The Sociology of Harry Potter: 22 Enchanting Essays on the Wizarding World

by Unknown

  The “social contract” is a concept which states that humans create societies by agreeing to abide by established rules and roles, even if it means giving up a few personal freedoms, in exchange for mutual benefit and protection (Rousseau 1762). Breaking the rules of the contract is one thing; but refusing to recognize the existence of the contract is another. It is the latter, I believe, that breaking out of Azkaban seems to entail. In other words, the escapee is offending against, not just one person as with even the most gruesome murder, not just “society” as whole or against particular values, but against the very idea of social living. The offense of complete disregard for the idea of the collective is the most egregious human ontology.

  Most importantly, however, the Dementor’s Kiss is a ritual. By carrying out this ritual (i.e., ordering or authorizing the dementors to perform the Kiss) members of society are able to collectively re-affirm their decision to be socially cooperative (i.e., to be a society rather live in a Hobbesian “war of all against all” state of existence) by banishing, not the just the body, but that most human essence, the soul, from the one who has symbolically violated the premise on which society rests. In that regard, the Dementor’s Kiss, more so than any other ritualized punishment, gives wizardkind a sense of solidarity.

  Innovation and Social Change

  There is a maxim among American Muggles that “necessity is the mother of invention.” Sociologists would say that crime is too. Durkheim wrote that crime “directly pre-paves the way for change” and that criminals’ activities are “useful for prosperity” (Lukes 1982: 102). The final premises of his theory, therefore, are that “crime produces innovation” and “can provide the necessary impetus for social change” (Kidd 2007: 70-71). Innovations resulting from responses to crime include new laws, protocols, and technology. For example, in response to Dark wizards interfering at Hogwarts, the students created a new organization, Dumbledore’s Army, to counteract the negative affect that this illegal activity was having on the school. The DA’s meeting notification coins, which were designed by Hermione and instrumental in alerting fellow students during the Battle of the Astronomy Tower and the Battle of Hogwarts, were modeled on the Death Eaters’ Dark Mark.

  Moreover, because of the Death Eaters’ crimes Harry, Ron and Neville made significant improvements to Auror’s department, thereby better protecting the wizarding community from future harm. Due to the crimes committed in the name of pureblood ideology, such as torturing Muggles/Muggle-borns, it was finally recognized that pro-pureblood laws needed to be abolished – which Hermione eventually accomplishes during her career at the Ministry of Magic.

  Crime can also lead to smaller, personal changes. The Malfoy family for example, having witnessed – and (some coercively) participated in – the Death Eaters’ activities began to recognize the how dangerous their ideology could be. It was this recognition that led Draco to pretend he did not recognize Harry, Ron, and Hermione when they were brought to Malfoy manner by Snatchers and that led Narcissa to lie to Voldemort about Harry being dead in the forest. Were it not for the Death Eaters’ horrific crimes, these new laws and ever-so-slight changes of heart would not have been possible.

  “They are coming”

  There came a point, however, right before the beginning of the Second Wizarding War, when the Death Eaters’ actions went beyond the utility to society outlined above. Their actions were not only disrupting the wizarding world, but spilling over and negatively affecting Muggles and the Muggle world as well. It is at this point that their criminality ceased to contribute to the functioning of society and began to disrupt it. The climax occurred on the day of Bill and Fleur’s wedding when a coup d’état felled the Ministry of Magic. The Minister was killed, The Burrow (and other wizarding houses and communities we can assume) were raided and their occupants searched and interrogated. This was a moment of societal disarray; rules, norms, values, authority, social structure, everything was temporarily in flux. Pierre Bourdieu theorizes about such a change in the structure of society with his concept of the transformation of fields. He explains that “fields” are a way of viewing society as a set of structural locations that have a given relationship with other positions, regardless of the individual people who currently occupy the positions. Conflict over control of the logic of the field – control over defining what is valued, important, what functions as social capital for social mobility, how different positions relate to one another, etc. – is an inherent feature as “occupants of these positions seek, individually or collective, to safeguard or improve their positions and impose the principles of hierarchization most favorable to their products” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 101). While some conflict is always present in fields, Bourdieu points out that when one group “[manages] to crush and annual the resistance and reactions of the dominated,” then a “totalitarian regime” is reached; however in practice, this is “a limit that is never actually reached.” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 102). What typically happens is that one group, and their logic of the field, is overthrown and replaced by another, as happened during the Second Wizarding War, and conflict continues.

  Following the fall of the Ministry, the Death Eaters seized power and a new regime was established. Pius Thicknesse (under the Imperius curse) became Minister for Magic, and new committees were formed and new protocols were implemented at the Ministry. Snape was installed as headmaster of Hogwarts and new curriculum was instituted. The Death Eaters’ norms, values and ideologies now held power and currency in society; theirs was now the logic of the field. For example, number of O.W.L.s or N.E.W.T.s someone received no longer mattered as cultural capital for career advancement; it was now “all about the kind of service [Voldemort] received, the level of devotion he was shown” (HBP 151). Most importantly, Voldemort and his Death Eaters now defined what was legal and what was illegal; and so it was not their behavior that was criminalized, but those of dissenters like the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore’s Army. And like the Death Eaters before them, the new criminals and this new form of criminal activity were as necessary to the functioning of new social order as the old criminals and crimes were to the old order.

  While the British wizarding world was under Voldemort’s control, previously acceptable behaviors became criminalized. For example, while in the past few witches and wizards did so out of fear and remembrance of the horrors of the First Wizarding War, it was never actually illegal to say Voldemort’s name until he came to power again during the Second Wizarding War. Criminalization of saying Voldemort’s name demonstrates that in the new order there was a norm that Voldemort was to be given respect. At Hogwarts, attendance was previously voluntary; but under the new regime it became illegal not to attend if one was pure or half-blood and became illegal for Muggle-born witches and wizards to attend. These new crimes illustrate which social boundaries and identities mattered most in the new order. Also with regard to Muggle-borns, it was illegal to fail to register with newly formed Muggle-born Registration Committee. Committing the crime of not presenting oneself to the commission highlighted not only the new ruling norms and social boundaries of the society, but prevented an important social ritual: the interrogation and sentencing to prison of Muggle-borns for “stealing” magic. This “trial” served the same purpose for the new order as the trying and sentencing Death Eaters did under the old order. The ritual publicly affirmed what the society valued, symbolically and literally removed those who violated it (by actions or just existing) from the rest of the population, and built solidarity among the new ruling class. Witches and wizards breaking of this law, and that of Hogwarts compulsory attendance, led to occupational innovation in that the new job of Snatcher was created.

  However, as with the Death Eaters before them, once crime reached a certain level it resulted in chaos rather than contributing to the functioning of society. Harry (DH 444-445) and Xenophilius Lovegood (HP7 part I) used Voldemort’s name, breaking norms of respect. Muggle-borns like Hermione and Ted Tonks refu
sed to present themselves to the Muggle-born Registration Commission, undermining social boundaries and identities and preventing solidarity rituals from taking place. Neville, Ginny, Luna and other students at Hogwarts continually found innovative ways to break the new rules and continue thwarting the Carrows’ “education” efforts. By the time of the Battle of Hogwarts, the wizarding world was once again a society in structural limbo. During those epic hours, there was no collective consensus on right versus wrong, over who held valid authority, or what the hegemonic cultural values were. Resolution of this chaos – Harry’s defeat of Lord Voldemort – resulted in social change. The dynamics of the field were solidified and the former (albeit soon to be improved) order, along with the former notion of crime, was reestablished.

  No flaw in the plan

  Most of the Death Eaters were the type of bad wizards Hagrid warned Harry about over dinner in the Leaky Cauldron. No sociologist would argue differently. However, in any given society crime will exist. It is a function of the fact that in no society do all members agree on everything. But as we have seen, crime ensures clearly defined norms and group boundaries, provides rituals to affirm these, and leads to innovation and social changes. What’s more, we have seen that the functions of crime remain the same regardless of what is considered criminal. As a result, criminals are not a parasitic element on a healthy society but, quite to the contrary, are actually a normal and functional feature of one. So, in a way, we should thank dear Bellatrix and the other Death Eaters ... while sentencing them to Azkaban.

  References

  Blackburn, Simon. 2005. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: New Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J. D Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  Burke, Peter. J. and Jan E. Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  Durkheim, Emile. 1895. The Rules of Sociological Methods. Pp. 31-166 in Durkheim: The Rules of Sociological Methods and selected texts on Sociology and its Method, Steven Lukes (ed.) W.D. Halls (trans.) 1982. New York, NY: Free Press

  Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide: A study in sociology, George Simpson (ed.) John A. Spaulding and George Simpson (trans.) 1951 [1979]. New York, NY: Free Press

  Kidd, Dustin. 2007. “Harry Potter and the functions of popular culture.” The Journal of Popular Culture, 40 (1): 69-90

  Reiner, Robert. 1984. “Crime, law, and deviance: The Durkheim legacy,” Pp. 175-201 in Durkheim and Modern Sociology. Edited by S. Fenton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1762 [1968]. The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right. Baltimore MD: Penguin Books.

  PART II - INSTITUTIONS

  “I suppose your parents will go hungry for a month

  to pay for that lot”

  Reciprocity, Recognition and

  Moral Worth in the Wizarding Economy

  Daniel R. Smith

  Premise – “Little tyke wants his money’s worth”

  In both the Muggle and wizarding worlds there are assumptions about how to be good people. Harry’s Cousin Dudley’s reaction to his birthday presents is a good example of what can be perceived as moral worthiness. When Dudley realises that he has been given two less presents than the previous year, he is petulant and acts like the spoilt eleven-year-old brat that he is. Aunt Petunia’s reaction to her son’s distress and outrage is to pander to him, “we’ll buy you another two presents while we’re out today” (SS 21). Many would agree that this is bad parenting. As a sociologist I ask myself, why is Dudley’s insistence to having more presents treated like it is? Why does Uncle Vernon say the “little tyke wants his money’s worth, just like his father” (SS 22)? I propose that it has to do with what people in society believe is their moral worthiness to receive gifts and, in sociological terminology, what are called “commodities” (Marx 1976). Going shopping is, we shall see, much more about recognising someone’s worth as a person, not merely wealth but their place in the social world they inhabit.

  In this chapter we will discuss what it means to be good people and what counts in the eyes of others as praise worthy or shameful behaviour through shopping and the use of commodities in our everyday life. The Muggle consumer economy is a huge topic for sociologists and it has received widespread attention in the Muggle world. In the following sections I shall demonstrate how these issues taken up by sociologists of Muggle society are also evident and important to the wizarding world. We shall discuss that what one is really buying in shops is not so much magical stuff but also ideas about what is morally worthy for a wizarding society. A discussion of broomsticks can reveal all sorts of interesting assumptions within the wizarding world. So too can a visit to Gringotts bank.

  Introduction: Social Order is Moral Order

  Ever since it became a professional discipline, sociology has played the role of the diagnostician of social ills. Sociologist Emile Durkheim noticed that the problem with his society, 19th century France, was that it was susceptible to a social malaise created by a lack of social cohesion and solidarity. The emergence of industrialism and capitalism resulted in the radical re-organisation of society. For example, people now lived in nation-states, not the small political communities of the past. They lived further apart, meaning that trains were used instead of walking. Postmen delivered your messages instead of your next-of-kin. People didn’t believe in the same God, and some did not even think there was a God. Contracts were used to tie people in relationships instead of kinship and family obligations. Indeed, the whole way of keeping people together was fragile. But as Durkheim was keen to point out, this so-called “modern age” developed a moral economy just as it developed an industrial economy (Durkheim 1933).

  Durkheim argued that contractual ties and obligations between corporations are able to develop a new way of binding people together to keep society together. It was called “the cult of the individual.” People were seen as individuals with rights, a basic sense of dignity and a sense of worthiness to liberties of civil life. Today our “cult of the individual” is more often the right to go shopping and reap the benefits of our economy’s output (Davis 2008). Consumption is part of the moral fabric of our Muggle lives and a lot of the time, consumption is about recognition of self-worth interceded by our duty to other people.

  Consumption in the Wizarding World

  American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1951 and 1964), who followed in Durkheim’s footsteps, stated the cult of the individual had important implications for what people said and did, and why they said and did them. Parsons analysed what sociologists call “reciprocity” (exchanges between people of “good morning” is an example of reciprocity) and recognition (“Well done, Mr. Potter!” is an example of recognition). These two things hold society together. What is behind these notions is a shared understanding of obligations people have to other people. But it is also an assumption about the moral worth we place upon other people. Harry is a person who is morally worthy of praise in wizarding society (and not just for saving the wizarding world). We can find examples of these reciprocities and recognition in his and others’ acts of shopping.

  Certainly, when it comes to going shopping, one is never shopping simply for oneself. Most consumption in everyday life comes from daily provisioning. Social anthropologist, Daniel Miller’s (1995) study of shopping found that people’s shopping lists consisted of fulfilling other people’s needs: Knowing what your child’s favourite flavour of Bertie Bott’s Every Flavour Beans becomes less about the nice taste, more about making sure you’re a good mother and you don’t give your child ear wax flavour! Alas, says Dumbledore. Not supplying your family with provisions, it could be suggested, can be seen as an act of callousness and be seen as morally repugnant in the eyes of others. Poor Aunt Petunia’s spoiling Dudley so much, thus making him into the brat he is, can be understood as a sign she is worried about being a bad mother.

  Another thi
ng about our shopping activities is that we make choices based not only on what we think about ourselves but, increasingly, on what others may think of us. In the early twentieth century, American sociologist Thorstein Veblen’s book The Theory of the Leisure Class (1994) hypothesised that our buying choices all stem from what he called “pecuniary canons of tastes.” What Veblen meant was that classes of people have the obligation to “keep up with the Joneses.” Looking at suburbia, Veblen observed that seeing your neighbour as your equal means that if your neighbour buys a nicer car than yours, it puts you in shame about your own car and, more importantly, shame about yourself. Mr. and Mrs. Dursley constantly worry about their front lawn and keep it pristine for this very reason! Reciprocities in our buying choices are also a way of judging how good someone is. A good example of this is the case of the Weasleys and the Malfoys.

  Malfoys vs. Weasleys: the morality of consumption

  An encounter at Flourish and Blotts exemplifies the fact that the laws of shopping are also the laws of social esteem and moral worth. When Draco Malfoy sees the Weasley family in the Flourish and Blotts, he responds to Ron’s snarl of “Bet you’re surprised to see Harry here, eh?” with the statement “Not as surprised as I am to see you in a shop, Weasley … I suppose your parents will go hungry for a month to pay for all those” (COS 61). The Weasley family is not very well off, and it’s common knowledge that they struggle to make ends meet. Malfoy’s comments highlight a key aspect of the sociology of consumption: If money is spent in one place, it cannot be spent anywhere else. He is therefore saying Ron’s parents will be going hungry simply because they’ve entered a shop. Draco assumes the Weasleys will have to forego food in order to buy school books.