For what its worth I've never been terribly harsh on the politics of Harry Potter. A lot of people have analysed the series politics as being very neoliberal, with a particular leaning towards New Labour, a movement to which Rowling herself has strong ties. Two strong tenants of this political belief are that changes are to be made on a personal level and that systemic changes are undesirable, and that problems are caused not by systems, but by the wrong persons being in charge which can be fixed by putting the right people in charge.
Essentially the politics of Rowling and Potter operate under the belief that the systems and society we have now are the best it will ever be, and that systemic change is misguided at best. Lately these politics of Rowling have gotten both analysed and criticized thoroughly, but I think we should be nuanced about this. At the time when Harry Potter was written Neoliberalism was the chief ideology of the western world. We are now experiencing the downright titanic downsides of this ideology, but at the time the world was largely optimistic about neoliberalism and its ideals. It was the end of history after all. ''We'll never have it better than we do now!'' was the common belief at the time.
In retrospect the idea that systems can be fixed just by putting the ''right persons'' in charge seems shockingly naive but at the time of writing that was the ''logical view'' of how society operated. I'm sure that people in poverty at the time would scoff about systemic change being undesirable, and that the problems are just about the wrong people being in charge, but society didn't pay attention to such people at the time. Why would they? If poverty was a personal failing rather than that of the system. At the time it must have been easy to dismiss those crushed by neoliberism as ''whiners just out to ruin everyone's good mood with their own failings''. But because neoliberism encouraged the failings of society to get ignored, or even heavily increased in pursuit of profit its far harder to dismiss the now more numerous people who are very aware of the many flaws within that ideology.
That Rowling had those politics at the time, and wrote them into Harry Potter doesn't really reflect poorly on her. All it tells us is that Rowling and Harry Potter are products of their time. That Rowling maintains these beliefs to the present day does reflect poorly on her though. There's somewhat of a ''screw you, got mine'' mentality about it.
I do find it amusing that Rowling accidentally did write about systems being to blame all along. After all Fudge didn't single handily screw up the Ministry. As far as I can tell its always written as an institution with a zealous drive towards racism and self destruction. Fudge is more of an outgrowth of that system rather than the wrong man getting in charge and ruining an otherwise functioning system. Though given the status quo gets maintained after book 7 I don't think Rowling ever noticed that.
Essentially the politics of Rowling and Potter operate under the belief that the systems and society we have now are the best it will ever be, and that systemic change is misguided at best. Lately these politics of Rowling have gotten both analysed and criticized thoroughly, but I think we should be nuanced about this. At the time when Harry Potter was written Neoliberalism was the chief ideology of the western world. We are now experiencing the downright titanic downsides of this ideology, but at the time the world was largely optimistic about neoliberalism and its ideals. It was the end of history after all. ''We'll never have it better than we do now!'' was the common belief at the time.
In retrospect the idea that systems can be fixed just by putting the ''right persons'' in charge seems shockingly naive but at the time of writing that was the ''logical view'' of how society operated. I'm sure that people in poverty at the time would scoff about systemic change being undesirable, and that the problems are just about the wrong people being in charge, but society didn't pay attention to such people at the time. Why would they? If poverty was a personal failing rather than that of the system. At the time it must have been easy to dismiss those crushed by neoliberism as ''whiners just out to ruin everyone's good mood with their own failings''. But because neoliberism encouraged the failings of society to get ignored, or even heavily increased in pursuit of profit its far harder to dismiss the now more numerous people who are very aware of the many flaws within that ideology.
That Rowling had those politics at the time, and wrote them into Harry Potter doesn't really reflect poorly on her. All it tells us is that Rowling and Harry Potter are products of their time. That Rowling maintains these beliefs to the present day does reflect poorly on her though. There's somewhat of a ''screw you, got mine'' mentality about it.
I do find it amusing that Rowling accidentally did write about systems being to blame all along. After all Fudge didn't single handily screw up the Ministry. As far as I can tell its always written as an institution with a zealous drive towards racism and self destruction. Fudge is more of an outgrowth of that system rather than the wrong man getting in charge and ruining an otherwise functioning system. Though given the status quo gets maintained after book 7 I don't think Rowling ever noticed that.