John Granger has started an incredibly important discussion (one I hope to contribute significantly to with my forthcoming book) in his article, Harry Potter as “Shared Text:” Books and Meaning that will Define a Generation?
Since this is precisely the overarching theme of my book (how Harry Potter works as mythopoeic literature, becoming a “folktale” which is simultaneously a product of and potential shaping force in culture), I thought I’d get the discussion going here at SoG as well and take things in a slightly different direction (leaving you free to comment at both sites on different issues involved). You’ll need to rest your eyes, I think, because you need to read John’s post before mine in order to make any sense out of what I’m saying here.
We are merely at the very tip of the iceberg on this discussion, and I welcome your comments, questions, and declarations of heresy.
This is a great discussion, John. Lots of issues swirling around here.
The concept of Harry Potter as a “shared text” is a profound and important one, especially given Dan Nexon’s research on Harry Potter as global commonplace. Harry Potter, in many ways, transcends previous cultural shared-texts because of the fact that it has transcended cultural boundaries in an unprecedented way for a work of fiction. The implications of Harry Potter as a text shared, not only for Western culture, but across cultures, are potentially staggering. (Heck, if Benjamin Barton is correct about Potter’s real libertarian bent – and I think he is – my candidate might even get elected!)
In any event, much of the purpose of my forthcoming book is to address the issue of just how Harry Potter is both a product of and a present and future shaping force in our culture, so the idea of Harry Potter as a shared text not just for Western culture but across cultures lends some credence to the framework of my book.
The one question mark I have about the post which I think needs some further explanation is the definition of “relativism.” Let me summarize what I’m reading, and you can correct me if I’m misunderstanding: Allan Bloom, you said, exposed you all as “relativists,” people who believe that truth is relative, which manifests itself in (or is a product of?) a sort of cultural identity crisis, or at least cultural incongruity rooted in the fact that there are no shared texts.. The Great Books and now Harry Potter are remedies for this problematic relativism. Tolerance and relativism are not the same thing. It looks to me like relativism is being defined, as I said above, as Truth itself being “relative,” and that this, of necessity, does away with any concept of Evil, since absolute truth can call something evil, while relativism cannot. If I’m misunderstanding so far, let me know.
Now, several points/questions:
1. I tend to be skeptical that there really are any such things as “relativists” who genuinely believe that all truth is relative. Certainly that phrase gets passed down through pop culture, but no one actually believes it, because everyone on the face of the planet is actually against some thing or another. So I’m not entirely clear what Prof. Bloom is arguing against.
2. I’m equally unclear as to how the Great Books canon solves the problem of relativism, however he defines it. The Great Books are, indeed, great, but there are Pulitzer Prize winners that don’t make it into the Great Books. They are, after all, a cultural expression, it seems, however brilliant their artistry and however worthy they are of being eternally memorialized as “Great.”
3. As I said in #1, I don’t think there are really people who think that all truth is relative; I think there are people who believe that all perception of reality (and therefore truth) is affected by one’s cultural context, and therefore the way information/reality is perceived is “relative” from one culture to the next, from one context to the next. There is no “objective” human voice, because all discourse is social and relational, and therefore situated in the context of a particular set of beliefs about reality. The question isn’t one of whether or not there ARE good and evil; the question is, “Who gets to say?” “What’s the authority?”
That’s the conundrum Plato found himself in, even if he didn’t realize it. Plato saw “text” as problematic, because the author could not always be present to give the “AUTHOR-itative” word on the meaning of the text. The text, then, could end up in the hands of people who were stupid, and therefore misused. It’s the tension between interpretive chaos (any and all interpretations are valid; hence, the text says everything and nothing at all, and is entirely pointless) and oppression (if someone or some group has to be the authoritative voice on a text, why that group and not another, and which people/groups are being silenced and forced into subjection as a result?).
Ultimately, it’s not a tension that is easy to resolve in the least, which is why for me, the paragraph under John’s point #3 is key, because I see the tension finding profound resolution in the incarnation of Christ, the Sustainer of reality becoming one of us and communicating in a particular culture context at a particular point in history. As such, the idea that a shared text across cultures has the potential to “foster a Christian conscience into existence” is of incredible importance, and unpacking that may just be enough to keep folks like John writing for a very long time!
Thanks, John, for an excellent starting point to this discussion.
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
This is my initial reaction to the question about the link between the Great Books and moral relativism.
I Googled great books, and came upon Robert Hutchins. Hutchins was an educational philosopher, a long time President of the University of Chicago, and a proponent of the idea of using great books as an educational tool, to teach students how to think logically and analytically. In his Utopian University, students and teachers discuss the great books using Socratic debate. Wikipedia says:
‘In a discussion conducted in accordance with Socratic principles, unexamined opinions are fair game, and only reason itself is the final arbiter. Thus, any conclusions reached in such a discussion are the individual’s own, not necessarily those of a class consensus, and certainly not necessarily the teacher’s. The Great Books are a natural choice, since they are considered to be works of genius, timeless, and ever relevant to society.’
Hutchins did not hold that schools should teach what is right or wrong:
“It is not the object of a college to make its students good, because the college cannot do it; if it tries to do it, it will fail; it will weaken the agencies that should be discharging this responsibility, and it will not discharge its own responsibility.” The schools should not be in the business of teaching students what is right and just; it should be in the business of helping students make their own determinations.”
Wikipedia points out that:
‘Critics will point out that the great books do not have one answer to what justice is or isn’t. In fact, there are many contradictory answers to this question. But what some see as a weakness, Hutchins sees as a strength. Hutchins asserts that students should be exposed to these conflicting ideas so that they may weigh and balance them in their own minds, boiling down the arguments and synthesizing a view of their own. In this way, and only in this way, can students learn what justice, beauty, and good really are.’
So the point of studying great books is that they provide good material for learning and thinking about morality.
Hutchins makes another point about great books:
“A world community can only exist with world communication, which means something more than extensive shortwave facilities scattered about the globe. It means common understanding, a common tradition, common ideas and common ideals.”
What I gather from all this is that great books do not solve the problem of moral relativism. They are a good common ground from where informed discussion about what is good can be conducted.
Travis,
Are you sure this isn’t just an attempt to get free help on your book? If you use anybody’s thoughts or comments here, you’ll credit them in the book, right? Inquiring minds & lawyers want to know!
Oh wait, I’m just kidding.
I shouldn’t have any complaints anyway. I’m still overwhelmed you thought well enough of one of my posts to use it in your podcast. Looking forward to reading both John’s & your articles & hopefully having something useful to say on them.
I read John Granger’s essay with great interest. I remember reading THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND some time ago, and I would have to go back and reread it to refresh myself on all his points, but I remember purchasing the book because I thought it so very good.
But the context of shared literature is very crucial to society, and for the last half century, at least, we have been living in a time when most universities have deliberately destroyed any tradition of having all students read the great classics of western civilization. Does anyone remember the chants at Stanford some years ago of “ho, ho, ho, western civ has got to go”? The elimination of required western civ classes has been the pattern in most colleges.
All great societies have certain underlying common texts. Roman society, for example, received the Greek literary texts, to which they later added on their own poetry and history.
Christianity received this great Graeco-Roman tradition and by combining it with the Biblical texts, created western civilization, transferring the center of technical and literary creativity from the Mediterranean to Europe, as much of the Mediterranean land became overwhelmed by the Muslim dogmatism that allowed for no change from the “received word of Allah.”
I, for one, am grateful that the HP series does contain the elements of western tradition-the battle between good and evil, as found in the IndoEuropean myths and traditions, as well as elements of the Arthurian legends and particularly English attitudes, for England is in many ways an adopted motherland for the US, Canada, Australia, etc, even though many citizens of those countries are not English genetically.
And given the great gulf between parents and teens, it is with joy that I find our family of 11 can all communicate intensely about HP and the ideas found within, from our youngest, 14 to the oldest- me, at 55. Whether scientists, engineers, or linguistics, we can all share. It is funny-I have been trying to read the first book in German, as I thought it good practice to improve my German and I heard from my husband’s German relatives that they are reading the books in English, to improve their English.
Despite HP’s credentials as perhaps the one shared text of our generation, I’m sure it won’t be listed among the ‘great books’ as judged by the arbiters of what is ‘great.’
And yet, as Rehan quotes Wikipedia:
The Great Books are a natural choice, since they are considered to be works of genius, timeless, and ever relevant to society. Umpteen million readers across all continents have made their choice. Time will tell whether HP retains that level of influence.
However, it seems harder and harder to have a truly shared text. For a long time every Australian student has had to study Shakespeare. But that doesn’t mean we sit around discussing Othello. In fact our only shared text was Cliffs Notes on Hamlet!
Increasingly the only global shared text is the Bible, despite the biblical illiteracy in the west. It fits the description of Great Book: a work of genius, timeless, and ever relevant to society. People from every continent know it, it’s changing lives and societies, and whether it is acknowledged or not, it shapes our language and ways of viewing the world. And to some extent Rowling has opened up a way back into the biblical story for many in the west who had blocked their ears to it.
M. Adler, who was a friend of Hutchins, collaborated with him in the Great Books of the Western World project. He is a very interesting figure, who did believe in absolute morality, via Aristotle, and who found religion very late in life, converting to Roman Catholicism at age 98 (not willing to reject Pascal’s wager, one supposes).
Anyways, Adler identified three criteria for a Great Book: that it have contemporary and therefore timeless significance; that it be re-readable, with new meaning and insights to be found upon each re-reading, and that it have relevance to a large number of ideas and issues which people have thought about for 25 hundred years.
His most interesting idea, to me, is that of the Great Conversation.
This is a discussion and debate, spanning the centuries, concerning the ideas of greatest importance to mankind, engaged in by the Great Authors. While none of us here belongs in that august group, and while JKR is not a Great Author, I like to think that in the debates and discussions we do have we are engaging in some faint reflection of the Great Conversation.
For what it’s worth, there are many scholars convinced that Harry Potter will enter the Great Books canon. John Granger mentioned this at Prophecy 2007, and he’d probably have more info on it than I do.