'Harry Potter' fans share many political views, says survey

A new book by a University of Vermont professor found that 'Harry Potter' fans have similar views on political topics – with a large majority in opposition to the George W. Bush administration.

Discovery Times Square/PR Newswire
The 'Harry Potter' movies star Daniel Radcliffe (r.), Rupert Grint (second from r.), Emma Watson (second from l.), and Matthew Lewis (l.).

Harry Potter” fans already have in common their ability to rattle off obscure trivia like character Ron Weasley’s favorite Quidditch team or the address of protagonist Harry’s cruel aunt and uncle.

But it turns out they may share something more substantial as well: political views.

According to a book by University of Vermont professor Anthony Gierzynski titled “Harry Potter and the Millennials,” college-age Potter fans share similar political stances. They are “more open to diversity; politically tolerant; less authoritarian; less likely to support the use of deadly force or torture; [and] more politically active,” according to University of Vermont writer Jon C. Reidel.

They also have similar tastes in politicians, with 83 percent of respondents saying they disliked the George W. Bush administration and about 60 percent stating that they voted for Barack Obama during his first election.

“Whether the book provided new perspectives or reinforced those already in their world, the deep immersion in the story and identification with the characters almost guaranteed an alignment of fans’ perspectives with those of the wizarding world, perspectives that would differentiate them from their nonfan peers,” Gierzynski told the University of Vermont.

The author surveyed 1,100 students between 2009 and 2011. Almost half of them had seen every movie, while 35 percent said they’d read all of the books in the series, and two-thirds of the students said they'd read at least part of the heptalogy. Their schools were located all over the US, from California Polytechnic State University to the University of Mississippi.

Gierzynski believes that the students’ increased political engagement “perhaps reflects the story’s lesson on the need to act, and efficacy of doing something to fight what is ‘wrong’ in the world.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.