Mods, please feel free to move this if it’s not in the right place. It’s not an entirely serious discussion but one that actually interests me.
Now, I’m not a Harry Potter fan, but the wife is. I recognise the books as being a decent story and good fun, but the subject matter isn’t really my thing. Each to their own and all. But my wife is a huge fan and I like to tease her by asking questions and pointing out tropes - not a mean-spirited thing but something we do to each other. So based on that, this is just a discussion - I’m not actively worked up in any way by this
Anyway, it occurred to me that the word ‘muggle’ sounded, as a non-magic user myself, to be quite offensive; the very sounds it makes seem belittling (‘Oh, he’s just a muggle’), and while the ‘good’ wizards in the world are quite cool with non-magical people and use the word neutrally, it still sounded like a word that, if the Harry Potter world was real, would be abused and non-magic users would find offensive.
Then it occurred to me that the Illuminati-esque abilities of the Wizarding World to remain hidden from muggles means that no (or almost no) muggles have any idea that this word exists, so don’t have an opportunity to feel offended, or not offended, by the word. It’s a word that’s been created by others to describe them - not a word that muggles have devised to describe themselves.
So am I onto something here, or should I just start getting more sleep?
If I recall, the term Muggles was a descriptive term. It just meant someone who did not use magic. In fact, Mr Weasley was quite a fan of muggles technology and did not use the term in a derogatory way. The term Mudblood, however, was used in a derogatory way. It was intended as an insult to those born to wizard and muggle parents.
It’s interesting isn’t it: racism is very common in fantasy works.
“Khajit can’t be trusted”, “Dark fairies are always chaotic neutral”, “Ferengi make lousy scientists” etc.
Of course, this is justified in many cases…obviously an extraterrestrial species for example is likely to be vastly different to average human behaviour (much more so than the Ferengi). But it’s just interesting how common the motifs of “them” and “us”, and generalization, are.
Euphemism treadmill in place. ISTM that the term ‘negro’ was a polite, neutral way of describing people with a large amount of melanin in their skin, until that became offense, and we have ‘african-american’ instead.
‘Muggle’ likely started as just descriptive, but over time (and over the course of the movies, if not the books) becomes more derogatory.
The wizarding world is highly antiquated. I’d consider it the equivalent of “negess.” More trying to be descriptive then offensive, but too close to an offensive word for modern tastes. I’d be very hesitant to use it, but still looking for a good substitute.
Muggle-American, please. It’s not set in America? Doesn’t matter!
I’m sure if it was in the real world the non-magic users would want to coin a more noble sounding name to cover up their uselessness. If I remember right Voldemort AKA Wizard Hitler didn’t really care about the muggles per se, he mostly wanted to cleanse the wizards of their tainted blood and make sure everyone was pure. And just like Hitler he didn’t live up to his own ideals.
It would strike me as odd if J.K. Rowling did not intend for the terms Muggle and Mudblood to be seen as corollaries to racism in the real world. There are certainly themes about race and classism in the Harry Potter books that must have been intentionally planted by the author.
I am a fan of the Potterverse, and yes, I am an adult with strange tastes.
The term, ‘muggle’, was not intended to be pejorative, merely descriptive. But, as with other words, over the course of time the term has become more of an insult.
The way the terms work is as follows:
[ul]
[li]Muggles are humans with no magical abilities. The wizarding world is unknown to them, by and large. There are exceptions, but they are rare.[/li][li]Squibs (a much more derisive sounding word than ‘muggle’ in my opinion) are humans who may have had non-muggle parents, and who have the ability to sense magic but not to actually cast spells. They are a part of the wizarding world and are usually relegated to menial tasks or as spies in the muggle world.[/li][li]Muggle-born are wizards/witches who have two muggle parents. This annoys the purebloods and the term ‘mudblood’ is used to describe them in a pejorative manner. This term is also used occasionally to describe half-bloods as well.[/li][li]Half-bloods are wizards/witches who have one muggle parent and one wizard/witch parent. They are looked down upon by the purebloods, and have a difficult time making their way because of prejudice. [/li][li]Pure-bloods are the aristocracy of the wizarding world and are in charge of most of the power structures such as law enforcement, commerce, and governance. Most of them are highly prejudiced against all of the above categories. They advocate a complete separation between the wizarding and muggle worlds. The minority who disagree with this idea are labeled as ‘blood traitors’ by the majority.[/li][/ul]
It has been suggested by some fans that the word ‘mundane’ should be used instead of ‘muggle’.
I may have missed something here and I am sure, if so, I will be corrected.
As an aside, when I was a younger person and deeply into fantasy and SF, my cadre referred to the rest of humanity who were not so enamored as ‘mundanes’. I can imagine that the current generation of like-minded people would use the term ‘muggle’ in the same manner.
It is an allegory of racism, obviously quite intentional on Rowling’s part. She is using it to show her (child) readers the insidious way that racism can work.
