Notes on Literary uses of magic - Anarchy

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 168005

> >>lealess: 
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I wouldn't link Harry or his friends with anarchists.  If 
anything, their way of looking at the world (and I hesitate to label 
it as their politics, because I honestly don't think any of them, 
including Hermione, have thought their views through enough to be an 
actual defined political philosophy) is almost feudalistic at heart. 
(I *think* feudalism is the right word here.)

They all (and I'm including both Order members and Harry's group of 
friends here) have an intrinsic loyalty to Dumbledore that they use 
to define themselves.  That loyalty does get transferred to Harry, 
but even Harry defines himself as Dumbledore's man.  The two stand as 
one but with Harry as subservient (Dumbledore doesn't use Harry to 
define himself).

There is little to no tolerance given towards anyone who questions 
Dumbledore's or Harry's authority.  We see that in the opening of 
OotP when Harry's dormmates say whether they are for or against 
Dumbledore.  When Seamus lets his confusion be known, when he asks 
for further information in order to make a decision, he's not only 
shut down, but Ron uses the authority given to him by the "State" (or 
Hogwarts) to keep Seamus down.  The overall treatment of Zach Smith 
in OotP and HBP is another example of Harry and his friends 
reluctance to share information, and their resentment of those who 
question.

> >>bboyminn:
> > <snip>
> > 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.
> > <snip>

> >>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.
> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree. Really, Harry and friends weren't going up against the MoM 
*because* it was the MoM.  They opposed it because it first opposed 
Dumbledore.  They follow Dumbledore's "rules", and they understand 
that Dumbledore's authority trumps the authority of the MoM.  If the 
two powers come into conflict, they go with Dumbledore.  They're not 
about the individual, they're about absolute and unquestioning 
loyalty to their Man.    

Honestly, the closest group within the books that I'd link to 
Anarchists are the Death Eaters.  I mean, they're *not*.  But they 
started out as a group working against the oppressive authority of 
the MoM.  Or that's how Voldemort spun the literature anyway.  And 
I'm betting that's how he won so many young people to his side.  (Oh 
gosh!  This gives even *more* support to punkrock!Snape!  I can 
*totally* see a frustrated and angry young!Snape being all "Anarchy 
in the UK!" as he joins up with the Death Eaters. <g>)

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Harry and the gang disregard the rules when the rules have an
> absolute need to be disregarded. They follow a higher moral purpose.
> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The thing is though, I have a hard time linking individualism with 
Harry.  He *doesn't* like people to question him.  He doesn't like 
people to question Dumbledore.  And he does expect absolute, 
unswavering loyalty to himself and his (or Dumbledore's) cause.  And 
while Dumbledore is a bit more witty and a lot less capslocky about 
it, he's pretty much the same way.  "Because I said so" is kind of 
Dumbledore's modus operandi, and his people can be very violent 
against those that ask why.

Harry and his friends don't dislike authority.  They dislike non-
Dumbledore authority.  Gosh, they don't even dislike cronyism 
(something I'd bet anarchists have a real problem with) as long as 
it's their cronies getting ahead.  It's not that they're following 
a "higher moral purpose".  They're following Dumbledore.  (All 
wizards are equal; Dumbledore is more equal than others. <eg and with 
apologies to Orwell>)

Betsy Hp