October 5, 2006
SOMETHING BETTER THAN SELF:
Harry Potter and the Decline of the West (Spengler, 7/20/05, Asia Times)
It may seem counter-intuitive, but complacency is the secret attraction of J K Rowling's magical world. It lets the reader imagine that he is something different, while remaining just what he is. Harry (like young Skywalker) draws his superhuman powers out of the well of his "inner feelings". In this respect Rowling has much in common with the legion of self-help writers who advise the anxious denizens of the West. She also has much in common with writers of pop spirituality, who promise the reader the secret of inner discovery in a few easy lessons.The spiritual tradition of the West, which begins with classic tragedy and continues through St Augustine's Confessions, tells us just the contrary, namely, that one's inner feelings are the problem, not the solution. The West is a construct, the result of a millennium of war against the inner feelings of the barbarian invaders whom Christianity turned into Europeans. Paganism exults in its unchanging, autochthonous character, and glorifies the native impulses of its people; Christianity despises these impulses and attempts to root them out. Western tradition demands that the individual must draw upon something better than one's inner feelings. Narcissism where one's innermost feelings are concerned therefore is the supreme hallmark of decadence.
A culture may be called decadent when its members exult in what they are, rather than strive to become what they should be. [...]
When we put ourselves in the hands of a masterful writer, we undertake a perilous journey that puts our soul at risk. Empathy with the protagonist exposes us to all the spiritual dangers that beset the personages of fiction. In emulation of the ancient tale in which a seven days' sojourn among the fairies turns out to be an absence of seven years, Thomas Mann sends Hans Castorp to the magic mountain of a tuberculosis sanitarium - but it is the reader is captured and transformed.
We are too complacent to wish upon ourselves such a transformation, and too lazy to attempt it. We find tiresome the old religions of the West that preach repentance and redemption, and instead wish to hear reassurance that God loves us and that everything is all right. We have lost the burning thirst for truth - for inner change - that drives men to learn ancient languages, pore over mathematical proofs, master musical instruments, or disappear into the wild. We want our thrills pre-packaged and micro-waveable. Above all we want our political leaders, our pastors, our artists and our partners in life to validate our innermost feelings, loathsome as they may be. I do not know you, dear reader; the only thing I know about you with certainty is that your innermost feelings would bore me.
Western literature, along with all great Western art, is Christian in character, including the product of a putative heathen like Goethe, whom Franz Rosenzweig correctly called the prototype of a modern Christian. It is Christian precisely because it deals with overcoming one's "inner self". A jejune Manichaeanism pervades the Potter books as well as the "Star Wars" films, and I suppose a case could be made that such a crude apposition of Good and Evil corresponds in some fashion to the emotional narcissism of the protagonists.
In that sense, Christian leaders who disapprove of the whole Potter business simply are doing their job.
Posted by Orrin Judd at October 5, 2006 6:48 AM
There's that word, "narcissism" again.
Spengler got this one right, insofar as he expounded the genius of the West as the overcoming of original sin.
Let us examine his pessimism and ponder how matters came to this pass. It turns out that there are but few short steps from "sola scriptura" and "the priesthood of all believers" to "You shall be as gods," and "If it feels good, do it." Symptoms of narcissictic antinomianism, from the serious, "a woman's right to 'chooose'" to the trivial, "Nobody can tell me how to wear my baseball cap," are but signposts along the broad, easy path to ruin.
See how antinomian narcissism cuts us off fram both the past and the future. When the self becomes "as a god," neither the ways of the ancestors nor the duty to posterity, the two brackets of the silent majority, matter any more. When thene unguided, untutored self is left to wander lost and alone, the wild, the savage and the depraved urges of sin nature are given free rein.
To defend against these things, Paul wrote in Romans, and Jefferson in the Declaration, governments are instituted. what enables governments to exist in the absence of crushing, stultifying repression are individual, inner-directed values, deference to reasonable authority and respect for the mos maiorum.
The music playing inside our brains should be as straight as the caps we wear, or someone else is going to have to tell us how to think and move. We recall that the original Spengler, writing about the Untergang--the downfall--of the West, thought the game was up a hundred years ago. The matter is still in play, the dice-cup is still swinging, we can still believe that we shall win.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 5, 2006 10:59 AM
Reading the entire piece I like Spengler's assessment of western literature, and I agree that LOTR is a superior myth to Star Wars and HP for the many of the reasons Spengler cites.
He goes too far of course. There is an element of wish fulfillment present in the HP series that tends to cheapen the myth, but it doesn’t ruin it. Star Wars does play out the good/bad battle on manichaean terms, as Spengler noted, having Luke's moral fate resting upon his mastery of some arcane form of meditation rather than on the choices he makes. The Jedi are just pawns in the midicholrian's cosmic balancing act. The Force has desires of its won, it is writing the story and the Jedi just need pick role and memorize their lines.
In Harry Potter though the magic is morally inert, the fate of the wizarding world depends upon the choices the characters make. One theme that pervades the series is making the morally right choice over the choice that seems emotionally right. Who could blame Snape for being drawn to the power of the Death Eater cult after knowing how he was treated by his peers at Hogwarts? Who could blame Harry for being bitter and angry toward a society that abandoned him as a child only to bring him back to play the role of martyr, all the while still secretly mistrusting him? Who could blame Ron for his jealousy? Who could blame Draco Malfoy who is only trying to please his father? The moral person could. There are lots of emotional reasons for doing the wrong thing, but that is no excuse. I think Rowling is trying to make this clear in the series. What is unclear is whether in the end Harry can overcome his anger and resentment which have been growing more and more alarming in the latest books. In LOTR it wasn’t Aragorn or even Frodo that saved the day, it was Sam. Is Rowling brave enough to have Harry fall and let Neville save the day? I guess we’ll have to wait until next summer to find out.
HP can actually only be redeemed if the muggles save the day.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 11:49 AMA jejune Manichaeanism pervades the Potter books as well as the "Star Wars" films, and I suppose a case could be made that such a crude apposition of Good and Evil corresponds in some fashion to the emotional narcissism of the protagonists.
Blah, blah, blah. That's reading a lot into a series of books for children.
Posted by: Brandon at October 5, 2006 11:57 AMWhat muggles? There are only 4 muggles in the series and they are mere backstory, a footnote. The story takes place entirely in the wizarding world.
Posted by: Shelton at October 5, 2006 12:03 PMStories mean things.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 12:04 PMExactly.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 12:19 PMI have a one-word question for anyone who says HP is black-and-white good-vs-evil Manichaean: "Snape?"
Snape is good, but a jerk, no?
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 2:42 PMNo one can be sure: Snape might be good or bad.
The bottom line is that HP is intensely moral: It's about how choices and not abilities make you who you are. It's not surprising that Rowling orphaned both Potter and Tom Riddle, and made them live horrific childhoods in her stories. They have similar backgrounds, but their choices ultimately determine their characters.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 5, 2006 8:06 PMHe lives in the good neighborhood in an apartheid system and keeps slaves like Dobie. He's a racist.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2006 9:10 PMOJ:
He's never owned Dobby -- actually, he freed him from the vile Malfoys. The one house-elf he owns is a nasty creature who was responsible for the death of his godfather. HP almost never gives him any kind of orders, preferring instead not to have him around at all.
Apartheid system? Racism? Are we talking about the same books?
You might get your wish: I think HP will either die or lose his magic powers at the end.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 6, 2006 1:10 AMYes, great grandad was always good to his slaves too....
Posted by: oj at October 6, 2006 7:39 AMHP may not be the height of moral literature, but it does go strongly against the modern christo-gnostic heresy which says that God doesn't intend for his people to suffer. At least the good ones in HP have to suffer for righteousness's sake.
Posted by: Chasid at October 6, 2006 10:52 PM