It Seems Sometimes a Surface Reading is Sufficient

[annoni_no]

A recent paper published in Journal of Applied Social Psychology found that reader identification with with the main character of Harry Potter (and disidentification with Voldemort) positively correlated with reduced bias toward stigmatized minorities in real life.  Researchers found this Harry Potter effect was significant even after controlling

Comments

[forsnape]

In addition, Harry and his friends interact with various sub-human species such as elves and goblins, ...Harry “tries to understand them and appreciate their difficulties,”

-not when Harry cast the unforgivable curse on an innocent old goblin in book7

I think a very interesting part of the book is that its characters often say something wise but at the same time act the other way. A typical example is Sirius' 'the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters...' quote and his attitude towards Snape.

Ah,how I love the hypocrisy in this book!

[oneandthetruth]

Don't forget that the researchers refer to elves and goblins as "sub-human," not "non-human." So they bought the bigotry in the series that says those sapient beings, with their own language and culture, are inferior to humans. But hey, elves and goblins aren't real, so it's not as if that prejudice would extend to real life, right?

[annoni_no]

The only people who used, and allowed the use of, the term "sub-humans" were the writers and editors at Pacific Standard. The closest the original researchers came was this passage providing context for the novels:

The world of Harry Potter is characterized by strict social hierarchies and resulting prejudices, with obvious parallels with our society. First of all, people without magic powers are profoundly discriminated [against] in the “wizarding world.” Another stigmatized category is that of “half-blood” or “mud-blood,” wizards and witches born from families where only one parent has magical abilities. Other examples of stigmatized categories are the elves (servants and slaves of wizards), the half-giants (born from one giant parent and an “ordinary” wizard or witch), the goblins (who guard the bank of wizards). These latter categories represent creatures that are not “fully” human; They are however represented by Rowling as humanized, and can thus be easily perceived as low-status human categories. Harry has meaningful contact

[oneandthetruth]

Oh, okay. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that.

[oneandthetruth]

So I guess the mistake Snape made is that of being a cis-gendered heterosexual male. That and being the author's boggart. No doubt if he'd been gay, like Scummywhore, this person would have made excuses for him, too. For example, you can't blame a person for being bitter, twisted, and hateful (Snape), or sneaky, backstabbing, and manipulative (Scummy), when they've had to hide and be ashamed of who they really are their whole lives. That kind of oppression can twist one's character, and sometimes one just can't stand the pain, so one lashes out, even against innocent children. How's that for a Snapish rationalization

[vermouth1991]

I've decided that my words had been a bit too harsh even though I mentioned no real names (or real usernames), therefore I shall be deleting my original post and reposting it here, sorry for the inconvenience. (@oneandthetruth's reply still applies, though

[oryx_leucoryx]

They didn't ask about identification with other characters, only Harry (among young readers) and Harry vs Voldemort for older readers. I wonder about the attitudes of readers who identify with other characters. Especially Severus and Draco, each with their own fandoms for assorted reasons.

[oneandthetruth]

Good points. I'd like to know that as well.

[annoni_no]

They asked about Harry vs Voldemort for all age groups. No age group was asked about identification with any character besides those two. The one consistent finding across all age groups was that there was no correlation between identifying with one and NOT identifying with the other (e.g. there were always a number of people who identified equally with Harry and Voldemort.

I'd agree that the narrowness of their study is one of its weaknesses, though it does support prior research and points toward potentially fruitful ways to reduce bigotry going forward.

[nx74defiant]

For six weeks, they met weekly with a researcher in groups of five or six to discuss selected passages from the Harry Potter books. Half of the kids read, and talked about, sections that dealt directly with prejudice; the others focused on sections that discussed unrelated topics.

I'd be interested in knowing what sections that dealt with prejudice the researcher picked. The ones that put Harry in a positive light? Did they touch on the anything that would show Harry in a negative light? Did the researcher get involve with the discussions?

A final study used a different age group (college students) in a different country (England) and assessed attitudes toward a different minority group (refugees). The results were also a bit different, as identification with Harry was not linked with lower levels of prejudice. (The researchers point out that Harry is less likely to be an effective role model to this older audience.)Perhaps the college students saw past the superficial reading and realized the negative side of Harry. So who was an

[annoni_no]

The only participants that were involved in discussions were the fifth graders from the first study, which were lead by the researchers. The paper didn't specify which passages were chosen.

[maidofkent]

The only participants that were involved in discussions were the fifth graders from the first study, which were lead by the researchers.

It would be interesting to know how much the discussions helped the children in changing their viewpoints, as opposed to simply reading the passages. I don't think that's negating the study, because it shows that the books can lead into helpful discussions with an adult, and make it easier to present non-bigoted points of view. As you say, it is good to see a positive outcome from reading HP. It is also a positive that while the books overtly deal with a racial-type prejudice, tolerance towards a minority group not overtly discussed in the books (homosexuals) also increased.

It does however sound a narrow study. Just reading selected passages wouldn't deal with a main problem of the books, which is that while bigotry is clearly presented as a Bad Thing, the over-riding impression given is that bigotry is the property of certain individuals and groups.

[wolf_willow31]

"The only participants that were involved in discussions ... were lead by the researchers."

If you "lead" the discussions you will get the answer that you want, even if you think that you're being neutral. Your subconscious attitudes show through to and influence the participant. That's why they go to the expense of using double-blind techniques in everything from medical research to police line-ups.

The results of this study are meaningless.