Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy
Social Science Research Network ^ | BENJAMIN BARTON

Posted on 11/14/2005 4:30:58 PM PST by JTN

Abstract: This Essay examines what the Harry Potter series (and particularly the most recent book, The Half-Blood Prince) tells us about government and bureaucracy. There are two short answers. The first is that Rowling presents a government (The Ministry of Magic) that is 100% bureaucracy. There is no discernable executive or legislative branch, and no elections. There is a modified judicial function, but it appears to be completely dominated by the bureaucracy, and certainly does not serve as an independent check on governmental excess.

Second, government is controlled by and for the benefit of the self-interested bureaucrat. The most cold-blooded public choice theorist could not present a bleaker portrait of a government captured by special interests and motivated solely by a desire to increase bureaucratic power and influence. Consider this partial list of government activities: a) torturing children for lying; b) utilizing a prison designed and staffed specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; c) placing citizens in that prison without a hearing; d) allows the death penalty without a trial; e) allowing the powerful, rich or famous to control policy and practice; f) selective prosecution (the powerful go unpunished and the unpopular face trumped-up charges); g) conducting criminal trials without independent defense counsel; h) using truth serum to force confessions; i) maintaining constant surveillance over all citizens; j) allowing no elections whatsoever and no democratic lawmaking process; k) controlling the press.

This partial list of activities brings home just how bleak Rowling's portrait of government is. The critique is even more devastating because the governmental actors and actions in the book look and feel so authentic and familiar. Cornelius Fudge, the original Minister of Magic, perfectly fits our notion of a bumbling politician just trying to hang onto his job. Delores Umbridge is the classic small-minded bureaucrat who only cares about rules, discipline, and her own power. Rufus Scrimgeour is a George Bush-like war leader, inspiring confidence through his steely resolve. The Ministry itself is made up of various sub-ministries with goofy names (e.g., The Goblin Liaison Office or the Ludicrous Patents Office) enforcing silly sounding regulations (e.g., The Decree for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans or The Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery). These descriptions of government jibe with our own sarcastic views of bureaucracy and bureaucrats: bureaucrats tend to be amusing characters that propagate and enforce laws of limited utility with unwieldy names. When you combine the light-hearted satire with the above list of government activities, however, Rowling's critique of government becomes substantially darker and more powerful.

Furthermore, Rowling eliminates many of the progressive defenses of bureaucracy. The most obvious omission is the elimination of the democratic defense. The first line of attack against public choice theory is always that bureaucrats must answer to elected officials, who must in turn answer to the voters. Rowling eliminates this defense by presenting a wholly unelected government.

A second line of defense is the public-minded bureaucrat. Some theorists argue that the public choice critique ignores what government officials are really like. They are not greedy, self-interested budget-maximizers. Instead, they are decent and publicly oriented. Rowling parries this defense by her presentation of successful bureaucrats (who clearly fit the public choice model) and unsuccessful bureaucrats. Harry's best friend's Dad, Arthur Weasley is a well-meaning government employee. He is described as stuck in a dead end job, in the least respected part of the government, in the worst office in the building. In Rowling's world governmental virtue is disrespected and punished.

Lastly, Rowling even eliminates the free press as a check on government power. The wizarding newspaper, The Daily Prophet, is depicted as a puppet to the whims of Ministry of Magic. I end the piece with some speculation about how Rowling came to her bleak vision of government, and the greater societal effects it might have. Speculating about the effects of Rowling's portrait of government is obviously dangerous, but it seems likely that we will see a continuing uptick in distrust of government and libertarianism as the Harry Potter generation reaches adulthood.


TOPICS: Books/Literature; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: beauracracy; harrypotter; libertarian; libertarianism
This is just the abstract. Follow the link and scroll down to find links to the full essay.
1 posted on 11/14/2005 4:31:00 PM PST by JTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Ping


2 posted on 11/14/2005 4:31:22 PM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JTN
Lastly, Rowling even eliminates the free press as a check on government power.

And that the real truth was printed in the wizarding world's version of the "Enquirer". LOL

3 posted on 11/14/2005 4:34:16 PM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JTN

What a waste of intellect.


4 posted on 11/14/2005 4:35:17 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Sins can be forgiven but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JTN
It can't hold a candle to the biting sarcasm about government that was the Ministry of Silly Walks.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

5 posted on 11/14/2005 4:41:49 PM PST by WilliamWallace1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamWallace1999

Bloody peasant.

6 posted on 11/14/2005 5:01:56 PM PST by LongElegantLegs (Yarn-ho.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
What a waste of intellect.

How so?

7 posted on 11/14/2005 5:10:18 PM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JTN
A fiction writer creates a fictitious government and we debate the relative merits based on the nationality of the writer and her potential biases related to the construct? Debate real world issues and come up with real world solutions. We can use all the intellect we can muster to just survive in a time where terrorism and liberalism/socialism is rampant and threatens us all. Don't waste time in this forum (News/Activism) on serendipitous pursuits. Put it where it belongs.
8 posted on 11/14/2005 6:49:46 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Sins can be forgiven but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pippin

Harry potter ping.!


9 posted on 11/14/2005 6:53:58 PM PST by EmilyGeiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged

survive in a time where terrorism and liberalism/socialism is rampant......


we need intellect, true but we also need to be able to have time to relax and enjoy life's day to day things as well. If we don't we will all go mad. I don't have a problem with the post.


10 posted on 11/14/2005 7:03:57 PM PST by EmilyGeiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger
I end the piece with some speculation about how Rowling came to her bleak vision of government, and the greater societal effects it might have. Speculating about the effects of Rowling's portrait of government is obviously dangerous, but it seems likely that we will see a continuing uptick in distrust of government and libertarianism as the Harry Potter generation reaches adulthood.

You call this entertainment? This form of conjecture is junk science of the worst sort. I read Rowling for entertainment and I understand the difference between fiction and reality. Young minds need fiction to stir their imaginations not as a basis for making real-world decisions. The treatise would imply that Rowlings has some sinister intent that is ensnaring our children. Rubbish!!

11 posted on 11/14/2005 7:16:10 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Sins can be forgiven but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EmilyGeiger

Thanks for the ping, Emily!


12 posted on 11/15/2005 3:10:59 AM PST by Pippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ben Mugged
Don't waste time in this forum (News/Activism) on serendipitous pursuits.

The author of this essay believes that the Harry Potter series is going to have a profound effect on the political philosophy of the upcoming generation. In fact, he states that, "Rowling may do more for libertarianism than anyone since John Stuart Mill." That seems pretty damn important to me.

The treatise would imply that Rowlings has some sinister intent that is ensnaring our children. Rubbish!!

That's right. What you just said about the article is rubbish. Read the whole thing and you'll see that.

13 posted on 11/15/2005 7:23:06 PM PST by JTN ("We must win the War on Drugs by 2003." - Dennis Hastert, Feb. 25 1999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JTN

My criticism was for the author, not the poster. Now, having heard from the definitive source, I can rest.


14 posted on 11/15/2005 8:39:00 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Sins can be forgiven but stupid is forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson