Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: A Critical Sensibility

Hermione Granger. Image courtesy of Olga Kukova/Pixabay.

The newest Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009), is racist, misogynistic and homophobic.

But before I attempt to show this, let us first get some things out of the way.

In most disputes about racism, misogyny and homophobia, one of the largest barriers to consensus is the question of whether real difference exists between unconscious and conscious racist, sexist and homophobic acts.

Proponents of the conscious/unconscious binary often argue that conscious misanthropy targeted at a particular group (i.e. intentional racism/sexism/homophobia) is inexcusable. However, they seem to say that the same misanthropy, if said to be unconscious (i.e. unintentional), ought to be seen as excusable – perhaps even permissible.

In other words, they argue that claiming unconsciousness liberates an actor of his or her responsibility to the real outcome(s) of his or her action. And this is where they mess up.

As I understand it, the outcome of an action may be said to be the result of unconscious intention if, prior to acting, the actor lacked complete awareness of its possible effect(s). This is much in line with Freud’s commentary that “ignorance is ignorance.”

Yet, even if one were to be in accordance with Freud’s comment, the conscious unconscious binary falls apart when we consider Kristin Shrader-Frechette’s idea that “ignorance is not absence of fault.”

And this is why Harry Potter is racist, misogynistic and homophobic. Not because I believe it was designed to be so, but because it is so.

First, it’s homophobic, in part, due to its absence of same-sex relationships. In a film entirely centered on and around teenage sexuality and teenage sexual relationships – with ‘love scenes’ in almost every frame – heterosexuality is presented as ‘normal.’ And by definition, same-sex relationships are presented as not. David Dorfman recently advised my class that one should pay attention to what’s not said, because sometimes the unsaid is just as important as what is said. I agree.

Second, it’s misogynistic because of its static representation of teenage girls. Even my fourteen year old sister could see that every female character is presented as boy-crazy, over-emotional, and, at times, simply irrational. The boys, on the other hand, are the ‘cool’ and logical ones – even in their irrationality (this is the ancient Mythos/Logos binary). The message is clear: in ‘normal’ relationships, girls chase boys. Take Ron for example, too cool to even recognize when the very attractive and extremely intelligent Hermione spends the entire film drooling over him. Something tells me that across most high schools, it would be the other way around.

Thirdly, for all of its bold display of interracial relationships, the film is racist, inter alia, because it builds up and puts forth interracial relationships as inchoate and/or as stereotypically destined to fail. In fact, the audience is introduced to this doctrine at the films opening scene, which I will not describe here. Go back and watch it again, this time with a critical sensibility, you too might see it. But even if you don’t, the question of why each interracial relationship displayed is or becomes dysfunctional goes unanswered.

You know, it’s not surprising that racism and sexism and homophobia find their way into even magical worlds. After all, racist, sexist, and homophobic thought is a part of ones subconscious – which, unlike unconsciousness, is a part of one’s consciousness.

I’m more and more beginning to believe that the real problem for all of us is that we unconsciously live in our subconscious. But admitting this would make one responsible for the results of one’s actions – intentioned or not.

Wouldn’t that be an inconvenient truth?