Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 167983

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
>
> <snip> 
> 
> In Harry, I see the idealism of youth. His demand is that
> the men in government and the people controlling the Press
> are and do what they have sworn to do. He, like me, is 
> holding them accountable to the founding concepts and 
> duties of their office. He, like me, supports the 
> wizarding government in concept, but is thoroughly 
> disappointed with the practical execution of that 
> government by those currently in charge.
> 
> In that sense, I agree, Harry and friends are 'reactionary'
> not anarchists. They are reacting to the specifics of 
> this administration, not rebelling against the concept of
> government in general.

Trying to keep this to the books in general, I agree that Harry
demands that the government listen to the truth, for example, about
his use of magic outside school and about Voldemort's return.  Beyond
that, is there any evidence that Harry supports the wizarding
government or the concept of a wizarding government, or even thinks
about it at all?

And yes, in general, an anarchist would want to live without the
oppression of a state (not necessarily without a government, although
some anarchists do advocate that), in self-determination and voluntary
cooperation with others.
 
> The anarchist aspect is also tied to the idealism of youth.
> They see that rules are not absolute. Because government
> can become corrupt, the rules made by those governments
> can become corrupt. Even on a smaller scale, they see
> that the morally right thing overrides the legally right
> thing to do. All law and rules address general and broad
> circumstances, but sometime the specifics overrule the 
> general, and then the right thing to do is to disregard
> the rules.
> 
> So, in the sense, that Harry and the gang do not see rules
> as absolute and immutable, that their is a higher moral 
> cause than 'doing what your told', there is an element of 
> anarchism in them.
> 
> Though I certainly suspect all this is happening on an
> subconscious and instinctive level.

I guess the point I have been trying to make is that anyone, not just
anarchists, can object to the actions of government and participate in
redirecting or opposing those actions.  Look at the Civil Rights
Movement in the United States, for example.  How many of its youthful
participants (and not all were youthful) do you think were anarchists?
 How many of them broke the "law" to achieve their ends?  Many of them
used peaceful means to do so, as well.  What you are talking about is
civil disobedience.

And any teenager who disobeys his or her parents may see rules as
being unfair.  I don't think you would say they are necessarily
morally justified.  They are also not anarchists.

If you or Dan are defining simply taking action or disobeying rules as
being anarchist, then you are using the wrong definition.  Anarchy is
a political philosophy (actually, many of them) that addresses the
imbalance of power between the state and the individual, with the
specific intention to address that topic.  This I do not see Harry
Potter or Rowling doing, even subconsciously.

On a cruder level, in general English usage, behaving
"anarchistically" does not mean behaving without regard for rules.  It
means behaving without order.

For what it's worth!

lealess