The Hobbit: An Unexpected Allegory for Anarchism

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

I believe J. R. R. Tolkien wrote The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings such that they expressed, what he believed to be, a message from God.  It is known that Tolkien believed pagan myths were imperfect expressions of God's heart, imagination, and feelings.  Tolkien's friend, C. S. Lewis, once said, "Myths are lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."  Tolkien responded saying that myths were the best way of expressing truths that, in many cases, would otherwise be unexpressable.Knowing this, let's examine the characters.  The highest powers in the free world of Middle-Earth are members of The Second White Council.  Those include Saruman the White, Gandalf the Grey, Lady Galadriel, Master Elrond, and Cirdan the Shipwright.  Gandalf and Saruman are opposing forces within the literature.  In The Return of the King, after becoming a white wizard, Gandalf mentions that he is Saruman as he should have been.  What is that?  Elrond answers that question in The Hobbit.  Gandalf, like Lady Galadriel and Saruman, is "a guardian to stand watch over Middle-earth".  What distinguishes Gandalf from the other "guardians" is that he is this "moralistically good" opposing force to Saruman.  He is meant to be a beacon of truth in the face of Saruman's deception and corruption.That leads me to the main point.  Gandalf is an anarchist.  First, we know that Gandalf loves hobbits.  Specifically, he loves their way of life.  Hobbits have no government.  Everyone is treated as family and everyone is held accountable to eachother.  That is important.  There is still crime, such as theft and destruction of property, yet no law enforcement.  Hobbits have created a community of mutual cooperation and accountability.  Also, check out this quote: "Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love. Why Bilbo Baggins? Perhaps because I am afraid, and he gives me courage." ~GandalfIf any of you haven't seen The Lord of the Rings movies, I highly suggest you look into them.  If you haven't picked up on the themes, I suggest you reexamine them.  In my opinion, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings provide more underlying truth than any movie or book I have ever read.

[tasmlab]

That's a nice analysis.  I love the books and movies.

Every faction except the Hobbits somewhat miserably seek power, be it Sauraman, Sauron and his army, the humans looking for a king, the rival human communities who hem and haw whether to aid each other, the elves in their kindom, the dwarves for their treasure and home, etc.

The hobbits don't seek power but instead happiness.  They like to eat and drink and smoke weed and dance and garden etc.,

So nobody every says out loud why Gandalf made the wholesale insane choice to task destroying the ultimate ring of power to a helpless, weak Frodo who didn't know how to fight or do much of anything.  But it was because a hobbit was the only one who wouldn't value power over happiness - and even he was ultimately corrupted in the end!

 

Stef does a nice bit about their being almost no commerce in the stories, as such with Star Trek and just about every sci fi/fantasy story ever.

[David L]

 

 The hobbits don't seek power but instead happiness.  They like to eat and drink and smoke weed and dance and garden etc.,

 

Yes, they are Pagans, the true natural anarchists. It has been said that children should be allowed to be completely wild up to their seventh year, allowed to be the total pagans that they naturally are, innocent and uncorrupted by organized religion, secularism, and all other manner of dogmatic belief. Then they will have deep roots planted in the earth, and thus will be able to truly grow up.

The view that evil is overcome, not by power, but by the little things in life---in small acts of kindness--- is totally right on. The whole challenge is for us to become a society of nobodies, where nobody is considered more special or important than anybody else. That's true anarchism, true happiness and true freedom.

[Stefan Molyneux]

 I don't think a trilogy about "The Return of the King" can be an allegory for anarchism.

[David L]

The best of the radical artists of literature always hide their message within the story, "for those with eyes to see".  :-)

King Aragorn to the hobbits:  "My friends, you bow to no one"   

[nathanm]

I am not sure about hobbit government, but I know that in the appendicies Sam Gamgee becomes "Mayor".  I don't know if there's hobbit taxation and hobbit cops, though so it might just be a ceremonial title.  Saruman and Wormtongue were the guys who came in and did the proper enslavement and ruination of Hobbiton.

Also, when Aragorn becomes king he does something that doesn't exist in real life; he decrees that hobbits be left alone, and I think there was something about no Big Folk being allowed past a certain point or something.  Crowing Aragorn is the minarchist libertarian desire to elect good people who have tried to reject to positions of massive power whereas the Ring stuff is more of a true anarchistic view of destroying power itself.  Unfortunately getting rid of a state isn't quite as convenient as throwing jewelery into a volcano.

But then again a lot of Tolkien 'bad stuff' takes the form of machinery and industrial development not just state power, so he's a bit hippy dippy in that regard.

[nathanm]

http://freeisbeautiful.net/j-r-r-tolkien-catholic-and-libertarian/

“My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically
understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with
bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy…"

[Guest darkskyabove]

Or, I could just read a good story, which it is, and not get caught up in hypothetical connections from fantasy to reality. If I wanted to conflate fantasy with reality, I'd just read the Bible.

[Pepin]

I've been listening to the audiobook as of late, and the ring of power seems to be a metaphor for control and power over people. To a degree, I feel as though this is in some regard also in loose reference to the mind.

Sauron seems to refer to the reptilian part of the brain and is further personified by the eye (though I suppose it could be a cat's eye as well). The reason given for why one who is powerful cannot use the ring of power is that it would basically lead to another Sauron. In the case of a hobbit, which doesn't really have the capacity to attain power, it leads to Gollum.

I also get the sense that the hobbits are children, the elves are mystics that are of some higher power than the other races, the orcs are those that are immoral and with no hope, the dwarfs are materialistic/mechanistic, and the humans are some medium. The interpretation might make sense of this sort of intrinsic feud between the elves and the dwarfs. I feel as though that the numbers given to the races are likely to provide evidence for this as far as the meaning of numbers go.

I can't say the tale is one of anarchism, but it certainly has to do with power and control over people, and the inability to control that power. I also can't say I know what I am talking about with the above, these have just been the thoughts that have been popping up in my head while listening to the book.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

The best of the radical artists of literature always hide their message within the story, "for those with eyes to see".  :-)

King Aragorn to the hobbits:  "My friends, you bow to no one"   

 

Quoted for emphasis and full-hearted agreement.

 

Crowing Aragorn is the minarchist libertarian desire to elect good people who have tried to reject to positions of massive power whereas the Ring stuff is more of a true anarchistic view of destroying power itself.  Unfortunately getting rid of a state isn't quite as convenient as throwing jewelery into a volcano.

But then again a lot of Tolkien 'bad stuff' takes the form of machinery and industrial development not just state power, so he's a bit hippy dippy in that regard. 

 

Remember, even Frodo failed to destroy the ring of power after making the long journey to Mount Doom.  I think The Lord of the Rings was a great example of how incredibly difficult it is to destroy the state once you have tasted its power.

If you recall, tolkien's 'bad stuff' are all machinery of war.  Fireworks, for example, are great fun.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

I've been listening to the audiobook as of late, and the ring of power seems to be a metaphor for control and power over people.

 

In our world, there is no ring of power.  In the real world, there is an entity like the ring of power though.  What is there that, for whoever bears it, has the power to take a life or to spare one - such as the power that Bilbo aquired?

"true courage is about not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one" ~Gandalf

The answer is the state.  Just as the people of Middle-earth try very hard to aquire the ring of power, people of reality try equally hard to attain the greatest position of power - head of state.  The ring is a physical representation of what the state is.

 

Sauron seems to refer to the reptilian part of the brain and is further personified by the eye (though I suppose it could be a cat's eye as well). The reason given for why one who is powerful cannot use the ring of power is that it would basically lead to another Sauron. In the case of a hobbit, which doesn't really have the capacity to attain power, it leads to Gollum.

 

I don't think it's really about "capacity" to attain power.  Bilbo, rather effortlessly and mostly through the power of the ring, attained political power over his entire company of dwarves.  They looked to him for what they ought to do in every step of their journey once Gandalf left them pryor to entering Mirkwood.  The difference between hobbits and... basically everyone else... is that hobbits have no DESIRE to gain arbitrary and unaccountable authority.

 

I also get the sense that the hobbits are children, the elves are mystics that are of some higher power than the other races, the orcs are those that are immoral and with no hope, the dwarfs are materialistic/mechanistic, and the humans are some medium.

 

I think you're mostly right here.  I would change your characterization of the hobbits from being "like children" to being "uncorrupted and innocent that can sometimes go as far as being sheltered and naive".  Orcs are sociopaths.  They have no conscience.  They even will kill and eat other orcs if it suits them.  Humans are the kameleons.  They can take the metaphysical form of any race.  For instance, Aragorn is basically an elf.  The beauty of humans is that they can be persuaded and taught to be like other races.

[Jose Perez]

For heaven's sake, the Hobbit starts with in-your-face scenes of the Hobbit's property being violated by the dwarves. The Hobbit does not offer much resistance or show assertiveness, recognises the "legitimacy" of this and is ultimately sensitive to their blatant passive aggressiveness when he gets pulled into their nonsensical power quest...

The whole thing is about the "goodness" of helping dysfunctional people and their value of violent power, because it is "necessary and inevitable" (just about every argument there is for the state). The Hobbit represents the child and the others the parents in all their political diversity. Anarchy, capitalism, truth and virtue loses because the Hobbit gets drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to his stockholm syndrome.  

 

[Jose Perez]

There are many fantasy films like this (Neverending Story comes to mind) all about children getting drawn into meeting parental needs, with all the symbology of a young mind struggling to understand the nonsensical world the elders are presenting them.

[ThoseWhoStayUofM]

 

For heaven's sake, the Hobbit starts with in-your-face scenes of the Hobbit's property being violated by the dwarves. The Hobbit does not offer much resistance or show assertiveness, recognises the "legitimacy" of this and is ultimately sensitive to their blatant passive aggressiveness when he gets pulled into their nonsensical power quest...

The whole thing is about the "goodness" of helping dysfunctional people and their value of violent power, because it is "necessary and inevitable" (just about every argument there is for the state). The Hobbit represents the child and the others the parents in all their political diversity. Anarchy, capitalism, truth and virtue loses because the Hobbit gets drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to his stockholm syndrome.  

 

If what you say is true, then what does Gandalf represent?  The dwarves needed Bilbo for reasons that the dwarves clearly could not perceive themselves, but Gandalf could.  The hobbit clearly doesn't get drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to stockholm syndrome, because he is pushed into it by Gandalf.  Bilbo did great things to help the dwarves, and it cost him dearly.  There are "scars" that Bilbo will carry for the rest of his life, and those scars are very evident in the films.

[Jose Perez]

 

 

For heaven's sake, the Hobbit starts with in-your-face scenes of the Hobbit's property being violated by the dwarves. The Hobbit does not offer much resistance or show assertiveness, recognises the "legitimacy" of this and is ultimately sensitive to their blatant passive aggressiveness when he gets pulled into their nonsensical power quest...

The whole thing is about the "goodness" of helping dysfunctional people and their value of violent power, because it is "necessary and inevitable" (just about every argument there is for the state). The Hobbit represents the child and the others the parents in all their political diversity. Anarchy, capitalism, truth and virtue loses because the Hobbit gets drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to his stockholm syndrome.  

 

If what you say is true, then what does Gandalf represent?

 

What is relevant here is that Bilbo represents the child; I don't think you can argue against that. Gandalf is no doubt a father figure. The wizards are counsellors, intellectuals... here and in many other stories. I have met "wizards" in my own life in the forms of school teachers and many other people who make you feel you're special and that the world needs you...

 

The dwarves needed Bilbo for reasons that the dwarves clearly could not perceive themselves, but Gandalf could.  

 

Justifications for statism. The dwarves are a collective, a culture; the idea is not to preserve individuals... Clear as day.

 

The hobbit clearly doesn't get drawn into this fantasy and lie, due to stockholm syndrome, because he is pushed into it by Gandalf.

 

And how did he push him, with a knife? Why, he pushed him with passive aggression and appealing to his sense of care for the bigger people (parents, elders...), which is what children do for survival. 

 

Bilbo did great things to help the dwarves, and it cost him dearly.  There are "scars" that Bilbo will carry for the rest of his life, and those scars are very evident in the films.

 

Bilbo does not need to help the dwarves. He could have spared himself those scars easily, which he would have done if he had been a mature anarcho-capitalist individual indeed. He embarks upon that quest completely altruistically, justifying evil. He is weak and sensitive to the demands of those world-saving lunatics, and off he goes to get some scars in the field... now does that sound familiar or what [eyeroll] 

 

 

[Jose Perez]

As I recall, the movie's final scene is very symbolic, and shows the typical abusive emotional manipulation of the child. First the dwarf king shows hostility to the Hobbit, which then suddenly turns into a big, loving, thank-you hug... This is pure stockholm syndrome stuff.

[PatrickC]

I have to agree with joseito's take on this. This was one of the first things I discussed with a few friends when we watched it last Christmas. I'd also throw in Galadriel as the mother figure of infinite virtue as well. It's part of why a book I once remembered enjoying as a child suddenly became everything that I despise now. I can handle my fantasy, as I do in Game of Thrones. But at least in GoT's no one is considered beyond reproach like that of Gandalf and Galadriel.

It's interesting to note (for what it's worth), that The Hobbit was originally a story Tolkien wrote for his children.

[SimonF]

The "King" could be understood as symbolic* of  wisdom and kindness (like Jesus "king of the jews") or perhaps even as a father, rather than literally as a supreme ruler. Tolkien loved myth such as King Arthur**, it's most likely symbolism.

Much of the films themes seem symbolic, for example I believe the ring of power represents democracy, so I wouldn't take things at face value.

*http://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles/king-warrior-magician-lover

**http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/10078482/Tolkiens-epic-about-the-legend-of-King-Arthur-published-for-the-first-time.html

[TJ Watch]

Gandalf only uses violence to stop aggressive violence. People try to be way to literal, IMO. I mean, sure, the King Returned... having walked the Paths of the Dead... refusing the Ring... not sure how he felt about taxes. LOTR is not some metaphorical textbook on Anarchy, no, but it is all about how power corrupts.