09 Nov 6th Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law: Harry Potter and the Power of Exclusion
[Christine Bianco is a professor of Political Science and Legal Studies at St. John Fisher University.]
Introduction
Percy Weasley and former U.S. President Joe Biden are an odd pair to lump together, not least because only one is a real person. Yet, both have one important common characteristic: their faith in international law. In 2022, Biden asserted, “we emerged anew in the great battle for freedom…between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.” Percy too makes bold claims supporting international law proclaiming, “unless some sort of international law is imposed we might well find the market flooded with flimsy, shallow-bottomed products that seriously endanger –.” Presumably, he would have finished that sentence with “people’s lives.” Both are echoing International Relations scholars and international legal theorists who view international law as a moral or utilitarian good. This view is so ubiquitous it even suffuses popular culture.
However, international law is a product and a weapon of power. This is recognized by a growing body of both International Relations and International Law literature. I add to this scholarship by studying how Harry Potter’s International Statute of Secrecy creates the conditions for othering the non-magical community. I argue that the International Statute of Secrecy has three major effects: the creation of certain groups as subjects and others as objects of the law, the stagnation of perception, and the crystallization of memory. These lead to four major lenses of othering: exoticization, paternalism, dehumanization, and fear.
Popular culture can provide great insight to the world around us. It “is a reflection of the way society believes the world operates.” It is also a place of radical possibility confined only by the boundaries of human imagination and what audiences are willing to accept. As a mirror of the world that is at once boundless and highly bounded, fantasy literature provides a unique space for analyzing international law. Indeed, the existence of international law within a fantasy system shows the taken for granted nature of international law in the public conscious. Additionally, if, as in the case of Harry Potter, even a fantasy world cannot imagine an international legal framework free of creating a system that harms, we must take seriously the critique this provides of the current international system. Onuf argues that “rules…make stable social arrangements possible by privileging some people over others.” The Harry Potter universe demonstrates that society maybe unable to imagine a form of international law that does not do this. Lasharie has argued that “radical imaginations can portent grim futures.” Radical imaginaries can also highlight a grim present. By using Harry Potter as a case study, I seek to show not a specific fault within international law, but instead how well-intentioned laws create conditions that can lead to harm.
The International Statute of Secrecy
Even before the International Statute of Secrecy, local laws existed to hide the magical community. The original reasons for the magical community’s withdrawal was the fear of being taken advantage of by their non-magical neighbors. With growing persecution, fear of exploitation was replaced by fear of persecution. While adult wizards were not truly in danger, magical children were. This persecution prompted the international community to negotiate the International Statute of Secrecy. It was signed in 1689 and went into effect in 1692 (it is also possible there is an inconsistency in the year the law was created between books). However, the portion dealing with magical creatures was negotiated in 1692 and amended numerous times after.
Like real international law, enforcement at the national level requires the incorporation of the principles of the agreement into domestic law. For example, in the 1920s, the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) implemented a law titled Rappaport’s Law, which requires the total separation of the magical community from the non-magical one. By contrast, the UK’s laws allow certain non-magical people to know of the magical community, such as non-magical parents of magical children, and non-magical people married to magical people.
Effects of the International Statute of Secrecy
The International Statute of Secrecy creates three major effects leading to the othering of the non-magical community: the delegation of certain groups as subjects of the law and others as objects of the law, the stagnation perception, and the crystallization of memory. In relation to the first effect, the International Statute of Secrecy was negotiated by the magical community to protect the magical community. Thus, it frames wizards as subjects of the law, giving them rights and responsibilities. By contrast, non-magical persons are objects of the law. They have no rights or responsibilities, and it is up to the wizarding community to decide to protect them.
The second effect of the International Statute of Secrecy is the stagnation of perception. When the Statute went into effect, it pulled the magical community from the non-magical community, freezing the magical community’s perception and understanding of the non-magical community at that point. This can be seen through the complete lack of knowledge about the non-magical community that exists throughout the series. Examples include Ron’s surprise that non-magical photos do not move, the failure of the wizards at the Quidditch World Cup to dress in a manner that passes as normal for the non-magical community, and Kingsley Shackelbolt’s mistakenly calling firearms “firelegs.” This lack of understanding is derived from the separation causing a lack of interaction.
The creation of an international law in response to the persecution of wizards leaves that persecution constantly present in the mind of the wizarding community crystallizing that memory of historic trauma. The references to the importance of secrecy imply the danger of discovery. After Ron, Fred and George rescue Harry using the flying car, Molly Weasley places the fact that they could have been seen on par with the fact that they could have been killed. This is even more poignant if we recall that magical children were the most susceptible to being killed by the medieval persecution of the wizarding community. Thus, the memory that the non-magical community is a source of danger has become crystallized. These three effects lead to the legal reinforcement of an in-group, the wizarding community, and the out-group, the non-magical community.
Lenses of Othering Within the Harry Potter Universe
While othering involves dividing the world into an “us” and a “them,” it also involves the creation of a narrative that creates the other in the imaginary of the self. This narrative consists of what Said referred to as “tropes,” and “images.” I refer to these as lenses. Throughout the Harry Potter universe, there are four major lenses of othering tied to the effects of the International Statute of Secrecy: exoticization, paternalism, dehumanization, and fear.
The first of these lenses is exoticization. Exoticization can take the form of “fetishiz[ing] rare and exotic” elements of another society, or creating “a place of romance, exotic beings.” This lens is embodied in Arthur Weasley. For example, upon discovering the Dursleys’ electric fireplace, he exclaims, “Eclectic [sic], you say? With a plug? Gracious, I must see that.” Then about the TV and VCR, he says, “They run off eckeltricity [sic], do they?…Ah yes, I can see the plugs. I collect plugs…And batteries.” This shows how he sees non-magical artifacts as some rare exotic item. While Arthur Weasley is the most prominent example, exoticization can be seen in other characters. Three of the wizards sent to escort Harry from the Dursleys become fascinated with the microwave and a potato peeler. This type of othering is enabled by the stagnation of perception.
The second lens of othering is paternalism. Barnett defines paternalism as “the attempt by one actor to substitute his judgement for another’s on the grounds that is in the latter’s best interest or welfare.” While paternalism is on its surface an issue of desiring to promote the welfare of another, at its roots, it has the idea that this other is inferior. This lens can be seen through the Muggle Protection Act. Implicit in the title and purpose of this law is the idea that non-magical people are not able to protect themselves and so the magical community must do it for them. This same mentality is also present when Arthur Weasley discusses Muggle-baiting. He discusses how difficult it is to convict wizards of giving non-magical people “shrinking keys” because the non-magical person insists that they have simply lost their keys, not realizing they have been a victim of Muggle-baiting. Arthur adds an unintentionally condescending “bless them.”
The third lens is dehumanization. Like the paternalism lens, this lens has at its heart the belief in the superiority of the wizarding community. This discourse is most noticeably embodied in Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Tom Riddle declares he took the name Voldemort because he did not want his “filthy Muggle father’s name.” Another example is a wizarding book entitled Nature’s Nobility. This implies a Social Darwinian perspective that there is something inherent in wizarding biology making them superior. Both paternalism and dehumanization derive primarily from the stagnation of perception and the creation of Muggles as objects of the law.
The fourth lens of othering is fear. Said described how the Islamic Caliphates’ conquest of Europe became crystalized in European memory and led to a narrative of fear in which “the ‘Ottoman peril’ lurked alongside Europe to represent for the whole of Christian civilization a constant danger.” Similarly, the International Statute of Secrecy’s crystallization of memory also leads to an othering lens of fear in the Harry Potter universe. The opening scene of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them shows the pages of the U.S. wizarding newspaper, including one titled, “Anti-Wizard Sentiment on the Rise.” This is only worth including if such sentiment would be likely to have repercussions for the wizarding community. Picquery, the president of MACUSA, spells out this fear, arguing the events taking place in New York are starting to terrify the non-magical community, and when non-magical people are afraid, “they” attack. The way she discusses the possibility of an attack is as if it is a certainty and caused by something intrinsic within a homogenous “other”. “They” attack because “they” are dangerous, especially when “they” are afraid. The fear lens is partly derived from the stark separation of the wizarding and non-magical communities in the U.S. as a result of the International Statute of Secrecy and Rappaport’s Law which foster the conditions to see the entirety of the non-magical community as a single entity that would react in a certain manner. This fear is also enabled by the way the International Statute of Secrecy gives a prominent place to past persecution of the wizarding community by the non-magical community and crystallizes this.
Conclusion
While laws specifically designed to be discriminatory are obvious in the harms they cause, it is often much harder to see how well-intentioned laws can have the same effects. Here, the International Statute of Secrecy serves as a bridging ground between these two types. While the International Statute of Secrecy is specifically designed to separate and exclude, it was, at its inception, a well-intentioned law designed to protect the wizarding community, especially its most vulnerable members. However, despite these intentions, the law others by designating the wizarding community as subjects under the law and the non-magical community as objects of the law, by stagnating the perception of the non-magical community, and by crystallizing past abuses in the collective memory of the wizarding community. Thus, it shows how international law can create the conditions that allow differing discourses of othering to take place.
By showing how even those laws designed to help people can create the conditions for othering, this paper has sought to show how even the best-intentioned international laws are closely associated with power and are not a neutral force. While certain aspects of international law are beneficial, any understanding of how international law can be used for the betterment of humanity must necessarily include a critical look at how that international law would interact with societal biases and relations of power to create negative effects for groups within society, especially the most marginalized.