Adolescence, autonomy and Harry Potter: the child as decision-maker Shauna Van Praagh* Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Institute of Comparative Law, McGill University 1. Introduction (a) A paradox Like all babies, Harry Potter 1 was born vulnerable. Like most babies, he was cared for and loved by those closest to him. When Harry was still an infant, however, the most horrible thing imaginable happened. His parents were killed by Voldemort; in turn, the evil wizard turned his murderous wrath on baby Harry. But Harry was too strong for Voldemort. Without realising it, he destroyed Voldemort’s powers and survived with only a jagged scar on his forehead. Harry Potter may have been vulnerable. But he was also capable of directing the history of the entire wizard world. The paradoxical co-existence of vulnerability and strength is evident throughout the stories of Harry Potter. An orphan desperate for family and love, Harry confronts Voldemort again and again. He, like other wizard and muggle 2 children, needs protection and care and friendship; he also needs to study and learn, develop self-confidence, make choices, and exercise judgment and considerable restraint. Things both good and bad happen to Harry Potter – some of which are within his control, others of which are imposed – and he grows up learning how to respond to, manage, and learn from all of them. Childhood is defined by a paradoxical mix of real vulnerability and authentic strength. Although particularly marked in the case of Harry Potter, the lives of children and the process of growing up are characterised both by basic – although often complicated – needs, and by what are understood to be increasingly autonomous actions. The obvious vulnerability of a baby at one end of the spectrum of childhood can be contrasted with the abilities and independence of a teenager at the other. But, as Harry Potter illustrates, such a characterisation is not so clear-cut. Instead, children can be both victims and agents all along that spectrum. * My appreciation goes to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and to the Wainwright Trust Fund for support. This paper was written for a very grown-up Harry Potter fan and critic, nine-year-old Emma Burke of Ste. Alve` re, France, and for her family. My love and thanks go to Daniel, Micah and Ari for their questions and insights, and, as always, to Rene´ Provost for his suggestions, constructive arguments and unwavering partnership. Finally, I acknowledge the substantial interest and support of my colleagues at McGill, Angela Campbell, Richard Janda, Daniel Jutras, Nicholas Kasirer, Roderick Macdonald, and Stephen Toope, and the significant assistance of Catherine Lambert, Jacqueline Phillips, Heidi-Lee Smith, and Maria D’Amico. 1 This paper refers to the first five books in the Harry Potter series: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Rowling, 1997); Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Rowling, 1998); Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Rowling, 1999); Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Rowling, 2000); Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Rowling, 2003). In the text, I will refer to Rowling’s books as Book One, Book Two, Book Three, Book Four and Book Five, in order to illustrate the progression in Harry’s development. The sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Rowling, 2005), published after the writing of this paper, is referred to at nn. 27 and 150 but is not included in this analysis of ‘young adolescence’ (ages 11–15) in Harry Potter and law. 2 ‘A Muggle ... it’s what we call non-magic folk ... ’ (Rowling, 1997, p. 43). International Journal of Law in Context, 1,4 pp. 335–373 (2005) Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S1744552305004027 Printed in the United Kingdom