What J.K. Rowling Says About You and Me

Celebrated Scottish author J.K. Rowling’s rapid collapse into Internet pariah status last week demonstrates a whole range of issues. The way rich people with massive platforms apparently can’t pipe down while they’re ahead, on the one hand; and on the other, the way Leftist puritans will excommunicate one of their own for not toeing the entire party line. Or the question of whether we can appreciate art while criticizing the artist.
 
I’d like to focus on another question, though: how much of Rowling’s downfall happened because we readers projected ourselves onto her? When she tweeted in favor of economic justice for poor and working citizens, like she herself used to be, we flocked around her. Then she tweeted comments that showed her lack of awareness regarding sensitive racial issues, especially in America, so we turned against her. And she won us back by tweeting against Donald Trump.

This whiplash movement between extremes makes me wonder exactly how much we’re really responding to her. Yes, some comments implied Rowling has a problem with implicit, unexamined racism, to give just one example. However, as Ibram X. Kendi writes, we all do, sometimes. Even Kendi a university professor specializing in the history of race and racism, admits finding poorly sublimated racism in himself, and constantly struggling to identify and expunge it.

Rowling’s comments defending a transphobic troll, laced with dog-whistle language pinched from selectively right-wing web discussions, hit many readers pretty hard. My observations suggest, purely anecdotally, that many audience members took Rowling’s comments so hard because they expected her to demonstrate their treasured values. Though remarkably few would admit it, I suspect many people fear they might harbor unsavory exclusionary opinions too.

This possibility struck me reading somebody’s comment on a friend sharing a Harry Potter-themed Tumblr comment on Facebook. “No Harry Potter memes!” this friend-of-a-friend demanded. “She’s nothing but a TERF hoe.” This comment jolted me severely, not just because this man wanted to defend trans-women using the misogynistic term “hoe,” but also because he said “nothing but,” crushing Rowling’s accomplishments into the most repellent moment in her public life.

In other words, in wanting to condemn an outspoken TERF, this person, this man, used the exact kind of ugly, misogynistic bigotry against which outspoken womanist leaders have fought for generations. This man demonstrated internalized anti-woman attitudes which he probably doesn’t even realize he possesses. Like President Trump insisting he’s “not a racist,” this man would probably insist he isn’t sexist. But he did an ugly sexist thing.

Again, I recognize my observations are purely anecdotal. It’s difficult to get wide cross-sections of public data on sexist attitudes, especially when people have open divisions between their actions and their self-image. But purely from my individual experience on Left-leaning social media, many people most aggressively condemning Rowling’s statements have revealed deep, unexamined bigotry in themselves. And you know the risks in pointing such bigotry out.

Moreover, I suspect this conflict, with someone as public as Rowling in the center, may well make things worse overall. Rowling is unlikely to change her mind after airing her opinion in public, because as any psychologist can tell you, being wrong hurts. Not just in an abstract, spiritual manner either; being wrong, and especially being called out for your mistakes, can fire your brain’s pain centers. It hurts like being punched.

Meanwhile, those condemning Rowling’s statements are equally resistant to dialog, because they invest their public presence in being anti-whatever we’re angry about today. Anger can feel good, releasing adrenaline and endorphins, giving a person the high we associate with being righteous. So groups encourage one another to anger, everyone involved gets high, and everyone feels vindicated. Thus we get today’s ugliest swarming behavior, Internet shaming.

Please don’t misunderstand. I think Rowling picked the losing side, used ugly language that encourages nasty behavior, and history will judge this moment in her life poorly. Still, this moment will probably drag longer than anyone involved expects, and looking back, even those who currently feel righteous will experience deep shame over their own statements. Many people are revealing more about themselves than they probably realize.

Public attitudes about sexuality and gender have changed very rapidly in recent years. People formerly perceived as progressive now often look like backsliders, and even those who keep abreast of developments frequently must walk back statements from their pasts. Rowling set herself up for this criticism. But those condemning her must take care they don’t prep their own future condemnations at the same time.