Harry Potter and moral development

Okay, yes, I have Harry Potter on the brain-- but this is something I've been thinking about for quite a long time. [Note: I edited this post slightly on 6/3.]

According to Lawrence Kohlberg, whose stages of moral development seem to be the foundation for this field of study, the highest form of morality is called post-conventional morality. This is characterized by two stages:

Stage 5. The social contract stage means being aware of the degree to which much of so-called morality is relative to the individual and to the social group they belong to, and that only a very few fundamental values are universal. The person at this level sees morality as a matter of entering into a rational contract with one's fellow human beings to be kind to each other, respect authority, and follow laws to the extent that they respect and promote those universal values. Social contract morality often involves a utilitarian approach, where the relative value of an act is determined by "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Stage 6. This stage is referred to as the stage of universal principles. At this point, the person makes a personal commitment to universal principles of equal rights and respect, and social contract takes a clear back-seat: If there is a conflict between a social law or custom and universal principles, the universal principles take precedence.

There are some Christian groups that positively hate Harry, in part because they see him as disobedient and therefore immoral. But it's important for children to see that there are times when you break a rule because you have a higher goal. Young children will often say that it is wrong for a man to steal medicine to save someone's life, for example. Early, conventional morality holds that everyone must follow the letter of the law unquestioningly, even while trampling on higher moral principles. The morality of the Potter books is more sophisticated than that.

Harry, Ron, and Hermione go up against the arch-villain Voldemort and involve themselves in the struggle of good vs. evil. If necessity arises, they will sneak out of their dorm at night, search the Restricted Section of the Hogwarts library without permission, or brew an advanced potion in secret (stealing ingredients from the potions master in the process). They take on this struggle at great personal risk, and not to suit any selfish purpose, but for the benefit of wizardkind. To call this "disobedience" is taking a very unfair view of Harry and his friends. They are not saints, because the books aren't Pollyanna and unrealistic. But they are moral.

In the third book it transpires that a character who was sent to prison without trial is actually innocent. Almost everyone, unaware of the facts, continues to believe he is a villain. This dissonance between conventional wisdom and the truth, between widespread belief and reality, also encourages greater sophistication in children's thinking. No WMDs in Iraq? But didn't "everyone" believe they were there? How can this be? Well, didn't everyone think Sirius Black was a murderer? And yet he wasn't. (The importance of presumption of innocence is a nice bonus.)

That not everything is as it seems is also borne out by two characters, Professor Lockhart (who turns out to be a fraud), and Rita Skeeter, a reporter who drastically distorts the words of her interviewees.

In book 5 there are further layers of complexity. The wizarding world is made not just of good and evil, but includes a third group who are willfully ignorant of Voldemort's return, and defend their bureaucratic powers by refusing to acknowledge that a crisis is underway that might unseat them. (Modern politicians will also ignore crises, if optimism will get them re-elected.) Fred and George Weasley, who routinely disregard the rules but are nonetheless moral and considerate characters, actively resist the bureaucrats. Their older brother Percy, who did extremely well in school and became not only prefect but Head Boy, signs up with the willfully ignorant crowd. Conformity and obedience does not equate with morality; Fred and George are critical thinkers, while the well-behaved Percy is not. Proper behavior and being obsequious toward your superiors is not sufficient to put you on the side of good.

When Dumbledore is forced to leave Hogwarts, and his position as headmaster is taken over by the horrible and totalitarian Umbridge, chaos ensues. A nearly impassable swamp in one corridor, fireworks that never go out, "dungbombs" and "stink pellets," and the destructive school poltergeist all cause havoc. To say the students are disobedient doesn't cover it; the school is resisting a really loathsome character, one who is bent on leaving wizardkind unprepared for Voldemort's renewed campaign of violence. Resistance in the face of injustice and dangerous incompetence is a lesson I would want my children to learn. Understanding civil disobedience requires post-conventional moral thinking, and whether the students are behaving morally or not is a tricky issue for a younger child.

I haven't time to write about it, but Rowling also takes on class differences and discrimination on the basis of blood (whether someone is a pureblood wizard, a half-blood, or "Muggle born"). All in all I think there is a lot to be learned from the Harry Potter series besides vocabulary.