Hog’s Head PubCast #19: Racism in Harry Potter, Part Two

Another fantastic and VERY insightful Podcast Travis. I didn’t look at racism in the HP world like that before! Just another example of the post-modern messages that JK has put into the series.

I think you are exactly right, Travis, when talking about wizards’ racism toward other magical creatures, and how Dumbledore tries to solve this problem. But I still think Rowling is sending a very mixed message about race and racism in these books. Why? Because of the way she (or more correctly, her characters) treat Muggles.

I’m thinking, again, of the argument I was having with Seriously_Black, and the example he gave of his friends’ little girl and her skill in archery. That was an extremely poor example of the sort of gulf we see between a Muggleborn wizard and her parents, and Wizards and Muggles generally. In Rowling’s universe, a Muggleborn child who found she could do magic would (initially, at least) be told she shouldn’t tell stories; there is no magic; it isn’t real. Young Tom was apparently told he was insane. And Harry, in his third year, learns about the Muggles’ attempts to burn witches in the Middle Ages. Further, we have the example of his relatives, the Dursleys, who reject what Harry is entirely and make it absolutely clear they would rather he didn’t exist. Muggles are racist, then, in that they either deny the existence of Wizards altogether or else see them as dangerous, bad and evil – fit subjects for persecution and death. And wizards?

Their attitudes toward Muggles, generally, range from condescension to contempt to active hostility. Don’t forget Sirius Black’s aunt, who wanted to legalize Muggle-hunting! There are real- world analogies here: in Australia, Whites actually did hunt Aborigines, and the “Digger” Indians of California were also hunted by Anglos. In both cases, the whites saw themselves as fully human and the native peoples as less than animals.

You could argue that the “good guys”, like Dumbledore, don’t feel that way, but, based on the evidence we see, Dumbledore is quite as dysconsciously racist, when it comes to Muggles, as any other Wizard. No, he may not want them hurt, but he does not bother to dress in Muggle clothing when dealing with them, never so much as speaks to Petunia after Lily’s death (so far as we know, he simply leaves Harry on the doorstep like an unwanted parcel), and, in the interaction with Mrs. Cole, he deceives and manipulates her, gets her drunk, and then (if I’m remembering rightly), obliviates her. And Dumbledore is supposed to be the best of the good guys.

There’s more. Every Muggle we see in the books is either a cipher or nonentity (The Grangers, the family at the campground), or else genuinely contemptible. And Wizards have no qualms at all about obliviating Muggles. That’s an abuse of power, as far as I’m concerned. I woudl *hate* to be obliviated! Further, as a livejournaller pointed out to me, there are NO examples in the books so far of a happy, healthy marriage between a Witch or Wizard and a Muggle. Such marriages may exist, but Rowling has not seen fit to show us a single one. Indeed, she has not seen fit to show us a single open-minded, intelligent Muggle. And I rather resent that, since I’m a Muggle and proud of it! (Yes, I know – the Grangers are supposed to be open-minded and intelligent, but can you remember anything at all that they say or do other than quiver with fear? Otherwise, we’ve just got the Dursleys.)

Basically, the dynamic I see between Wizards and Muggles is fear – on both sides. Wizards are terrified of Muggles and also treat them with contempt; Muggles, for the most part, actually refuse to admit that Wizards exist, but it’s obvious Petunia, for one, is paralyzed by fear. No matter what is done to solve the problem of racism between magical species, the Wizarding World will remain corrupt, in my eyes, so long as it’s based on hatred and fear of Muggles. And, basically, the only Wizard I know of (among the main characters) who has *never* been shown to threaten, manipulate, or injure a Muggle, nor to make derogatory comments about Muggles, is Snape! Hard to know what to make of that!

‘If I recall, all of the Dumbledore actions that seem to be prejudiced against Muggles happened over 50 years ago”

Not really. I think it was simply appalling of Dumbledore to dump Harry on the Dursleys with nothing but a letter or two in 15 years. What did he expect would result from that? I do think Dumbledore is good, and means well (I came to love him, in spite of his failings, in HBP), but, unlike Rowling, I by no means see him as the epitome of goodness.

I also mentioned the Muggle persecutions. It’s funny that you sometimes seem to disagree with me by repeating what I said! But I do not think Muggles are capable of destroying the Wizarding World. It is Wizards who have developed techniques like “obliviate” and “imperio”, and, in Harry’s history lesson, we learn the Muggle persecutions were both comical and ineffective (except, of course, to the innocent Muggle women who were the most frequent victims – my addition). So, although your interpretation of what we’ve been given certainly makes sense, we can’t yet be sure it is right.

The fact remains that the Wizarding World, as depicted by Rowling, is actually based on racism (it is an Apartheid state) and controlled by fear. I would be happy if her series ended the way Lloyd Alexander’s did, with the elimination of magic from the world. But I’d say I’m one of *very* few who would think so. The kids, in particular, seem enthralled by the concept of magic – but I’m starting to question what it really stands for. Just my two cents!

Mary, why should magic “stand for” anything, any more than a hammer, or a gun, or quantum physics, or any other tool man uses to manipulate the world? It’s not the tool, it’s the choices of the tool user. This is one reason why I, even though a Christian, can’t see magic as evil; if it exists, God created it. Like any other part of the creation, it can be misused; and perhaps it is easier to misuse than other parts. But magic cannot stand for anything; it has no volition to use to do so.

“Nothing was evil in the beginning; even Sauron was not so.” Elrond of Rivendell.

It’s noteworthy that Rowling’s conception of magic is largely functional. It’s part talent, part technology, and part skill. It’s not particularly mystical. Moreover it operates according to rules and within defined limits. Some of the cleverer people are able to push those limits (as they do in any other field of human endeavor) but there are limits nonetheless.

In that sense it is basically similar to many other areas of human ability. Like Mathematics or Music etc. You have to have it “in the genes” to begin with, and if you do, it can be fostered and developed by appropriate education, then used in the service of good or evil like any other human ability or technology.

Nothing could be clearer than that in Rowling’s WW, it is not the magic itself that is good or evil, but the ways it is used and the people using it. Much like any other powerful human ability.

In that sense, rather than being *about* magic, the books are about privilege (because being magical sets wizards apart and gives them certain advantages), about difference and prejudice, about race and about the human condition (courage, friendship, loyalty vs ignorance, greed, betrayal). The magic largely provides the backdrop against which these various themes are thrown into relief.

That magic is about power I can accept. Sigune, whom I mentioned before, has a fascinating (now canon-shafted) story in which 9-year-old Severus (growing up in a Muggle area and smart as a whip) points out to his mother that wizards really can’t *do* anything Muggles can’t also do – the two groups of people just do the same thing in different ways. This is his initial attraction to Dark magic; it’s real power, power Muggles, and even many wizards, don’t have.

But, if good magicians restrict themselves to controlling objects, there are no good magicians in these books. (A conclusion I’ve slowly been coming to over the past three years or so – I do not like Rowling’s magical world.) Wizards of every age use spells to control and punish other wizards. Animals, which are surely not objects, are used as subjects for experiments. As Travis has pointed out in these racism posts, Wizards in general seek to control other intelligent species, such as house elves. And, where Muggles are concerned, spells like “obliviate” really do get tossed around like candy at a parade. I don’t think I’ve seen a single wizard who did NOT seek to control other beings – except, perhaps, for Luna. And that’s why I like her so much.

But other metaphors for Rowling’s magic make me very uneasy. Fantasy and imagination? Why can’t Muggles have that as well, and how does it become effective? When I really got uncomfortable, though, was when I realized (when reading Snape’s Defense class in HBP) spell-casting bore a resemblance to petitionary prayer. I cannot tell you how much I DIDN’T like that! I CAN accept magic as a metaphor for power, but if so, it strikes me as power that humans don’t need and therefore shouldn’t have. Because one of the things magic does is insulate people from the natural consequences of their actions. The Wizarding World is incredibly brutal and violent, and it is so in part because injuries are so easily mended. A kid breaks another boy’s nose, and a young witch fixes it in a second, with a simple muttered word and wave of a wand. Not in this world! To us Muggles, broken bones are serious injury. Maybe, if that were true of magicians, they would be a bit more careful and less inclined to lash out violently.

Reyhan, I’m really surprised that you see most witches and wizards as ethical in their use of power. I don’t! When I read Jodel, who said that Rowling’s wizarding world had a pretty clear morality, but no ethical sense at all, I thought for a moment and then (mentally) exclaimed: of course! THAT’s the problem that’s been bugging me so much.

Wizards, in general, strike me as mentally lazy and far too inclined to solve everyday problems that do not require the use of magic by waving wands. And, as I said before, they are casually violent, seem to think that the end justifies the means*, and are altogether too likely to pigeonhole others by the family they come from, their House in school, and – as Travis was saying in the first place – their race. The wizarding world, as Rowling depicts it, is a chaotic, hidebound, insular, and fear-ridden place. A good metaphor for our world, perhaps, but surely not an improvement on it.

* The lack of ethics in the WW might be an essay in itself. I *told* myself I’d be giving up fandom activity for lent (though I certainly didn’t succeed!), so I’m not going to be writing it anytime soon, but maybe in a month or two-

S_B, I agree that the parallel between good and evil on the one hand and the use of power on objects versus people on the other was not well thought out.

However, before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, there is a kernel of truth in there. To an agnostic like me, hurting other people without remorse is a pretty good definition of evil. The use of power to hurt others, especially but not just the helpless or the innocent, is evil.

I agree that power can be used on others to help them – by healing them, for example. But exercising power over others, even responsibly and in a well-meaning way, gets you on the slippery slope to abusing power. This is what I was trying to get at, although not very clearly.

Mary, I think that JKR has done a pretty good job of showing us a world where the exercise of power is pretty well regulated, through education, by the laws, and ultimately by people’s innate sense of right and wrong. When Harry uses the sectumsepra on Malfoy, he is himself revolted by his action. The unforgivable curses are just that – and they land you in Azkaban. The abuse of power is not acceptable.

Even in smaller matters, we can see the disapproval at using magic to thwart the rules or the principle of fairness: when Herminone confounds Ron’s opponent in the Quidditch try-outs; when Hermione thinks Harry’s given Ron some Felix Felicis; when Harry cheats his way through 6th year Potions, etc.

To me, there is a pretty well functioning system of morality at work.

I disagreee very strongly, and went into detail about this earlier on my blog. Basically, there is a huge difference between getting information from outside reading which you actually do, and which anyone can access, and using a private crib in class. Harry is using a private crib. And he is quite deliberately stealing *someone else’s* intellectual property, and failing to credit them for it. The real equivalent here isn’t Hermione reading the textbook (something she actually does, while Harry and Ron do not) or getting information from the library. No,the real equivalent is Harry and Ron copying Hermione’s homework. Except that now, instead of copying Hermione, Harry is copying the prince.

This is clearly demonstrated by two things. First, Harry deliberately lies about the book and hides it from Slughorn, willingly taking credit for improvements he hasn’t devised. Second, Harry actually *learns* nothing at all from the potions notes. If he bothered to study them and learn why they worked, that would be one thing, but he doesn’t. All he does is blindly copy techniques he could not have devised himself and does not understand. How do we know he’s learned nothing from the notes? Because, when he loses his ‘cheat sheet” in the spring, he immediately sinks down to the low mid-range in the class, where his own efforts would naturally leave him. Slughorn is puzzled by his dramatic disimprovement – another opportunity for Harry to tell the truth, which he again flubs.

So, yes, Harry cheats his way through potions. And I think we are meant to see this. If Harry were actually *learning* anything from the notes, I would be more inclined to see your point of view, but he learns nothing.

Oh, and it is Harry’s fault, as well as Snape’s, that he can’t learn from him in person. But that is another rant altogether.

Mary, from my years as a teacher, I can tell you that Snape has *all* the power in his classroom. If he chooses to make sure that a student can learn nothing from him (as he does most assiduously throughout five years of Potions with Harry), then that is that.

Harry’s confidence in Potions was never established – he’s come to dread it as hopeless and humiliating drudge. If his will to exert himself in this apparently lost cause is absent and he is over-ready to rely on a serendipity, I’m not about to argue that it’s admirable – but I do not find it at all surprising. It takes more than a few months to build someone’s confidence and engage their interest after five years of crushing hurt and hate.

When you say:

“Oh, and it is Harry’s fault, as well as Snape’s, that he can’t learn from him in person. But that is another rant altogether.”

- it sounds like nothing more than an egregious case of “blame the victim” to me. Perhaps you could afford to be a little more generous – and a little less hasty in your judgement of the victims of vile abuse?

I don’t think the discussion of bullying by teachers is complete without mentionining the sadistic Dolores Umbridge. As with Snape, I’m not sure whether her “teaching methods” are part of the plot development, or if she’s just another example of JKR showing the worst abuses of the school system. Of course I’m not sure that technically, we could call Umbridge a teacher at all: her agenda seems so clearly to not teach.

Has it occurred to anyone besides me that Hogwarts has had more than its share of incompetent, dysfunctional and downright pathological teachers? They make for entertaining reading, but don’t say much for Dumbledore’s screening techniques.

This is what makes me think the problem is systemic – and it’s JKR’s comment on the abuses inherent in the teaching profession – rather than a comment on Snape per se.

Reyhan, I think the abuses we are talking about are inherent in human nature, rather than inherent in the teaching profession per se – insofar as there are similar occurrences in many other situations were some people have or acquire power over others. A few people, given power, are apt to abuse it.

Bullying occurs in schools, but it also occurs in workplaces, in the military, in politics, in families, in cyberspace – everywhere there are humans with power. In HP, we see bullying at Hogwarts because much of the action is at Hogwarts, but we also see bullying at the Dursleys’, among the Death Eaters, at the Ministry etc etc. It goes hand in hand with Rowling’s examination of the exercise of power as one of the key themes of the series – and she uses it as a device to examine human nature.

Overall the quality of teaching at Hogwarts is actually not too bad – there are a few marginally competent teachers – and one or two bullies, but on the whole they do their best. Without wishing to malign the profession (teaching), the mix is not particularly different from what I’ve encountered in a number of real-world schools, both as a student and as a member of faculty. It’s certainly not specific to the UK, much less Hogwarts.

However, leaving aside Umbridge (who is in fact not a teacher in any sense, whatever title she may claim), Snape stands apart from the rest for the consistency, transparency and cold malice of his bullying and other systematic abuses of power.

Rowling, a former teacher herself, has some pointed things to say about Snape’s particular form of self-indulgence. It hits a nerve with her, I believe, and she uses the character of Snape to paint a portrait of some of the deepest ugliness that can be seen anywhere – the despoiling and vicious abuse of the innocent, powerless, young, dependent and unspoiled charges that are entrusted to the care of a “responsible” and “professional” adult. It is a breach of *trust* at the most base level and of the most grievous kind – and I believe that Rowling has no illusions about this.

Harry is by no means alone in suffering cruelty, neglect and abuse at the hands of Snape (though he is singled out for even more intensely vicious treatment on a number of occasions).

In the pubcasts the issues of whether JKR’s work has a racist bias, house elves and DD’s treatment of them are discussed in some depth. Most of the analysis seems spot on, but there may be a couple of points that can yet be made.

JKR’s work is brilliant and she does much to expose prejudice and deal with it. We all expect this to be one of the focal points of DH. But, perhaps, her point of view has a bias established from her background as a member of a more privileged part of the social structure in which she was raised. This is evidenced in her creating a type of creature, in the house elf, that actually enjoys and is dedicated to serving others. Of course, these books are read by many children who will reasonably be left with the sense that many of those who are (or were) enslaved actually enjoy it, in some ways, as the house elves seem to. Beyond that, we are left with the impression that they would be abused, in some sense, if they were freed and treated with full rights (except for one statistical anomaly, Dobby). House elves of this ilk would probably not be even considered by a writer who’s family or recent ancestors were enslaved. Perhaps, and hopefully, this will be resolved in DH.

These issues are also associated with DD and his role as the arbator of prejudice in the WW. It seems at this point (discoveries in DH to be seen), that he falls woefully short in his treatment of house elves at Hogwarts. Few under-privileged people would think that not wanting to shock the elves sense of self was ample justification for taking financial (and personal) advantage of the status quo. A status quo created by the actions of Wizards (assuming that Wizards made them what they are, as in the case of giants being violent). Positive actions are called for in reversing the centuries of conditioning. Active promotion of their rights is called for, a la Hermione. (Maybe they do want freedom, but the rants of one weirdo elf, is not enough to turn the tide. Maybe there is more under the surface of house elfdom.) DD as the benevolent master who is setting the stage for a change, is reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson who wrote great things about freedom but never found the right time to free his own slaves. At the end of the day, they are on the wrong side of the issue.

“I’m not bad. I’m just drawn this way.” Jessica Rabbit

Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t think JKR is racist at all. Far from it. I only point out that her privileged class bias sneaks through while she is trying to make excellent points about prejudice in general. The use of the mechanism of the happy willing slave is not a racially sensitive one, even though the purpose of it is to make good points involving prejudice. Hollywood realized that the image of the happy tap dancing slave was abhorrent years ago (but, of course there was a time when they thought it was “acceptable”). Although the fantasized house elf is a more abstract representation and very well crafted, it is the same basic idea. It is not wiped clean by writing it in such a way that they really do like being enslaved (although they are not happy about other abuses). That might even make it worse, from the point of view of literary analysis. And what of the marginalizing of Hermione’s valiant efforts to correct the injustice? Give her better tactics but keep her activism.

That leads us to DD (my favorite character, horribly portrayed in the movies since Richard Harris’s death). He is a great man, who tries to stand for all that is good and pure. He is an excellent arbiter for what is right and wrong. But, alas he is a man (as are we all), and so, as he himself admits, he makes mistakes. The keeping of slaves is one of those mistakes. The same mistake made by Thomas Jefferson, the man who penned these inspiring words;

“WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Perhaps he thought the slaves he kept were not Men. House elves are not Men.

I have read several of your other postings involving house elves. There is a lot of excellent stuff there. Thanks for many thought provoking insights. But the points made to rationalize DD’s keeping of slaves at Hogwarts are not up to your usual high standards;

“Dumbledore employs house-elves and pays them if they want it. He does not demand respect of them as their usual owners would. He does not even demand that they always speak well of him; they may call him a “barmy old codger” if they’d like. As I argued in my Ollivander essay, House-elf life at Hogwarts under Dumbledore is a transitional period toward the hope of their future freedom (a hope that I think will get some wings and take off in book 7). Dumbledore agrees with Hermione’s views about the enslavement of the house-elves; he just has a different and more sensitive way of working for their freedom.”

He pays them if they want, but accepts the financial and personal benefits of keeping them enslaved if they don’t want. And he well knows that the vast majority won’t want. This is reacting to someone else’s action (of wanting), but taking advantage of the status quo if left to his own initiative. If fact he only employs one house elf, the rest are enslaved (Winky’s status?). He benefits both personally and professionally from keeping slaves. He may not demand respect or to be well referred to by them, but many of them will inflict harm upon themselves for undertaking such disrespectful actions. I’m sure he is either dysconscious on this point or has taken some action to mitigate it but I don’t recall it being dealt with in canon. (Is this an enchantment? Perhaps DD could have broken this spell for them if it is so.) Perhaps Mr. Jefferson would have allowed his slaves to call him a “barmy old codger” as well, during their transitional period toward freedom, while he was alive. The beneficent master is still the master. Slaves and their decedents understand this all too well. The privileged are not always so sensitive to this.

I agree and believe that these issues will be resolved in DH. But they were not addressed in DD’s or TJ’s life time. They were resolved by violent conflict, in the case of American slavery and perhaps the same will be true in the WW of DH in some way, but sadly DD will not carry the banner into battle. We must depend on his surrogate, Harry, of course.

This is but one facet of the ultra-facetted epic that is the diamond of the HP series. As with any diamond it depends upon what optics you use to determine what you see within. One of the main issues on these points is that these books have a vast audience with children. Those children who read only GoF will be left with the mental image of the happy slaves living under the beneficent slave master, DD, who hopes for their better future, but accepts their enslavement and accepts his benefits therefrom and does not work vehemently against this injustice. Hopefully their developing minds will recognize this as a minor flaw in an otherwise great man and not as a good way for things to be in our world. If they read the whole series, perhaps there will be redemption for this one smudged facet of DD.

I hope so.

And now for something completely different…… Off we go into the world of total political incorrectness. Hold on, here we gooooooo……..

Some prejudices are good. Wait, wait, wait – hear me out. Good in the sense that they facilitate the preservation of the species. The prejudice against werewolves is good, in this sense. As a factually correct generality, werewolves are dangerous. Even good-hearted, well meaning Lupin forgets to take his wolfsbane potion and could have easily killed Harry and Hermione, and tried to, or at least would have bitten and infected them increasing the werewolf population and thus, the danger. Werewolves are not what they are because they have been made that way by wizards. They are infected with werewolvism by the bite of another of that ilk. They are predisposed to attack others during the full moon by the very nature of their condition. Even the best of them is dangerous. The species of wizards is fully justified to generalize that it is best to isolate and separate themselves from werewolves, in order to maximize their chances for survival as a species.

This is a dangerous line of reasoning, of course, because if one prejudice is ok perhaps prejudice in general is ok. This is just another incorrect generalization, as is the basis for the vast majority of prejudices. Open mindedness must be a two way street or it is not fully open.

Korg,

Thanks for that lycanthropy reference – I’m still learning about werewolves.

You’re right about the cure and future inclusion. Even the wolfsbane potion is not perfect at this point, as Lupin must still miss class for some reason under it’s influence.

So until such time, no dancing with werewolves under the moon light.

Well, the wolfsbane potion is only recently discovered we’re told in PoA. And Lupin still changes into a wolf but doesn’t have the psychotic urge to maim and kill.

Still need work, but a step in the right direction.

Matthew

Interesting question.

Lupin only turned into wolf form that night near the whomping willow when the moon came out. Surelt the moon was full before he saw it or before it shone on him- though it didn’t seem to effect him. And, the moon is full at all times, it’s just a question of hom much we see of it.

To answer your question…. who knows.

Matthew

Part 2)

“Um…who on earth has only read GoF? Who would read only GoF? That situation doesn’t even make sense. Order clears the whole thing up, in my opinion, and Deathly Hallows will confirm it.”

No one would reasonably read only GoF? I live with my wife and three of my children who have actually not read any of the HP books. Yes, shame on me. But there are hundreds of millions across the globe who have read not a single one. It is no far cry to think there maybe merely tens of thousands who have read but one of the books compared to the tens of millions who have read them all. But should not any book stand on its own? Yes, exposé can be used to tell us what has happened in the preceding volumes but it is a mystery what may happen in the future. We are left with the images presented.

Part 4)
“Psychological slavery means that house-elves have become what wizards have made them. After hundreds, probably thousands of years of being told what they’re place is; after having their histories and identities erased by wizards in pursuit of convenience and power – Dobbies are really rare.”

On the interesting point of psychological slavery; Psychological conditioning can not be passed on genetically. It must be taught. That means each generation is a new chance for change. I don’t know the reproductive cycles for house elves but the ~140 adult years of DD’s life must be several cycles and thus several opportunities to change things, with no real progress. But why would there be any when the only real action, that we have been made aware of, was an over-zealous, insensitive blitz by one well meaning under-aged witch. But ~140 years of compassionate action (like a Binn’s House Elf course to restore their sense of self, see part 1) by one of the leading wizards of his age, might have had some substantial effect.

Eroej Kab,
Not being rude, but with multiple posts this long it makes me really unmotivated to even start reading them.

Is it possible to condense you arguements a little?

Matthew