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.

Comments

[Daniel Montiel]

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?

[Phil]

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]

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.

[Uncle Lumpy]

Surely you mean, "...England's leading export..."?

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

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.

[crimethink]

Yeah, just like hippies grew up to oppose drug laws and big government.

[Warren]

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]

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.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

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.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

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.

[joe]

"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.

[treefroggy]

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.

[Jim Walsh]

Master Potter: why are you so down on government?

(For the uninitiated, this is the liberal version of "Why do you hate America...")

[jimmy]

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.

[Eryk Boston]

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

[Number 6]

My nerdmeter is now pegged.

[crimethink]

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?!

[mk]

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.

[mk]

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]

I can't think of any pro-authority popular literature.

What about the Bible?

[Jason Ligon]

Sometimes, just sometimes, I feel like we try too hard to find semi-serious political and economic meaning in these sorts of places.

[nikki]

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]

Julian Sanchez imagined Eichmann at Hogwarts

Say not more, I'm howling and falling out of my chair. What a visual.

[Sandy]

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]

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.

[Stretch]

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.

[thoreau]

I agree with Jason. The books are what they are: entertainment.

[thoreau]

And in irony-related news, I'm the same guy who was making Tolkien comparisons yesterday. Oh, well.

[Hakluyt]

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.

[Mark Borok]

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.

[metalgrid]

You people are crazy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[I'm not Harold Bloom]

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]

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?

[I'm not Harold Bloom]

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.

[Turd in the punchbowl]

Just when I start to believe libertarians are making progress and being taken a little more seriously...

[pigwiggle]

"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.

[I'm not Harold Bloom]

"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.

[Seamus]

"'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."

[Stevo Darkly]

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.

[Eric the .5b]

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.

[pigwiggle]

"Resembles yours, I think."

I'm glad someone noticed.

[pigwiggle]

"Resembles yours, I think."

I'm glad someone noticed.

[Seamus]

Actually, its not from Judges, but from 1 Samuel (chapter 8, verses 11-18).