weasley has what's represented to be an essential job at the ministry, that of protecting consumers against fraudulent magicial protections... isn't that very pro-FDA? the books may be conservative, but they're not really libertarian.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.15.05 @ 12:24AM|#
Julian Sanchez imagined Eichmann at Hogwarts
Say not more, I'm howling and falling out of my chair. What a
visual.
Sandy|11.15.05 @ 12:37AM|#
nikki, I always read those passages as displaying at best
officious irrelevance and at worst meddlesome mischief-making. One
cannot get a flying carpet because carpets are classified as
"Muggle Artifacts" and therefore cannot be bewitched (in typical
government logic, not noticing that brooms are very common muggle
artifacts).
I would not go so far as to suggest that Jo Rowling is libertarian,
but I also think Warren has been partaking of too much interstate
commerce if he finds them pro-authority. Note that Dumbledore's
speech at the end of the second book says something to the effect
of "We are defined much more by our choices than our abilities."
That's not a very "We are defined by SITTING DOWN and SHUTTING UP
and DOING WHAT YOU ARE TOLD" sentiment.
I would rate Ms. Rowling as somewhat more libertarian leaning than
joe but sharing his concern for the qualities of those in power
over specific limitations to that power. A libertarian would write
a constitutional rule to ensure people like Percy wouldn't attempt
to regulate interstate commerce, I mean, um, cauldron bottom
thickness, whereas Jo Rowling emphasizes the poor choices Percy
makes to become power-hungry and to choose that over his
family.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that she'd put up much with the
government coming through and heavily taxing and regulating
Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes, nor housing inspectors coming to
remove the ghoul from the Burrow's attic or the gnomes from its
garden.
Wow, I just read the above and it looks like I stay in on Saturday
nights instead of going out and socializing
with...libertarians...that I met...on the Intarweb.
[/me sighs]
Another Tim Completely|11.15.05 @ 2:08AM|#
Literature was probably too broad a term. Magazines, newspapers,
yeah, they support the status quo. Popular... novel? Pro-authority
popular novel? It seems almost definitional-- drama is Man vs.
Society, not the other way around.
I was at a loss until Tim Cavanaugh's new piece regarding the riots
in France. A Clockwork Orange may be considered
pro-authority-- but the main character is clearly
reprehensible.
The only other book I can come up with is Lord of the Rings--
Aragorn's restoration to the throne of Gondor at the end is, I
guess, a support of legitimate sovereignty.
I'd argue, btw, that the Bible may be pro-authority, but isn't
necessarily pro-government. It fosters a sense of identity
outside-- and pre-existing-- the state, granting government only a
conditional legitimacy.
|11.15.05 @ 3:41AM|#
Look, the Harry Potter books are great. Maybe they're not your
cup of tea, but they're well written children's books that also
make you think. Douglas Adams always railed against
bureaucracy (the word is even hard to spell), but that doesn't make
him a libertarian.
The British have a different relationship to government than
Americans, especially libertarian Americans. They don't seem to
hate the authority as much as they hate the incompetence. But the
fact is that everyone hates bureaucracy, even if they support a
large, centralised government.
To say the Harry Potter books speak against bureaucracy is correct,
but to equivalate that to speaking against government in general is
false.
|11.15.05 @ 8:02AM|#
And in irony-related news, I'm the same guy who was making Tolkien comparisons yesterday. Oh, well.
Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:57AM|#
Not particularly good entertainment at that.
Stretch,
To use an analogy, clearly Douglas Adams made great fun of
bureaucracy, etc. in his books (see the Vogons). That didn't mean
he was a libertarian or particularly opposed to a large dose of
government in the lives of people.
|11.15.05 @ 9:08AM|#
People whose main interest is politics are going to see "Harry
Potter" in terms of politics. To a writer like Rowling the question
isn't "What can I say about the current political system?", but
"How can I put more obstacles in my character's path?"
The Ministry of Magic has to be ineffectual and more often wrong
than not for purposes of plot and character development. Just like
Scotland Yard has to be in the Sherlock Holmes stories so we can
see what a genius Holmes is in contrast to their plodding.
|11.15.05 @ 9:46AM|#
Articles like this do a disservice to Rowling. Her writing is
entertainment for kids. The series' runaway popularity with adults
has obscured the fact that the target audience for these books is
aged somewhere between "learning long division" and "learning to
drive". I've read them, and they're pleasant, if a bit predictable.
Any book that can be read in two or three days isn't likely to
contain a load of deeper meaning.
If Harry Potter says anything about society, it says that society
is full of adults who are too lazy or ill-educated to undertake
reading a book written for adults.
Sandy|11.15.05 @ 10:09AM|#
Funny, you sound like Harold Bloom.
If Harry Potter says anything about society, it says that
society is full of adults who are too lazy or ill-educated to
undertake reading a book written for adults.
You're so right, I feel ashamed for assuming a writer is perhaps
thinking about the world she creates in something other than Make
Money Quick Like Now terms.
I'll read something adult. Were you referring to John Grisham, Tom
Clancy, or the Left Behind series? And what exactly is your take on
noesis in Clear and Present Danger?
|11.15.05 @ 10:38AM|#
What do you want me to say? You don't need me to tell you that
the authors you listed write pablum, do you? I've never read "Left
Behind", and I have only one John Grisham to my 'credit', but I
read Tom Clancy when I was an adolescent, and I would argue that
his target audience is adolescent males. It just happens that many
of them happen to be over the age of 30.
I'm not saying any adult should be ashamed to read Harry Potter.
They should be ashamed if that's *all* they read.
|11.15.05 @ 10:54AM|#
Just when I start to believe libertarians are making progress and being taken a little more seriously...
|11.15.05 @ 10:57AM|#
"If Harry Potter says anything about society, it says that
society is full of adults who are too lazy or ill-educated to
undertake reading a book written for adults."
This stinks akin to the 'kill your television' sentiment. I think
too damn hard during the day (my wife included) to come home and
read anything of substance. A few beers and an episode of CSI are
perfect for tuning out the din and shutting off. And, you know,
Harry Potter also works well.
So, to exchange an equally broad and insulting generalization. Your
lack of respect for creampuff lit is likely due to your creampuff
job.
|11.15.05 @ 11:17AM|#
"Your lack of respect for creampuff lit is likely due to your
creampuff job."
Well that's certainly an interesting logical leap. Do you want to
say something about my mother, too?
At least you're under no delusions about the quality of your
reading material, pigwiggle. We lit snobs have succeeded with you.
My work here is done.
|11.15.05 @ 1:00PM|#
"'I can't think of any pro-authority popular literature.'
"What about the Bible?"
You mean that book where the Israelites clamor for a king so they
can be just like the goyim, and the prophet Samuel warns them that
that may not be such a good idea: "This will be the manner of the
king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint
[them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and
[some] shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him
captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and [will set
them] to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his
instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will
take your daughters [to be] confectionaries, and [to be] cooks, and
[to be] bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards,
and your oliveyards, [even] the best [of them], and give [them] to
his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your
vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he
will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your
goodliest young men, and your asses, and put [them] to his work. He
will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye
shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that
day."
|11.15.05 @ 5:40PM|#
I'm not much of a Bible reader (I'm Catholic, it's against my religion :) ), but that passage is one of my favorites. From the Book of Judges, right? Good old anarcho-Judaism. Or kritarchy, whatever.
|11.15.05 @ 7:37PM|#
If Harry Potter says anything about society, it says that
society is full of adults who are too lazy or ill-educated to
undertake reading a book written for adults.
"Your lack of respect for creampuff lit is likely due to your
creampuff job."
Well that's certainly an interesting logical leap.
Resembles yours, I think.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245