“The Boy Who Lived” On: Politics, Populism, and Harry Potter

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

“Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.” With this opening line, first published in 1997, JK Rowling introduced us to the world of Harry Potter—one that juxtaposed the “perfectly normal” (and familiar) world of “muggles” against the extraordinary “wizarding world” she was to develop over seven novels, eight films, three tie-in books, a stage play, a global digital publishing platform, and a spin-off film franchise. Over two decades later, Harry Potter’s popularity shows no signs of diminishing; in 2018, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child won six Tony Awards and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them: Crimes of Gindelwald was the 10th highest-grossing film of the year. Despite a radically shifting political reality between 1997 and 2018, then, Harry Potter’s continued relevance suggests that Rowling’s wizarding world is a deeply populist one.

In addition to its enduring popularity in the “real” world, the Potter universe also reflects timely political questions in the characters, plots, and settings within the stories. Voldemort and Grindelwald—the series’ two most prominent antagonists—are both populist figures who prey on wizards’ fear and distrust of muggles; Harry Potter himself is a populist hero, whose claims of being “Just Harry” in response to the revelation of his wizarding fame (in the first movie) are a central character trait throughout the series. Given Potter’s political complexities—both as a fully developed fantasy world and as a multi-billion-dollar commercial pursuit—the series provides a widely accessible entry point into enduring questions of political science. Taking up just a few these questions, this panel delves into the world of Rowling’s Harry Potter to unpack its insights and claims about identity, governance, celebrity, and gender.

The panel takes a capacious perspective on Potter. It includes papers that focus on specific characters as proxies for key political concepts; Danielle Hanley, for example, examines the toxic femininity of Dolores Umbridge, while Charles Olney reads Severus Snape as a tragic figure in the context of redemptive politics. But the panel also includes papers that take a more expansive view of Rowling’s wizarding world; John S. Nelson’s paper explores the dynamics of “celebrity politics,” using the Potter universe to distinguish celebrity from other, often-conflated concepts like authority and charisma. And Russell Fox considers Rowling’s Ministry of Magic as a proxy to learn about anti-modern, “ideal” politics. By using the Harry Potter universe—as both a set of imaginative texts as well as an example of an extended process of cultural production—this panel contributes to ongoing discussions of populism, privilege, and pop culture; it applies a political-theoretical approach to enduring questions and concepts, using a lasting and still-relevant popular symbol.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 41: Politics, Literature, and Film

Individual Presentations

• What JK Rowling’s Magical World Teaches Us About "Magical" Politics - Russell Arben Fox, Friends University

• Dolores Umbridge as a Case Study in Toxic Femininity - Danielle Hanley, Rutgers University, New Brunswick

• Politics in a Time of Celebrity: Harry Potter and the Wages of “Fame” - John S. Nelson, University of Iowa

• Redemption Without Forgiveness: Snape and the Conflicted Politics of Restoration - Charles E. Olney, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley

Chair

• Patricia Charlotte Rodda Carroll University

Discussants

• Jennifer Forestal Loyola University, Chicago

• Lilly J. Goren Carroll University