The Class Dynamics Between James Potter And Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:

The Class Dynamics between James Potter and Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:

This is a dedication to all those who say that class has nothing to do with the bullying that James exerted on Severus, to those who claim that James couldn't be classist because "he never proactively despised anyone for being poor" or because "he was friends with Remus," to those who say "Snape also attacked him" or suggest it was a "rivalry" and that they were on equal footing, or simply to those who say they are "fictional characters" and that fiction has nothing to do with reality, blah blah blah. This is something I have written with bibliographical references because, once in a while, I can stop being a simp goof and show off my university degree in political science. And yes, I am going to be an authentic pedant because I can, and because many people seem to live in a candy-coated world regarding these issues, and it wouldn't hurt them to get a bit educated. That said, here goes my essay:

When analysing the interactions between James Potter and Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" universe, it is common to find vehement defences of James, arguing that his bullying was not class-motivated. However, it is crucial to untangle how class dynamics operate structurally and how this influences interpersonal relationships. James Potter, as a member of a wealthy, pure-blood family, represents the dominant class, while Severus Snape, coming from a poor, working-class background, embodies the subordinate classes. In the magical world, pure-blood lineage is associated with inherited privileges similar to aristocracy in the real world, where blood purity is a marker of status and power. Authors like Anderson and Löwe (2006) have explored how heritage and lineage have been determining factors in the distribution of power and privileges throughout history, both in fictional and real contexts. This socioeconomic background plays a crucial role in the power dynamics between characters like James and Severus, highlighting how class structures affect their interactions and perpetuate inequality.

Social class, according to Marxist analysis, is a structural category that determines individuals' positions within society based on their access to the means of production. In "Harry Potter", pure-blood status equates to magical aristocracy, while Muggle-borns, Half-Bloods with muggle parent and those from humble origins, like Snape, represent the working or marginalised classes. James Potter, on the other hand, embodies the privileges of the elite, not only through his wealth but also through his lineage, which grants him a status that influences his interactions with others.

The bullying James exerts over Severus cannot be disconnected from its socioeconomic context. Although James may not have explicitly expressed disdain towards Severus for being poor, the way he exploits his superior position to humiliate and subdue Severus reflects power dynamics based on class. Pierre Bourdieu describes how power structures are reproduced through symbolic violence, where the dominant classes impose their cultural and social legitimacy over the subordinate ones, perpetuating inequality. In the context of 'Harry Potter', this symbolic violence is reflected in how the magical aristocracy imposes its values and norms on those of humble origin. The public humiliations James inflicts on Severus are not just acts of bullying but also manifestations of a structural power that favours the privileged like James. Besides Bourdieu, other theorists such as Michel Foucault could provide complementary perspectives on how power is exercised and perpetuated in institutions, in this case, Hogwarts as a microcosm of magical society.

In James and Severus's case, this symbolic violence manifests in the public humiliations James inflicts on Severus, using his status to ensure there are no significant repercussions. James's position as a popular and privileged student grants him social immunity that Severus, due to his humble origin, cannot counter. This demonstrates how class structures influence the dynamics of school bullying, where resources and social capital determine which behaviours are acceptable and which are not.

The "Harry Potter" fandom often minimises James's actions, portraying him as a mere prankster without malice, while pathologising Severus's response, attributing it to resentment and bitterness. This narrative reinforces the whitewashing of the actions of the rich and popular to the detriment of the poor and marginalised. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their "Dialectic of Enlightenment", explain how the culture industry and hegemonic discourses contribute to naturalising domination relationships, presenting them as inevitable or even fair. Their analysis reveals that modern media perpetuates class dynamics by presenting power structures as natural and immutable. This can be observed in how the dominant narrative in the 'Harry Potter' franchise tends to glorify high-class characters like James while marginalising figures like Severus, whose resistance to the system is viewed with suspicion or disapproval. Contemporary studies, such as Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" (2009), also highlight how media reinforces the current economic and social status quo, making it difficult to imagine alternatives to the existing system.

By justifying James's bullying as mere youthful pranks, the fandom perpetuates a narrative that excuses the abuse of power and classism, ignoring the impact these actions have on individuals like Severus, who are already in a structurally disadvantaged position. This reinforces social hierarchies and strips victims of their agency and dignity.

Severus's portrayal as a bullying victim is intrinsically linked to his social class. His marginalisation is not just a product of his actions or personal choices but a consequence of social structures that privilege figures like James Potter. Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are useful here to understand how the dominant class's ideas are imposed as normative, silencing the oppressed voices and legitimising the violence they suffer. In the 'Harry Potter' narrative, this hegemony manifests through the glorification of the values and behaviours of pure-blood characters like James, while the perspectives of the marginalised, like Severus, are dismissed or vilified. For example, the Marauders, led by James and Sirius, both rich pure-bloods, are portrayed as mischievous heroes despite their aggressive behaviour towards Snape, who is depicted much more negatively even when acting in self-defence. This reflects how cultural hegemony shapes public perception, perpetuating a value system that favours the privileged and marginalises the oppressed. Authors like Stuart Hall have explored how media and popular culture reinforce these hegemonic structures, underscoring the need for critical analysis to dismantle these dominant narratives.

Severus, in this sense, represents those who are constantly repressed by power structures and whose narrative is distorted to fit a worldview that favours the privileged. His resistance and eventual adoption of extreme ideologies can be understood as a response to this marginalisation, a desperate attempt to reclaim agency systematically denied to him.

To fully understand the relationship between James Potter and Severus Snape, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of class structures on their interactions. The narrative that minimises James's bullying and blames Severus perpetuates a simplistic and biased view that ignores the complexities of social inequality and power. By applying a critical analysis based on Marxist theories, we can unravel how classism permeates these relationships. Studies on young adult literature, such as those by Maria Nikolajeva, and the analysis of victimisation frameworks in popular culture by Henry Jenkins provide a theoretical framework that reinforces the need to re-examine fandom's conceptions to avoid perpetuating these structural injustices. These investigations highlight how narratives of power and oppression are often shaped by dominant interests and how this affects the public's perception of marginalised characters like Severus.

The Truth About The Omniverse & The “Real” Ben 10,000 Future | by Catgirl

Ben (as Gutrot): “Animo coming back from the future again? Now, does that mean everything was different until he came back, or there was a world where he didn’t come back that doesn’t exist anymore, or what? See cause it doesn’t make any sense.” Rook: “Time travel, Ben. It never does.” ("Animo Crackers" - Ben 10: Omniverse)

I don’t know why this dialogue was chosen to be included INSTEAD of explaining the situation, so allow me to make sense of it for you.

Because I’m starting to get the impression that some people missed the point, despite all the producers' statements and canon evidence spelling it out.

And, I suspect that’s mostly thanks to this kid…

The Truth About The Omniverse & The “Real” Ben 10,000 Future | By Catgirl

...due to his various incorrect statements, and actively doing the opposite of what Paradox has been doing the entire series.

His first mistake was his attempt to force the Prime Timeline into a certain direction, despite his own reality already existing in its place within the multiverse.

Here’s the deal: his reality already exists. And therefore, can’t be “erased” by the existence of any other reality. If THAT was the case, it would have happened already, and there would never have been a multiverse.

Spanner just going back in time is not enough to confirm that he is from the “real future,” since literally anyone could also go back to this exact point if they were to do the exact same thing.

Future Gwendolyn, Ultimate Ben, and Future Animo - all from separate alternate futures - travelled back in time, and neither of which came from the so-called “real future.”

Paradox being the one to give Spanner his equipment proves absolutely nothing. Especially not that he would suddenly go against all logic and reason to do the same thing as a misguided kid who clearly doen’t understand the way the Omniverse works.

Wouldn’t it make sense to provide a means of defence for a kid in a multi dimensional warzone?

On the other hand, despite the fact that it would be nonsensical to try to fix a ”perfect” relationship, does giving him that power and equipment to force something to happen, and go against the rules by which Paradox operates, seem reasonable?

I mean, *insert every time Paradox has ever stopped anyone from revealing the future here*

Despite the main cast’s initial panic, nothing Spanner said held any power over anyone. The only thing he revealed was what happened in the alternate future that he, himself, had come from. That doesn’t dictate anyone’s actions moving forward.

Entertaining him for a second, if what he said was true - the belief that, despite existing within an Omniverse, the present will only lead to his future - he really shouldn't worry about ceasing to exist. By his logic, no other reality would have ever existed at all.

In fact, his own actions prove that he was wrong.

There would be no need to panic if they really had no choice. If they didn’t have free will, no force or effort on his part should have been necessary.

Paradox only intervenes when the entirety of existence is at stake. (Such as it was in “And Then There Were None” / ”And Then There Was Ben.”) Otherwise, he reveals next to nothing because the future isn’t set in stone.

Unlike Spanner, Paradox has never attempted to force anyone to do anything. That's why he wants to “prevent the future from changing" - he wants to avoid having an influence over their actions and therefore not allowing them to act upon their free will. Events only happen as people make their own choices, out of free will, which then is the reason for the existence of so many "branches."

This is also a common remark amongst the fanbase. It’s not inherently wrong. However, what people fail to see is the reason for that.

The issue is that this alludes to the idea of there being just one possible future. When, the only reason there are different outcomes is because people have the ability to choose their next course of action. People have control over their own actions so naturally every different choice will lead to a different outcome.

And, which is why everything Spanner did and said was…completely incorrect. It wouldn’t matter what he did. He can not erase the fact that free will exists.

In this situation, Paradox didn’t intervene because it doesn’t really make a difference what happens as long as it isn’t detrimental to all of reality. One alternate universe is ultimately inconsequential in the grand scheme of the entire Omniverse.

The reason “Ben’s future changes every time he meets his (alleged) future self” is because, as has been established, reality “branches off,” creating new outcomes that stem from the Prime Timeline. Meaning, he has the free will to choose his next course of action in any particular situation.

Azmuth: “Yes. You told me of his grand destiny that he was the legendary being who will someday.” Paradox: “Shhh! No spoilers. For that glorious future to occur, we must first survive the current crisis.” Azmuth: “It's too much! The child cannot win this time.” Paradox: “And I say he can. Won't it be fun to find out who's right?” (“The Forge of Creation” - Ben 10: Ultimate Alien)

As shown in "Fight at The Museum", revealing the events of any future just causes unnecessary panic due to a perceived loss of free will and choice.

Which, is NOT how it works. The future of any given reality should depend on the present, and not the other way around.

Paradox - the one who understands all of this - is extremely cryptic. And, evidently, for a reason: to not reveal anything and to not influence anyone. He avoids forcing reality into any direction. His only interest is protecting all of existence.

Haven't you ever noticed how he never specifies exactly what anyone is “supposed to do?” And, just says things like, "he (Ben) will do what needs to be done?” Or refuses to get too involved in the battle?

(Needless to say, completely unlike Spanner.)

So, there isn’t something specific that absolutely needs to happen, “or else.” Something much worse - like deadly intergalactic wars - have already taken place within the Omniverse and it didn’t affect the entirety of existence.

So, a certain relationship not happening, in one universe? Out of literally infinite? Yeah, tragic.

Things can play out differently in different realities because that’s how the multiverse works.

The relationship between the main timeline and every alternate reality can be described like this:

Paradox: “But before I can answer any questions, you're going to need to brush up on quantum mechanics and string theory. There are many dimensions, many Universes, many Earths, and thus many Ben Tennysons across those dimensions, dimensions which are not always in sync in time. Think of time and space as this tree. Down here is when you were 10 years old. Right here is now. Up here is when you'll be 30 years old. The trunk is the main timeline. These branches represent alternate timelines, where reality literally branches off and becomes a different timeline, each containing its own Ben Tennyson.” (“And Then There Were None” - Ben 10: Omniverse)

By that logic, what is referred to as the “trunk” can’t lead to just one “branch,” outcome or in only one direction. To insist to opposite wouldn't make sense because...if you've ever seen a tree before, that's not how it works.

If we’re going to argue that fate doesn’t exist, then there can’t be an already established end for the prime timeline. If there was, it wouldn’t have been “branching off” to begin with. But, as has been established by the sheer existence of every known alternate reality...that’s impossible.

These realities are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, the existence of one doesn’t write off the existence of another. Both Ultimate Ben and this version of Future Animo could predict what was going to happen because their realities were branches off of the prime timeline, which both exist independently.

Paradox: “Cross-time is made up of parallel versions of the history we know. There are hundreds of them. A world where Gwen found the Omnitrix. A world where albedo turned to alien x and was trapped motionless for nearly a year. A world where you didn't have to destroy the Omnitrix to defeat Vilgax. Et cetera. Ad infinitum. These worlds are all every bit as real as our own, but they cannot not be allowed to leak into ours.” (“Ben 10,000 Returns” - Ultimate Alien)

Paradox wouldn’t force the future into any direction to not interfere with free will. And he wouldn’t just give out equipment for that specific purpose, either, because then it would lead to the exact problem there was with Spanner.

So, I don’t want to hear about how this is the “real future,” or his “fate,” or “destiny”...or whatever.

("The End of an Era" - Ben 10: Omniverse)

Because, within the Omniverse, where there are infinite possibilities, and where new ones are constantly being created as soon as anything does or doesn't happen, the Prime Timeline can't be confined to just one.

The Ben 10 universe is an Omniverse. And the Omniverse is infinite.

In Conclusion, as Professor Paradox said, “There are so many ways to tell a story, but that's what makes them so interesting; you could never predict how they are going to turn out." (“And Then There Were None” - Ben 10: Omniverse)

Even the most recent official content ("Alien X-Tinction" - Ben 10, 2016) - which, ironically enough, had a plotline literally surrounding the Omniverse - supports my argument. Because, establishing the Omniverse, and ending on that note, effectively gives everyone what they want out of the Ben 10 series. Since, existing within an Omniverse means everything can happen, simultaneously.

The only “fate” you have is the one you create for yourself, and the only “destiny” you’re confined to is the one you choose to follow.

RESEARCH + REFERENCES:

◾ Q&A With Matt Wayne - Page 58 (archive.is)

◾ Category:Crew Statements | Ben 10 Wiki | Fandom

◾ Ben 10,000 | Ben 10 Wiki | Fandom

◾ Category:Timelines | Ben 10 Wiki | Fandom

CATGIRL’S OTHER POSTS ON THE TOPIC:

◾ On the future of the Ben 10 continuity

◾ On the alleged inevitability of Benkai

◾ On time travellers hiding their identity

◾ On Alien X-Tinction & its conclusion

88 notes View Post

xynnietheslut

3 months ago

fanfiction truly being the savior for everyones sanity

50K notes View Post

xynnietheslut

5 months ago

tea

33K notes View Post

xynnietheslut

6 months ago

ONE DAY

7K notes View Post

xynnietheslut

3 months ago

An early valentines post :)

1K notes View Post

xynnietheslut

2 months ago

I mean, yes, it would be totally problematic if maradeurs fans started saying that a black character "deserved" being assaulted by a group of people, while his aggressor admits he's doing it "because he exists". But... that's also bad if it's done to a white character. You don't get a free pass to bully people because the victim is a white boy. It's not progressive to say you're okay with bullying if it's agaisnt the right people. It's crazy that we need to explain this.

Exactly, and that’s where their double standards come in.

Are you only now afraid that victim-blaming might make you look like a shitty person? Has it seriously never embarrassed you before this moment to defend the systematic abuse of a person in a position of inferiority at the hands of rich, aristocratic kids abusing their power?

Is the only scenario in which you find it reprehensible for someone to publicly strip another person because their best friend is bored and they feel like bullying them “for existing” when there’s a racial aspect involved?

I don’t know what kind of ethical system these people have, but honestly, the problem isn’t that their favorite characters might end up looking like a bunch of abusive pricks—it’s that they already are.

43 notes View Post

xynnietheslut

3 months ago