About Critical Mass [dot] Writing [dot] Reviews [dot] Contact
« previous entry | return home | next entry »

July 20, 2007 [feather]
What's your allegory?

Allegorical readings of novels are often sadly telegraphic and reductive ... but at the same time, they can tell us a lot about the cultures that give rise to them. Harry Potter is a classic instance. As Daniel Nexon notes in The New Republic, Rowling's novels can be and have been allegorized every which way (witch way?):


... reactions to Harry Potter highlight the worldwide character of clashes between various forms of traditionalism and modernism. To many religious conservatives, Harry Potter represents yet another assault by the mass media, public institutions, and other manifestations of secular culture against their traditional values. In the United States, Russia, Thailand, and Australia, some Christian conservatives have condemned the books for, among other things, promoting occultism and Satanism. Harry Potter and his friends, after all, use magic and witchcraft, not only as part of their everyday lives, but also as part of their struggle against the forces of evil. Christian critics of Harry Potter argue that the Bible makes clear that all magic stems from demonic sources. By teaching children that witchcraft is acceptable and by encouraging them to play with wands and cauldrons, Harry Potter risks seducing them away from Christianity and into occult practices. It may even, the argument goes, bring them into contact with the very real demons that haunt our world. According to the American Library Association, Rowling's books were the fourth most challenged library books from 1990-2004, and the most challenged from 2000-2005.

Members of other religious movements also find fault with Harry Potter. The series is enormously popular in Indonesia, the Gulf States, and many other Islamic countries. But the Wahhabist tradition, as Peter Mandaville, assistant professor of government and politics at George Mason University, and Patrick Jackson, associate professor of international relations at American University, have noted, strongly opposes "various esoteric and mystical practices that...entered popular Islamic practice." For Wahhabists, those who practice such "heterodox" forms of Islam amount to "magicians and witches." Thus, it comes as little surprise that some Wahhabist authorities, as well as adherents to other conservative Islamic traditions, view Harry Potter as promoting paganism and undermining Islam. Although the specifics of the doctrinal objections differ from their Christian counterparts, the parallels remain striking.

[...]

The Harry Potter books lend themselves well to real-world political debates, because their plots themselves intersect with a surprising number of themes in real-world politics. The evil Voldemort and his Death Eaters, both in their organization and tactics, bear a striking resemblance to transnational terrorists. Their hatred of the impure--particularly those "mudbloods" who, despite their magical powers, lack wizarding parentage--and thirst for power genuflects in the direction of fascism, whether of the traditional or, as some might see it, the "Islamo-" variety.

[...]

For those concerned about sacrificing civil liberties and democratic values to the war on terrorism, Rowling has much to offer. Innocents frequently find themselves imprisoned in the dreadful dungeon of Azkaban, which some might read as the Potterverse's own version of Guantanamo Bay.

[...]

the global Harry Potter phenomenon has outgrown the specifics of the books. Entrenched as they now are in the public consciousness, the characters have become symbols--abstract representations rather than the specific products of Rowling's imagination. Thus, during his 2002 election campaign, for example, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende proudly embraced comparisons between himself and Daniel Radcliffe's Harry Potter to help promote his image as, according to Agence France Presse, "reliable and upright but not stuffy." But, when the Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, described Balkenende as "a mix between Harry Potter and a worthy burgher, a man in whom I detect no trace of charisma," it strained relations between the two governments. Liberals in the United States, for their part, affix bumper stickers such as "Republicans for Voldemort" and "Cheney-Voldemort '08" to their cars. Voldemort may be fast on his way to becoming a general symbol for evil.


A few years ago I saw Paul Krugman speak. He spent much of his talk discussing our vice president--by calling him "Voldemort." Thus did he assert an analogy between U.S. politics and those of the wizarding world, and thus did he also indicate that in his opinion, he who must not be named is not Voldemort, but Dick Cheney. One suspects he did not fully think through his opportunistic and cheap mapping of Rowling's imaginary world onto ours. As Hermione asserts early on, "Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself." In any case, we reveal ourselves in our allegories--in what we are willing to name, and in what we are not. In this regard, it has been recently noted, Gordon Brown bears a striking resemblance to Cornelius Fudge.

How do you read Harry Potter? And--just an aside--where do you suppose the missing horcruxes are?

Comments welcome -- but spoilers not.

posted on July 20, 2007 12:35 PM




Trackback Pings:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1283






Comments:

I lean towards some of John Granger's explanations of the books, which take notice of Ms. Rowling's own areas of university study and expertise.

Mr. Nexon himself gives us an example of your suggestion that our allegories often tell us more about ourselves than what we're discussing -- obviously those darned Christian religious folks are just like the other religious fundamentalists who cause so much trouble. "The parallels," he tells us, "remain striking."

He overlooks how many Christians also pattern themselves more or less on interpretations like Mr. Granger's, which take seriously Ms. Rowling's use of symbols straight out of medieval church tradition and history.

Posted by: Brett at July 20, 2007 8:04 PM



Brett -- you're entirely right. I discuss this in my chapter of the volumed I edited, which is one of the more sympathetic treatments of the Harry Potter commentary, I think, written by non-Christians. But Patrick Jackson and Peter Mandavelle point out in their chapter, the same kind of parallels; there are plenty of Islamic figures who also applaud the novels. But TNR wanted a short piece, and there wasn't enough space to treat this with any nuance.

Posted by: Daniel Nexon at July 21, 2007 1:44 PM



Mr. Nexon --

Let's hope someone gives you the space to expand those themes and examine them more fully. I'd be interested in reading it.

Posted by: Brett at July 21, 2007 6:27 PM



Brett - That should've been "Harry Potter controversy," but I think you figured out what I meant. As I noted, I (or, actually, Maia Gemmill and I) spend a fair amount of time in our chapter-length treatment discussing the range of reactions with the conservative Christian community and what the points of agreement/disagreement.

I can't recall if we discuss Granger's book specifically--which I found a bit problematic in some respects, but persuasive about the ways in which Potter can be read to vindicate Christian themes. But we do discuss Colson and other's defenses of the books, as well as those critics who don't even accept that Lewis and Tolkein are acceptable.

Anyway, yeah, it would be nice to be able to expand on these themes in a way that would reach a non-Christian audience. But I'm not holding my breath.

PS: Erin, thanks for the quotation and the framing comments. That's exactly the point I was trying to make; since this is completely out of my normal arena of academic work, it is nice to get an endorsement of sorts from a specialist.

Posted by: Daniel Nexon at July 21, 2007 10:51 PM





Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)