Notes on Literary uses of magic - Anarchy

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 168003

---  "lealess" <lealess at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Steve" <bboyminn@> 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. ...
> > 
> > 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.

> lealess:
> 
> Trying to keep this to the books in general, I agree
> that Harry demands that the government listen to the
> truth, ...  Beyond that, is there any evidence that 
> Harry supports the wizarding government or the concept
> of... government, or even thinks about it at all?
> 

bboyminn:

Interesting discussion, but also getting difficult to 
keep on topic. True we don't see evidence that Harry
supports government in general, but we also see no 
evidence that he doesn't. Ron's Dad works for the
government without Harry's opposition. Harry himself
is interested in a career in government (an Auror) 
after Hogwarts. I think his lack of opposition to 
government in general indicates his defacto support.

Very few people believe it is possible to live without
a controlling government. Anarchists may think that it
would be much better if we all cooperated and did our
own thing. Well, the 'do your own thing' part would
work out nicely, it's the 'cooperate' part that would be
a dismal failure. Even in our controlled society, the
greatest problem is that people don't cooperate when it
comes to fundamental and basic rules of behavior. 


> > bboyminn: 
> > The anarchist aspect is also tied to the idealism of
> > youth. They see that rules are not absolute. ...
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > ...

> lealess:
> 
> 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 ..., 
> for example.  ...
> 
> 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.
> 

bboyminn:

Yes, but let us not lose sight of the moral aspect. Harry
and the gang disregard the rules when the rules have an
absolute need to be disregarded. They follow a higher 
moral purpose. 

When a kid disobeys his parents, it's usually not to 
pursue some higher moral purpose, it simply because they
don't like the restrictions they have been given. In
most cases Harry is not a bratty kid who isn't getting 
his way. He does TRY to obey the rules, thereby implying 
that he understands the general need for rules. But when
lives are at stake and the rules have lost their moral 
focus, then it is time to act and the rules be damned.

That is not true anarchism, but it reflects an anarchistic
like tendency. Government wants all citizens to conform, 
to follow the rules blindly and obediently, yet many 
citizens feel that there are times when breaking the rule
is the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do. This is true of the
"Freedom Marchers" in the Civil Right era. Though they
were not really violating the foundation of our 
Democracy. They were violating petty and arbitrary local
rules that existed against the Founding Principles and
against the legally defined doctrines and laws of liberty.

Yes, they were arrested, but they were arrested by 
corrupt government that had created and selectively 
enforced a set of unconstitutional laws. 

So, I'm not saying that in understanding that rule sometimes
need to be broken, that Harry is a absolute anarchist, only
that he is displaying anarchistic tendencies. Overal, he is
'reacting' to individuals, not rebelling against the concept
of government in general. 

In concept I think we agree, we just have a slightly
different application of concepts and definitions.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn