The Status Quo: Thoughts on the Flaws of the Wizarding World
ignipes wrote a marvelous essay about the Harry Potter series vs. actual subversive fantasy that alters or transcends the genre. Go and read it, for it is brilliant.
I concur with ignipes--Rowling's world is not subversive. It is a traditional battle between good and evil, with Harry on one side and Voldemort on the other. The general belief of the wizarding world is that if Voldemort was gone and the status quo restored, all would be well.
You don't get much more traditional than that. And Harry has never questioned the status quo.
However, he--and Rowling--should. The wizarding world has a lot of problems, most of which are glossed over in the text or outright ignored. I can only think of one status quo problem which is challenged...and the challenge is made to look ridiculous. And Harry doesn't even seem to recognise that flaws exist, so it's doubtful if he'll change anything in the future. Rowling's hero has no trouble fighting Voldemort, but he doesn't rock the boat in any other respect.
Here are a few things that are wrong with the wizarding world:
1. There is no wizarding legislature. Muggles have a Parliament and have representation in government. Wizards don't; they have the Ministry of Magic--a monolithic bureaucracy--instead. No one finds this remotely unusual or even remarks on it--not even the Muggleborns.
2. The Minister of Magic is not elected by wizards and witches; he is appointed. Not only do wizards not have representative government, they don't get to vote on the government they do have.
3. There is no right to trial. Under three Ministers (Crouch, Sr., Cornelius Fudge and Rufus Scrimgeour), people (Sirius Black, Rubeus Hagrid and Stan Shunpike) have been thrown into Azkaban without so much as a hearing, let alone a trial. Neither the Prophet nor the Quibbler ever remarks on this or considers it unusual; no witch or wizard protests this. The most anyone (i.e. Harry or Hermione) ever says is that it's not fair, but there is no move on the public's part to change or to fight such actions.
4. Wizarding capital punishment. There shouldn't even BE capital punishment, given the tendency to throw people who haven't been tried in jail. What makes it worse is that wizarding capital punishment is the Dementor's Kiss--in which the victim's soul is sucked out and destroyed. In a world in which the afterlife is known to exist, and in which powerful magic can arise from the love and self-sacrifice arising from a soul, this is sickening. The destruction of a soul should be far more appalling in the Potterverse than the splitting of a soul (as in the matter of Horcruxes). Yet it isn't. Everyone takes it very calmly. Harry argues in favour of the Kiss in PoA, and witnesses its effects in GoF. At no point is he horrified or traumatised. And no one, not even Hermione, ever says that the Kiss is immoral.
5. The attitude of the wizarding world toward Muggles. Basically, you have two attitudes: that of the Death Eaters, who find Muggles and Muggleborns to be hateful, and that of the rest of the wizarding world, who find Muggles to be amusing. I prefer the attitude of the Death Eaters--it's more honest.
The rest of the wizarding world tends to be rather patronising, finding Muggles slow and stupid for not grasping the fact that there are magical explanations for everyday events. This is an odd reaction to have, since any Muggle who DID figure out that there was a magical explanation or who did witness magic would be Obliviated--the memory being erased and a false one put in its place. We see it happen over and over again in the series. The Muggles who witnessed Peter's argument with Sirius and his subsequent disappearance were Obliviated. The Muggle who was providing access to the campgrounds for the Quidditch World Cup was Obliviated every five minutes or so--and never mind that the readers are told elsewhere that repeated Memory Charms can do permanent mental damage. No one ever questions the ethics of meddling with someone else's mind against his or her will; they're only Muggles, after all. They don't really count.
It's covert bigotry rather than overt, and so automatic that it's actually been built into wizarding law. Aurors, the law enforcement officials of the wizarding world, routinely Obliviate Muggles. It's part of their job.
Even among those who are curious about Muggles, such as Arthur Weasley, the curiosity seems somewhat limited by the patronising attitude. Arthur, allegedly, is fascinated by Muggles and has studied them for years. Yet...he can't pronounce the word 'electricity.' He can't figure out what plugs are for. He doesn't know how to use stamps on an envelope. He's capable of enchanting a car to fly, but he can't figure out how airplanes stay in the air.
And yet Muggles are, supposedly, his hobby.
I've known plenty of geeks who were self-taught experts on everything from quaggas to antique china. Shouldn't Arthur know this stuff?
The impression that is given is that Arthur is fascinated, but only on a superficial level. His overall attitude is one of superiority, praising Muggles for managing so well without the advantage of magic, and aren't they clever? Terribly ignorant, of course, but...
Even Dumbledore is guilty of such a superior attitude. Moreover, he terrifies the Dursleys, sending an angry letter to Petunia, warning her to "remember his last" message", and conjuring glasses of mead that he knows perfectly well Vernon, Petunia and Dudley would fear to drink (and, incidentally, letting the glasses fly at them and hit them when the Dursleys, openly terrified, refuse to grasp the glasses and drink from them). At Tom's orphanage, he gives a blank piece of paper to the matron, Mrs. Cole, and causes her to see it as information regarding Tom's admission to Hogwarts. Not only that, he makes a bottle of gin appear--presumably to get her to talk. Never mind that Mrs. Cole could most likely be fired for drinking on the job, or for being drunk on the job. Dumbledore wants information, and he doesn't much care how he gets it.
It's prejudice that doesn't even know that it IS prejudice.
And no one calls wizards on this. No Muggleborn (or halfblood raised in the Muggle world) tells a non-evil wizard to knock off the patronising attitude.
6. Slavery. Slavery of house elves is taken more or less for granted. Dobby is the only elf who craves freedom, and he's presented as being a bit of an oddball. Winky becomes an alcoholic after being given her freedom, and Kreacher is repulsed by the very idea. The notion that the house elves do not want to be free, and would actually suffer if they were freed, is an idea that was reiterated time and again in America before the Civil War: that slaves were lesser beings that could not function outside the boundaries of freedom. This is not a subversive concept; it's a reactionary one. And it's spoken by, of all people, Hagrid--another member of a minority group that isn't considered sentient or worthy of the rights of humans.
Hermione is the only one who thinks that house elves deserve freedom...and she goes about it all wrong, trying to free them against their will, just as wizards enslave them against their will. No one ever asks the elves what they want. But then, that would mean seeing them as people, with rights to their own opinions. Hermione's abolitionist campaign is played strictly for laughs.
7. Speciesism. Basically, if you're not a human in Harry Potter's world, you have no rights. Centaurs are legally beasts. So are merfolk. Yet both species can think, talk, reason, use magic and organise complex societies. We're told that the classification is, at least, the choice of the centaurs. We're never told why being classeds as animals is their best option.
Werewolves and vampires are classed as part-humans and Dark Creatures. Neither has full rights under the law; in fact, discriminatory laws are in place to prevent the hiring of werewolves. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone in the Ministry that if werewolves were less hated (and less desperate for food and money), they might not turn to Voldemort as their best option.
And am I the only one who wonders WHY the goblins rebelled so often in wizarding history? Or what they were rebelling against?
It's a jelly-jar society, with wizards as the layer of jelly on top and every other segment of society lower and lesser than the wizards.
No one questions this, least of all Harry.
Now, if Rowling explored these concepts and showed that people within this world recognise their flaws, there might be a degree of subversion. But she doesn't. It's the status quo. The only flaw that is recognised in the wizarding world is Voldemort.
Voldemort is only a symptom. He is taking advantage of much that is already wrong. Unless these things are revamped and restructured after the war with Voldemort is over, the sickness will merely go ever on. And, most likely, another Dark Lord will arise to take advantage of the wizarding world's flaws. Again.
I concur with ignipes--Rowling's world is not subversive. It is a traditional battle between good and evil, with Harry on one side and Voldemort on the other. The general belief of the wizarding world is that if Voldemort was gone and the status quo restored, all would be well.
You don't get much more traditional than that. And Harry has never questioned the status quo.
However, he--and Rowling--should. The wizarding world has a lot of problems, most of which are glossed over in the text or outright ignored. I can only think of one status quo problem which is challenged...and the challenge is made to look ridiculous. And Harry doesn't even seem to recognise that flaws exist, so it's doubtful if he'll change anything in the future. Rowling's hero has no trouble fighting Voldemort, but he doesn't rock the boat in any other respect.
Here are a few things that are wrong with the wizarding world:
1. There is no wizarding legislature. Muggles have a Parliament and have representation in government. Wizards don't; they have the Ministry of Magic--a monolithic bureaucracy--instead. No one finds this remotely unusual or even remarks on it--not even the Muggleborns.
2. The Minister of Magic is not elected by wizards and witches; he is appointed. Not only do wizards not have representative government, they don't get to vote on the government they do have.
3. There is no right to trial. Under three Ministers (Crouch, Sr., Cornelius Fudge and Rufus Scrimgeour), people (Sirius Black, Rubeus Hagrid and Stan Shunpike) have been thrown into Azkaban without so much as a hearing, let alone a trial. Neither the Prophet nor the Quibbler ever remarks on this or considers it unusual; no witch or wizard protests this. The most anyone (i.e. Harry or Hermione) ever says is that it's not fair, but there is no move on the public's part to change or to fight such actions.
4. Wizarding capital punishment. There shouldn't even BE capital punishment, given the tendency to throw people who haven't been tried in jail. What makes it worse is that wizarding capital punishment is the Dementor's Kiss--in which the victim's soul is sucked out and destroyed. In a world in which the afterlife is known to exist, and in which powerful magic can arise from the love and self-sacrifice arising from a soul, this is sickening. The destruction of a soul should be far more appalling in the Potterverse than the splitting of a soul (as in the matter of Horcruxes). Yet it isn't. Everyone takes it very calmly. Harry argues in favour of the Kiss in PoA, and witnesses its effects in GoF. At no point is he horrified or traumatised. And no one, not even Hermione, ever says that the Kiss is immoral.
5. The attitude of the wizarding world toward Muggles. Basically, you have two attitudes: that of the Death Eaters, who find Muggles and Muggleborns to be hateful, and that of the rest of the wizarding world, who find Muggles to be amusing. I prefer the attitude of the Death Eaters--it's more honest.
The rest of the wizarding world tends to be rather patronising, finding Muggles slow and stupid for not grasping the fact that there are magical explanations for everyday events. This is an odd reaction to have, since any Muggle who DID figure out that there was a magical explanation or who did witness magic would be Obliviated--the memory being erased and a false one put in its place. We see it happen over and over again in the series. The Muggles who witnessed Peter's argument with Sirius and his subsequent disappearance were Obliviated. The Muggle who was providing access to the campgrounds for the Quidditch World Cup was Obliviated every five minutes or so--and never mind that the readers are told elsewhere that repeated Memory Charms can do permanent mental damage. No one ever questions the ethics of meddling with someone else's mind against his or her will; they're only Muggles, after all. They don't really count.
It's covert bigotry rather than overt, and so automatic that it's actually been built into wizarding law. Aurors, the law enforcement officials of the wizarding world, routinely Obliviate Muggles. It's part of their job.
Even among those who are curious about Muggles, such as Arthur Weasley, the curiosity seems somewhat limited by the patronising attitude. Arthur, allegedly, is fascinated by Muggles and has studied them for years. Yet...he can't pronounce the word 'electricity.' He can't figure out what plugs are for. He doesn't know how to use stamps on an envelope. He's capable of enchanting a car to fly, but he can't figure out how airplanes stay in the air.
And yet Muggles are, supposedly, his hobby.
I've known plenty of geeks who were self-taught experts on everything from quaggas to antique china. Shouldn't Arthur know this stuff?
The impression that is given is that Arthur is fascinated, but only on a superficial level. His overall attitude is one of superiority, praising Muggles for managing so well without the advantage of magic, and aren't they clever? Terribly ignorant, of course, but...
Even Dumbledore is guilty of such a superior attitude. Moreover, he terrifies the Dursleys, sending an angry letter to Petunia, warning her to "remember his last" message", and conjuring glasses of mead that he knows perfectly well Vernon, Petunia and Dudley would fear to drink (and, incidentally, letting the glasses fly at them and hit them when the Dursleys, openly terrified, refuse to grasp the glasses and drink from them). At Tom's orphanage, he gives a blank piece of paper to the matron, Mrs. Cole, and causes her to see it as information regarding Tom's admission to Hogwarts. Not only that, he makes a bottle of gin appear--presumably to get her to talk. Never mind that Mrs. Cole could most likely be fired for drinking on the job, or for being drunk on the job. Dumbledore wants information, and he doesn't much care how he gets it.
It's prejudice that doesn't even know that it IS prejudice.
And no one calls wizards on this. No Muggleborn (or halfblood raised in the Muggle world) tells a non-evil wizard to knock off the patronising attitude.
6. Slavery. Slavery of house elves is taken more or less for granted. Dobby is the only elf who craves freedom, and he's presented as being a bit of an oddball. Winky becomes an alcoholic after being given her freedom, and Kreacher is repulsed by the very idea. The notion that the house elves do not want to be free, and would actually suffer if they were freed, is an idea that was reiterated time and again in America before the Civil War: that slaves were lesser beings that could not function outside the boundaries of freedom. This is not a subversive concept; it's a reactionary one. And it's spoken by, of all people, Hagrid--another member of a minority group that isn't considered sentient or worthy of the rights of humans.
Hermione is the only one who thinks that house elves deserve freedom...and she goes about it all wrong, trying to free them against their will, just as wizards enslave them against their will. No one ever asks the elves what they want. But then, that would mean seeing them as people, with rights to their own opinions. Hermione's abolitionist campaign is played strictly for laughs.
7. Speciesism. Basically, if you're not a human in Harry Potter's world, you have no rights. Centaurs are legally beasts. So are merfolk. Yet both species can think, talk, reason, use magic and organise complex societies. We're told that the classification is, at least, the choice of the centaurs. We're never told why being classeds as animals is their best option.
Werewolves and vampires are classed as part-humans and Dark Creatures. Neither has full rights under the law; in fact, discriminatory laws are in place to prevent the hiring of werewolves. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone in the Ministry that if werewolves were less hated (and less desperate for food and money), they might not turn to Voldemort as their best option.
And am I the only one who wonders WHY the goblins rebelled so often in wizarding history? Or what they were rebelling against?
It's a jelly-jar society, with wizards as the layer of jelly on top and every other segment of society lower and lesser than the wizards.
No one questions this, least of all Harry.
Now, if Rowling explored these concepts and showed that people within this world recognise their flaws, there might be a degree of subversion. But she doesn't. It's the status quo. The only flaw that is recognised in the wizarding world is Voldemort.
Voldemort is only a symptom. He is taking advantage of much that is already wrong. Unless these things are revamped and restructured after the war with Voldemort is over, the sickness will merely go ever on. And, most likely, another Dark Lord will arise to take advantage of the wizarding world's flaws. Again.