The Problem of Muggles

[sistermagpie]

This is sort of an elephant-standing-in-the-room topic for me in HP-fandom, but I was thinking of it today coming across yet another discussion derailed into "Hagrid/the Weasleys are not Death Eaters so stop saying they are." It made me think about the...interesting way the books deal with certain subjects, or don't deal with them after bringing them up. That is, there are definite times in the books where it's unclear if the author is showing that things aren't black and white or just being hypocritical. Often the place this really seems obvious is when people try to discuss

It's a huge topic and I have no set ideas on it, it just seems like it's sometimes hard to try to get to the bottom of it without people demanding that everything be made black and white.

The kind of arguments I'm talking about are basically any one where anyone holds up any character as an example of bigoted Wizard behavior (good or bad) and people then challenge them as that example. The examples are usually pretty well known: Hagrid gives Dudley a pig's tail, the twins trick Dudley into eating cursed toffee, the Weasleys are condescending about Muggles. Then someone else jumps in to say stop pretending the good guys are Death Eaters or stop pretending the Death Eaters are good or stop pretending it's the same at all or stop pretending the author isn't writing these things as funny. These things aren't what the author is talking about when she talks about "Muggle-baiting." It doesn't surprise me that people take sides when it comes to these incidents at all, or that people argue over whether they were funny or deserved. What does surprise me, though, is the idea that the discussion in itself is wrong, like it's inherently wanky and stupid to challenge the way any good character behaves towards a non-Wizard or could ever be bigoted.

What makes it so strange is that this subject is central to the story. The author defined her main bad guy as someone who hates Muggles and espouses ethnic cleansing in the Wizarding World to get rid of those with Muggle blood. The Death Eaters are introduced by tormenting a family of Muggles for fun. Arthur Weasley works in a department that's supposed to stop Wizards tricking Muggles by replacing their stuff with Magical stuff to annoy or frighten them. The author made up the word 'Muggle-baiting.' She created Remus Lupin and made it impossible for him to get a job because of prejudice against werewolves. She has Hermione get furious at Umbridge for being condescending to Hagrid for being a half-giant, and have parents call for Hagrid's dismissal for the same reason. Hermione spends two books ranting about SPEW. There's a statue in the MoM that mocks the condescending attitudes of Wizards towards other creatures and then gets blown up.

To me that makes it clear that the subject of how one treats people "other" than oneself is pretty central to the topic of the story. One might expect the WW to mirror complex race issues of today, but they really don't. The way the Wizards act often isn't correct based on the standards of the early 21st century--the same century the author lives in. If the Weasleys were supposed to be 19th century Abolitionists, for instance, we would expect them to champion Muggle "protection" (with no input from Muggles themselves, of course) and yet still find the idea of Muggles as equals silly and Muggle ideas a sort of "Oh, isn't it quaint the way they try to be like us and fail creatively" thing. But they're not 19th century Abolitionists. When Hagrid walks down the street with Harry in the very first book patting parking meters and loudly commenting, "See that, Harry? Things these Muggles dream up, eh?" he's a caricature of any Ugly Tourist being disrespectful and ignorant.

Rowling avoids any sort of clash on this issue. When Molly angrily says how "stupid" it would be to "mess about with Muggle remedies" and stitch one's skin together, and Ginny shakes her head and says, "Just like Dad. Stitches...I ask you..." Hermione's only response is to "fairly" say that stitches do work on non-magical wounds. One might think another Muggle would have been offended by this dismissal of Muggle Medicine and perhaps explain that Muggle medicine is pretty damned good and that taking Eye of Newt for anything to them would be just as pointless and unscientific. (In fact, that's the joke here, isn't it? That stitches to Molly and Ginny are like witch doctor rattles are to us.) All wizards seem to speak of Muggles with disdain by default with no one ever noticing.

But...what does that mean, exactly? Given that respect for people who are different is a stated theme of the books? I've heard it said that there's nothing wrong with Wizards treating Muggles as less competent because, well, they are. But are they? Muggles lack a physical ability that most Wizards have, and that's all. Plenty of people in our world lack physical abilities that others have--senses, the use of their legs, etc. Generally in this day and age it's considered rude and inaccurate to consider these people "less competent" in a general way. If a person can't see, for instance, then that's something they have to work around. They are not fundamentally weird or cute or generally inferior to sighted people. "Muggle-baiting" surely is not supposed to refer only to nice Muggles or be based on the idea that all Muggles are nice people. Yet wizards do generally seem to treat Muggles as lower beings. Certainly they relate to them as Muggles first and individuals second (if at all).

Then also, it makes sense to look at how "our" Wizards relate to other Magical creatures and there again it doesn't seem like we're reading something that really reflects this complex issue in our world today. Our band of good guys does include people of other races--Dobby is a house elf, Hagrid is a half-giant, Remus is a werewolf, Firenze is a centaur. But they are also all *outcasts* amongst their own people (if they even know those people) or identify as Wizards. None of them ever really argue the point of view that most of "their people" have. Those other races, in fact, possibly view them as...I don't know what the word for it is. It's the word that different non-white groups use to refer to someone who is of their race but is not "one of them." "[Insert color here] on the outside, white on the inside." I'm not saying that calling someone a name like that is appropriate, but it is a common feeling that has to be dealt with in race relations. [ETA: I know plenty examples of those types of words (oreo/black, apple/Native American, banana/Asian) are three that I've heard of, but I don't know if there's a word to describe what all those words are.]

When Hagrid goes to see the giants the only thing he has in common with them is some DNA. He views their culture with the same eyes as any wizard, seeing its code of physical combat as the bullying of the weak by the strong and describing the giants as innocently amazed by magic. (Not that I'm arguing with Hagrid's right to make a judgment about their culture, which doesn't sound very good to me either, but he's not an authority on how it works to an insider.) Hagrid then brings his brother home and treats him like one of his pets, teaching him to behave in a "civilized" way. In fact, Grawp seems far more feral than the other giants. Hagrid doesn't speak giant, but Grawp appears to be without speech.

Werewolves, of course, are not really a race at all. They are wizards infected with something like a disease. Fenrir Greyback is hardly a good role model for anyone, but his introduction in HBP is still important because his view is the opposite of Remus' in many ways. Fenrir is identified as a werewolf. Remus is identified as a wizard (when people call him a werewolf it's usually an insult). When he calls the werewolves his "equals" he seems to be being ironic. While Sirius tells us Remus is furious at Umbridge's even-more-restrictive laws against werewolves we never see Remus ranting about werewolf rights. He seems to completely understand the way others react to him, even telling Tonks he's "too dangerous" for her. This is all fine for Remus, but if one is discussing him as the "other" he's not all that other--especially compared to Greyback and hints of other werewolves who claim to be proud of being werewolves (I say pretend to just because Fenrir doesn't seem like a person who just has healthy self-esteem--he could be acting out of self-hatred too). Remus is the werewolf who keeps his "furry problem" away from others, and that would make him "one of the good ones." Iow, being friends with Remus require very little opening of one's mind.

The house elf question has always been fairly maddening, but who's the house elf who is Harry's friend? The one who comes without the messiness or crazy ideas that are so hard to understand. Dobby, for some reason, wants to be free, which may set him above other house elves (in fact it seems like he's just been "born human," especially since there's no explanation given as to why Dobby developed this pov--did he always have it?). The other house elves are offended at Hermione's hats. Dobby is the one to tell Harry this, but he is apologetic about it, viewing the other elves just the way we readers do, as strangely misguided creatures who don't know they're slaves. He is not in the least offended on their behalf because he shares Hermione's view that freedom is a gift. By wearing all the hats himself and cleaning the Gryffindor Tower, he not only flatters Hermione's effort but silences the protest of the house elves against her and so spares the wizards having to listen to them. Had Dobby not done the cleaning eventually the matter would be confronted.

Firenze is the "other" friend who seems to retain pride in his lineage, but still, what is Firenze doing at the school? He's teaching Divination, which seems to be considered rather sacred knowledge amongst the centaurs. On one hand we can look at Firenze as the forward-thinker who knows sharing is good, but otoh one can also see him as selling out his culture, not respecting the sacred. One could argue whether or not this is a terribly bad thing, but it's clear Firenze is not representing the pov of most centaurs here, so the Wizards haven't so much come to understanding with centaurs so much as found a centaur that understands (and will work for) them.

The other centaurs, like the other werewolves, the other house elves and the other giants, almost come out worse by comparison. The characters we know are exceptions to the rule. In fact, when it comes to most of them it still seems considered most respectful to overlook the non-Wizard part of one's nature. Hagrid hides that he's a giant, Remus hides that he's a werewolf. When Draco warns the Trio that the DEs at the QWC are "after Muggles" Harry loyally says that Hermione is a Witch, probably correctly taking Draco's calling her a Muggle as an insult. When PS/SS!Harry tells Hagrid Draco told him kids from Muggle families shouldn't go to Hogwarts Hagrid assures him "yer not from a Muggle family." He also explains the word Muggle by saying, "A Muggle...it's what we call nonmagic folk like thern. An' it's your bad luck you grew up in a family o' the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on." The second sentence makes it clear that "Muggle" is a bad thing--the Dursleys are even more Muggle than most. Remus thinks Harry and James are wonderful for speaking euphemistically about his lycanthropy. It's more when people are afraid or angry at Lupin that they call him a werewolf (as in, "Get away from me, werewolf!").

I don't have any set theory or impression about this subject in the books because, like I said, I think it's sometimes hard to find one. But the books put this whole issue front and center, so it surprises me when fandom sometimes seems to think discussions beyond "people who set Muggles on fire are bad; people who don't think they should be set on fire are good" are somehow getting it wrong or wanking or bringing an agenda to the books. This stuff *is* the agenda of the books, it's just not always dealt with consistently. Maybe it's just a case of the books being such a mishmosh of genres, like here is where Dumbledore is lecturing earnestly about how to treat other creatures, and here is where the asshole Muggles get burned because they totally can't do Magic and that's great. Obviously the books aren't meant to be taken as thinly-veiled versions of our world, but that's kind of what makes it hard not to wonder about. Like, wouldn't it be considered odd if you had a group that were known for, I don't know, pushing through all sorts of legislation on making buildings accessible to people in wheelchairs, yet dealt with rude paraplegics by booby trapping their wheelchairs? As a Muggle I would never feel like these people considered me an equal, or like I could trust they wouldn't zap me with Magic if I displeased them. It has nothing to do with them being the bad guys or being Death Eaters, it's just...are they really shown to conform to 21st century ideas in this area?

Comments

[gramarye1971]

It's the word that different non-white groups use to refer to someone who is of their race but is not "one of them."

Each race has different words for something like that, and I can't think of a one of them that isn't derogatory. Some are more insulting than others, but most tend to fall under the overall heading of 'acting white'.

Muggle has a very odd position in wizarding terminology. The standard use of Muggle seems to be just what it is: someone who isn't a witch or a wizard and wasn't born into a wizarding family. (Which is why the term 'Squib' is somewhat baffling to me: to whom should it apply? If Harry had had a older sibling who wasn't magical, would he/she be a Squib or a Muggle? But I'll set that aside for now, to ensure that this doesn't become a comment about wizarding genetics.) Tonks can mention having a Muggle father without having it sound derogatory, from what I recall. But the term Muggle also seems to have the meaning of someone who deliberately rejects magic, hates it and/or fears it -- that's what it seems to mean when used to describe the Dursleys.

But the fact that it can have that double meaning, just by using it in a different tone of voice or in a different context, makes it difficult for fic writers to know how to use the word Muggle without conveying the wrong idea. And I don't think JKR gives us much to go on for consistency here.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Each race has different words for something like that, and I can't think of a one of them that isn't derogatory. Some are more insulting than others, but most tend to fall under the overall heading of 'acting white'.

Yup, exactly. It seems like there should be a word that means all of them in general.

But the fact that it can have that double meaning, just by using it in a different tone of voice or in a different context, makes it difficult for fic writers to know how to use the word Muggle without conveying the wrong idea. And I don't think JKR gives us much to go on for consistency here

Yes. Usually it's just the word for non-Magical folk--they even use it in the "Muggle Protection Act." There doesn't seem to be any equivalent of "Mudblood" for Muggles. But at the same time sometimes it's obviously considered a bad thing because...well, they're Muggles.

I think in the first book especially she starts out with an idea that really doesn't carry through, which is the idea that Muggles are mundane, too "normal." Magic is therefore sort of associated with believing or imagination. That seems to be the way Hagrid is using it when he talks about the Dursleys, but it doesn't really carry through the series in any way.

[wordplay.livejournal.com]

This stuff *is* the agenda of the books, it's just not always dealt with consistently.

Well, and that's it. JKR really talks out of both sides of her mouth about pretty much everything. I mean, right now there's a debate going on in my LJ about Percy and his relationship with his family. And there is no way around it that Fred and George are little shits, but Jo seems to have no problem with their behavior. Molly as a mother continues to give me anxious fits, but Jo has said that the Weasleys are to represent the somewhat ideal family. Percy's behavior seems pretty reasonable to me, but he's a bad guy, so we're supposed to disapprove. And there are a lot of people (not those represented on my LJ, by the way, but just in general) who don't get how you could ever LIKE one of those characters, because hasn't Jo TOLD us he's not cool?

I'm not sure exactly what this means about the books and the fandom. I think it may be in part that maybe she has a bit of a problem with "show, don't tell". I really don't know. And she keeps doing things like this - telling us that a set of principles are important as they apply to one thing, but not really developing the themes. Before HBP I had hoped that that was kind of the point, but I don't know if she can turn it around enough in just one last book. We'll see.

(BTW, I've no idea if this is even remotely coherent. I'm having a tough time stringing ideas together lately. *sigh*)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It was coherent to me!

I don't even know if it's show don't tell because a lot of people do seem to naturally respond to the characters the way she does. I think it's like Elkins was saying recently that maybe the books are popular because the way they present things is just very popular. With Percy, for instance, and the Weasleys, it seems so obvious to me that there are things going on beneath the surface and of course Percy isn't just a bad guy who was always evil, but he makes other people really angry!

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've much to say about your main point. I do think it's a question very much worth arguing. Indeed, the fact that the whole deal about the way Muggles are treated by even "tolerant" people doesn't shock more readers is telling in itself.

I mean, this is realistic after all. Often people ready to champion some egalitarist cause in theory will be horribly patronizing to the same people ? It's a behaviour that's deeply embeded into the Western mentality, at least. You don't talk badly about those people. And of course you'll always say you're not racist. Oh, and many of your friends are (fill in blank) too.
*shrugs* but in practice ?

The biggest problem in the WW is that's basically in a state of segregation, has been so for a few centuries, and enforce that state through conspiracy and litteral mind control.

I've always been wondering where the X-files like fics where in this fandom.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I mean, this is realistic after all. Often people ready to champion some egalitarist cause in theory will be horribly patronizing to the same people ? It's a behaviour that's deeply embeded into the Western mentality, at least. You don't talk badly about those people. And of course you'll always say you're not racist. Oh, and many of your friends are (fill in blank) too.
*shrugs* but in practice ?

The biggest problem in the WW is that's basically in a state of segregation, has been so for a few centuries, and enforce that state through conspiracy and litteral mind control.

Definitely. I agree with all of that. It definitely makes it realistic--and given that the WW is basically all about hiding from Muggles you can see why they'd have all sorts of ideas about them.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a Muggle, the best attitude towards us is condescending and patronizing. There's also wholesale memory tampering to think about. It's not a 21st C attitude.

But then, Wizardng society really is closer in some aspects to 19th C (and it's more advanced in other aspects, I think.)

And honestly, if I'd been born a witch, I think I'd have those same attitudes, because Muggles can't *do* anything. They can't even cure colds! And they have to use all this kludgy things even to approximate magic. Poor dears.

(Of course, that hasn't stopped the Wizards from borrowing such things as printing presses, jeans and, oh yes. TRAINS.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a Muggle, the best attitude towards us is condescending and patronizing. There's also wholesale memory tampering to think about. It's not a 21st C attitude.

LOL! Yeah, exactly. And memory charms are from the nice ones.

(Of course, that hasn't stopped the Wizards from borrowing such things as printing presses, jeans and, oh yes. TRAINS.)

Exactly! Basically they have every Muggle thing that it wouldn't be fun to not have. They listen to wirelesses, right? Yet they don't seem to know what a wire is. And they don't have television. And nobody ever misses anything from the Muggle world. I love one story where Harry walked into a room and wished for electric lighting so that he could see into the dark corners!

[q-spade.livejournal.com]

Those other races, in fact, possibly view them as...I don't know what the word for it is. It's the word that different non-white groups use to refer to someone who is of their race but is not "one of them." "[Insert color here] on the outside, white on the inside." I'm not saying that calling someone a name like that is appropriate, but it is a common feeling that has to be dealt with in race relations.

I wonder if tokenism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism) is close to what you're looking for here – Dumbledore hires Remus, Hagrid & Firenze, thereby making Hogwarts seem more accommodating to other groups in the Wizarding world than it is. Remus is the "token" werewolf, Firenze the "token" centaur. Hagrid is a hybrid but cannot pass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing) as a wizard,so he gets "token" giant status.

Hermione is another example of the idea of passing – she overcompensates for being a despised Muggleborn by endeavoring to be the brightest and best in her studies so she can integrate with Wizarding Society, while refusing to acknowledge or call attention to her non-Wizarding roots. A Wizard Oreo (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Oreo-Cookie-%28slang%29), if you like. This has mixed results: she's accepted for the most part within Hogwarts, but is still very much in danger of bigotry outside those walls.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes! "Token" is definitely something one could use to describe all these folks. It does seem otherwise kind of convenient they just happen to be in the club.:-)

Hagrid and Remus are both trying to pass as Wizards--Hagrid can't hide his size but it's not an issue until fourth year in the series. Hermione is definitely somebody who seems to have overcompensated. It seems like it must be very lonely for her to have sort of relegated her parents to the childlike status that Muggles have for Wizards, but then have no one to replace them.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

My own take on it began surfacing in the Premature Prediction essay over on Red Hen. We may yet learn that Rowling intends to dodge the bullet on the issue - which strikes me as emotionally dishonest and moral cowardice, so I hope she doesn't - but I finally had to admit to myself that throughout the series, the Dementors function as something more than just the nebulous nasties from the devine Machine. Whether Rowling intends it or not, they function as the symbolic key for what is so profoundly *wrong* with the ww.

The wizarding world has only existed for 300 years. It's 300th aniversary was the Year of the Basilisk. Before that there were simply magical *people*, who lived out among non-magical people, and most of them had made their livelihood by *being* magical. The fallout from the Reformation had sparked off an exaggerated horror of the supernatural throughout European society and the only solution that wizards could come up with was to hide themselves, and to brainwash all of Western Civ into believing that they did not exist and had *never* existed.

In order to acomplish this, they had to forge an aliance with all the *other* magical races, and to award certain concessions or "franchises" to them. This went against the grain, and you don't really get the feeloing that wizards ever did srtrike up close associations with their magical "bretheran" although they had, perforce, to work out a degree of profesional relationships. But that wasn't the worst of it. In order to establish an overarching system of "justice" they made a pact with the Dementors to keep their populace in order.

i.e., the wizarding world was founded by Fear. It is ruled by Fear, and in isolation their fears are gradually spiraling out of control. It is perfectly obvious that no one but fully human wizards and witches are considered "real" people by the average wizarding-raised citizen of the wizarding world. In fact it is only because of the constant influx of Muggle-borns (25% of an average year's Hogwarts intake acto JKR) that the situation isn't a great deal worse, and it is clear that among purebloods, who deliberately isolate themselves from Muggle influences it *is* a great deal worse.

If the population of the ww remains constant with that of the outer Muggle society, then the wizarding population is now probably 10 times what it was at the end of the 17th century and the final word on their well-being is that of the Dementors. Until just recently everyone believed that the Dementors were under the control of the Ministry, but it is clear that they *always* had the final word themselvers, and only went along with the Ministry when it suited them. And now it no longer suits them.

But 300 years of habit makes it unlikely that anyone can think outside the box and realize that making a pact with Dementors (who, by every account are soulless and *extrordinarily* evil) was the very worst kind of foundation for a just society. Let alone figure out any way of addressing the pickle that they've gotten themselves into now, or setting up something better.

(The House Elf Issue is something related, but a bit different, The Essay entitles The Servant Problem relates to that one.)

[lotesse]

I'd forgotten that the WW was so new-formed, probably because IMO the 300 years figure makes absolutely no sense. 1600? Wizards were still integrated with Muggles in 1600? the removal of magic from the ordinary world happened in 1600? not so much.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

In fact, when it comes to most of them it still seems considered most respectful to overlook the non-Wizard part of one's nature. Hagrid hides that he's a giant, Remus hides that he's a werewolf. When Draco warns the Trio that the DEs at the QWC are "after Muggles" Harry loyally says that Hermione is a Witch, probably correctly taking Draco's calling her a Muggle as an insult.

And, when Snape gives himself a nickname, he pays homage to his wizarding side and completely ditches his Muggle antecedents. Which is seen by some as being somewhat snobby, a la Harry's take on it, someone trying to be better than they are, never mind that the name is his mother's maiden name, and he is, literally, a half-blood (Wizarding) Prince. He's also a half-blood (Muggle) Snape, but let's just not bring that up, hmm?

Yes, the Weasleys are condescending. Like the people who love to bring back African sculptures to show how 'creative' those people are. And, Hagrid did give Dudley a pig's tail, which neither Vernon nor Petunia could fix without surgery/outside help. The twins could have killed Dudley with that toffee, but it was just boys being boys, and very rambunctious and thoughtless, though not really harmful, just funny, boys at that. Dudley deserved it. He was 'one of the biggest Muggles' Hagrid ever laid eyes on, wasn't he? Maybe Dudley was pretty big. But Hagrid extended that description to scrawney Petunia as well. Reminds me of the old term 'Mug', stupid, slow, slightly underhanded in a dull sort of way. A bunch of Mugs.

Yes, this is the centerpiece of the race issue in HP. It isn't race, see Dean Thomas, Blaise Zabini, the Patil twins, Cho Chang. It's 'us' v. 'them', as all race/culture/religion things are, dehumanizing the Other, blending them all together. They all think alike, act alike, look alike. But then, don't 'We'?

Great White Bwanas, out to save the poor widdle Muggles. Not that they'd like any next door, but they do have their place. I noticed one of the twins talking in HBP about a Muggle girl in town. He does magic tricks for her, she's so amazed that it's like magic. Wonder how Mama Weasley would feel if George, I think it was, falls for her and marries her?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

And, when Snape gives himself a nickname, he pays homage to his wizarding side and completely ditches his Muggle antecedents. Which is seen by some as being somewhat snobby, a la Harry's take on it, someone trying to be better than they are, never mind that the name is his mother's maiden name, and he is, literally, a half-blood (Wizarding) Prince. He's also a half-blood (Muggle) Snape, but let's just not bring that up, hmm?

Yes!

Great White Bwanas, out to save the poor widdle Muggles. Not that they'd like any next door, but they do have their place. I noticed one of the twins talking in HBP about a Muggle girl in town. He does magic tricks for her, she's so amazed that it's like magic. Wonder how Mama Weasley would feel if George, I think it was, falls for her and marries her?

Exactly--and again the wizards have one thing that's all important: Magic. They occasionally tell stories about Muggles but they're always about their response to Magic. We've never heard of anyone having a relationship with a Muggle except for people who somehow marry them, leaving me to wonder how?

[ljash.livejournal.com]

Well. First off I should mention that I never really considered JKR to be a very good writer and I find the books interesting mostly because she's full of shit. That is, there seem to be contradictions between what she tells us is going on and what she shows us, and most of them seem to be unconscious on her part. That's why it all makes such very good fanfiction--there's tons of sublties to sort out. What if the good guys really aren't so good? Makes for great fanfic.

However.

Some of the things that makes all these examples not come together are the humor and the sense of fantasy. Sometimes she really will write something one way just 'cause it's funny, in a wry, understated sort of way (which I happen to like). Like you mentioned the joke of the stitches. But I think more often it's something like Hagrid and the parking meters: she puts that in because we are being introduced to the magical world in the same whirlwind that Harry is, and someone pointing out that parking meters are the strangest thing they ever saw suddenly gives you new eyes and makes your familiar world seem a little askew in an uncomfortable way that I really love. I thought things like that really contributed to the sense of the fantastical that came out so well in the first few books. When Harry was still being surprised, she made us surprised, too. I really liked that.

So I think some of those comments about Muggles and how strange they are come from things like that. She's trying to turn the regular world on its head. Also, I think that in the first book (and really, only the first) there was a metaphor going where Muggles were people who did the expected, ordinary thing, who didn't think for themselves, and who abhored anything that might be unseemly. People who were too proper. People who could never experience any magic in their lives of any kind. Whereas Wizards were people who dared to do things and think new thoughts and whatnot. I remember when someone I talked to was disappointed in the (fourth?) book when everyone was reading the daily paper and believing whatever it said. He was disappointed that the Wizarding world had its politics and propaganda and stupid sheep citizens, just like this world. It made the books more complicated, but it killed that old metaphor of how Wizards are the ones who see for themselves. That's why the Dursleys were more Muggle than most--they're more uptight and proper and thoughtless than most.

All these mixed metaphors make the whole thing nuts. But even without that, there's still problems. There's all the other magical races you mentioned and how they're seen. SPEW is especially a problem, and I was interested to see no mention of it whatsoever in the sixth book. Harry even gets his own house elf and orders it a few times. No mention is made of this, besides the worrying about whether Kreacher can be trusted and what he's doing to try to stab Harry in the back. But Hermione got so invovled in SPEW, and it was a baffling joke to everyone else. I kept wondering how she was going to conclude that in any kind of satisfactory way. It's possible she gave up and will not touch it again. But I wonder what she was thinking?

Oh--oh Muggle-baiting, I think the term refers to some kind of cruelty. So being condescending about Muggles or fooling them into not seeing things doesn't count. I think that what everyone does to Dudley does count, though. It kind of reminds me of the way schoolchildren will do things to each other that would bring lawsuit if adults did it to each other. It's not very good, but we'll bend the rules a little because it's Dudley, and obviously he had it coming. That's the part I find uncomfortable--Wizard or Muggle, some people just Have It Coming. But that's another story.

I don't know. It does seem like this issue is pushed to the forefront of the books, as if it were the most meaningful part. But I think maybe that's not true. She's got the racism and persecution thing going as a plot point, but I don't know if that's the same as making the issue of it central to the moral themes of the book. I still think she's morally a little off kilter, or else very careless.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! It's good to lay it out upfront.:-)

But I agree--I do think a lot of what we see is a shift in tone. Harry's getting a house elf was really surprising--who would have ever have thought that was coming in Book IV? And yet not only does Hermione say nothing about it but when Harry needs help from an elf he instinctively calls his slave rather than his friend Dobby. Hermione's saying nothing is really amazing--I guess she almost had to cut all references to SPEW completely because otherwise it would call attention to how Hermione had changed. Better to drop it completely and hope we didn't remember this has been an obsession for two years, one that was brought up relentlessly in the fourth book and for some reason carried throughout the fifth.


Oh--oh Muggle-baiting, I think the term refers to some kind of cruelty. So being condescending about Muggles or fooling them into not seeing things doesn't count. I think that what everyone does to Dudley does count, though. It kind of reminds me of the way schoolchildren will do things to each other that would bring lawsuit if adults did it to each other. It's not very good, but we'll bend the rules a little because it's Dudley, and obviously he had it coming. That's the part I find uncomfortable--Wizard or Muggle, some people just Have It Coming. But that's another story.

I agree--especially about the baiting going beyond just saying something bad about them. The other examples we hear are things like making their keys shrink or blowing up toilets--all Pranks.

[lotesse]

Magpie, you *rawk* in ever sense of the word. I saw the tokenism of Firenze and Dobby, but Remus? I think I got blindsided by the common fandom trope that he's gay/the Other/got HIV.

Isn't it interesting that the only student who hangs on to Muggle culture--Dean, if I remember right--is black?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

Isn't it interesting that the only student who hangs on to Muggle culture--Dean, if I remember right--is black?

Yeah! He keeps his football posters, I think. Though he has joined the Quidditch team in sixth year. Not that he can't like both, but I wonder if Seamus has learned about football at all in return.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

The question of the treatment of Muggles might just be one of those rough seams or joints where independent -- and inconsistent -- sets of imagery and ideas jostle against each other awkwardly. On the one hand, it's true that in JKR's moral world, prejudice and discrimination are bad, brotherhood and tolerance are good. And "universal" generally means "everybody, without exception."

On the other hand, among her many virtues, we know that JKR is a good classicist. And at the root of the whole fantasy, at the base of the relationship between Muggles and wizards, there's the positing of an uncanny difference in nature and kind that's maybe a bit reminiscent of the gap between gods and mortals, and that you can't -- and maybe don't want to -- entirely explain away. And that gulf makes it hard, sometimes, to come up with moral rules that work the same way on both sides of the gap.

I was trying to remember the name of that elderly mother in Greek (or Roman?) mythology whose sons carried her on their shoulders through the marketplace because she was so frail. And she was so proud and grateful that she prayed for a goddess to reward them. And so the goddess promptly killed them, because after all the best thing for mortals was never to be born, and second best was to die quickly. Sometimes, interactions across the gap, hoewever well- or neutrally-intended, can lead to misunderstandings and awkward consequences.

For example, it's easy to forget just how fragile Muggles are, so that a harmless pig's tail, or a swollen tongue, or an innocent bit of throttling or arm-breaking, which would be all in good fun among wizards, sometimes leaves the most amazing permanent marks . . .

So are Muggles really included, after all, in the application of JKR's "universal" moral lessons? Part of the fun she seems to be having seems to be based on saying no, seems based on being able to preserve the difference between the groups without feeling guilty about it. Is this a sinister thing? That's a trickier question. It maybe turns on whether the nature of the difference between muggles and wizards has any real correspondence in the ordinary social world.

For example, pureblood vs. mudblood is analagous to race; Malfoy vs. Weasley is about class. But if the difference beween wizard and muggle is more like gods vs. mortals, or cartoons vs. flesh-and-blood, then maybe JKR can have an escape valve for her occasional urges toward the theater-of-cruelty without necessarily compromising what we might want to see as a consistent moral vision.

Not that it's OK to completely objectify Muggles. Viciousness is viciousness, wherever it's directed. And certainly prejudice against the muggle-born is unacceptable, because after all, that's a distinction among wizards, where the theme of equality applies.

But in general, all of JKR's moral homilies seem to apply within the closed universe of wizards, or at most within the circle of magical creatures generally. Does anybody in this world, even those on the side of light, ever make a serious case for Muggle equality? (As opposed, again, to muggle-born equality.) It's a contained space where prejudice based on class and family origins can be condemned, where the rights of House-elves can be vindicated, where the patronizing statue in the ministry can be condemned in good faith, but you can still have fun mocking the Muggles.

And that may be OK, that may not actually be depraved. You might disagree -- you might insist on rejecting the idea of Muggles as "other" because legitimating any notion of an "other" as part of acceptable discourse among polite company inevitably opens the way to more sinister forms of prejudice. The problem is that the very premise of the books, the very idea of a magical fantasy, posits this radical difference between wizards and muggles as something inescapable.

So there's a tension, it's not something JKR is going to be able to be completely consistent about without attenuating the very eerieness and attraction of her magical world.

And I wonder if it's necessarily fair to condemn her for that inconsistency.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I don't know whether you thought I was condemning her--my point is that this is definitely a place where things rub up against each other in awkward ways, but that I'm not sure what meaning to draw from it. I can't actually come up with a consistent thing to say.

The thing is,it seems like we're basically supposed to identify with the Wizards and see the only Muggles we know as either shadowy people or bad guy cartoons. In fandom, as silly as it sounds, I always feel weird when people get os into putting themselves in houses and such not because it can just get silly but because at some point I started to think, "If you were in the series you would be a Muggle. You couldn't even see Hogwarts." Obviously JKR doesn't expect the audience to identify with the Muggles but sometimes I do find myself doing that and then I get annoyed. Like in HBP one chapter I didn't like was the first one, where Muggle tragedies were revealed to be just excess gas from the Wizarding World that we couldn't deal with.

But it does make me think about...well, who are Muggles supposed to be, since presumably they're not supposed to be the reader? As I said above, in the first book JKR seems to connect being a Muggle to being someone who lacks imagination, is mundane. It's not like prejudice against Muggles has a real world parallel since it's just poking fun at our world. Nobody wants to be a Muggle. But then sometimes Muggles do have a place within the universe. It's just hard to tell what it is at times, particularly since on one hand the whole world spends all its time hiding from them, but otoh there seems to be no real reason for it except that Muggles are annoying. It's like the entire Wizarding World is hiding under the table pretending not to be home and Muggles are the Jehova's Witnesses ringing the bell.

reply - pt. 1

[strangemuses.livejournal.com]

My answer is long, so I'm breaking it in half.

That is, there are definite times in the books where it's unclear if the author is showing that things aren't black and white or just being hypocritical.

After reading HBP, I have come to the conclusion that JKR is quite purposely avoiding any sort of simple 'good vs. evil' judgments about any of her characters or about the Wizarding World and its society. There is no wholly "good" person in the book. There are only flawed individuals who attempt to do what they perceive to be selfless, helpful actions. With the exception of the psycopathic Tom Riddle, there are no wholly "evil" people either. There are flawed people who have chosen to do cruel and selfish things. And since Riddle is clearly psychopathic, if not outright insane, it's sort of pointless to call him "evil." Rabid dogs aren't evil, they're merely sick and dangerous. Riddle is like that.

Hermione, the 'champion' of elf rights, dismissively refers to the brilliant Firenze as a "horse." Molly and Arthur, the supposed champions of Muggles, are achingly, embarrassingly condescending and clueless about them. Ginny rails about people for calling Luna "Loony" but she does it herself. Carry this hypocrisy through to the hateful extreme and you have Tom Riddle, who is half Muggle, advocating pureblood supremecy. Hypocrisy and prejudice are not just human characteristics. The house elves are horrid towards Dobby. The centaurs turned on and attacked Firenze.

I have been looking in vain for JKR to make an unambiguous, clear moral pronouncement of some kind in these books about prejudice and violence and bullying and blood supremecy and all of the other issues that she pokes at. After HPB, I realized that she is never going to do this. She is merely reflecting this world and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions about what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that JKR in the text or in interviews shows favoritism or approval to certain characters should not be used by fans as any sort of endorsement of the actions of those characters. The horrible Weasley Twins come to mind instantly. Just because JKR herself chuckles at them in the text or in interviews doesn't mean that we readers are supposed to assume that we are therefore supposed to approve of what the Twins do. Need proof from the text? Look at Ron's indignation at learning that the Twins sold the Death Eaters the 'tricks' to get into Hogwarts.

Nothing in this world is black and white. Look at the issue of werewolves. Fans were all "Aw, look at the cute ickle werewolf, Remus. How shocking that anyone would be prejudiced against werewolves in the Wizard World. Tsk, tsk." Then look at Greyback, and then look at what happened to Bill Weasley, and then step back and look at werewolves dispassionately and realize that no matter how nice they may be as a person, at the full moon they will want to rip you limb from limb. It's not a black and white, "good/evil" issue at all. It's murky and grey.

Harry himself, goodness knows, is flawed six ways to Sunday! He is vain, a lazy student, judgmental, quick to anger, etc. He can be every bit as much of a bully as he accuses his "enemy" Draco of being.

reply pt. 2

[strangemuses.livejournal.com]

JKR is asking her readers to do the same thing that she is asking Harry to do: grow up and use your own judgment, and then use your abilities to do what you think is best. Do not rely on the opinions of others. Do not rely on prevailing social ideas of what is morally right and wrong. Society and its institutions may be wrong. Look at the Ministry. "Good" people may still do bone-headed things and hold ugly attitudes that might shock you (think Arthur and Molly's attitudes towards Muggles, or Hermione's attitude towards Firenze, and everyone's attitudes in these books about fat/ugly people, etc.). I think that we readers are supposed to step back, realize just how flawed and hypocritical all of the characters are in these books, and then still cheer on the ones who have chosen to act for the greater good.

I think that the moral "lessons" of this series will only really make sense when the last book is published. At that point, Harry will have become an adult and learned to think for himself and judge things for himself. Stepping completely out of the story itself and just looking at this series in the abstract for a moment, I cannot decide whether this approach was wise or not. Had the entire series been aimed at adult readers, this lack of a definitive moral stamp of authority would have been perfectly normal. Adults are supposed to be able to recognize moral ambiguity and sniff out hypocrisy when we encounter it in texts (and in real life). Adults are used to unreliable narrators in fiction. But children are not. I wonder what sort of lessons and attitudes a child reader might take away from this series if they do not read the story to its ultimate ending. In children's literature, the author usually provides some sort of overarching moral guidance, either by having the protagonists themselves realize the right and wrong of things, or because there is some sort of adult voice in the story who provides clues. In this series though, the adults are every bit as capricious, flawed, stupid, and cruel as the children. The character who superficially appeared to play the role of 'moral voice' (Dumbledore) is completely mute on the subject of good/evil and moral choice.

Re: reply pt. 2

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Wow--well said! I agree. I keep going back to an exchange with Elkins earlier today, but it really clarified things for me. We were talking about Death Eaters being essentially failed adults. All of them (except for Lucius for plot reasons) are children to Voldemort's father. They all seek his approval and praise and are afraid of displeasing him. Crouch Jr. had a father like that and rebelled by going to the opposite extreme, but he never really grew up and made his own decisions. Draco came to the point where he seemed to realize he should make his own decisions in HBP, though we've yet to see which way he decides.

That, I think, is why there is perhaps this focus on a "certain disregard for the rules." Nobody can be completely relied on. Even DD may not have been wrong for trusting Snape but he was certainly wrong for telling other people to trust him just on his word--and they were wrong to believe him just on that. Usually DD doesn't tell people how to think but is more hands-off, knowing that people have to come to their own conclusions.

This, though, is why it's so frustrating in fandom when people like this isn't a big point of the series. Because I agree with you that the books more just reflect the way people act and leave us to draw our own conclusions a lot of the time. So all the stuff about how you're supposed to like/dislike who the author does, or that it's bad to look at the behavior of the characters and not just assume their actions are all good/bad according to the character, is crazy. So many incidents that many fans loudly claim are clearly one way or the other have not been written that way. That's why people so often start writing stuff in to support their view.

For instance, I remember once talking to someone about the Twins' giving Katie Bell the pill that made her bleed. This person claimed that the Twins' reaction was incredibly compassionate, that they were so horrified by what they'd done they heroically insisting on taking her to the infirmary (against somebody's will, I guess) etc. The reality is not like that at all. The scene is played for laughs more than anything, and Fred and George's horror is of the, "Ooops, wrong pill!" type. They continue playing after they've realized what happened and only step in when Katie's about to collapse. Then they cover themselves by saying she "may have swallowed" whatever pill it was, covering their butts. Now, it's not that the twins are evil in this scene, and they do take Katie to the Infirmary. But I couldn't help but think that the need to change the scene to make the Twins more caring indicated that the person *wanted* the Twins to be more compassionate, or else thought they were compassionate and so naturally rewrote the scene to reflect it. There's tons of scenes like that people change for their arguments.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_rp_zeal_/]

Our band of good guys does include people of other races--Dobby is a house elf, Hagrid is a half-giant, Remus is a werewolf, Firenze is a centaur. But they are also all *outcasts* amongst their own people (if they even know those people) or identify as Wizards.

Hmmm, I wonder where the Good Slytherin!advocates got their idea from... *mock pondering*

While Rowling could still surprise me in the next book, I really think the racism issue one of the weakest link in her story, something that I go "whatever", do not take seriously of and hope she too isn't taking it too seriously. So far it seems to me that NO ONE in the whole series has a sensible approach towards racial difference- well we are perhaps supposed to think Dumbledore had the right idea, though racial equality never seemed to be the big thing Dumbledore focused on. We certainly did not hear much from him about the topic.

Of course Voldemort is super lunatic and very, very much in the wrong, but why should that make other characters' behaviors right? Hermione's SPEW efforts might have been well-intended, but they are also very condescending (assuming she as a non-elf *must* know what's best for the elves), and what about her "I don't like horses" comment regarding Firenze? So I really don't know where Rowling is trying to lead us what with all of her characters behavining "inappropriately" (just to different degrees) to beings from another race, and frankly, I am not that interested to find out.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah it seems like the racism thing makes sense within the story, like we can see how it makes people react to others (if someone acts prejudiced Hermione or Harry gets angry, unless it's them or whatever) but you can't draw too many parallels from it. At least, you can't draw real lessons from it. One of the things about fantasy in general is that races really *do* have differences, so it's not racism to suggest these things about them. It's only with Muggles where they shouldn't really be that different, yet they are.

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

It's the word that different non-white groups use to refer to someone who is of their race but is not "one of them."

Some general terms I've heard is assimilating, or white-washed.

I thought the books portrayed prejudice really well. Hermione, Hagrid, Dobby, and Firenze, Lupin, etc. are accepted as wizards, but at the cost of denying their heritage. It reminds me of the earlier melting pot rhetoric in America. How the immigrants who came here were supposed to assimilate, leave their old cultures and languages behind, and just become American. Now, the rhetoric is about accepting and respecting differences, sometimes exoticizing it in an "Oh, how quaint. Or, oh, I like __ food," way without any real understanding of the culture.

It's also interesting to note that Firenze teaches diviniation, something valued in his culture, but it's a ghetto subject in the Wizarding World, if we go by McGonagall's disdain, and how Trelawney is always portrayed in a silly light.

The issue I have is, I don't know whether JKR intended all these layers into the books, and she's doing pointed social commentary, or if it was there by accident.

Because it would be brilliant if JKR linked Voldemort's depravity and prejudice to the WW's attitudes towards Muggles, and someone like Voldy couldn't have succeeded as much as he did without the existing WW prejudice. That the WW values wizarding magic so highly, that those who don't have magic are treated as less than a person, that the divide between WW and Muggle is so huge that what's a joke to one is assault to the other. I think because some things are so easily fixed by spells, like being able to grow bones overnight, leads to a more casual attitude towards physical injury. So Muggles making a fuss over a 'simple joke' becomes incomprehensible, and indicative of a stuffy person, etc. And the rift just grows from there.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah--you know, I rarely think about this but I guess that's why a lot of people really assumed that the books had to be moving towards some sort of reconcilation between the Muggles and the Wizards. As it is Muggles are in some way at the center of the main conflict, yet they don't know anything about it. Everyone in this world is ruled by Muggles all the time, but none that we see really know any. Even the ones that do seem to quickly drift away from them so that the main thing they know about them is that they "don't understand."

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

I'm also really put-off with the lack of discussion about this topic too, because really, it's not hard to see the comparison between this and something like the X-men universe. I'm not saying Muggles are victims, because just imagine the problems if they found out wizards existed. But it's a topic not worked upon in the books and generally ignored in the fandom, and that shits me.

Anyway, the WW is dripping with nostalgia, which Hogwarts is the ultimate symbol of: The machine of induction that processes the children into this overall WW mindset. It's this protective mentality that one could argue was a result of the time when Hogwarts itself was established and Britain was in a state of constant battle with powerful and victorious outside forces. In reality, you really have to wonder about the logic of the society for it to have supposedly lasted so long (which I have problems with). On one hand, one can believe that the Muggle prejudice and resulting apartheid activities stemming from this (disdain of technology, obliviation, opportunistically profiting from certain improvements in the world caused by Muggles but still showing prejudice, etc) is a survival instinct of a group that, for all intents and purposes, would be wiped out if the larger group became fully aware of its existence. On the other hand, the moraity of this isn't addressed in the books and probably never will be. They'll go on being disdainful of Muggles while stupidly risking their children's necks in lame tournaments for anachronistic concepts of honour and glory.

It is an elephant standing in the room that nobody wants to address because it's just too bloody hard and difficult to figure out rationally, because I think we're thinking too hard about things which are simply gimmicks in the books (like the magic and fantasy aspects themselves). I think to suggest JKR is somehow trying to paint this wonderfully complex picture of people is overstating her abilities just a hint, especially considering that at the micro-level, she fails miserably at this when it comes to most of her students. You can't then go on and suggest she's going to consciously then do it at the macro level.

I think it is very closely related to the House Elf issue. It's been addressed in other discussions of this that when a persecuted group is treated a certain way en-masse they start thinking about themselves in that way as a collective mindset - ie that they really are subhuman/lower/not worthy of more. This is perfectly illustrated with the House Elves and the Wizards' attitudes towards them. The wizards say "oh, but they like to clean" and the House Elves end up liking to clean because that is how they come to define their value & their identity. And then, funnily enough, the small challange to this with Hermione's S.P.E.W is fairly well mocked by the books and their stance on the matter, and Dumbledore's words about Sirius are relegated in the fandom to a comment on Sirius's character and not this overall mode of thinking the WW exemplifies as a self-fufilling prophecy, just like the "Muggles are Silly" one (imagine anyone making a comic today about "Sambo the Stupid Sudanese" and selling it to children - they'd be hauled in front of a court for racial villification, even if there was freedom of expression laws in their state). On one hand, it could be argued as a survival instinct (if a less-than-successful one, if the books are any indication), yet on the other hand, it violates the absolute basis of equality, liberty and freedom we found most modern morals on.

So yes. I do take issue with the elephant of magic-apartheid in the books, and I wish to whatever deity you care to name fandom would explore this issue more.

[jamoche]

it's not hard to see the comparison between this and something like the X-men universe. I'm not saying Muggles are victims, because just imagine the problems if they found out wizards existed.

A friend of mine said that to me, and I wrote a ficlet based on the idea.

[nellie-darlin.livejournal.com]

I think you've raised an interesting set of points. Personally, I think you could give JKR a bit more credit - the issue of Muggles is incredibly thorny and complicated in the Wizarding World. It annoys me when people are so simplistic about books, thinking that the good characters cannot have any bad characteristics. I always thought it was deliberate, to show how prejudiced the WW is - i.e. "Wow, even if "good" wizards think this..." kinda thing. It makes it slightly more believable that people would follow Voldemort.

Having said that, there is a slight weirdness in how JKR presents some aspects as humour (your examples of Hagrid and the Twins with the Dursleys) and some as deplorable (the Death Eaters). This is a double standard. But at the same time, it's all part of Harry's POV - to him, the Weasleys are beyond reproach. It's the whole Gryffindor-Slytherin prejudice appearing in a different form.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree it is thorny--I'm honestly not ready to make a real judgment on it to grant or withold credit yet. It's really more that I get frustrated when people, as you say, make it so overly simplified so that the characters are either bad guys or good guys, and good guys can't have anything ever in common with the bad guys when of course they can. It's just so interesting that we can have a discussion where some people think the author gets too much credit, some too little--it's not that the created world doesn't seem *real* certainly!

Most importantly we do probably have to wait until the last book to really tell about anything. *bites fingernails*

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

there is a line to be drawn

I think this is it exactly. I believe she's suggesting that people will always commit daily cruelties, and that's reprehensible, of course, but we should focus our efforts on the major threats to property and person. Harry may be judgmental and vindictive and selfish and disonest from time to time, but he is NOT "just as bad as Voldemort," as one of my friends once said. JKR is totally rejecting that kind of moral absolutism. Which is, after all, what prevents much of fandom from facing the "heroes"' flaws -- they cannot conceive of being on the side of someone who is anything but absolutely good. Silly.

[skelkins.livejournal.com]

What a great discussion you have going here! I'm not even quite sure where to begin...

Those other races, in fact, possibly view them as...I don't know what the word for it is. It's the word that different non-white groups use to refer to someone who is of their race but is not "one of them."

I think the catch-all term you're looking for here might be "race traitor," but of course, that term is used by whites as well as non-whites, and - even more to the point - was Rowling's model for the phrase "blood traitor," so I can see why you may not have wanted to use it here. It's also a really ugly phrase. Nonetheless, I do think that it was probably the one you were looking for.

One of the things that I always find interesting about Hermione in regard to this issue is the way that so many readers, upon first starting the series, visualize her as whatever their own region's stereotypical assimilationist immigrant ethnicity is.

For example, I'm from the New York area, and when I first read the first book, I kept interpreting Hermione's descriptors - her bushy hair, her academic focus, her somewhat precious middle-class speech patterns - as code for her being Jewish. Then I realized that since these were British books, this was probably not meant to be the case. When I mentioned this to others, though, a lot of them also said that they had initially read specific ethnicity into Hermione's character: many East Coast Americans like myself had similarly read her as being Jewish, while a number of English readers assumed at first that she was meant to be West Indian, Caribbean.

I don't think that's at all coincidental, nor merely an over-reading of "bushy hair." Hermione is an immigrant - she's a first-generation witch - and she exhibits all of the stereotypical behaviors of an ambitious and assimilationist newcomer to a culture. So it's perhaps unsurprising that readers tend to associate her with whatever the stereotypical aggressively assimilationist immigrant group is in their own home region.

I see much of Hermione's behavior in these books as reflecting her own awareness of her immigrant status - and her determination to assimilate to wizarding culture. Primarily, I see this in her (somewhat overcompensating) academic drive, but I think that her refusal to champion "Mugglish" things fits the pattern as well, as does the fact that as the series progresses, she seems to be distancing herself more and more from her parents.

Her championing of social causes like House Elf Rights is the one place where she seems willing to stand out from her peers and appear "Mugglish," but even this has some parallel precedent: successful immigrant groups are often known for their dedication to social justice. And even here, Hermione seems to be distancing herself even from SPEW as the series progresses.

I agree that it's somewhat disappointing, this. There are other Muggle-born students we've been introduced to in these books. Wouldn't it be nice if at least one of them were shown to be relatively anti-assimilationist? (Justin? Colin? Anyone?) I would also like it very much if we were ever shown sympathetic representatives of the other races who didn't seem to be the token "wizard-lovers" of their respective groups. It does seem to flatten out the world that Rowling seems to want to portray, as well as the issues she seems to want us to examine - and that's really just sort of a shame.

But the books put this whole issue front and center, so it surprises me when fandom sometimes seems to think discussions beyond "people who set Muggles on fire are bad; people who don't think they should be set on fire are good" are somehow getting it wrong or wanking or bringing an agenda to the books.

Yeah, that drives me crazy about the fandom as well. But I guess you probably already guessed that.

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

So it's perhaps unsurprising that readers tend to associate her with whatever the stereotypical aggressively assimilationist immigrant group is in their own home region.

That's absolutely fantastic. I'd love to see this expanded into a full-fledged essay about Hermione's role as assimilationist immigrant!

[tacky-tramp.livejournal.com]

To me that makes it clear that the subject of how one treats people "other" than oneself is pretty central to the topic of the story.

I couldn't agree more.

I've been lackadaisically doing some reading in ethics for an essay I plan to write after HP7 about morality in the series, and I've been especially drawn to the moral importance of love.

We know that the ability to love is supposedly what makes Harry special. He doesn't understand this, and I think most readers don't understand it, either. But moral system after moral system emphasizes the importance of love to goodness, and the importance of a certain kind of love -- selfless, sacrificing love for neighbors, strangers, even enemies. People guided by this kind of love will choose actions almost universally considered "good," like honesty, generosity, etc.

Now, most decent people (and I think we would all agree that, whatever their petty indiscretions, all the "heroes" are at least decent) are capable of loving their family and friends. It's much harder, however, to love people you've never met. It's almost impossible to love people who actively despise and oppose you. And the "other" may be the hardest of all to love.

If Harry is to be established as a Good character -- replacing, in essence, Dumbledore as the conscience of the wizarding world -- then he must tap into his capacity to love more widely than most people. He must love the enemy and love the other as he loves his friends.

I believe JKR is building towards this sort of moral crescendo for Harry. I don't know how prominent it will be, but I refuse to believe that HP7 will just be a grand Horcrux-hunting adventure, with no deeper psychological development for our adolescent hero. Central to this, I think (and hope) will be this issue of love for the other.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I agree--I thought it was particularly important, for instance, when Dumbledore was talking to Draco in the Tower and Draco called Hermione a Mudblood. DD told him not to use that word, even when Draco pointed out that he had more important things to worry about. That, to me, suggested that of course treating people with respect on an everyday level is important--it builds your character. In fact, maybe that's a key with Snape, that he proves that you can't be a good guy while still indulging in petty cruelty--not sure yet with him!

We also saw in Book VI that the bad guys could also love their family but, as you said, they have to see other people as like them too. That's the whole thing about the "other" mentality, that it dehumanizes the other person.

[imkalena.livejournal.com]

There's a statue in the MoM that mocks the condescending attitudes of Wizards towards other creatures

I don't know if anybody's noted this yet, but the statue doesn't mock the condescending attitude toward other creatures, unless you're using "mock" in a different way than I'm used to. It's more like . . . celebrating it. Which is actually what I think you meant?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Sort of. I meant that the statue itself is celebrating it but obviously the narrator sees how awful it is. So you're right I should have said the statue celebrates it but the text seems to present that celebration ironically.

Here via the Daily

[miranda-macondo.livejournal.com]

Wow. Brilliant!!

In particular, you did an excellent job of highlighting how all the token representatives of other groups in the WW are taken as exceptions, and as such, acceptable. I grappled with this as I was growing up, as a racially distinct child in an otherwise culturally homogeneous country. I confess with shame that when I was a young teen, I dealt with my outsider status by becoming the acceptable exception.

I think the WW's position is more complicated than that, though. Cultural/racial "pride" takes on a different meaning, depending whether you are the majority or the minority. And the WW is both--majority and minority. But I think the source of the WW's attitude derives from their status as a minority, which influences the way they perceive the world--even when they are dealing with it as a majority.

In other words, I think that the WW's relationship to muggles is the fundamental source that defines the WW's relationship to all other groups, kind of like how white-black race relations has served to define white-all other minorities relations in the US.

To be blunt, wizards and witches are a minority in the world. A powerful minority, but one whose numbers have dwindled so much that their survival is at stake. For such a group, preserving their identity, highlighting what makes them distinct, is vital if they don't want to be absorbed into the mainstream and disappear. Becoming close-knitted and intolerant of outsiders is an absolute necessity, from their point of view. And seen in this light, treating muggles as completely different, inferior beings is unfortunate but purposeful: it instills a kind of pride among the wizards and witches, gives them a distinct identity, a will to survive. These waters are scary, but then, the wizarding world's position in the world is kind of scary too.

I think the WW's treatment of other beings--which are sort of the minorities within the minority group that is WW--is simply a consequence of this need to protect the WW's identity through distinction and intolerance.

I don't mean to justify, condone or overlook racist behavior in HP. But I do think it's complicated, and that there are no easy solutions, as is often the case in real life.

P.S. I friended you, I hope you don't mind. :)

Re: Here via the Daily

[quivo.livejournal.com]

I agree with you - it is a complicated issue, so much so that it is not being solved in the real world either.

[(Anonymous)]

Fabulous essay, interesting discussion. :D

Given the ways in which the word "Muggle" has come up in your examples and then the discussion, I suppose it might be useful to separate the term into two different main usages, modeled upon your post on magic : ) that is in a practical and a metaphorical way. There is the practical, no-nonsense, everyday definition of who is included in the term Muggle; non-magical people born to non-magical parents. And then there is the metaphorical way of using the word, in which Muggle means sub-standard, unimaginative, common, "them", etc.

Occasionally the characters are talking about one aspect, other times about the the other. But it seems as if they "forget" to clarify, both to themselves and others, what kind of Muggle they're talking about. It seems as if people who would call themselves Muggle-friendly, e.g. the Weasleys, would still use Muggle in a derogatory metaphorical way, and not think twice about it, or even realise they were doing it.

For the WW to be able to see Muggles differently over time, they might make a politically correct new word (magically challenged, heh, any takers? and in twenty years time we can reclaim Muggle), to try and avoid stigma.



In the general discussion here, this is totally unimportant, but I so rarely find myself in a position to talk on the behalf of the twins, and I didn't really realise until I read the discussion above, but hey, the Dudleytoffee thing isn't Muggle-baiting so much as, well, just Dudley-baiting. Given their track record his being a Muggle really isn't part of why, they would certainly have given it to a wizard!Dudley, and probably would have given it to a unicorn!Dudley, or anybody else they mildly disliked (or later on, could afford to pay to eat it), in a weird way it's almost a compliment to Dudley that they thought he could handle it (well, if we assume they even think that far). Now Hagrid, on the other hand...

- Clara

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Given the ways in which the word "Muggle" has come up in your examples and then the discussion, I suppose it might be useful to separate the term into two different main usages, modeled upon your post on magic : )

Ha! Good idea! Not that this is unusual--there are probably plenty of words in all languages that aren't always a slur or always an insult. You just have to really know what it means so you don't use it the wrong way.

That's why it's kind of interesting to hear Harry and Hermione use it. Hermione, afaik, never uses it in a derogatoy way. Harry refers to the Dursleys as "the Muggles," obviously relishing the difference between himself and them.

In the general discussion here, this is totally unimportant, but I so rarely find myself in a position to talk on the behalf of the twins, and I didn't really realise until I read the discussion above, but hey, the Dudleytoffee thing isn't Muggle-baiting so much as, well, just Dudley-baiting.

See, that's the way it's usually defended but I don't think that's quite right. I mean, it is right in that it's correct--the Twins aren't looking for a Muggle to Prank, they want to Prank Harry's family of abusive Dursleys. But Arthur calls it Muggle baiting because it's Magical Pranking of a Muggle for whatever reason. It's like the way in our world even if you're dealing with the most obnoxious person in the world with some disability you're not supposed to use that against you.

[is-peoples.livejournal.com]

To me. it seems like the Wizarding World existed in isolation for a very long time. After all, despite their "Muggle Studies" classes, concepts like common medical procedures, electricity, and any notion of popular culture seem to be well out of the grasp of your average wizard. It seems like something must have precipitated greater contact between worlds. Grindelwald/WWII? Needing new genes for the pool? Marked increase in Muggleborn magical kids? Anyway, something. So the WW has been brought into closer contact with the Muggle World, leaving us with two Wizard camps: the tourists and the "threat to our way of life" crowd. There is still no integration or exchange of ideas between groups. So you wind up with people like Arthur, who rhapsodize about clever Muggles the same way that your flakier brand of social studies teacher would rhapsodize about Mayans or Eskimos and sound condescending without meaning to. This, while not ideal, is pretty understandable to me.

However, Hermione is rapidly being assimilated by the WW into a tourist in her own country (birth culture), and that creeps me out.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the one thing about Arthur that pushes him over the creepy line to me isn't what he says but the fact that he's sometimes memory-charming Muggles while he's at it. The whole Mr. Roberts thing always strikes me as kind of chlling.

However, Hermione is rapidly being assimilated by the WW into a tourist in her own country (birth culture), and that creeps me out.

Exactly. I can see why the plot isn't interested in Hermione's life in the Muggle World, but it's still creepy. When she "brisky" tells Harry how she's sure her parents will understand her cancelling their ski trip for Christmas in OotP...poor Grangers.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a great discussion. The relationship between the wizarding world and Muggles is largely unexamined in the books, except to show how mutually baffling and therefore actually frightening it is. Wizards, in spite of their suspected feelings of superiority, are no doubt still frightened or they wouldn't continue to take such measures to isolate themselves. Muggles are presumably unaware of the existence of wizards, and when they do come in contact with them, they are bewildered (Mr. Roberts in GoF, the Prime Minister), or terrified and defensive (the Dursleys, the spouses of various witches). It is interesting to think that at one time wizards and Muggles shared worldviews, but 900-1000 years after the advent of Christianity, and at a time when kings were solidifying power over consolidated regions of Europe (Edward in England (confirmed by the Witenagemot), Otto in Germany, Capet in France, Knut later in England), the division came into effect. In JKR's timeline, via HP Lexicon, this was when Hogwarts was founded, when wizards were probably being scapegoated, as they represented a challenge to consolidated power. The response of the wizards was to cut themselves off like Mennonites. Eventually, wizards made laws to protect Muggles, but those laws might also have been intended to prevent Muggles from copping on to the existence of wizards.

I have been trying to think of a similar phenomenon of a seemingly more-powerful minority living in fear of a less-powerful majority. I can think of colonialists, and now white men, who have often seemed to act out of feeling threatened by non-white men, or by women or gays. Their response to their fears can be violent and degrading, and they isolate themselves from those they fear, but not in the way wizards have done. I guess the Death Eaters costumes in the GoF movie reflect this viewpoint. Underlying a lot of the repression, especially of women in witchhunts, was fear of the power of sexuality.

The worlds of Muggle and wizard do meet in marriage, but mixed wizard-Muggle marriages are hinted at being less than happy affairs, no Bewitched (which was problematic enough). The best model we may have is Tonks' parents, yet her mother lost her family for her husband, and together they raised a seriously emotionally-dependent girl. I wonder if wizard-Muggle marriages ever succeed, and if not, what prevents them from succeeding. Are Muggle-wizard relationships always power-imbalanced and abusive? If that were the case, and it was always witches who married Muggle men, you'd think Voldemort's ideas would take greater hold among witches, at least. Unless marriage to wizards is an equally-unattractive alternative... highly likely.

[straussmonster.livejournal.com]

Tonks' father is a wizard, so it's not a mixed marriage per se. We do have some examples of deception on the part of the wizard partner against the Muggle...but then we have these things ending poorly (Merope) or respectably (Seamus). We have Snape as a confirmed half-blood, and interview note that Remus is. Not enough data to generalize.

[stvincent.livejournal.com]

Very awesome essay, and I completely agree with what you've said. This is an inconsistency within the books, and many people in fandom don't seem to realize it. You made a very good point about the "minority" characters we see most of - that they're outcasts from their own kind, and (especially Dobby) don't bring others' messy attitudes/backward ways along with them into the spotlight.

*memories*

PS: The last sentence of the first paragraph is cut off: Often the place this really seems obvious is when people try to discuss

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! (Also--icon love!)

Oops--sorry about that last sentence. The last few words are the lj-cut so you can see it when you're actually clicked on it. "Often the place this really seems obvious is when people try to discuss the trouble with Muggles."